S1 E14: Appeal Denied

Summary

Podcast Summary: American Nightmares - Gardens of Evil: Inside The Zion Society Cult
Episode: S1 E14: Appeal Denied
Host: Gamut Podcast Network (Megan Cloherty & Jack Moore)
Date: December 19, 2022

---

Episode Overview

In this informal but pivotal episode, hosts Megan Cloherty and Jack Moore break down the long-awaited appellate decision in the 22-hour Mansion Murders case, focusing on convicted killer Darren Wint’s appeal. The pair provide a detailed look into why the appeal was denied, what legal arguments were made, and what the result means for Wint, the victims’ families, and the many people who have followed this infamous D.C. crime.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Breaking News: Appeal Denied

• [00:50–01:20] Megan Cloherty shares that they are returning for a special episode following breaking news that Darren Wint has lost his appeal and will not get a retrial.
• The episode is structured as an informal conversation to quickly unpack what the decision says and why it matters.

---

2. Appeal Basics and Trial Recap

• [01:22–04:17]
  • Jack Moore provides the context for the appeal:
    • The heart of the appeal centered on the defense’s request to call an additional witness (Ikea Williams) in a surrebuttal after the prosecution provided a strong alibi for Darrell Wint.
    • Ikea Williams could have undermined Darrell’s alibi because her grand jury testimony suggested there was no evidence Darrell was at the house on May 13, contradicting his claims.
    • Judge denied the defense’s request, arguing the defense had already rested and had opportunity earlier to call her.

Notable Quote:

“So the defense wanted to introduce this as evidence to undercut Durrell's alibi, but the judge ended up saying, no... having the defense call another witness or other witnesses after the rebuttal, this would have been then a sur rebuttal, which is not unheard of, but it's uncommon. And so the judge said, no, you already had your chance.” — Jack Moore [03:48]

---

3. Defense Attorney’s Strategic Argument

• [04:17–04:55]
  • Megan highlights that defense attorney Judy Pipe argued she didn’t call Ikea Williams during the defense’s case because she believed the prosecution would, as Williams’ name was on their list.
  • The request to cross-examine was denied when it became clear Williams would not be called by prosecution.

Notable Quote:

“She basically made the argument...like, oh, it looked like they were gonna call her, so I didn’t. And then she never got her chance to have her on the stand.” — Megan Cloherty [04:45]

---

4. The Legal Process at the Appeals Court

• [04:55–06:16]
  • Jack explains the appeals process, noting that it’s full of “arcane points of law.”
  • Oral arguments were conducted in March (2022), but the wait for a decision can be extensive; they found out the result by refreshing the court’s opinions website.

Notable Moment:

“The only way to really know is there’s a website where they post all of their opinions. And you just have to go there and periodically visit and refresh the page and see if anything has popped up, which is exactly what happened today.” — Jack Moore [05:43]

---

5. Court’s Reasoning: “Harmless Error”

• [07:29–10:01]
  • Megan and Jack cite the key line from the appellate court:

    “The weight of other overwhelming evidence against the appellant, which is Wint, rendered any error by the trial court in denying surrebuttal harmless.”

  • Jack recaps what the “overwhelming evidence” was:
    • Darren Wint’s DNA on the pizza crust delivered to the Savopoulos house.
    • DNA on a construction vest in the burned Porsche.
    • Hair evidence in the house and garage.
    • Damning Google searches on Darren Wint’s phone, including “hideout cities for fugitives,” and “how to beat a lie detector.”
    • A suspicious lack of phone activity during the murder timeframe.

Notable Quote:

“Williams testimony made it less probable that Durrell had visited Gaithersburg on May 13. This evidence should have gone to the jury. But you know, and then on the other hand, you know, they say so the jury should have heard this. That’s true. But on the other hand, look at this other... evidence, it wouldn’t have made the difference, essentially.” — Jack Moore [09:29–10:01]

---

6. What’s Next for Darren Wint?

• [10:04–10:43]
  • Jack confirms Darren Wint is currently in a federal prison in Illinois.
  • The main avenue for appeal is now exhausted, with only long-shot post-conviction routes left.

