Latest / NO FILTER / Ex-NFL player charged in parking spot brawl_ Woman pleads insanity after stabbing 3-year-old(MP3_160K)

Transcript

Ex-NFL player charged in parking spot brawl_ Woman pleads insanity after stabbing 3-year-old(MP3_160K) · NO FILTER

• 0:11
  Speaker 1: Hello, and welcome to the Sidebar presented by True Crime News,
• 0:14
  Speaker 1: taking you inside the courtrooms of high profile and notorious
• 0:17
  Speaker 1: cases from across the country. I'm your host, Joshua Ritter.
• 0:20
  Speaker 1: I'm previously an LA County prosecutor for nearly a decade,
• 0:23
  Speaker 1: and now I'm a criminal defense attorney based in Los Angeles.
• 0:26
  Speaker 1: You can find me on all social platforms at Joshua
• 0:29
  Speaker 1: Ritter EESQ or at Joshua ridd dot com. We are
• 0:33
  Speaker 1: recording this on Wednesday, October eighth, twenty twenty five. In
• 0:37
  Speaker 1: this week's episode, a woman facing trial for the fatal
• 0:40
  Speaker 1: stabbing of a three year old boy in a grocery
• 0:43
  Speaker 1: store parking lot, plus a delay and trial for a
• 0:46
  Speaker 1: man accused of killing his wife after a jailhouse attack
• 0:50
  Speaker 1: raises questions about his competency for trial. But first, a
• 0:55
  Speaker 1: former NFL quarterback facing felony charges after an alleged parking
• 1:00
  Speaker 1: spot altercation in which he sustained stab wounds. I am
• 1:05
  Speaker 1: flying solo today, so let's just go ahead and jump
• 1:08
  Speaker 1: right in. First. Out of Indianapolis, Indiana, a former NFL
• 1:12
  Speaker 1: quarterback is facing a felony battery charge after an argument
• 1:16
  Speaker 1: over a parking space Mark. Sanchez suffered stab wounds and
• 1:20
  Speaker 1: was pepper sprayed in the incident, with prosecutors alleging the
• 1:24
  Speaker 1: ten year NFL VET and sports analysts incited the violent altercation. Reportedly,
• 1:30
  Speaker 1: the confrontation unfolded after sixty nine year old truck driver
• 1:33
  Speaker 1: Perry Tole backed into a parking space in the loading
• 1:36
  Speaker 1: docks of a downtown Indianapolis hotel. Prosecutors say that Sanchez
• 1:41
  Speaker 1: wanted the spot for himself and attack the man more
• 1:44
  Speaker 1: than thirty years his senior, who produced a knife to
• 1:47
  Speaker 1: defend himself against Sanchez. The alleged attack left both men injured,
• 1:53
  Speaker 1: but so far, prosecutors have only announced charges against Sanchez.
• 1:57
  Speaker 1: Along with the criminal proceedings, lawyers for Toll have already
• 2:01
  Speaker 1: announced a lawsuit suing Sanchez and his employer, Fox Sports,
• 2:05
  Speaker 1: meaning the alleged parking spot altercation could have long lasting
• 2:10
  Speaker 1: legal rope percussions. First of all, this story is absolutely wild.
• 2:18
  Speaker 1: But let's talk a little bit about why is it
• 2:21
  Speaker 1: only Sanchez that he's seeing criminal charges here? And why
• 2:25
  Speaker 1: in these cases where there appears to be mutual combat
• 2:29
  Speaker 1: do we only usually see one person getting charged. Well,
• 2:32
  Speaker 1: I think, first of all, it intuitively makes sense if
• 2:34
  Speaker 1: both people are committing crimes, it's kind of hard to
• 2:37
  Speaker 1: find where the criminal conduct really lies. But really this
• 2:41
  Speaker 1: comes down to a question of self defense and when
• 2:46
  Speaker 1: can a person defend themselves? In other words, can you
• 2:51
  Speaker 1: be the person who starts the altercation and then defend
• 2:55
  Speaker 1: yourself and claim self defense? And the answer, pretty clearly,
• 2:58
  Speaker 1: according to case law and criminal jurisprudence, is that no,
• 3:02
  Speaker 1: you cannot. You cannot create the situation which then allows
• 3:07
  Speaker 1: you to use physical force. So apparently, according to reports
• 3:11
  Speaker 1: and prosecutors in this case, Sanchez was the original aggressor.
