Latest / True Crime with Gavin Fish / A Guilty Plea Nobody Saw Coming: Analyzing Brian Walshe's Latest Move with Joshua Ritter from Courtroom Confidential

Transcript

A Guilty Plea Nobody Saw Coming: Analyzing Brian Walshe's Latest Move with Joshua Ritter from Courtroom Confidential · True Crime with Gavin Fish

0:01
In a surprising, at least to me, turn of events on the eve of
0:06
jury selection, nay, on the mourn of jury selection, Brian
0:11
Walsh has pleaded guilty to two of the three charges that are
0:17
against him. And then jury selection began.
0:21
Let's talk about it tonight. This video contains mature
0:36
themes and discussions intended only for adult audiences.
0:40
Viewer discretion is advised. Hello there, my friend, and
0:45
welcome to another true crime conversation on my channel.
0:49
My name is Gavin. Thank you very much for being
0:52
here on this channel. We'd like to cut past the fluff
0:54
and sensationalism and true crime and get down into the
0:58
nitty gritty. Tonight, we are continuing our
1:03
coverage of the murder of Anna Walsh and the trial of her
1:09
husband, the man accused of her murder, Brian Walsh.
1:13
But before we get into that, let's read a few headlines.
1:24
True crime headlines, pow. Love me them.
1:28
Truth cried headlines. Little things.
1:30
Hey, we've got one. I've actually just got one
1:34
breaking news that came out a couple hours ago, this being
1:37
reported out of Boston, which is appropriate considering the Anna
1:42
Walsh case. Karen Reed files a lawsuit
1:45
alleging police cover up in death of John O'Keefe.
1:50
Let's see Dateline Taunton, Mass.
1:53
Karen Reed, recently acquitted of murder of manslaughter in the
1:55
2022 death of Boston police Officer John O'Keefe, has filed
2:00
A sweeping civil lawsuit in Taunton's Bristol Superior
2:03
Court. The 46 page complaint accuses
2:05
multiple Massachusetts State Police troopers and several
2:09
Canton residents of conspiring to frame her for a crime she
2:13
says she did not commit. Her attorneys in the suit claim
2:17
gross misconduct. Shielded O'keefe's real killer
2:22
quote. Today's filing speaks for
2:24
itself. It is a meticulously documented
2:26
civil action grounded in evidence law in the
2:29
Constitution. Red Attorney Alan Jackson.
2:31
Alan Jackson, of course, represented her was part of the
2:35
defense team in her murder trial.
2:37
So attorney Alan Jackson said in a statement shared with Boston
2:42
25. For more than three years, Karen
2:44
Reed was dragged through the baseless criminal prosecution
2:47
engineered by individuals who abused their authority,
2:50
manipulated the investigative process, trampled to rights,
2:53
blah, blah, blah. Couple things that one, there
2:58
was a joint statement that came out.
3:00
Lawyers for the Mccabes, Alberts and Higgins denied the
3:02
allegations. They said the allegations made
3:04
by Karen Reed are entirely false, defamatory and without
3:07
merit. Our clients category deny each
3:10
and every claim. You can read more about that all
3:13
over the interwebs. And I just, I really want to get
3:17
into the case at hand. So that is the only headline
3:23
that I am going to cover tonight.
3:24
But for more headlines and true crime, head on over to
3:26
crimecod.com or gavinfish.com. Those are the headlines, True
3:31
crime headlines. Wow.
3:40
All right, with without further ado, I want to introduce our
3:45
guest or welcome our guest in here, Josh Ritter from Gorton
3:48
Confidential. Josh, welcome back.
3:51
Thank you so much for having me. I I really am admiring the
3:54
production value of your show before.
3:57
I'm I'm spending so many, so much AI band I think.
4:01
You paired a band and everything.
4:04
It's got a little Doc Severinsen in the house.
4:07
Yeah, the whole thing. The whole thing.
4:08
How have you been? I've been very good.
4:11
Thank you so much for asking. How about yourself?
4:12
Yeah, good. You're not in the normal studio
4:15
that I normally see in. No, I'm on a.
4:19
Little business trip in New York for, for a few days.
4:23
I'll be, I'll be flying back on Thursday.
4:24
But yeah, so I we did a live stream from from this same
4:30
temporary studio at on my channel last night and I'll
4:33
probably do another one tomorrow night.
4:35
Nice, nice. Well, OK, you have been covering
4:38
the Anna Walsh case. Obviously, you know, you know
4:43
about the case. Just as a quick little primer
4:46
for the audience, Anna Walsh disappeared.
4:51
New Year's Day 2023, mother of three, wife Brian Walsh.
4:55
Kind of to me kind of seemed like they were maybe presenting
5:02
themselves a little bit more well off than they were a little
5:06
happier than they were, though that is I, I think that's kind
5:09
of what social media is. So she disappeared her her work
5:14
kind of let authorities know that she did not show up for
5:19
work. And pretty quickly authorities
5:22
kind of zoomed in on Brian. His story about her leaving for
5:28
a work emergency conflicted with all the evidence.
5:30
And of course, some of that evidence included Google
5:33
searches. It included, I, let's see, it
5:36
included a damaged knife in the house.
5:38
It it included, you know, parts of what appeared to be physical
5:46
evidence of his what destruction or or getting rid of her
5:52
remains. They and they got him, they
5:56
arrested him pretty darn quick. Now he was charged with first
5:59
degree murder of Anna Walsh, his wife, willfully conveying a
6:03
human body without authority and misleading police.
6:07
And today, as they were starting jury selection, or as they were
6:11
about to start jury selection, he changed his play.
6:15
Tell me. Tell me what you think about it.
6:18
Yeah, it's, I mean, you know, I everybody's been describing it
6:23
as shocking and I think it really is.
6:25
I don't, I don't mean to play, you know, want to be too
6:28
hyperbolic about the whole thing, but you just do not see
6:31
this all that often. It is usually these things kind
6:38
of get hashed out, you know, well ahead of a trial start
6:42
date. So the fact that they're still,
6:44
you know, handling plea deals the at the 11th hour is strange.
6:51
And it's not a plea deal. I should be very specific.
6:53
This was specifically something that the prosecution actually
6:56
objected to and they said that they will not, they would not
7:00
accept any kind of plea deal that did not include the murder,
7:03
which they have every right to. And I think it's the right thing
7:05
for the prosecution to do. I know that some jurisdictions
7:10
won't allow this. They will not allow kind of a
7:12
piece meal, you know, plea deal where not I keep on calling it a
7:19
plea deal, but a piece meal pleaing to some counts and not
7:22
to others. Massachusetts does.
7:26
And it makes sense to when you think about it, trial should
7:28
only be about charges that are not in contention.
