Latest / Legally Brunette / Legally Brunette: The Parkland Shooting with Judge Liz

Transcript

Legally Brunette: The Parkland Shooting with Judge Liz · Legally Brunette

• 0:01
  Speaker 1: Hi, guys, Welcome to another episode of Legally Brunette. I
• 0:04
  Speaker 1: will be your host today Emily Simpson with Shane. First
• 0:08
  Speaker 1: of all, if you guys haven't listened to our last episode,
• 0:10
  Speaker 1: it was on Jody Hildebrandt, which if you remember, she
• 0:13
  Speaker 1: had to do with the Ruby Frankie child abuse case,
• 0:16
  Speaker 1: and a lot of you DMed me. I know, I
• 0:19
  Speaker 1: thought it was interesting. Do you remember when we were
• 0:21
  Speaker 1: talking and Ruby Frankie's YouTube channel was called eight Passengers
• 0:25
  Speaker 1: and then you made a comment, why is it called
• 0:27
  Speaker 1: eight passengers because someone has to be driving, right, So
• 0:32
  Speaker 1: I had several people DM me that said they felt
• 0:35
  Speaker 1: as if it was the eight passengers and God was driving.
• 0:39
  Speaker 1: So anyway, I don't know, I just thought I maybe,
• 0:43
  Speaker 1: but I just thought I would relay that to you
• 0:45
  Speaker 1: because a lot of people heard that, and then that
• 0:47
  Speaker 1: was kind of the comment overall.
• 0:49
  Speaker 2: So that speculation, we don't know that that was the thinking.
• 0:53
  Speaker 1: Well, I don't know, I don't know. I think that's
• 0:55
  Speaker 1: how people interpreted it, is that they were the eight
• 0:57
  Speaker 1: passengers and they were a very religious family and so
• 1:00
  Speaker 1: God was like guiding that right exactly.
• 1:04
  Speaker 2: And she's dumb okay, as proven by her behavior.
• 1:07
  Speaker 1: All right, let's move on. We wanted to do an
• 1:10
  Speaker 1: update on Nick Reiner. Also, not only did you guys
• 1:12
  Speaker 1: dmail out about the last case we did the Jody
• 1:15
  Speaker 1: Hildebrandt and Ruby Frankie situation. But as you all know,
• 1:20
  Speaker 1: my obsession with Alan Jackson runs deep. So when you
• 1:24
  Speaker 1: all saw the news that he withdrew from the Nick
• 1:26
  Speaker 1: Reiner case, I got I got tons of dms where
• 1:31
  Speaker 1: people were like, did you see this? What's going on?
• 1:33
  Speaker 2: Are you going to talk about it? Did you see this?
• 1:35
  Speaker 1: So anyway, so let's talk about it. Nick Reiner's arraignment
• 1:39
  Speaker 1: has been postponed once again after Alan Jackson quit moments
• 1:43
  Speaker 1: before the scheduled hearing. So this happened last Wednesday. Jackson
• 1:47
  Speaker 1: informed the court that he was stepping away from the
• 1:49
  Speaker 1: case and would no longer represent Reiner, who was charged
• 1:52
  Speaker 1: with murdering his parents. Jackson told the judge, we would
• 1:57
  Speaker 1: ask to withdraw as counsel of record. We have no
• 2:00
  Speaker 1: choice but to withdraw and ask to be relieved.
• 2:03
  Speaker 2: He didn't announce why, he just announced that he's removing himself.
• 2:06
  Speaker 1: Well, he had some things to say, but there is
• 2:08
  Speaker 1: no clear cut reason. A lot of people speculate, but
• 2:12
  Speaker 1: you know, to me, it's interesting that Reiner will now
• 2:14
  Speaker 1: be represented by Los Angeles County Deputy Public Defender Kimberly Green,
• 2:19
  Speaker 1: and the judge approved the substitution, and now the arraignment
• 2:22
  Speaker 1: is rescheduled for February twenty third. I think my personal
• 2:28
  Speaker 1: opinion is I think it had to do with money,
• 2:30
  Speaker 1: because that was my question all along.
• 2:32
  Speaker 2: What else would I have to do with? Well, some
• 2:34
  Speaker 2: people not disgusted by crimes, He's been around it.
• 2:37
  Speaker 1: No, but we'll talk about some speculation that some other
• 2:40
  Speaker 1: attorneys and.
• 2:41
  Speaker 2: Money mighty talks.
• 2:43
  Speaker 1: I My initial reaction when Alan Jackson first took the
• 2:47
  Speaker 1: case was who is paying this bill? Because I would assume,
• 2:51
  Speaker 1: and I'm probably correct, that his retainer would be seven
• 2:54
  Speaker 1: figures for a murder trial and with the complexities of
• 3:00
  Speaker 1: probably an insanity defense and expert witnesses and all of
• 3:05
  Speaker 1: the due diligence and that goes.
• 3:07
  Speaker 2: Into that does a lot of due diligence involved. When
• 3:10
  Speaker 2: your clients slit the victim's throats and they have a history,
• 3:15
  Speaker 2: it's pretty tough to defend, so it's going to take
• 3:17
  Speaker 2: a lot of work.
• 3:18
  Speaker 1: No, but I'm saying if you're going to have an
• 3:19
  Speaker 1: insanity defense. You're going to have to have a lot
• 3:22
  Speaker 1: of testing, and you know, all the experts suits insane.
• 3:27
  Speaker 2: That's the part I never really get. They're all insane.
• 3:30
  Speaker 1: During the brief appearance, when asked by the judge if
• 3:32
  Speaker 1: he understood the changing council, Reiner replied, oh, yeah, I
• 3:35
  Speaker 1: agree with that. Before being escorted back to the correctional facility.
• 3:39
  Speaker 1: Outside the courthouse, Jackson addressed reporters and he said, this morning,
• 3:43
  Speaker 1: I had to withdraw as Nick Reiner's counsel, adding that
• 3:46
  Speaker 1: quote circumstances beyond our control, but more importantly, circumstances beyond
• 3:52
  Speaker 1: Nick's control made it impossible for us to continue our representation.
• 3:57
  Speaker 1: I'm legally and ethically prohibited from all the reasons why.
• 4:01
  Speaker 1: I know that's a question on everyone's mind. I'm assuming
• 4:04
  Speaker 1: I'm legally and ethically prohibited. Is just it's attorney client privilege.
• 4:08
  Speaker 1: Whatever has to do with who's financing it or what's
• 4:10
  Speaker 1: going on behind the scenes.
• 4:12
  Speaker 2: Client if he wants to break that privilege.
• 4:14
  Speaker 1: He emphasized that his departure should not be viewed as
• 4:16
  Speaker 1: a lack of support for his former clients. So he
• 4:19
  Speaker 1: says quote be clear, be very very clear. My team
• 4:22
  Speaker 1: and I remain deeply, deeply committed to Nick Reiner and
• 4:25
  Speaker 1: to his best interest, asserting that the legal process will
• 4:28
  Speaker 1: ultimately quote reveal the true facts of the circumstances surrounding
• 4:32
  Speaker 1: the case. Then he went further declaring, we've learned, and
• 4:36
  Speaker 1: you can take this to the bank. Is that pursuant
• 4:39
  Speaker 1: to the law in this state, Nick Reiner is not
• 4:42
  Speaker 1: guilty of murder.
• 4:43
  Speaker 2: Print that pursuant to the law exactly.
• 4:46
  Speaker 1: So pursuant to the law means he's I would assume my.
• 4:51
  Speaker 2: Illegal legal standard that it does not murder as.
• 4:55
  Speaker 1: In premeditated capital murder, because they're going to most.
• 5:00
  Speaker 2: Likely you know what he can't insanity defense Reiner's check.
• 5:05
  Speaker 2: That's what he couldn't take to the bank.
• 5:07
  Speaker 1: No, he can't take it Withdrew. Yeah.
• 5:09
  Speaker 2: I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that. I'm just
• 5:11
  Speaker 2: saying that's the.
• 5:12
  Speaker 1: Reason no, Because that was my question from the very
• 5:14
  Speaker 1: very beginning, was why would Alan Jackson represent Nick We
• 5:17
  Speaker 1: know Nick Reiner doesn't have any money personally, or he
• 5:19
  Speaker 1: wouldn't be living in his parents guesthouse, you know, And
• 5:25
  Speaker 1: I mean I don't think he was employed, and I
• 5:28
  Speaker 1: think they were. His parents were wealthy and well to
• 5:31
  Speaker 1: do and Hollywood elite, and I think they were continuing
• 5:33
  Speaker 1: to pay it as happened the.
• 5:35
  Speaker 2: Wealth to be able to hire Jackson.
• 5:37
  Speaker 1: That's what you're saying, right So to me, the only
• 5:41
  Speaker 1: way that there could be someone to cover Jackson's enormous
• 5:46
  Speaker 1: legal bill for a murder trial is if the estate
• 5:50
  Speaker 1: went to the other siblings and the siblings were willing
• 5:53
  Speaker 1: to pay.
• 5:54
  Speaker 2: At the settled a little bit, the emotions were set aside.
• 5:59
  Speaker 2: The fan family attorney, state law attorney, whatever, all got
• 6:04
  Speaker 2: together and started to really realize what they would be doing,
• 6:08
  Speaker 2: and that would probably be depleting all their worth for
• 6:12
  Speaker 2: a sibling that was probably troubled and killed the parents.
• 6:17
  Speaker 2: And it's not about trying to find him a better
• 6:20
  Speaker 2: opportunity and that's worth every penny. It's we're going to
• 6:23
  Speaker 2: get this guy like off from a criminal charge and
• 6:27
  Speaker 2: deplete all our funds when he killed our parents and
• 6:30
  Speaker 2: he clearly needs help.
• 6:32
  Speaker 1: It's also very telling that a public defender stepped in,
• 6:36
  Speaker 1: because if it was not an issue of money, then
• 6:38
  Speaker 1: you would probably have another big time elite attorney step
• 6:42
  Speaker 1: in in Alan Jackson's place, but it was not Kimberly Green,
• 6:46
  Speaker 1: not a public defender.
• 6:47
  Speaker 2: I think I heard her speak, make a public speech
• 6:50
  Speaker 2: or whatever, like for the press, and she was very quiet,
• 6:55
  Speaker 2: and she just not one to have public meetings and stuff.
• 7:00
  Speaker 1: Alan Jackson, she's not media trained.
• 7:03
  Speaker 2: Yeah he likes the microphone.
• 7:05
  Speaker 1: Oh, yes he does.
• 7:06
  Speaker 2: I don't know if she did so.
• 7:08
  Speaker 1: Some legal experts have wide in and said that maybe
• 7:11
  Speaker 1: Alan Jackson had no chance or had no choice but
• 7:15
  Speaker 1: to quit offering some insight. A California, New York based
• 7:18
  Speaker 1: entertainment attorney, her name is Lisa Bonner, told Page six
• 7:21
  Speaker 1: that Jackson's carefully chosen language strongly points to a professional conflict.
• 7:26
  Speaker 1: Referencing his remarks to the court, She said that such
• 7:29
  Speaker 1: phrases like we have no choice and circumstances beyond our
• 7:32
  Speaker 1: control are commonly used when an attorney is legally required
• 7:35
  Speaker 1: to step aside, such as an ethical or legal conflict.
• 7:38
  Speaker 1: I don't know if I believe that. I don't really
• 7:40
  Speaker 1: feel like it's a conflict of interest. I still go
• 7:42
  Speaker 1: back to the whole money thing.
• 7:43
  Speaker 2: But what if it was something like like Alan Jackson's, like,
• 7:48
  Speaker 2: oh wait, you did kill your parents? Oh, like I
• 7:52
  Speaker 2: misunderstood it. Oh, I can't defend you like he got
• 7:55
  Speaker 2: a bachel later because I heard it as a criminal defenser,
• 7:58
  Speaker 2: and you never want to ask your clients they did it.
• 8:00
  Speaker 1: Oh, so you never you never ask. So you're saying,
• 8:02
  Speaker 1: maybe he just assumed that, you know, there's some third
• 8:05
  Speaker 1: party out there.
• 8:05
  Speaker 2: I mean, I was kind of lightly joking, but you know,
• 8:08
  Speaker 2: but that's the thing. You know, if you ask your
• 8:10
  Speaker 2: client if they did it, now, you can never say
• 8:12
  Speaker 2: that your client is not guilty or you know, innocent
• 8:15
  Speaker 2: or anything like that. Once you heard it, you can't
• 8:18
  Speaker 2: unhear it and you can't lie. So I talked to
• 8:21
  Speaker 2: some criminal defense attorneys and they don't want to ask
• 8:23
  Speaker 2: their client.
• 8:23
  Speaker 1: Because they don't want to have the knowledge.
• 8:25
  Speaker 2: Yeah, they'll only ask, maybe for what information they want,
• 8:28
  Speaker 2: but they're not going to say like, did you do it?
• 8:31
  Speaker 2: How long have you been planning this?
• 8:32
  Speaker 1: Yes?
• 8:33
  Speaker 2: What were your thoughts? Did it feel good when you did?
• 8:36
  Speaker 1: That's those questions. So another theory is well, and this
• 8:41
  Speaker 1: one makes a little bit of sense to me because
• 8:44
  Speaker 1: he's a high profile defense attorney, that he might have
• 8:47
  Speaker 1: a professional fallout from the Hollywood elite. The way I
• 8:51
  Speaker 1: understand it is there's only a handful of attorneys that
• 8:54
  Speaker 1: the elite in Hollywood would go to, and Alan is
• 8:57
  Speaker 1: on that very short listed. So because Rob Reiner and
• 9:03
  Speaker 1: his wife Michelle were very beloved within Hollywood, and this
• 9:07
  Speaker 1: is such a heinous crime to be defending, he'd defending, yeah,
• 9:13
  Speaker 1: and so it could take him off of that high
• 9:16
  Speaker 1: profile list.