• 3:16
  Speaker 1: He got into some sort of altercation with this truck
• 3:19
  Speaker 1: driver who's a much older man, a much smaller man
• 3:22
  Speaker 1: by the way, that included throwing the man to the
• 3:25
  Speaker 1: ground on more than one occasion. That man then pepper
• 3:27
  Speaker 1: sprayed Sanchez, and in the course of defending himself, produced
• 3:31
  Speaker 1: a knife and stab Sanchez. Now you might say, well,
• 3:33
  Speaker 1: Sanchez got the worst of it, he got stabbed, he
• 3:35
  Speaker 1: had emergency surgery. But if Sanchez was the aggressor, then
• 3:39
  Speaker 1: he can't claim self defense for the injuries that he
• 3:42
  Speaker 1: did to this man, and the injuries caused to him
• 3:45
  Speaker 1: are rightfully in self defense by the truck driver and
• 3:49
  Speaker 1: that therefore that's why he's not even being charged in
• 3:52
  Speaker 1: this case. I will say too, that there's elements of
• 3:55
  Speaker 1: him being Sanchez being highly intoxicated that may have played
• 3:59
  Speaker 1: a role in the charging decision being made by prosecutors.
• 4:02
  Speaker 1: And it does sound like there is surveillance video which
• 4:06
  Speaker 1: shows their altercation, which may make it even more clear
• 4:09
  Speaker 1: to them. But again, it is as long as the
• 4:14
  Speaker 1: self defense being used by this truck driver was not
• 4:17
  Speaker 1: so unreasonable a response to the attack, then he's got
• 4:21
  Speaker 1: a righteous claim for self defense. And then Sanchez is
• 4:24
  Speaker 1: just the one left holding the bag, as it were,
• 4:27
  Speaker 1: from a criminal culpability perspective, because he's the one that
• 4:32
  Speaker 1: started the whole thing. And by the way, the injuries
• 4:35
  Speaker 1: to this truck driver are also very severe if you've
• 4:39
  Speaker 1: seen pictures of him online, he was also hospitalized and
• 4:43
  Speaker 1: need of recovery. Also, apparently, Indiana has some of the
• 4:47
  Speaker 1: most robust self defense laws in the nation, which means
• 4:53
  Speaker 1: that the case for the truck driver is probably more
• 4:58
  Speaker 1: clear cut under Indiana law, and the case for Sanchez
• 5:02
  Speaker 1: it's probably a little bit more difficult for him to
• 5:04
  Speaker 1: show that how the person who starts the altercation is
• 5:08
  Speaker 1: going to be the one claiming self defense. End of
• 5:11
  Speaker 1: the day, Sanchez is in real trouble here. This is
• 5:16
  Speaker 1: not one of those situations where I feel like you
• 5:18
  Speaker 1: could see a person who's a celebrity coming from wealth
• 5:23
  Speaker 1: and privilege kind of walking away from this whole thing.
• 5:26
  Speaker 1: It'll be interesting to me to see how this plays out.
• 5:29
  Speaker 1: And here's where I'm coming from. When I was a
• 5:31
  Speaker 1: prosecutor this type of a case, we would charge it
• 5:34
  Speaker 1: as a felony assault with a special enhancement for great
• 5:40
  Speaker 1: bodily injury. Great bodily injury alone can add a seven
• 5:45
  Speaker 1: year prison enhancement. Two sentencing guidelines for this type of
• 5:48
  Speaker 1: a case. You put somebody into the hospital for something
• 5:51
  Speaker 1: like that. I don't care who you are, what kind
• 5:53
  Speaker 1: of criminal record do you've got. You're looking at a
• 5:56
  Speaker 1: prison sentence. You're looking at an offer from the prosecution
• 6:00
  Speaker 1: that includes prison. Now, are there other mitigating factors here?
