Latest / Dumb Defenses / 3. Breasts and Milk

Transcript

3. Breasts and Milk · Dumb Defenses

• Frankie Hupy: ⁓ Welcome to Dumb Defenses, where we're going around the world to bring you all really weird cases. some exciting news. We actually have an email address now. So if you have any questions or have a case that you want us to cover, just email us at dumb defensespodcast at gmail.com ⁓ and maybe get to you on a future episode. J.D. Largent: Mom, you can just text me. Frankie Hupy: That works too. so I realize that we have not been actually introducing ourselves at the beginning of this. So I'm Frankie. And there we go. ⁓ we are both lawyers, we're both public defenders, we are both wildly neurodivergent. And yeah, and this is a really good excuse for us to actually like hang out on a weekly basis because we've been failing at that because we're both wildly neurodivergent. Yeah. J.D. Largent: ⁓ I'm Judah. We're both lawyers. We're both trans. Yeah. Yeah, and we're both really busy. Okay. Yeah, but we're we're gonna talk we're gonna nerd up, but we're like we're already nerdy. This is just an extension of conversations that we already have. A and this week, 'cause we've got a format now, and it only took three weeks, because we both have ADHD, to develop a format. So we're gonna be doing one less serious, more fun, weird case, and then like a serious, maybe kind of historical Frankie Hupy: Exactly. Yes. Uh-huh. Yep. J.D. Largent: in depth case. All right, Frank, you're up first. Frankie Hupy: Yep. So I am up first. So this case, this is actually going to be a little bit of a different format for my cases, because this is one where all I could find were news reportings. I could not actually find the text of the case. I did a little bit of a deep dive into like the court structure. ⁓ as opposed to the actual case because I couldn't find it. Anyways, this is the case of Serena Kozakura. ⁓ she was a Japanese pinup model in the early aughts. in November of two thousand and six, it's unclear whether was like a friend or a boyfriend she kicked a hole in the door and then allegedly crawled through the hole to get into this dude's apartment allegedly she was jealous that he was with another woman. J.D. Largent: Okay. Frankie Hupy: So like ⁓ lovers type thing. J.D. Largent: this person is a pin up model. Frankie Hupy: Correct. J.D. Largent: So ostensibly, I mean, i it doesn't mean much, but this individual could have ⁓ probably a a wide selection of gentlemen. Frankie Hupy: She could, but for some reason, allegation was that ⁓ was jealous of this dude being with this other chick. ⁓ her defense at was that he essentially made the hole in the door himself to frame her. she was with property damage ⁓ and lost job because of that. and was essentially convicted based on the testimony ⁓ the complaining witness ⁓ another friend of theirs. ⁓ she was sentenced to 14 months in prison, suspended pending three years of good behavior. this is ⁓ in what Oregon we would call like a downward departure, ⁓ where somebody an amount of prison hanging over their head and then they have to behave themselves. it didn't indicate that it was a specifically like a probation. ⁓ which is what would be required in modern organ law. in it was pending three years of good behavior. so ⁓ then appealed to Tokyo's High Court. let me take a minute here to sort of back up ⁓ and ⁓ go ⁓ of how lays out their court system because it's a little bit different than ours. ⁓ So in Japan are five types of court systems. There are summary courts, family courts, district courts, high courts, and then the Supreme Court. So it's a three-tier justice system like ours is. The summary courts handle civil cases under 1.4 million yen. also handle ⁓ conciliation or demands for payment and low-level criminal offenses. ⁓ of, yeah. kind of like a combination of like a small claims court and a municipal court. family courts handle all personal status cases, family law cases, adjudication of juvenile cases, and stuff like that. District courts handle mostly civil. ⁓ J.D. Largent: Like a small claims court, kind of. Yeah. Frankie Hupy: criminal administrative cases ⁓ appeals from cases from summary courts. the criminal cases are generally heard by one judge, but for more serious crimes they're heard by a panel of three judges. There are no juries in Japan, it's all judges. ⁓ J.D. Largent: ⁓ interesting. So s well we would call a bench trial for like everything. Frankie Hupy: Correct. the ⁓ district will either handle criminal cases outright or criminal appeals from summary courts. ⁓ The courts are kind of like the mid level appellate court, ⁓ and they handle the from the district and family courts and appeals of criminal cases from the summary courts. ⁓ So from context, ⁓ sounds like Ms. Kozakura's case was filed initially in a district court ⁓ the appeal was to Tokyo's High Court. the Court handles all appeals from all the high courts. It has 15 judges with ⁓ small panels of five judges. the cases are first to the five judge panels. ⁓ before being sent to the entire bench in the event that there's a constitutional issue. some procedural stuff that was a little bit interesting compared to how we do things. ⁓ in criminal cases, a defendant can be held for up to 72 hours. ⁓ if the prosecutor doesn't get a detention warrant, they have to be released after 24 hours. detention warrants need to be based on probable cause that the person has no fixed residence ⁓ that they may or destroy evidence, or that they are a flight risk. with that detention warrant. They can be held for up to 10 days or 20 days with an extension for the purpose of securing an indictment. There is no pre-indictment bail system, and three-quarters of all cases are dropped pre-indictment. So this is different than our ⁓ situation mean, probable cause to arrest still exists, right? ⁓ But ⁓ somebody ⁓ J.D. Largent: Mm-hmm. C Tell me what probable cause is. Frankie Hupy: Probable cause is some cause believe somebody has committed a crime, right? It's a reasonable basis, reasonable basis has its own funky definition. if we're talking like percentages, which like legally sound, but it helps people understand, probable cause is like twenty percent. You got twenty percent of the proof that you need. J.D. Largent: And it's a it's like a reasonable basis of belief. I would put it more like twenty five, thirty percent. Like you've seen something, you've heard something. Frankie Hupy: Still Right, right. But it's not like preponderance of the evidence, which is fifty percent plus one, more likely than not. beyond a reasonable doubt is like ninety nine percent, right? Clear and convincing evidence is somewhere in between. Again, percentages are not a great way to illustrate this in terms of legal soundness, but for people who are not lawyers, it is a little bit helpful. ⁓ J.D. Largent: Yeah. Yeah. Beyond a reasonable doubt, there can be no other reasonable explanation other than you did it and what you did is a crime. Frankie Hupy: Right. in our yes, somebody can be held up to seventy-two hours prior to being arraigned, ⁓ but ⁓ the indictment system separate, only for felonies. So there's a lot of differences here between Japan and Oregon or you know, the United States has has also similar rules regarding that. In Japan, the defendant can be subject to interrogation without an attorney pre-indictment. that