What should the judge have done at that point?

well i i don't know that he would have been able to pose the question that way because then that's sort of getting into how are you coming to the conclusion i think he would have had to do it more in the way of this is the law you understand if you have doubt then this is how doubt works here are my instructions one more time but it's it's it's such a fine line but it he should have done more now let me just say this the things that have come out after the fact i don't know that the court would consider that or should consider that because And I even think there's some case law that talks about, you shouldn't be looking at what happens after all the, you know, what happens to the courtroom, what happens to the courtroom, everything after the courtroom should not be considered.

And all the things that he said, look, he's had a handler.

He's had a lawyer.

He's had himself come out.

I, I, I have some, doubts as to what i have my own doubts as to what exactly he's saying is it true or not true or is it saying that just because he's being coached on it um but again what was said in that room was written on the notes i take that more i give that more credit it's kind of like that old line we talk about as defense attorneys is that we believe more about what somebody says closer to the crime than they say after the crime you know days weeks later because they obviously change their opinions or they get different perspectives on things

And you would think there would be a little bit of concern for that.

Yeah, it certainly has a chilling effect.

Who else would do that?

Or is he the actual, he or she, the defendant? And Mr.

Burke just happens to be, you know, in the sidelines somewhere not knowing about what's actually going on because he has all these hanger-ons.

Is this the person who stabbed her? Is this the person who hung those air fresheners in the car, this co-defendant or this defendant who is going to drag Mr.

Burke down because he just happens to be associated with him? I think there's a lot of unanswered questions.

And right now if I'm Mr. Burke's defense team, I like those unanswered questions because that helps my client show somebody else did this.

Rubbing his back? I- is that what you get paid to do in court, Rice?

No, you don't get paid to rub backs, but I will tell you when you have a private defense team, you certainly get a lot more attention than you do from a public defender's office.

What are they, what are they saying the defense did?

Well, a- and I think you did a great job of sort of summarizing it here.

Here's maybe sort of the CliffsNotes, and that may age my, my, uh, explanation here a little bit.

But what the defense did from the, from the onset was really a big win, if you think about it.

I mean, they were able to keep out, or they, i- in theory, as of right now, they were able to keep out these three other extramarital affairs.

And that was a huge win for the defense.

And the judge even said before, before the opening statements on Friday, "You can't talk about these other women because it's going to be prejudicial for Mr. Far- Farwell." That was a big win for the defense.

What are your thoughts?

Yeah.

"Let's, let's cut it down to $50,000 and get that initial retainer paid.

You know, get a couple of lawyers to look over this stuff." And I think they, they're, what they're, uh, paying for is to at least argue this first motion to dismiss.

It is, uh, going to the facts of the case, certainly Mr. Smith is probably not happy, one, about his association with Mr. Trump, or at least whatever the governor said about that.

But the bigger one is to be associated with Jeffrey Epstein-

Cruel and unusual

... cruel and unusual punishment.

Now, here's the problem.

Spit it out, Rumpelstiltskin.

Eighth Amendment, can't have cruel and unusual punishment.

This was cruel and unusual punishment, and this is distinguishable from all of the cases that the Supreme Court has talked about.

Because in those cases, they couldn't get the needle in or the electricity wasn't powerful enough.

They got her to the brink of death.

Ms. Pike was almost dead.

They had to resuscitate her, bring her back, and now she's injured.

Did you say that

I mean, really? If you called your wife a douche, I would come prosecute you myself.

Nancy, it certainly didn't help him today, but I certainly think that the judge also took into fact or consideration in her mind as to the evidence that she heard during this trial.

And certainly there may be some questions or may have been some questions in her mind during the sentencing.

Certainly didn't play out that way, but I got to think that the judge thought about the lack of the gun, the gunshot residue missing, where's the blood spatter.

Those are things I got to think that the judge at least thought about for a second today during sentencing.

It's over, Rice.

Nancy, I'm sure you got a lot of autopsy photos in when you were a prosecutor.

