Latest / Dumb Defenses / 2. Pig Souls and Pineapple Dildos

Transcript

2. Pig Souls and Pineapple Dildos · Dumb Defenses

• Frankie: Okay, so welcome back to Dumb Defenses, where we are digging through history for the weirdest legal theories and bringing them to you. Judah: We're kinda just doing whatever. It ⁓ it it's like there's gotta be some weird legal shenanigans happening and then we're gonna talk about it and that's what it is. ⁓ I I've got I've got a good one for ya. I've got a good one for Frankie: We are kind of just doing whatever. That was fine. Okay. I I will say, ⁓ I I may have oversold the lover's quarrel portion of my case when I was ⁓ teasing it last week. ⁓ it was kind of a one sided lover's quarrel. Judah: I mean, who Whomst Among Us has not had one of those. Well, you went you went first last time. Do you want me to go first this time or do you want to go first this time? Alright. So I'm gonna talk about I actually used real sources. ⁓ the f first one that I I recommend to everybody. It's free on Project Gutenberg is The Criminal Prosecution and Capital Punishment of Animals by E. P. Evans, a book from 1906. It has got Frankie: Ha ha ha Go for it. Judah: so much more than we're digging into today and is absolutely fascinating. I also referenced when society puts animals on trial by Sonia Vatomsky, ⁓ Vermin Trials by Peter T. Leeson, and the drunk history animal us episode. It's the person's drunk is a skunk and it's not accurate, but it's like super, super entertaining. Yeah. It it it is very fun. I there's a l Frankie: I love drunk history. It is so fun. Judah: lot they get wrong, but also this person is hammered. I mean, for being for being the head hammered, I thought they did a pretty good job. okay. All right, Frank. So it's fifteen ⁓ eight. Picture this, it's fifteen ⁓ eight. And you are a highly trained jurist, recently made crown attorney for the baili or the bailiff for Autun in France. Frankie: Mm. Yeah. Judah: And then one day the Catholic Church calls you up and informs you that they have a mandatory good deal for you. You are g you have just been appointed as a public defender. This is old school public defense system. Frankie: You went way back machine for this one. Judah: Yeah. For all of the rats in the region. Frankie: The rats do. Judah: They are charged with eating stockpiles of the community's barley. Frankie: Kind of the job, but okay. Judah: All right, so ⁓ I mean just ⁓ before we dig into this, what are some concerns that you have? Frankie: Well, in modern law, animals are property, not people. So I'm not entirely sure how you're charging property with a crime. Judah: So at at this point, animal trials have been going on like pretty regularly in Western Europe for about 300 years. This was not this was not a new thing. There are many theories as to like why this was happening and how it was happening and These cases are really interesting because they're a combination of common law like defense. And only common law, 'cause that's all that existed for the common people. Common law defense, philosophy, and theology. And th I couldn't actually find any arguments where somebody straight up was like, But it's a dog, right? It's but it's a dog. ⁓ Frankie: That's yeah. I mean, that was my first thought, but Judah: Yeah, but it was but it's a rat, but it's a frickin' rat. I mean, there were eels, locusts, weevils, pigs, all kinds of ant bulls, pretty regularly brought to trial, and they're brought to trial not just in the ecclesiastical court. Yeah. Frankie: Did they put them in shackles? Litty itty bitty shackles? Judah: Okay, all right. So well I mean I can start with the f the earliest like good record is of a pig and her piglets. So a sow and her piglets facing a charge of murder for murdering a child in the street. ⁓ the sow is convicted Dressed in people clothes and hung from a tree. Frankie: Why? I mean I I get it, like pigs are kind of vicious, but Judah: They didn't just kill the pig, like the pig went on and this was a civil trial. So these aren't just taking place in the church. They're this is also taking place in the civil courts in the region, like with the magistrate authority and the bailiffs. ⁓ that was about three hundred years before. So w why do they think animals are culpable? There we do not have enough time today, and I really dug into this. And but the long and short is Frankie: ⁓ my god. Judah: First, the common sense reason. People lived really closely with animals. They were a part of daily life. They were a part of the home. And so people saw less separation between themselves and animals. So they were more willing to accept that. And there was a prevailing theory about people's souls, going back to Aristotle, the triumvirate theory of the soul. And Frankie: Okay. Mm-hmm. Judah: There was a belief that animals had at least two of the three parts of what it takes to have a soul. And then let's get into so there's the civil, so like this pig was accused of murder, put on trial, slapped in a dress, hung from a tree. Piglets were actually let off scot-free. They let the piglets go. Frankie: Okay. Well, I mean kids are less culpable. Judah: No, it wasn't about culpability. There was just no ⁓ evidence that the Piglets had independently participated in the crime. Frankie: Okay. So we're we're we're straight up t treating them like people. Judah: ⁓ Yeah, but sort of, and and then there's there's some really interesting arguments going in. There's some re there's good lawyering happening in here. So there's arguments as like if we're treating animals like people, if we're accepting that they have the culpability of people, that they should have the same rights as people, and it that's not accepted either. And then there's differences between higher levels of creatures and lower levels of creatures. And I have to th this made me think when I was reading back. Frankie: Mm-hmm. Judah: Do you ever remember hearing the story of Xerxes I of Persia, who got really mad at the ocean for destroying some bridges that he was building? And then he ordered that the ocean be whipped and like dumped a bunch of chains in the ocean. This made me think of of that and to think about the law as at its core being a societal demonstration that order can be maintained and that the Frankie: ⁓ yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Yep. Yep. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Judah: authority has the ability to maintain that order. Frankie: Mm-hmm. Yeah. Judah: But it's so weird, right? It's so weird. Frankie: Yeah, 'cause you'd like they're feral animals. They don't have like four brains the way we do. Judah: No, ⁓ w the idea of culpability ⁓ like it was all about the soul and marks on the soul and Frankie: Mm-hmm. Yeah, they didn't understand neuroscience the way we do today. Judah: They didn't and they're the way that they experienced and saw the world, like these people are not less intelligent than us. They're living in a completely like different philosophical period. And so they're thinking of like what controls the world and still thinking in ways of like animism, like we're pretty close to animism, like beliefs in animism. And Frankie: Right. Mm-hmm. Judah: spirits and demonic presences and literal pres like little presentations of good and evil. So this is a a ⁓ very churched like region, but nobody's literate basically. And and everyone's living in these really small communities and you see different communities like producing different types of prosecution. Paul Leeson, who I mentioned, was able to track that You can see influxes of per s prosecutions of animals a little while after influxes for prosecutions of witchcraft. Frankie: Okay. Judah: And he has a theory that this was to like get people to tithe more. Like you