was in place until 2018, but it was in place ⁓ at the time ⁓ of this case, so I kept it my notes. they do get court-appointed attorney if they qualify for it for trial. For certain serious crimes, they can get one pre-indictment if the person remains detained. they can be held up to 60 days pending trial unless a specific 30-day exemption is granted. And once they are indicted, they can be bailed out. But like I said, there's no bail pre indictment. So this is very different than our laws here in America. I'm sure most people are aware of like the Miranda warnings where you have a right to attorney and to court appointed attorney if you can't afford that. Gideon V Wainwright was originating case of that right. but the fact that you only get an attorney pre indictment in certain crimes is wild to me. J.D. Largent: Yeah, except for Japan incarcerates s so many fewer, like like proportionally percentage wise than America by Frankie Hupy: They do. Yeah. Well and thir and three quarters of all cases are dropped pre indictment. Like they are not holding people over nearly as much as we are. J.D. Largent: So in Japan, it's approximately 33 people for every 100,000 people are incarcerated, which is And in America, it is 0.55%. So instead of point ⁓ Frankie Hupy: Mm-hmm. J.D. Largent: is point ⁓ three three percent. So that's five hundred and fifty per one hundred thousand versus thirty three ⁓ per one hundred thousand. Frankie Hupy: Right. Yeah. No, we we incarcerate significantly higher percentages of our population, than Japan does. And generally it seems like maybe their prosecutors are more scrupulous about bringing stuff to trial than ours are partially, but J.D. Largent: Or they have a better system that's not just like let's take every mentally ill person that can't get services and put them in jail. And if you'd like to hear more about this, you can talk to either Frankie or myself anytime, any place. I've got a solid six hours on this. ⁓ Frankie Hupy: Yeah, there's that. We have opinions. Yep. So, Japan does not have jury trials. All trials are in front of judges ⁓ and there are trials if you plead guilty, because the prosecutor has to present corroborating evidence even if there's a guilty plea. for minor cases a single judge will preside and for higher level cases there's a three judge panel. J.D. Largent: Okay. Kind of like an appellate review almost. But there's no jury. Yeah. Frankie Hupy: Yeah. But it's it's it's just 'cause it's a it's just 'cause it's a more serious case, it would still be at the trial level. For certain very serious cases, we're talking like murder, stuff like that, there are lay judges ⁓ will hear ⁓ case ⁓ that judicial panel will be six lay judges and three professional judges working together. they will conduct the public investigation of the evidence and render a verdict. So that's like Quasi a jury trial, but they are called lay judges and they work with professional judges to come to their verdict. If there is any reasonable doubt, then the judges must render a not guilty verdict. ⁓ And if found not guilty, you are compensated for the time that you did in custody. this is huge. This is not a thing that happens here. in order to get compensated for being wrongfully incarcerated here, ⁓ J.D. Largent: That's huge. Frankie Hupy: It is a huge lift and very, very difficult to get. J.D. Largent: is extremely difficult. Like there's a like if you're wrongfully convicted, you pretty much have to show that the state withheld evidence or engaged in some wrongdoing. Frankie Hupy: They had to be engaging in ⁓ lawful conduct essentially. J.D. Largent: And you have a really limited amount of time and the compensation per year ⁓ of wrongful conviction the States ⁓ is super low. Frankie Hupy: Right. if the prosecution appeals, you can be detained until the next trial date. for minor offenses you could get a suspended sentence for up to five years. If you can get convicted of something while on that suspended sentence, you'll serve both the suspended sentence and the sentence for the new crime. ⁓ That's similar here with any sort of probationary sentence. a defendant has a right to a retrial after a guilty verdict if new evidence is found. We have that right as well, but it is much harder to get. ⁓ J.D. Largent: Well, it's not just if new evidence is found. You have to establish prior to a new trial being granted that the new evidence is ⁓ have changed the outcome and could not have been located in the initial proceedings. It's very ugly. Frankie Hupy: would have changed the outcome. the appeals we're talking about the high courts here. If the defendant appeals, the sentence cannot increase on retrial, but if the prosecution appeals, it could. if they're imprisoned and file an appeal, they are held in the facility closest to the high court hearing it. ⁓ So ⁓ there are obviously fewer courts there are summary courts or district courts. ⁓ And so ⁓ if you are Appealing something, you could actually be moved to a facility that's closer to the court that's hearing the case for convenience. appellate court ⁓ reviews the written record of what happened in the court. they have a hearing, ⁓ they hear written and oral arguments of the parties. ⁓ sounds familiar to anybody familiar with the appellate process J.D. Largent: Okay. Heh heh heh heh. Frankie Hupy: The difference is in some instances they may request additional evidence to make a better decision. J.D. Largent: And we're stuck here with what you got. What you have is what you have. We're not introducing new shit. Frankie Hupy: We are we are stuck here we are stuck here not only with the record of the evidence as it is, but unless you specifically request de novo review, you are also st they J.D. Largent: Which de novo means that the court is appealing it is doing a a more thorough review f like it's it's of fresh, of new. Frankie Hupy: Right. It's it's of new in terms of the findings of fact, right? 'Cause there's the the evidence, the record of the evidence, the testimony, the exhibits, stuff like that. And then the trial court will make findings of fact or the jury will make findings of fact. ⁓ ⁓ Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court are locked into those findings of fact. ⁓ somebody requests an over review, which is not necessarily granted if it's requested. ⁓ then the court can dig a little bit more into the record and the the testimony and the exhibits and make their own findings of fact. That is very rare. J.D. Largent: Yeah, it's it's exceptionally I can't tell you how many cases I've sent up on appeal. And I have had no cases of the Oregon Court of Appeals granting de novo review. Zero times. Frankie Hupy: It's it's very, very rare. It used to be more common in like dependency cases, but even then it's it's super rare. J.D. Largent: That is my job. That is most of my job. Dependency cases is children and families involved in the foster care system, essentially, parental rights getting terminated and families being permanently torn apart by the justice system. And ⁓ I have ⁓ every single contested termination of parental rights I've ever lost to the Court of Appeals. ⁓ Some of ⁓ with very reasons. Never had it. Never had it. So not only are we imprisoning people, but we were permanently tearing families apart. Anyway, please proceed. Frankie Hupy: Yes. the high court can then either affirm