So is this a big win for the defense to get this DNA that was found underneath Maggie's fingernails tested? I mean, how long can DNA from another person stay under? Like, could that be from somebody she shook hands with two weeks ago?

It is a big win, Elizabeth.

And first, I got to say, good luck to the judge, you know, making sure this isn't a circus.

I mean, this is one of the biggest trials.

And now that it's going to be retried.

So I don't think there is, especially these lawyers, they don't like each other.

It's going to be spicy in that courtroom.

He was not at home sleeping, as he had testified.

Is that to you a decision based on the evidence or moral conscious? And more importantly, are those two different things under law?

Well, they are different things, Hannah, but there was a lot of discussion of Christianity and Catholicism that came out during this trial as something of a mortal sin.

Look, you should decide the case based on the evidence, but really the facts in this case really weren't in dispute.

The prosecution and the defense really agreed on what happened here.

So when reasonable minds can differ, and this is one of the most polarized cases I've ever covered.

I'm sure Allison probably saw it actually in the courtroom.

when the country is divided 50 50 well it's not surprising that you can't get 12 men and women to agree especially strangers who can't get out of jury duty

What does that say? Does he have any legal claim here, is what I'm asking?

Is he right?

Elizabeth, thanks for having me.

I think that contemporaneous message is the most problematic of all the messages that we've seen so far.

That is in the middle of that period of time between 1.45 and 5.45 a.m., and it seems to be 30 to 60 minutes after the ketamine was done off her body, and presumably Jane Doe also snorted ketamine.

And the reason that's important is Ketamine, the drug, when you snort it, it takes effect almost instantly, seconds or minutes.

It's not like something you ingest.

So now it cuts against Jane Doe's argument that she was physically helpless and was unable to consent at least until three o'clock.

However, they both said, especially the girlfriend, that they were unnerved by the number of people who seemed to be in and around that fraternity bedroom that night.

She

said yes.

She said yes, not that she didn't say no, right? So obviously very different standards.

And also, you know, you're talking about an administrative proceeding, which can be very different.

I think one important thing to note about the Cornell investigation, too, is they also found that at least the initial sexual activity, that was consensual.

Mm-hmm.

So what Jane Doe is going to have to argue, Elizabeth, is that the additional sexual activity was either exceeding the scope of the initial consent or she withdrew her consent.

And in these text messages, in real time, she's recounting and replaying what happened, sometimes in a positive way, with one of these young men who was later expelled and that she later sued.

I mean, they're gonna be asking her tough questions, but how problematic is that for the government?

Yeah, it's potentially problematic.

The, the thumps heard by the roommate, I think that is something that the state needs to get around.

Now listen, if one person's drunk and throwing up in the bathroom, they might be making all sorts of noise, right? Number one.

Two, I know folks have, you know, said that there's some discrepancies in Karina's testimony.

I think, you know, her cross-examination is gonna be telling.

Um, but yeah, I mean, they're gonna go after her pretty aggressively, and it's gonna be interesting to see what the judge does.

[laughs]

It's gonna make it painful and it looks like they were right.

They were, Elizabeth, and I'm somewhat skeptical of what defense attorneys say, especially in capital cases, but they were absolutely right.

They warned the state about her blood disorder, the difficulty in putting in an IV.

They asked for a central line.

They asked for a butterfly needle.

Apparently, that wasn't done.

And like you said, they asked for other types of execution.

So it raises the question of where are you getting this?

I mean, they're gonna be asking her tough questions, but how problematic is that for the government?

Yeah, it's potentially problematic.

The, the thumps heard by the roommate, I think that is something that the state needs to get around.

Now listen, if one person's drunk and throwing up in the bathroom, they might be making all sorts of noise, right? Number one.

Two, I know folks have, you know, said that there's some discrepancies in Karina's testimony.

I think, you know, her cross-examination is gonna be telling.

Um, but yeah, I mean, they're gonna go after her pretty aggressively, and it's gonna be interesting to see what the judge does.

[laughs]

Visit HyundaiCanada.com or your local dealer for details.

Yeah, I agree.

First, as far as the jurors go, it really should be on them.

I agree.

If they want to remain private, they should absolutely have that privilege.

They shouldn't be identified.

They shouldn't be doxxed.

What does that mean, and how does this play out?

What are the considerations here?

So it's up to the criminal judge to decide whether to transfer the case to juvenile court.

And Sierra, I could tell you, it's going to make all the difference in the world.