7:32
So if he's saying, yes, I agree and take responsibility and will
7:36
allow the court to sentence me to whatever the court feels is
7:38
appropriate for these charges, I'll go ahead and plead to them.
7:41
And that's what happened today. But the big question is not so
7:45
much the mechanics of it and the logistics of what took place.
7:48
It's why what was the strategy behind this?
7:53
Is there an advantage to them? And I don't know if you want to
7:58
get in, get into some other build up or jump right into it,
8:01
but I can give you, you know, my, my hot take on that.
8:04
Real quick, I want to get into that because that is the
8:07
question of the of the day. I know that when we covered the
8:12
case of little Emmanuel Harrow, the DA down there in the Inland
8:16
Empire talked about the difference between a plea deal
8:20
with a prosecution and just pleaing directly to the court.
8:23
So it sounds to me like that's what happened here.
8:26
Can we talk about the mechanics here a little bit?
8:29
Did his team just say to the court, hands are up?
8:32
I I did those two things, but I didn't do the first one without
8:37
talking to the prosecution at all.
8:40
Yeah, actually, my understanding is they did try to talk to the
8:44
prosecution. That fell apart because the
8:46
prosecution wouldn't entertain any kind of plea deal that
8:50
didn't involve him pleading to the murder.
8:52
So when that broke down, he, you know, in California we call it
8:57
an open plea. It basically means that you say
9:00
to the judge, your Honor, I can't get a deal with the
9:04
prosecution. So what will you have me plead
9:06
to now in those situations, like in the Emanuel Harrow case?
9:11
That's an excellent example. You have to plead to the sheet,
9:15
meaning you plead to everything. He pled to every count.
9:18
Jake Harrow, the father, pled to every count he was charged with
9:22
and the judge is now going to sentence him to whatever the
9:26
judge feels is is suitable. Right.
9:31
In a plea deal with the prosecution, the prosecution
9:34
does have the power to dismiss counts.
9:36
So usually in a plea deal, you'll say, OK, I'll plea to 2nd
9:40
degree murder instead of first degree murder.
9:42
And you dismiss the other counts and they, you know, they work
9:44
something out, but the judge doesn't have the power to
9:47
dismiss the counts, but does have the power to undercut what
9:51
the prosecution is offering you. So that's why you might
9:54
sometimes see somebody saying, I'm not going to deal with the
9:56
prosecution anymore. They're not being reasonable.
9:58
I'd rather put my, my fate in the hands of this judge and
10:02
maybe the judge will, will undercut them.
10:04
Interestingly, to go back to the the Emmanuel J Caro situation,
10:09
he, if you remember, accepted a plea deal previously that gave
10:16
him probation for a really horrific child abuse case.
10:21
That also was an open plea. That was a plea where they went,
10:24
he went directly to the judge, his attorney and they, the judge
10:28
undercut what the prosecution was willing to offer and that's
10:31
why he got probation on it. So he took advantage of that in
10:34
different ways on two different cases.
10:37
But in this case, it's a little bit different because it's an
10:41
open plea in the sense that the judge has the ability to
10:44
sentence him, but it's only to two of the counts, which I guess
10:49
they allow in Massachusetts in order to say that, listen, we're
10:51
only going to trial on on things that are actually at issue for
10:55
the jury. OK, so let's let's get into the
10:58
strategy of this. One of the one of the questions
11:00
that I had was, OK, if he if he pleads guilty to the illegal
11:05
willful conveyance of human remains, does the jury get to
11:09
know that he pled guilty to that when they get to trial?
11:20
There could be a situation where that comes up, but they will
11:23
likely not just be told of it. Just like any case where, you
11:28
know, somebody may have pled guilty to prior crimes, if
11:32
they're not relevant to the jury, they're not just going to
11:35
be informed of the fact that somebody who is a convicted
11:37
felon. If the, the, the situation where
11:42
I see it being different is if he testifies and somehow denies
11:46
it or doesn't accept a responsibility during the,
11:51
during cross examination. And they could impeach him with
11:53
the fact that he in fact did plead to it.
11:56
But I could also, I could see the judge saying, I'm not going
11:59
to allow this to just come up on its own because that might
12:03
influence the jury to believe, well, he's already pled guilty
12:05
to a couple of things in relation to this.
12:08
But they will be told that that's not at issue here, that
12:12
they're that, that he has been found responsible for these
12:17
these acts that we're about to explain to you.
12:20
The the question then becomes, if he's not charged with those
12:24
crimes, how relevant is the underlying conduct of those
12:28
crimes? Here's an example.
12:31
Alec Murdoch was charged with a bunch of financial crimes and
12:35
then also the murder of his wife and and son.
12:40
They separated those, but you could see a situation where had
12:45
he pled to the financial crimes that his defense team could
12:50
argue, well, then we don't want any of that coming up.
12:53
It's it's it's irrelevant the fact that he committed all these
12:57
financial crimes when we're talking about a murder case.
13:01
Where it gets a little bit different is if somehow the
13:05
underlying conduct relates to proving some element of the
13:11
murder case. So using the Murdoch example
13:13
again, if the motive for the murders, according to the
13:18
prosecution was based upon his financial crimes, the fact that
13:22
he had committed these financial crimes and was in financial
13:25
crisis and therefore committed the murders, they can get into
13:28
the underlying conduct. And I think the same would be
13:31
applicable here, that just because he pled guilty to the
13:37
the conveyance of the body, you know, basically hiding the body
13:41
and the the I forgive misleading.
13:46
Police, Yeah. Misleading the, the the law
13:50
enforcement that's still evidence of consciousness of
13:55
guilt type stuff and evidence of conduct of somebody who had
13:58
committed a murder might behave that way so that it's still
14:01
relevant to the murder case. Where it where things where they
14:06
may have precluded some evidence from coming in is in a situation
14:10
like when you heard during the plea today, the judge had the
14:13
prosecution read a statement of facts, the underlying facts that
14:18
established what he was pleading to.
14:20
And they talked about the resources spent and the time and
14:23
energy spent on searching for a body that did not exist.
14:27
Right? That now becomes irrelevant.
14:30
What relevance does it have that the police searched for days and
14:34
spent a bunch of resources where it has irrelevance to that
14:37
charge of misleading law enforcement?
14:40
It doesn't really have a relevance to the elements of
14:44
murder. So that type of stuff may be
14:46
taken out that they might have been able to kind of pile on if
14:50
those counts remained. But other than that, we're going
14:53
to hear a lot of that same evidence that we would have
14:55
otherwise. No, I, I want to get into the
14:58
question of the hour, but and I'm it's like a Tchaikovsky
15:01
Symphony. I just have all these false
15:03
endings before I get to the. First Sunbow don't.
15:06
Don't. Yeah, the I yesterday we were
15:14
watching clips from the pretrial hearing.
15:17
So we had lots of motions that they went through.