or reverse the decision below. ⁓ they reverse, there would either be ⁓ ⁓ or substantial irregularities ⁓ the case below, or there was not sufficient evidence for the conviction. ⁓ either case, ⁓ remand for retrial, ⁓ they could just fashion their own remedy. Like they could make a rule and say this is the rule now. And this is how we're gonna resolve this case and then send it down and tell the lower court this is what you have to do. J.D. Largent: I always think remands are dumb. Because it's like if you're ordering the lower court to do something, the higher court should just do it instead of just delaying for further proceedings. Cause I've had things remanded to lower court and then you're waiting to get back into court and then you're discussing the like the tuning of the just higher court, you just do the thing and they don't. So like, ⁓ we're gonna order the lower court to reverse this. Great. That means that this person who is still in prison. Frankie Hupy: Just do the thing. Yeah. Mm-hmm. Yep. J.D. Largent: has to wait not just for this judgment to be recorded, but after it's recorded then to schedule and get back into lower court. So it's delaying actual remedies by months. Frankie Hupy: ⁓ the ⁓ appellate rules have a forty five delay between decision and publishing to ⁓ a remand because there's the potential the person could appeal it to the Supreme Court, which isn't a guaranteed appeal the way the appellate court is, because ⁓ they get to decide what they want to hear. J.D. Largent: Supreme Court. And the Supreme Court takes precious few cases. I've never had a one of my cases go to the Supreme Court. And I tell you what, ⁓ Frank, I appeal all the time. Frankie Hupy: ⁓ I do too. I do too. Civil commits. So many on appeal right now. J.D. Largent: Yeah, w we're just here like com appeal, appeal, appeal, appeal, appeal. Extremely vulnerable people we work with. Frankie Hupy: Yep. So right. So in Japan there is the possibility for an appeal to the Supreme Court, but that's only if it's ⁓ ⁓ ⁓ with the constitutionality of something, or the finding at the High Court otherwise conflicts with current Supreme Court case law. the Tokyo Court, this case came from. ⁓ Here's appeals from district courts and has original jurisdiction for family court. I wasn't why that was distinction with the Tokyo High Court. J.D. Largent: ⁓ original jurisdiction for my mother. 'Cause I I I'm just gonna address Frankie Hupy: Yes, original jurisdiction means that that's where something can be filed initially. It's the trial level court. J.D. Largent: So in this case, these family law cases automatically go to what we think of as the Court of Appeals. Frankie Hupy: Right, it might be that there's not a district court ⁓ in area. I didn't dig into that much of the research, criminal court appeals will go straight to the high courts, like I said, ⁓ but other appeals will first go to the district courts ⁓ if they started in summary court. So ⁓ our little detour into how Japan is than Oregon. Coming back to where we were, Ms. Kazakura appealed to Tokyo's High Court, which was the appellate court for her area. Yes. J.D. Largent: Can we pause here to say also like this individual is a model of kind of like a sexual variety, not not pornographic, but of a sexual variety. Yeah. ⁓ we also have to understand that, you know, ⁓ to American society, ⁓ only is she a lady, ooh, sexism, ⁓ she's engaged in almost an adjacent form to sex work. ⁓ Frankie Hupy: Yes. Like swimsuit and pin up, yes. Mm-hmm. J.D. Largent: And so I can imagine that she is suffering from a lot of stigma, like just existing in society. ⁓ And want to acknowledge that ⁓ out Frankie Hupy: Mm-hmm. Absolutely. appealed the basis of actual innocence. ⁓ And ⁓ was one of the cases where the Tokyo High Court ⁓ allowed additional in. ⁓ The hole the door ⁓ was eight a half inches wide. J.D. Largent: Okay, so you're holding a a sheet of paper, it's the skinny side. Frankie Hupy: Yep. Yes, the skin decided a piece of paper, exactly. J.D. Largent: Yeah, 'cause it's eight and a half by eleven, so it's like just the skinny side I two cats and ⁓ no dogs could fit through that. Frankie Hupy: Yep. on top of that, ⁓ had a forty four inch bust. J.D. Largent: ⁓ so she is ⁓ she has a bosom. Forty four inches is a heck of a bosom. Frankie Hupy: She has quite the bosom, yes. It it really is. ⁓ appellate attorney help ⁓ yes, ⁓ absolutely. I had and I was not that large. J.D. Largent: That that's a backache level of bosom. I never like truly measured how big my knockers were before I had removed and bless them, Frankie Hupy: Yeah. There are these things in law that we call demonstrative exhibits, ⁓ visuals maybe like photographs or something, but something that ⁓ is used to show how something ⁓ or ⁓ in case size of something, J.D. Largent: like some bosoms. Frankie Hupy: in order to ⁓ show High Court of how it is impossible ⁓ that Ms. Kajakura could have through this eight and a half inch hole, he held up a dinner plate. J.D. Largent: A dinner plate. Frankie Hupy: And compared it essentially to her standing next to him. J.D. Largent: Is is each of her bosoms approximately the size of one dinner plate? Frankie Hupy: You know, the reporting didn't quite get into that. it was it was there to show that her a hundred and ten centimeter breasts ⁓ could not have fit through the door that the size of a dinner plate. J.D. Largent: Okay, yeah, so I see it. So the dinner plate is eight and a half by eleven, and you're trying to say that ⁓ this Yeah, eight and a half inches. ⁓ Not by eleven, so eight and half inches, that there is no possible way that these ⁓ breasts can it through this hole. And I respect that. I respect the hell out of that defense. That's not a that's not a bad defense. This is just a weird case. Frankie Hupy: Well the dinner plate's just eight eight and a half inches around, right? Right. It's just a weird case. he also argued that her clothes showed no signs of damage, that would be expected from trying to squeeze through the hole, and that her shoes showed no damage from kicking a hole in a wooden door. So all around, just all sorts of stuff that probably should have come up at trial. I don't know why it didn't come up at trial, but and Yeah. But the appellate court ⁓ heard her and J.D. Largent: Maybe the stigma, maybe she wasn't believed. Frankie Hupy: ultimately reverse the case. J.D. Largent: Yes, let that lady go. Frankie Hupy: Yep. So Kazakura noted that the judges maintained their composure during this entire presentation. She said the judges were very good as they showed no expressions on their face. I guess they were well trained. It's hard to talk about boobs with a straight face. And the Japanese culture is so very respectful and demure. but even so she noted that, you know, the judges managed to keep a straight face while we're talking about boobs. J.D. Largent: It yeah, it is. Good for them. Frankie Hupy: they reversed saying there were considerable doubts ⁓ in the complaining witnesses' testimony. Japanese media was all over this. various networks asked her to come on to prove she couldn't fit through the opening. Yeah. ⁓ So ⁓ J.D. Largent: That can be demeaning. Let's leave this poor model alone. Frankie Hupy: There's actually I did find and if I can figure out how to put it in the show notes, I will, one of these videos of her like trying to