... what's a win for Lindsay Clancy?

That she's not convicted of murder, um, or any crime.

And so I would call that a win.

It's not what you want, but it's still the prosecution failed to get what they wanted.

And so like Johnna said, maybe it puts them in a posture where they could maybe consider working it out.

But I, I don't see it.

It's like asking the jurors to work out their deliberations right now.

[laughs]

say, well, let's just

find her guilty of something.

I hope that that doesn't happen.

To me, that's a miscarriage of justice.

That's not what speaks the truth.

Either she was legally insane, like... like holding someone responsible for having tremors if they suffer from parkinson's or she's really guilty because she there are times where she made choices throughout this incident as the prosecutor brought up and their experts detailed and that she made choices that while she was suffering from mental illness she legally knew right from wrong.

She closed the door.

Can you think of any other cases that are similar to this and how it all played out?

But did to both that status and then the subsequent legal slap on the wrist.

Yeah.

We're likely missing something.

This guy is a dangerous predator, and I don't think picking up some trash on the side of the road, even for 150 hours, is gonna rid him of his violent sexual deviant urges.

So we're missing something, because it doesn't add up.

Generally, I find that prosecutors aren't soft on crime.

Every time immediately people start put- pointing their finger and saying, "Oh, they're soft," or whatever, that's usually not it.

Mm-hmm

Hmm.

They're the ones who have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she was criminally responsible.

This is not a small thing.

This is colossal.

And if the defense lawyer handles it properly, he says in closing argument, "Listen, there's clearly enough here to show that she was suffering a mental illness." I mean, who in their right mind would do this? There's enough to show that she wanted to end her life.

There wasn't a goal so that she would then wanna have a better life without her kids And so-- But there's also on the other side, I understand why they pointed to par- certain things, and of course, our experts, you know, negated those things out.

But if you're left with, "We're not sure," then that means that the case was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

So what does that actually cost the defense strategically versus what it would have brought them?

And I'm assuming he's saying because my attorneys didn't didn't share it with me even though they got it from the prosecutors and is that the basis for his argument that so it's ineffective assistance of counsel because he never uttered the words ineffective assistance of counsel.

Correct, but that's what he's going to be arguing, and that's kind of how the court will take it.

Look, there are cases in our history where, for whatever reason, defense lawyers have, I mean, it's rare, but they have threatened their clients.

They have hidden from them evidence.

Maybe there's some agenda.

Maybe some defense lawyer was close with the victim's family.

Maybe they were paid off.

But it is rare, isn't it, that an attorney is going to come into court and say, yeah, he's right, I suck.

[laughs]

I, I also want to know then along with that theory, name me the officers who are risking their own liberty, their future, the lives of their families essentially because they'll, they'll go to prison if they can be proven to have sacrificed Tyler Robinson for no reason why they picked him.

Oh yeah, except he looks like the guy on the video.

You know, the one that we see who's been identified as Tyler Robinson.

There on the scene scouting everything out.

There that, that the confession matches to.

So, I, the whole thing not only frustrates me, but it annoys me and offends me because there's no lying in what I'm seeing in this prosecution.

this is the, the world in which we live now.

"What do you have there? What's that?"

Hey, what, what, what, what are you engraving? I, I'm telling you, like, I, I, it might be my own bias because I'm coming into Lance's testimony already believing what I believe, and I wanna find things to substantiate it, but that he's not even more shocked at what has hap- That he doesn't put...

That he claims that he didn't put any of this together, and it's only late in the evening that it even clicks with him that Tyler might have done this, I've got great difficulty believing that.

But w- my, one of my takeaways is, you know, listening to Lance talk about him waking up at, was it 12:00 or 1:00 in the afternoon 'cause he didn't have work that day, what, what repulses me in all of this, and at the end of the day, you know, i- people are gonna analyze this like a, a murder trial, and it, it turns into something, you know, a, a technical analysis, is the humans behind this.

You have these two, uh, two degenerates, uh, one more so than the other.

A- and now at the center of the universe, it almost feels like they love the attention that they're getting right now.