15:21
I can't remember how many of them, but it was something like
15:23
20 motions that they were going through.
15:26
And my audience and me, as we watched those clips, we really
15:30
felt like, man, the, the judge really is kind of siding on the
15:35
defense on a lot of this. And of of course, the judge's
15:40
job is to judge the law, right? It's not, it's not really to
15:42
judge guilt or innocence or anything like that.
15:46
That's the jury's job. But one of the things that Judge
15:51
Franieri kept bringing up was prejudicing, prejudicing the
15:58
jury, right? Can you tell us a little bit
16:01
about that? Because it does it, it just
16:03
really seemed like, holy cow, they are hobbling the
16:05
prosecution or she is hobbling the prosecution on motion after
16:09
motion after motion. I, I, I can't come up with one
16:12
on the top of my head. One that I remember and I don't
16:16
remember how the judge, if the judge did rule on this or not.
16:19
Well, I think the judge did and she kind of split the baby and
16:22
said we'll allow you to make the objections during trial as to
16:25
this one issue. But it was the idea of they
16:28
didn't want evidence of her being a good mother, a
16:32
responsible employee, to be part of the evidence presented
16:37
because, and their argument was what you just said, that that
16:40
would prejudice the jury. And, and the what it comes down
16:43
to is the, for the most part, character evidence is not
16:46
allowed, right? You're not allowed to bring in
16:49
what a wonderful person the victim is simply to influence
16:53
the jury to believe. Oh my God, I feel so emotionally
16:56
inflamed by the idea that this wonderful person, this Angel was
17:01
stolen from us by this monster. Right.
17:04
Well, the counter argument to that though, is yes, you're not
17:08
allowed to bring in just blatant character evidence.
17:11
But if it has some relevance, and the relevance here until
17:16
today was this was a no body case.
17:20
And in a no body case, the question of is that person
17:24
actually dead always still remains.
17:27
I mean, you have to remember the prosecution's got to prove every
17:30
element. And if they don't have a body,
17:32
they have to prove that a murder took place to begin with.
17:35
Yeah, one of those elements is that the victim is dead, right?
17:38
They have to prove the victim is dead.
17:41
Right. And usually that's not a problem
17:43
because you're staring over a dead body and that you're not
17:46
going to have much of an issue of that here.
17:48
You don't have a body and you don't have an autopsy.
17:51
You've got none of that. So you have to prove that that
17:53
person is in fact dead. Well, how do you do that?
17:55
You do that by saying she was a wonderful mother who never would
17:59
abandoned her children like this.
18:01
She was a responsible employee who never would just not show up
18:05
to work. So that was the relevance that
18:07
the prosecution was going to argue.
18:09
And the defense saw that coming from a mile away and just was
18:12
trying to preclude it. And I think the judge, I think
18:16
what you may have perceived is a judge, you know, many times will
18:21
give deference to the defense to make sure that they're not
18:24
creating any kind of appealable issue.
18:25
But on that particular issue, I think the judge was leaning
18:29
towards allowing that in as long as it remained relevant and
18:33
didn't turn superfluous, but would allow the defense to make,
18:38
you know, objections at the time if they felt that they somehow,
18:41
you know, stepped outside of the realm of relevance.
18:44
Am I correct in my observation that judges tend to?
18:48
I guess judge their performance based on whether or not appeals
18:53
are successful on cases that they oversee.
18:57
I know I have friends who are judges, that judges don't like
19:02
to be overturned. They really don't.
19:03
It's not like they lose their job.
19:05
It's not like they get, you know, banished to, to, you know,
19:08
the outskirts of the jurisdiction or something.
19:10
But they just don't, you know, no judge wants to be overturned.
19:14
It it means that they made a bad call.
19:16
And no, no judge wants that to happen to them.
19:18
Just kind of reputationally, but I don't, I don't know if they
19:23
operate in in fear of that, but they certainly operate in the
19:28
with the idea that that is that is something they want to avoid.
19:32
And it's not just about a reputation.
19:34
It's also about they certainly don't want the case being
19:38
overturned and now they got to do it again or now it's going to
19:41
be some other judges problem down the road.
19:43
You know, they, they want to make sure that whatever they're
19:46
doing, the verdict remains. And the verdict is a is A is a
19:51
based upon solid decisions that they've made.
19:54
Gotcha. OK, let's get to the strategy
19:57
here. This is, I mean, I had so many
20:01
questions as I was watching. I was actually watching
20:03
Gazella's channel. I was watching Grizzly to Crime
20:06
and she was live streaming it today.
20:07
And and I was just asking myself, OK, what is the what is
20:13
the strategy here? Why are they?
20:16
Why? Why?
20:18
Why? You know that that's the main
20:19
question. What do you think?
20:24
Well, I don't think this is some sort of 3D chess that none of us
20:27
understand and that they're just far more clever than all of us.
20:30
I really don't think that's it. I know I've seen some people
20:33
thinking like, oh boy, this is some strategy that we're just
20:37
not really understanding. I don't think it's that at all.
20:40
And in fact, I think it has minimal strategy.
20:45
And as a defense attorney, I actually think that it's far
20:50
less reward than it than it is worth the risk.
20:53
As a defense attorney, it's like a like a doctor.
20:56
It's first do no harm, right? I mean, you, the last thing you
21:01
want to do is convict your client of charges that have not
21:07
been earned every square inch by the prosecution.
21:11
Crazy things happen during trials.
21:13
We've all seen that happen. Mistakes are made, witnesses
21:18
don't show up, things go sideways, mistrials happen.
21:22
Why plead your your client to something that has not been
21:26
earned by the prosecution? So that's kind of my baseline,
21:30
right? Well, there may be some
21:33
advantage if you feel like. And I think what they were
21:36
thinking of here is we don't really have an argument to
21:42
towards some of these things. You know, for instance, the
21:46
misleading police, maybe they thought, listen, that is
21:50
something that's going to be easily proven by the prosecution
21:56
and we might say gain some credibility with the jury if we
22:01
just go ahead and admit that and not have to fight that out.
22:05
The same goes with the conveyance of the body.
22:07
But I think what what we're understanding more than anything
22:10
is now they've really pigeon holed themselves into a defense
22:16
again, in my view, wait and see what happens.
22:19
And if at the end of the prosecution's case, you want to
22:22
walk into your case and freely admit to these things, I don't
22:26
think it puts you at a disadvantage to have those
22:29
charges remaining and say, hey, ladies and gentlemen, he's
22:33
charged with three counts here. We're going to go ahead and tell
22:36
you he's good for two of them, as shocking as that may be.
22:40
He's going to testify that he did, in fact, commit two of
22:43
those counts, but he did not commit the 3rd.
22:46
And that's the most important thing here.
