think that if we credit what he's saying,

And, you know, I've never been a prosecutor, Laura.

So that's where you and I diverge.

I'm a defense attorney for life.

But if we credit what the prosecutor is saying and that they went on the information that they had and that now a couple of years later, there is a more fulsome reporting of what happened.

then we're left with the law, fortunately or unfortunately.

We're left with a district attorney that maybe took something at face value and formed opinions that were based upon what he saw at the time.

What do you make of that? And did he make it more difficult to seat a new jury if this is retried?

I don't know if he made it difficult to seat a new jury, but I do agree that what he did and what he said as a defense attorney, as a member of the Bar of the Commonwealth, was to me a bridge too far.

I perhaps disagree about whether the judge could have done something or not.

I think that Reddington gave several options, which were in the judge's discretion.

If you have a juror who even at the bench has admitted that they may have doubt, but they're unwilling to apply the law as that doubt should be, then certainly as a defense attorney, I understand the frustration.

I understand the weak of testimony, the months of work and the situation that his client is in.

And so I do think that emotionality got the best of him.

What stood out most to you?

So here's the thing.

Oh, you asked me the right question today.

Here's the thing.

It wasn't necessarily any particular thing that was shared or It was more the things that were not shared that we do not yet know.

And what I mean by that is we saw that in the back of Nolan Wells's body, that there was an area that had significant red markets from bleeding.

But in Dr. Mitchell's report, he says that Even though I see this, there's nothing on the skin.

You know, how much in your experience does that hurt or help a case like this, especially when one that's so exposed?