So how does a judge decide if there is, quote unquote, insufficient evidence? And why are they arguing that here specifically?

Well, judges don't like to grant judgments of acquittal because that ends the case.

And it's very rare they do.

I've had a judge do it.

But they don't like to do it because, as Joe said, the rule is the evidence in best light to the government because they've got the burden.

And so if the judge finds there's any inference, any circumstantial evidence, and in the light most favorable to the government's theory, is there sufficient evidence that a jury could find the person guilty? He has to deny it.

Now, remember, we know through the divorce proceedings that – Donna was willing to pay $300,000 to have him waive the rights.

But where do you where does the judge have to draw the line between allowing a defendant to be a human and emote and then shutting them down and saying, look, you're going to be prejudicial now?

weigh this uh like insufficient evidence i mean they're talking in code georgia is destroying people on cross sarah dugan's destroying people on cross there's you know buckets full of uh you know documents that georgia is going through so how does a judge decide if there is quote-unquote insufficient evidence and why are they arguing that here specifically

Well, judges don't like to grant judgments of acquittal because that ends the case.

And it's very rare they do.

I've had a judge do it.

But they don't like to do it because, as Joe said, the rule is the evidence in best light to the government because they've got the burden.

And so if the judge finds there's any inference, any circumstantial evidence, And in the light most favorable to the government's theory, is there sufficient evidence that a jury could find the person guilty? He has to deny it.

Now, remember, we know through the divorce proceedings that Donna was willing to pay $300,000 to have him waive the rights.

But where do you where does the judge have to draw the line between allowing a defendant to be a human and emote and then shutting them down and saying, look, you're going to be prejudicial now?

[laughs]

Yeah.

I don't think she would even read the rest of her, but she probably would.

But listen, um, every lawyer knows you have a deadline filing things.

You don't wait till the last minute to file something.

You have to prepare for your assistant, w- whoever types, is gonna be out.

Uh, the computer goes down, your internet goes down.

What, what does it matter, I guess, is my question.

You look like you're 30, so you could get away with it, but can Kevin Reddington get away with it at 75, 76?

Actually, some people thought I was 45 at the baseball game, which I said, you guys are drunk.

Listen, I think it's clear to the jury.

She's not an expert in postpartum.

She wasn't an expert on psychosis.

And in that exchange, she admitted she was not an expert.

in postpartum psychosis.

Right, Tim?

What did you think?

Oh, I don't think it was too aggressive.

Uh, I, I think the State put this witness on.

You know the State always complains we don't pick our witnesses, right? They don't pick Catholic priests.

Uh, they put a woman up there who treated this woman, who had less than a month experience.

Um, and then she complained during cross-examination technology didn't allow her to write more, more thorough ner- notes.

And then when she was caught reading notes that were wrong, she said, "Oh, disregard those notes," because [laughs] it didn't help her case.

Uh, but how does that resonate with a jury?

Mm

... children suffered the way they did, died the way they did.

It's just horrendous.

It's heartbreaking.

Um, and at the same time, you wonder, could this woman, who's never had any issues with violence or anything, commit these heinous crimes? Now, you talk about Reiner's family.

I don't know if his, his psychosis was due to drugs, uh, prescribed drugs.

I had a client who took some drugs, and he tried to kill members of...

Does the law have to be better defined? Is it an issue with the law, Tim? Is it an issue with us as a society? What's going on here?

it was a bit of uh you know a mini disaster tim felt really bad about it tim's a great friend of mine very good attorney uh this is him coming out and speaking to us about this 911 call and his reaction to it let's uh watch it together

let me let me say something that 911 call was the most dramatic riveting there were journalists coming out of the courtroom in tears after hearing the 911 call.

The husband, Patrick, was great, trying to save Lindsay, give medical care, and he was doing the best he could.

And he was talking to 911.

He was trying to help her, try to keep her awake.

And all of a sudden, the paramedics show up.

You can hear the ambulance.