22:48
I don't see how that's any less advantageous for them than what
22:52
they did just here. But they felt that it was, I
22:55
guess. But if he holds them now at this
22:58
point to this argument of he did know she was dead, somehow he
23:05
discovered her body, He's saying he's not responsible for causing
23:09
her death, but he did hide her body and lie to the police about
23:14
it. Well, now he's going to have to
23:15
come up with a real doozy of a story as to how and why he did
23:19
that. Well, the, I guess the, the part
23:22
of the whole pleaing to willfully conveying the human
23:27
body remains is that he apparently took bits and pieces
23:31
of her to different places. And I think the prosecution will
23:35
will be able to prove that it's. So what story do you come up
23:39
with? Listen, my wife died.
23:40
I panicked. I went to Home Depot.
23:43
I bought a hacksaw. I went, I bought a bunch of
23:47
cleaning supplies because I just didn't know what to do.
23:50
Normal person goes, you found a body, they call the cops, right?
23:56
And and that's what he's saying here.
23:57
He, I mean, he's, he's not saying that I, I picked up a
24:01
body and I illegally or improperly disposed of a body.
24:04
He's saying I took arms here, I took bits there and other bits
24:10
there. And I don't, I don't see how he
24:13
overcomes that in trial. You know, they fought long and
24:17
hard a a while back to keep those Google searches out.
24:22
If you remember, they tried to say that they that that the the
24:27
search of the electronic devices would be on the scope of consent
24:31
that he had originally given them to search.
24:33
That that was a pivotal decision.
24:37
I think in this case, when the judge allowed those Google
24:39
searches to come in, the defense knew, OK, there's no getting
24:43
around this. You are searching for how do you
24:45
dispose of a body? I can't remember the exact
24:47
searches right now, but they're things like how do you get rid
24:50
of a dispose of a body? You know, how long does it take
24:53
before a body starts to smell things like that?
24:56
And I think they thought to themselves, OK, well, listen,
24:58
these are awful, but nowhere in there are you searching for
25:02
something like, I just killed my wife, now what do I do?
25:05
So nowhere in there are you admitting to murder, but you're
25:08
admitting to hiding a body. You're never going to get around
25:12
that. So what should we do to that?
25:14
Should we just admit to it and get it off the table and then
25:18
just have it a story to explain it?
25:20
And I think that maybe was the basic conversation that they
25:23
had, which to me, I think this is probably the clearest sign
25:28
that he's probably going to testify because this clears the
25:31
way for him to get up there and testify.
25:33
One thing I have heard people talking about online that I
25:36
don't think is true, I'm not, I'm not saying that they're
25:39
lying. I just don't agree with their
25:41
assessment of it, is that just because you're charged with
25:44
something doesn't mean you have to defend your position against
25:48
that. Like, I still think that they
25:50
could have taken this same strategy and not taken guilty
25:54
pleas. I still think that they could
25:56
have, like I said, had him take the stand and go, yeah, I hid
26:01
her body. I found it and I hid it.
26:03
Yeah, I lied to the police about it.
26:05
And for that I am. I am.
26:06
I am truly and forever sorry. And they could have said he
26:10
admits to two of these three things.
26:12
He just doesn't admit to the big one, the third one.
26:14
But for whatever reason, they felt it was more advantageous
26:18
for them to to just admit it and get it off of the table and just
26:22
deal with the murder. Well, and a lot of this does, I
26:24
mean, the, the art and science of being a defense attorney does
26:29
come down to tactics how, how you're going to try to win for
26:32
your client, right? So Debbie asked Josh, with the
26:36
conveyance charge gone, does that mean Walsh's dumpster tour
26:39
of Boston can't come in? See, I, I don't think it takes
26:43
any of that evidence out of the way because the the prosecution
26:47
just has to find a relevance for it.
26:50
As long as there is a relevance for the underlying conduct, they
26:53
can get it in. Whether he pled to it or not.
26:56
The underlying conduct is that he went around Boston hiding
27:00
what we believe to be body parts.
27:02
Well, why do you do that? You do that because you likely
27:05
killed someone and are trying to make sure nobody ever finds her
27:08
body. Well, that is consciousness of
27:10
guilt evidence. To me, that is still open game
27:14
for the prosecution to bring that in, whether or not he pled
27:17
to it or not. This is not like a situation
27:19
where he gets to magically cut apart the prosecution's case
27:23
just because he's admitted to things.
27:24
As long as there's relevance to that underlying conduct, I
27:28
believe they get it in. Well, and one of the things that
27:31
came in the pretrial hearing they were talking about, I
27:34
remember the conversation was about photographs and videos
27:37
and, you know, they wanted to show a photo of a necklace, of a
27:41
sweater, of a rug and stuff like that.
27:44
Well, all of those things were found in different locations,
27:47
right? So it kind of feels like that's
27:51
that's going to be in. Great question, Deb Map asks,
27:56
Isn't it true that they won't be able to show the Google searches
27:58
that had to do with the two charges that he admitted?
28:01
Josh, it sounds to me like you think that's not true.
28:07
I'm trying to think of what Google searches has to do, which
28:11
ones had to do with the charges he admitted.
28:13
I guess the one. I guess you could argue that,
28:16
hey, if part of his conveyance of the body was cleaning up the
28:19
body, than any Google search dealing with cleaning up would
28:22
be part of that underlying count.
28:24
But again, it all has to do with relevance.
28:27
It, you know, you can make something irrelevant by pleading
28:32
to it if it's no longer at issue with the court, right?
28:36
And I'm trying to think of a good example for this.
28:38
But you know, again, I go back to Murdoch, like the the, the
28:43
financial crimes, if they were unrelated to the murder, then
28:47
you could understand where if he had pled to them and got them
28:51
off the table. You can't just bring in
28:53
unrelated stuff like, you know, you know, with with Walsh here,
28:59
you know, it's not like they're going to get into, you know, he
29:03
cheated on his taxes one year just to dirty him up, right?
29:07
It has to have a relevance to the case.
29:09
Well, those Google searches, in my view, have relevance to the
29:14
case, whether or not he pled to them because it has to do with
29:18
consciousness of guilt. Again, a innocent person does
29:23
not usually hide A body. A guilty person wants to cover
29:28
up what they've done and usually hides a body.
29:30
And a guilty person would be the type of person making those
29:33
Google searches. So to me, they, they fair, they
29:36
squarely fall into the area of relevance.
29:40
You know, again, I come back to the idea that this is not 3D
29:43
chess and they just pulled a fast one on on your buddy.
29:46
The truth is the point of a trial.
29:52
I think you just answered the question that I that I wanted to
29:56
ask, but this, this doctrine or the legal principle of
30:01
consciousness of guilt, tell us a little bit more.
30:05
Why is that? Why is that important to proving
30:09
beyond a reasonable doubt that somebody committed the crime
30:11
that they're charged with? Consciousness of guilt evidence
30:15
is often times the strongest evidence in a case.