fit through a hole that was eight and a half inches wide. and her like getting through, getting stuck on her boobs and being like, ⁓ But she did ⁓ at the of this, ⁓ in one her interviews, say, I used to hate my body so much because I thought my bust was too big, but it was definitely my breasts that won for me today. Which I thought was really sweet. J.D. Largent: Yes. Your body is your body. Well, I I'm very happy for that outcome. I I am just kind of expecting that there was sexism and stigma attached to her as a woman and her as an individual who shows off her body for pictures. Frankie Hupy: Yes. Yep. And it was it was her testimony that he made the hole himself against the testimony of two men saying that she made the hole. So there was definitely sexism involved and stuff like that. ⁓ But she had an amazing appellate attorney who ⁓ made argument that should have been made at the trial level. J.D. Largent: listened to her yeah and believed in her and made these arguments with the opportunity. So I'm gonna pause here. I say first of all, great case. ⁓ thank you so much. ⁓ Frankie Hupy: Yep. I enjoyed it. J.D. Largent: I have a sexuality where I do appreciate the bust. Frankie Hupy: Mm-hmm. Oops are distracting. J.D. Largent: ⁓ I mean I didn't want any, but I like ⁓ Frankie Hupy: Mm-hmm. They're great on other people. Not on me. Was not a fan. J.D. Largent: Yes. No, no, no. Mine mine don't need to go. ⁓ Well thank you for the story. I now on to the serious ⁓ we're gonna talk about the Twinkie defense. ⁓ So, Frankie, ⁓ would you me what you think the Twinkie defense ⁓ Frankie Hupy: Yes. So I actually read into it a little bit when I was researching, so I don't want to cheat, so J.D. Largent: ⁓ okay, okay. I am going to say a big thank you to Carol Pogash, who wrote Myth of the Twinkie Defense, the verdict in the Dan White case that wasn't based on his ingestion of junk food. The movie Milk, that's quite a few years old, but it's definitely worth a watch. And The Life and Times of Harvey Milk. So Harvey Milk ⁓ was ⁓ gay man living in San Francisco in the 70s. ⁓ He owned a camera store, and he was elected to San Board of City Supervisors. Well could think about in other places as like city counselors. There was another city councillor known for his conservatism who murdered Harvey Milk with a gun and also murdered the mayor of San Francisco. Frankie Hupy: Mm-hmm. Yeah, this dude had issues. J.D. Largent: What most people think of comes from this case. So the murderer is Dan White. Is people think that he presented a defense to get less time saying, ⁓ I had all this junk food, and it was the junk food that made me somehow ill, and reduced ⁓ sentence. ⁓ And So I'm gonna jump in and describe what diminished capacity is. So we had talked in our last episode about not guilty by the reason of insanity or the insanity defense. Diminished capacity is kind of like a step down from that. That there was Yeah, it is the it is the light version. It is not permissible in a lot of jurisdictions in criminal law. It's Frankie Hupy: Like G E I light. J.D. Largent: Really applicable in civil law. You see this come up a lot in probate to say this this person, you know, they were aging, they had an age-related condition like dementia that didn't fully incapacitate them, but it influenced their decision to such a degree that the contract that they made or the will that they made isn't valid, isn't what they would have done in their full right mind. Frankie Hupy: Right. And when in the criminal context, because Oregon does have a separate diminished capacity defense from the guilty except for insanity, which is what we call the not guilty very reason of insanity because reasons. our diminished capacity defense is essentially because of some sort of qualifying mental disorder, you were unable to form the intent to do the thing that you're accused of. ⁓ Because in order to be criminally liable for something, you have to have Done the bad thing, the actus reus, this is the Latin term, the bad thing, and also have ⁓ a culpable mental state, what they call the mens rea, the bad mind, those two things come together to make criminal culpability. So if you have a qualifying mental disorder ⁓ that maybe didn't get to the point of like not understanding that your ⁓ what you were doing illegal, but did diminish your ability to form intent, then it is a defense in organ. J.D. Largent: it is in Oregon. have used it, I'm sure you have used it. ⁓ And also like, not guilty reason of insanity ⁓ It's a if you have any other defense, you're gonna use that first. You're not gonna use this. Frankie Hupy: in Oregon there's differences as well that like if you're found guilty except for insanity, ⁓ then you're sentenced to ⁓ psychiatric security review board generally to the state hospital, versus a diminished capacity defense ⁓ is an acquittal. So J.D. Largent: Yes. So that means hey, you're not having consequences, basically. You're not guilty. ⁓ in juvenile law we have because we don't have guilty or not guilty in juvenile law, so we have not responsible. And there's the juvenile psychiatric security review board. So there's kind of parallels that go along. Frankie Hupy: Mm-hmm. J.D. Largent: So people think happened to Dan White, because he wound up getting a significantly reduced sentence. He only received seven years in prison for the death of two people. People think ⁓ that ⁓ his defense went and presented that this was a ton of junk food ⁓ and it ⁓ Specifically Twinkies. They have this idea that it's Twinkies, that it impacted his mental state to such a degree that he could not be found guilty of murder and was instead found guilty of manslaughter. So that is this societal perception. And there is a societal perception that. And we'll dig into this, I'm sure, in future episodes, that he was able to successfully use what's called the gay panic defense. That is that you were somebody a heterosexual person was so affronted by somebody else's homosexuality or their behavior that they killed the gay person and they could get away with it. Frankie Hupy: Yep, and that's coming relevant again now because now there's the trans panic that's starting to pobble up, which is concerning. J.D. Largent: ⁓ the transplantic defense has been used successfully a number of times in like a in in a very shameful way. So Dan White was a city supervisor in San Francisco. And at the time was working for the fire department, I believe. ⁓ And fire department or police? one of the two also was elected as a city supervisor. You cannot hold two city positions ⁓ yeah, at the same time. So he he had to resign his other city position that was providing the majority of his salary and he was just acting as a city supervisor. And I can super empathize with the not getting enough or any money. Our legislators ⁓ in are woefully underpaid, which means only independently affluent people ⁓ can to run for office. Frankie Hupy: Yeah, that sounds like a conflict. J.D. Largent: I am not here as a representative of the school board. I'm just mentioning I'm on the Corvallis school board right now. It is a huge time commitment and we get paid a nothing. Not one dollar. Frankie Hupy: Yep. I just finished my tenure on the Alcohol Drug Policy Commission. Also an unpaid position. ⁓ of work. We've done really great things. ⁓ unpaid. J.D. Largent: Yeah. Yes. I mean just f for