Latest / Unshaken & Unafraid with Joe Pags / Lindsay Clancy: What Nico LaHood Saw BEFORE the Jury Deadlocked 11–1

Transcript

Lindsay Clancy: What Nico LaHood Saw BEFORE the Jury Deadlocked 11–1 · Unshaken & Unafraid with Joe Pags

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: I'm startled, I'm sickened, I can't believe there's a mistrial
• 0:03
  Speaker 1: and that 11 jurors said not guilty for Lindsey Clancy.
• 0:07
  Speaker 1: One juror held out because he believed that she was guilty.
• 0:10
  Speaker 1: All that said, yesterday when all this started breaking, it
• 0:13
  Speaker 1: looked like, I thought anyway, obviously I was wrong, that
• 0:16
  Speaker 1: you probably had 11 that wanted to convict and one
• 0:18
  Speaker 1: that said not guilty. Well, it turns out it went
• 0:21
  Speaker 1: the other way. I've got Nico LaHood on now. He's
• 0:22
  Speaker 1: a former Bexar County DA, the former Bexar County DA.
• 0:26
  Speaker 1: Also a great defense attorney, great friend of mine. Nico,
• 0:28
  Speaker 1: how are you? Good to see you.
• 0:29
  Speaker 2: I'm good, Joe.
• 0:30
  Speaker 1: Thanks for having me. You got a case where the
• 0:32
  Speaker 1: woman killed all three of her children. That's known. Did
• 0:34
  Speaker 1: it with exercise bands in the basement. That's known. We
• 0:37
  Speaker 1: know from the testimony and from text messages and phone
• 0:39
  Speaker 1: call records that she sent her husband on a wild
• 0:41
  Speaker 1: goose chase and allegedly looked up how long he would
• 0:44
  Speaker 1: be gone so that she could do what she ended
• 0:47
  Speaker 1: up doing. Her defense is postpartum psychosis. As a DA,
• 0:52
  Speaker 1: I feel confident you would have brought the case. You
• 0:54
  Speaker 1: could tell me that I'm wrong if you want. But
• 0:56
  Speaker 1: to me, it seems kind of like a slam dunk.
• 0:58
  Speaker 1: We know that they're dead. We know that she did it.
• 1:00
  Speaker 1: What am I missing?
• 1:02
  Speaker 2: Yeah, I definitely would have brought the case if I
• 1:04
  Speaker 2: was a district attorney. Still, you have to. But nothing's
• 1:07
  Speaker 2: a slam dunk, especially in Massachusetts.
• 1:09
  Speaker 3: So in Massachusetts, if a defendant raises insanity, then the
• 1:13
  Speaker 3: government has to disprove insanity beyond a reasonable doubt.
• 1:17
  Speaker 2: It's very similar to Texas here, Joe.
• 1:19
  Speaker 3: If you claim self-defense, you have a strong right to
• 1:22
  Speaker 3: self-defense in Texas. So the government has to disprove self-defense
• 1:26
  Speaker 3: beyond a reasonable doubt. It would not surprise me at
• 1:28
  Speaker 3: all that when they talked to some of these jurors,
• 1:30
  Speaker 3: if they thought, we didn't think the government disproved it.
• 1:33
  Speaker 2: But not beyond a reasonable doubt.
• 1:34
  Speaker 3: So that's a big issue, and it's a legal hurdle
• 1:37
  Speaker 3: that the government had to overcome.
• 1:39
  Speaker 1: Do you know, as the district attorney, as a prosecutor
• 1:43
  Speaker 1: going in, that their defense is going to be postpartum psychosis?
• 1:46
  Speaker 1: Or is that something that came out in the trial?
• 1:48
  Speaker 2: No, they're going to know that going forward.
• 1:50
  Speaker 3: Because in Texas, you raise it, you're going to have
• 1:52
  Speaker 3: a court-appointed expert to look at that, you'll have the
• 1:54
  Speaker 3: defense expert, you may have a state expert or government expert,
• 1:57
  Speaker 3: and then you'll have an independent expert.
• 1:59
  Speaker 2: If that independent expert comes back.
• 2:01
  Speaker 3: And says the person's insane, which is very specific to that,
• 2:04
  Speaker 3: the time of the incident, then it's going to head
• 2:07
  Speaker 3: towards maybe an agreement of not guilty by reason of insanity.
• 2:10
  Speaker 2: It doesn't have to be that way.
• 2:11
  Speaker 3: You can still try the case anyway, but you'll have
• 2:13
  Speaker 3: to overcome that hurdle of having an independent expert saying
• 2:17
  Speaker 3: the opposite position of what you're taking, whether you're the
• 2:19
  Speaker 3: government or whether you're the defense. So So, no, it's
• 2:22
  Speaker 3: going to be known ahead of time, and so both
• 2:24
  Speaker 3: sides were prepared for it.
• 2:26
  Speaker 1: Okay, so you know what the defense is going to be.
• 2:27
  Speaker 1: So what the prosecution did was they brought in a
• 2:29
  Speaker 1: psychiatrist who sat there and said, for her to go
• 2:32
  Speaker 1: through all these steps of planning, for her to go
• 2:34
  Speaker 1: through this and make methodical decisions about what was going on,
• 2:38
  Speaker 1: that person, this psychiatrist said, I don't believe that she
• 2:42
  Speaker 1: was suffering from psychosis. Now, Lindsey Clancy said that she
• 2:45
  Speaker 1: heard voices or her defense presented that. I don't think
• 2:48
  Speaker 1: she took the stand. She heard voices, a man's voice
• 2:51
  Speaker 1: that told her to do this to the kids. How
• 2:54
  Speaker 1: do you counterbalance that? As a prosecutor, you want to
• 2:56
  Speaker 1: bring somebody who's a psychiatrist, knows a lot about postpartum psychosis,
• 3:01
  Speaker 1: and can give a decision as to what she literally
• 3:03
  Speaker 1: did that day that led to the death of her
• 3:05
  Speaker 1: three children, and then make a decision that I don't
• 3:08
  Speaker 1: think that she could have been in hallucinations or psychosis
• 3:11
  Speaker 1: because of the planning that went in. Is that what
• 3:13
  Speaker 1: you started? You try to bring that to the jury
• 3:16
  Speaker 1: and say, this is how we proved that she wasn't
• 3:18
  Speaker 1: dealing with this?
• 3:20
  Speaker 2: Yes, exactly.
• 3:20
  Speaker 3: But the problem is the government didn't vet their experts
• 3:23
  Speaker 3: very well because the government's experts were not good at all.
• 3:25
  Speaker 3: And so the defense really pointed out some critical things.
• 3:28
  Speaker 3: They brought doubt, obviously, to to the jury. And so
• 3:32
  Speaker 3: the defense brought an expert that and his name is
• 3:35
  Speaker 3: slipping me right now, Joe.
• 3:36
  Speaker 2: So I apologize.
• 3:37
  Speaker 3: But we used him when I was district attorney here.
• 3:40
  Speaker 3: Jason Goss, he's known to testify for the government. And
• 3:44
  Speaker 3: he said that she was not feigning it. She was
• 3:46
  Speaker 3: not faking it. And he believed that she was in
• 3:49
  Speaker 3: postpartum psychosis. And that's someone who normally testifies for the government.