you need to come to church, you need to pay more, that they're exerting control. It for me, just looking at it plainly can also be a demonstration of like people really, really trying to exercise some level of control over the chaotic environment that they are. Alright, so let's let's get back to this ⁓ this rats case, back to the rats. The attorney that's appointed is named Bartholomew Chasseney. And he is a very, very well trained jurist who's just come back from overseas, from abroad, because of the plague. He's appointed as Crown Counsel, he's very high up, and so they bring him in for this rat trial. Frankie: Okay. Judah: Now, does this guy phone it in for his clients? No. This dude's a baller. He is the public defender's public defender. And he goes whole hog. So the trial's in three parts. And I'm really sad that we don't have the record of the third part. We only have the record of the first two parts of the trial, but they're both gold. So part one of the trial They're there, they're in the cathedral, they're having this ⁓ trial, I guess you could call it, and the rats don't don't show up. Because it because at the end of the day, what we know is that they are their rats. But Chassinay, there's no part of common law that says he can go up and argue like my clients are not here because they're literal rats. He he can't do that. So he gets up there and argues something that you and I have both argued in court. Frankie: 'Cause they're rats. Right. Judah: that the summons was insufficient. You cannot make a ruling against my client. Your summons was insufficient. You posted one summons. Rats are, you need to serve every rat in the region. If you're charging them as a group, then every rat must be served. Frankie: Ha. No joke, I'm gonna make one of those arguments on Tuesday. Judah: We have both done it, I've done it this year, you've done it this year. Summons was insufficient. And the church agrees with him. And they say, okay, so the church sends out a notice to all the smaller churches in the region and they force every single church in the region to be serving summons to the rats from the pulpit. Frankie: Ha ha. Judah: So they're up there preaching after their service and like PS to all the rats, you have to go to the cathedral and Frankie: Is it sufficient summons if there's no actual like paper? Judah: Well no nobody could read. ⁓ and especially you could argue people don't read, you could argue rats don't read. So said, okay everybody has to go to church, including rats, ha ha ha. So the rats can all get their summons. When they all go to church Frankie: ⁓ that's fair. Because that's what rats do. Judah: That's what rats do. That's a baller move. Guy wins round one. I mean, for rats being accused of eating barley, he's doing pretty good so far. Round two. Once again, our defendants do not arrive en masse to their appointment for the their ecclesiastical prosecution. And Chassene knows that Sorry, it's hard to read this without laughing. Frankie: Okay. Yep. Yep. Judah: Chastanee knows that his clients are facing either excommunication from the church or being declared anathema, which is kind of like meaning you're very, very cursed, you're banished. And he knows what that's gonna mean to the rats, which is functionally nothing because once again, they are rats. But he's still gonna get up there and argue. He's gonna prove his case. He goes in and says, you cannot. Frankie: Mm-hmm. Right. Judah: Continue this because agents of the church would maim or murder my clients on their way here, and we cannot guarantee them safe passage. In this case, the agents of the church are cats. So here we got cats, agents of the church. These agents of the church are gonna prevent the safe passage of my client from wherever they are to church, and we don't let We don't force people to show up to court if it's if they could be seriously injured or killed ⁓ by coming to court. And the church goes, You know what? You're right. And so part two, he wins again. The rats are not convicted. We don't have a part three. Drunk History says that it's because part three was like the records were destroyed by pests. That's actually a different case, which is hilarious. It's this long back and forth prosecution about weevils and the and the judgment page was eaten away by weevils. It's a different case, still hilarious. Frankie: Was that a case where the weevils were the defendants? And then they ate the judgment? Judah: Yes, the weevils were the defendants. Yeah. And we Frankie: That's one way to do it. Judah: So this guy, Chassinet, goes on to be a f a very important figure in French jurisprudence. He writes a book on French common law, which is was widely used and informed a lot of the way that people understood the law in France and the development and implementation of the Napoleonic Code. He was on the Parliament in Dijon, and this is a Catholic country. There Later, he's part of a group that condemns a small Protestant community of about eighty people. And then somebody reminds him of this rat case, and he he uses it as a basis to go back and try to defend this community of eighty Protestants. And for a while he he wins that using his own case with the rats as a basis and convinces the king. Frankie: He's citing himself. I love it. Judah: He he's citing himself, he's arguing it, this is a successful case, that these actual human people who are being persecuted cannot have safe passage to this to church court, so we can't convict them. For a while he's successful, ⁓ Chassinay successful, then Chassin dies and the king ⁓ burns the community to the ground. ⁓ I wanted to bring up just some fascinating things about why the church might have been so willing to not make a ruling on this, to not exercise their power. We see the power of the ecclesiastical courts, so the church courts specifically being used for things like swarms of things, acts of God. So they don't have the power to kill somebody. That's the civil authority. So they have the Frankie: Mm. Interesting. Judah: They have excommunication and and declaring things anathema slash like banishing them. And historically we've there's a quite a few cases of them like convicting and banishing already migratory species that we're going to leave anyway. Frankie: So they felt really powerful when they up and left. Judah: Yeah. Well they knew that like this is gonna be fulfilled. The this very early like recorded use of this power of banishing is a is a bishop in the eight hundreds. There's these eels that are plaguing people and they're keeping them from being able to wash their clothes and take baths in the river. So he goes down and he does this like cursing thing on these eels and then the I don't know why this light keeps going on and off. ⁓ Frankie: It's okay, I've got a giant house fly flying in my face. Judah: Okay. He goes down, he does a big fancy banishing of the eels, and the eels go away, and the people are super excited because he's banished the eels. Eels a another famously migratory species. ⁓ locusts. Famously migratory. Yeah. So a lot of these, they were gonna leave anyway. The rats are gonna stick around. Frankie: Also verify it my inventory. Mm-hmm. Judah: I mean they can't just be like, Hey look, we did it. We did it. We banished the rats. The rats were gonna like the locusts were already gonna leave. The eels were already gonna leave. Weevils you know, they're gonna move on. Frankie: Any sort of Yeah. Rats rats find a place and they settle. Judah: Yeah. S and that wasn't discussed like as a theory as to why the church was willing to keep extending this, but that's my theory is they had to take this up, the church did as a demonstration of power, but they knew that they couldn't but the f at at no point did this matter to any rat in the entire