this elect position where you have to run where which and if you have to run for office that means you have to invest money of your own. a huge honor for me to be able to serve ⁓ the Corvallis School District in this way. ⁓ But I will also say ⁓ that I'm able to ⁓ do this period because have other ways of of myself. And I don't have to worry about things like babysitter bills, ⁓ transportation that I can handle that on my own. So ⁓ the today for this city supervisor position is worth about fifty thousand dollars in today's money. And San Francisco is a hugely expensive city today, ⁓ less then, but still very expensive to live in. And Frankie Hupy: Mm-hmm. Yeah. J.D. Largent: he can't have his other job, his career. So he resigns that career. He's just a city supervisor. It kind of comes to a head where Dan White decides to resign his city supervisor position. There's a lot of political things happening at the time, too. ⁓ we have the first gay person elected, that's Harvey Milk. ⁓ also have the first unwed mother elected as a city supervisor. So there's some really fantastic things happening on a political level and a name super scandalous at the time. Still today, like imagine an unwed mother. ⁓ my goodness. Somebody parenting on their own. a name that we still know today, who's who was a city supervisor at the time was Diane Feinstein. And she retired only a few years ago. She was a major liberal and progressive voice at the federal level. That's how we know her. Frankie Hupy: That are super scandalous at the time. Mm-hmm. J.D. Largent: But at the time, okay, so this is the 70s. She is a city supervisor. Well, so he says, I quit. Like, I I can't do this. It's not enough to support my family. There is a huge back and forth, and there's some votes at the time about raising the wage for city supervisors. It's voted down. And he's resigned. But then he tries to get his job back. And the city supervisors vote, no, hey, we're not. Frankie Hupy: Mm-hmm. J.D. Largent: You you've resigned. Your your resignation was unequivocal. We're not letting you back on as a city supervisor. So he goes and first shoots the mayor of San Francisco in the head and kills him, makes a beeline for the city supervisor's office, goes specifically to Harvey Milk, passes by Diane Feinstein's office. She actually calls out to him, ⁓ and talk to him, and he and he just passes her by. So he's got something to do, asks Harvey Milk. Frankie Hupy: He's on a mission. J.D. Largent: Yeah, asks he's he's there to kill Harvey Milk. He's not there to kill any city supervisor in general or anybody who voted against him. He's there to kill Harvey Milk. ⁓ Harvey Milk to go talk in Harvey Milk's office. Harvey Milk goes, agrees, and goes into his office with Dan White, and Dan White shoots him dead. So then comes the trial. Dan White presents a diminished capacity defense based on depression. ⁓ the ⁓ stress of the time and he uses his consumption of junk food as evidence of his condition, not as a cause. Yeah, not the cause of it. And this is formerly like a very conservative kind of health nut you could describe him. Very conscious about his eating. He was known for it. So when he was eating all this junk food Frankie Hupy: Evidence of the depression, not the cause of it. Yeah. J.D. Largent: it's a symptom ⁓ of the depression, of the mental health condition, of this diminished capacity defense, not a cause of it. But it was like later publicized and understood to be a cause. The other interesting thing ⁓ ⁓ never ⁓ ⁓ the course of the trial were mentioned. But it's known as the Twinkie defense. They weren't brought up at all. Other things were brought up Coca-Cola, ⁓ Hohos. ⁓ Frankie Hupy: The depression. Right. Mm-hmm. J.D. Largent: But not Twinkies. Dan White is successful in this defense and receives a mitigated sentence. So when I when I say mitigated, it means he it doesn't mean he was acquitted. It doesn't mean he says, okay, you are not guilty. You are somehow not responsible, but you're responsible to a lesser degree for manslaughter, not for murder. So it goes from a mandatory life sentence, to seven years. ⁓ He serves the seven years in prison ⁓ comes out in a year and a later, he completes suicide. which I think his evidence like he was really depressed, but this ⁓ hit his ⁓ being found ⁓ not guilty of murder was huge deal the time. Frankie Hupy: He was really depressed. J.D. Largent: And resulted in the white riots. So there was riots in San Francisco. This is also a really blossoming time, not too long after the Stonewall riots, which were in the very late sixties in New York, the Compton cafeteria riots, which were in California. ⁓ ⁓ ⁓ a result of this, you don't have a diminished capacity defense ⁓ California. Frankie Hupy: Mm-hmm. J.D. Largent: And that's attributed to this case where this individual kills an icon. And at the time, Harry Milk wasn't this widespread icon of the gay community like he is ⁓ today. because he was making you know. He's one of the first openly gay politicians elected ⁓ ever. ⁓ Ever in the of ⁓ And ⁓ Frankie Hupy: Ever J.D. Largent: he was a very strong proponent of gay rights, was really on the forefront, was really on the cutting edge in a way that would be challenging in today's political climate. And he was ⁓ was a really strong, ⁓ charismatic, dare I say handsome if you see a picture of him, ⁓ for the queer community ⁓ and Frankie Hupy: Absolutely. J.D. Largent: an untimely fate. ⁓ I think it's ⁓ to say that his ⁓ so openly gay ⁓ completely a part of why he was targeted. Frankie Hupy: Yeah, well he was also doing a lot of really good things for in his position as the city councillor, ⁓ right? and that was ruffling feathers of the establishment people as well. ⁓ J.D. Largent: Mm. Yes, he he had this incredible grassroots campaign ⁓ that I don't think we can underestimate where the of his district ⁓ wanted someone who was like them, ⁓ who would up for them. ⁓ And he that person. He he's not coming an ultra-affluent background. ⁓ Frankie Hupy: Mm-hmm. J.D. Largent: He wasn't a very rich man, you know. He he did own a shop, but it's not like he was like this very wealthy owned, you know, multiple stores. And he's concerned with the housing problems, the crime, the police brutality of his district ⁓ ⁓ a a beautiful job being very brave and saying, like, I'm here for these people and I'm gonna work for them. And he really worked hard for them during his time as a city supervisor. So still a great role model today ⁓ a very untimely end. Who knows how much better the world could be ⁓ if Harvey Milk killed. But we can still say that, you know, Diane Feinstein, who has very deeply problematic elements Frankie Hupy: Absolutely. Mm. J.D. Largent: But she really still herself, she was shaped by that moment. And we can see how she was shaped by that moment and how hard she fought, even though she was not a member of the LGBTQ plus community. Throughout her career, she really stood up and you can see the the many, many times that her being in the same building, her working with these people during this time, ⁓ her political career progressed significantly because she was ⁓ Frankie Hupy: Right. J.D. Largent: appointed as mayor of San Francisco after the mayor's murder and went on to have a a very impressive political career. also minority status, she's a Jewish woman and that is ⁓ still a big deal