But to me, it is so sidetracked from can we start doing this in the media to jurors? And how in the world did NBC Boston, even knowing it was the black male, get his name?

Well, first of all, we don't have professional juries in the United States.

Unless it's a mock jury and you're trying to get the pulse on what a jury from the community might do, then you set it up in that fashion.

But it's more of a tool to figure out how to prepare your trial.

But as a practical matter, most lay jurors have lay citizen problems, like paying the bills, making the mortgage payment, making the rent.

making their car note, being able to get gas, buy groceries.

Those are the people of the community that we summon to jury duty.

Based on manifest, I could not get the words.

finally found

a point.

No, no. Here's why.

And by the way, California overruled.

our version, if you will, of Tui Rodriguez and Allen and the dynamite charge back in the 70s.

It was a case called People v. Gaynor.

And the reason why is, as you mentioned earlier, David, the Allen charge slash Tui Rodriguez dynamite charge has quite a coercive effect.

Yes or no.

Please enlighten us as to exactly what that is and what that means.

Tui Rodriguez pretty much exists everywhere and every state has its own sort of analog.

Tui Rodriguez is a case, it's a published opinion in the state of Massachusetts.

But here's ultimately what it means.

Whenever a jury is deadlocked, meaning they cannot reach a unanimous decision, the court can make them go back into the jury room and keep trying to reach a verdict.

the final analysis courts really want a one and done it they want that trial done and over seriously that's just it they want it done and dusted if you will uh otherwise it costs the court money their calendars back up they have all kinds of trials waiting in a queue to go forward and the bottom line is it becomes judicial work So what did they do? They came up with this workaround in the federal system.

They called it the dynamite charge.

What do you think? was the reason that the jurors asked for the knife and the pill bottles?

What killed me

meWas the body cam footage when I could hear Hunter screaming, "Oh God.

Oh God, my brother, my twin" And if you have children, and if it was your child who was murdered, would you like people dragging his name through the mud, making memes, making jokes, and just really vile comments?

That evidence would've hurt him a lot more than the evidence against Metcalf.

Yeah, I would rather leave the record silent at that point and make him look like a, an altar boy, frankly.

Listen, gentleman agreements are reached every day in our trial courts.

We do it all the time for brevity's sake and for tactical reasons.

No higher court is gonna disturb this verdict because of a tactical or strategic decision made by defense counsel.

Spin it

... remember we saw this in Dominican Republic last year with the young med student from Pittsburgh.

Uh, what was her name? I wrote it down.

Sudheera Kranthi.

She was there partying from Pittsburgh, and they detained, uh, Joshua Rebe because they thought because they had gone out into the water, they were seen on video together, that something sinister had happened, but the truth be told, they both got pulled out into the water by strong rip currents.

The girl's remains were never found, and they ruled it an accidental drowning.

Why can't the same be true here? Why does something sinister always have to be afoot? Tragedies happen that nobody ever expected.

Explain it.

Tell us about it.

Well, first of all, in order to understand Shakur, What happened to Tupac? You need a little bit of history of what went on in Los Angeles before his death.

Back in 1991, there was a tremendous uprising out here in California because of the death of a 15-year-old Black teen.

Her name was Latasha Harlins.

Latasha Harlins.

And she lived in South Central.

And back in those days, it was really hard to garner commerce and business and all kinds of entrepreneurial sort of efforts, if you will, in the South LA area.

How did the prosecution open? What's the defense coming back with on their cross? What are things looking like from strictly your examination of what's going on in the courtroom?

So even someone drinking can see an altercation, Dubay.

No, of course you can.

I, I can see that crowd of people out there.

It was a bustling, hot 4th of July afternoon.

But who's to say that the people that she saw included Nolan Wells? And that's why you gotta get into her ability to perceive and recollect being impacted by intoxicants such as alcohol.

I would wanna know if she had imbibed.

I really would.

What do you make of the possibility this is a criminal investigation?

So Philip Dubay, do you really think he thought that deeply when he got rid of the weapon?

No.

No, and I'll tell you why.

I can tell by the charges.

The prosecution is not alleging that this was a planned, premeditated murder.

The only reason why he's rising to the level of it being a special circumstance is because there were multiple victims.

They're not even alleging that he did it for financial gain, which certainly is the classic motive, particularly in Hollywood.

Why?

What were you thinking?

Well, first of all, I didn't hear anything about this case until a few days before jury selection.

I didn't even know charges were pending.

I had never heard of Lindsay Clancy.

I had never heard anything about the kids whatsoever.

It wasn't until both sides announced ready for trial and that they were almost on the eve of jury selection that suddenly it became national news.

And I have been riveted by this fact pattern, by the evidence, the trial, and all the legal pundits out there.

But what has been your understanding and what you've looked at in terms of the onset? Is it seconds, minutes? How long does it last? Have you done any looking into that?