• 6:05
  Speaker 1: You could argue that, well, intoxication plate a role. Sure,
• 6:08
  Speaker 1: a play a role, But is that an excuse? Is
• 6:11
  Speaker 1: that really a defense? Is that really something that his
• 6:13
  Speaker 1: team can rely upon to excuse his behavior and mitigate
• 6:16
  Speaker 1: his behavior. It could even arguably be an aggravating circumstance
• 6:21
  Speaker 1: that you were so intoxicated that you were going out
• 6:24
  Speaker 1: like a mad man, attacking people for no reason. There's
• 6:27
  Speaker 1: allegations that he there's also a charge about unlawfully entering
• 6:32
  Speaker 1: a vehicle. It sounds like at some point he tried
• 6:35
  Speaker 1: to get into the truck driver's car to maybe move
• 6:38
  Speaker 1: the car or I don't know what. It just all
• 6:40
  Speaker 1: sounds like a mess. We will say too that reports
• 6:43
  Speaker 1: are saying that Sanchez is telling authorities he has no
• 6:47
  Speaker 1: memory of the incident, which may speak to his level
• 6:51
  Speaker 1: of sobriety or lack thereof at the time as well.
• 6:55
  Speaker 1: But I will tell you I would not be surprised
• 7:01
  Speaker 1: if this came out with a prison offer to begin with. Honestly,
• 7:06
  Speaker 1: I think that him and his team need to prepare
• 7:08
  Speaker 1: themselves for that. I know. We see this all the
• 7:10
  Speaker 1: time with celebrities and they get into trouble and somehow
• 7:14
  Speaker 1: there's a big cash payout, amends are made, they create
• 7:19
  Speaker 1: a charity, they go into some sort of you know,
• 7:22
  Speaker 1: rehab and do a bunch of counseling and it all
• 7:24
  Speaker 1: seems to go away. You put someone into the hospital
• 7:28
  Speaker 1: over no reason, you attack that person. I mean, right now,
• 7:32
  Speaker 1: in my view, don't even consider the injuries to Sanchez.
• 7:36
  Speaker 1: That's not part of the filing consideration here. The idea
• 7:39
  Speaker 1: that he may have got the worst end of all
• 7:41
  Speaker 1: of this by being stabbed is not going to help
• 7:44
  Speaker 1: him out from a criminal perspective. I mean, he's looking
• 7:46
  Speaker 1: at possibly most likely more than anything, losing his job,
• 7:51
  Speaker 1: losing you know whatever and deendorsements and future work he had,
• 7:55
  Speaker 1: But he also may be looking at losing his liberty.
• 7:57
  Speaker 1: It's a really, really horrific case. And now that there's
• 8:02
  Speaker 1: a lawsuit apart that, you've got to imagine that his
• 8:04
  Speaker 1: employers are probably looking to distance themselves. Fox Sports, I'm
• 8:09
  Speaker 1: sure is going to try to settle this thing as
• 8:14
  Speaker 1: quickly as they possibly can. Now do they have liability
• 8:19
  Speaker 1: in this? Do they carry some responsibility? Well, it would
• 8:23
  Speaker 1: come down to an argument of whether or not Sanchez
• 8:26
  Speaker 1: was still operating under the course and scope of employment
• 8:30
  Speaker 1: at the time that he took these actions. I would
• 8:33
  Speaker 1: be curious to know, if I were the plane off's attorney,
• 8:35
  Speaker 1: why where was he coming from? Where had he been drinking?
• 8:39
  Speaker 1: Had he been at a work sanctioned event and he
• 8:42
  Speaker 1: got highly intoxicated and overserved, or was he just out
• 8:46
  Speaker 1: on his own. If he was out on his own
• 8:48
  Speaker 1: and this had nothing to do with Fox Sports, he
• 8:51
  Speaker 1: might be left out to try by Fox Sports as well.
• 8:54
  Speaker 1: It is pretty amazing to me, though, and I'm just
• 8:56
  Speaker 1: saying this as an aside, that the lawsuit was this quickly.
• 9:01
  Speaker 1: Usually you see these things take a few months before
• 9:05
  Speaker 1: a lawsuit has ever filed. So a very trigger happy
• 9:09
  Speaker 1: plaintiff's attorney out there filing this lawsuit right away. Nothing
• 9:12
  Speaker 1: wrong with it, but just interesting that it happened so quickly.
• 9:16
  Speaker 1: Bad news for Mark Sanchez, to say the least. He's
• 9:20
  Speaker 1: going to have a whole heap of trouble on his
• 9:22
  Speaker 1: hands for quite some time, and it may even include
• 9:25
  Speaker 1: him going to prison for a little bit of time.
