Latest / Dumb Defenses / 20. The Devil and Dual Acquittals

Transcript

20. The Devil and Dual Acquittals · Dumb Defenses

• Frankie: Hello and welcome back to the Dumb Defenses podcast, where we go around the world and through time to bring you the weirdest legal theories. I'm Frankie. Judah: And I'm Judah. Frankie: And for fresh hell this week, I had a whole bunch of articles from the AP written by Amanda Geduld, Moriah Balingit. I'm so sorry I'm mispronouncing that. And Gisela Salomon. Judah: What's our topic? What's what's what fresh hell? Frankie: Head start. Judah: Head start. Okay, so fresh hell for our new listeners is where we discuss a current topic that makes you wanna burn Frankie: We're angry about Judah: down a building. Frankie: Yeah. So Head Start is a national program that serves seven hundred thousand of the country's most vulnerable preschool kiddos, including those living in poverty, who are unhoused, who are in foster care and who are disabled. The program was started under LBJ by Sergeant Shriver, who happens to be RFK Junior's uncle. And now the HHS secretary is heading the charge to severely slim down that program's regulations, despite claiming what he wants to protect it. The proposed changes would erase 1400 regulations, including those against expulsions and severely limiting suspensions, as well as those requiring family involvement. So historically, if a child was in Head Start and was showing challenging behaviors, as kiddos do. The program would institute supports for both the child and the parent to work through the behavior so that this child can thrive and stay in the classroom. It wasn't just best practices, it was the rules of the program. So through this and giving not only the kiddos the supports that they need, but the parents the tools that they needed to raise these kiddos, and also time away from the kiddos to go to work, this program helped lift people out of poverty. And that was just baked into the program. especially considering you have to be at or below the poverty level to qualify for the program. So not only are the kids given the structure to thrive, parents are given goals, whether it's to return to school or buy a house or things like that, and helps the parents stick to those goals. So it's a program for both the parents and the kiddos. And the federal guidelines as they were, for Head Start. prevent children from being removed from the program due to behavioral challenges. Instead they institute supports and things like that. but of course we're not allowed to have nice things. And so Trump has decided that it isn't necessary anymore and instead of offering kiddos and families the support and tools that they need, the kiddos can now be kicked out of the program, leaving parents scrambling for care and could cause parents to lose their jobs Which would cause the families to slide even further into poverty, creating more trauma, creating more behaviors in the kiddos, and wash rinse repeat. The updated rules, which the comment period closed on yesterday, October 6th, as of this recording. The updated rules ask individual providers to make their own discipline policies based on state and local law. This is supposed to create flexibility, but instead it will create chaos. While some states do have state-level rules that will protect these families, the vast majority of states do not. Only 14 states and the District of Columbia have laws that align with the former regulations. Only half of those regulations apply to kids under five, which is the population we're talking about, and only Minnesotas explicitly include Head Start programs in those regulations. So lots of states don't actually have the infrastructure in place legally to keep these regulations in place. So suspensions and expulsions, even at this level at four and five-year-olds, are associated with worse outcomes, including lower graduation rates and increased mental health issues. Not only are these regulations regarding the ability to suspend or expel children changing, other things that can prevent escalated behaviors before they start to happen are also being rolled back, such as lower child adult ratios, required monthly mental health consults. timely developmental screenings and staff breaks. Those are all stripped from the regulations. There's also a mandate that all education be done in English, eliminating the tradition of bilingual education in bilingual communities. This is especially like pretty big in Florida, because of the large Cuban community down there. A lot of the head starts down there will teach in both English and Spanish. That's gone. Exceptions can be made on a case-by-case basis only for native languages. The Department of Health and Human Services claims this will give programs more flexibility, but like I said, a lot of the programs don't actually have the legal infrastructure to give these kiddos what they need. Head start's often a last resort for daycare for low-income families and families with high needs kids. If the expulsion ban is