Let me play out the rest, and then we'll get your take on it.

me say

something.

That 911 call was the most dramatic, riveting call.

there were journalists coming out of the courtroom in tears after hearing the 911 call.

The husband, Patrick, was great, trying to save Lindsay, give medical care, and he was doing the best he could.

And he was talking to 911.

He was trying to help her, try to keep her awake.

Let me play out the rest, and then we'll get your take on it.

Mm-hmm.

And there was a couple reporters in the parking lot, but I walked up to the front, did my little thing, and made sure I got a seat.

Uh, and then it slowly developed.

People were coming, people were coming.

Um, and I think there probably was about 50 media from all over different places, podcasts.

Um, and then there's a lot of people in the courthouse and Um, you couldn't figure out who, who was who.

Some people had special people being brought in by the state attorney's office.

... come across to you, um, generally speaking?

Hi,

Seth.

You know, the first question.

was a retired judge, Judge Lewis.

And he writes books.

He's a very accomplished writer.

And first question he asked him, so you had to find some evidence in furtherance of the conspiracy, right? That's what they had to do.

I mean, this is kind of wild.

And if it wasn't for him paying some close attention, we might not be where we are today.

Yeah, what people don't understand is that the state attorneys and their investigators are always monitoring defendants' calls.

They're always monitoring for any tidbit they can get, either maybe the defense strategy or they may say something.

And it's a technique that's been going on for many, many years.

Jason told you, I had nothing else to do, so I thought I'd just listen to jail calls.

They're very profitable.

They garner and gather a lot of evidence that's very damaging to defendants.

I mean, this is kind of wild.

Is 24 pages about right? Is that longer, typical, shorter? What is it, Tim, 24?

Well, it is longer than most opinions, because in this case, there was a lot of facts that the court wanted to weave in to where they got.

So they talked a lot about the jurors, the questions, the answers.

The one striking thing I thought that stood out in my mind, it said, we need impartial jurors, not ignorant jurors.

And it goes back to the common law.

Not everyone has to walk in and know nothing about the case.

And even if they do know something, as long as they can put it aside and be impartial, that's the standard.

But Tim, what are your thoughts on Luis firing off that apology letter?

Why that one?

Well, it's interesting.

He was charged with some of these offenses and the defense asked for a joinder originally.

And then when they saw all the bad evidence, they tried to get a severance and the judge denied it.

The reason the other convictions stand is because the evidence, they have sufficient and strong evidence on all the other charges.

And in fact, I think the defendant admitted that that he moved the body and abused the body.

His defense was that he was protecting Kayla, the stepmother, and she's the only one that knows what happened to little Harmony.

But what but I mean, do you blame the trial judge at all the way Margaret, I guess,

Is that what

I'm? Well, if it was a PTI or a diversion program, he wouldn't be entering a plea.

It goes out of the court system.

And then if he completes that term, he can expunge it from his record.

Now, because he's entered a plea, the court did not adjudicate him guilty.

He's not a convicted felon.

He's not convicted of this offense.

This almost seems like a harsher sentence in some ways than what her husband got.

So tell us a little bit about that.

Well, a Daubert is when you bring in an expert or someone with expertise skills.

It doesn't have to be an expert.

You can be an expert in certain things like firearms.

You can be an expert in tracking down people if you have specific training and experience.

But to bring in a doctor and for a witness to testify as an expert, they have to have certain either educational skills or training and their work has to be studied by peers.

It can't be based on assumptions, speculation.

And they will opine and give their own opinion about how she died and why she died.

He goes back and forth to where Madeline's body

is.

Why? Well, you know, it's interesting.

Brian Kohlberger did the same thing after the Idaho murders.

He was there the next morning.

They go either looking for their trophies, watching what they did, or they're trying to cover up and see if this crime has been disclosed.

So the curiosity, the adrenaline they get, maybe trying to cover something they felt they forgot or going back to see if the police have found their bad deeds.

That she's leaned over with her eyes closed because she's dead?