---

7. A Closing Reflection

• [10:43–11:06]
  • Megan and Jack reflect on the emotional and personal resonance of the case for all involved—including themselves, as they’ve worked on it for years.
  • They thank listeners for their engagement throughout the series and encourage any further questions.

Memorable Moment:

“It feels like the end of a chapter... it’s been a huge part of our, like, last four years. We started this thing five. Four years ago.” — Megan Cloherty [10:43]

---

Important Quotes & Timestamps

• “No new trial, but the court kind of did err, if you will, when it came to this.” — Megan Cloherty [06:41]
• “The weight of other overwhelming evidence against the appellant... rendered any error by the trial court in denying surrebuttal harmless.” — Court opinion, quoted by Megan Cloherty [07:35]
• “So that was, you know, kind of the evidence that they call overwhelming. That was some of the evidence they cited.” — Jack Moore [08:25]
• “Williams testimony made it less probable that Durrell had visited Gaithersburg on May 13. This evidence should have gone to the jury. But on the other hand...look at all this other evidence, it wouldn’t have made the difference, essentially.” — Jack Moore [09:29–10:01]
• “This is now over...the main avenue right out of the gate to get a new trial has been totally shot down.” — Jack Moore [10:11]

---

Key Timestamps

• 00:44: Episode opens—hosts explain the informal, breaking-news nature of the conversation.
• 01:22–04:17: Details of trial procedure and basis for appeal.
• 06:37: Hosts quote the decision’s acknowledgment of judicial error, but ultimate denial.
• 07:29: Court’s reasoning: overwhelming evidence makes error “harmless.”
• 10:04: What becomes of Darren Wint—next steps explained.
• 10:43: Emotional resonance and “end of a chapter” reflection.

---

Takeaways

• Darren Wint’s bid for a new trial has been denied; the primary avenue of his appeal is closed.
• While the appeals court acknowledged procedural error by the trial judge in blocking a surrebuttal, the mountain of forensic and digital evidence made any such error “harmless.”
• The hosts, deeply invested after years of reporting, regard this as the “end of a chapter” for themselves, the community, and everyone touched by the case.
• Listeners are encouraged to reach out with questions; the hosts remain open to discussing the case further.

---

Overall Tone:
Conversational, transparent, and analytical—a blend of personal reflection and clear legal explanation, aiming to provide closure for a long-followed and devastating true crime saga.

Transcript

[Steven Deaner]

Let's face it, more people are seeing UFOs. And some of these sightings completely defy explanation.

[Nick Pope]

You have things that going hundreds of knots under the water, anti gravity.

[Steven Deaner]

But it has to be something like our own secret tech or maybe even adversarial.

[Jack Moore]

Right?

[Nick Pope]

So the claim that it's our tech

[Jack Moore]

or that it's an adversarial tech, no, it is not.

[Steven Deaner]

This is Steven Deaner from the hit podcast uap. And I have conversations like that every week as I keep up with all the latest relating to UFO topics. Just search UAP wherever you get your podcasts. As we continue to ask the question, are we alone in the cosmos?

[Megan Cloherty]

Hello. It has been a little while since we've talked to you guys. This is Megan Cloherty and Jack Moore.

[Jack Moore]

Hi.

[Megan Cloherty]

Coming from WTOP Studios. And we told you we'd bring you a break in the case if there was one. So we have one. We just learned today that Darren Went has lost his appeal and he will not get a retrial. And so today, because of the circumstances, we just found out this is gonna be a more informal podcast where Jack and I kind of talk about what the decision says, what this means, maybe give a tiny bit of a recap so we can all get our heads around this thing. But, Jack, the last time we were here was.

[Jack Moore]

Was when Darren Wentz defense team filed the appeals.

[Megan Cloherty]

I don't even remember.

[Jack Moore]

That was of 2020 or January of 2021. And so kind of the basis of the appeal is a little complicated legally, but it can be boiled down to basically, Darren Wentz defense attorneys wanted to call an additional witness at the trial. And kind of the way the trial played out is, you know, the prosecution goes first, then the defense gets a chance to put on its case. And that's when Darren took the stand. And of course, he blames his brothers. That was his defense. Then the prosecution gets another crack during rebuttal. And that's where they put Darrell went on the stand and spent some time basically trying to provide an alibi for him. That's when we learned that Durrell was in Gaithersburg according to the evidence that he was buying a pizza of his own with Garnett and having it with his kids. And also when we learned of the infamous haters hate video, Which was uploaded to YouTube on May 13, 2015, which is when the Cevopoulos family and Vera Figaro were taken hostage on Woodland Drive.