• 3:53
  Speaker 3: He did a very good job because that's what he does.
• 3:55
  Speaker 3: We've used him before here and consulted with him.
• 3:58
  Speaker 2: And then the government used some experts that were impeached.
• 4:00
  Speaker 3: They had some weird finalizations when they looked at analysis
• 4:06
  Speaker 3: of people in the past and been overturned on appeal.
• 4:09
  Speaker 3: They had some really questionable experts. And so it seems
• 4:11
  Speaker 3: like that's what brought that doubt to the jury.
• 4:14
  Speaker 1: You had nine women on the jury. Is that normal,
• 4:17
  Speaker 1: or was that on purpose? Because, again, the prosecution gets
• 4:19
  Speaker 1: the voir dire. Just like the defense does, somehow nine
• 4:22
  Speaker 1: women ended up on that jury, and one would expect
• 4:25
  Speaker 1: that if there are nine women, many of them who
• 4:27
  Speaker 1: have had children, they might have a more sympathetic thought
• 4:30
  Speaker 1: process to Lindsay Clancy. Would you have been okay as
• 4:32
  Speaker 1: a prosecutor having nine women on the jury?
• 4:34
  Speaker 3: I would have not preferred it, but I couldn't have
• 4:36
  Speaker 3: done anything about it. We can't strike anybody because of
• 4:39
  Speaker 3: gender alone. You have to give some other reason, which
• 4:41
  Speaker 3: is easy to do.
• 4:42
  Speaker 2: It's called a Batson-Childen problem.
• 4:43
  Speaker 3: Challenge, but the defense would have wanted more women because I,
• 4:46
  Speaker 3: what I think happened a lot, Joe, because you saw
• 4:48
  Speaker 3: this movement behind Lindsay.
• 4:49
  Speaker 2: I think a lot of women, because postpartum depression is real.
• 4:52
  Speaker 2: I think you, nobody's going to deny that. I think
• 4:54
  Speaker 2: a lot of.
• 4:55
  Speaker 3: Women kind of mixed postpartum depression with postpartum psychosis thinking
• 4:59
  Speaker 3: that could have been me easily, or that was me.
• 5:01
  Speaker 3: Then you had other women that said, look, I had
• 5:03
  Speaker 3: postpartum depression, but I never thought of murdering my children
• 5:05
  Speaker 3: or killing my children. So, and then you had the
• 5:08
  Speaker 3: issue here, Joe, this is a big deal from a
• 5:11
  Speaker 3: that she was seeking help. So she said, look, I've.
• 5:14
  Speaker 2: Thought of hurting my children. I've thought of hurting myself.
• 5:17
  Speaker 2: I need help. Please help me. And all they kept
• 5:19
  Speaker 2: doing was putting her on more and more SSRI drugs.
• 5:22
  Speaker 3: And so by that time, we know some of the
• 5:24
  Speaker 3: side effects are obviously suicidal ideations and then also violent behavior.
• 5:28
  Speaker 3: So all that played into it, I think. I would
• 5:31
  Speaker 3: love to talk to the jury. I'm not sure how
• 5:33
  Speaker 3: Massachusetts is here in Texas. You have an opportunity, if
• 5:36
  Speaker 3: the jury wants to, to talk to them, get their input.
• 5:38
  Speaker 3: Both sides would want to do that. If I'm the government,
• 5:40
  Speaker 3: I'm thinking... 11 to 1, not guilty. I need to
• 5:43
  Speaker 3: really rethink this over. Am I going to have a
• 5:45
  Speaker 3: completely different approach? New experts, new approach. Listen to what
• 5:49
  Speaker 3: the jury said. What did we get wrong?
• 5:51
  Speaker 2: What did we not present well?
• 5:53
  Speaker 3: The defense, of course, wanted to keep on going and
• 5:56
  Speaker 3: that's why the defense lawyer tried to stop and even
• 6:00
  Speaker 3: mandamus it looked like, get an appeal, a temporary appeal
• 6:03
  Speaker 3: to make the judge continue to let them either deliberate
• 6:06
  Speaker 3: or remove that juror that didn't agree, which I did
• 6:09
  Speaker 3: not agree with at.
• 6:09
  Speaker 1: All, by the way. I want to jump into that
• 6:12
  Speaker 1: some more because he did yesterday want the judge to
• 6:14
  Speaker 1: remove the juror that was holding out. And sorry, if
• 6:17
  Speaker 1: the juror is following the rules, isn't doing anything illegal,
• 6:20
  Speaker 1: isn't just going, no, no, no, no, no. If the
• 6:22
  Speaker 1: juror is saying, listen, I believe from the facts of
• 6:24
  Speaker 1: the case that that she's guilty, that person has every
• 6:27
  Speaker 1: right to do that. Is that normal, Nico, for somebody
• 6:30
  Speaker 1: either on the prosecution or the defense side to say,
• 6:32
  Speaker 1: it's a hung jury, but it's 11-1, let's just get
• 6:34
  Speaker 1: rid of that guy? That just seemed abnormal to me.
• 6:37
  Speaker 3: No, and it's not normal for a foreperson to rat
• 6:41
  Speaker 3: him out, essentially. There's another way to say it, to
• 6:42
  Speaker 3: kind of say, hey, this person's not following the law.
• 6:44
  Speaker 3: This person said he could not follow the law.
• 6:46
  Speaker 2: That's different. So the claim was that this juror was
• 6:49
  Speaker 2: not following the law, whatever that means.
• 6:51
  Speaker 3: And I'm not one, everybody's jumping on that depending on
• 6:53
  Speaker 3: what side you're on, and I'm on the side of
• 6:55
  Speaker 3: just truth.
• 6:56
  Speaker 2: And so, number one, what does that mean to you, foreperson?
• 6:58
  Speaker 2: How all of a sudden is that foreperson.
• 7:00
  Speaker 3: The judge and jury, of that person's mentality and mens rea,
• 7:03
  Speaker 3: so to speak? I would have pulled that person in,
• 7:06
  Speaker 3: first of all, Just because someone can't follow the law
• 7:08
  Speaker 3: doesn't mean that that.
• 7:09
  Speaker 2: Juror is committing misconduct.
• 7:11
  Speaker 3: That's really the only reason why a judge should remove
• 7:13
  Speaker 3: a juror, especially in the middle of deliberation, is for
• 7:16
  Speaker 3: jury misconduct, meaning they're receiving bribes. They're looking up the
• 7:19
  Speaker 3: law themselves. The law is in the jury charge. You
• 7:21
  Speaker 3: don't look up the law. You don't do your independent research.
• 7:24
  Speaker 3: They're talking to either one of the parties.
• 7:25
  Speaker 2: That's misconduct. None of that happened.
• 7:28
  Speaker 3: Just because this juror had their own mindset, and even
• 7:30
  Speaker 3: if they said I can't follow the law or I
• 7:32
  Speaker 3: can't follow.
• 7:32
  Speaker 2: The instructions, okay, that's not misconduct.
• 7:35
  Speaker 3: So we were wading into uncharted territory, and I was
• 7:38
  Speaker 3: just not– I don't think a judge should do anything
• 7:41
  Speaker 3: to wade into deliberations intentionally or unintentionally. So I was
• 7:45
  Speaker 3: not a fan of removing that jury.