• 9:27
  Speaker 1: But we shall see how this all works out. Let's
• 9:29
  Speaker 1: move to Cleveland, Ohio, where a woman is facing trial
• 9:33
  Speaker 1: for the murder of a three year old child after
• 9:37
  Speaker 1: the boy was stabbed to death outside of a grocery
• 9:39
  Speaker 1: store next to his mother. Bianca Ellis has pled not
• 9:43
  Speaker 1: guilty to ten felony charges, including felony murder and attempted
• 9:47
  Speaker 1: murder in the death of Julian Wood. The boy was
• 9:51
  Speaker 1: writing in a shopping cart when Ellis allegedly approached the
• 9:54
  Speaker 1: boy and his mother with a knife before fatally stabbing
• 9:58
  Speaker 1: the child and injuring his mother. There was no altercation
• 10:02
  Speaker 1: that motivated the attack, and Ellis and the young boy
• 10:05
  Speaker 1: and young boy and mother had no connection to each other.
• 10:08
  Speaker 1: Ellis was reportedly homeless at the time of the incident
• 10:11
  Speaker 1: and was initially declared incompetent to stand trial until her
• 10:15
  Speaker 1: competency was restored. Ellis has pled not guilty by reason
• 10:20
  Speaker 1: of insanity and her trial is ongoing and we will
• 10:23
  Speaker 1: continue to keep you updated on this tragic case. This
• 10:28
  Speaker 1: gives us a good opportunity to talk about the difference
• 10:31
  Speaker 1: between competency and insanity. And we hear these terms tossed
• 10:36
  Speaker 1: around quite a bit, and they're always in the mental
• 10:39
  Speaker 1: health realm, But what are the real differences between them,
• 10:42
  Speaker 1: specifically from a legal perspective. Well, one good way to
• 10:47
  Speaker 1: think about it is the competency. The question of competency
• 10:51
  Speaker 1: has to do with the present moment. Is that person
• 10:55
  Speaker 1: competent now as they sit in the chair in court
• 10:58
  Speaker 1: to stand trial. Insanity, However, when you plead not guilty
• 11:04
  Speaker 1: by reason of insanity has to do with your mental
• 11:09
  Speaker 1: state at the time that the crime was committed. So
• 11:11
  Speaker 1: there's a temporal difference between these two considerations. There's also
• 11:15
  Speaker 1: a difference in degree and what we're looking at. Competency
• 11:20
  Speaker 1: is a very low threshold. It is basically the bare
• 11:24
  Speaker 1: minimum of understanding of the proceedings taking place. Does the
• 11:29
  Speaker 1: person in court understand the charges against them? Do they
• 11:33
  Speaker 1: understand who the judge is, who the prosecutor is, who
• 11:37
  Speaker 1: their defense attorney is, and what roles each of them play?
• 11:40
  Speaker 1: And can they assist in their own defense? Not meaning
• 11:44
  Speaker 1: can they think strategically and do they know what motions
• 11:47
  Speaker 1: to file? But can they answer questions to their attorney
• 11:50
  Speaker 1: and somewhat help and their own defense. Again, a very
• 11:53
  Speaker 1: very low threshold. The other thing about competency is someone
• 11:56
  Speaker 1: can go in and out of competency. Is in this
• 12:00
  Speaker 1: case with Bianca Ellis, she was at one point declared
• 12:04
  Speaker 1: incompetent and unable to stand trial, and then through the
• 12:07
  Speaker 1: use of medications and therapy, her competency was restored and
• 12:14
  Speaker 1: she was allowed to proceed on with trial. Insanity, however,
• 12:20
  Speaker 1: asks a question in its most simple terms of does
• 12:23
  Speaker 1: that person have the ability at the time of the
• 12:25
  Speaker 1: crime to appreciate the difference between right and wrong? Did
• 12:29
  Speaker 1: they know what they were doing? Did they understand the
• 12:32
  Speaker 1: consequences of their actions? Did they know what they were
• 12:35
  Speaker 1: doing is wrong? Now? How will this all manifest itself
• 12:39
  Speaker 1: from the trial? Well, the defense is going to need
• 12:42
  Speaker 1: to demonstrate that she could not, as we just said,
• 12:50
  Speaker 1: understand what she was doing was either morally or legally
• 12:57
  Speaker 1: wrong at the time that she was doing it. The
• 13:00
  Speaker 1: defense has taken an interesting strategy in this case. In
• 13:03
  Speaker 1: their opening statements, they admit that the murder was committed.