• 9:17
  Speaker 2: So if Rob Reiner killed his son, it would have
• 9:20
  Speaker 2: been okay to represent him.
• 9:22
  Speaker 1: Well, I don't know about that either. I'm just saying
• 9:25
  Speaker 1: I think that's a stretch.
• 9:26
  Speaker 2: I think it's simply a money thing. And I think
• 9:27
  Speaker 2: Alan Jackson has every right to not represent someone that's
• 9:30
  Speaker 2: not going to pay his fee. That's just the way
• 9:32
  Speaker 2: it works.
• 9:33
  Speaker 1: Yeah, I guess basically it could be that through representing
• 9:37
  Speaker 1: Nick Reiner there could be some reputational consequences, the backlashes.
• 9:41
  Speaker 1: He becomes a pariah in Hollywood because Michelle and Rob
• 9:44
  Speaker 1: were beloved. You know.
• 9:47
  Speaker 2: The question I have, which I don't think we'll ever
• 9:48
  Speaker 2: get an answer to, is how did he get one?
• 9:50
  Speaker 2: If it's a finance thing and there's no they cut
• 9:54
  Speaker 2: off funds or whatever, there's no money or whatever it is,
• 9:57
  Speaker 2: then what made him initially think he could take the case, Like,
• 10:00
  Speaker 2: did he jump on it before he looked into it.
• 10:03
  Speaker 2: Did the family initially say hey, yeah, we got it,
• 10:05
  Speaker 2: we got it, we want to we want our brother
• 10:07
  Speaker 2: taken care of. And then they she I don't know,
• 10:09
  Speaker 2: we'll never know, but.
• 10:10
  Speaker 1: Yeah, we'll never know. But I that that interests me too.
• 10:13
  Speaker 1: Was it Nick Reiner that that reached out to Alan? Well,
• 10:17
  Speaker 1: Alan Jackson is legally barred from reaching out to him.
• 10:20
  Speaker 1: But I don't know how they came into contact. I
• 10:23
  Speaker 1: don't know if the family reached out to Alan. I
• 10:27
  Speaker 1: don't know.
• 10:28
  Speaker 2: I don't know. I don't know. I bet you, I
• 10:32
  Speaker 2: bet you. Some of the key parts were they came
• 10:35
  Speaker 2: to like things settled down, they talked to attorneys, they
• 10:39
  Speaker 2: learned how much their parents are worth, how much they're
• 10:41
  Speaker 2: going to get, how it's going to be dispersed, all
• 10:43
  Speaker 2: that stuff, all the logistics, and then maybe they had
• 10:48
  Speaker 2: a realization of you know, we're gonna lose all the money.
• 10:52
  Speaker 2: And it's not always a money thing, but it's like
• 10:53
  Speaker 2: we're gonna throw good money after like something that's not
• 10:56
  Speaker 2: really gonna be productive, and he's just gonna, you know,
• 11:00
  Speaker 2: and maybe he needs to be in prison. Yeah.
• 11:02
  Speaker 1: Yeah. So today on the podcast, we are going to
• 11:12
  Speaker 1: have a special guest come on who Shane introduced me to.
• 11:16
  Speaker 1: This is your special guest. And before she comes on,
• 11:21
  Speaker 1: I wanted to talk about the Parkland shooting because she
• 11:25
  Speaker 1: was the judge in that case. So she goes by
• 11:28
  Speaker 1: Judge Liz and before she comes on, let's just talk
• 11:30
  Speaker 1: about the Parkland shooting. So on February fourteenth of twenty eighteen,
• 11:35
  Speaker 1: at Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, it
• 11:38
  Speaker 1: became the site of a devastating shooting when nineteen year
• 11:41
  Speaker 1: old Nicholas Cruz, a former student who had been expelled
• 11:44
  Speaker 1: for disciplinary issues, entered the campus and opened fire. Cruz
• 11:49
  Speaker 1: entered the school at two twenty one pm, beginning in
• 11:51
  Speaker 1: the freshman building, which housed approximately nine hundred students along
• 11:55
  Speaker 1: with faculty and staff. He drew his rifle and his
• 11:58
  Speaker 1: stairwell before moving on to a first floor hallway, where
• 12:02
  Speaker 1: he fired the first shots. Within about two minutes, eleven
• 12:06
  Speaker 1: people were killed and thirteen were wounded. Crews then moved
• 12:10
  Speaker 1: upstairs and discharged his weapon again, though he did not
• 12:14
  Speaker 1: hit anyone on the second floor. He continued to the
• 12:16
  Speaker 1: third floor, where he killed six more people and injured four,
• 12:20
  Speaker 1: spending less than a minute there. At two twenty eight pm,
• 12:24
  Speaker 1: Cruz left his rifle in a stairwell and exited the building.
• 12:28
  Speaker 1: He then went to a wal mart at two fifty pm,
• 12:31
  Speaker 1: stopped at his subway for a drink, and later visited
• 12:34
  Speaker 1: a McDonald's. He was located by Broward County police and
• 12:38
  Speaker 1: arrested on a nearby street approximately eighty minutes after the
• 12:41
  Speaker 1: shooting began. The Parkland shooting left seventeen people dead and
• 12:46
  Speaker 1: seventeen others injured, and the wake of the tragedy, survivors
• 12:49
  Speaker 1: organized the student led advocacy group Never Again MSD, focused
• 12:54
  Speaker 1: on addressing gun violence and promoting policy change. Florida responded
• 12:59
  Speaker 1: by passing new gun control laws, including raising the minimum
• 13:02
  Speaker 1: age for gun purchases and imposing mandatory waiting periods. The
• 13:07
  Speaker 1: shooting also sparked ongoing national conversations about mental health, school safety,
• 13:13
  Speaker 1: and gun regulations, as survivors and communities continued to grapple
• 13:17
  Speaker 1: with the emotional and psychological impact of the event. Let
• 13:20
  Speaker 1: me ask you a question. The high school I graduated
• 13:23
  Speaker 1: from in Ohio actually had a school shooting oh yeah, yeah,
• 13:28
  Speaker 1: when maybe ten years ago or so, after that happened,
• 13:35
  Speaker 1: they they armed teachers with guns.
• 13:39
  Speaker 2: Then the community they allowed teachers.
• 13:42
  Speaker 1: I don't know exactly what the terms are, but they
• 13:43
  Speaker 1: allowed teachers.
• 13:45
  Speaker 2: They didn't just hand out guns, no, but the teachers lounge.
• 13:47
  Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, I don't know the process that took place,
• 13:50
  Speaker 1: but they initially after that happened, teachers were then permitted
• 13:56
  Speaker 1: to carry guns on campus. Then the community where I
• 14:00
  Speaker 1: used to live was outraged and there were tons of
• 14:03
  Speaker 1: meetings with school boards and everything, and I believe that
• 14:06
  Speaker 1: was eventually repealed and they're not allowed to do that anymore.
• 14:10
  Speaker 1: What is your take on that. I don't know if
• 14:12
  Speaker 1: that's I mean.
• 14:15
  Speaker 2: As if I thought about this, I don't know. I mean,
• 14:18
  Speaker 2: I would think, at the very least, if professors are
• 14:21
  Speaker 2: going to carry, they certainly need to have training. You
• 14:24
  Speaker 2: don't just hand out guns. And I guess if my
• 14:29
  Speaker 2: children's teacher had a gun in class, i'd understand the
• 14:34
  Speaker 2: intention behind it, but I probably wouldn't like it. I
• 14:38
  Speaker 2: would think, I don't know, better to have the place
• 14:41
  Speaker 2: secured with offense as much as possible, and security on campus,
• 14:48
  Speaker 2: and then you have a you because what if what
• 14:51
  Speaker 2: if students find out, Oh, this teacher doesn't have a gun,
• 14:54
  Speaker 2: but this one does, but that one doesn't. But if
• 14:56
  Speaker 2: you have armed security, like a lot of private schools do.
• 15:00
  Speaker 2: I've been to some of those high schools that are like,
• 15:03
  Speaker 2: you know, run by the Jewish church or community and stuff,
• 15:07
  Speaker 2: and those are highly like protected, and it's awesome, you know,
• 15:11
  Speaker 2: and the kids feel this is a place that's kind
• 15:14
  Speaker 2: of sacred, right, it's a learning ground, right, it's safe.
• 15:16
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 15:17
  Speaker 2: So yeah, I always that is more effective.
• 15:19
  Speaker 1: I always felt as if a situation like that, if
• 15:22
  Speaker 1: you're arming teachers, you're adding more issues eventually down the line.
• 15:29
  Speaker 1: You know. The solution, I mean, there is no solution
• 15:31
  Speaker 1: that like there is other than it all comes down
• 15:34
  Speaker 1: to a mental health issue. I mean someone's not mentally healthy. Yea,
• 15:39
  Speaker 1: who does that?
• 15:40
  Speaker 2: Yeah, but that's I think we're talking about the defense mechanisms, Yeah,
• 15:44
  Speaker 2: the treating mechanisms.
• 15:46
  Speaker 1: So the trial of Nicholas Cruz focus almost entirely on
• 15:49
  Speaker 1: sentencing rather than guilt, as he pleaded guilty in October
• 15:52
  Speaker 1: of twenty twenty one to seventeen counts of first degree
• 15:54
  Speaker 1: murder and seventeen counts of attempted murder. The penalty phase trial,
• 15:58
  Speaker 1: held in twenty twenty two, was tasked with determining whether
• 16:01
  Speaker 1: Cruz should receive the death penalty or life in prison
• 16:04
  Speaker 1: without parole. Prosecutors presented graphic evidence of the killings and
• 16:09
  Speaker 1: testimony from victim's families to argue for death, while the
• 16:12
  Speaker 1: defense emphasized mitigating factors, including Cruise's severe mental health issues,
• 16:18
  Speaker 1: fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, childhood abuse, and neglect. In October
• 16:23
  Speaker 1: of twenty twenty two, the jury failed to unanimously agree
• 16:27
  Speaker 1: on the death penalty, resulting in an automatic sentence of
• 16:30
  Speaker 1: life in prison without the possibility of parole. The outcome
• 16:33
  Speaker 1: drew intense national attention and anger from victim's families, some
• 16:38
  Speaker 1: of whom criticized the jury and the defense strategy.
• 16:42
  Speaker 2: Because he didn't get the death penalty.
• 16:43
  Speaker 1: Because he did not get the death penalty because they
• 16:45
  Speaker 1: could not unanimously agree on it, and.
• 16:47
  Speaker 2: That's a Florida thing, then hunt they have to unanimously agree. So.
• 16:50
  Speaker 1: Judge Elizabeth Shearer served as a presiding judge over the
• 16:54
  Speaker 1: Parkland shooters criminal case in Boward County, including both the
• 16:57
  Speaker 1: pre trial proceedings and the twenty twenty two penalty phase
• 17:01
  Speaker 1: trial that determined Nicholas Cruz's sentence. She managed an unusually
• 17:05
  Speaker 1: emotional and high profile proceeding, repeatedly enforcing courtroom decorum, amid
• 17:11
  Speaker 1: graphic testimony and intense reactions from victim's families. After the
• 17:16
  Speaker 1: jury failed to unanimously agree on the death penalty, Judd
• 17:19
  Speaker 1: Shearer was legally required to impose the mandatory sentence of
• 17:22
  Speaker 1: life in prison without the possibility of parole, which she
• 17:26
  Speaker 1: did at Cruz's formal sentencing in November of twenty twenty.
• 17:29
  Speaker 2: Seven, so her hands were tied, she could not sentence
• 17:32
  Speaker 2: him to death right.
• 17:35
  Speaker 1: During a presentation to Miami law students in twenty twenty four,
• 17:39
  Speaker 1: Judge Liz sharply criticized Cruse's public defenders, claiming they acted
• 17:43
  Speaker 1: unprofessionally in overstep boundaries. She said Cruise's defense team lost
• 17:49
  Speaker 1: their minds during the twenty twenty two trial and recalled
• 17:52
  Speaker 1: being friendly with lead defense attorney Melissa McNeil and her
• 17:55
  Speaker 1: team before the case, but said that during four years
• 17:58
  Speaker 1: of pre trial motions, three months jury selection, and the
• 18:01
  Speaker 1: three month trial, they all lost their perspective. According to
• 18:06
  Speaker 1: Judge Liz, the de offense, engaged in disruptive behavior, talking,
• 18:10
  Speaker 1: passing notes, using a printer, and even brushing their hair
• 18:13
  Speaker 1: while prosecution witnesses testified. Sounds like a high school classroom,
• 18:17
  Speaker 1: like this is how I picture Annabelle in school, Like
• 18:20
  Speaker 1: passing notes, brushing hair.
• 18:22
  Speaker 2: Which is unacceptable, exactly seventh grade class.