• 7:47
  Speaker 1: As the– it's Nico LaHood, by the way. Is it
• 7:48
  Speaker 1: still LaHoodNorton.com?
• 7:50
  Speaker 2: It's LaHoodNortonGoss.com.
• 7:52
  Speaker 1: LaHoodNortonGoss.com. Go and check him out. Incredible defense attorney, former
• 7:55
  Speaker 1: Bexar County prosecutor. Right here in San Antonio, Texas, as
• 8:00
  Speaker 1: the prosecutor, would you have not? I guess you came
• 8:03
  Speaker 1: to man, but strongly suggested that you keep these people sequestered.
• 8:08
  Speaker 1: I have no idea why they kept on letting these
• 8:09
  Speaker 1: people go home.
• 8:11
  Speaker 2: Brother, you're spot on. I said this from day one.
• 8:13
  Speaker 3: I said there's no way in hell that jury happening
• 8:17
  Speaker 3: here would not have been sequestered.
• 8:19
  Speaker 2: You have to.
• 8:20
  Speaker 3: We've sequestered many juries before. Either side can do it.
• 8:23
  Speaker 3: They both have a right to do it. The judge
• 8:25
  Speaker 3: did not let the jury know which side was doing it.
• 8:27
  Speaker 2: There's no way. I think close to a zero chance that.
• 8:31
  Speaker 3: You can get that somebody on that jury was not
• 8:34
  Speaker 3: getting information, being influenced, being asked questions.
• 8:37
  Speaker 2: It just happens. We're people.
• 8:39
  Speaker 3: I mean, that deliberation is so sacred that you're supposed
• 8:43
  Speaker 3: to preserve it pretty much at all costs. You take
• 8:45
  Speaker 3: their phones away, but then you're going to let them
• 8:47
  Speaker 3: go home over the weekend.
• 8:49
  Speaker 2: Every night with the media coverage that this thing has had.
• 8:52
  Speaker 2: To me, that was nuts.
• 8:53
  Speaker 3: I think that you would have had a verdict either
• 8:55
  Speaker 3: way if you would have sequestered that jury after two
• 8:57
  Speaker 3: or three days.
• 8:58
  Speaker 1: Nico, think about it. I mean, these people are under threat,
• 9:01
  Speaker 1: I would believe. You've got the pink shirt wearing idiots
• 9:03
  Speaker 1: out front who were chanting and just they're like a mob.
• 9:07
  Speaker 1: And you see the jurors walk out a side door.
• 9:09
  Speaker 1: Somebody's now been charged with attempting to to, you know,
• 9:12
  Speaker 1: push the jury one way or the other or or
• 9:14
  Speaker 1: get there and intimidate them. At least that person faces
• 9:17
  Speaker 1: a whole lot of time in prison, by the way,
• 9:19
  Speaker 1: if they're found guilty. Whereas Lindsey Clancy might not have
• 9:21
  Speaker 1: to worry about any prison at all. But I mean,
• 9:23
  Speaker 1: just that fact alone, after the first day and when
• 9:26
  Speaker 1: we could all see them walking out the same door,
• 9:28
  Speaker 1: you weren't letting them go out the basement where we
• 9:30
  Speaker 1: weren't telling them they're going to go home for the
• 9:32
  Speaker 1: weekend and not see any coverage. I mean, even if
• 9:35
  Speaker 1: I felt like she was guilty and I'm stronger than this,
• 9:37
  Speaker 1: I would have still stuck to my guns. But even
• 9:39
  Speaker 1: if I felt like I was guilty and I didn't
• 9:41
  Speaker 1: have the kind of conviction that you and I have,
• 9:42
  Speaker 1: I might have changed my thought process just to not
• 9:44
  Speaker 1: be a target. I mean, what was going through? Can
• 9:47
  Speaker 1: the judge say I'm going to sequester you? It has
• 9:49
  Speaker 1: to be the prosecution or the defense requesting it.
• 9:52
  Speaker 3: I mean, the judge could have done it on his own,
• 9:53
  Speaker 3: I believe, in Massachusetts.
• 9:55
  Speaker 2: Massachusetts is its own animal. I mean, in Texas, one
• 9:57
  Speaker 2: of the sides could have done it. It's a weird place.
• 10:00
  Speaker 3: Place, at least, even from their jury charge, the way
• 10:02
  Speaker 3: they did closing arguments. I have a lot of things,
• 10:04
  Speaker 3: and I don't know how they do voir dire. Up there,
• 10:07
  Speaker 3: I know they say voir dire. Here, down here, we
• 10:09
  Speaker 3: say voir dire. But I mean, it's just different over there.
• 10:11
  Speaker 3: So one of the sides would have sequestered. It just
• 10:13
  Speaker 3: seems like that's not a normal way of doing it.
• 10:15
  Speaker 3: I was on with somebody, a Massachusetts lawyer on this
• 10:18
  Speaker 3: other thing, And we were talking about it, and they said,
• 10:20
  Speaker 3: that's just something we have to deal with. They stopped
• 10:23
  Speaker 3: deliberating at 4 o'clock their time, which is insane. We
• 10:26
  Speaker 3: had a jury out last week, and my law partner
• 10:28
  Speaker 3: Jason and one of our associates got a verdict back
• 10:31
  Speaker 3: at midnight.
• 10:32
  Speaker 2: And it was 11-1 for not guilty. Same thing.
• 10:35
  Speaker 3: We did an Allen charge. They came back with a
• 10:37
  Speaker 3: not guilty, and so it was a good move. It
• 10:39
  Speaker 3: was a good result for us. But at midnight, the
• 10:43
  Speaker 3: judge had them working, and they were going to be
• 10:45
  Speaker 3: sequestered if they didn't come back.
• 10:46
  Speaker 2: With a verdict.
• 10:47
  Speaker 1: It's Nico LaHood, former Bexar County DA. He's also a
• 10:49
  Speaker 1: defense attorney. LaHoodNortonGoss.com. Go and check him out. Last thing
• 10:54
  Speaker 1: from the prosecution side, now it's a mistrial, and the
• 10:57
  Speaker 1: defense attorney tried to get that overturned because he wanted
• 10:59
  Speaker 1: it to get to some end or maybe remove the
• 11:00
  Speaker 1: juror and get her found not guilty. If she's found
• 11:03
  Speaker 1: not guilty, double jeopardy if you bring it again. Now
• 11:05
  Speaker 1: that there's a mistrial, there is no double jeopardy. He's
• 11:08
  Speaker 1: still suggesting that there is, which doesn't make any sense
• 11:10
  Speaker 1: to me. Do you bring it again? If you lose
• 11:12
  Speaker 1: and you know that it's 11-1, do you prosecute the
• 11:14
  Speaker 1: case again?
• 11:16
  Speaker 2: It would be you have to really think that through.
• 11:18
  Speaker 2: I mean, you have to think about the resources.
• 11:20
  Speaker 3: You think about how you're going to get another jury
• 11:22
  Speaker 3: that hasn't heard anything about this. Everyone has chosen their side.
• 11:25
  Speaker 3: And so you have to really think that through. I
• 11:27
  Speaker 3: would I would want to talk with that jury, find
• 11:30
  Speaker 3: out exactly where do we come short on the prosecution?
• 11:32
  Speaker 2: What evidence persuaded them? Why?