And also to the point of that, when you were married for that long, you know your partner's body, you know what is wrong with it.

How strong is that argument?

This one, I think, has a little bit better of a chance, although I wouldn't give it a great, great chance of what happens here.

And there's so many different angles to this.

But what the defense is saying in this motion to dismiss is, hey, judge, you did not exhaust all the opportunities you could have exhausted to determine if this holdout juror was actually held out or holding out because of the fact that he had reasonable doubt or that he had some legal issue, or was he doing it just because of a religious reason or a personal reason.

And so that's the issue I think that Kevin Reddington has probably got a stronger argument on is, you know, judge, you should have done more.

There wasn't that manifest necessity.

Therefore, there shouldn't have been a mistrial or hung during a mistrial.

Rice, does the Clancy case raise about how the justice system handles severe postpartum mental illness? This case has many, many people talking about it.

Is that the friction you're talking about?

Completely separate relationship.

I'm talking about Mr. Flynn and his wife, Ashley.

That relationship was separated, which makes the sense that he comes into the room and rubs her leg in the dark.

Then he realized she's not moving.

He turns the light on.

He sees two bullet holes in the back of her head.

Do you hear this guy?

Randolph Rice, what were you saying about no connection between Hickerson and dope and Hayden Panettiere?

There has to be something more there, Nancy.

And right now, if the DEA or the, or the South Carolina Police Department thought that he somehow was supplying, then he would be in bracelets right now.

He would be in jail.

But they don't believe that there's a connection there between what we now are hearing is a drug dealer in Los Angeles and that flow, that, that evidence chain to Mr. Hickerson and then to Hayden.

No intent is required

Well, Ms. Panettiere certainly died.

We've got that, and we at least know that there's one pill.

He shot from a little under 200 yards away, and you're saying nobody else was in danger, Rice? Look at your monitor.

Nobody else is in danger in this situation, at least from, again, I'm arguing the defense here.

And I think that the state has a good argument, but in the defense's argument, they're gonna say this was a single bullet that had a single target that ultimately killed Charlie Kirk and it didn't endanger the other people in the crowd.

And that's where there may be a problem for the prosecutor's office in trying to seek the charge that seeks the death penalty.

They have to be proved just like every element of the crime.

Nancy, you're exactly right.

You've got to prove every single element because what happens is the jurors are going to get a jury instruction at some point in time and it's going to have all these different elements.

And it's going to say, unless you find beyond a reasonable doubt that every single element has been met, then you can't find him guilty of that charge.

I mean, come on, isn't enough that he allegedly murdered a 14-year-old girl? Is that not enough? Now he's got to hide money too? According to reports, $11 million.

Nancy, I love you, but I think your reasoning is flawed here.

And here's a couple of reasons why.

First off, Mr. Burke probably does not have access to any of those accounts that are making money right now.

They're either being held by a trustee or somebody appointed by the court or possibly a family member.

And that does not get considered when determining if you're eligible for a public defender.

Secondly, real estate.

How do I find out? Do they trace, does the court trace money movement in and out of his accounts? I mean, we got a hold of the tax documents just like that.

What are your thoughts?

Yeah, they really have.

I mean, they started out with family members, which we anticipated, and that was really important witness testimo- testimony.

Because what you got to hear was sister, Lindsay's mom, Lindsay's mother-in-law, uh, and explaining exactly what they were observing in the weeks, years, months leading up to the actual crime itself.

And that lays that, or that paints that picture as to the, the real difficulty that she was having.

Now, how much weight the jury gives them, you know, obviously they're family members, they're gonna t- they're gonna tell the best story for Lindsay Clancy.

But at the same time, it does really l- it, it, you feel what she was going through.

What are, what are your thoughts on that argument?

Explain what happened with this plea, and how now the murder charges may be thwarted in the New York State Court.

Well, first off, what happened to Mr. Thompson was just horrible, and I... and it... we all feel for his family, his kids, his wife, certainly.

But when you describe this as thwarted justice, I think that that's just a, a complete mis-, uh, description of what this is.