• 18:25
  Speaker 1: She added that one attorney during a recess raised her
• 18:27
  Speaker 1: middle finger at a camera broadcasting the trial, feeling it
• 18:31
  Speaker 1: threatened attorney client privilege. This consumed them to a point
• 18:34
  Speaker 1: where they started doing things in acting ways that I
• 18:36
  Speaker 1: had never seen before from any defense attorney that I
• 18:38
  Speaker 1: have ever dealt with, she said. Judge Liz resigned from
• 18:41
  Speaker 1: the bench in June of twenty twenty three, eight months
• 18:45
  Speaker 1: after sentencing Cruise to life without parole, but maintains that
• 18:48
  Speaker 1: this case had nothing to do with her resignation. She
• 18:52
  Speaker 1: had no choice in the sentencing since at the time,
• 18:54
  Speaker 1: Florida law required a unanimous vote from the jury to
• 18:57
  Speaker 1: impose the death penalty, and Cruises panels nine to three
• 19:01
  Speaker 1: in favor. Florida soon after change the law to allow
• 19:04
  Speaker 1: a death sentence if eight or more jurors recommended it. Oh,
• 19:07
  Speaker 1: that's interesting. I did not know that.
• 19:08
  Speaker 2: Did you know that? No, But that's why I asked earlier.
• 19:11
  Speaker 2: If it was it had to be unanimous by the
• 19:12
  Speaker 2: juror if that was a state law.
• 19:14
  Speaker 1: That's interesting.
• 19:14
  Speaker 2: Now it's a majority, yeah, well eight of eight or more. Yeah,
• 19:19
  Speaker 2: two thirds.
• 19:20
  Speaker 1: The prosecutors and victims families received hugs from Judge Liz
• 19:24
  Speaker 1: after the sentencing, which was a decision later criticized by
• 19:27
  Speaker 1: the Judicial Qualifications Commission for showing quote her emotions to
• 19:31
  Speaker 1: overcome her judgment. Judge Liz said she offered hugs to
• 19:35
  Speaker 1: the defense team as well, but was rebuffed. She defended
• 19:38
  Speaker 1: her actions, saying.
• 19:39
  Speaker 2: Quote, I regrets for everybody.
• 19:41
  Speaker 1: Yeah, I regret that it the hugging was found to
• 19:44
  Speaker 1: be inappropriate, but maintained she oversaw the case properly. You
• 19:48
  Speaker 1: know that's that's.
• 19:49
  Speaker 2: Well, the case was over right.
• 19:51
  Speaker 1: That's interesting as I think as females, we are innately nurturers.
• 19:59
  Speaker 1: And if you sit in a courtroom for that long
• 20:02
  Speaker 1: and you hear all of this horrific things and the
• 20:04
  Speaker 1: families are sitting there, and then once it's over, it's
• 20:08
  Speaker 1: very difficult.
• 20:08
  Speaker 2: And how long was the trial?
• 20:10
  Speaker 1: I think it said three months.
• 20:11
  Speaker 2: See, that's a lot.
• 20:13
  Speaker 1: It's very difficult to be completely robotic and stone based from.
• 20:18
  Speaker 2: So you're saying a male judge would have been like, what, like, well,
• 20:23
  Speaker 2: he probably over and out. Yeah it's lunchtime.
• 20:26
  Speaker 1: Yeah, but you know, women are natural nurturers. So I
• 20:29
  Speaker 1: think her probably her just innate reaction was to and
• 20:34
  Speaker 1: she said she tried it. She tried to equally hug everyone,
• 20:36
  Speaker 1: according to her, so it was an equal distribution of hugs.
• 20:39
  Speaker 1: But she was rebuffed by the defense. So Judge U.
• 20:43
  Speaker 1: Liz highlighted during her left the.
• 20:44
  Speaker 2: Defense was probably smart by declining because they're like, maybe
• 20:49
  Speaker 2: they don't want to like, Okay, we know your intentions
• 20:51
  Speaker 2: are well, but this is bad optics, and my clients
• 20:54
  Speaker 2: can file for like, you know, some you know trial, Yeah,
• 20:58
  Speaker 2: sometime of miss trial. You know, he's got a life sentence.
• 21:01
  Speaker 1: Not one person on that commission has ever tried a
• 21:03
  Speaker 1: case like this, much less a case where you have
• 21:05
  Speaker 1: seventeen families who have spent a big part of a
• 21:07
  Speaker 1: four and a half years with you. She explained that
• 21:09
  Speaker 1: she had been a judge for nearly six years when
• 21:11
  Speaker 1: assigned to the case, and that no other Broward County
• 21:14
  Speaker 1: criminal judge at the time had handled a death penalty
• 21:16
  Speaker 1: trial Judge Liz described the challenge of maintaining composure amid
• 21:21
  Speaker 1: emotional testimonies, stating, quote, the men judges don't cry. The
• 21:25
  Speaker 1: female judge was not going to cry. She also commented
• 21:28
  Speaker 1: on Cruz's character, stating that he is a sociopath who
• 21:31
  Speaker 1: knows not one single bit of remorse for his actions
• 21:34
  Speaker 1: or the pain he calls the families and the Parkland community.
• 21:37
  Speaker 2: So, you know, I never that's something I never said, like, Okay,
• 21:41
  Speaker 2: if he felt bad, he should have a lesser sentence,
• 21:45
  Speaker 2: because if you feel bad, like you commit a murder.
• 21:48
  Speaker 2: I know this was more than just a murder, but
• 21:50
  Speaker 2: you commit a murder, and then it's like if you
• 21:52
  Speaker 2: feel bad, it's less of a sentence. It's like, well no,
• 21:55
  Speaker 2: because the person's still dead, like the crime was still committed.
• 21:58
  Speaker 2: To me, I don't get that. Maybe in jail or
• 22:02
  Speaker 2: in prison, if that starts to show and they're educating
• 22:06
  Speaker 2: themselves and they're going to be a better person, in
• 22:09
  Speaker 2: productive member of society, and you'd be better off for
• 22:11
  Speaker 2: you know, putting them out in society where they can
• 22:14
  Speaker 2: be productive and they're not just taking tax dollars, but
• 22:16
  Speaker 2: they're contributing then maybe, but at the sentencing hearing, I
• 22:19
  Speaker 2: never really understood that. I know that's the way it works, yeah,
• 22:22
  Speaker 2: but I don't get that.
• 22:23
  Speaker 1: So you're saying you would, You're okay during parole hearings
• 22:26
  Speaker 1: that they use the like an indication of remorse as
• 22:29
  Speaker 1: something to take into consideration during a parole hearing, because
• 22:33
  Speaker 1: you're saying after the fact, after the sentencing, if they've
• 22:36
  Speaker 1: shown remorse and they've tried to better themselves, yeah.
• 22:40
  Speaker 2: Then and then it also but you're saying.
• 22:42
  Speaker 1: It shouldn't be criteria during this initial sentence and.
• 22:44
  Speaker 2: Also with the victim's statements, which I know is a
• 22:47
  Speaker 2: therapeutic thing also, and I would if that happened to
• 22:50
  Speaker 2: me and I was, you know, family to someone that
• 22:53
  Speaker 2: was a victim, and I had to give a victis
• 22:54
  Speaker 2: to name, you better believe I would. So I'm not
• 22:56
  Speaker 2: opposed to that. But it's like, because there's more heartache,
• 23:00
  Speaker 2: they should have more jail time. Does that mean if
• 23:03
  Speaker 2: there was less heartache and this person that was killed
• 23:06
  Speaker 2: had no family or no victim statements because they were
• 23:09
  Speaker 2: not really engaged with anyone in their family and their
• 23:12
  Speaker 2: family didn't come, then that would person would get a
• 23:14
  Speaker 2: lesser sentence. It's still a life that was taken. So
• 23:18
  Speaker 2: I kind of don't really know how that comes into
• 23:20
  Speaker 2: play with sentencing, but I know it does, and I
• 23:23
  Speaker 2: know it's you know, there's probably more to it than
• 23:25
  Speaker 2: what I'm just saying.
• 23:26
  Speaker 1: Well, because at the end of the day, both sides
• 23:28
  Speaker 1: want to get to your pull your heart strings of
• 23:32
  Speaker 1: the jury.
• 23:32
  Speaker 2: Oh in some way, okay, yeah, yeah, if the jury
• 23:35
  Speaker 2: is involved in sensing. But all the time it is
• 23:37
  Speaker 2: to judge. But you know, everyone's sorry when they get caught, right,
• 23:41
  Speaker 2: So that makes it hard to believe. I remember, I, uh,
• 23:44
  Speaker 2: I caught shoplifters, right, that was one.
• 23:46
  Speaker 1: Of my jobs. Yes, I love Shane stories. We could
• 23:49
  Speaker 1: do a whole podcast.
• 23:50
  Speaker 2: I was a store investcart and every time it was
• 23:53
  Speaker 2: their first time, yes, and they were sorry and they
• 23:57
  Speaker 2: would never do it again. Right, But that's that's not
• 24:00
  Speaker 2: true because I'd seen him before, right, I'd like, now,
• 24:03
  Speaker 2: I've seen you many times coming here, and stud just
• 24:05
  Speaker 2: couldn't catch you. Now I did. It's not your first time,
• 24:07
  Speaker 2: and they're always sorry when they get caught.
• 24:10
  Speaker 1: You know, Shane is an interesting man, and I don't
• 24:13
  Speaker 1: know if the majority of you out there understand how
• 24:16
  Speaker 1: interesting he is.
• 24:17
  Speaker 3: You know.
• 24:17
  Speaker 1: Also, by the way, I had a lot of people
• 24:19
  Speaker 1: send me dms and they wanted more information about your
• 24:26
  Speaker 1: your your mission because you didn't give away a lot
• 24:29
  Speaker 1: of information when we talked about Jody Hildebrandon Ruby, Frankie.
• 24:33
  Speaker 1: You know, you did get you touched a little bit
• 24:35
  Speaker 1: on the fact that you did go on a mission
• 24:37
  Speaker 1: with the LDS Church, that you went to Portugal, that
• 24:39
  Speaker 1: you went to Cape Verd but you didn't give away
• 24:41
  Speaker 1: a lot more. And I had a lot of people
• 24:43
  Speaker 1: reach out and ask if we could do an in
• 24:45
  Speaker 1: depth podcast just on you and your mission, and someday,
• 24:52
  Speaker 1: maybe someday we take a deep dive into Shane Simson.
• 24:55
  Speaker 1: Shane also some of my other favorite stories, some of
• 24:58
  Speaker 1: his other career choices that people I don't know about.
• 25:01
  Speaker 1: When you did he did past control at once, that's
• 25:03
  Speaker 1: time I saved up for my mission. He did past
• 25:05
  Speaker 1: control before he went on his mission, And those are
• 25:08
  Speaker 1: some of my favorite Shane Simpson stories. So anyway, maybe
• 25:12
  Speaker 1: we'll take a deeper dive into Shane Simpson. So Judge
• 25:23
  Speaker 1: Liz graduated from University of Miami School of Law before
• 25:26
  Speaker 1: working for the State Attorney's Office for the seventeenth Judicial
• 25:29
  Speaker 1: Circuit Broward County, Florida. Shearer was first chair in over
• 25:34
  Speaker 1: seventy five jury trials handling charges of murder, attempted murder,
• 25:39
  Speaker 1: armed home invasion, robbery, and arson. She worked as a
• 25:43
  Speaker 1: prosecutor for eleven years before she was appointed to the
• 25:46
  Speaker 1: Florida Circuit Court bench by Florida Governor Rick Scott. She
• 25:49
  Speaker 1: spent two years presiding over family court cases before being
• 25:53
  Speaker 1: assigned by the chief judge to the Circuit Felony Division.
• 25:57
  Speaker 1: Judge Liz became widely known for presiding over the Parkland
• 26:00
  Speaker 1: shooting case, which we just discussed, which was the biggest
• 26:04
  Speaker 1: mass shooting case to go to trial in American history.
• 26:08
  Speaker 1: It's bigger than Columbine. How many were killed in Columbine,
• 26:11
  Speaker 1: I don't know. I'd have to look that up.
• 26:13
  Speaker 2: I don't know, but Columbine was as far as I remember,
• 26:17
  Speaker 2: like prior to that, there didn't seem to be such
• 26:19
  Speaker 2: a school shooting. I don't Also, security camera something so dramatic,
• 26:25
  Speaker 2: the way they dressed up, the way it was the
• 26:27
  Speaker 2: students that went in, and you know, how did the
• 26:31
  Speaker 2: parents not know? And you know, with media being more accessible,
• 26:34
  Speaker 2: it spread faster. So I don't know. To me, that
• 26:38
  Speaker 2: always felt like that kind of sparked school shootings, but
• 26:41
  Speaker 2: at least that that's also just from my generation and
• 26:44
  Speaker 2: what I've seen.
• 26:45
  Speaker 1: Well, No, I believe that there's a lot of truth
• 26:47
  Speaker 1: to that. I don't There might have been some school
• 26:49
  Speaker 1: shootings prior to that, but I don't know if they had.
• 26:52
  Speaker 1: I don't know if they were widely known or talked about.
• 26:54
  Speaker 1: Columbine was definitely.
• 26:56
  Speaker 2: And it almost like came on the news in real
• 26:58
  Speaker 2: time almost you know, everyone was outside the school trying
• 27:01
  Speaker 2: to figure out what's going on, and bombs and lots.
• 27:04
  Speaker 2: It wasn't one handgun, right, they had lots of weapons.
• 27:08
  Speaker 2: You know, they were gonna you know, it was like
• 27:09
  Speaker 2: an army kind of what was.
• 27:10
  Speaker 1: Well thought out and well planned. I think they planned
• 27:12
  Speaker 1: for over a year.
• 27:13
  Speaker 2: I believe probably. Yeah.