30:20
It it has to do with what you know, behavior after the fact,
30:25
behavior after the crime having been committed.
30:28
And how would a because it it, it is one of those questions
30:33
that, even though we don't directly say it, we're
30:35
essentially asking the jurors to go.
30:37
What would you do if you were innocent?
30:40
How would you behave? You know a person who let's talk
30:44
about a case we're all familiar with, Donna Adelson.
30:47
Donna shows up to the airport with a one way ticket to
30:51
Vietnam, a country that just cannot deport people.
30:54
OK, well, does an innocent person usually go about buying a
30:59
one way ticket to a country that doesn't deport you on the heels
31:02
of their son just being convicted for a for a murder?
31:05
Usually not that relevance is that that demonstrates a
31:11
consciousness of guilt. And it's incredibly powerful
31:13
stuff because for the same reason that we both react to it
31:16
going like, well, of course not, Of course that shows a guilty
31:19
mindset. So in this case, the Google
31:23
searches, you know, like I said, he's not admitting to murder in
31:27
the Guild Google searches, but he's certainly searching for
31:31
things that tend to show a consciousness of guilt, tend to
31:34
show someone who may have just committed a crime going around
31:38
and disposing of bags at different dumpsters.
31:43
There's no law against that. But it certainly does show seem
31:47
to show the kind of behavior of someone who may have done
31:50
something highly suspicious going out of buying a bunch of
31:53
cleaning supplies. Ain't no problem with that, but
31:56
it certainly shows someone who may have been you don't have a
31:59
reason to clean something up. So it again, it's just this idea
32:03
of posing to the jury of what would you do a completely
32:06
innocent person, would you behave as this person's
32:09
behaving? And that is a large part of this
32:11
trial is his consciousness of guilt down to the fact that he
32:14
doesn't even report her missing. Her job reports are missing four
32:19
days. That is not the behavior of a
32:21
usually innocent person. And he's going to have to.
32:25
I I think more than anything, what we've learned today is he
32:28
is likely going to testify, to explain all of this, 'cause I
32:32
don't know how they get this theory of a person who disposed
32:36
of a body and lied to police but didn't commit a murder in front
32:41
of a jury without that coming out of his own mouth.
32:44
I, I want to talk a little bit about, about what he possibly
32:48
could, could testify to, but I want to, I want to go back to
32:53
the whole, I, I have the, I call it Gavin's Iron Law of criminal
32:58
Mastermindery. My iron law states that if you
33:03
believe you have what it takes to be a criminal mastermind,
33:06
that is the evidence that you do not have what it takes to be a
33:10
criminal mastermind, right? Anybody who thinks they can get
33:14
away with it, they're stupid enough to believe it, right?
33:16
They're not going to be a criminal mastermind.
33:18
Going back to Donna Adelson, I mean, what would it have cost
33:21
her an extra couple $1000 to buy a two way ticket?
33:27
You know, it's like, why weren't you thinking?
33:30
The other thing about Donna Adelson that I just love, I just
33:34
love is the actual physical laundering of money.
33:39
She's just dumb as rocks. And, and, and I want to like in
33:47
cases like this, like most people in their life will not be
33:51
around a dead body of a loved one after a violent, thankfully
33:56
after a, some type of violent outburst, right?
34:00
Most of us, if we're ever around death, it's a loved one that
34:04
that dies peacefully or, you know, most of us, thankfully.
34:10
But I got to wonder, like what happens in the mind of a person
34:17
like let's say, of course, this is alleged, this is charged at
34:21
this point. But let's just say that Brian
34:23
Walsh killed Anna Walsh. And then let's just say he
34:28
endeavored to cover it up. That these are things that I
34:30
believe to be true. By the way, what is it?
34:34
I mean, you have, as a criminal defense attorney, you have been
34:39
around people who have committed crime or at least have been
34:43
charged with committing crime, right?
34:45
What it what goes through their heads that makes them, that
34:50
makes them do stuff like Google, you know, how to dispose of
34:57
whatever it is that they do. You know, what is it?
34:58
What is it? You know, it's so funny.
35:01
I was, I was talking to someone today about just this question
35:06
and it and they made an excellent point that you're
35:10
starting with the baseline of your own head as a normal
35:14
thinking human being. Well, you're not a person who
35:18
would commit murder in the first place.
35:21
Right. This is a person who already
35:23
committed a murder. So if we're really, you know,
35:27
it's, it's kind of a strange question to go how crazy do you
35:31
got to be to buy a one way ticket to Vietnam?
35:35
I'll tell you how crazy. Crazy enough to plot the murder
35:38
of your son-in-law. That's how crazy it's, you know,
35:41
the guy who's crazy enough to do the Google searches, chop his
35:46
wife up and hide her body around Boston is the same amount of
35:50
crazy as it takes to kill her in the 1st place.
35:53
I mean, they are have already demonstrated themselves to be
35:57
narcissistic, self absorbed, thinking they're smarter than
36:02
everyone else. And I think that that's what he
36:05
absolutely was. I mean, one of the, the things
36:07
in this case that will be fascinating to me is how the
36:12
prosecution is going to develop this idea of motive because I
36:16
don't I'm, I'm, it's not all that abundantly clear to me at
36:19
this point. I know they've talked about
36:21
like, oh, it might be money. Oh, he may have discovered that
36:24
she was having an affair. You know, this is kind of the
36:27
stuff we usually see in these kind of spouse on spouse murder
36:30
cases. I've heard a theory float around
36:33
that, you know, he would, he is, he was already in trouble for
36:37
the the art fraud and was looking at prison time on that
36:42
and that there was a theory that he thought they're not going to
36:45
put a single father in prison. I mean, that's an interesting
36:50
motive theory. I I haven't heard that fully
36:53
developed and I'm curious to see what the prosecution does.
36:55
Well, I'm wondering because motive is not a requirement to
37:00
to prove a murder, right? That's, that's something, I
37:03
mean, most of us want to know the motive that we, I'm, I mean,
37:07
I don't think it's, I don't think it's abnormal for anybody
37:10
to go, why would you do something like this?
37:12
And I think you answered that, that question earlier.
37:14
He's just crazy, right? He's crazy enough to, to commit
37:17
a murder. But do you think in the jury's
37:21
mind, that motive, I mean, is it, is it important for the
37:26
prosecution to establish that in the jury's mind?
37:28
Or can they just say it doesn't matter?
37:31
Let's just look at the facts of the case.
37:33
I think it is hugely important for the jury, for the
37:36
prosecution to establish a motive.
37:38
I think that is a huge mistake whenever prosecutors don't
37:42
supply at least some theory of motive to jurors, even though
37:48
they don't have to prove it. And the reason they don't have
37:50
to prove it is because motive is very different than intent.