• 11:35
  Speaker 3: What did they understand the burden, the burden that comes
• 11:37
  Speaker 3: back on the government? to disprove insanity beyond a reasonable doubt.
• 11:41
  Speaker 3: And what did we come short? What was effective to them?
• 11:44
  Speaker 3: Did some of them think that we proved that she
• 11:46
  Speaker 3: was not insane, but not beyond a reasonable doubt?
• 11:49
  Speaker 2: So that's something. So if you think you have a
• 11:51
  Speaker 2: colorful opportunity, colorful meaning.
• 11:54
  Speaker 3: A fair chance, that you can get your result that
• 11:57
  Speaker 3: you think is fair and appropriate, well, then you try
• 11:59
  Speaker 3: it again. 11 to 1 not guilty is a pretty
• 12:02
  Speaker 3: resounding message back to the government to reassess their positions.
• 12:07
  Speaker 1: It is. Nico LaHood, let's put on your defense attorney
• 12:09
  Speaker 1: cap now. Did this defense attorney Reddington, was he really
• 12:12
  Speaker 1: that great? Would you have brought it the same exact way? Obviously,
• 12:15
  Speaker 1: the result, he almost gets her off on this completely.
• 12:18
  Speaker 1: And again, like you said, be a tough decision for
• 12:21
  Speaker 1: the prosecution to bring it again. And you might end
• 12:23
  Speaker 1: up getting a 12-0 verdict next time for not guilty.
• 12:26
  Speaker 1: Did he do about the best defense you can, or
• 12:28
  Speaker 1: would you have done something differently?
• 12:30
  Speaker 3: I say this respectfully. I would have done things a
• 12:32
  Speaker 3: little bit different, but 11 to 1, not guilty. I mean,
• 12:34
  Speaker 3: I'm not going to complain too much. He did his job.
• 12:37
  Speaker 3: I think he's a very good lawyer.
• 12:39
  Speaker 2: I like his style. He's a little too rough up
• 12:42
  Speaker 2: front for me.
• 12:43
  Speaker 3: Everybody knows that I get a little rough in trial
• 12:44
  Speaker 3: if I need to, but I don't draw first blood.
• 12:47
  Speaker 2: I thought he could have.
• 12:47
  Speaker 3: Focused on the kids a little bit more because it's
• 12:50
  Speaker 3: such a tragic and emotional case. But like I said,
• 12:52
  Speaker 3: he's 11 to 1, not guilty. He did what he
• 12:54
  Speaker 3: needed to do, and he was obviously effective about it.
• 12:57
  Speaker 3: So I think he did a great job. I'm just
• 12:58
  Speaker 3: more impressed the fact that he's 75 years old and
• 13:01
  Speaker 3: he's still knocking down doors in a jury, in a trial,
• 13:04
  Speaker 3: in a courtroom.
• 13:04
  Speaker 2: So I think that's wonderful. So he did a very,
• 13:07
  Speaker 2: very good job, and I think he accomplished what he
• 13:09
  Speaker 2: needed to.
• 13:10
  Speaker 1: You know, you just said something that really, really is
• 13:12
  Speaker 1: very important. You've got a lot of kids. I've got
• 13:13
  Speaker 1: a lot of kids. People watching, listening have children. It
• 13:16
  Speaker 1: is our job. Our first job is protect our kids,
• 13:19
  Speaker 1: protect our family, protect our homes. We do the best
• 13:21
  Speaker 1: we can. We're not perfect, but we're trying our level best.
• 13:24
  Speaker 1: The kids weren't talked about enough. And that's, I think,
• 13:27
  Speaker 1: why you've got such a divide in this country. It's
• 13:30
  Speaker 1: like 50-50 down the middle. And for some reason, you've
• 13:33
  Speaker 1: got these really loud, crazy people screaming and yelling about
• 13:36
  Speaker 1: how great this is, that it looks like she's going
• 13:39
  Speaker 1: to get away with it. And they never brought up
• 13:41
  Speaker 1: the kids whatsoever. These three young lives are just gone.
• 13:45
  Speaker 1: And what bothered me about the defense attorney as well,
• 13:47
  Speaker 1: and maybe this is the right tactic, you can tell
• 13:49
  Speaker 1: me if so or not, but he kept saying what
• 13:51
  Speaker 1: a wonderful mother she was. She's not a mother anymore.
• 13:53
  Speaker 1: She killed her kids. So, I mean, Nico, for me,
• 13:56
  Speaker 1: I couldn't, A, I couldn't do your job, although my
• 13:58
  Speaker 1: mother thinks I'd be a great lawyer. I disagree because
• 14:00
  Speaker 1: I would have to, my head would explode in the courtroom.
• 14:04
  Speaker 1: By not bringing up the kids, was that a purposeful move,
• 14:07
  Speaker 1: do you think, that he almost makes it like there
• 14:09
  Speaker 1: aren't three dead babies and the most important person is
• 14:12
  Speaker 1: this person sitting here very, you know, statuesquely in her wheelchair.
• 14:16
  Speaker 1: If you bring up the kids, maybe it does bring
• 14:18
  Speaker 1: out some sympathy from the jury and she might get convicted.
• 14:21
  Speaker 1: Do you think that was on purpose?
• 14:23
  Speaker 3: It had to have been on purpose, Joe. I mean,
• 14:25
  Speaker 3: I don't know how he conducted his jury selection.
• 14:26
  Speaker 2: That makes a difference.
• 14:28
  Speaker 3: When we tried that case in Corpus Christi, Texas, at
• 14:30
  Speaker 3: the Uvalde shooting case, we had 19 dead precious souls, babies. Now,
• 14:35
  Speaker 3: our client did not commit that. The person that was
• 14:37
  Speaker 3: responsible was dead and was already in hell. But our
• 14:40
  Speaker 3: client was the first police officer at the scene. We
• 14:41
  Speaker 3: knew we were going to deal with horrific pictures. I mean,
• 14:44
  Speaker 3: just things that will stain that jury's mind for the
• 14:46
  Speaker 3: rest of their lives. Everyone had an opinion, 450 people
• 14:49
  Speaker 3: on our jury panel, potential jury panel.
• 14:51
  Speaker 2: Every single one of them had heard about Uvalde shooting.
• 14:54
  Speaker 2: And so we mentioned it.
• 14:55
  Speaker 3: We tried to show that we were just as angry
• 14:59
  Speaker 3: and righteous anger as them.
• 15:00
  Speaker 2: I would, if I was Kevin Reddington, I mean, again,
• 15:03
  Speaker 2: he did it right because it was 11 to one,
• 15:05
  Speaker 2: not guilty.
• 15:05
  Speaker 3: So I'm not being too critical, but I would have said, look,
• 15:08
  Speaker 3: this system, the medical system failed those precious babies. They
• 15:11
  Speaker 3: failed Lindsay and But more importantly, they failed those babies.
• 15:15
  Speaker 3: And then I would have gone into then and that
• 15:16
  Speaker 3: they should still be here. And we're taking responsibility for this.
• 15:19
  Speaker 3: But this is what happened. The medical community did this.
• 15:22
  Speaker 3: She was seeking help. She was trying to find help.
• 15:24
  Speaker 3: She's hearing noise.
• 15:25
  Speaker 2: They're putting more medications in her and she's trying. So
• 15:28
  Speaker 2: I would have gone that route.