in representation in politics. ⁓ Frankie Hupy: Mm-hmm. Yep. Mm-hmm. It it is. there's all sorts of backlash against various minorities this point, especially currently, which ⁓ is terrifying to I in an area where has come into our courthouse and people, some with valid warrants and some not. So to be a minority ⁓ then to be a minority today, it is scary and there's a lot going on. ⁓ ⁓ people not only ⁓ are ⁓ but are from our own communities stepping up and making the changes that need to be made. those people are icon like Harvey Milk was an icon and aside from just the horrific way that he was murdered just imagine what he could have done with the momentum that he had from that grassroots campaign up into ⁓ the city councillorship, the moves, doing the thing, how much more could have accomplished, how much higher in politics he could have come ⁓ had he not been ⁓ murdered. J.D. Largent: And I mean, 'cause Diane Feinstein immediately after this incident when she was mayor of San Francisco, and she was mayor of San Francisco for quite some time, ⁓ was ⁓ by then standards, especially by San Francisco standards, because she did oppose extending same sex benefits there the seventies, early eighties. Frankie Hupy: Yes. J.D. Largent: And thinking about the popularity of Harvey Milk, we don't know if he could have been elected mayor of San Francisco, if that could have been the first city in America way earlier to extend same sex benefits to city employees. ⁓ the, huge, ⁓ tragic l ⁓ of this Frankie Hupy: Absolutely. And in terms of diminished capacity defenses, depression is a little bit of a weird one, to be perfectly honest. most diminished capacity defenses that I are because somebody like dissociated from PTSD ⁓ or have some sort ⁓ of disability they process information a small child. Things like that are more common that I see with diminished capacity defenses. Depression is a qualifying mental disorder, but it's not one that typically causes somebody to lash out in that way. ⁓ So that's that's what's strange about to me about this one in particular. Not that diminished capacity defenses in and of themselves are strange defenses. I think J.D. Largent: thinking I'm thinking yeah. Frankie Hupy: they're very valid and appropriate when you somebody who is ⁓ in that but to have be the qualifying mental disorder is a little strange. J.D. Largent: I wanna say that I think that we obviously evolved culturally on our understanding of mental health in a since this time. And Frankie Hupy: This is true. J.D. Largent: So I've where I've successfully used to diminished capacity defense is mostly when when I'm talking about assaulting a public safety officer and resisting arrest for the understanding that the person that my client is dealing with is a public safety officer to begin with, ⁓ w dealing with information Frankie Hupy: Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Right. Because and and to sort of explain where that's coming from, under Oregon law, there's a mental state that needs to apply to every single element ⁓ of the charged ⁓ or there at has to be ⁓ what's called criminal which is the absolute lowest mental state possible. ⁓ And generally that criminal ⁓ in the event that you're dealing with something that's done intentionally or knowingly. ⁓ that criminal negligence generally applies to a money amount, So, order be ⁓ of assaulting a public officer, you have to knowingly or intentionally cause physical injury to somebody you know is a public safety officer. J.D. Largent: ⁓ Is a public safety officer. I I think people well, like when I'm thinking about our audience, Frankie, so you know, I'm thinking only and exclusively about my mother. Hi mom, again, she's gonna really enjoy this. you work with very mentally ill people and I work with children, ⁓ many whom are also very mentally ill. Frankie Hupy: I do. J.D. Largent: And there is no civil commitment procedure for mentally ill juveniles. And so we're bumping up against ⁓ these ⁓ constantly. would say far frequently than maybe just about any other type of attorney in the entire state. When you're thinking about your own clients and presenting a defense that societally there's this backlash, how are you thinking about doing that in a way that is dignified and helpful for the people that you're working with? Frankie Hupy: Right. think it's really important to work with the client so that they understand what's going on. I mean obviously they have to be fit to proceed. They have to be able to understand the moving parts of the court, what your job is, what the jury's job is, all that kind of stuff, be able to help you in their defense and be able to cooperate with you. that's at base, the first thing that you're assessing when you're dealing with somebody who has a severe and persistent mental illness. ⁓ But assuming that they're fit proceed, I ⁓ really work to educate my clients to be able to understand like what the defense is, why we're doing this. And it is in part their choice whether or not they want to put all this out there, right? They have to cooperate with the evaluation. They have to cooperate with the state's evaluation if the state decides to evaluate them also. ⁓ that's a lot for somebody to go through. And so ⁓ they have to be a full and willing participant ⁓ this whole process. ⁓ then ⁓ presenting it to a jury, ⁓ know, it's something that you have to ask when you're doing jury selection asking ⁓ what is a reason that somebody ⁓ might be culpable for something that happened, Why would a kid not be culpable? Why would maybe somebody who has dementia not be culpable? And then you sort of like walk inwards to land on somebody who has mental illness, is it's to do a mental health defense now than it was ten years ago, Because more and more people are talking about it. More and more people are probably going to therapy themselves. but it is a little bit of a tightrope walk to present this evidence because it's gonna be awkward to the client. one thing in all our civil commitment proceedings ⁓ that the frequently says at the end of the proceeding ⁓ is ⁓ ⁓ the alleged to a mental illness for sitting through it because it's really hard listening to people talk about you like you're not in the room. J.D. Largent: I think what I wanna address briefly is why we're never gonna talk about our own clients on here. And I I guess I'll start 'cause I brought it up. I wanna say that th like the reason that I persist in public defense, specifically juvenile public defense, is because I like my clients so much as people. Frankie Hupy: Mm-hmm. J.D. Largent: ⁓ I consider it a true privilege to be working someone who has been put into such a dehumanizing, ⁓ vulnerable, hypercritical, confusing ⁓ system and to be working them where I'm to figure out as best as I can. To work with them to reach so I was talking about my clients, like, let's talk about what your goals are and how we can try and meet your goals, even though I know you do not want to be doing this. Frankie Hupy: Yep. Yeah, absolutely. J.D. Largent: And I could never put them on blast, I guess we could say. Because it's easy to like, ⁓ we're gonna read, we're just we're not looking somebody in the eye when we're talking about these other cases ⁓ because depth of somebody's humanity and their experience is ⁓ such profound thing. And to to have this ⁓ position where is a huge