lifted, those kiddos and their families will have nowhere else to turn. Also, suspensions are supposed to be a last resort under current regulations. And only after iterative interventions, including collaboration and mental health and behavioral interventions. And if the kids are suspended, then they're still entitled to home visits by their teachers and a referral to special education. Again, all of that is gone As one might imagine, these out of school suspensions disproportionately affect people based on race and gender. Boys are four and a half times more likely to be kicked out than girls, and black kids are well overrepresented. One study they represented forty-three percent of the suspensions, but eighteen percent of the kiddos. And thus is the mm-hmm. Yep. Thus is the Judah: So more than double. More than double black children well and Frankie: very first step on the school to prison pipeline. Judah: For every dollar that we spend on preschools, I think we save something like seven dollars in other services down the line. Frankie: Mm-hmm. Yep. Yep. Judah: So by stripping back protections and brakes and things that make Head Start functional, we can say that the dollars that are going to Head Start are being used less efficiently. Frankie: Right. Yeah, the whole idea with the smaller class sizes and enough breaks and staff and everything is to allow this one-on-one when kids do have behaviors because when you're dealing with kiddos who are living under the poverty line, they're gonna have trauma. Like living in poverty causes trauma and trauma causes behaviors because kids, especially that little, don't have the words to explain what they're feeling. And so what could be labeled as a kid with like behavioral problems or a bad kid or whatever, kinda like what Annette was saying a couple of weeks ago, these are kids who just don't have the words. They literally don't have the vocabulary to explain what's going on inside of them and they just get really big feelings and don't know what to do with them. Judah: well and like the cost of you know, American productivity 'cause the backbone of America are workers who are working jobs that don't pay them enough. We can Frankie: Right. Judah: get into minimum wage laws in other ways. Frankie: Federal minimum wage is still seven twenty five. Judah: Seven dollars and twenty five cents. And in some areas or states wait staff can make as little as two dollars an hour because they're saying that tips make up for that make it up in tips. Frankie: Yes, 'cause they make it up in tips. They really don't. Judah: And so like this huge push of like this right to work and all the changes to you know like Medicare and SNAP we're now making it functionally impossible to work because for that age range you're not gonna make nine hundred dollars a month that it would cost to send your child to a private preschool. And even in Oregon, education laws only protect preschoolers if they're in a preschool program that's affiliated with a public school. Frankie: Yep. Yep. And like daycare and preschool is hella expensive. Like Judah was saying nine hundred dollars a month. one of the schools that I had my son in was like twelve hundred dollars a month like my husband and I are both attorneys. I mean we're public defenders, but we're both attorneys. we make okay money, we make decent money, and my parents paid half of the daycare just so that we wouldn't be underwater from it. Judah: I'm unsurprised. I specifically didn't look up the big changes to Head Start, like this Frankie: Yeah. Judah: integral extremely valuable program that Frankie: I mean, this was part of like, you know, it's been around since LBJ. It's been around for sixty years with all these really strong supports in place because there was an understanding that if we can get these kids out of the home for long enough for a parent to go to work, maybe we can get these families out of poverty. Judah: And where those early screenings and like the early interventions offered at Frankie: Mm-hmm. Judah: preschool make children ready for kindergarten and Frankie: Yep. Judah: without those a lot of children will not have the foundational skills for kindergarten. Frankie: Right. And also if you are getting services, like if your child is determined to need a special ed referral, the school district will set up for your kiddo what's called an IFSP an individualized family support plan. That's like a baby IEP. And so then what happens when that kid transitions to kindergarten is that you are already like halfway there to having your IEP set up because you had the IFSP, rather than starting from scratch in kindergarten when teachers have no idea what supports your kid needs. Judah: Well, anyway, talk to your legislators about I mean, Head Start benefits everyone. Frankie: Everybody. Judah: Head Start is one of those universally beneficial programs across the board. And Frankie: Yeah. Yeah. Judah: we'll just take all right, well, let's take a hard, hard left turn into the cases for this week. So I'm up