I mean, some of these very serious charges, if they stick, if it were an adult, they have a 25-year minimum sentence if there is a conviction in adult court.

But juvenile court, we know it's not about punishment.

It's about rehabilitation.

So you're talking about little to no time.

How does all of this work? I mean, I'm thinking prior bad acts, but does that make sense? I mean, they would want it to show a pattern, but what's kind of the rule here?

Why do you think he's talking out now?

Yeah, I agree.

First, as far as the jurors go, it really should be on them.

I agree.

If they want to remain private, they should absolutely have that privilege.

They shouldn't be identified.

They shouldn't be doxxed.

What does that mean, and how does this play out?

Is that realistic here? Is that appropriate to even make the request?

Well, also in Massachusetts, Laura, you can't get a preemptive pardon.

It's not like the federal system with Fauci, for instance, being pardoned by President Biden.

Now, obviously, this is a PR play, and Reddington is going on his media tour just like he was every day outside that courthouse.

He's not very effective.

in just the courtroom, but really the court of public opinion.

So he's doing two things here.

Would this even stand a chance?

So now, Nima, what's next? Do you think that the state will try to or the Commonwealth will try to retry this case or offer a plea deal?

Victor, let me tell you what should happen and also what will happen.

And I agree, I'm going to be critical of both the district attorney, Timothy Cruz, and defense attorney, Kevin Reddington.

And this is why.

Verdict means to speak the truth, and this jury has spoken.

Eleven to find her not criminally responsible.

There is no world where this case should be retried.

Did you see when he kind of shook his head?

The prosecution didn't have any evidence corroborating what he said.

They couldn't even put him in Vegas on the night Tupac was killed, but because he kept telling the same story over and over again, and when police raided his home, they found all these newspaper clippings from... 30 years ago, related to Tupac murders.

So they argue that, look, this is a guy who kept trophies, right, of his killing.

And he told everyone.

And they brought a bunch of former gang members who said, look, there's no way his nephew, Orlando Anderson, could have pulled the trigger unless he gave the order because he was... senior in the Crips organization.

Were you surprised when they came back that fast? After deliberation, the jury.

I was.

Nima, can you walk us through what happens if the jury can't agree? I mean, how long does this go on?

Casey, I think we're looking at the very real possibility of a mistrial.

And really, there's three steps to this.

The first is the jurors will say they can't reach a verdict and the judge will tell them to keep deliberating.

The next time they come back and tell the judge, the judge will issue what's called a Tui Rodriguez instruction.

That's a seminal case in Massachusetts.

In other states, it's called an Allen charge or a dynamite charge.

I mean, from your experience, how do you understand how a jury like that might struggle in a situation like this one?

Are you surprised with the verdict?

Victor, I am surprised at this verdict.

It could have easily gone the other way.

And there's a reason that many prosecutors passed on it over the past 30 years.

But I have to give credit to the Clark County District Attorney's Office.

They brought a very hard case, a case without corroborating evidence, no DNA, no fingerprints, no murder weapon.

relying entirely on the defendant's own confessions when he is admittedly a liar.

Nima, essentially, the decision was, was he lying then or is he lying now for this jury? Would Kifidi ever really be in this position if he hadn't done the podcast and written the book?

Just curious what you thought about the job he did and if it was enough, you know, at this point, you know, if it was just good enough.

Listen, I thought it was good enough to establish reasonable doubt, and this is why.

Look, I do a lot of TV, and there's people on record five, six weeks ago with me saying that this case should be a layup for the Commonwealth, and she will be convicted.

And then as I start to watch the trial and the prosecution's presentation of the evidence and what the defense— I'm like, wow, she's got a shot.

And slowly, I'm like, wow, they're creating reasonable doubt.

Now, look, obviously, Massachusetts model penal code state a little bit different, right, in terms of the burden of proof being on the prosecution, the two possible ways you can get to insanity.

So we did have some advantages there.

Do you think

Just curious what you thought about the job he did and if it was enough, you know, at this point, you know, if it was just good enough.

Listen, I thought it was good enough to establish reasonable doubt, and this is why.

Look, I do a lot of TV, and there's people on record five, six weeks ago with me saying that this case should be a layup for the Commonwealth, and she will be convicted.

And then as I start to watch the trial and the prosecution's presentation of the evidence and what the defense— Reddington were doing.

I'm like, wow, she's got a shot.

And slowly I'm like, wow, they're creating reasonable doubt.

Now look, obviously Massachusetts model, penal code state, a little bit different, right? In terms of the burden of proof being on the prosecution, the two possible ways you can get to insanity.