privilege. ⁓ It also like we do not get paid ⁓ money. Really. And it we have tons of clients. Why keep doing this after almost a decade is I appreciate and respect and love working with the people that I get to work with. And there's nothing that makes me happier professionally than being able to work with a client, over the course of sometimes years ⁓ to help them Frankie Hupy: Mm-hmm. J.D. Largent: achieve their outcomes and to elevate the dignity of their human experience and who they are as people in such a brutal system. Frankie Hupy: Well, and also we are meeting people at their most vulnerable and specifically when you're working with indigent people, people who ⁓ for public defense services, 'cause ⁓ unfortunately harder than it should be to qualify for public defense services in Oregon. That must ⁓ public Well, kids are presumed to be id indigent, but ⁓ work with a with the adult population ⁓ it's harder than it should be to qualify. J.D. Largent: I will say, not for kids. Yeah. Frankie Hupy: Essentially if you own a house you won't qualify even if the only asset that have. but ⁓ we're meeting people who are ⁓ my is almost exclusively civil commitments, all my clients have mental illness. ⁓ But when was doing more heavily criminal work, I would say probably 80% of my clients had some sort of substance use disorder and or mental health issue. And so these are very vulnerable people. These are people who ⁓ ⁓ in poverty ⁓ ⁓ decisions because they're poor. Very, very few I don't know that I've encountered anybody on my caseload who is truly ⁓ the way people imagine ⁓ a criminal defendant to be. most people are poor and are dealing with things going on inside their head that other people aren't gonna understand and are acting out because of that. either to perpetuate an addiction or because they don't understand what's going on around them the way that we do. And even if you're dealing with somebody who ⁓ had a drunk drive, which like the crime that I've found most people are able to identify with if they are not involved in the criminal legal system. even ⁓ something like that. ⁓ you're dealing with somebody in their most vulnerable position, even if they are not a vulnerable population themselves. J.D. Largent: I have had and you have had thousands of clients. Actual thousands of clients. I was licensed in twenty seventeen, it's now twenty twenty six. Frankie Hupy: And I was licensed in twenty eleven. I did take two years off because I had a little bit of a burnout. I am much better about taking care of myself at this point. I learned my lesson. and, know, I'm in a that is now fighting the state about ethical caseloads. J.D. Largent: I also work with adults because ⁓ I work with parents ⁓ who are in the dependency system have most likely had their children removed by the state. ⁓ And I will say of the thousands of people that I've worked with, sometimes very egregious circumstances, that ⁓ I have worked with two people who could say were like traditionally evil. Frankie Hupy: Mm-hmm. J.D. Largent: And Frankie Hupy: But if you look at the science of personality they're coming around to the fact that ⁓ even personality disorders, ⁓ even like antisocial personality disorder, which is kind of what colloquially people think of as evil, J.D. Largent: Yes. Frankie Hupy: Personality disorders are based in trauma. They are maladaptive coping mechanisms that have become so ingrained in how you react to things that it becomes part of your personality. So keeping in mind has helped give clients a lot of grace ⁓ if they are dealing with more the personality disorder end of spectrum versus the qualifying mental end of the spectrum. J.D. Largent: Yes. Yes. Frankie Hupy: what used to be in the DSM four and DSM four TR axis one, which was mental health, versus axis two, which is personality disorder. DSM five, DSM five, T R, everything's a spectrum now. and they no longer have the axes, but I still think of it as access one, access two, 'cause it it helps me ⁓ remember, ⁓ know, where things Right. J.D. Largent: Yeah. Which categor like w kind of which class we're dealing with. Well, I I remember when I first started working, a a group that I think that I struggled to work with not because I thought they were evil at all, but because I found it kind of frustrating and repetitive was individuals with borderline personality disorder. Frankie Hupy: Yeah, and what's interesting with borderline personality disorder, it is frequently confused or misdiagnosed kind of back and forth as each other with bipolar disorder. they are two distinct disorders with ⁓ specific symptom sets that require diagnosis, ⁓ but doesn't that don't get ⁓ misdiagnosed, ⁓ right? J.D. Largent: Yes. So Frankie Hupy: And also borderline personality disorder is one of the more treatable personality disorders. the reason that personality disorders are generally kept out of qualifying mental disorders is because they're not considered treatable. but borderline personality disorder is ⁓ actually of the more treatable ones you use like dialectal behavioral therapy. J.D. Largent: I mean, there's plenty we think, you know, there's a public perception like a personality disorder is just what it is. But psychotic personality disorder, which is often misdiagnosed as like schizophrenia. Frankie Hupy: Right. You can have schizotypal personality features. ⁓ Very J.D. Largent: Yes. Very treatable. Borderline personality disorder is very treatable. But so like for me, confronting my own internalized prejudice, now I absolutely don't mind at all working with people with borderline personality disorder. the only struggle that I have is there's such strongly self destructive elements ⁓ as a feature that my heart for them is I had to change, I had to flip on my Frankie Hupy: Mm-hmm. J.D. Largent: head, my understanding of ⁓ these people operate and why they operate like they do. ⁓ once you're able to ⁓ them as individuals with set of symptoms that is that that are diagnosable. And once I really got to see how dramatically unfun ⁓ for them this Frankie Hupy: Right. With a symptoms. Yeah. J.D. Largent: this disorder is. and to see how are we successful in working with people with BPD? And it is through consistent empathy and stability, ⁓ remaining regulated and trying create much we can a system that's not reactive to ⁓ negative behaviors ⁓ those are coming out as a part of their like cyclical behavior patterns. ⁓ Frankie Hupy: Right. and just the consistency. Like ⁓ all these personality disorders are based in trauma and in J.D. Largent: Yeah. Frankie Hupy: how you bonded with your parents as children, the coping mechanism aspect of like that is developed early childhood you have a consistent ⁓ and loving parent who shows up all the time, ⁓ much less likely to develop these kinds of maladaptive coping I teach a whole thing ⁓ on attachment ⁓ to our So that is a big old rabbit hole that we could go down at some point. ⁓ But it is in theory treatable if can somebody to believe that you are there consistently for them. J.D. Largent: Yes. And it is that community and that thing that the justice system doesn't offer, which is community love and support, which you actually see success ⁓ people being happier. Frankie Hupy: there been ⁓ some huge backlash ⁓ with ⁓ the federal court disallowing additional case types from going to the hospital to be because state hospital has been out of compliance with getting people ⁓ there within a week forever. ⁓ J.D. Largent: Like five years, right? Frankie Hupy: Well, I mean it started in two thousand and one was when Mink was filed. two thousand and one, not twenty twenty one. J.D. Largent: Yeah, years. ⁓ ⁓ two thousand sorry, twenty five years. I apologize. Frankie Hupy: Yeah. limited ⁓ essentially property crimes and low felonies, and they've limited the number ⁓ of 180 day extensions for ⁓ felonies. ⁓ And people all up in that like murderers are gonna get to go free, blah blah blah. 