He didn't write the New York laws.

The New York legislature is the one you want to be mad at here because they're the one that said, "No, no. We're not gonna go by that sovereignty law that the federal government does.

We're gonna make it broader.

We're gonna say if it comes out of the same criminal transaction, then we're not gonna allow a second prosecution." So this was, at the end of the day, a race, and the DA in New York knew this was a race, and that's why they wanted to try this case first.

I mean, who is the man in the mirror, for Pete's sake? Do you ever think, "This is wrong"?

It seems like that might be a colossal win, but you might even think there's more at work here.

Oh, I do, and let me address your question first is I think the financial crimes is gonna be difficult.

Um, they're ... probably their best g- for the special circumstances is going to be the lying in wait if they can establish that he brought her over with that Uber or that rideshare ride, and then that was the purpose of what he was gonna do here.

This didn't come out in the preliminary, and this is something I've been debating with, uh, other people on different networks about this and saying this preliminary did not connect the dots between the things that they were trying to show.

For example, they say he ordered all these things off of Amazon.

Well, it was done with an alias, and the problem that I have as a defense attorney, and again, maybe they can make this connection, is how can you prove that he was the one that was clicking the buttons ordering these items back to the house? Um, the, uh, passport that was found on the roadside.

You know, this was handled by a Department of, uh, Works employee barehanded.

Do you think that is playing out well for the prosecution, having someone so supportive and so emotionally, um, empathetic to the defense as their first witness?

How can you pretend you don't know? Everybody that walked in the house said, "Ooh, what is that smell?"

Nancy, this is great for the defense right now.

Remember, this is a preliminary hearing.

The prosecution is supposed to be putting on their best witnesses, and now we've got a witness who's essentially lying.

They've said two different things.

They can't belie- be believed moving forward, and apparently they also have a financial interest for testifying or saying whatever they're saying.

So this is gonna be used against these two witnesses or this witness at the trial.

Okay, Randolph Rice, weigh in.

Definitely

... you know, TV, billboards, we still really rely heavily on, on the internet.

But now with AI and, and, uh, the summaries that you get, you really gotta work even harder for the internet to work when you're trying-

Yeah

... it's something that we're constantly focused on is how do we get a 20% growth year over year? And a lot of that is, uh, and I'll say this and, and, and I've consulted with other businesses before, and actually other businesses have come to me and said, "Hey," not in the legal field, "how do we do what you do?" And I said-

The judge has already ruled on it.

It's coming in, Nancy, but I still think that the defense is gonna be playing for fumbles on that first part of the case during the, the prosecution's presentation.

But again, going back to my argument, this is the anger that's boiling, the anger that is building over time.

Remember that video when they, when they led him out of a police car into I believe the Altoona Police Department and he started screaming angrily at the cameras? Again, that's the sign of that anger that he had inside of him, that emotion that caused this extreme loss of, of understanding of what he was doing was wrong.

And so that's the defense they're gonna present on the back end of his case.

Anger is not a defense.

It's not a defense.

It's extreme anger, and again, I think that this manifesto and all the things that led up to this show this extreme emotional disturbance, this anger that had been building up for so long.

The assassin who guns down a father of two

He is observed on video in a plain maroon T-shirt, light colored shorts, a black hat with a white logo, and light colored shoes, arriving on UVU campus in a gray Dodge Challenger at approximately 8:29 AM.

Tyler Robinson.

Robinson had become more political in recent years.

A second unfired casing read, "Oh, Bella Ciao.

Bella Ciao.

Bella Ciao.

They have to be proved just like every element of the crime.

But what are you going to do with Celeste pregnant?

I still think we need to get the DNA back, and we need to match that up to see who exactly is the baby.

Who is the father? Because, Nancy, the father may be this alternative killer, this person voi- person's voice we hear in the background who says, "I did it." Maybe he's the father.

He wants brand-new clothes so he can look like what, a 1L at Harvard Law School? Help me out.

Yep.