region. Frankie: ⁓ right. No. They were completely oblivious to whatever was going on. Judah: Correct. And so the church had to it was a good way for the church to say face and still look like it's exercising we have to be just we have to be just. I need to figure out what this little lighty thing is. I don't Frankie: Mm-hmm. Judah: Alright, it's just stay on or off. Pick one. And that is the and I ha if you have other questions, I went way too deep on this. Frankie: Yeah. I'm just like I'm still wrapping my mind around that whole like holding animals accountable for doing animal things. I mean it feels like the whole like argument that you have in juvenile court quite often that's like, we all did this shit as kids. Why are these kids getting in trouble for it? Judah: Well, it and in juvenile court, I cannot argue that a child is unable to aid and assist because of their youth. I have to have a Yeah, no I have to have a qualifying mental disorder. It's not just like my clients too immature. So if I am working with an eleven year old, the psychologist's gonna be like, you know what, they've got an adjustment disorder, and as a result of the adjustment disorder in combination with their significant brain immaturity. And and and that's a farce. Like that's a legal fiction that we're playing out. Frankie: You should be. They have to have a qualifying mental disorder. Yeah. Judah: Everybody's Frankie: I mean anybody can get diagnosed with an adjustment disorder, right? But this actually that actually transitions really well to my case. So this is ⁓ RV Raby. It's from the Canadian count ⁓ country court from 1980. So this starts out ⁓ a couple of college students taking geology at the University of Toronto. ⁓ The boy had never dated any girl for any length of time and had minimal amount of sexual experience. He's also an introvert and infatuated with the ⁓ girl who is the subject of the case, who is active and outgoing. Okay. So they're kind of study buddies. and at one point, while they're studying their geology course, she like goes to the bathroom or something. And he digs through her notebook. ⁓ a little bit. ⁓ and so he found a note to one of her friends that she hadn't torn out and given to the friend yet, saying ⁓ here's what the actual text of it was. And for some reason all the guys I want to go out with, ⁓ sorry. And for some reason all the guys I know I want to go out with Judah: He sounds like a stage five clinger. Frankie: Wow, I'm take three. And for some reason all the guys I know who want to go out with me and not be friends anymore, so I can't talk to them. I don't want to go out with them and they know that it it and they know it, so I'm sorry, I have no idea why I'm having so much trouble reading this thing. I'm gonna try one more time. Okay. And for some reason all the guys I know want Judah: Okay. Let's take a deep breath. Let's take a deep breath. Take it from the top, Frank. Frankie: To go out with me and not be just friends anymore, so I can't talk to them. I don't want to go out with them and they know it and they know it. So there is static in the air, which is why I want to leave. Hell, I can insult Wayne, who's the defendant in the case. ⁓ I can j I can insult Wayne and Rick and they still bug me in class. I want to be alone or just with one good guy, not with a bunch of nothings. So this was meant to be given to one of her girlfriends, ⁓ just kind of venting or, you know, journal entry or whatever whatever. He stole the page out of the notebook and brought it home and studied it and marked it up with a pen. And Judah: This dude sounds creepy. Frankie: A little bit. and so so they're they're in geology class, they're allowed to take samples out of the lab to bring home to study. ⁓ he picks a sample of galena, ⁓ which is a lead sulfide. It's an igneous and ⁓ or metamorphic rock that is medium or low hydrothermal that sort of comes together in medium or low hydrothermal veins. ⁓ it has a high specific gravity and a low hardness ⁓ he low on the hardness scale. So it's heavy and soft and kind of jagged edged. Let me see if I can copy this and put it into the chat. ⁓ where'd the chat go? Judah: So it's heavy and soft. Frankie: ⁓ it's not letting me. Okay. Just look it up. It is a it's it's heavy, it's soft, and it's kind of like jagged. Like it breaks off at sharp corners. Judah: Okay. So it's one of those crystals that could really ward off negative energy if you whipped it at somebody hard enough. Frankie: Yes. So Judah: ⁓ wait a minute. Does it look like this? Frankie: Kinda. But a little bit more like actual like right angles. ⁓ and so ⁓ Judah: Okay. Frankie: Later that day after he borrowed the rock from the Galena from the lab, ⁓ he just sort of like happened to run into her. It the way it was described, it was very much like air quotes happened to run into her, ⁓ and arranged to watch squash with friends again with the air quotes, but nobody was actually playing squash. ⁓ And while they were walking around after they realized that there's not actually a squash game going on, he asked her what she thought of a mutual friend, and she said he's just a friend. ⁓ and then sh he asked her what she thought about him, and she said, also just a friend. And then he suddenly grabbed her and hit her in the head with the galena wrapped in a cloth. She lost consciousness, and when she regained consciousness, he was strangling at her, strangling her. yelling, you bitch, over and over. and ⁓ a classmate happened by and they described the defendant as pale and sweaty and glassy-eyed and frightened. defendant told him there's been a terrible accident. I'm killed I've killed her and I'm gonna kill you too. ⁓ a professor saw him afterwards and would describe him as bewildered. ⁓ and His statement to the constable was really the next thing I remember was I was choking her and I remember her face was a funny color and I remember her see and I remember seeing a lot of blood and then I stopped. ⁓ he thought he had killed her. Judah: Did he actually kill her? Good. Frankie: He did not. He was charged with ⁓ causing bodily harm with intent to wound and some sort of weapons charge for the rock. and he forwarded the defense of what's called non-insane automatism. Meaning that he was not in control of his actions. He was in a state of dissociation and not in in not capable of controlling his actions, but without an underlying Mental disorder. So because he put forward that defense, he was committed to the hospital for testing. ⁓ he was found to not have any sort of mental disease or defect, in fact, had superior intellect, normal range for personality, ⁓ and generally uses utilizes avoidance repression and blocking its coping mechanisms. ⁓ he did not have any signs of disintegration at that point, but ⁓ the hospital his doctor did not rule out any sort of temporary dissociation, ⁓ which is not uncommon for normal people and not unl and not likely to recur. The Crown's doctor disagreed and s Judah: Did they say that he was a highly toxic masculine pig who was throwing a hissy fit and beating the crap out of a woman because she wouldn't fulfill the fantasy that he had built up for himself in his mind about what she is? Ayy Frankie: Well Sort of. So the Crown's doctor said that this was a controlled young man who was in a state of rage. And if he was dissociative, he ⁓ suffered the disease of the mind called hysterical neurosis. ⁓ he and they they opined that he was conscious during the event but suffered hysterical amnesia afterwards and that six to twelve months of outpatient treatment would leave him with an excellent prognosis. So ⁓ the question at trial is essentially whether he was insane under section 16 of the Canadian Criminal Code, which you know at base says everybody is presumed to be sane