'Cause there's this fundamental misunderstanding that mental illness leads to violence. ⁓ When in reality the greater likelihood ⁓ that somebody who is mentally ill is going to be the victim of violence. ⁓ J.D. Largent: ⁓ and th the clients that I've had that have been profoundly mentally ill, it's property crimes. It's things that are arising out of confusion, getting lost. I have Frankie Hupy: Mm-hmm. Well, and I mean there are times where where somebody might do something violent, but they're frequently ⁓ responding to sort of internal stimuli and they are unable to overcome it. ⁓ And they are just not living in consensus reality. you know, that's like schizophrenia, the schism that we talk about in schizophrenia is a split from consensus reality. J.D. Largent: Well, yeah, and most of our clients period are not individuals who have committed violent offenses. And of the individuals that we represent who have committed what we consider ultraviolent offenses. I'm thinking like arson in the first degree, assault two, assault one, a attempted murder. Frankie Hupy: Correct. Mm-hmm. J.D. Largent: Rape one, rape two, sodomy one, Frankie Hupy: These are all crimes that were determined in, I believe, ninety four to require mandatory minimum sentences under what's called ballot measure eleven in Oregon. of these crimes have a presumptive and minimum sentence ⁓ at least seventy months. J.D. Largent: Yes. Yes. Seventy months. And you can't reduce for good time or for treatment or anything. Frankie Hupy: Yep, it's day f it's day for day time, you don't get good time, you don't get programming. Because locking I was gonna say because locking somebody in a box is going to make them better. J.D. Largent: Yeah. And being a higher level go ahead. Yes, let's just say that's not gonna make them worse. As it's evidence of over decades of time that it makes everybody worse. ⁓ Frankie Hupy: E even somebody who has no underlying mental disorder, if they are placed in solitary confinement, will develop psychosis. J.D. Largent: I have never ever, ever, ever, and I specialize because I do what's called a waiver type of trial, which means I'm a very highly qualified type of juvenile public defense attorney. I can handle extremely high levels, like high levels of ultraviolent crimes. I travel across the state at the state's request, because I'm one of not very many people who can handle this type of offense in the state of Oregon, period. Frankie Hupy: Mm-hmm. Essentially, kiddos that are charged with measure eleven offenses, the state can try to what's called waive them into adult court so so they can so they are tried as adults and not as children in the juvenile realm. J.D. Largent: Have them tried as adults. And they can be sentenced with the adult mandatory minimums, which means they would go from a juvenile facility to an adult facility on their no, their twenty-fifth birthday. Twenty-fifth birthday. and I do it all the time. So I travel all across the state to do these what we consider like ultra levels of crime. So I see more of them than even the average. Frankie Hupy: On their eighteenth birthday. On the twenty fifth, right. It's been a while since I did juvenile. J.D. Largent: juvenile public defense attorney by a lot because I have these qualifications. And 100%, 100% of the juveniles that I've worked with who have been alleged to have committed these major offenses have had ⁓ multiple major traumas. Not just one, multiple, ⁓ and have you were talking about earlier as at least one Frankie Hupy: Mm-hmm. Multiple. J.D. Largent: Axis one diagnosis, which is not a personality disorder. Juveniles actually can't be diagnosed with personality disorders. ⁓ Frankie Hupy: It's called conduct disorder or something. J.D. Largent: There's so many other ways that they call it the prepersonality disorder diagnoses, and adults can't be diagnosed with oppositional defiant disorder, which is a prepersonality disorder conduct disorder, ⁓ which that's bullshit. ⁓ diagnosis is bullshit. ⁓ And getting to the history and the and this child, because they are children. They are children, and teenagers are children. Frankie Hupy: They are children. J.D. Largent: They are they are just tall children, but they are children. Frankie Hupy: Brains do not fully develop until they are twenty five. That's when your whole prefrontal cortex planning, executive function, all that stuff, that's when that develops. J.D. Largent: Twenty twenty-five. Yeah, and there's some argument to say that it's actually twenty eight. Frankie Hupy: Some arguments say it's twenty eight. If somebody has something like ADHD, then maybe it doesn't ever develop fully. J.D. Largent: Some some says twenty five. I've had children ⁓ on my caseload recently where their behavior is a direct result ⁓ of both major ⁓ and input from ⁓ a disorder. And so to think like these kids aren't who you think they are and they're also not inherently dangerous. I meet alone with these kids all the time and because I know how to co regulate I feel fine about it. And I will do it again tomorrow. And I will do it again tomorrow because that's my job. Frankie Hupy: Yeah. There's there's a lot of there's a lot of misunderstanding about just mental illness in general, the criminal defense world in general. run into that daily with with our clients. We run into that daily I do a lot of advising of the younger attorneys how to work with their clients with mental illness because a lot of J.D. Largent: They are not restrained. We meet alone. It's fine. Frankie Hupy: have mental illness and the number and the numbers are only increasing. that is something that is a legit thing that we have to deal with. whether or not ⁓ in the case of the Twinkie that legitimate at that point, it was legitimate enough that it worked for him. J.D. Largent: Yeah. And that that person ultimately wound up completing ⁓ which is a tragedy ⁓ ⁓ we lose ⁓ individual to suicide, it is always a tragedy. Frankie Hupy: Mm-hmm. J.D. Largent: to say like that's that was really occurring for him. But so next time Frankie Hupy: I pulled up next time the Matrix Defense. ⁓ J.D. Largent: Ooh. I picked this case ⁓ on name alone and I have selected the Fanny Adams case. ⁓ Frankie Hupy: Mm-hmm. Nice. All right. So J.D. Largent: I think it'll be a quick one. I think it'll be a good like ⁓ you know about about Fanny. A quick in and out. Frankie Hupy: Palette cleanser. Okay. All right. ⁓ thanks for joining us. one thing that I we've also been neglecting to do is please rate, review, share so that we can grow and get to more people. again, if you have any questions, thoughts, concerns, or a case that you'd like us to do, go ahead and shoot us an email ⁓ at defencespodcast at gmail dot com ⁓ and catch you next week. J.D. Largent: Thanks for joining us. Case next week.