• 15:29
  Speaker 3: I would have mentioned the kids not knowing that you
• 15:31
  Speaker 3: have an 11 to 1 situation at the end. You
• 15:34
  Speaker 3: have to try to anticipate how somebody would feel. But
• 15:38
  Speaker 3: so that's my style. That's what we did in Uvalde.
• 15:40
  Speaker 3: It was effective for us because we were successful in
• 15:42
  Speaker 3: our defense in a very, very emotional, very, very graphic trial.
• 15:47
  Speaker 2: But but Mr.
• 15:48
  Speaker 3: Reddington did it right because he's 11 to one, not guilty.
• 15:50
  Speaker 3: And let's see what the government does moving forward.
• 15:53
  Speaker 1: But you can't get a no double jeopardy out of
• 15:56
  Speaker 1: out of a mistrial. Right. I mean, the prosecution does
• 15:58
  Speaker 1: have the right to bring it again. Right.
• 16:00
  Speaker 3: If the prosecution did something that was unethical or they
• 16:03
  Speaker 3: did something to invoke a mistrial on purpose because they
• 16:06
  Speaker 3: thought they were going to lose, then double jeopardy could
• 16:09
  Speaker 3: set in. But the government didn't do that. They're just
• 16:12
  Speaker 3: waiting for a verdict and they were a deadlock at 11-1.
• 16:15
  Speaker 3: And so this is not a double jeopardy situation unless
• 16:18
  Speaker 3: Massachusetts has a very specific statute that I don't know about.
• 16:22
  Speaker 1: Let's be honest. A lot of what comes out of
• 16:23
  Speaker 1: Hollywood these days makes a mockery of America. Somehow we're
• 16:26
  Speaker 1: the bad guys. They make a mockery of our history.
• 16:29
  Speaker 1: our values, our faith. There's still a place telling stories,
• 16:33
  Speaker 1: real stories, that remind us what makes America, the United States,
• 16:38
  Speaker 1: worth celebrating. That place is Angel Studios. They're creating unapologetically
• 16:42
  Speaker 1: patriotic films and shows, original films and shows that uplift, educate,
• 16:47
  Speaker 1: and inspire. Like Sound of Freedom. Have you checked that
• 16:50
  Speaker 1: out yet? A powerful true story that exposed the horrors
• 16:52
  Speaker 1: of child trafficking and inspired millions to take action. Something
• 16:56
  Speaker 1: to stand for with Mike Rowe. Have you seen this?
• 16:59
  Speaker 1: An incredible tribute to ordinary Americans who risked everything to
• 17:02
  Speaker 1: defend liberty. And The Last Rodeo, an upcoming heartland drama
• 17:05
  Speaker 1: about a bull riding veteran who comes out of retirement
• 17:08
  Speaker 1: to save his grandson. It's faith. It's grit. It's the
• 17:11
  Speaker 1: kind of storytelling Hollywood forgot how to do. These aren't
• 17:14
  Speaker 1: just good films. They are cultural reset buttons. And when
• 17:17
  Speaker 1: you join the Angel Guild, you don't just stream entertainment.
• 17:20
  Speaker 1: You help to create it. You vote on what gets made.
• 17:23
  Speaker 1: You support filmmakers who still believe in this great land, America.
• 17:27
  Speaker 1: And as a premium member, you get two free tickets
• 17:29
  Speaker 1: to every theatrical release, and that's awesome. So if you're
• 17:32
  Speaker 1: ready to support entertainment that celebrates faith, family, community, and freedom,
• 17:37
  Speaker 1: go to angel.com slash PAGS right now. Angel.com slash PAGS.
• 17:42
  Speaker 1: Become a premium Angel Guild member today. Support entertainment that
• 17:46
  Speaker 1: builds something worth passing on. You mentioned the medication. Again,
• 17:50
  Speaker 1: it's Nico LaHood, former Bexar County DA. He's also a
• 17:53
  Speaker 1: great defense attorney, LaHoodNortonGoss.com. Go and check them out there.
• 17:57
  Speaker 1: You mentioned something interesting. Do we know if the jury
• 18:01
  Speaker 1: was 11-1, mostly not guilty, because of the medication she
• 18:05
  Speaker 1: was prescribed? Because they believe in postpartum psychosis? Because of both?
• 18:09
  Speaker 1: Will we know why they came to that verdict?
• 18:12
  Speaker 3: If they do interviews after, you will. Or if they
• 18:15
  Speaker 3: talk to the lawyers. Like I said, in Texas, we
• 18:18
  Speaker 3: can talk to the jury if they want to talk
• 18:19
  Speaker 3: with us. And we take every opportunity to do that.
• 18:22
  Speaker 3: Whether I was a prosecutor and the DA... Or whether
• 18:25
  Speaker 3: as a defense attorney, I want to talk to juries
• 18:27
  Speaker 3: no matter what because I want to learn stylistically. How
• 18:30
  Speaker 3: do we approach this? Did you understand our theme in Vordire,
• 18:33
  Speaker 3: in jury selection? Did we bring that theme through opening
• 18:35
  Speaker 3: statements and closing? Was I too hard on this witness?
• 18:38
  Speaker 3: Was I too easy on this witness? Could I have
• 18:39
  Speaker 3: gone harder on this witness? How do we handle this topic?
• 18:42
  Speaker 3: So I would want to do it. I don't know
• 18:44
  Speaker 3: if that's going to happen here. I would think it could,
• 18:46
  Speaker 3: but Massachusetts may have some unique statute that says they don't,
• 18:49
  Speaker 3: or maybe the judge.
• 18:50
  Speaker 2: Won't offer it.
• 18:51
  Speaker 3: But I would be salivating to speak to that jury
• 18:53
  Speaker 3: after whether I was the defense or the government, especially
• 18:55
  Speaker 3: the government.
• 18:56
  Speaker 1: Did you find it abnormal that the judge actually sat
• 18:59
  Speaker 1: down with every juror? And basically, I think this is
• 19:02
  Speaker 1: what he did yesterday. He asked every juror, do you
• 19:05
  Speaker 1: understand my instructions? Do you understand reasonable doubt? Were you
• 19:08
  Speaker 1: surprised that he did that individually?
• 19:11
  Speaker 2: Yes. I mean, you just don't.
• 19:12
  Speaker 3: Again, you are unintentionally, at best, wading into jury deliberations.
• 19:18
  Speaker 2: Unless you have evidence of jury misconduct.
• 19:21
  Speaker 3: Bribery, looking up your own law, speaking to the parties,
• 19:24
  Speaker 3: doing something, communicating with an outside source.
• 19:27
  Speaker 2: I don't want to touch that.
• 19:28
  Speaker 3: What happens in Texas, if they have questions like that,
• 19:31
  Speaker 3: you have all the law given to you.
• 19:32
  Speaker 2: Go back and deliberate. That's it.
• 19:34
  Speaker 3: We don't answer questions. Hey, what happened with this testimony?
• 19:36
  Speaker 3: You have all the law and the evidence, go back
• 19:38
  Speaker 3: and deliberate until it comes to what they call a
• 19:40
  Speaker 3: dynamite or Allen charge because they've let us know that
• 19:44
  Speaker 3: they're deadlocked.
• 19:45
  Speaker 2: But then that's it. We don't communicate. We don't try to...
• 19:47
  Speaker 2: Because you don't want to wade into.