I'm going to the nicest tailor in Los Angeles if I'm his attorney, and I'm getting him the best suit, the most conservative ties, the nicest white shirt I can find, and I'm putting him in that because I want him to look like, as you said, a 1L at Harvard, a first-year law student, like he is the most professional person coming to that courtroom.

I want him looking better than his lawyers.

What about it, Randolph? Busted.

Genius.

Genius.

I think it's a good move on his defense part and his team's part.

And let me just say one thing about this finger.

Everybody's talking about this as this is something that's gonna hurt his case.

I can tell you, his attorneys, and if I was attorney too, I would be going to the mat, filing a motion in limine, which as you know, Nancy, is just a motion to exclude evidence.

How have you ever gotten a wiretap? And isn't it true that cell phones can also be tapped, not just landlines?

She even, as you heard the neighbors say, moved out on him multiple times because of domestic violence accusations.

Yeah.

So let's address the first thing here, is that any time we put witnesses on the stand, and you can look at any trial in America, we ask the defendant the first time, "Would you ever hurt this person?" "No." "Would you ever cause them harm?" "No." These are natural and obvious questions because if we don't ask them, and if he doesn't say these things, then you have a, a guess, a suspicion that maybe he did.

So he's putting it out there, "I never would hurt her.

I would never cause harm." The DV allegations are that exactly, allegations.

These are coming also from a stepdaughter who possibly might have had some sort of ax to gr- grind against her stepfather, Mr. Hooker.

So I t- I take them with a grain of salt as to what she's saying, what was going on in the past.

So how is it working in The Bahamas?

Chowing down, pepperoni, sausage, the works, while Bella and Celeste's photos are right in front of him.

And Nancy, you're exactly right.

That's what prosecutors would've shown had this case gone to trial immediately was this, this is the indifference that he has towards the death of his children, and that's Exhibit A when it comes to trying to show or showing at least a jury if he had gone to trial that he is just a monster inside, as the other guests have said.

Who's next? Salome, who danced in front of the king and then he chopped off John the Bed- Baptist's head and served it on a silver platter? Who's next?

Nancy, I think this is all just coming from a jailhouse snitch who wants to get his 15 minutes of fame.

And I'm not really sure that that's actually got much validity as to what his real beliefs are.

Uh, and to be honest with you, this may be, as his finding of God, this religious experience he's had, may be a basis for his defense attorneys to go back to court and ask for some sort of modification of his sentence if he truly is asking for forgiveness.

He shot from a little under 200 yards away and you're saying nobody else was in danger, Rice? Look at your monitor.

Nobody else is in danger in this situation, at least from, again, I'm arguing the defense here.

And I think that the state has a good argument, but in the defense's argument, they're gonna say this was a single bullet that had a single target that ultimately killed Charlie Kirk and it didn't endanger the other people in the crowd.

And that's where there may be a problem for the prosecutor's office in trying to seek the charge that seeks the death penalty.

They have to be proved just like every element of the crime.

Nancy, you're exactly right.

You've gotta prove every single element because what happens is the jurors are gonna get a jury instruction at some point in time and it's gonna have all these different elements.

And it's gonna say, unless you find beyond a reasonable doubt that every single element has been met, then you can't find him guilty of that charge.

What do you do? How do you defend ghouls like this? Now, in this case, the mom lived, and all the other cases we are covering tonight, the mom died, and in many of them, the baby died.

My first question, Nancy, is, was this a natural birth that somehow went wrong? And maybe, maybe Rebecca Park was trying to cut the baby out herself.

That may be a defense.

Okay, what did you just say? It's possible in this situation as a defense attorney that they may argue that this was somehow a natural birth that Rebecca Park may have potentially tried to cut the baby out herself.

Have you ever noticed that? And there is just an inherent desire to find that bio mom.

Yeah, typically the adoptions we handle, the kids are very young, but certainly as they get older, there is that curiosity that they want to find out who their parents are, who their backstory is, where did I come from? Maybe who are my grandparents? And this is so important because it fulfills that void that they're trying to fill in life of trying to get the answers as to who am I?