first Frankie: Yep. Yep. Judah: and In continuing with my one person spooky season celebration on this podcast, I'll be doing another spooky themed spooky I Frankie: Spooky. Judah: felt like a lot of what I've been doing is just correcting widespread and deeply held misunderstandings of Of different cases, like spoiling the fun, like when we had to tell people that Arizona didn't have a law about donkeys in a bathtub. Frankie: I know that made me so sad. Judah: This is another one of those starring and featuring, in my opinion, one of America's favorite con artist couples, the Warrens, Ed Frankie: Mm. Judah: and Lorraine Warren, who I also talked about last week. They're coming into this again. And unsurprisingly, we got another scam. So I'm going to be talking about the kind of famous what's known as the Devil Made Me Do It. murder defense of Arnie Cheyenne Johnson. Have you heard of this case? So this case was the basis for the 1983 book The Devil in Connecticut and then the 2021 horror film The Conjuring, The Devil Made Me Do It. There's like nine billion conjuring movies. Frankie: Yeah. Judah: I got interested In this case, because I watched a couple of years ago this Netflix documentary called The Devil on Trial. And then I read Deseret News, Is the Devil on Trial a True Story? Looper had an article called What Happened to David Glatzel? and AIPT has an article called Is Demonic Possession a Viable Criminal Defense? Okay. So this story does not start with Arnie Johnson, hypothetically. It starts with an eleven year old boy named David Glatzel. And he is demonstrating behaviors that his family and a local priest have decided are indicative of demonic position. And he undergoes a series of exorcisms. In comes Arnie Johnson, who's only nineteen, and he is the *boyfriend of Debbie, who is David's the little boy's sister. And Ed and Lorraine Warren are also involved at this point with this kind of possession-y issue with this little boy. I'm gonna pause here and say like I feel really badly because the child involved was only eleven years old to start Frankie: Yeah. Judah: with and underwent exorcism sessions, not Just with the local priest, but with the Warrens. And that is something that really did happen to this little boy. Frankie: Mm-hmm. Judah: allegedly, during one of the exorcism sessions, and apparently against the advice of Lorraine and Ed Warren, Arnie Johnson taunted one of the demonic entities in this little boy and said, You should come into me and you should leave this little boy alone. And that's hypothetically what led the demon to going into his body. here's things that really did happen. On February sixteenth, so this was in the fall of nineteen eighty. And in feb February sixteenth of nineteen eighty-one, so just like later that same winter, but in the next year, Arnie Johnson was drinking heavily with Frankie: As one does. Judah: his landlord whose name was Alan Bono and a fight broke out and Arnie Johnson pulled a five-inch blade and stabbed Bono more than twenty times, killing him. Frankie: that's a lot. Judah: So that is that is a real thing that happened. he's charged with murder and gets a defense attorney, Martin Manella, who attempted to plead not guilty by reason of demonic possession. Frankie: a little bit different than not guilty by reason of insanity. Judah: Yeah, no not insanity, it was demonic possession. He relied heavily on what I'm doing air quotes here, demonologist Ed Warren. Frankie: My god, there's actually like an expert on this. Yeah, okay. He's back. Judah: Well, it's Ed Warren, Dean Ed Lorraine Warren. He's back. He's still in the case and he's diagnosed this guy with demonic possession. And this is the ac Frankie: That's not gonna stand up to Daubert. Judah: Yeah. This is the actual like dumb defense. And this lawyer Frankie: Yeah. Judah: is on a quest to try and introduce new precedent about demonic possession in criminal cases. And he brings in you know, Ed and Lorraine Warren, they're still around Frankie: Jesus. Judah: and tries to bring them in and tries to introduce evidence of this possession. The judge in the case was named Robert Callahan and he said no, not guilty by demonic possession is not a thing. And the judge also ahead of time limited introduction of any evidence to say that Arnie Johnson was demonically possessed. Frankie: Yeah, that's a pre trial hearing that you gotta do. Judah: like there was several significant This judge was not having it. Not having it. Was like this is shenanigans, this is the height Frankie: Mm-hmm. Judah: of shenaniganery or whatever. And I'm not gonna let you try and convince a jury that you have a demon inside of your body that made you murder your landlord in a drunken fight. I'm just not gonna do it. Arnie Johnson, like I said, he was only nineteen. He had no prior criminal history. this is a two for one special, Frank. This is a legitimate dumb defense, and it's a spooky season story. Frankie: Yes. Judah: No, was not allowed. It couldn't bring it up in front of the jury, could not talk