• 19:49
  Speaker 3: un influencing them whether it's intentional or not i was
• 19:53
  Speaker 3: i just thought that was very odd apparently that's not
• 19:56
  Speaker 3: as odd as i think it is.
• 19:57
  Speaker 2: In massachusetts but that's not something that would happen around here.
• 20:00
  Speaker 1: In texas it is uh nicole the hood um as
• 20:03
  Speaker 1: we look to this in the future let's say that
• 20:06
  Speaker 1: they decide not to prosecute again does that mean she's
• 20:08
  Speaker 1: just a free woman Or is she still going to
• 20:10
  Speaker 1: be locked up in some sort of a mental hospital
• 20:12
  Speaker 1: or some facility because, again, nobody argues they're dead because
• 20:17
  Speaker 1: of her? What happens if they don't bring it again?
• 20:19
  Speaker 2: If they don't bring it again, then she'll be released.
• 20:22
  Speaker 3: If they bring it again by agreement, they agree to
• 20:25
  Speaker 3: not guilty by reason of insanity, then she will be
• 20:27
  Speaker 3: in a mental institution for up to life. There'll be
• 20:30
  Speaker 3: a yearly review to see if she's regained sanity and
• 20:34
  Speaker 3: she could be a productive member of society. In Texas,
• 20:37
  Speaker 3: if you're found not guilty by reason of insanity, you're
• 20:39
  Speaker 3: going to spend, depending on the charge, decades in that
• 20:43
  Speaker 3: mental institution, up to the maximum range of punishment in
• 20:47
  Speaker 3: the charge, which is murderous for life.
• 20:49
  Speaker 1: But, I mean, the argument that they made was she
• 20:51
  Speaker 1: was only nuts for the time she killed the kids,
• 20:53
  Speaker 1: and then she was normal again. So, I mean, you
• 20:55
  Speaker 1: still would— if they decide not to bring it again, do
• 20:58
  Speaker 1: you think that the prosecution, and putting your prosecutor's hat again,
• 21:02
  Speaker 1: will get a hold of the defense and say, we're
• 21:04
  Speaker 1: not going to bring it again, but— She's going to
• 21:07
  Speaker 1: have to do this, this, this, this, and this. Or
• 21:09
  Speaker 1: will that be some sort of a plea bargain? We
• 21:12
  Speaker 1: can bring it again if we want, but let's plead
• 21:14
  Speaker 1: to something lower. Let's plead to involuntary manslaughter, and she
• 21:17
  Speaker 1: gets hospitalization for a certain amount of time. What workings
• 21:20
  Speaker 1: would be going on behind the scenes now that we
• 21:22
  Speaker 1: don't know about?
• 21:23
  Speaker 3: Well, you would be a good lawyer, Joe. Yes, either
• 21:25
  Speaker 3: one of those could happen. You could bring the case
• 21:27
  Speaker 3: again and try it again. You could, by agreement, come
• 21:30
  Speaker 3: up with a not guilty by reason and insanity. By agreement,
• 21:33
  Speaker 3: through a plea bargain— You could do a manslaughter with
• 21:35
  Speaker 3: whatever you think should be the punishment, a lesser included charge,
• 21:39
  Speaker 3: which is what the Reddington asked for in the jury charge,
• 21:42
  Speaker 3: and he got it.
• 21:42
  Speaker 2: The judge gave it to him rightfully so.
• 21:44
  Speaker 3: So any one of those things, I think there's zero
• 21:47
  Speaker 3: chance that it'll be just nothing. They're not going to
• 21:49
  Speaker 3: do anything and run with their tail tucked between their legs.
• 21:52
  Speaker 3: I mean, if the defense took a hard-ass position and said,
• 21:55
  Speaker 3: we're not taking anything but a dismissal, well, then you
• 21:57
  Speaker 3: just bought yourself another trial, which I think the defense
• 22:01
  Speaker 3: would take a reasonable plea bargain against.
• 22:03
  Speaker 2: Not guilty by reason of insanity or something thereof.
• 22:05
  Speaker 3: But, yes, any one of those things could happen, and
• 22:07
  Speaker 3: that could be part of the discussion after they talk
• 22:09
  Speaker 3: to the jury.
• 22:10
  Speaker 1: You know what bothers me most, and this is more
• 22:12
  Speaker 1: philosophical than anything, and, again, it's Nico LaHood. It's LaHoodNortonGoss.com,
• 22:15
  Speaker 1: great defense attorney, former Bexar County DA. And, again, it's B-E-X-A-R.
• 22:19
  Speaker 1: Don't say Bexar. It's Bexar. That's where San Antonio is.
• 22:22
  Speaker 1: What bothers me the most about this is that when
• 22:24
  Speaker 1: you use the defense that you weren't competent, You aren't
• 22:29
  Speaker 1: competent to stand trial or you were not of your
• 22:32
  Speaker 1: sane mind, sound mind, when you committed fill-in-the-blank crime. It
• 22:35
  Speaker 1: bothers me because it doesn't bring the dead people back.
• 22:38
  Speaker 1: Somebody still did it. And this just means our justice system,
• 22:42
  Speaker 1: our judicial system is such that you can literally kill
• 22:44
  Speaker 1: people and society never gets justice for those dead people.
• 22:50
  Speaker 1: These three kids did nothing wrong, man. They were just
• 22:53
  Speaker 1: happy little souls. You see all the pictures that have
• 22:55
  Speaker 1: been floating around? And if she gets off on something
• 22:59
  Speaker 1: lesser or even just because of her mental condition, I
• 23:03
  Speaker 1: don't feel like it's justice. Is there anything, I mean,
• 23:05
  Speaker 1: just again, philosophically, not as the DA, not as the
• 23:08
  Speaker 1: defense attorney, just you and me, a couple of guys
• 23:11
  Speaker 1: sit around, a couple of dads sitting around who want
• 23:12
  Speaker 1: to do anything we can to protect our kids. Can
• 23:16
  Speaker 1: you justify it in my head why some sort of
• 23:19
  Speaker 1: mental incapacity defense is okay in a moral society?
• 23:25
  Speaker 3: Well, you know, Joe, you know I'm a Christian, right?
• 23:27
  Speaker 3: And God cares about justice, and he cannot be unjust.
• 23:30
  Speaker 3: That's one of the things he can't do. He can't
• 23:31
  Speaker 3: be unjust.
• 23:31
  Speaker 2: So it matters to me.
• 23:33
  Speaker 3: So as a defense lawyer, this is how you look
• 23:36
  Speaker 3: at a mental defect. They call it a mental defect.
• 23:39
  Speaker 3: And this is what I would do if I was
• 23:41
  Speaker 3: defending her and I was trying to bring it. I
• 23:42
  Speaker 3: would say it's like prosecuting someone for being in a
• 23:44
  Speaker 3: wheelchair because they can't run up the stairs.
• 23:47
  Speaker 2: They're in a wheelchair.
• 23:49
  Speaker 3: They're physically incapable of walking up the stairs, but you
• 23:52
  Speaker 3: want to hold them– but the government wants to hold
• 23:54
  Speaker 3: them accountable. This person is mentally incapable of knowing the
• 23:59
  Speaker 3: difference between right and wrong because of this defect, this
• 24:01
  Speaker 3: mental defect.