unless proven otherwise. it also says no push no person shall be convicted of any offense in respect for an act or omission while they were insane. And for the purposes of this section, ⁓ a person is insane when He is in a state of natural embellacy is the term that they used, or as a disease of the mind to the extent that renders him incapable of appreciating the nature and the quality of the actor omission or of knowing the actor omission is wrong. So as old ⁓ this is, you know, back from the 80s, this language kind of tracks with our GEI statute here, where somebody, because of a qualifying mental disorder, ⁓ they're unable to appreciate the illegality of their actions or conform their actions to the law. It's the same kind of a th of of an idea. Judah: Well, there's a there's a really important distinction that we're we're seeing between our law and this law that's really frustrating for me. Practicing our is so they're saying if you're essentially if you have mental disease or defect or ⁓ that im imbecility Frankie: Mm-hmm. It's essentially I D D, like intellectual disability. It was called im imbecility at that point. Judah: ⁓ and we've hopefully updated the language, Canada. ⁓ so b there there's it creates more opportunities for having a defense because here it's not just that you have a mental disorder that caused you to act in a certain way and absent having that disorder, you would not have done that. It would be that you didn't you could not appreciate that what you were doing was illegal. And that that changes the bar s Frankie: Right. Mm. Judah: Very significantly. Frankie: Yes. And and yeah, and there's some there's more discussion about the difference between like the insane and the non-insane automatism. ⁓ that gets a little dicey. ⁓ the other bit of section sixteen of the criminal code is that ⁓ a person who has specific delusions but is otherwise sane shall not be acquitted on ground of insanity unless the delusion caused him to believe that the existence of a state of things that if it existed would have justified his actor omission. So essentially. If the only thing the person has is a delusional disorder or they just have really strongly held beliefs ⁓ that are incorrect, ⁓ it's it it's almost like a a reasonable person with those beliefs type standard. ⁓ and so the defendant is the one who has to overcome this burden of sanity, right? Because everybody's presumed sane unless proved otherwise. ⁓ But he is not claiming insanity. The crown is the one pushing the insanity because their doctor says, well, there's something wrong with him if he reacted that way. So, two main findings at the trial court ⁓ was that he's not insane within section 16 of the criminal code, and that he acted in a form of automatism brought on by an external cause, which was the girl's rejection, which was what they called a blow to the mind. So external causes of so there's they discuss internal and external causes of automatism. An external an internal cause of automatism is some sort of mental disease or defect, whereas an external cause is something that would be like drugs or a concussion or sleepwalking, stuff like that. So the trial court said that this blow to the mind from being rejected by this girl was an external cause of his automatism, and they acquitted him. Judah: What? Frankie: So Judah: Did they make him do any treatment or? Frankie: ⁓ not yet. So Essentially the rule is that s you can't commit somebody to a hospital for the criminally insane unless they suffer for from a disease of the mind is their term for mental disease or defect. ⁓ if ⁓ it need ⁓ so in order to commit someone, they need to have a mental disea ⁓ a disease of the mind that is in need of treatment and likely to recur. Since this was since the the crown believed his ⁓ doctor over the crown's doctor ⁓ it was not likely to recur, so they let him go. Judah: So this pineapple shaped dildo of a man Got off scot free. Frankie: Well, the Crown appealed. So ⁓ Yes. And ⁓ the Crown didn't challenge the automatism defense itself, but whether or not he should have been sentenced under ⁓ the the statutes regarding criminally insane. Judah: Okay. Frankie: So there it's settled law in Canada at the time that ⁓ transient mental states caused by external causes are not diseases of the mind. Again, that's talking about drugs, concussion, sleepwalking, stuff like that. ⁓ the crown ⁓ The disease of the mind excludes self-induced states caused by drugs or alcohol, as well as tan transitory states like hysteria or concussion. So that was the issue at the trial level, was that the court found that it was a transitory thing, and therefore it was an external cause and not an internal cause. ⁓ There's also settled law that if there is not an underlying disease, but it's ⁓ transient unconsciousness and little likelihood of it happening again, the person can go completely free. ⁓ but if it might happen again, which is suggestive of an underlying disease, then the 1800 ⁓ the criminal lunatics act of eighteen hundred controls and the person is committed. Prior to the eighteen hundred criminal lunatics act, ⁓ if somebody was found not guilty for a reason of insanity, they were just like released to their family. So the eighteen hundred criminal and and like a separate like civil commitment could be started. but the eighteen hundred criminal lunatics act made it so that if it is a dise b if they're an found not guilty for a reason of insanity based on ⁓ a dise disease of the mind, they can then be essentially sort of like what we would in Oregon call like PSRB type stuff, right? They're they're committed for treatment until the Judah: P S R B Psychiatric Security Renew. Frankie: Security review board, yeah. so it's a it it's essentially they are committed for treatment until they are better enough to be released. and the settled law is also that whether or not someone suffers ⁓ from a disease of the mind is a question for the jury. So just like here, if you're putting on a mental health defense, you put on your doctor, the state puts on their doctor, and the jury figures it out. So After the Criminal Act, the 1800 Criminal Lunatics Act, which is what created the ability to force treatment after a not guilty for reason of insanity, ⁓ in 1883, ⁓ Queen Victoria f wanted and received passed the Trial of the Lunatics Act, ⁓ which changed the term to To be guilty of the actor of remission charged, but insane, so as to not be responsible according to the law for his actions. ⁓ Queen Victoria didn't like the term not guilty by reason of insanity because apparently she was the target of a lot of threats and attempts by mentally ill folk. And so she wanted to make sure that they were found guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity. The idea of automatism, this like your body's doing something and you're not conscious of it, started showing up in the 1950s. And is generally meant to cover situations where you're literally unconscious or otherwise unaware, sleepwalking right after a head injury, when your brain's not all there right now, or while under the influence of intoxicants. ⁓ And essentially means that it's action without conscious volition. And it bridges that standard between the standard insanity defenses, which is I didn't know it was wrong because I was insane, with these kind of ⁓ like transient hyster hysterical lack of memory type thing. Judah: Okay. Let let's let's for a second, because God forbid any non lawyers are listening to this, bless your hearts, the insanity defense is really misunderstood and very difficult. Frankie: Mm-hmm. It is. Well, it is it is very difficult, ⁓ in modern, you know, organ law that you and I practice. Judah: Well, Oregon so Oregon follows the trends of most other states in in the standards that