• 13:08
  Speaker 1: They admit that their client committed that murder. They admit
• 13:13
  Speaker 1: that it's an absolute tragedy. But what they're saying to
• 13:16
  Speaker 1: jurors is reserve your judgment on those things until you
• 13:21
  Speaker 1: understand her level of sanity at the time, and that
• 13:24
  Speaker 1: they intend to prove that she was in fact insane
• 13:28
  Speaker 1: and could not appreciate the consequences of her actions. The prosecution,
• 13:32
  Speaker 1: for their part, understandably so, has said, concentrate on her actions,
• 13:39
  Speaker 1: what do they mean? What do her words mean? Things
• 13:43
  Speaker 1: like did she run after the stabbing, did she dispose
• 13:47
  Speaker 1: of the knife, Did she make statements to police? Did
• 13:50
  Speaker 1: she behave in a way that, maybe to us from
• 13:55
  Speaker 1: the outside looking in, be crazy behavior, be something to
• 14:00
  Speaker 1: we can't imagine somebody in there being in their right
• 14:02
  Speaker 1: mind and doing that. And I think the act itself
• 14:05
  Speaker 1: speaks to that. Stabbing a young boy for no reason
• 14:10
  Speaker 1: whatsoever is what I think any of us would call
• 14:13
  Speaker 1: quote unquote crazy. But for the purposes of a criminal court,
• 14:17
  Speaker 1: in insanity, you have to show that she understood what
• 14:20
  Speaker 1: she was doing. And the way that you can demonstrate
• 14:23
  Speaker 1: that from the prosecutor's perspective is by pointing to things
• 14:26
  Speaker 1: like people who understand what they did was wrong run,
• 14:32
  Speaker 1: People who understand what they did was wrong dispose of
• 14:35
  Speaker 1: the knife and try to hide it. They say things
• 14:38
  Speaker 1: to police, They say things during the course of the
• 14:41
  Speaker 1: crime itself that might help people appreciate that they knew.
• 14:46
  Speaker 1: Maybe they did it for crazy reasons, but they knew
• 14:48
  Speaker 1: what they were doing in that moment was wrong. So, again,
• 14:53
  Speaker 1: a tragic case. We will see how this all plays out,
• 14:56
  Speaker 1: but one thing to keep in mind is this is
• 14:58
  Speaker 1: no small question. If she is found guilty but not
• 15:02
  Speaker 1: guilty guilty for her actions for committing the murder but
• 15:06
  Speaker 1: not guilty by reason of insanity as far as criminal responsibility.
• 15:11
  Speaker 1: She could go to a mental health institution instead of
• 15:14
  Speaker 1: to prison, and then it's up to the state to
• 15:17
  Speaker 1: decide when does her sanity return to her. It's not
• 15:21
  Speaker 1: a traditional prison sentence where she could go off to
• 15:24
  Speaker 1: prison for the rest of her life, but it could
• 15:26
  Speaker 1: be something where one day, if she's restored to mental
• 15:29
  Speaker 1: health and an evaluation is made of her and the
• 15:32
  Speaker 1: state board decides to she could be released. So not
• 15:36
  Speaker 1: a small question. Again, such a sad case. It personally
• 15:40
  Speaker 1: tears me apart to think about a child that young
• 15:45
  Speaker 1: being killed in front of his own mother. I have
• 15:49
  Speaker 1: a hard time walking through what that mother was going
• 15:52
  Speaker 1: through in those final moments. Such a horrific nightmare. Let's
• 15:57
  Speaker 1: move to Norfolk County, Massachusetts. Trial has been delayed for
• 16:02
  Speaker 1: a man accused of killing his wife as the defendant
• 16:05
  Speaker 1: undergoes a competency hearing following a jail house attack. Brian
• 16:10
  Speaker 1: Walsh stands accused of slaying his wife Anna, before allegedly
• 16:14
  Speaker 1: dismembering her body and discarding the remains, which have still
• 16:17
  Speaker 1: not been found. While incarcerated, Walsh was the victim of
• 16:21
  Speaker 1: an attack last month which left him brutally stabbed, and
• 16:25
  Speaker 1: Walsh's attorneys claimed that he has suffered physical and mental decline,
• 16:29
  Speaker 1: rendering him incompetent for trial. Though prosecutors objected to the delay,
• 16:34
  Speaker 1: noting that Walsh was returned to the prison after medical