Lance is being asked questions about his childhood and, you know, the games that they used to play, and it's like it's all the attention in the world that they've ever wanted because they snuffed out of this earth an existence, uh, of, of a man that was, uh, incomparably, uh, you know, a, a better human.

I- I don't know

Um, this is something the prosecution absolutely has to be paying attention to.

Sure.

You, you...

Listen, we, we, we think we know people.

We only know what they show us, and, and even then you really never get down to it.

My theory in this case is that these defense lawyers are doing their job ensuring due process by challenging every piece of evidence, by making all the right objections.

But Megan, you're thinking, and many people are thinking, "Well, so what does this lead to? What type of successful defense is that somehow leading to?" And I don't think that they even think that it's going to lead to that.

Like, "I, I'm leaving that to the boys."

He didn't do anything, but somehow he's culpable, too? It's like they need to find a demon here other than Carmelo Anthony, and they seem to have settled on, if not Sarah, in the case of the dad and the spokesperson, the Metcalf family, the victims, Mark.

Yeah.

All right, so let's break this down non-emotionally.

Here's what I ask everyone, especially that woman who doesn't deserve the five seconds on your show.

Let's just say that the victim was Black, and let's say the perpetrator was white.

Same facts here.

So they'd go, "Yeah, it's okay.

That we know of

Mark, can you talk about the difference between manslaughter and murder and, you know, why it was significant that they added the manslaughter count as an option for the juror today, for the jury?

Yeah, I, I would've had them add that if I was representing him, and I also wouldn't put him near the stand.

So I disagree with anybody who said that they should've put him on the witness stand.

He would've been eviscerated.

Even if the verdict is adverse, which I expect it to be adverse, you don't...

Y- he would've been destroyed on the witness stand.

So he, he...

Yeah, go ahead, Mark.

Mark, would you take it? Would you go with a

different defense? heavily consider taking it.

I wouldn't say outright.

Working with her parents may prove to be challenging.

Working with her may prove to be challenging.

Whatever do you mean? I have no idea what I'm talking about.

As long as they won't stand in the way of me getting the best outcome for them.

Mark, would you take it or do you see any holes?

There's been no evidence other than the, the defendant, who's worried about going to prison.

Yeah, I suspected that might not be true, but putting it aside, let's just say, as you said earlier, let's say, 'cause even a, you know, a prostitute can be raped, and even, even someone who i- is a racist, hypothetically, and we're not saying he is, can be, you know, uh, c- can walk in, on the street and not have issues, right? And, and doesn't deserve to be stabbed.

But I keep focusing on, okay, one guy had the knife.

The guy who's walking down the street, the, the alleged perpetrator, he's walking down the street.

How does he fear that the victim's going to get a hold of his knife? 'Cause that's what we're talking about.

The moment before stabbing, did the perpetrator reasonably, reasonably believe death or great bodily harm? And you can say, "Yeah, I believed he was gonna get my knife." How, though? How was he gonna get it? You had it.

It's not like he was grabbing at it and he took it.

So do they have a leg to stand on?

So not only would she be going after her lawyer she had during the trial, but you're saying she should now go after her lawyer that was working on the appeal for missing the, the deadline?

Well, of course.

I am no fan of this young lady's at all.

I think that the judge got it right.

I think there's proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

I am not a fan of hers, but I am a huge fan of due process, and to miss the cutoff by a day? Listen, she, she doesn't know how to file these things.

She rep- relies upon an attorney to do so.

Is that common?

... and h- like, how it first came to you?

Here's what people don't know.

The only reason why I met Gabby Vega, the victim in this case, is because her mother was my kids' teacher at a school here in Fort Lauderdale.

So she came to me, and I'm like, "Well, I defend people who do this stuff.

I don't really represent victims.

But you know what? I'm gonna see what I can do for you." And she wanted to get the word out.

I said, "Are you sure?" "Absolutely." And Megan, we made a list.

Why is he out? He's just out pending sentencing?

Yeah.

And I'm talking to the Murdoch, uh, prosecutors.

You know, everybody gives both Juan Martinez and those guys such accolades, and they did good things.