they set. I want to say that it's just Vermont that really substantially diff like deviates from this. But you being one of the two major experts in the entire state on civil commitments, I'm sure can explain to us what Frankie: Mm-hmm. Yeah. Judah: What a guilty except for insanity verdict means. Frankie: Right. So in Oregon, what it guilty except for except for insanity verdict, it means because of some sort of qualifying mental disorder, and in Oregon, we actually exclude ⁓ intellectual disability from this. It's purely mental disease or defect. Usually we're talking about things like sp pretty significant mental illnesses like schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, bipolar disorder with psychotic features, things like that. And it's because of the mental disease or defect. ⁓ you are either unable to conform your actions to the law or you are unable to understand that you what you are doing is unlawful. And it tak it requires medical ⁓ medical testimony you need to have a doctor examine your client. ⁓ it's a very rigorous examination. The state also has the opportunity to examine your client. It is also very it can be very, very tiring to your client, especially when they are it takes a lot of effort for them to mask and and and have a conversation with people. If they are then, you know, you go through the trial or you the the state stipulates that yeah, GEI is appropriate here. ⁓ the person is then committed to what's called the psychiatric security review board. ⁓ it is, you know, a board just like the parole board at prisons. ⁓ And they are generally put in the state hospital. They can be in the state hospital for up to the ⁓ maximum penalty for the crime, not even like the grid block sentence. Oregon has this felony sentencing grid where you compare criminal history to the seriousness of the crime and you come out with a four month date range of how long that person can go to prison for. This is is just probation. Yeah. Judah: Well like possession of meth is presumptive it will if you want to do prison instead of do probation, you can do so it's ten days jail, ⁓ eighteen months probation, or it's one month jail, one year post prison supervision. But you can get up to five years in prison for it. Frankie: Yeah. Correct. Yep. Right. So if someone it it because it's a C felony, it's up to five years. And so if someone it'd be weird to do it on a drug charge, but since you brought up drug charges, we'll just we'll just do that. If somebody were to be found GEI on a C felony, regardless of where they fall on the grid, they could potentially be at the state hospital for up to that five years. So it's it's pretty significant. It's hard to get. Judah: I got one on a drug charge. Frankie: That's amazing. Judah: Remember that guy whose mom stalked me and like sent the blank coloring book pages and wrote creepy notes around them? It was that guy. Frankie: ⁓ yep. Yep. ⁓ okay. There you go. ⁓ Judah: And it was on a probation violation. Hang on, I'm gonna get a little rum. We're gonna really get into this. Right? Here's what here here's what we're doing. I will be back in one second. Frankie: Ha ha ha. Okay. Judah: Right. So lawyer time. We also have aid and assist. Frankie: So ⁓ that's a whole nother can of worms. That is if you are mentally ill to the point where or ⁓ this will does apply to ⁓ intellectual disability, to the point where you can't either understand what's going on, cooperate with counsel, understand the like the moving bits of the ⁓ court system, ⁓ you can you will get ordered to some sort of restoration, be that at the hospital again. Judah: And it Frankie: Or in the community. ⁓ there's a change in the law recently that codified some federal court cases ⁓ in terms of the length of time somebody can spend at the state hospital for restoration. It also shortened the amount of time that people can stay on community restoration, which means they're they're stable enough to be out of the hospital or they've timed out at the hospital ⁓ and they're getting treatment in the community. It used to be that you could just be on community restoration forever. And they've finally given timelines for that. So it'll be a lot easier for people on community restoration to be found to not be able to be restored to competency and get their cases dismissed. So that was one of the good things that came out of that very, very long, very not great bill. Judah: Well, for I mean that's that's what we were talking about for juveniles, so for your friends who don't know me and it's not just my mom who's listening, I exclusively practice juvenile law, which means all of my what you could call defendant clients, they're not actually defendants, are kids. They're all kids. They're all youth. ⁓ yeah, they're not called defendant, they're called youth. And ⁓ Frankie: Their youth. Judah: I've had doctors opine to me that at least at least half of all 13-year-olds cannot aid and assist me as their lawyer because their brain just hasn't developed enough to be able to understand the nature of the proceedings. That's the law. So you to understand the nature of the proceedings. You have to be able to participate. And they just can't do it. But Frankie: Mm-hmm. Right. Judah: Because youth is not a disease or defect and is a temporary state, when I'm arguing that these kids should not be proceeding forward with their ⁓ hearings or with the prosecution, it cannot be because of their young age. So I will get psychological examinations that are like, child has Mild attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Strongly exacerbated by but so you have to have something to get him in there. Frankie: Yep. You have to have some sort of qualifying mental disorder. Yep. Judah: And that is what gets us in the door, even though everything they're explaining is just like the foibles of youth. But for kids and so much is like, well, we ⁓ this child might be able to aid and assist with natural brain development. ⁓ it's just waiting. You know, let's give this kid some flashcards and Frankie: Yeah. And that's a lot of what they do at the state hospital, aside from like getting people stable on their medications, is just giving them flashcards to essentially rote memorize. Although I will say that the doctors at the forensic evaluation service at the state hospital have gotten a lot better with catching when people are just doing rote memorization and they're actually asking about like, so how does that apply to your case? And Judah: Yeah. Frankie: Which thank God, 'cause I had I I used to have so many people coming back who had just wrote memorized the cards and they were still not fit. But that's a Judah: I I had I had so many clients, I had a kiddo before the bill passed. He had spent eighteen months in restorative services, repeatedly been found unable to aid and assist. And at last they said, ⁓ he can he can't aid and assist 'cause he'd answered all the questions correctly. He just had the ev evaluation so many times. So my evaluator came back and talked to him and he he by then had forgotten some of the answers. It had only been a couple of weeks. Frankie: Mm. Yeah. Judah: ⁓ since his last exam. That was maybe like a month. ⁓ But like the big question was that wasn't asked is what would you do? 