• 16:37
  Speaker 1: care on the same day the incident occurred, the judge
• 16:41
  Speaker 1: ultimately ruled in Walsh's favor. A competency hearing to determine
• 16:45
  Speaker 1: Walsh's ability to stand trial is scheduled for October twenty seventh,
• 16:49
  Speaker 1: and no new trial date has yet been set. All right,
• 16:54
  Speaker 1: another opportunity for us to talk about this idea of
• 16:57
  Speaker 1: competency in this case, at least not yet. We're not
• 17:00
  Speaker 1: talking about insanity and the difference there, but just the
• 17:03
  Speaker 1: idea that a person accused of a crime has now
• 17:06
  Speaker 1: in the middle of pre trial proceedings been declared or
• 17:09
  Speaker 1: not declared, the question of competency has come up. Another
• 17:15
  Speaker 1: thing to think about is that this is not a
• 17:19
  Speaker 1: pre trial issue per se. It's a issue as it
• 17:24
  Speaker 1: arises at any time, meaning this can come up before trial,
• 17:28
  Speaker 1: this can come up during trial. It really has to
• 17:32
  Speaker 1: do with the mental state of the person at that time.
• 17:34
  Speaker 1: And you understand the policy reasons behind it. We have
• 17:39
  Speaker 1: no interest in sham trials, which put a person who
• 17:44
  Speaker 1: simply cannot understand what's taking place around them on trial
• 17:48
  Speaker 1: for something as serious as murder, Which then helps you
• 17:52
  Speaker 1: understand why the judge would put a halt to things
• 17:55
  Speaker 1: in the middle of pre trial when trial was looming
• 17:58
  Speaker 1: in this case, this case was expected to go to
• 18:00
  Speaker 1: trial at the end of this month, and now who
• 18:03
  Speaker 1: knows he's going to undergo a twenty day evaluation. So
• 18:06
  Speaker 1: this is certainly going to delay things, and that may
• 18:09
  Speaker 1: frustrate people, and that may frustrate you who are listening,
• 18:13
  Speaker 1: who have been watching this case closely and eager to
• 18:15
  Speaker 1: see it get started. Why did the judge do this, Well,
• 18:19
  Speaker 1: there's a few reasons. First of all, the judge does
• 18:24
  Speaker 1: not determine competency. It's not like the defense attorneys may say,
• 18:31
  Speaker 1: your honor, I'm questioning the competency of my client, and
• 18:35
  Speaker 1: the judge takes a look at him and asks some
• 18:38
  Speaker 1: a few questions and says, yes, I don't believe this
• 18:40
  Speaker 1: person is competent. Even the judge seeing odd behavior in court,
• 18:44
  Speaker 1: It's not entirely up to the judge to decide competency.
• 18:47
  Speaker 1: What the judge can and does and oftentimes will do,
• 18:53
  Speaker 1: is if a quote unquote doubt is declared by the defense,
• 18:56
  Speaker 1: Your honor, I'm declaring a doubt regarding the competency of
• 19:00
  Speaker 1: my client, the judge will order an evaluation done, and
• 19:05
  Speaker 1: that is just to protect everyone's interests, to protect the
• 19:10
  Speaker 1: defendant's interests, to make sure that we're not putting somebody
• 19:13
  Speaker 1: on trial who's not competent and doesn't appreciate what's going on,
• 19:17
  Speaker 1: but also to protect the integrity of the trial itself.
• 19:21
  Speaker 1: What a nightmare, What an awful circumstance it would be,
• 19:24
  Speaker 1: if somebody had had their competency called into a question,
• 19:28
  Speaker 1: the judge took it upon themselves to deny that request
• 19:32
  Speaker 1: without any evaluation being done. A trial has had, a
• 19:36
  Speaker 1: conviction was rendered, and then the appellate court turns around
• 19:41
  Speaker 1: and undoes everything because they weren't given a proper evaluation
• 19:45
  Speaker 1: of their competency, or because their competency was at issue
• 19:49
  Speaker 1: and it wasn't realized until later. So they will go
• 19:54
  Speaker 1: undergo Brian Walsh will undergo an evaluation. And what they're
• 19:58
  Speaker 1: trying to determine here is is he just depressed. Does
• 20:02
  Speaker 1: he need medication? Has he really deteriorated in his mental state?