[Megan Cloherty]

And so basically, it gave Darrell an alibi that he was there.

[Jack Moore]

And everyone remembered him being there exactly. And so then after that happened, the prosecution rests its case. And in that phase of the trial, the defense has also rested its case. They wanted to call an additional witness, a woman named Ikea Williams, who lived at the house in Gaithersburg with Anthony Anderson, and she would have. Her testimony, according to the grand jury, may have weakened Darrell's alibi somewhat because she testified in the grand jury that whenever Darrell stopped by, he always called or texted. And the problem is, in the call records, there's no evidence. There's no calls or texts on May 13, 2015. There is some calls and texts on May 19. So the defense was saying, isn't it more likely that the day Darrell went to Gaithersburg and watched the haters hate video was May 19, 16, six days after the killings? So the defense wanted to introduce this as evidence to undercut Durrell's alibi, but the judge ended up saying, no, you could have called Ikea Williams during your case. And, you know, at this point in time, the trial had been going on for almost six weeks, lengthy time, and, you know, having the defense call another witness or other witnesses after the rebuttal, this would have been then a sur rebuttal, which is not unheard of, but it's uncommon. And so the judge said, no, you already had your chance. And we're moving right along to closing arguments.

[Megan Cloherty]

And Judy Pipe, who is the defense attorney, y' all will remember, she basically made the argument during all of this that was not happening in front of the jury. It was just the attorneys and the judge and us, the gallery. But she was basically saying Ikea Williams name was on the prosecution's rebuttal list. So she thought she was gonna be able to do a cross examination against Ikea Williams. Right. So she was very surprised. And again, it really doesn't make sense why she didn't call her in the first place. But that was her argument to the judge, like, oh, it looked like they were gonna call her, so I didn't. And then she never got her chance to have her on the stand.

[Jack Moore]

Exactly. And then, you know, the judge said no, moved along with the trial. But that became the basis for the appeal. Yes, in the oral arguments before D.C. court of Appeals, which is the district's highest court for local matters, not, you know, federal cases or federal trials. The oral arguments were in March of this year. And those are interesting to watch, but, you know, kind of at a higher level. You know, they're highly legalistic. And, you know, it's just the judges and the lawyers arguing you know, kind of arcane points of law. So watching those, you know, it's. It was hard for us to figure out which way they're swaying. We don't know. We can't figure out some of the time what they're even arguing about. And then you wait after that point

[Megan Cloherty]

for a long time, by the way.

[Jack Moore]

Exactly. The court of appeals has a lengthy caseload and sometimes it can be a year or more after they hear oral arguments to when they issue an opinion. And the only way to really know is there's a website where they post all of their opinions. And you just have to go there and periodically visit and refresh the page and see if anything has popped up, which is exactly what happened today.

[Megan Cloherty]

And you guys know Jack did this, of course, our detail oriented superstar here. So you double checked and it came down today. And this is about noonish, right?

[Jack Moore]

Yeah.

[Megan Cloherty]

And so we're getting into a little bit of what the decision says because it is kind of legalese. But also we want to really give you guys a sense for the panel's wording on their decision. So what was interesting to me, Jack, was that in denying him the appeal, they also acknowledged that he should have been able to have or Judy Pipe should have been able to have a surrebuttle.

[Jack Moore]

Yeah, it's interesting. There's kind of two different parts to the decision. So they say, like no new trial,

[Megan Cloherty]

but the court kind of did err, if you will, when it came to this. Let's pull the quote. I think there's a quote like in the very top. Okay, so maybe this is a good place to take a break while we find that.

[Steven Deaner]

Hey, it's Stephen Deener from the hit podcast uap. And you never know who might show up to talk to me about the alien topic. Like Snooki from the Jersey Shore.

[Megan Cloherty]

You literally are my favorite UAP alien UFO podcast.