• 27:15
  Speaker 1: So, Sheer's career plan was to retire from the bench
• 27:18
  Speaker 1: after ten years in order to go into private practice
• 27:21
  Speaker 1: at her family's law firm, but at the request of
• 27:23
  Speaker 1: Chief Judge Jack Tudor, she agreed to stay until the
• 27:26
  Speaker 1: completion of the Parkland case. Shortly after the trial concluded,
• 27:30
  Speaker 1: she followed through with her career plan, retired from the
• 27:33
  Speaker 1: bench and now works as a partner at Conrad and Shearer,
• 27:37
  Speaker 1: specializing in civil litigation. Judge Sheer also works as a
• 27:41
  Speaker 1: legal analyst, making frequent TV appearances on Fox News, CBS
• 27:45
  Speaker 1: News Nation, Long, Crime Court TV, and now Legally Brunette.
• 27:51
  Speaker 1: She recently started her own YouTube channel. You can find
• 27:54
  Speaker 1: her at the Judge Liz, which is how she came
• 27:56
  Speaker 1: on our radar because Shane watched.
• 27:58
  Speaker 2: Her YouTube ita of her in the courtroom before, Yeah,
• 28:02
  Speaker 2: before her YouTube but then you.
• 28:03
  Speaker 1: Also watched some of her YouTube.
• 28:04
  Speaker 2: Channel, right, and then somehow it popped up and so
• 28:07
  Speaker 2: I got one of it.
• 28:08
  Speaker 1: Yeah, right, where's she? On her YouTube channel, she shares
• 28:11
  Speaker 1: her insight on a variety of legal issues and cases. So, Hi,
• 28:17
  Speaker 1: Judge list, thanks for coming on Legally Brunette today. I
• 28:19
  Speaker 1: appreciate it. It's nice to chat with you. Thanks, thank
• 28:22
  Speaker 1: you for having me. Of course, we've actually wanted to
• 28:24
  Speaker 1: have you on for a while. Shane, my husband Shane
• 28:28
  Speaker 1: uh was watching your YouTube videos and that's how we
• 28:31
  Speaker 1: were like, oh, we should have her on the podcast.
• 28:34
  Speaker 1: So we enjoyed watching.
• 28:35
  Speaker 3: You and I'm so great.
• 28:37
  Speaker 1: Yeah, anyway, and you do have a YouTube channel. It's
• 28:40
  Speaker 1: called at the Judge Liz correct if anybody wants to
• 28:42
  Speaker 1: find you, correct, I know on your YouTube, do you
• 28:46
  Speaker 1: just kind of take whatever's currently going on and kind
• 28:48
  Speaker 1: of talk about it from a judge perspective or just
• 28:50
  Speaker 1: a legal perspective. Is that kind of what you like
• 28:52
  Speaker 1: to do?
• 28:53
  Speaker 3: Yes, I try to get I try very hard. And
• 28:58
  Speaker 3: you all know because you do this, it's hard to
• 29:01
  Speaker 3: think of topics that not everybody's doing all the time, right,
• 29:05
  Speaker 3: So I try to take a case it's popular, that's
• 29:07
  Speaker 3: in the news that people are very interested in, and
• 29:10
  Speaker 3: I try, you know, my best to think of an
• 29:14
  Speaker 3: aspect that no one else is covering. Right of course,
• 29:17
  Speaker 3: like I said, you all know how hard that can be,
• 29:19
  Speaker 3: especially if you don't have if you're not big enough
• 29:21
  Speaker 3: to have you know, producers and writers and things like that.
• 29:25
  Speaker 3: But I try very hard to think of something that's
• 29:28
  Speaker 3: interesting that has not been talked about at nauseum.
• 29:32
  Speaker 1: Right, Well, I would think because I feel like a
• 29:34
  Speaker 1: lot of content creators, I mean, they don't have legal backgrounds.
• 29:36
  Speaker 1: So it's like everybody's talking about, you know, the Blake
• 29:39
  Speaker 1: Lively case, and everybody talks about Diddy and everybody talks
• 29:42
  Speaker 1: about the big things that are out there. But I mean,
• 29:46
  Speaker 1: you're You're not only an attorney, you're a judge, and
• 29:48
  Speaker 1: so you can have like that very deep perspective that
• 29:53
  Speaker 1: other content creators can't. So yes, you know, I think
• 29:56
  Speaker 1: that's always interesting that you can take a deeper dive
• 29:59
  Speaker 1: into that. So anyway, before you came on, we were
• 30:03
  Speaker 1: talking about the Parkland shooting, and you know, I just
• 30:06
  Speaker 1: had a I had. First of all, I didn't realize
• 30:08
  Speaker 1: it was twenty twenty two. For some reason, I felt
• 30:10
  Speaker 1: like it was farther back in time, but it actually
• 30:13
  Speaker 1: was pretty recent.
• 30:14
  Speaker 3: The sentencing was actually in twenty twenty.
• 30:17
  Speaker 1: Three, was it? The sentencing was in twenty twenty three. Now,
• 30:21
  Speaker 1: I know that you were tired right after that. Was
• 30:24
  Speaker 1: that that was a choice that you had made previously
• 30:26
  Speaker 1: though not because of the case? Correct?
• 30:28
  Speaker 3: So yeah, so I had, I had. I was appointed
• 30:33
  Speaker 3: to the bench at a young age. I was I
• 30:35
  Speaker 3: thirty five or thirty six, so I knew that wasn't
• 30:37
  Speaker 3: going to be my resting place, so to speak, so
• 30:43
  Speaker 3: I wanted to get the experience. I was very flattered
• 30:47
  Speaker 3: for the appointment, and I loved doing what I did,
• 30:52
  Speaker 3: but I knew there was a shelf life. I have
• 30:55
  Speaker 3: a family that has a very successful law form in
• 30:58
  Speaker 3: Fort Lauderdale. It's always been my dad's dream to have
• 31:01
  Speaker 3: me come help him run his firm with my brothers,
• 31:04
  Speaker 3: and so I had put him off for twenty years,
• 31:06
  Speaker 3: ten years as a prosecutor, in ten years as a judge.
• 31:09
  Speaker 3: So I told him at the end of at the
• 31:13
  Speaker 3: end of the Parkland case, I gave the chief judge
• 31:15
  Speaker 3: my word that I would stay through that case so
• 31:18
  Speaker 3: that the case would have continuity. But at the end
• 31:21
  Speaker 3: I was going to resign and perhaps take part in
• 31:25
  Speaker 3: my family business or do some other creative type things.
• 31:29
  Speaker 3: So that decision was made before. I can tell you
• 31:34
  Speaker 3: that the Parkland trial solidified my decision. In other words,
• 31:40
  Speaker 3: if I was on the cusp of should I do
• 31:43
  Speaker 3: it now or should I wait a few years, I
• 31:46
  Speaker 3: felt as though, you know what, I need to see
• 31:50
  Speaker 3: things and hear things that are not the worst of
• 31:53
  Speaker 3: the worst, because as a criminal judge, especially presiding over
• 31:56
  Speaker 3: a case like that, you hear things that are just
• 32:00
  Speaker 3: absolutely tragic, and you hear the worst parts of society
• 32:05
  Speaker 3: as opposed to the best. And you know, I like
• 32:07
  Speaker 3: to tell people. I've learned in my profession that most
• 32:11
  Speaker 3: people are good, most people are kind, most people would
• 32:14
  Speaker 3: lend a hand if they if they had the opportunity.
• 32:17
  Speaker 3: There are very few and far between are the criminals,
• 32:21
  Speaker 3: hardened criminals like the Parkland shooter. So I just felt like,
• 32:26
  Speaker 3: you know what, I need a new, fresh perspective right now.
• 32:30
  Speaker 3: I'm in civil I do civil litigation now, and it's
• 32:34
  Speaker 3: boring and I'm not sure it's the fresh perspective that
• 32:36
  Speaker 3: I was anticipating or needing. But at least I'm not
• 32:40
  Speaker 3: dealing with, you know, the death of children, or shootings
• 32:45
  Speaker 3: or just people, the worst people and the worst behavior,
• 32:49
  Speaker 3: if that makes sense.
• 32:50
  Speaker 1: You were offered where they came to you and they
• 32:52
  Speaker 1: wanted you to preside over that case, and you know seventeen,
• 32:55
  Speaker 1: you know, people were affected by that. How do you
• 32:57
  Speaker 1: prepare for something like that. I mean, that's a huge trial.
• 33:00
  Speaker 1: I mean you're dealing with seventeen families that were affected.
• 33:03
  Speaker 3: So it came out during the trial that I was
• 33:05
  Speaker 3: randomly assigned. I'm not afraid to say now because it's
• 33:08
  Speaker 3: been long enough. It was random, But the chief judge
• 33:12
  Speaker 3: had told me that if you don't get assigned this case.
• 33:15
  Speaker 3: I'm going to assign it to you because I had
• 33:17
  Speaker 3: the most experience and I knew how to handle myself
• 33:24
  Speaker 3: in front of the cameras. A lot of judges really
• 33:27
  Speaker 3: wanted the attention, the media attention. I had judges that
• 33:32
  Speaker 3: were close to retirement that were like calling me, begging me,
• 33:37
  Speaker 3: can I cover the arrangement? Can I cover this? Because
• 33:39
  Speaker 3: they wanted to be on TV? And the chief judge
• 33:41
  Speaker 3: knew that I wouldn't do that, that I would take
• 33:43
  Speaker 3: it seriously, that I wouldn't show both. So I knew
• 33:47
  Speaker 3: it was coming my way. I you know, you can't
• 33:52
  Speaker 3: prepare for it. At first, I said, you know what,
• 33:55
  Speaker 3: this is like any other case. He's not getting any
• 33:57
  Speaker 3: special treatment. I'm going to run this this case like
• 34:01
  Speaker 3: I do any other case. There's going to be deadlines.
• 34:03
  Speaker 3: You know, I'm gonna hold their feet to the fire
• 34:05
  Speaker 3: on both sides as far as discovery goes. He's gonna
• 34:08
  Speaker 3: come in with all the rest of the inmates. He's
• 34:10
  Speaker 3: gonna sit in the box like the rest of the inmates.
• 34:13
  Speaker 3: And then, very very quickly it was brought to my
• 34:15
  Speaker 3: attention judges is not a regular case. We can't bring
• 34:19
  Speaker 3: him in with the other inmates because it's dangerous to him.
• 34:22
  Speaker 3: Somebody's going to try to kill him. We have to
• 34:24
  Speaker 3: have him in a separate hearing where nobody else is
• 34:26
  Speaker 3: in the courtroom. We have to be able to accommodate
• 34:30
  Speaker 3: all the different lawyers on both sides. So you know,
• 34:34
  Speaker 3: my point of view is I'm going to handle this
• 34:36
  Speaker 3: like any other case.
• 34:38
  Speaker 4: Then I realized because of the specific circumstances with all
• 34:43
  Speaker 4: of the victims' family members that wanted to be present
• 34:45
  Speaker 4: for all of the hearings, and the network's live streamed
• 34:50
  Speaker 4: every single minute of every single hearing for five years,
• 34:53
  Speaker 4: and the fact that there was such a security risk
• 34:56
  Speaker 4: on the part of the shooter, which a lot of
• 34:58
  Speaker 4: people would think, well, who cares.
• 35:00
  Speaker 3: Well, the sheriff's office in any state or county, they
• 35:03
  Speaker 3: do care because if an inmate is killed or badly
• 35:06
  Speaker 3: hurt on their watch, it leaves them open to liability,
• 35:09
  Speaker 3: and they certainly did not want that to happen. So
• 35:12
  Speaker 3: there were all kinds of precautions that were taken. So
• 35:16
  Speaker 3: I just I went in with a mindset, this is
• 35:18
  Speaker 3: just like any other case, and I tried to keep
• 35:21
  Speaker 3: that that mindset. You know, this is like any other case.
• 35:26
  Speaker 3: I'm going to call balls and strikes. I'm going to
• 35:28
  Speaker 3: deal with what's what's put in front of me, and
• 35:31
  Speaker 3: then you know, we'll go from there.
• 35:33
  Speaker 1: Yeah, were you surprised by the jury's decision that he
• 35:38
  Speaker 1: did not get the death penalty? So you were was
• 35:40
  Speaker 1: that shocking for you?
• 35:43
  Speaker 3: So okay, yes and no. So my court reporter, who's
• 35:46
  Speaker 3: been a court reporter for like thirty years, she's the best.
• 35:50
  Speaker 3: She's worked with all of the judges who has tried
• 35:52
  Speaker 3: death penalty cases. So she has been the court reporter
• 35:57
  Speaker 3: for let's say, like I don't know, twenty five to
• 35:59
  Speaker 3: fifty death penalty cases and so many trials, and I
• 36:03
  Speaker 3: was lucky enough to have her. So she, you know,
• 36:05
  Speaker 3: the core reporter sits in front of the bench, right,
• 36:08
  Speaker 3: and they have a direct view to the jury.
• 36:12
  Speaker 1: Right.
• 36:12
  Speaker 3: I'm on the bench. I'm up here, so I'm sort
• 36:15
  Speaker 3: of looking down on them. So if they see me
• 36:16
  Speaker 3: looking at them, they sort of look up and smile.
• 36:20
  Speaker 3: The court reporter is a couple of feet from the
• 36:22
  Speaker 3: jury and sits just you know, five feet from them,
• 36:25
  Speaker 3: so she's watching them. So she had told me throughout
• 36:28
  Speaker 3: the trial judge, there's gonna be a problem with journal
• 36:31
  Speaker 3: number so and so. And I said, what do you mean,
• 36:33
  Speaker 3: and she said, I can tell by the way she
• 36:36
  Speaker 3: looks at the shooter. She said, he kind of just
• 36:39
  Speaker 3: makes a face like like she's so sorry for him.