37:54
Intent is you did something for a specific purpose.
37:59
I, I, I killed with the intent to kill, right?
38:05
Motive is the why did I do that? Well, we don't ask prosecutors
38:09
to prove that because that's mind reading that is really
38:12
asking them to, to prove what was inside somebody's mind.
38:17
And we just don't want to put that burden on on prosecutors to
38:19
prove that. And it's not important to their
38:21
criminal culpability. That all being said, every,
38:25
every Vladir, I ever did as a prosecutor, I would explain that
38:29
that concept to jurors. I don't have to prove motive to
38:31
you. But in every trial I did as a
38:34
prosecutor, I supplied them with some theory of motive for sure.
38:38
Because it is the most natural question that all of us have.
38:41
Why? Why did this do?
38:43
Why did you do this? Especially in a case of spouse
38:46
on spouse violence, It's the biggest question.
38:49
What caused you a person who at one point married and loved this
38:53
person and had, I think they have three kids together, What
38:56
caused you to murder her? If you want me to believe that
38:58
he's responsible, you better give me a good reason for why he
39:01
did it. And I think the the
39:03
prosecution's going to have to do that in this case for sure.
39:07
Julie Martino asks, And we asked Josh if he would have supported
39:10
this plea if Brian Walsh were his client.
39:14
I wouldn't have and you know, I'm not trying to throw the, his
39:16
attorneys under the bus, but I don't, I think for the small
39:21
advantage, if you want to call that, call it that, that they
39:25
may have gotten out of this. I don't think it was worth the
39:28
risk of having him because now that, you know, the, the, the,
39:33
the prosecution's already going in with two out of three wins.
39:36
Even if they get a hung jury on the on the, on the, on the
39:40
murder, he's still staying in prison.
39:43
I mean, he's looking at a decade or more in prison just on what
39:45
he's already pled to. So to me, it was just such a
39:49
high risk to have him to admit to something that they have not
39:52
proven. Like I said, strange things
39:55
happened in trials and nothing is guaranteed even when you've
39:59
got solid evidence of it. So and, and if their advantage
40:03
was, well, we want to gain some credibility, We don't, you know,
40:06
we want to admit to the low hanging fruit.
40:09
You could still do that. You could still do that even
40:12
with the charges remaining, you could still argue that, you
40:15
could still concede that in closing arguments if you really
40:18
felt like it was of value to you.
40:20
But just just admitting to it and and taking a plea up front,
40:24
I've never seen it done this way.
40:27
All right. Now with that preface, let me
40:30
ask for your prediction. What do you think happens in
40:33
this trial? It's apparently slated to be a
40:35
long trial, something like 3-4 weeks.
40:37
What do you think happens? What?
40:39
What does the jury say? I my prediction is that given
40:46
what happened today, I think it's almost predetermined that
40:50
he's going to testify. I think he's going to have to,
40:53
he's going to have to explain if they are admitting and it's
40:57
going to go in there uncontested that he lied to police and that
41:02
he disposed of her body. He's going to have to the
41:05
defense, I should say, is going to have to provide an answer.
41:08
I don't see any other source that they have to provide that
41:12
answer. But out of his own mouth.
41:13
So in my view, he's going to testify and this whole thing is
41:18
going to come down to how he testifies.
41:20
It's a Hail Mary shot. He's going to have a lot of
41:24
explaining to do. You know, I can only see two
41:27
possible theories. It was somebody else killed her
41:30
and he just cleaned it up or he found her dead and somebody else
41:34
and he decided to clean it up. But he's going to have to come
41:36
up with a very good reason as to why, like you said, he didn't
41:40
just immediately called 911, but decided that he had to dispose
41:43
of her body. My sneaking, sneaking suspicion.
41:47
And if I'm wrong, if I'm right, I want you to tell everybody.
41:51
And if I'm wrong, you can delete this episode.
41:53
But I think somehow he's going to use his kids.
41:56
I think somehow he's going to say, I didn't want them to find
42:01
her dead body. She took her own life.
42:04
I didn't, I, she did something horrific and I didn't want them
42:07
to know about it or something. Something weird and manipulative
42:10
with the kids is what I I see coming.
42:14
I think that's probably pretty a pretty good prediction That very
42:17
astute on that it Yeah, the the defense may not be somebody else
42:22
killed her and I cleaned it up. The defense might be she did
42:26
this to herself. The poor woman was dealing with
42:28
so much, so much, and I didn't want our children.
42:31
Oh, man, that's a good prediction.
42:33
I hadn't even thought in those terms because my mind doesn't
42:36
work like a killer I guess. That stick with me.
42:42
I I told a friend of mine, I told a friend of mine last
42:45
month, I think I may have learned how to get away with
42:48
murder, but I'm not going to test it.
42:49
Yeah, it's just not in me, Right.
42:52
And the other thing that is not in me, that is not in most
42:55
people, is the idea of, I mean, have you ever watched old
42:59
episode of The Sopranos where they're getting rid of a body in
43:02
the meat shop right there? They've got the hack saws of
43:05
the, the band saws and stuff like that.
43:07
That is just not in people, that is just not in most people.
43:12
And and it's yeah, this is tough.
43:15
OK, we've got 15 minutes left. We have a new segment on our
43:21
show called 3 questions and in three questions they can be
43:26
questions about anything that typically so far I haven't had a
43:29
guest for three questions there. I typically answer the
43:32
questions, but we do have three questions that I think would be
43:36
good for you. If you are a game to play it it
43:39
could be anything though. And so you have to solemnly
43:42
commit, you have to covenant that you.
43:45
Bail out. You're going to take a leap of
43:47
faith and you're going to faith and you're going to answer these
43:49
questions. Are you?
43:50
Are you game? All right, let's do three
43:53
questions. Here we go.
43:54
It's three questions with Gavin. How I I I feel like there needs
44:04
to be a pow there at the end. I, I don't have the technology
44:07
to bring these up on the screen. I just have like my little
44:09
notes, people to send in to me and I copy.
44:11
So here we go. First question, Josh Ritter and
44:15
I should be I should be bringing up your lower third here.
44:19
All right, Josh Ritter, courtroom confidential for
44:22
question number one. What is something you wish you
44:25
could go back and tell your younger self but you know he
44:28
wouldn't believe you? Oh, you're going to have three
44:37
daughters one day. That would have been a surprise
44:41
for you, huh? Yeah.
44:43
Yeah, never could have predicted that one.
44:45
You're going to have three daughters and you're going to
44:47
love every minute of it. So when you were a younger man
44:50
that wasn't that wasn't on the horizon for you.
44:53
I don't, you know, I, I guess younger man, even the idea of
44:57
of, of, you know, I guess I always wanted a family but
45:01
didn't happen, you know, it still would have been shocking
45:03
to me. And the idea that here I am with
45:06
three, three little beautiful ones under the age of 5 is, is,
45:11
is shocking. Yeah.