about it. And so even though this case is known as like the devil made me do it trial, the jury had no idea that Frankie: Yeah, that never came up. Judah: did not come up. Manila wounds up introducing a self-defense argument at trial. The trial lasted about three weeks. The jury deliberated for seventeen hours over the course of about three days and did not find Johnson guilty of murder, but instead found him guilty of the lesser charge of manslaughter in the first Frankie: Mm-hmm. Judah: degree. This was a pretty fast trial as far as murder trials go. So the murder or the manslaughter, it was a murder, occurred in February of nineteen eighty-one. By november twenty-fourth, nineteen eighty one, trials over and the Frankie: wow, that is fast. Judah: Yes. And Johnson was sentenced to 10 to 20 years. Here's the next bit. He gets out five years later and marries Debbie Glatzel, the sister Frankie: my god. Judah: of the little boy. They got married and at the time of the documentary making, we're still married. Frankie: Mm-hmm. Judah: so let's talk about what I'm gonna say is the understandable skepticism. so there's several of the Glatzel children. David was this little boy who had the exorcism. David has an older brother named Carl Glatzel, who if you watch the documentary does not come in until like the very end. And I wanted Carl to have his own documentary. Because Carl comes in and is like, this is all horseshit. start to finish, this is garbage. The Warrens are frauds. And he openly accuses Ed and Lorraine Warren of telling his little brother, who's only 11, how to act to like kind of fake this demonic possession, and telling his little brother, if you do this and like we can record all this. That you're gonna be a really rich little boy. Frankie: Ha ha Judah: And when the murder happened that he less than subtly implies that like they continued to set up this demonic possession defense and that from the beginning this was for commercial gain for the Warrens. And Carl also says that Arnie had another reason to murder Alan because he thinks that his sister Debbie was having an affair with the landlord who got murdered. Frankie: Mm. Judah: unsurprisingly, after all this is kind of coming through, some of the Gladstall siblings sued the Warrens for libel. But you know, when if you didn't have you know, a book was written about this, there's been a successful movie, people know about the haunting in Connecticut, If you didn't like overlay this idea of demonic possession, this is a straightforward killing. Like criminal killing. This is it is very Frankie: Yeah. Yeah. Judah: straightforward. Frankie: Mm-hmm. That's probably why it went to trial so quick. Judah: I'm not sure. I don't know if like there was different, you know, stuff, but along the way, the Warrens are the ones who diagnosed David's quote unquote demonic entity. They're the ones who pushed for the exorcism. They're the ones who told the family to start gathering evidence of his demonic behavior. And even Arnie Johnson's defense lawyer later said that his even idea about this defense argument came directly from Ed and Lorraine Warren. And Ed Warren volunteered himself as a witness and an expert. Until Judge Callahan And I'm gonna say, in my opinion, appropriately was like Absolutely not Abs Frankie: Yes this is not scientific. This is not something that we can have in my courtroom. Yeah yeah yeah. No, that a hundred percent. Judah: Yeah. Absolutely, absolutely not. there was by the time the Devil on Trial came out, both Ed and Lorraine Warren were dead. We're both deceased. and so there was just archival footage of them talking about it. And the Devil on Trial is I would not say like an objective documentary. They're still leaning into The sensationalism of it. Yeah, Frankie: Of course they are. That's where the money is. Judah: that's where the money is. That is why I loved it so much when Carl came on and he's like, listen, hey. Frankie: Yeah. Judah: I'm the older brother. This is trash. It's it's all trash. From like my little brother at 11 years old wasn't even possessed. This every part of this was fabricated and like pushed into people's attention by. Ed and Lorraine Warren for commercial gain, for commercial purposes, because by the 80s they were already known as like ghost hunters or demonologists. Frankie: Mm-hmm. Judah: They had already become famous in the public psyche, and so it's like they were just like setting up their next big story to sell to make all this Frankie: Mm. Judah: money. so I'm sorry to tell people yet again that this is I think from my seating right here. Frank. this is another horseshit story start to finish. Maybe a good book, maybe a fun movie to watch. Fiction. All fiction. Frankie: Yeah. Judah: Welcome to Halloween where the most terrifying thing is the truth. Frankie: Yep. Especially in this day and age. Judah: And that is the Devil Made Me Do It murder case that the jury didn't even know about that aspect that from the get go was set up by a couple of America's favorite con