• 36:43
  Speaker 3: And I said, Trisha, I don't want to hear it,
• 36:47
  Speaker 3: because there's nothing anybody can do.
• 36:49
  Speaker 1: If she's you know, sympathetic, it is what it is.
• 36:52
  Speaker 3: And you know so. But she kept telling me that,
• 36:55
  Speaker 3: and as much as I wanted to believe that she
• 37:00
  Speaker 3: was mistaken, because even if a jury is sympathetic, they
• 37:03
  Speaker 3: shouldn't be staring at the defendant and making like, you know,
• 37:07
  Speaker 3: like mom eyes and kind of like you know, sad
• 37:11
  Speaker 3: faces and that type of thing. They should be professional,
• 37:16
  Speaker 3: which mosturs are. So when the jury was out deliberating,
• 37:21
  Speaker 3: which was only for I think it was like five hours,
• 37:25
  Speaker 3: and considering the amount of evidence in the number of victims,
• 37:29
  Speaker 3: it was a very short amount of time. But during
• 37:32
  Speaker 3: that time, my chambers were like right down the hallway
• 37:38
  Speaker 3: from the jury, and the we had armed deputies and
• 37:41
  Speaker 3: so they would come into my chambers, like, Judge, the
• 37:43
  Speaker 3: jurors are screaming, they're pounding they're pounding on the doors.
• 37:46
  Speaker 3: They want to get out. They say they can't. They
• 37:49
  Speaker 3: have to get away from her. They need a break.
• 37:52
  Speaker 3: What do you want us to do? And anytime you
• 37:54
  Speaker 3: hear that kind of thing as a judge, it's like,
• 37:56
  Speaker 3: oh boy, this is not good. And then I found
• 37:59
  Speaker 3: out later on from my bailiffs that this particular juror
• 38:05
  Speaker 3: would not engage with any of the other jurors. Like
• 38:07
  Speaker 3: they go to a hotel at night and they're all
• 38:10
  Speaker 3: sitting at the table eating dinner. She goes to her
• 38:12
  Speaker 3: own table. She has her arms crossed, she's giving all
• 38:16
  Speaker 3: of these signs like she doesn't even want to participate
• 38:19
  Speaker 3: in with the rest of the of the members. So
• 38:28
  Speaker 3: when I got to the verdict and it was so quick,
• 38:34
  Speaker 3: you know, it's hard. It's hard to guess what a
• 38:37
  Speaker 3: jury's going to do. Especially this was my first death
• 38:39
  Speaker 3: penalty case. I had tried capital cases, but not death penalty.
• 38:42
  Speaker 3: So I mean, the evidence, as you all know, that
• 38:47
  Speaker 3: the the aggravating factors have to outweigh the mitigating factors,
• 38:52
  Speaker 3: and in my opinion, my legal opinion, the aggravating factors
• 38:56
  Speaker 3: grossly outweighed the mitigating In fact, there was the mitigating
• 39:01
  Speaker 3: evidence was so just. I mean, one of the mitigating
• 39:05
  Speaker 3: factors was Nicholas Cruz is a human being. I mean really,
• 39:09
  Speaker 3: because basically you have to include anything that the defense wants.
• 39:12
  Speaker 3: So that was a mitigating factor.
• 39:14
  Speaker 1: Can we just clarify for just the listeners, and mitigating
• 39:17
  Speaker 1: factors means the evidence that the defense presents that would say, okay,
• 39:22
  Speaker 1: he was wasn't there some evidence of abuse and things
• 39:25
  Speaker 1: like that.
• 39:26
  Speaker 3: Sure, So the state will come forward and they will
• 39:30
  Speaker 3: present aggravating factors, and they're statutory and the very similar
• 39:34
  Speaker 3: state by state. Because I've looked at them. One of
• 39:38
  Speaker 3: them is heinous, atrocious, and cruel. In other words, And
• 39:41
  Speaker 3: I hate to give this example, Emily, but if I
• 39:44
  Speaker 3: came into your office right now and shot you in
• 39:46
  Speaker 3: the face, that would not be considered heinous, atrocis and cruel.
• 39:50
  Speaker 3: If I tied you up and tortured you for an
• 39:53
  Speaker 3: hour and a half and then played Russian Roulette at
• 39:57
  Speaker 3: the back of your head until one boat finally came out,
• 40:00
  Speaker 3: that would probably be considered heineous choices and cruel. So,
• 40:03
  Speaker 3: as I've explained to my daughter, who's always very curious
• 40:06
  Speaker 3: about this, not every murder qualifies for the death penalty.
• 40:10
  Speaker 3: It has to be the worst of the worst. So
• 40:13
  Speaker 3: some of the aggravating factors were, this shooter came in
• 40:17
  Speaker 3: with a high powered assault rifle. Those the ammunition and
• 40:21
  Speaker 3: that type of rifle. They're about this big and I
• 40:24
  Speaker 3: would say about two and a half inches, and they
• 40:27
  Speaker 3: are made to tumble. So imagine a tumble weed going
• 40:31
  Speaker 3: through your body, so it just shreds whatever's in front
• 40:34
  Speaker 3: of it. So if I shot you with a regular gun,
• 40:37
  Speaker 3: it would go maybe through and through, maybe the bullet
• 40:39
  Speaker 3: would enter your flight, but this type would basically tumble
• 40:43
  Speaker 3: weed all the way through your body until it came out.
• 40:47
  Speaker 3: The fact that he planned this, the fact that it
• 40:51
  Speaker 3: was so high premeditated, a higher level of premeditation. The
• 40:55
  Speaker 3: fact that he went up and down the hallways shot
• 40:58
  Speaker 3: some people, and and then when he went back and
• 41:01
  Speaker 3: made the second pass through, he realized that certain people
• 41:04
  Speaker 3: weren't dead yet, and then he shot him again. Like
• 41:08
  Speaker 3: the terror, the fact that it was done on a
• 41:10
  Speaker 3: school grounds. All of these things were aggravating factors. The
• 41:13
  Speaker 3: fact that he killed so many people each victim can
• 41:17
  Speaker 3: be an aggravating factor in the other victim's case. Okay,
• 41:22
  Speaker 3: so the state presented all of the aggravating factors. The
• 41:25
  Speaker 3: mitigating factors are by the defense and their factors, like, look,
• 41:30
  Speaker 3: this person is not like you and I. He or
• 41:34
  Speaker 3: she has special circumstances that you should take into account
• 41:39
  Speaker 3: so you can understand the person and know more about
• 41:44
  Speaker 3: them why they committed the crime. And then you should
• 41:47
  Speaker 3: weigh that according to the aggravating factors and say which
• 41:51
  Speaker 3: one outweighs the other. Many people are under the mistaken
• 41:55
  Speaker 3: belief that Nicholas Cruz came from an abusive home. It was,
• 41:59
  Speaker 3: in fact the oppice it he was. He and his
• 42:02
  Speaker 3: younger brother were both adopted at birth by a lovely
• 42:07
  Speaker 3: couple who wanted nothing more but to have kids, but
• 42:11
  Speaker 3: they hadn't been able to, so they adopted them. They
• 42:15
  Speaker 3: gave them every kind of thing physical and emotional that
• 42:19
  Speaker 3: they could think of. His father died when he was
• 42:22
  Speaker 3: rather young, but his mother was always there, you know,
• 42:26
  Speaker 3: And as he became more and more troubled, she had
• 42:29
  Speaker 3: him in therapy, she had him in you know, special programs.
• 42:33
  Speaker 3: She she got him tested, she she she worked with
• 42:37
  Speaker 3: the schools for absolutely not. That's the mistake and belief.
• 42:43
  Speaker 3: This woman was a saint. She tried everything. At the end,
• 42:49
  Speaker 3: it got so bad, even with all of these services
• 42:52
  Speaker 3: in place, that she would walk around the house and
• 42:55
  Speaker 3: she was terrified. She was terrified of him and his
• 42:58
  Speaker 3: younger brother because they just they got they got a
• 43:02
  Speaker 3: kick out of terrorizing this this lady. But no, she tried.
• 43:05
  Speaker 3: She tried very hard. They lived in a nice area
• 43:08
  Speaker 3: of Parkland, so that wasn't that's that's sort of a
• 43:15
  Speaker 3: mistake and belief. What the defense did try to present
• 43:17
  Speaker 3: is that he he suffered from fetal alcohol syndrome. The
• 43:21
  Speaker 3: problem with that was that there was no evidence of it.
• 43:24
  Speaker 3: His marconium I think, I believe that's what you call
• 43:27
  Speaker 3: the like the umbilical cord stuff. I'm not very good
• 43:31
  Speaker 3: at science, but it tested negative. He didn't have any
• 43:36
  Speaker 3: of the signs. There's all these factors that you have
• 43:39
  Speaker 3: to have all of these symptoms. He didn't. He didn't
• 43:42
  Speaker 3: even have let's say there's I can't remember off the
• 43:45
  Speaker 3: top of my head, but let's say in order to
• 43:46
  Speaker 3: be diagnosed with this illness, you have to have like
• 43:51
  Speaker 3: five factors. He didn't even have two.
• 43:54
  Speaker 2: So you're saying, you're saying absent all these possible mitigating factors,
• 43:59
  Speaker 2: he still didn't get the.
• 44:00
  Speaker 3: Correct he was a psychopath.
• 44:10
  Speaker 1: Do you think it was the one juror that you
• 44:12
  Speaker 1: were talking about earlier. Do you think that she because
• 44:14
  Speaker 1: I know it was nine to three, So do you
• 44:17
  Speaker 1: think maybe she managed to convince to other people or
• 44:21
  Speaker 1: something and she was kind of the cancer in this
• 44:23
  Speaker 1: jury pool.
• 44:24
  Speaker 3: I don't think it was nine to three. I think
• 44:27
  Speaker 3: because this particular juror wrote me a note after the
• 44:31
  Speaker 3: verdict in its public record, and she said, Judge, all
• 44:35
  Speaker 3: the jurors are accusing me, saying that I hadn't made
• 44:38
  Speaker 3: my mind up from the beginning, and I wouldn't deliberate,
• 44:41
  Speaker 3: and I just want you to know that that I
• 44:44
  Speaker 3: deny that fully, and etcetera, and et cetera. There were
• 44:48
  Speaker 3: two jurors, from my understanding, that had not made up
• 44:52
  Speaker 3: their mind, and so people put the one hold out.
• 44:56
  Speaker 3: I wouldn't even call her a holdout. I would I
• 44:57
  Speaker 3: would say she she she got I'm that jury to hijacket.
• 45:01
  Speaker 3: I believe because all of her answers in a definitely case,
• 45:06
  Speaker 3: the lawyers are Aret vadier Or. Jury selection went on
• 45:11
  Speaker 3: for I think it was two months of jury selection,
• 45:15
  Speaker 3: so each juror was questioned, I mean at nauseum, to
• 45:20
  Speaker 3: the point where you're like, oh, how many times can
• 45:22
  Speaker 3: you ask the same question? So you would have to
• 45:25
  Speaker 3: be really, really good to be able to answer all
• 45:28
  Speaker 3: of the questions to gives. You'd have to try very
• 45:33
  Speaker 3: hard if you were not fair. Okay, if you said
• 45:36
  Speaker 3: I'm anti death penalty or I'm absolutely pro death penalty
• 45:40
  Speaker 3: and I think this guy should get the death penalty
• 45:41
  Speaker 3: and I can keep an open mind. If you had
• 45:43
  Speaker 3: either extreme view, you would have to try very very
• 45:48
  Speaker 3: hard to answer the questions from the lawyers on both
• 45:53
  Speaker 3: sides to be able to make it through to the end.
• 45:55
  Speaker 3: If that makes sense, because both sides get hours and
• 45:59
  Speaker 3: hours to question each your individually and ask them in
• 46:03
  Speaker 3: many different ways, and the jurors are told, listen, if
• 46:08
  Speaker 3: you have a belief that you're against the death penalty,
• 46:11
  Speaker 3: that's fine, that's okay, but not in this case, because
• 46:16
  Speaker 3: you have to at least you don't have to say yes,
• 46:19
  Speaker 3: I'll give them the death penalty. You just have to
• 46:21
  Speaker 3: say I will keep an open mind. I understand that
• 46:24
  Speaker 3: my duty, my legal duty, and I just have to
• 46:28
  Speaker 3: be willing to be fair and impartial. And consider the factors.
• 46:31
  Speaker 3: That's it. You don't have to say yes, I will
• 46:34
  Speaker 3: give the death penalty or no I won't. You just
• 46:36
  Speaker 3: have to say I will participate in the legal process,
• 46:41
  Speaker 3: have the discussion, and if you have a belief that's firm,
• 46:44
  Speaker 3: like I don't believe in the death penalty, that's okay,
• 46:48
  Speaker 3: but you need to be a different case.
• 46:51
  Speaker 2: That makes sense because if if you were a jury
• 46:55
  Speaker 2: member for a case that was over a crime that
• 46:59
  Speaker 2: the the juror member didn't believe was criminal, right, like
• 47:03
  Speaker 2: marijuana or something, and they felt that that should be
• 47:06
  Speaker 2: legal and it's not, then obviously they're not going to
• 47:08
  Speaker 2: consider issuing any punishment or finding anyone guilty of a
• 47:12
  Speaker 2: crime they don't believe it's a crime to begin with.
• 47:15
  Speaker 2: So it's the same with death penalty. It's not a
• 47:16
  Speaker 2: matter of there's nothing wrong with being opposed to the
• 47:20
  Speaker 2: death penalty. The problem is if you're opposed to the
• 47:22
  Speaker 2: death penalty, then you won't even consider it. And that's
• 47:25
  Speaker 2: what needs to be considered, whether it's right or wrong
• 47:27
  Speaker 2: in this case.