• 24:02
  Speaker 2: This serious defect. And I was suffering from that defect
• 24:05
  Speaker 2: at the time of the incident. That's key too, the
• 24:07
  Speaker 2: timing of it. Because incompetency and insanity are two different things.
• 24:11
  Speaker 2: Insanity deals with at the time of the incident, as
• 24:13
  Speaker 2: you probably know. Incompetency deals with the time of the trial.
• 24:17
  Speaker 2: Can the person.
• 24:17
  Speaker 3: Accused appreciate the circumstances and what's happening around them? And
• 24:21
  Speaker 3: number two, can that person accused effectively communicate with their lawyer.
• 24:25
  Speaker 2: That's competency.
• 24:26
  Speaker 3: That can be reestablished and regained, and you can be
• 24:28
  Speaker 3: prosecuted moving forward if you're found incompetent.
• 24:31
  Speaker 2: If you're found insane, you can never be found sane
• 24:33
  Speaker 2: back at the.
• 24:34
  Speaker 3: Time of the incident. And so that's when you'd be
• 24:36
  Speaker 3: not guilty by reason of insanity. So yes, but think
• 24:39
  Speaker 3: about that. That's the analogy that when I try these cases,
• 24:43
  Speaker 3: it makes the most sense to people when you explain
• 24:44
  Speaker 3: it to them. It's like holding someone accountable for not
• 24:47
  Speaker 3: leading you down a path if they're blind.
• 24:49
  Speaker 2: They're incapable of doing it. This person is mentally defective.
• 24:53
  Speaker 3: Mentally disabled, and so they're incapable of knowing the difference
• 24:56
  Speaker 3: between right and wrong and having a moral compass.
• 24:58
  Speaker 1: It's a different case with this case, though, because nobody
• 25:00
  Speaker 1: says she's insane now. Nobody says she's incompetent now. They're
• 25:03
  Speaker 1: saying she was when she did it. That's different, right?
• 25:06
  Speaker 2: Correct.
• 25:07
  Speaker 1: You know, there's a case out of New York, an
• 25:09
  Speaker 1: old mobster. His last name was Gigante, and I don't
• 25:12
  Speaker 1: remember his first name. It was a Carmine? The guy
• 25:14
  Speaker 1: walked around in a robe, like, through the streets of
• 25:16
  Speaker 1: New York to prove how insane he was. and that
• 25:18
  Speaker 1: he could not be tried. And I think there was
• 25:20
  Speaker 1: some chink in the arm at one point. They did
• 25:22
  Speaker 1: sort of prove that he wasn't insane. But that's, I mean,
• 25:24
  Speaker 1: that's how people, it's an extreme case, but that's how
• 25:27
  Speaker 1: people can take advantage of that way that we do
• 25:30
  Speaker 1: our justice system. If you can somehow prove you're insane
• 25:33
  Speaker 1: for that moment, or insane now to where you can't,
• 25:35
  Speaker 1: you're not competent to stay in trial, you might kind
• 25:38
  Speaker 1: of get away with it, right?
• 25:39
  Speaker 3: Yeah, Carmine Galante, they held off on him because, number one, sorry,
• 25:43
  Speaker 3: I know this history. I mean, they had other, he
• 25:45
  Speaker 3: had other bosses. Fat Tony was running the streets, but
• 25:48
  Speaker 3: he was the one behind the scenes. But the feds
• 25:50
  Speaker 3: had video of him and pictures of him coming out
• 25:53
  Speaker 3: in his bathrobe, getting into a car, a limousine, driving
• 25:56
  Speaker 3: around to the other side of the block, coming out
• 25:57
  Speaker 3: in a suit and going to a meeting and coming back.
• 26:00
  Speaker 3: And then they had some people that ratted and rolled
• 26:02
  Speaker 3: over on him and said, this dude knows what he's doing.
• 26:04
  Speaker 3: You can't mention his name. His name was Carmine the
• 26:07
  Speaker 3: Chin Gigante. You couldn't even mention his name unless you'd
• 26:10
  Speaker 3: get killed. So when I said, hey, did you talk
• 26:12
  Speaker 3: to the Chin Gigante? And so you can't audio record
• 26:16
  Speaker 3: the chin. That's a different situation. If you went to trial,
• 26:19
  Speaker 3: all that evidence would have come out. They would have
• 26:21
  Speaker 3: had a psychiatrist. They would have had a psychologist. They
• 26:23
  Speaker 3: would have had witnesses. They would have had evidence to
• 26:25
  Speaker 3: prove or disprove that insane defense. And so here, that's
• 26:28
  Speaker 3: where all these experts came in and why it was
• 26:30
  Speaker 3: a battle of the experts in this type of case.
• 26:32
  Speaker 1: That's right. Nico LaHood, LaHoodNortonGoss.com, great defense attorney, former DA
• 26:35
  Speaker 1: here in Bexar County, Texas. Let's go off of the
• 26:39
  Speaker 1: lawyer stuff for a second as well. What does it
• 26:41
  Speaker 1: say about our defense? state of country or state of values.
• 26:45
  Speaker 1: When you've got a state like Massachusetts, where the governor
• 26:48
  Speaker 1: Healy just a couple of weeks ago signed a bill
• 26:51
  Speaker 1: into law that a woman can abort a child as
• 26:55
  Speaker 1: it's being born. Like during birth, they could still kill
• 26:58
  Speaker 1: it if they want. And now you've got the same people.
• 27:01
  Speaker 1: Trust me when I say the same people who applauded
• 27:04
  Speaker 1: that and cheered it when she signed it were the
• 27:06
  Speaker 1: ones out there supporting Lindsay Clancy. It's almost like we're
• 27:09
  Speaker 1: in this death mode in this country. And unfortunately, we've
• 27:12
  Speaker 1: got a lot of listeners in Boston. So I love
• 27:14
  Speaker 1: you guys in Boston. But unfortunately, this is exactly what
• 27:17
  Speaker 1: I'm talking about. You've got people in leadership that are like, OK,
• 27:21
  Speaker 1: with euthanasia. They're OK with abortion. They're OK that somebody
• 27:25
  Speaker 1: offed her three kids. Does that say something in a
• 27:28
  Speaker 1: more broad sense as somebody who you also do a
• 27:31
  Speaker 1: podcast already Christianity just from what that had on? What
• 27:35
  Speaker 1: does that say about who we are, that Massachusetts is applauding?
• 27:38
  Speaker 1: Let's abort all the kids. And they're also applauding that
• 27:40
  Speaker 1: somebody gets away with killing her three kids.
• 27:43
  Speaker 2: Yeah, I mentioned that also.
• 27:44
  Speaker 3: I was wondering early on in this trial if the
• 27:47
  Speaker 3: same people that were supporting you were people that believed
• 27:49
  Speaker 3: in a worldview the way you're talking about.
• 27:51
  Speaker 2: You're talking about a worldview analysis.
• 27:53
  Speaker 3: How do you see the world and how can you
• 27:54
  Speaker 3: explain the things that are happening within that world? And
• 27:57
  Speaker 3: part of that worldview is how do you assess value
• 28:00
  Speaker 3: on people or things or situations?
• 28:02
  Speaker 2: For me as a Christian, right? I mean, so I
• 28:04
  Speaker 2: understand Psalm 139.
