Oct 9, 2026 · 1 hr 15 min · 26 segments
Miguel Enrique Salguero-Olivares is on trial for the 2012 murder of Faith Hedgepeth in North Carolina. Today, we discuss in-depth the second day of trial. Order our book on Delphi here…
[dramatic music] One thing, Kevin, that I thought was notable and certainly something to point out in this case is a qui- quite a quieter moment that we saw right at the start of today.
It was between the parties, the various attorneys, the prosecution, the defense, and the judge.
And it was a reference to things that had been going on in the pretrial phase of this case.
And in it, James, uh, Rainsford, who is the- one of the defense attorneys, who's really doing most of the talking, and I believe must be the lead counsel for the defense, was talking about how they were not allowed to present third-party suspects in the case.
They were allowed to reference to certain things that might cast suspicion on others.
Can you as an attorney speak to why that is? Because on the surface, that might sound like, "Okay, well, why wouldn't they just be allowed to say whatever they want?" Why is it important in our system that there are some checks on that ability?
Obviously, we want to protect the defendant's rights to argue that he is not guilty of a particular crime
crimeThat doesn't necessarily give the, the defendant or his attorneys the right to go in there and just start accusing other people of the crime.
Typically, you're not allowed to accuse another person of the crime unless there's some sort of a connection you can demonstrate between them and the crime.
Now, the thing to remember, in order to be found not guilty, a defendant is not required to solve the crime, is not required to put on their deer stalker hat and prove that the crime was committed by someone else.
All they need to do is demonstrate that there's a reasonable doubt that they, the defendant, actually committed the crime.
So when you say a defendant is not permitted to directly accuse someone, that doesn't really hobble a defense.
So why might a defense team still want to point the finger at a specific someone rather than a vague... 'Cause if you're saying, "Hey, the defense doesn't have to prove or, or solve the case, they can just say, 'It wasn't our guy,' the burden of proof is on the state, not the defense," why do defense attorneys even care? Why do they potentially like to have someone to blame?
Sometimes it can be easier for a jury to acquit if you can point the finger at someone else and say, "Oh, it wasn't my guy, it was this guy," and pass the blame on them.
That can be dramatic, and some defense attorneys may find that it makes it, their job a little bit easier.
So it's kind of a strategy that can be beneficial, but it certainly doesn't mean that they have the burden.
So in this case, as I learned from sort of doing some research into what happened before this trial, I found that in September of this year, Judge Keith O. Gregory, who's the judge on the case, he granted the prosecution's motion, uh, uh, basically asking for the defense team in this case to not be able to argue a third-party killer here.
In his ruling, the judge indicated that he felt a lot of what the defense was putting out there were inferences, and essentially that they had not gotten to the point where they could really draw the direct connection needed that Karina Rosario, who was Faith Hedgpeth's roommate at this time, at the time of her death, and one of her dearest friends.
[dramatic music] One thing, Kevin, that I thought was notable and certainly something to point out in this case is a qui- quite a quieter moment that we saw right at the start of today.
It was between the parties, the various attorneys, the prosecution, the defense, and the judge.
And it was a reference to things that had been going on in the pretrial phase of this case.
And in it, James, uh, Rainsford, who is the- one of the defense attorneys, who's really doing most of the talking, and I believe must be the lead counsel for the defense, was talking about how they were not allowed to present third-party suspects in the case.
They were allowed to reference to certain things that might cast suspicion on others.
Can you as an attorney speak to why that is? Because on the surface, that might sound like, "Okay, well, why wouldn't they just be allowed to say whatever they want?" Why is it important in our system that there are some checks on that ability?
Obviously, we want to protect the defendant's rights to argue that he is not guilty of a particular crime
crimeThat doesn't necessarily give the, the defendant or his attorneys the right to go in there and just start accusing other people of the crime.
Typically, you're not allowed to accuse another person of the crime unless there's some sort of a connection you can demonstrate between them and the crime.
Now, the thing to remember, in order to be found not guilty, a defendant is not required to solve the crime, is not required to put on their deer stalker hat and prove that the crime was committed by someone else.
All they need to do is demonstrate that there's a reasonable doubt that they, the defendant, actually committed the crime.
So when you say a defendant is not permitted to directly accuse someone, that doesn't really hobble a defense.
So why might a defense team still want to point the finger at a specific someone rather than a vague... 'Cause if you're saying, "Hey, the defense doesn't have to prove or, or solve the case, they can just say, 'It wasn't our guy,' the burden of proof is on the state, not the defense," why do defense attorneys even care? Why do they potentially like to have someone to blame?
Sometimes it can be easier for a jury to acquit if you can point the finger at someone else and say, "Oh, it wasn't my guy, it was this guy," and pass the blame on them.
That can be dramatic, and some defense attorneys may find that it makes it, their job a little bit easier.
So it's kind of a strategy that can be beneficial, but it certainly doesn't mean that they have the burden.
So in this case, as I learned from sort of doing some research into what happened before this trial, I found that in September of this year, Judge Keith O. Gregory, who's the judge on the case, he granted the prosecution's motion, uh, uh, basically asking for the defense team in this case to not be able to argue a third-party killer here.
In his ruling, the judge indicated that he felt a lot of what the defense was putting out there were inferences, and essentially that they had not gotten to the point where they could really draw the direct connection needed that Karina Rosario, who was Faith Hedgpeth's roommate at this time, at the time of her death, and one of her dearest friends.
The rest of this transcript — segmented and speaker-labeled, so you land on the exact moment something was said
Search every transcript — by keyword, by phrase, or by meaning, across every show Radar indexes
Trends — what is surging across podcasts, measured against its own baseline
Alerts — when a name you follow appears in a newly indexed episode
No account is needed to search Radar.