45:12
Girls are the best though, right?
45:15
They're the best. We, we joke in our family that
45:19
we have two recipes for children.
45:21
We have five children. We have two recipes that that
45:25
they're the only ones we know. We can make sweet boys and we
45:28
can make feisty girls and that's, that's all we know how
45:31
to make. Well, you, you only sent me one
45:33
of those recipes, so that's all I've got over here.
45:36
Are they nice and feisty? They keep you on your.
45:37
Toes nice and feisty. They are keeping me on my toes.
45:40
I feel like I'm just at all points getting yelled at by one
45:43
of them in the house, including my wife.
45:47
Do you have any negotiators? Our youngest daughter was a
45:50
negotiator. It it always started with no
45:52
daddy, how about this And then. I don't have a negotiator but I
45:56
have my 1 middle child definitely checks on me to make
46:00
sure that I'm still surviving more than the other two.
46:03
She's got a little bit of what would we call that?
46:06
Nursing gene in her. She wants to, she's a nurturer.
46:09
That's great. All right.
46:13
Josh Ritter, courtroom confidential question #2 This
46:17
actually came up. This was a question for me
46:20
earlier. Slightly different, but if you
46:22
could instantly master one skill that has nothing to do with your
46:26
career, what would it be? I the first thing you know, I
46:34
mean, there's so many things, but the first thing that came to
46:36
mind is I wish I were fluent in another language.
46:41
And if, if I'm, if the skill can include more than one language,
46:44
I would love that. But I do feel like I, I, I'm,
46:48
I'm, I'm one of those people that's constantly like, next
46:51
year I'm going to get fluent in whatever and, and I'm not.
46:56
And I think that's a huge disadvantage.
46:58
OK, I'm. I'm gonna take the position of
47:00
offering advice as a person who's fluent in several
47:03
languages. You ready?
47:04
You are. Yeah.
47:06
Yeah. Really.
47:07
Oh, I'm very impressed. And I'm always impressed with
47:09
people who are too. Yeah.
47:11
So when I was a teenager, for my church, I served a mission in
47:14
Argentina. I lived there for two years.
47:16
And so I learned what's called Castellano.
47:19
It's a Castilian Spanish dialect and they call it Castellano
47:22
Argentini Salo. They have a very different kind
47:25
of way of their dialect is a little bit different.
47:28
And while I was down there because it's Argentina and
47:31
there's so many like German and Italian, like what do they call
47:37
them? It's like there are whole cities
47:39
that are just like German speaking and whole cities that
47:41
are Italian speaking. And I happened to live in one
47:44
for several months. And so I picked up Italian.
47:46
And then there's an there's a aboriginous language to South
47:52
America called Gwadini. And I had AI had a friend on my
47:55
mission who spoke it, who taught it to me and we spoke so.
47:58
And right now, I mean, I just made the commitment to learn
48:02
French. I feel like I feel like another
48:05
romantic language would be good. And so I'm diving in.
48:07
But here is here is my here is my advice.
48:10
OK, The key to learning to speak a language is only to speak that
48:19
language. It doesn't matter if you can
48:22
read it. It doesn't matter.
48:24
It, it, it like you're fluent in English and maybe your
48:30
vocabulary is higher than the average person because of the
48:33
profession that you chose, right?
48:36
But you can be fluent in a language and just really know
48:39
about a thousand 1200 words. You really don't need a
48:42
vocabulary. You just need to speak it.
48:45
And so that is my advice. And like, if you want to learn
48:51
the guitar, you want to learn the piano, you want to learn
48:53
some skill, you really only need about 10 minutes a day and you
48:56
got. I, I, I actually took French in
49:01
college and I think I only took two years, but by the 2nd year
49:07
the entire class was taught in French.
49:10
So if you want to call that fluent, I mean, the fact that
49:14
you're having somebody speak to you in French only for a whole
49:17
hour and teach you and you're speaking back to them in French
49:20
only, I feel like that was, you know, the most conversant I ever
49:24
was in another language. But I, I totally agree with you.
49:27
I know it's this idea of, you know, burn the ship's type of
49:31
immersiveness where you just jump in and you've got no
49:34
lifeboat. Nobody can translate.
49:36
You just got to figure it out. Yeah, I when, when we I started
49:41
my language training, they they told us, OK, say your last word
49:44
in English because this is your last word in English and we
49:47
hadn't learned a word in Spanish yet.
49:49
Yeah, right. So yeah, that's that's, that's
49:53
pretty cool. I think you can do it.
49:54
I think I think you should do it.
49:56
All right, well, now I'm more motivated maybe.
49:58
Well, maybe choose French and now there are AI programs that
50:02
will talk to you. That's way better than like
50:04
Duolingo where you're gamifying a language.
50:06
Just just talk to somebody about it.
50:09
I was in France with my daughter last year and I told her that
50:13
OK, we're going to go into this boulangerie and we're not going
50:17
to speak English. She's like, I don't know French,
50:19
I know that sucks for you, but we're going to order food and it
50:23
has to be in French. We did OK, we got our.
50:28
Food, if you want to eat, we're going to, we're going to figure
50:30
this out real quick. OK, last question, last question
50:34
for Josh Ritter, Courtroom Confidential.
50:36
Everybody go over to Courtroom Confidential and subscribe,
50:40
please. Josh's channel is terrific, and
50:43
I think maybe the best thing about your channel is probably
50:46
your staff, which is your wife, right?
50:48
Yeah. OK, last question.
50:54
What's something you've changed your mind about, let's say, in
50:57
the last five years? Something that you were an idea
51:00
you were dedicated to and you've changed your mind about.
51:05
Oh, this is difficult. I'm trying to, yeah.
51:15
T suze, by the way, she loves this game.
51:19
I don't know if this counts as the last five years.
51:22
I might extend it out a little bit just to give you a, a
51:25
satisfactory answer. But I do know a big concept
51:33
shift for me took place when I left the DA's office and became
51:37
a defence attorney Because I, I very much so as a prosecutor
51:42
thought, you know, you, you, you get this kind of dyed in the
51:47
wool belief that you, there's, there's no way you could go work
51:52
for the dark side. There's no way you could go, you
51:56
know, defend people like that. How could you do that?
51:59
And I it, it was a real awakening for me to realize
52:03
that, you know, listen, there are, there are very bad people.
52:06
There are the Brian Washers of the world.
52:08
And then there's a lot of, there's the vast majority of
52:11
people are really good folks who just something stupid, made some
52:15
stupid mistakes. Something, something, something
52:17
really silly and dumb that could have happened to any of us,
52:20
happened to them. And now they're in trouble and
52:21
they need help. And that really changed my view
52:25
on what what does it mean for somebody to have that defendant
52:29
moniker attached to them? Does that mean they're a bad
52:32
person? And I quickly realized
52:34
absolutely not. So what do you, what are your
52:37
thoughts about, you know, defending bad people, I mean
52:43
guilty people, for example. What are your thoughts on that?