• 28:05
  Speaker 3: I mean, I understand the way God looks at babies
• 28:08
  Speaker 3: in a womb. I look at the way that the
• 28:10
  Speaker 3: penal code in Texas works. looks at a child in
• 28:12
  Speaker 3: the womb. If you murder a woman.
• 28:14
  Speaker 2: Who's pregnant in Texas, you are facing the death penalty.
• 28:17
  Speaker 2: And it's interesting. Why?
• 28:19
  Speaker 3: Because the Texas penal code, forget about my faith for
• 28:21
  Speaker 3: a second. The Texas penal code says you, sir or ma'am,
• 28:24
  Speaker 3: will face the death penalty because you murdered a child, keyword,
• 28:29
  Speaker 3: under 10 years old. So the Texas penal code acknowledges
• 28:33
  Speaker 3: a child in a mommy's womb under 10 years old.
• 28:36
  Speaker 3: So they're saying that's a child. So if that's a child,
• 28:39
  Speaker 3: is there ever a good reason to end the life
• 28:41
  Speaker 3: of a child?
• 28:41
  Speaker 2: And the answer is no, right? And so I really
• 28:44
  Speaker 2: bring that argument to the Texas Penal Code.
• 28:46
  Speaker 3: I shelf my Christianity just for a second so I
• 28:49
  Speaker 3: can reach somebody who maybe doesn't share my worldview.
• 28:51
  Speaker 2: And I talk about the Penal Code. And I never
• 28:53
  Speaker 2: heard someone that's.
• 28:54
  Speaker 3: Pro-choice arguing to change the Texas Penal Code. And so
• 28:59
  Speaker 3: I look at that assessment. I challenge presuppositions. I challenge ideology.
• 29:03
  Speaker 3: That is a worldview thing, Joe. But that does say
• 29:05
  Speaker 3: that in this worldview, in this society today, even whether
• 29:08
  Speaker 3: you're Republican or Democrat, even the Democrats of 20, 30
• 29:11
  Speaker 3: years ago said abortion should be what?
• 29:14
  Speaker 2: Rare and safe. And now it's like at your own
• 29:17
  Speaker 2: discretion and at your convenience.
• 29:19
  Speaker 3: So things have changed. The worldviews have changed. Our moral
• 29:23
  Speaker 3: compass has shifted. And our basis and our definitions of
• 29:26
  Speaker 3: right and wrong are different. And so we have to
• 29:27
  Speaker 3: have a deep thought and look about that.
• 29:30
  Speaker 2: You have to look at the church. You have to
• 29:31
  Speaker 2: look at families. You have to look at parents.
• 29:33
  Speaker 3: Maybe not raising their kids and letting their kids being
• 29:35
  Speaker 3: raised by social media and Hollywood. So it's a deeper
• 29:38
  Speaker 3: discussion that I'm happy to have.
• 29:40
  Speaker 1: What's interesting is that a candidate like this guy, Abdul
• 29:43
  Speaker 1: El-Sayed in Michigan, just said something in the past few
• 29:47
  Speaker 1: days attacking Greg Abbott here in Texas. because Greg Abbott
• 29:51
  Speaker 1: doesn't give people who can get pregnant the access to
• 29:55
  Speaker 1: the care they need. By the way, he's a Muslim.
• 29:57
  Speaker 1: He doesn't believe in abortion. He's just saying that to
• 29:59
  Speaker 1: try to get votes in Michigan. But can you believe
• 30:02
  Speaker 1: that he would say people who can get pregnant? Because, Nico,
• 30:06
  Speaker 1: the only people I've ever seen get pregnant, they're women,
• 30:08
  Speaker 1: they're female, they're XY chromosomes, human beings. Why do you
• 30:12
  Speaker 1: think somebody does that? And again, the whole abortion argument
• 30:15
  Speaker 1: is one that we could talk about at length some
• 30:17
  Speaker 1: other time. But people are picking sides just for the midterms.
• 30:21
  Speaker 1: And I just, I believe the same people that would
• 30:22
  Speaker 1: support what he said in Michigan are the ones who
• 30:25
  Speaker 1: support Lindsey Clancy. Are you seeing that connection too?
• 30:27
  Speaker 2: Yeah, of course.
• 30:28
  Speaker 3: Well, look, I mean, to me, someone like that, I mean,
• 30:31
  Speaker 3: forget about your politics, but someone that doesn't just, if
• 30:33
  Speaker 3: he's truly Islamic and he believes in that religion.
• 30:37
  Speaker 2: He should, he can't take that position. So he's a fraud.
• 30:39
  Speaker 3: He's either fraud about being the religion that he claims
• 30:42
  Speaker 3: to be, or he's a fraud about taking that position
• 30:44
  Speaker 3: as a political candidate.
• 30:45
  Speaker 2: He's a fraud.
• 30:45
  Speaker 1: I think it's the latter. It's the latter.
• 30:47
  Speaker 3: Well, Kate, with either one, all I'm saying is that's
• 30:50
  Speaker 3: logically inconsistent for his worldview.
• 30:52
  Speaker 2: Right.
• 30:52
  Speaker 3: Because he's going to advocate other aspects of his worldview
• 30:55
  Speaker 3: that are Islamic. And then this time, because of the
• 30:57
  Speaker 3: political side he's on, he's going to advocate other worldviews.
• 31:00
  Speaker 2: So, I mean, I call BS on that. I mean,
• 31:02
  Speaker 2: anybody should.
• 31:03
  Speaker 3: I would call BS on somebody on the right if
• 31:05
  Speaker 3: they had a logically inconsistent argument that didn't coincide with
• 31:08
  Speaker 3: their worldview.
• 31:09
  Speaker 2: I mean, I'm an equal opportunity offender, Joe.
• 31:11
  Speaker 1: You know that.
• 31:12
  Speaker 2: I do. And so, yeah, I mean, this is all worldview.
• 31:15
  Speaker 3: And then you get into politics and BS and people
• 31:17
  Speaker 3: just being fake and not being not being true to themselves.
• 31:20
  Speaker 2: Just be true to yourself, whatever it is. And we
• 31:21
  Speaker 2: can have a discussion about it.
• 31:22
  Speaker 1: I got to go. Got to wrap it up. But
• 31:24
  Speaker 1: do me a favor. Give me a prediction. Are they
• 31:25
  Speaker 1: going to bring the case again? I think they will.
• 31:28
  Speaker 3: I think they will, too, especially if there's not some
• 31:29
  Speaker 3: type of agreement. I really want to hear about that
• 31:32
  Speaker 3: discussion with the jury. If they talk to the jury,
• 31:34
  Speaker 3: 11 to 1 not guilty is a pretty resounding message
• 31:38
  Speaker 3: to the government.
• 31:38
  Speaker 2: So they really need to reassess that.
• 31:40
  Speaker 1: All right, Nico, thanks for the time and the access.
• 31:41
  Speaker 1: Jump into the chair as fast as you did today. Incredible.
• 31:44
  Speaker 1: From both sides, incredible breakdown. Thank you, my friend. Thanks, Joe.
• 31:47
  Speaker 2: God bless you, buddy.
• 31:47
  Speaker 1: All right, brother. That's it for this one. Another Unshaken
• 31:50
  Speaker 1: and Unafraid with Joe Pags to drop very soon. Make
• 31:52
  Speaker 1: sure you subscribe.