• 20:07
  Speaker 1: Is he malingering? In other words, is he making the
• 20:10
  Speaker 1: whole thing up and an attempt to deny everything which could,
• 20:13
  Speaker 1: by the way, backfire on him tremendously. But think again
• 20:17
  Speaker 1: about that standard. The evaluator is essentially going to have
• 20:22
  Speaker 1: to say, this person doesn't know what's going on. Not
• 20:26
  Speaker 1: this person's having a bad day, not this person's depressed,
• 20:29
  Speaker 1: not this person's anxious. But this person doesn't know what's
• 20:33
  Speaker 1: going on. The person doesn't know what they're charged with,
• 20:35
  Speaker 1: they don't know what the judge is doing. They can't
• 20:37
  Speaker 1: aid in their own defense. And even then, we're not
• 20:41
  Speaker 1: talking about the end of the trial. We're not talking
• 20:43
  Speaker 1: about not guilty of the crime. We're just talking about
• 20:46
  Speaker 1: delaying it. He can receive treatment and have competency restored.
• 20:50
  Speaker 1: So it's a good decision by the judge. What does
• 20:53
  Speaker 1: this mean though, for the defense? Can we guess where
• 20:57
  Speaker 1: they might be headed in this trial? Normally you might
• 20:59
  Speaker 1: say whether they're laying the basis or this could be
• 21:02
  Speaker 1: the precursor to some sort of mental health defense, maybe
• 21:06
  Speaker 1: an insanity plea like we saw in the Elis case here,
• 21:09
  Speaker 1: though I think not so likely because of the circumstances
• 21:14
  Speaker 1: of this case. Remember, this case involves Google searches about
• 21:21
  Speaker 1: covering up a murder, about disposing of a body, motivation
• 21:27
  Speaker 1: based upon financial pressures, hiding the remains of his wife,
• 21:33
  Speaker 1: allegedly around disposing of her body parts in different areas,
• 21:37
  Speaker 1: cleaning up after all of it. More and more evidence
• 21:40
  Speaker 1: of what are we concerned with here, Understanding the consequences
• 21:46
  Speaker 1: of one's actions, understanding the difference between right and wrong.
• 21:49
  Speaker 1: But it could play a role for sentencing if he
• 21:53
  Speaker 1: is suffering from some sort of mental health crisis, either
• 21:56
  Speaker 1: at the time of the crime or since then. It
• 21:59
  Speaker 1: could be something that we see come up after a
• 22:01
  Speaker 1: conviction and their efforts to mitigate on sentencing. But again,
• 22:05
  Speaker 1: a case we will continue to follow, a case that
• 22:07
  Speaker 1: frustrates me that he's not going to trial because I
• 22:10
  Speaker 1: was looking forward to seeing how that all played out.
• 22:12
  Speaker 1: But we're just going to have to wait a little
• 22:14
  Speaker 1: bit longer, and in the long run that's the best thing.
• 22:17
  Speaker 1: But in the meantime, that is our show for this week.
• 22:19
  Speaker 1: As always, we'd like to give our sinceres thanks to
• 22:21
  Speaker 1: our listeners and viewers for tuning in. I am your host,
• 22:24
  Speaker 1: josh Ritter. You can find me on Instagram and Twitter
• 22:27
  Speaker 1: at Joshua Ritter e sq or go to Joshua Ridter
• 22:30
  Speaker 1: dot com. And if you want to hear my thoughts
• 22:33
  Speaker 1: and coverage on even more true crime cases, please check
• 22:36
  Speaker 1: out my new YouTube channel, Courtroom Confidential. And you can
• 22:40
  Speaker 1: find all of our sidebar episodes wherever you get your podcasts,
• 22:43
  Speaker 1: and we would love to hear from you. If you've
• 22:44
  Speaker 1: got questions or comments you'd like us to address, please
• 22:47
  Speaker 1: tweet us your questions with the hashtag TCN Sidebar and
• 22:51
  Speaker 1: thank you for joining us at the True Crime News
• 22:54
  Speaker 1: Sidebar