52:48
As a private defense attorney, it's, it's, it's a little easier
52:53
because I get to say no. You know what?
52:55
There are people that I have said no to.
52:57
Sorry. That's just, I'm not interested.
52:59
Not my kind of not my cup of tea, not something I'm, I'm
53:02
willing to get behind because it takes a lot of time and energy
53:05
and, and exhaustion and emotion and everything else to defend
53:09
somebody as a, as a public defender.
53:13
They have it much worse because they just get a file handed to
53:15
them and they got to defend that person.
53:16
No, no matter what. But then I've defended people
53:19
who are, you know, absolutely did what they're accused of.
53:23
And I view my job as saying, OK, well, this isn't, you know,
53:27
everybody believes that a defense attorney's only job is
53:29
to like get their person off, you know, but really a lot of it
53:34
is making sure that their rights have not been trampled over.
53:39
You know, that like, OK, we're going to put on this trial and
53:42
there may be a mountain of evidence against us, but you
53:45
know, I talked about this earlier, every inch gained by
53:47
the prosecution is going to have to be earned and every piece of
53:52
evidence admitted is going to have to be done through
53:55
thorough, thorough cross examination and scrutiny.
53:59
And that they're I'm not going to allow them to get away and
54:02
cut any corners whatsoever. And I'm going to protect every
54:05
one of my clients rights. And you know, as a defense
54:08
attorney, often times you do end up losing, you know, I mean,
54:10
it's just, that's the way it usually ends up being.
54:13
And quite honestly, if the system's working correctly,
54:16
that's the way it should be. I mean, you know, we, we don't
54:19
want a bunch of a bunch of wishy washy cases being charged.
54:24
So, you know, it's just about making sure that you're, you're
54:27
giving this person the most zealous representation that they
54:29
deserve. Josh, how does that feel?
54:31
I mean, one of the things, as you know, I think I've talked to
54:34
you about this, I had a real hard time turning 50 last month.
54:37
Like, I've had a, like a, like I've had a personal post midlife
54:41
crisis turning 50. I've and, and I've, I've done a
54:45
lot of introspection and it's, it's just been really tough.
54:48
And one of the things that I know about myself is I, I just
54:51
can't lose when I lose it just, it just really, really hurts,
54:55
right? But I, I remember talking there
54:58
was a murder trial in my area and the, the public defender
55:02
happens to be a friend of mine. And so after the case where he
55:05
lost in glorious fashion, I mean, his his client wasn't his
55:10
client was guilty. And there he was walking out of
55:14
the courtroom having lost a case that he worked hard on for, you
55:19
know, a couple years. How do you how do you deal with
55:21
that? How do you cope with that kind
55:23
of stuff? Or, or are you just the kind of
55:25
person that goes, you know what I go out on the court to play
55:30
tennis or play basketball or out on the field or the pitch or
55:33
whatever, win, lose or draw, I'm going to do my best is is that
55:36
does that what? It no, I'm not I'm not that kind
55:39
of person. I'm I am a person who likes to
55:41
win. I do take losses very hard.
55:46
I I'm also realistic. I know usually going into a
55:50
situation, we do not have a very good chance of winning this, but
55:54
I'm going to give it my all and I'm going to make the best
55:57
argument I possibly can. But but you know, you still get
56:03
incredibly frustrated when it when it, when those results do
56:06
come in and you have lost. You know, I remember the last,
56:11
the the last most recent trial I did as a defense attorney and it
56:14
was a a hell of a fight. And I every step of the way it
56:18
was me and the Co counsel. I'm telling him, I'm like, you
56:20
know what, we we have a shot here.
56:24
Like I really think we made some arguments and every single day
56:28
we're feeling a little more confident.
56:29
And every single day we're like, you know what?
56:32
We're giving them a real run for their money here.
56:35
And the the thing went to jury and they were out for a week or
56:41
so and we're like, we might have done this.
56:45
Get a call. Verdict is in.
56:48
It was, by the way, it was 60 counts.
56:50
Verdict is in and we're like holy moly, come in there.
56:55
And I had to sit through, I think it was about 3 hours of
57:00
having them read off 60 counts of guilty.
57:04
And just, Oh my goodness, painful that was.
57:08
Really, that was painful. That was really, really rough.
57:11
But yeah, it's not, you know, it's a being of, at least for
57:16
me, some, there are some defense attorneys who, you know, duck
57:19
off the water's back or water off the duck's back and they
57:21
keep on, keep on rolling on to the next mission.
57:23
But I, I take them really hard and it's, it's a, it's a, it's a
57:28
taxing job, emotionally taxing. Well, hey, listen, thank you.
57:32
One, one, thank you very much for the gift memberships that
57:35
you gave my crew. Thank you very much and thanks
57:38
for coming on and for playing three questions.
57:40
That was, that was the first time we've had a guest do it.
57:44
Now I, I, I have to, I'm so proud of the segment.
57:47
I have to play it one more time. Here we go.
57:48
It's 3 questions. Wow.
57:57
OK. Josh Ritter from Courtroom
57:58
Confidential. Thank you very much.
58:00
I'm. I'm trying to get you out of
58:01
here on time. I know you're on the road.
58:04
You're tired. I'm so grateful that on short
58:07
notice, I was able to reach out and you came to help out my
58:10
audience. Thanks so much for being here.
58:12
You're the best my friend. Thank you so much for having me.
58:14
Take care. Oh, guys, Josh Ritter, he's the
58:18
best. His crew is amazing.
58:21
I'm very, very grateful for for him to come in for coming on the
58:24
show. I don't think we have any more
58:28
comments. I want to make sure that I got
58:30
everybody. I think I did.
58:32
I'm sorry if I didn't, but thank you for being here.
58:34
Remember that tomorrow is the 26th anniversary of Wedded Bliss
58:40
with my sweetie pie, Snuggly Bear one and only Kimberly Fish.
58:45
So we will not be doing a live stream tomorrow, but we will be
58:48
back on Thursday, 7:30 PM Eastern.
58:53
Until then, thank you very much for being here.
58:56
Go to gavinfish.com if you ever want to contact me.
58:59
You want to look at the merch, you want to do anything like
59:01
that, it's there. And join us over on the Fish
59:04
Tank on Facebook. You're always invited to join us
59:07
there. With that, I bid you.
59:08
I do. Thank you very much.
59:10
And I'll see you on the next one.
59:11
Take care. Thank you very much for watching
59:14
this video. If you liked what you saw,
59:16
please consider subscribing. And if you have any questions or
59:19
comments, please leave them below.