So Philip Dubay, do you really think he thought that deeply when he got rid of the weapon?

No.

No, and I'll tell you why.

I can tell by the charges.

The prosecution is not alleging that this was a planned, premeditated murder.

The only reason why he's rising to the level of it being a special circumstance is because there were multiple victims.

They're not even alleging that he did it for financial gain, which certainly is the classic motive, particularly in Hollywood.

Why?

But if you put that to a jury and you got one wingnut juror to buy into it, what do you think?

Well, remember, I only need one from a defense standpoint to either hang it or to just cause a retrial and a mistrial.

So if I can get that type of, uh, conspiracy theorist nut on the jury, that is a victory for the client.

Now, the practical reality of it is it's gonna be hard to juxtapose that against the, uh, well-attended funeral that they had for Charlie Kirk, and how they would explain his corpse in a casket, uh, w- would, uh, defy common sense and defy logic.

So I think that, uh, even though it may initially fracture a jury, I could see the rest of the jury talking her out of that theory, and in the end it could backfire on the defense because it would alienate the jury.

And from a defense standpoint, you wanna maintain some degree of integrity and credibility, because remember, it's a death case.

If you lose in the guilt phase, they can hold these shenanigans against the defense during the penalty phase and render a death verdict.

What about it, Dubay?

What about it, Dubay, you or my lying eyes?

I only need one juror to say that your eyes are lying, and it could be one of those so-called conspiracy theorists or one who feels that the prosecution is not proving their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

They sh- a jury should not have to guess, surmise, or speculate.

The evidence should be rock solid, pointing to one person.

Otherwise, uh, defendants should be jointly charged and tried together before the same jury.

But when you're trying to pin it on one person and the evidence is not conclusively presumptive of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, that's called a not guilty.

That's what you want, isn't it?

Of course it's what I want, because remember what I said earlier, I only need one to sway the jury or to hang the jury.

What do you think is going to happen now, Philip?

He will be getting prison time.

There's no question.

Agree, disagree?

Oh, I agree 100%.

Uh, no higher court is gonna find that this judge abused his discretion by not letting him out or by not setting a bond.

So Philip Dubay, do you really think he thought that deeply when he got rid of the weapon?

No.

No, and I'll tell you why.

I can tell by the charges.

The prosecution is not alleging that this was a planned, premeditated murder.

The only reason why he's rising to the level of it being a special circumstance is because there were multiple victims.

They're not even alleging that he did it for financial gain, which certainly is the classic motive, particularly in Hollywood.

Why?

Madeleine McCann.

McCann.

Got the name.

Maddie McCann.

Remember that? The parents would not submit to the polygraph, not because it was consciousness of guilt.

It was consciousness of scientific imperfection.

That was the problem.

I got a problem with that.

That is why it was very important that he be advised there was gonna be a delay in that preliminary hearing.

That's exactly right, Nancy.

In California, every criminal defendant charged with a felony has a statutory right to a speedy preliminary hearing, and that ultimately means that, uh, the defendant has the right to have his prelim within 10 court days of arraignment.

However, the defendant can waive that statutory period and ask for more time.

So when he was arraigned in February, through his counsel, they asked for a preliminary hearing setting, which is a fancy way of saying a pre-prelim hearing, almost like a pretrial hearing, for today as a zero of 30, meaning he has 30 court days from today to have his preliminary hearing unless he again wishes more, for more time.

And through his counsel, they asked for yet another continuance because they don't have everything.

And Nancy, I can tell you just historically, nobody goes to prelim so quickly from the date of arraignment in a murder.

Would you agree that leaving his own home, checking into a motel, washing off blood, putting on new clothes, thinking to take a backpack, and most importantly, getting rid of the murder weapon, police still haven't found it, would indicate he knew what he did was wrong?

What is that?

Right.

Every criminal defendant has the right to have their preliminary hearing within ten court days of the date of arraignment.

So sometimes what we will do pre-prelim is we set an interim date, oftentimes the three of ten, the five of ten date, to get the discovery.

It puts a flame under their tushy to get everything produced to the defense.

If they don't get it all, then they have to file a motion to continue the preliminary hearing.

But moreover, oftentimes when they are given this heap of discovery on a pre-prelim date, they're gonna need more time to go through it anyway.

Instead, it's more of a status conference.

So will the judge bring down the hammer? Will the judge put Britney Spears in handcuffs again and send her to jail when she shows up to court on May four? Revoke her bond.

The general rule is that if you walk into court, you'll walk out of court.

As long as she makes her court dates, she follows all the court orders, she will be fine.

It is a mere first-time misdemeanor DUI that has a cap of six months in custody in California.

And the fact that she is in rehab and is probably gonna have an escort by the program to court tells the court that she is actually taking the charges very seriously.