'Cause he liked me and I had told the evaluator, and the evaluator said, What would you do if Judah told you to do this? And the kid said, Well, I just do that. I said, Would you think about it? He said, No. And the evaluation was like, Why would you think about it? He's ⁓ because Judah likes me and he never Frankie: Mm-hmm. Judah: Tell me to do anything that wasn't good for me. And we're like, ooh, like that is very sweet, but that is the absolute wrong answer. I never tell you to do anything. Well I do. I a lot of times like, shut up. Shut up. But I'm not here to make decisions about your case. ⁓ we're frozen. Ooh. ⁓ we were frozen for a second. Frankie: That's very sweet, but that's the wrong answer. ⁓ I mean that that is a thing that you tell them to do yes. ⁓ okay. I think everything seems to be going. ⁓ so anyways, tying this yes So tying this back in. Judah: Yes. Thank you for the rabbit hole for Hi Mom. Frankie: Again, if the if there's a combination of mental disease or ⁓ and automatism, there's a question it's a question for the jury as to which controls. ⁓ sorry, backing up a sec. There is some conflicting case law that the ⁓ Ontario Court of Appeals was dealing with. one case essentially says that if there's a combination, it's a questi ⁓ of whether it's ⁓ a mental disease or defect and possibly non-insane automatism, that it's up to the jury to decide. But there's another opinion that says it's error to put automatism to the jury if there's evidence of disease of the mind. So we've got some conflicting case law going on. ⁓ And there was a case where insanity was found ⁓ when there was a psychological blow and the person had an under when the person had an underlying psychotic disorder. ⁓ and so non-insane automatism was upheld with ample evidence the defendant was not in control of his actions. ⁓ So just there's some conflicting case law in this realm of like sometimes it works if you like sometimes you can get the the non-insane even if you have the underlying defect, depending on how it connects. Sometimes but like, you know, it it's up to the jury, it's not up to the jury. Like there there's also this case was gonna go up to the country court, like regardless, because there's all this mishmashed case law. so Automatism in and of itself is what's called a malfunction of the mind, as opposed to a disease of the mind, because it's essentially a dissociation. ⁓ and this is going back to the Midnotten rule, which had been in place for Decades. and the monoton rule says the jurors ought to be told in all cases that every man is presumed to be sane, and to possess a sufficient degree of reason and responsibility for his crimes until the contrary be proved to their satisfaction, and to establish a defense on the ground of insanity, it must be clearly proved that at the time of committing the act, the party accused was laboring under such defective reason from disease of the mind as to not know the nature and quality of the act he was doing. If he did know it, that he did not know. know what he was doing was wrong. So essentially you can see like this Met Notten rule, which had been the the common law rule for ages, kind of got incorporated Yeah, how that how that got incorporated into that ⁓ criminal rule 16 that we talked about earlier. ⁓ so it's all sort of the same thing. There's this presumption that everybody's sane until proven otherwise, and you have to have either that ⁓ Judah: And was the common law rule in America too? This is a cross. Frankie: Not under because of the disease or defect, not understanding that your actions were unlawful or inability to control your actions ⁓ in conformance with the law. So the Court of Appeal determined that ordinary stressors or different disappointments of life life, i.e. being rejected, ⁓ did not constitute an external cause, but rather an external factor that triggers automatism dis or dissociative state due to an individual's psychological or emotional makeup. So, because of whatever underlying this dude was dealing with. It it has to be an insane automatism, not a non-insane automatism. ⁓ Judah: So the difference there is that they're they're gonna jump around extensively to put this guy somewhere for some period of time because he almost killed an innocent woman. Frankie: Yes. Yes. And so essentially I I I think it just didn't sit well with the Court of Appeal that ⁓ like this dude was walking free and essentially claiming that I just had a moment. ⁓ and that there had to be something in underlying in like his psyche, whether it's some sort of underlying trauma or whatever that has to have been the basis for him having that dissociative state. And so they ⁓ They said that he it had to be an insanity defense. So they reversed it and sent it back down for ⁓ determination of placement and whether or not it was a continuing issue that would require him to be held and treated, or if it was not. ⁓ essentially they had a concern that he was feigning the automatism. Right? Judah: What Frankie: So he then said, fuck that, and appealed it to the c to the country court, which is their Supreme Court. ⁓ and this was a case I had to read the dissent first to figure out what the fuck was going on. because it was one of those cases like so for people who people for, you know, the people who listening who aren't attorneys, ⁓ when something gets up to what the higher courts and it's it's panels of judges as opposed to a single judge. And there's ⁓ majority and dissenting opinions. Essentially, people kind of cluster around a couple different ideas. Somebody gets nominated to write the majority and to write the dissent. And then once they're written, they vote. and if it seems like more people are going to be leaning one way or the other, they kind of write that one as the majority opinion. It's more in-depth, it's more explanatory. And then sometimes at the last minute, somebody swaps their vote. And then you have this kind of bare-bones skeleton of a thing that's the majority opinion, and then a really lengthy, really in-depth, really explanatory descent, because that was supposed to be the majority opinion, and then somebody jumped ship. So I think that's what happened here. ⁓ because it had to read the dissent to understand what was going on. and so like most of what we're talking about so far has come from the dissents analysis of what has happened. But the majority opinion. ⁓ essentially said, Yep, sounds good. ⁓ w that needs to go back down and Judah: What we call an AWAP affirmed without opinion. Frankie: Yeah, so ⁓ you know, the question in front of the the country court is whether he was essentially whether he needs to be committed to an institution. That's the issue that got all the way up. and they found that the disease of the mind is a question of law for the judge, but whether the evidence conforms to that is a question for the jury. So this is this is pretty familiar to trial attorneys. The judge will charge on what the law is. If you've ever been on a jury and the judge reads you that really long list of what everything means and you kind of zone out and then you get a copy of it because you zoned out. the judge's job is to tell the jury what the law is, and then the jury then takes that information and takes all the facts that they listen to and applies the facts to the law and comes with a up with a a with a a a a solution. So the definition that the court used for automatism. Is that it is a term used to describe an unconscious and voluntary behavior ⁓ and the state of a person who, through though culpable of action, is not conscious of what he's doing, it means an unconscious and involuntary act where the mind does not go with what is being done. So essentially, your brain took a little break, you went and did something illegal, and then your brain came back. and the central question. On on this automatism is whether or not the person is suffering from a disease of the mind, ⁓ which they defined as a condition or weakness internal to the accused, ⁓ and it's not transient. So essentially they said a true mental disease is a def it is a defense, being pissed off is not, because being pissed off is transient. ⁓ yeah, right? And so ⁓ Judah: That makes sense. Frankie: These external blows, which is sort of like what caused this guy's alleged automatism, ⁓ are to be decided on a case-by-case basis. But it needs to be a serious attack on someone's health or safety, even when they've escaped physical injury or if they've seen like a loved one assaulted, essentially the level of external blow That is sufficient for a non-insane automatism is like you literally just escaped death. Or your your your loved one is being attacked, right? That sort of like heat of passion defense type thing that we're thinking about, that's being pissed off, right? This is this is more than that. This is it has to be some sort of traumatic event. Judah: Well, what they're getting to since we're doing legal analysis is what what we would refer to as voluntariness. The voluntariness of the crime. So if we think about a like somebody could do something that is a crime but it's involuntary and it's not because of anything they did and the I think the classic law school example is somebody has ⁓ is driving a car and has their first seizure ever and has has no experience and then they crash their car into somebody else that Frankie: Yep, exactly. Judah: That was completely involuntary. Frankie: That yep, that it that will not carry with it criminal culpability. but the the country court of Canada said being rejected by a girl is not sufficient ⁓ to substantiate the external blow theory, and that the fact that he is putting that forward suggests that he has some sort of disease of the mind. Judah: So he's gotta he's gotta have some sort of disease of the mind. I don't care. Frankie: He's gotta have something something underlying that made him completely dissociate when she said that she thought of him as just a friend. Judah: 'Cause that's gotta be a nor a normal event for this guy. Frankie: Yeah, it has so essentially it if in order for the non insane automatism defense to fly, it has to be somebody something that a normal person would do. A normal person doesn't dissociate and beat the shit out of somebody when they have somebody tell them they're not that into you. Judah: Like she didn't he didn't just watch her stab his mother. She's like, I don't want to go on a date with you. That's very normal. Frankie: Mm-hmm. Yeah. Yep. ⁓ the quote that I pulled was It seems to me that his infatuation with this young woman had created an abnormal condition in his mind under the influence of which he acted unnaturally and violently to an imagined slight to which a normal person would not have reacted in the same manner. Judah: So where d where did this guy wind wind up, Frank? Frankie: I was so I was not able to find any sort of like news or ⁓ source or anything on it. ⁓ I did find a really pissed off law review article about it. so this case was the first in a series of cases talking about this non insane automatism defense. ⁓ this was a ⁓ article written in the McGill Law Journal by Patrick Healy. Judah: Ha ha ha. Frankie: And it explains that again it's a question of law for the judge, ⁓ to determine whether the ju jury could find automatism, ⁓ and that the presumption is for insane automatism unless the situation was so shocking that the normal person would have reacted in the autonomic state, right? Kind of the same stuff we've been talking about. ⁓ Judah: Like to to really what I what I would think about like it sets off your autonomic reaction. Your automatic nervous system. Fight or flight. Not tackle someone to the ground, bash her over the head with a rock that you've had to take out of your bag and then stra and wrapped it in a cloth and then strangle her. Frankie: Exactly. Exactly. Fight or flight. Yep. And wrapped it in a cloth. Yep. Yep. Judah: It it would be I mean, there's many things that we could think of. We've we've had interesting examples. Like I had a ⁓ a client with very, very, very severe post-traumatic stress disorder who ha had a at a like a construction site. Something happened at the construction site, there was some danger, and he Frankie: Mm-hmm. Judah: was like severely triggered, so he jammed his foot onto the gas pedal and wound up drive almost hitting a construction worker and driving his car up an embankment and getting it stuck. Frankie: Right, but but PTSD is a qualifying mental disorder. Judah: It is a qualifying but if you're talking about what it cost you know, what it caused him to do, just he he just jammed his foot onto the gas. There was not like Yeah. Frankie: Yeah, the fight or flight. Mm-hmm. Yeah, he wasn't thinking, he was just doing. And that's that's what that's what they're trying to to talk about. ⁓ so essentially any claim of automatism must be cons so this this guy is is the who was writing this law review article is essentially saying that any claim of aut ⁓ automatism must be considered a mental disorder if there's an if the underlying condition presents a continuing danger. And the judge cannot send both the sane and insane automatism to the jury. and a not guilty verdict cannot be rendered on automatism unless it is proved on the balance of the probabilities. So where he gets kind of catty about it, is that the courts are appl applying this air of reality test, which nobody really knows what it means. right? It's vibes. Judah: I hate it when you do that. Frankie: So he looked at an Ireland case ⁓ where they used ⁓ fossile mouthing as the standard for something to be put to the jury. Essentially, it can only be put to the jury if it's supported by relevant and sufficient evidence. ⁓ and due to the court's skepticism of the non-insane automatism, this places a hefty burden on the accused and essentially requires expert testimony. ⁓ There and he expresses some concern that it eliminates the defense of the non insane automatism completely because of the necessity to prove that a normal person would have acted this way. Judah: It's th this g I mean if you if you're reading this, this was a like being violent, having a low opinion of women, having an opinion that a woman is there to meet your needs and she is not her own independent Frankie: ⁓ Mm-hmm. Right. ⁓ this dude's hundred percent like incel. Like, no question and it was actually like what I love was it was in the the there was like this stipulated set of facts that ⁓ w when ⁓ they it got sent up on appeal and the agreed statement of facts says the appellant has never dated any other girl for any length of time and had only minimal a minimal amount of sexual experience. He was an introvert and he was infatuated with this girl. Like that was in the agreed statement of facts that got sent up to the appellate. Like hundred percent incel. Judah: So here's the thing. ⁓ my ⁓ microphone was unplugged for part of this, but you could hear me the whole time. Can you still hear me? Frankie: Yes. Yes. Judah: Alright, we're gonna actually switch it over to 'cause I I spent so much time and money on this thing. ⁓ it's not available. It's just switched me to my it's been on my MacBook this whole time. So this entire adventure to get this microphone. Frankie: ⁓ my gosh. So wrapping up this law review article, ⁓ it ⁓ he notes that typically the court isn't supposed to weigh the evidence so it doesn't step on the jury's toes. ⁓ but the standard the automatism defenses require that the judge determine it, even if determine whether or not it can even go to the jury, right? So the judge has to be able to have enough evidence on the record to say Yes, you can have this defense, right? Cause ultimately the judge decides what jury instructions get get rendered. ⁓ and so, some of the cases that came after the case that we're talking about said it would be error for the judge to not make that factual determination prior to sending it to the jury. ⁓ but this guy Expresses concern that with the judge determining this, on the cloud of a sweepingly wide definition of mental disorder, which may or may