• 47:28
  Speaker 3: And we tell them, listen, there's absolutely nothing wrong with
• 47:32
  Speaker 3: being opposed to the death penalty under any circumstances. There's
• 47:35
  Speaker 3: a lot of people that believe that. There's a lot
• 47:36
  Speaker 3: of states that are like that. But in Florida, we
• 47:40
  Speaker 3: have the death penalty. So you have to be able
• 47:42
  Speaker 3: to say you'll consider it. You have to be fair.
• 47:46
  Speaker 3: I'll give you a great example. So the head of
• 47:49
  Speaker 3: the sexual battery unit at the State Attorney's office here
• 47:52
  Speaker 3: in Broward County never went in Roward County. The hierarchy
• 47:59
  Speaker 3: is homicide is the sort of considered the highest trial unit.
• 48:03
  Speaker 3: It's the most elite trial unit. So as a trial lawyer,
• 48:07
  Speaker 3: if you want to devote your life to public service,
• 48:10
  Speaker 3: be a prosecutor, your goal would be to get to
• 48:12
  Speaker 3: get to homicide. So I once asked him, why aren't
• 48:16
  Speaker 3: you even homicide? Why have you been in the sexual
• 48:19
  Speaker 3: battery unit for so long? And he said, because I
• 48:21
  Speaker 3: don't believe in the death penalty. And that's a perfect example.
• 48:24
  Speaker 3: He's a prosecutor. He has no trouble prosecuting cases. He
• 48:28
  Speaker 3: believes in the law. But he knows that if I
• 48:31
  Speaker 3: don't believe in the death penalty, I can't go to homicide.
• 48:34
  Speaker 3: I can't make a decision whether or not the state's
• 48:36
  Speaker 3: going to seek the death penalty because I don't believe
• 48:38
  Speaker 3: in it.
• 48:39
  Speaker 2: Person take over correct.
• 48:42
  Speaker 3: But I think someone who can recognize that even as
• 48:44
  Speaker 3: a prosecutor, I give that person a lot of credit
• 48:47
  Speaker 3: because you know, not everybody has the same beliefs as judges.
• 48:53
  Speaker 3: It's hard.
• 48:53
  Speaker 1: Also, I'll tell you, was the jury decision difficult for you?
• 48:58
  Speaker 3: I was frustrated because we spent so much time and
• 49:02
  Speaker 3: I did not feel that. I believe what happened is
• 49:06
  Speaker 3: there were a lot of younger jerors, and I believe
• 49:10
  Speaker 3: that this woman was so adamant that she wouldn't discuss
• 49:15
  Speaker 3: it that they just threw up their hands and gave up.
• 49:19
  Speaker 3: And in my opinion, there were thirty five victims if
• 49:26
  Speaker 3: you divide, I did the math one time. They gave
• 49:29
  Speaker 3: less than like ten minutes of consideration to each victim.
• 49:32
  Speaker 3: And by the way, there were victims who got it
• 49:36
  Speaker 3: much worse than other victims, so the aggravating factors would
• 49:40
  Speaker 3: be worse. For example, I always call him little sweet
• 49:44
  Speaker 3: Peter Wang. He was count seventeen of the indictment. He
• 49:49
  Speaker 3: was holding the door on the third floor for the
• 49:53
  Speaker 3: mass of students to get out. Will this shooter is
• 49:56
  Speaker 3: heading towards them. Shooting into the crowd. He was shot
• 50:01
  Speaker 3: something like seventeen times. His skull was completely I mean
• 50:07
  Speaker 3: it was held together by skin. To me, someone like
• 50:14
  Speaker 3: that's much more aggravating than someone who was perhaps shot once.
• 50:19
  Speaker 3: So the fact that they did not even take the
• 50:22
  Speaker 3: time to go through each victim. And also I mentioned
• 50:28
  Speaker 3: there were two or three victims that were shot once
• 50:31
  Speaker 3: and would have lived, and they were trying to crawl
• 50:34
  Speaker 3: to safety, into the bathroom or trying to get away.
• 50:39
  Speaker 3: And what he did was he made two passes. On
• 50:41
  Speaker 3: each floor. There was a coach and at least two
• 50:47
  Speaker 3: children who were crawling to safety, and he didn't get them.
• 50:52
  Speaker 3: The first pass. There was a video of a coach
• 50:59
  Speaker 3: who had been shot numerous times, and he was trying
• 51:02
  Speaker 3: to get up. And I'll never forget it. And he's
• 51:08
  Speaker 3: trying to get up, and he's trying to get up
• 51:10
  Speaker 3: and and and I'm imagining this guy is just he's got,
• 51:13
  Speaker 3: he's got he's got two kids and a grand baby
• 51:17
  Speaker 3: on the way, and a wife who just absolutely adores him,
• 51:21
  Speaker 3: and I and I could just you can tell he's
• 51:26
  Speaker 3: trying to get up. He he's hey, I'm going to
• 51:29
  Speaker 3: get out of here. For my family, you know, and
• 51:30
  Speaker 3: he's get and he actually got up and he managed
• 51:33
  Speaker 3: to walk a few feet when when the shooter made
• 51:36
  Speaker 3: the second pass, and even after he shot him again
• 51:41
  Speaker 3: light on him two or three times, he still struggled
• 51:45
  Speaker 3: and he's still moving. And you can just see this
• 51:48
  Speaker 3: guy was a veteran, a marine, wonderful family man, wonderful coach,
• 51:57
  Speaker 3: you know, barged right in trying to save his kids,
• 52:01
  Speaker 3: and he didn't make it. Now, certainly there's a lot
• 52:05
  Speaker 3: more aggravating factors to that murder than there would be
• 52:11
  Speaker 3: to another person who was shot once. So yes, I
• 52:15
  Speaker 3: was frustrated. I don't believe that. I think that the
• 52:19
  Speaker 3: attitude of the one juror made it so that the
• 52:22
  Speaker 3: other jurors were just because they knew if they don't
• 52:24
  Speaker 3: all agree, if it's not unanimous, by the way that
• 52:27
  Speaker 3: law was changed, like I don't know. Thirty days after the.
• 52:29
  Speaker 1: Verdict, I know we read that I was going to
• 52:31
  Speaker 1: ask you about that.
• 52:32
  Speaker 3: That was because of my case. Basically the law. The
• 52:37
  Speaker 3: Florida Supreme Court had written an opinion maybe two years
• 52:42
  Speaker 3: before the Parkland shooting case went to trials, saying that
• 52:46
  Speaker 3: the Constitution does not require the verdict to be unanimous
• 52:52
  Speaker 3: as far as life versus death. But the and by
• 52:57
  Speaker 3: the way, when I read that opinion as a judge,
• 53:00
  Speaker 3: I thought to myself, that's scary, Like I almost panicked
• 53:06
  Speaker 3: because I thought that means it's going to be up
• 53:07
  Speaker 3: to me. And I'm Catholic. Catholics are anti death penalty.
• 53:14
  Speaker 3: I can tell you personally, I am not anti death penalty.
• 53:18
  Speaker 3: But on the other hand, being the person that essentially
• 53:21
  Speaker 3: pulls the trigger, that's a huge responsibility. So the the
• 53:27
  Speaker 3: the Florida legislature never codified that opinion. They just never
• 53:33
  Speaker 3: got to it. I couldn't help but think, you know,
• 53:37
  Speaker 3: maybe I rushed things. Maybe I didn't give you know,
• 53:42
  Speaker 3: as a judge, you have to move things. You have to,
• 53:45
  Speaker 3: you know, in that case went on forever, and I
• 53:50
  Speaker 3: still I needed to be efficient and I needed to
• 53:53
  Speaker 3: be fair, and sometimes that means putting your foot down
• 53:56
  Speaker 3: and saying no, we're not going to take another day
• 53:58
  Speaker 3: to do this. We're gonna you know, and give deadlines
• 54:00
  Speaker 3: and moving things. So I couldn't help, but think, in hindsight,
• 54:04
  Speaker 3: did I did I push too hard to get you know,
• 54:07
  Speaker 3: maybe I should have given him longer In jury selection.
• 54:10
  Speaker 3: You know, maybe I should have done this, maybe I
• 54:11
  Speaker 3: should have done that. If if I didn't know all
• 54:16
  Speaker 3: of the reasons about if I didn't know that that
• 54:19
  Speaker 3: particular juror had refused to participate in the jury deliberation process,
• 54:24
  Speaker 3: I wouldn't feel bad because a jury's verdict, it's a
• 54:26
  Speaker 3: jury's verdict. It's a jury of your peers, and that's
• 54:29
  Speaker 3: their decision. If that's their decision, even if I don't
• 54:31
  Speaker 3: agree with it, I have to accept it.
• 54:32
  Speaker 1: Right.
• 54:33
  Speaker 3: My frustration was with all of the banging on the door,
• 54:38
  Speaker 3: get me out of here, get me away from her her,
• 54:40
  Speaker 3: you know, with the with the arms crossed, not engaging
• 54:43
  Speaker 3: with the jury, not considering anything. That was frustrating. I
• 54:51
  Speaker 3: mean when when the jurors came out with the verdict,
• 54:53
  Speaker 3: there were two or three jurors that put their heads
• 54:56
  Speaker 3: down and were crying hysterically. They wouldn't even look at me.
• 54:59
  Speaker 1: Yeah, because they so disappointed in the verdict.
• 55:02
  Speaker 3: I don't know if they knew that I would be disappointed,
• 55:05
  Speaker 3: But I think that I think good jurors if they
• 55:09
  Speaker 3: see as a good judge who follows the law and
• 55:11
  Speaker 3: tries very hard to be fair and impartial. I think
• 55:14
  Speaker 3: they don't want to disappoint you. And I think they
• 55:17
  Speaker 3: knew that they had failed and that there was no
• 55:22
  Speaker 3: substance deliberation, and they just finally all gave up. I
• 55:26
  Speaker 3: mean there were a couple of them that fell down
• 55:28
  Speaker 3: in the parking lot crying hysterically, that had like ms had.
• 55:31
  Speaker 1: To be called wow really.
• 55:34
  Speaker 3: Yeah, because they were just besides themselves. And like I say,
• 55:38
  Speaker 3: there was a lot of younger people twenties and thirties,
• 55:46
  Speaker 3: and I think that if and I don't know this,
• 55:53
  Speaker 3: but I think that maybe if they if the jury
• 55:56
  Speaker 3: had been older, maybe they would have the strength to
• 56:02
  Speaker 3: sort of fight and say, no, you have to deliberate.
• 56:05
  Speaker 3: That's your job. You took an oath to deliberate, and
• 56:08
  Speaker 3: we're gonna, you know, we're gonna tell the judge if
• 56:10
  Speaker 3: you don't, if you don't participate in this instructions, and
• 56:13
  Speaker 3: the instructions are given to them about how they should,
• 56:16
  Speaker 3: you know, elect a four person and they should go
• 56:18
  Speaker 3: around the room and what they should do. What I
• 56:21
  Speaker 3: believe they should have done is pass a note and
• 56:22
  Speaker 3: say this juror is not following her oath and she's
• 56:25
  Speaker 3: refusing to deliberate. What would I have done with that,
• 56:27
  Speaker 3: and would I have been reversed? I don't know, but
• 56:32
  Speaker 3: at least it would have given me the opportunity to.
• 56:36
  Speaker 2: To address address in fashion.
• 56:39
  Speaker 3: Yeah, to address it and to perhaps excuse her and
• 56:42
  Speaker 3: replace her with one of the alternates, which we had. Again,
• 56:47
  Speaker 3: that's never been done, but in the in the context
• 56:51
  Speaker 3: of a jury saying this juror won't deliberate, But to me,
• 56:55
  Speaker 3: that means she's not being fair and impartial if she's
• 56:57
  Speaker 3: refusing to have any discussions.
• 56:59
  Speaker 1: You know.
• 57:02
  Speaker 3: So, yes, that was sort of a long answer.
• 57:04
  Speaker 1: I'm sorry.
• 57:06
  Speaker 3: I was disappointed because I can't help but feel like
• 57:10
  Speaker 3: I may have played a part and what went wrong,
• 57:15
  Speaker 3: And also because the world was watching. And I have
• 57:18
  Speaker 3: to tell you that ninety nine percent of juris they
• 57:21
  Speaker 3: try really hard to get it right, and they listen intently,
• 57:25
  Speaker 3: and they listen to the instructions, and I think, even
• 57:29
  Speaker 3: if maybe I don't agree with their decision, that they
• 57:32
  Speaker 3: give it. They're all And I feel that this was
• 57:36
  Speaker 3: such a bad example for the nation and in other countries.
• 57:42
  Speaker 3: I mean, this case was watched in every country in
• 57:44
  Speaker 3: the world, and I just felt like, this is not
• 57:50
  Speaker 3: how justice is supposed to work, and for that I
• 57:55
  Speaker 3: had to blame myself because ultimately the responsibility of making
• 57:59
  Speaker 3: sure the tireless fairs up to the judge.
• 58:09
  Speaker 1: Now, Nick Reiner has been in the news a lot.
• 58:11
  Speaker 1: Have you been following that I have to a certain extent. Yeah, yeah,
• 58:14
  Speaker 1: And we just talked about before you came on, how
• 58:17
  Speaker 1: Alan Jackson was representing him and then he you know,
• 58:19
  Speaker 1: at the arraignment he withdrew. We me basically, I'm of
• 58:25
  Speaker 1: the opinion that he withdrew because of finances. Do you
• 58:27
  Speaker 1: have an opinion on the reason.