So it is highly, highly unlikely that she will be remanded.

That said, she's never had a DUI conviction before because some really good lawyers kept her out of it.

I'm sure that has a lot to do with it, but let's assume she did have a prior.

They probably thought, Dubay, they were so lucky to get their child in the summer camp

Sandusky had a knack for picking out unsophisticated, uncultured people.

And, uh, he would also garner the sympathy, the respect, and the admiration of their parents, so nobody had a problem with him being a part of their lives.

But unbeknownst to everybody, in the dark sort of hintergrund, as we say, uh, he was actually laying hands on these kids.

He had abnormal sexual perversions, and nobody really knew it was going on.

And these kids had a warped sense of achievement and accomplishment, and kind of went along with it to get along, if you will.

And it wasn't until one kid cried foul and said, "No, take your hands off me," that the story blew wide open.

But in all of your years in court, have you ever known somebody was guilty and you look back and they're sitting across the table talking to you about sports and, and food and restaurants and activities and hobbies, and they're a c- stone cold killer? It's really hard to reconcile that.

Not for me, because I look at it from a legal standpoint.

I don't sit there and stand in judgment of my client.

It's almost like a doctor in the ER or in the, uh, uh, the ICU at a hospital who has to treat a gang banger, uh, who just sprayed up a neighborhood and he got shot back and now he's in the hospital.

The doctors still have a, a, a, a Hippocratic oath to first do no harm and save the young man's life.

Well, that's what we do in a legal context.

We don't stand in judgment of our clients, and we do whatever we can to protect their legal interests.

So to you, Philip Dubé, veteran trial lawyer joining us out of the LA jurisdiction, Philip, how would you keep the jury from seeing this video?

That's, that's like unauthorized use of personal identifying information?

Correct.

We call that a 44- 484E out here.

And it's a very common crime.

When you get ahold, uh, of either a mislaid or a stolen credit card, you try to pass it off as yours, make a purchase, but then you sign a bogus name on it or you give some false circumstances as to how you got the card.

That shows an intent to deceive and, and an intent to defraud.

Uh, now, as to burglary, certainly when you have, um-Sort of a, a, a group of victims who are coming in that have absolutely no nexus to one another saying that this she-devil has done this to me as well.

I'm, I'm assuming that might come into evidence maybe, but also does it give you a kind of an idea about a, a defense there?

You find somebody else to blame.

There is absolutely no way that this one scrawny man can take down four people merely because he has a knife.

Look at him.

At a minimum, one person probably could have knocked him down, maybe somehow wrested the knife away from him.

kicked him, punched him, held him, and prevented all that carnage.

So obviously he had a Confederate on scene to help him out because he knew that they were going to be met by multiple people in that house.

I mean, let's face it, this is a reputed party house, and there's going to be at least four or five people living there, and you have to be prepared.

The other side, the respondent, can put him on as the first witness and cross-examine him as a hostile witness.

But does he not understand the crime lab can determine sweat versus touch DNA versus sperm, right? So if his DNA is over in one of those knots tied, right? he's going to be proven to be a liar, Dubé.

Exactly.

And that points immediately to third-party culpability.

And in California, in order to get that defense, you have to have more than just motive, means, and opportunity for someone else to have committed the crime.

There has to be some other independent evidence linking that third party to the crime.

And here, if you have biological evidence that At the scene where the death reportedly occurred, that is enough to get that third-party culpability instruction.

And particularly at a preliminary hearing, that is enough to show the court that the death was at the hands of somebody other than the defendant.

What do you do with that? That's just like somebody dropped a bomb in your lap.

So Philip Dube, do you really think he thought that deeply when he got rid of the weapon?

No, and I'll tell you why.

I can tell by the charges.

The prosecution is not alleging that this was a planned premeditated murder.

The only reason why he's rising to the level of it being a special circumstance is because there were multiple victims.

They're not even alleging that he did it for financial gain, which certainly is the classic motive, particularly in Hollywood.

So what you really have here is somebody who is out of his mind, again, likely due to psychosis, Drugs or maybe even an untreated personality disorder who flew off the handle in a fit of rage for whatever reason and fled while still in that either drug induced psychosis or some type of mental health crisis.

Why?

I think they are elite, but explain why.

Well, first of all, they have exceptional training.

Typically, they've been on the force for five to 10 years because it requires a great amount of experience to investigate the crimes.

They're also very familiar with the inner workings of the Superior Court.

They know who the DAs are and they know exactly who to call, who to approach to get charges filed or to find out where the evidence may fall short.

And if they have to go back out and beat the bushes, so be it, they'll get the evidence.

But when you put a greenhorn in there to investigate some of these high profile media cases, they might not be as adept at putting the case together as the more seasoned homicide detectives are.

He knew what he did was wrong.