[Steven Deaner]

Or Nick Pope from the popular show

[Nick Pope]

Ancient Aliens from the temple walls in Egypt. The way in which there are similarities between that and how scientists now think we might open a wormhole. It's uncanny.

[Steven Deaner]

Find out why millions of others have already downloaded uap and listen now just by searching uap. Wherever you get your podcasts.

[Megan Cloherty]

Welcome back, guys. So we found the exact quote we wanted to pull for you from the court of appeals decision. It said, quote, the weight of other overwhelming evidence against the appellant, which is Wyndt, rendered any error by the trial court in denying sir rebuttal harmless. And what is that evidence? Just to remind people.

[Jack Moore]

So there is the DNA on The crust of the half eaten pizza, Domino's pizza that was delivered to the house while the victims were being held hostage. There's the DNA on the construction vest found in Amy Savopoulos burned out Porsche. There is a hair found upstairs in the bedding in the bedroom where the victims were restrained and held hostage. And then there's a hair found in the hard hat in the garage. And then there's also the kind of incriminating searches on his phone.

[Megan Cloherty]

Right.

[Jack Moore]

You know, searches for the crime, the fire on Woodland Drive and then things like, you know, hideout cities for fugitives, how to beat a lie detector. So that was, you know, kind of the evidence that they call overwhelming. That was some of the evidence they cited.

[Megan Cloherty]

And the like dark time when Darren's phone had no activity at all. Cause it had to be connected to WI Fi and it was happened to be during the time of the murders. And it's interesting because this thing is about 40 pages the decision. And they really do synopsize the trial for us and we could have used this. Yeah.

[Jack Moore]

You know, so in going back to that idea of there are kind of like two ideas here. You know, they do, yeah, really seem to come down on the idea that the defense should have had the chance for a sur rebuttal. They disagree. You know, for example, one of the reasons why the judge denied the chance for a sur rebuttal was that Ikea Williams testimony was equivocal. Meaning it wasn't, you know, it was kind of maybe sorta.

[Megan Cloherty]

And it wasn't a smoking gun, essentially.

[Jack Moore]

Exactly. And the appeals court says we disagree that Williams was too, quote, equivocal for her testimony to squarely meet and question the Gaithersburg alibi. Williams testimony made it less probable that Durrell had visited Gaithersburg on May 13. This evidence should have gone to the jury. But you know, and then on the other hand, you know, they say so the jury should have heard this. That's true. But on the other hand, look at this other, all of this other evidence,

[Megan Cloherty]

it wouldn't have made the difference, essentially.

[Jack Moore]

Exactly.

[Megan Cloherty]

So now that Darren went, knows that this is over, where is he now and is this the end for him?

[Jack Moore]

So I think at last check, he is in a federal prison in Illinois. And I think, you know, in terms of the appeals process, this was the kind of the major route, the major avenue for an appeal. And this is now over. You know, I think for prisoners, for people convicted of crimes, there are other kinds of post conviction appeals that can happen over the years. But this, you know, kind of is the main avenue right out of the gate to get a new trial has been totally shot down.

[Megan Cloherty]

It's a case that really dominated so many lives, obviously, including the victims and their families. But the wints, all these reporters and people who covered it and worked on the case. So it's really, it feels like the end of a chapter. And since this is such an informal conversation, Jack, it's been a huge part of our, like, last four years. We started this thing five. Four years ago.

[Jack Moore]

Indeed. Yeah.

[Megan Cloherty]

And you still remember almost every detail. So I just wanted to thank you and then thank the listeners who have. We still are getting questions and stuff every once in a while, so if you guys have any questions about this episode, we'd be happy to answer them for you. If you want to email us or hit us up on Twitter. But thank you for coming along this journey with us. And it seems like this is the end of this 22 hour podcast. Thanks for being here. 22 An American Nightmare was written, edited and produced by Jack Moore and me, Megan Cloherty. Julia Ziegler is our content advisor. If you like our podcast, you can give us a rating on Apple Podcasts or leave us a review. It helps other listeners find us. And head to 22hourspodcast.com where you can leave us any questions or contact us on Twitter at 22hours. Pod music for this episode, of course, is Haters hate by Ramon Messum. 22 An American Nightmare is a production of WTOP News in Washington, D.C. gC.