• 58:29
  Speaker 3: You know, It's funny. Before the podcast, I was preparing
• 58:32
  Speaker 3: and reading everything and trying to figure things out, and
• 58:35
  Speaker 3: the first thing I thought was money, because he's not
• 58:38
  Speaker 3: gonna have access to his parents' money. He's in jail.
• 58:40
  Speaker 3: And when I read that he's been in and out
• 58:42
  Speaker 3: of rehab so many times, I'm assuming he doesn't have
• 58:45
  Speaker 3: some trust fun sitting in the bank. So yes, I
• 58:51
  Speaker 3: assume money. But the way that the defense attorney, mister
• 58:55
  Speaker 3: Jackson responded saying it would be aune ethical for me
• 58:57
  Speaker 3: to say that, I was a little confused about because
• 59:04
  Speaker 3: attorneys come forward all the time at least in Florida
• 59:06
  Speaker 3: and say Judge that he can't he doesn't have the
• 59:08
  Speaker 3: money to pay me. I can't stand.
• 59:10
  Speaker 2: But that's all. But that's also in a courtroom setting,
• 59:12
  Speaker 2: right when they're trying to present and they're making emotion
• 59:15
  Speaker 2: to withdraw or something.
• 59:16
  Speaker 3: Sure, but it would be public.
• 59:19
  Speaker 2: Well, maybe he just doesn't want to look like he's
• 59:21
  Speaker 2: a greedy attorney.
• 59:23
  Speaker 3: Well, I'm thinking that a lot of people would want
• 59:25
  Speaker 3: to take this case for free anyway for the publicity.
• 59:27
  Speaker 2: Right, I thought I thought so too, but that I
• 59:29
  Speaker 2: read that he doesn't do probona, but I would have
• 59:31
  Speaker 2: thought he did it. In fact, I think I told
• 59:32
  Speaker 2: Emily that, I'm like, he's probably doing it for free,
• 59:35
  Speaker 2: and then he gets a lot of free I think,
• 59:36
  Speaker 2: gets a lot of potential criminal cases. And then he
• 59:39
  Speaker 2: might throw him down to his other attorneys in his
• 59:41
  Speaker 2: firm and he's doing the head this big one.
• 59:42
  Speaker 3: You know.
• 59:44
  Speaker 2: Well, Emily is just in love with Alan Jackson, and
• 59:48
  Speaker 2: she wants to find every reason to say that he's
• 59:50
  Speaker 2: a gentleman and his hands are tied.
• 59:52
  Speaker 1: Well, I'm a big fan of I became a big
• 59:56
  Speaker 1: fan of Alan Jackson watching him do the Karen Reid trial.
• 59:58
  Speaker 1: So yeah, well here's the thing.
• 1:00:02
  Speaker 3: You know, like you you all are lawyers practicing lawyers,
• 1:00:04
  Speaker 3: so you know that for example, my law firm, we've
• 1:00:08
  Speaker 3: stopped taking not completely, but we have tapered down the
• 1:00:13
  Speaker 3: amount of contingency cases that we take because you have
• 1:00:17
  Speaker 3: to bankroll the litigation and then it can be years
• 1:00:20
  Speaker 3: and then the case is on appeal and you may
• 1:00:22
  Speaker 3: not get paid for ten to fifteen years, and while
• 1:00:25
  Speaker 3: who's paying at all, you know, who's paying keep the
• 1:00:27
  Speaker 3: lights on. So I wouldn't think an attorney is a
• 1:00:30
  Speaker 3: bad person just because they won't take a case for free.
• 1:00:33
  Speaker 2: No, No, I said that earlier. I said, he has
• 1:00:35
  Speaker 2: every right to charge what heah he's worth, and he's
• 1:00:37
  Speaker 2: given him his time, and if they can't afford it,
• 1:00:39
  Speaker 2: then he's going to put us, you.
• 1:00:41
  Speaker 3: Know, and he may not. He might not have the funds.
• 1:00:43
  Speaker 3: He may not have the money to be able to
• 1:00:46
  Speaker 3: bankroll that that case. He may not. You know, I
• 1:00:49
  Speaker 3: don't know that much about him, but that's going to
• 1:00:53
  Speaker 3: be an expensive case to try, I would imagine.
• 1:00:56
  Speaker 2: To put it lightly, Yeah, you know all.
• 1:00:58
  Speaker 3: The experts that they're probably going to hide, psychologists, psychiatrists,
• 1:01:04
  Speaker 3: I mean, I don't know what the defense will be, but.
• 1:01:09
  Speaker 1: We've discussed we're some type of insanity defense, right.
• 1:01:16
  Speaker 3: I mean, I wasn't able to find like a probable
• 1:01:19
  Speaker 3: cause affidavit or anything like that. I was able to
• 1:01:21
  Speaker 3: find just the injuries to the victims and then the
• 1:01:24
  Speaker 3: fact that he was arrested. I don't know if there's
• 1:01:26
  Speaker 3: more to it that I don't know, but.
• 1:01:30
  Speaker 1: Well, I've read some things about I mean, just like
• 1:01:32
  Speaker 1: his past, his past behavior, some of the way he
• 1:01:35
  Speaker 1: was acting the night before at a party that he
• 1:01:38
  Speaker 1: was on meds, but the meds had been switched, and
• 1:01:41
  Speaker 1: so I don't know. I was just taking all that
• 1:01:43
  Speaker 1: into account, thinking that, you know, when we're talking about
• 1:01:45
  Speaker 1: mitigating factors, that that's probably something that's going to come
• 1:01:48
  Speaker 1: into play eventually. And the fact that a public defender
• 1:01:51
  Speaker 1: took the case made me think it also had to
• 1:01:53
  Speaker 1: do with money, because I felt like if there was
• 1:01:55
  Speaker 1: money to defend him, they would have brought some other
• 1:01:57
  Speaker 1: big name defense attorney. And but it's not. It's a
• 1:01:59
  Speaker 1: public defen or.
• 1:02:01
  Speaker 3: It may be that what happens a lot of times,
• 1:02:06
  Speaker 3: and I feel bad for the public defenders for this,
• 1:02:08
  Speaker 3: but they'll say, let the public. You know, a private
• 1:02:12
  Speaker 3: attorney will say, let the public defender work up the case,
• 1:02:15
  Speaker 3: Let the public defender take the depots and do all
• 1:02:17
  Speaker 3: the leg work, and then all come in substitutent at
• 1:02:19
  Speaker 3: the end. Now, of course they don't say this, but
• 1:02:23
  Speaker 3: when it happens, it's very frustrating to the public defenders
• 1:02:25
  Speaker 3: and unfair because they bear the brunt, so that that
• 1:02:30
  Speaker 3: could be an angle. I wouldn't be surprised if mister
• 1:02:34
  Speaker 3: Jackson or another prominent attorney were to substitutent once the
• 1:02:37
  Speaker 3: heavy lifting is done.
• 1:02:38
  Speaker 1: Oh yeah, you know, I didn't think of that, But
• 1:02:40
  Speaker 1: that's that's that's an interesting take.
• 1:02:42
  Speaker 3: You know what I mean. Yeah, because then they pay
• 1:02:45
  Speaker 3: for the depots, they pay for the they pay for
• 1:02:47
  Speaker 3: everything in two months before trial. You know, you have
• 1:02:50
  Speaker 3: a right to pick your own lawyer, and as long
• 1:02:51
  Speaker 3: as the lawyer can be ready within a reasonable time period,
• 1:02:54
  Speaker 3: the judge has no other choice but to let the
• 1:02:56
  Speaker 3: person substitute in. I would not be surprised if that
• 1:02:59
  Speaker 3: were to happen.
• 1:03:00
  Speaker 1: Right, that's interesting. We'll have to keep following that case
• 1:03:04
  Speaker 1: and see what happens. Just one one more question. Now,
• 1:03:08
  Speaker 1: I'm sure you followed Diddy.
• 1:03:10
  Speaker 3: I did.
• 1:03:11
  Speaker 1: Were you surprised by the verdict.
• 1:03:14
  Speaker 3: You know, because it's in federal court and you don't
• 1:03:16
  Speaker 3: get to watch it, hear it, see it every day.
• 1:03:20
  Speaker 3: I mean the bits from what I could, you know,
• 1:03:22
  Speaker 3: you had to rely on reporters to tell you what
• 1:03:24
  Speaker 3: their sense of what was going on. I mean, my
• 1:03:30
  Speaker 3: opinion is they just didn't think that they believed it
• 1:03:32
  Speaker 3: was consensual, so it didn't rise to the to the
• 1:03:34
  Speaker 3: level of trafficking.
• 1:03:36
  Speaker 1: Right. Well, we had discussed a few times on this podcast,
• 1:03:41
  Speaker 1: and I think we always said was I felt like
• 1:03:43
  Speaker 1: they were going to have trouble with the Rico part
• 1:03:46
  Speaker 1: of it. Yeah, it didn't that seemed I mean, obviously
• 1:03:49
  Speaker 1: he was a horrible person. We all watched the video
• 1:03:51
  Speaker 1: of him, you know, attacking Cassie in the hallway. He
• 1:03:54
  Speaker 1: was violent. We knew that. But I felt as if
• 1:03:57
  Speaker 1: those higher charges, the reco charge, those were going to
• 1:04:00
  Speaker 1: be difficult.
• 1:04:01
  Speaker 3: Yes see, if the prosecution was smart, and I've I
• 1:04:06
  Speaker 3: said this on another podcast that I was on, if
• 1:04:10
  Speaker 3: they would have prosecuted him for the dragging her in
• 1:04:12
  Speaker 3: that hotel, at least in Florida, and I don't know
• 1:04:14
  Speaker 3: about California. But that could have been a kidnapping. That
• 1:04:17
  Speaker 3: could have been a false imprisonment, holding somebody against their will,
• 1:04:20
  Speaker 3: that could have been an aggravated battery, that could have
• 1:04:23
  Speaker 3: been a number of felonies that would where he would
• 1:04:26
  Speaker 3: face fifteen plus years in prison. And it's all on
• 1:04:30
  Speaker 3: video and he can't explain it. There's no way to
• 1:04:32
  Speaker 3: explain away what he did. Why they didn't prosecute him
• 1:04:36
  Speaker 3: for that and asked for the maximum punishment. I don't know,
• 1:04:39
  Speaker 3: because certainly that was a much that would have been
• 1:04:41
  Speaker 3: a one day trial. You show the video he hit
• 1:04:45
  Speaker 3: her with I believe multiple he was throwing multiple objects
• 1:04:48
  Speaker 3: at her in Florida. That's an aggravated battery with a weapon,
• 1:04:51
  Speaker 3: deadly weapon. And again, kidnapping because when you're holding somebody
• 1:04:56
  Speaker 3: against their will and false imprisonment.
• 1:05:00
  Speaker 1: Like back to the room or something, right right, he
• 1:05:02
  Speaker 1: doesn't let her get on the elevator right right.
• 1:05:05
  Speaker 3: And that's like for anybody that doesn't understand, a kidnapping
• 1:05:10
  Speaker 3: does not necessarily have to be that you put somebody
• 1:05:12
  Speaker 3: in your car and you take them away for like
• 1:05:14
  Speaker 3: two days. A kidnapping can be fifteen seconds, you know,
• 1:05:18
  Speaker 3: trying exactly, trying to get her before she gets on
• 1:05:21
  Speaker 3: the elevator and keeping her from escaping. To me, they
• 1:05:25
  Speaker 3: should have gone for that. That would have been a
• 1:05:27
  Speaker 3: slam dunk. But this other case, you know, I think
• 1:05:31
  Speaker 3: the jury didn't buy it and so they came back
• 1:05:35
  Speaker 3: with a lesser charge. I wasn't I wasn't totally surprised.
• 1:05:38
  Speaker 3: I you know, I think they deliberated for quite some time.
• 1:05:43
  Speaker 3: They were listening, and they did their job. And if
• 1:05:45
  Speaker 3: that's what they if that's what a jury does, then
• 1:05:48
  Speaker 3: then you know, to me, I'm fully in favor of
• 1:05:52
  Speaker 3: our of our system of justice. I think juries get
• 1:05:55
  Speaker 3: it right most of the time. So you know, without
• 1:05:57
  Speaker 3: having been there, I don't know, but it does not surprise.
• 1:06:01
  Speaker 3: The verdict did not surprise me.
• 1:06:03
  Speaker 1: Can I ask you one more thing? And I don't
• 1:06:04
  Speaker 1: know if you're comfortable talking about it, but I do
• 1:06:07
  Speaker 1: know when when when the jury came out in the
• 1:06:09
  Speaker 1: Parkland case and they gave the verdict and everything, and
• 1:06:12
  Speaker 1: then you hugged the families and then I think you
• 1:06:16
  Speaker 1: got some backlash because of that, I guess because you
• 1:06:18
  Speaker 1: weren't showing what impartiality or whatever is that that's what
• 1:06:22
  Speaker 1: the accusation was but I was before you came on.
• 1:06:26
  Speaker 1: I was discussing that with Shane, and I said, I said,
• 1:06:30
  Speaker 1: women are innately nurturers, and like how you were talking
• 1:06:34
  Speaker 1: about before with like a man on the bench, and
• 1:06:37
  Speaker 1: I could picture if it was a male judge, the
• 1:06:40
  Speaker 1: verdict would have come out, he would have whatever and
• 1:06:42
  Speaker 1: then walked away. But as women were mothers, were nurtures,
• 1:06:46
  Speaker 1: were like were innately that way. So I feel as
• 1:06:50
  Speaker 1: if what you just giving the families a hug is
• 1:06:53
  Speaker 1: just a natural progression of what women do well.