I'll give them credit for that.

I'm merely talking about cross-examination, which is an art form.

I have taught my students that you don't wing it.

You carefully craft every single question that you're going to ask, knowing that it could go this way or this way, and then you are ready with the follow-up.

Anything come to mind?

What is your assessment?

That is a distinction.

We know crimes took place.

We know there are people who harmed children who are not being prosecuted.

We know that.

Anyone who's intellectually honest knows that occurred.

But there's a whole 'nother level of being able not only to prove it, but beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt.

That's not intentional?

So, so this was the defense, Baldoni trying to get the case thrown out, and before we get into the many, many, many texts, which are very interesting, let's face it, how do you think it went for the defense, Mark Eiglarsh, yesterday? Do you think they have a shot?

Anyone's got a shot, you know, like Dumb and Dumber, you know? I, I think this judge is going to let a jury decide factually whether there's enough here.

You know, i- if, if we were talking about the regular workplace, when you ask someone how heavy they are, or if you kiss them a little bit too much when they don't want that, it would seem that's out- that's outrageous.

That, that's, you know, that's not good at all for anyone being accused.

But when you're making a romantic movie, and there's kissing already involved, and he needs to lift her, for example, so he needs to know possibly how much she weighs, or that was just an inappropriate comment-

Go ahead, Mark Geragos.

I have strong feelings, very strong feelings.

It's not gonna be what you think.

She thinks it's 2020 post-George Floyd, and that if sh- if she as a Black woman turns on the waterworks about how much Sean Combs has contributed to the world and the thought of him going behind bars after being such an inspo, she's hoping to touch something in the judge's heart that I doubt is there.

Well, Megan, let me, let me tell you, if you're scoffing, it's because you think that maybe he doesn't deserve those words and maybe it's manufactured.

That's fair, but what she's doing is ensuring due process, and that is, you know, she's gotta do her job, and Arthur and I will do whatever it takes if we think it's going to help our client.

In this case, obviously she is telling the judge, "I promise you, I'm there every day, and he is changed." Now, whether that's real or not, who knows? Maybe she does believe it, but believability and accuracy are two different things.

Maybe that's what she's relaying to the judge that she's seeing in Diddy, that Diddy's just turning it on, or maybe he did change.

The point is, that's her job.

Her job is do whatever she can for the client.

So what's, what's really happening here is they ask for a delay on this decision, Mark.

Please.

... to that moment.

'Cause I do a lot of TV appearances and sometimes I say things because I'm tired or I misunderstood or it's, it's, it's put in a different context and then I, I don't have the chance to go back on TV and, and clarify.

She's in a different boat.

So when John Roberts asked her in no...

I mean, there was nothing ambiguous about what he asked, about the list, not about the file being on your desk, but the list, now she responded and now claims it was about the file and not specifically about the list.

I'm saying that's a possibility.

No, no, no. No.

Of course he was interested in Ted Bundy, the murders, and questions about psychopaths and sociopaths.

Absolutely.

There's definitely going to be an explanation for every single thing.

Even the bizarre behavior of circling his vehicle around the, uh, crime scene.

You know, they're gonna bring in if, as soon as they possibly can, although the judge has made it a little bit difficult, that he suffers for, from autism, albeit mild, but maybe that's consistent with that type of behavior.

They're gonna explain away all the bizarre behavior.

But you know, just like you can explain away slurred speech, you can explain away bloodshot eyes, you can explain somebody having difficulty driving.

And that, so, but if he clicked Buy Now, it's a different story.

You tell me, but the la- the self-defense laws in Texas and in all states require proportionality.

Of course.

And when I- when I said, of course that's a defense, it's because you're not gonna argue insanity and you're not gonna argue it was, you know, someone else who did it.

You know, it- it's clearly going to be self-defense.

And the question is, do the facts rise to the level where he reasonably feared death or great bodily harm from this guy? And that hinges upon really what are the witnesses saying? You know, we don't have all the statements.

Maybe there's a few who say that the alleged...

That the- that the victim did grab him, 'cause I did read that that occurred.

That's what we're all doing here."