not comport with expert testimony, can cause chaos on cross examination. Judah: Hay ⁓ Frankie: Right. So like essentially with the non-insane automatism being made so incredibly narrow, like experts are gonna have their opinions on like what whether or not this person has a mental disease or defect. Right. The the experts in this case, and this is where the beef where the descent was upset, ⁓ both kind of said this guy doesn't have really have anything diagnosable, but there's definitely like, but the crowns doctor said there's some sort of something there that caused him to fly off the handle like this. Six to twelve months of treatment would be enough. But it wasn't actually like a diagnosis like PTSD or schizophrenia or what have you. ⁓ and so the the dissent had gotten pissy in that right because there he's like, this flies in the face of the evidence on the record, right? The doctor said that there's no diagnosis, so why are we doing this? Judah: I w I would have like been happy to see that no reasonable trier of fact under these circumstances could assume that this person was not in control of their actions. Frankie: Mm-hmm. Yeah. Yeah, that's that's not they they said they they they went the the they went the there's gotta be something there. I don't care what the the doctors say. the the law ⁓ aside from causing ⁓ chaos on cross, the law review article was also concerned that ⁓ by increasing the burden so much on the defense to prove this non-insane automat to to either overcome the presumption of sanity or even with that ⁓ prove this this automatism because you're like literally in danger ⁓ that it significantly reduces the state's burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt and therefore flies in the face of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is like our Bill of Rights, right? ⁓ So s it it it this guy was just not happy with how this came out. ⁓ but Judah: gonna be a v a very non defense defense attorney. But also I do juvenile lot, I do dependency. I wear a lot of hats sometimes. That's a prosecutor hat. So I'm gonna put on my secret prosecutor hat because also I instinctively h hate the defendant in this case. Frankie: Yeah. Judah: ⁓ I disagree with this law of your article. I if you're talking about presenting a mental health defense to excuse a behavior And you're trying to say that it's non-insanity, that you can because we've here we've had we call that temporary insanity. And the burden for any kind of temporary insanity defense is incredibly high. You only really read about those defenses failing. I guess we could go out and try and find one where it hasn't failed. But it it should be. Frankie: Mm-hmm. Is super high. Yep. Mm-hmm. Judah: Be very high, cause you're saying that I had a blip in the radar that caused the serious injury or death of another human being, and you should just let me walk away. without treatment, without being subject to any kind of monitoring, that I'm okay with the necessary burden to that t to to be incredibly high. I'm fine with that because I've had I'm gonna tell you a frustrating story about a client who, according to the laws of the state of Oregon, is perfectly sane. So back at UVPD, I'm Frankie: Yeah. Yeah. Judah: Valley Public Defender, we both worked when I was still cutting my teeth, and I had just been freshly graduated from the misdemeanor driving while suspended docket. And then I was I was now doing criminal trespass 2 and ⁓ the littering. you know, all the near Frankie: Ha ha ha. Mm-hmm. The the offense of littering near a waterway, yeah. Judah: Offensive littering and a and offensive littering near a waterway, they're different. Frankie: They are in fact two different statutes, yes. Judah: Yeah. And so I was ⁓ these these are not the crimes of the century, but I had ⁓ a repeat, repeat criminal trespass two client. He was unhoused, he was severely mentally ill, and he had a belief at certain points that Satan was gonna come up from the street and get him and drag him to hell with the demons, and he could sense when this was happening. So he would climb the sides of people's houses and sit on their roof. Frankie: That's one way to do it. Judah: And I had him several times and and the reason why I kept getting him is because he liked me, 'cause he believed I had been blessed by God. Frankie: ⁓ I think I remember this guy. Judah: The guy that would burn cardboard outside and put it in a bag and then carry the bag through security with him. and I felt horrible for this guy. But he knew climbing the house was illegal. To him, it was self-defense. It was a private necessity. But according to the laws of the great state of Oregon, that dude is perfectly sane. Frankie: Self defense. Yeah. Yeah. You didn't have like a delusional disorder or something? Judah: ⁓ he did. But when we're talking about s we're talking about like insane for the purposes of being not guilty except for insanity, he is sane as you or me. And he had a genuine and I could see in his eyes. And he would do it, it was the same behavior. He would have this experience, he would be getting these visions, he would cl he would never break anything, he never stole anything. He climbed at the sides of people's houses and the cops would come get him off the roof. Over and over and over. Frankie: I could start on a diatribe about how our community mental health system is woefully inadequate. Judah: Juveniles don't even have an actual inpatient facility they could be sent to for restoration anymore. It's the Nexus facility up in Portland. They don't actually provide any kind of rental Frankie: ⁓ 'cause children's farm home got shut down 'cause it's terrible. Judah: Well Children's Farm was not shut down. It is still operating to this day. Nobody should go there. We just have no other options, but Nexus doesn't provide any treatment. Provides no actual treatment. Frankie: Yeah, but nobody should go there. Then why? Judah: It's just I guess to keep kids in one spot. It's h it's horri w let's let's not get into that. We that could be another episode. Frankie: Yeah. I I was gonna say that that's a that's a whole nother conversation. Judah: Okay. So we've gone through you're gonna have an interesting time editing because your case is very complicated because you had Frankie: It is super complicated. I tried to get it like as as like nuts and bolts as I could, but it was it was a lot. Judah: I mean, if if we're gonna name this episode, let's call it pineapple shaped dildo, 'cause that's what your dude was about. Frankie: We we can absolutely do that. Judah: ⁓ Frankie: Brief reminder to stay on the call a little bit after I pause after I stop the recording so that it uploads everything and doesn't get garbled. Judah: Well then after you stop the recording I can actually change to this mic and we can see how well it works. ⁓ next week Frankie: Okay. So ⁓ next week or next time we record, hopefully next week, I I haven't fully researched this yet, but a case regarding a Japanese pinup model caught my eye. So that will be interesting. Judah: And I will be telling us the remarkable true story of the actual Twinkie defense. Frankie: That that popped up on my list too, but I'll let you do that one. No, go ahead. I was I was I I I thought that that might be one that you want to do. Judah: Okay, I don't have to do the Twinkie Defense. I can also do it. Okay. I wanna do the Twinkie Defense. ⁓ it is I mean the defense itself is horrible, but it's it's related to this absolutely absolute legend. ⁓ Hi I mean with the it's related to the the murder of LGBTQ activist and luminary and pioneer Harvey Milk, whose famous phrase was, Hello, I'm Harvey Milk and I'm here to recruit you. Frankie: Yes. Yep. Yep. Yeah. Awesome. So we will hopefully be back next week. I stop. There we go.