• 1:06:58
  Speaker 3: So let me just say this. It started off I
• 1:07:02
  Speaker 3: was going to shake hands with the lawyers and whoever
• 1:07:05
  Speaker 3: wanted to shake my hand, which men, male judges do
• 1:07:07
  Speaker 3: all the time, and the way the bench was set up,
• 1:07:10
  Speaker 3: I had to reach so far over that I was
• 1:07:12
  Speaker 3: afraid my thiek were going to come out from under
• 1:07:14
  Speaker 3: me and I was going to sort of fall forward.
• 1:07:17
  Speaker 3: So I said, let me come off the bench and
• 1:07:20
  Speaker 3: come around. Now at this point, I know it's a
• 1:07:22
  Speaker 3: life sentence, so I know there's no appeal. The defendant's
• 1:07:26
  Speaker 3: already been taken by the corrections officers, so I'm not
• 1:07:29
  Speaker 3: worried about being unfair because I was planning to shake
• 1:07:35
  Speaker 3: hands with anybody, including defense, prosecution, anyone.
• 1:07:38
  Speaker 1: Right, So I go.
• 1:07:40
  Speaker 3: Up to the first prosecutor and I thought, you know what,
• 1:07:45
  Speaker 3: we've all been together hearing this horrible story for five years.
• 1:07:49
  Speaker 3: I'm going to give them a hug. It's kind of uncomfortable. Women,
• 1:07:55
  Speaker 3: we don't really shake hands, right.
• 1:07:57
  Speaker 1: I'm more of a hugger.
• 1:07:58
  Speaker 3: Yeah, I'm a but under those circumstances, I just thought,
• 1:08:03
  Speaker 3: you know what, a hug is more appropriate. So I
• 1:08:05
  Speaker 3: started hugging the lawyers and then I walked over to
• 1:08:09
  Speaker 3: the defense and I said, thank you all very much,
• 1:08:13
  Speaker 3: before you leave, I would love to give you, know,
• 1:08:15
  Speaker 3: give you all. I've come down off the bench. If
• 1:08:17
  Speaker 3: anyone wants a hug. I'm not a big hugger, but
• 1:08:19
  Speaker 3: now it's your chance. And they all just sort of
• 1:08:22
  Speaker 3: looked at me like they were not interested. I said, okay,
• 1:08:25
  Speaker 3: going once, going twice. And then after that the prosecution said, Judge,
• 1:08:32
  Speaker 3: the family members would like to meet you and thank you.
• 1:08:37
  Speaker 3: Do you mind And I said no, of course not, because,
• 1:08:41
  Speaker 3: like I said, if it had been a situation where
• 1:08:43
  Speaker 3: I had stayed behind the bench, anybody can come up
• 1:08:46
  Speaker 3: to me. The if the defendant had family members there
• 1:08:49
  Speaker 3: and they want to come up to me. It'd have
• 1:08:50
  Speaker 3: been fine because I was off the bench again, and
• 1:08:53
  Speaker 3: because the family members had seen me hugging the lawyers.
• 1:08:57
  Speaker 3: I hug the press, you know, yeah, to see me
• 1:09:00
  Speaker 3: hugging lawyers. So I the families come up and they
• 1:09:03
  Speaker 3: start hugging me. And I thought to myself, you know,
• 1:09:07
  Speaker 3: as a human being, if I can do this, if
• 1:09:11
  Speaker 3: this gives these people some sort of reprieve from their grief,
• 1:09:18
  Speaker 3: if I can offer them some kind of human kindness
• 1:09:22
  Speaker 3: in this just simple, simple gesture, I'm going to do it.
• 1:09:25
  Speaker 2: Now.
• 1:09:25
  Speaker 3: I knew the cameras were rolling, I knew I was
• 1:09:28
  Speaker 3: being filmed. I made the decision. I didn't care. I
• 1:09:32
  Speaker 3: knew this is this is uh, this could be considered unfair.
• 1:09:37
  Speaker 3: But I felt because I hugged the press, you know,
• 1:09:39
  Speaker 3: I was hugging everybody that it was like, you know,
• 1:09:42
  Speaker 3: it wasn't expartey because I wasn't just hugging one side.
• 1:09:44
  Speaker 3: I was, you know, hugging everybody, right, But I knew
• 1:09:48
  Speaker 3: this could come back to get me. And my staff
• 1:09:50
  Speaker 3: attorney was there, and afterwards I said to him, Michael,
• 1:09:53
  Speaker 3: he said, Judge, I think you're fine, And I said,
• 1:09:56
  Speaker 3: you know what, even if I'm not, I don't care
• 1:09:58
  Speaker 3: because offer these people just that small gesture. I think
• 1:10:03
  Speaker 3: it made such a difference to them to know that. Look,
• 1:10:07
  Speaker 3: I tried my best, and I listened, and I understand
• 1:10:13
  Speaker 3: and so yes, I was brought before the Judicial Qualifications
• 1:10:19
  Speaker 3: Commission for that and they told me that it, you know,
• 1:10:24
  Speaker 3: was not fair and the appearance of impartiality, and we
• 1:10:32
  Speaker 3: had to we agreed to disagree. I can tell you
• 1:10:36
  Speaker 3: I that none nobody on that committee has ever tried
• 1:10:40
  Speaker 3: a case like this. Most of them are appellate judges.
• 1:10:43
  Speaker 3: They've never even tried a case in their life. But
• 1:10:48
  Speaker 3: the I don't regret my decision.
• 1:10:50
  Speaker 1: That's why I was going to ask you, given the
• 1:10:52
  Speaker 1: chance to do it again, would you do it the same?
• 1:10:54
  Speaker 3: Yes, well absolutely, and I could have. I could have
• 1:10:58
  Speaker 3: taken that charge to try. I basically pled no contest,
• 1:11:01
  Speaker 3: meaning I'm not going to dispute this allegation. And the
• 1:11:05
  Speaker 3: punishment was, oh, we're going to reprimand you. And by
• 1:11:08
  Speaker 3: way of this order, this is the reprimand, which has
• 1:11:11
  Speaker 3: by the way, never been done before ever in the
• 1:11:14
  Speaker 3: history of Florida. A reprimand as you go before the
• 1:11:16
  Speaker 3: Florida Supreme Court and on national television they shame on
• 1:11:21
  Speaker 3: you and really let you have it on national TV.
• 1:11:24
  Speaker 3: The Florida Supreme Court did not do that. They issued
• 1:11:27
  Speaker 3: a one sentence order that says this will be the
• 1:11:30
  Speaker 3: reprimand which to me says that they either didn't agree
• 1:11:35
  Speaker 3: with it or felt it was over overdone. I could
• 1:11:39
  Speaker 3: have gone to trial, which my family wanted me to do,
• 1:11:42
  Speaker 3: to dispute it, but I said no, because my witnesses
• 1:11:49
  Speaker 3: are going to be that these family members. I can
• 1:11:51
  Speaker 3: have these people go through this again. There's no way
• 1:11:54
  Speaker 3: I can't if I have to take a slap on
• 1:11:56
  Speaker 3: the wrists or whatever it was. Plus I kind of
• 1:12:02
  Speaker 3: I mean, this is gonna sound maybe not that nice,
• 1:12:05
  Speaker 3: but it's okay because I haven't been a judge for
• 1:12:07
  Speaker 3: two years so that they don't have jurisdiction over me anymore.
• 1:12:10
  Speaker 3: But I was thinking, you know what, fine, bring me
• 1:12:12
  Speaker 3: up before the Phoidacy Supreme Court, because guess what's gonna happen.
• 1:12:16
  Speaker 3: A whole bunch of my colleagues, fellow judges, and all
• 1:12:19
  Speaker 3: of those family members. We're going to go and sit
• 1:12:21
  Speaker 3: in that courtroom right behind me so I don't regret it.
• 1:12:27
  Speaker 3: I feel close to a lot of those families, even
• 1:12:32
  Speaker 3: though we never spoke for all those years, just from
• 1:12:36
  Speaker 3: listening to their stories and having me opportunity to interact
• 1:12:41
  Speaker 3: with them.
• 1:12:42
  Speaker 1: Well, sometimes at the end of the day, it's about
• 1:12:44
  Speaker 1: being human and not as what the black and white
• 1:12:47
  Speaker 1: legal rules of the courtroom are. And I think you
• 1:12:50
  Speaker 1: just showed humanity.
• 1:12:53
  Speaker 3: I mean, thank you for saying that. I think that
• 1:12:58
  Speaker 3: the people who criticize me, I just I know for
• 1:13:05
  Speaker 3: a fact no one has ever been in that situation before.
• 1:13:08
  Speaker 2: Well, none of the people would criticize you have never
• 1:13:10
  Speaker 2: been in your place either to be able to say
• 1:13:12
  Speaker 2: what is right and wrong.
• 1:13:15
  Speaker 3: And I have to tell you that trial, everybody was
• 1:13:18
  Speaker 3: crying in the courtroom. The defense attorneys were hysterical, the
• 1:13:22
  Speaker 3: state shed tears, the court deputies shed tears, the security
• 1:13:26
  Speaker 3: shed tears, the family were crying. Guess who never cried? Me?
• 1:13:29
  Speaker 3: I never cried. And I had male judges coming up
• 1:13:32
  Speaker 3: to me every day saying, Liz, how did you do that?
• 1:13:34
  Speaker 3: How did you not cry? Because I put on my
• 1:13:37
  Speaker 3: big girl pants and I said, if a male judge
• 1:13:39
  Speaker 3: doesn't cry, this female judge is not going to cry.
• 1:13:42
  Speaker 3: But I had a lot of stuff that I buried
• 1:13:45
  Speaker 3: deep to make sure that that trial was fair and impartial.
• 1:13:50
  Speaker 3: And you know, if I had broken down in tears,
• 1:13:54
  Speaker 3: I don't think I would have gotten trouble because they
• 1:13:56
  Speaker 3: would have said, well, you can't help that, you know
• 1:13:58
  Speaker 3: what I mean.
• 1:13:59
  Speaker 1: Yeah, But to me, that's more if that would have happened,
• 1:14:02
  Speaker 1: that's more showing some kind of emotion when you hugging
• 1:14:06
  Speaker 1: after the sentencing and the verdict, after the.
• 1:14:10
  Speaker 3: After the defendant was excused, when there's I know there's
• 1:14:14
  Speaker 3: not going to be any appeal. If he had been
• 1:14:15
  Speaker 3: given the death penalty, I would not have done that
• 1:14:17
  Speaker 3: because I know there would have been an appeal, but
• 1:14:19
  Speaker 3: I knew there's no there's no appeal. This is all over.
• 1:14:23
  Speaker 3: You know, I buried that, that my emotions this whole time,
• 1:14:27
  Speaker 3: and I'm going to be a human being and you know,
• 1:14:30
  Speaker 3: I'll deal with it later.
• 1:14:31
  Speaker 1: So yeah, well, you know what, thank you for sharing
• 1:14:35
  Speaker 1: all of that. We really appreciate you coming on today
• 1:14:39
  Speaker 1: and being so vulnerable and talking about that case and
• 1:14:42
  Speaker 1: your experience. And you can find your YouTube channel. It's
• 1:14:47
  Speaker 1: at the judge list. So I would suggest if if
• 1:14:49
  Speaker 1: you guys have the time to watch her. We've watched
• 1:14:52
  Speaker 1: several of your videos and I really enjoy them. I
• 1:14:54
  Speaker 1: like your perspective and I think, thanks you done so.
• 1:14:57
  Speaker 1: But anyway, thank you so much for joining us today
• 1:14:59
  Speaker 1: on Legally Brunette. Really appreciate it.
• 1:15:01
  Speaker 3: It was so great to meet you both. I'm so flattered.
• 1:15:05
  Speaker 3: And your show the was it? Was it a wife
• 1:15:09
  Speaker 3: swap last week?
• 1:15:10
  Speaker 1: Oh yeah, I've been on white Swap. Yeah. Yeah.
• 1:15:12
  Speaker 3: So my assistance text, you got to turn this on.
• 1:15:14
  Speaker 3: You got to turn this on. She's a really nice lady.
• 1:15:17
  Speaker 3: You're going to love her. And so I turn it
• 1:15:21
  Speaker 3: on for a few minutes. So I was telling a
• 1:15:24
  Speaker 3: lot of my friends at my barn like I'm gonna
• 1:15:26
  Speaker 3: be on this podcast and she's on Housewives of Orange
• 1:15:31
  Speaker 3: County and they were like, oh my god, that's so cool.
• 1:15:33
  Speaker 1: So yes, well, thank you, thank you so nice to
• 1:15:37
  Speaker 1: meet both of you. Thanks Liz, We appreciate it all right,
• 1:15:40
  Speaker 1: take care you too, Bye bye Bay. Thanks guys for listening.
• 1:15:44
  Speaker 1: We appreciate it. Again. You can find us anywhere you
• 1:15:47
  Speaker 1: listen to podcasts. You can just search for Legally Brunette.
• 1:15:50
  Speaker 1: Make sure you tell your friends and family and Also,
• 1:15:53
  Speaker 1: I always appreciate the feedback. You guys dm me on
• 1:15:55
  Speaker 1: Instagram and let me know what cases you're interested in
• 1:15:58
  Speaker 1: and thank you and we will see you soon.
• 1:16:00
  Speaker 2: Thank you. Follow h