Now that the jury is deliberating, was it a smart tactic?

Is there a way to give him what he wants? Because I'd like to put it three inches right up his tailpipe.

Listen, I would love a trial too, just like everyone else.

I think there's no world where he's actually innocent.

He will be convicted.

He will be sentenced to death.

But I don't think it's gonna happen, Nancy.

This is a final judgment.

Do they not have a law book?

Put it on the calendar"? Can that happen, or can the judge stop it?

The judge can stop it, but I think the easiest path, and you nailed it, is for the defense to submit a declaration saying that they were ineffective.

Look, it's the Strickland test, right? There's a manifest injustice.

We didn't tell our client this information.

We misled our client.

If they put that in writing, it's a done deal, but they gotta fall on the sword, and you're right, maybe they wanna do that for their client.

There's really nothing the judge or the state can do to stop it, because we don't know what communications they had with Kohberger, and if they confess that type of error, then it's game over and the judge has to grant the motion.

Do they not have a law book?

Uh, it's, it, it seems like a lot of people have pled guilty and then have gone on to say, "I never did it," and they just spend the rest of their time in jail, and no one ever thinks anything of them recanting.

Yeah, I mean, I think the reason this case got a lot of attention, obviously it's one of the most gruesome murders, you know, in Idaho State history.

Certainly recent modern memory.

You have these four college kids that were stabbed and killed.

You know, there's been a lot of speculation as to what the motive was.

Was he, you know, stalking one of the students? But I mean, it was just horrific, and it was unsolved for a significant period of time, given how much blood there was.

You know, you, you know, you have someone who was very careful, just left a single source of DNA on the night sheet.

What, what was the reason they gave to sort of cut a deal with him?

Maya told those who were closest to her that if anything ever happens... you should look at larry i always find this the most fascinating because it sounds like something out of a dateline episode right and it also sounds like something out of a lifetime movie but people really do do say these things to their loved ones

They do.

And like you said, I mean, this was really sort of the American dream to Filipino Americans.

They meet in high school, high school sweethearts.

They both end up working for the government.

Obviously, there's a big employer there in San Diego and everything seems fine.

great on the surface.

Right.

Like an end point.

Yeah.

Whereas healing is more of a kind of like an emergence.

It's like a healing is learning and learning is forgetting.

So it's really rewiring new options, rewiring new choices than the default mode programming and conditioning that we were kind of like programmed and conditioned into and that we react from when we're carrying all of these unhealed wounds within us.

So it's really first, the step is going from unconscious to conscious because you don't know what you don't know.

And then you discover, oh my gosh, this is the way that I'm reacting to somebody not texting me back.

Can you speak to that a bit?

What have you made of this initial three days? And can you explain to my audience exactly what is going on now? Because this is not the actual trial.

Erin, thanks for having me, and you're absolutely right.

This may be the most or one of the most watched trials in American history because of the high-profile nature of the victim, the fact that you have the President of the United States talking about this case.

There's reports that there's gonna be Secret Service there, so I don't know if the president, the vice president, a member of their family, some other high-level cabinet official is gonna show up.

But taking one step back, in any criminal trial in the United States, before you can get to a felony jury trial, one of two things has to happen.

You either have to have a grand jury indictment, and that's what's typically done in the federal system here in the United States and most of the states on the East Coast, or you have to have a preliminary hearing.

That's what's typically done in state courts in the West, and I can explain what that is.

Mm-hmm

And of course, and what the ultimate outcome on this will be here.

So obviously, I think everyone knows that Rebecca Grossman was convicted criminally and her conviction was upheld on appeal.

We're talking about murder, manslaughter and a hit and run.

This was the civil case.

So this is about money.

And Grossman was racing with Scott Erickson.

So even though he didn't strike these two children, he was also held civilly liable.

How much of that money will the family ever see? And is it really all about the money?

I guess I'm trying to understand how much can the statements that he's making now hurt him? In other words, could the company, could CBS, could Bilton turn around and sue him for defamation for some of the comments that he's making now?

They absolutely can.

Now, it's usually rare for an employer to sue an employee that they terminated.

Usually, the employer is happy to move forward and just not pay that salary, but it's certainly possible.

And obviously, to the extent that Pelley has this microphone and is disparaging, you know, why he's built in his former employer at CBS, that's something that we might see.

But of course...

That would also open the door to Pelley suing them for defamation.

Am I understanding what we should be looking out for correctly? Yes, that's right.