artists. Frankie: My story also originates in Connecticut, actually. so this is the story of a woman who has escaped manslaughter charges twice. Yes. Judah: Ooh. So what's her fancy Frankie: So Judah: ass defense? Frankie: couple of different ones. we'll dig into it. So in Connecticut on October thirtieth of nineteen ninety nine, Heather Specyalski was arrested after a fatal car crash took the life of her passenger Neil Esposito. Both individuals were alleged to have been drinking at a fundraiser for juvenile diabetes, so you know, caliber people. The allegations were that she was driving his Mercedes Benz convertible when the car veered off the road and crashed into trees in a wooded area while dragged racing another vehicle. The vehicle crossed over the on ramp and slid out of control and rolled over. Specyalski was charged with one count of second degree manslaughter, one count of second degree manslaughter with a motor vehicle, and one count of misconduct with a motor vehicle. So when emergency personnel arrived at the scene, Spesialsky was pinned face up under the driver's side of the car, pinned by the steering wheel, and Esposito was pinned face down under the driver's side front tire, having been ejected from the vehicle. So a pretty gruesome scene when they got there. Esposito was pronounced dead at the scene, and Specyalski sustained significant injuries, including a broken spine and shattered pelvis, which took dozens of surgeries to treat. one of the sources said almost fifty surgeries for her to treat. I forgot to mention my sources. so again we're we got some AP wire stories. I got one of the cases that I'm gonna talk about, I have the full text off of Find Law, and a Connecticut Insider article, a UPI article, a telegram article. So a lot of just like close in time articles To the event. I also actually found the text of the *arrest warrant, and I'll drop that in the show notes. So he got killed, she got severely injured, but the charges weren't filed until the following year because the initial investigation concluded that Esposito had been the one driving. So the cops figured out he was driving. He got ejected from the car and killed. Not much else to do here. Esposito's father wrote a strongly worded letter to the state police, pointing out internal inconsistencies in the investigation report. And because of that, and Mr. Esposito Sr.'s insistence, the investigation was reopened, and ultimately through testing of paint, cement, blood samples, etc. The prosecutors felt they had enough information to charge Specyalski. Her BAC was a point one after two hours, a bag of saline, and four units of blood. So she was Judah: Ooh and Frankie: hammered at the time of the accident. Judah: That's but could they establish that she was driving? Frankie: Well, so their theory is that because of like where the paint contact with the cement and that she was pinned under the steering wheel, stuff like that. That was kind of their theory. Judah: Okay. So they were gonna try and establish that she was driving. Frankie: Yeah. So Specyalski claimed that she was not the one driving, but rather that Esposito was the one driving. Her proof was that when Esposito was thrown from the car, his pants were down between his knees and his ankles. She had been performing fellatio on him. And that's her proof that she wasn't driving. Judah: mean that is a if you're thinking about a jury and juries are just Frankie: Ha ha ha Judah: twelve random people. Frankie: Twelve randos. Judah: that if the prosecution's like, Well maybe and if this connects to this and this da da da da da da da da da da da da then she must have been driving and she's like, No, I couldn't have been driving 'cause I was blowing him. And here look his pants were down around his ankles. I think I know what a jury's gonna believe. Frankie: Yeah, so prosecutors objected to her ability to present this as a defense. Assistant Attorney General Maureen Platt listed off reasons that Esposito's pants could have been down, including mooning the car that they were drag racing, urinating out the window, and generally not feeling well. Why you'd pull down your pants Judah: I've never been like Frankie: if you're generally not feeling well? Like that feels like something that you'd be like sticking your head out the window and puking. that last one was like mm. Also like Yeah. Judah: Or your whole butt's gonna be out the window. There's only two places where at to come from. Frankie: Right? And like peeing out the window? Really? Judah: that's gonna spray back on you. I Frankie: Yes it is. Judah: know not from peeing out the window, but recently I was driving and I had a little bit of water in a cup and I was like, I'll just throw the water out the window and it just went wheck and I just got Right so if you're pissing out the window you're gonna absolutely piss on yourself. Frankie: Yep. Wind wind forces are a thing when you're going that fast. Judah: Yeah. Frankie: So on March 2nd, 2004, so charges were filed in 2000. this motion hearing was in 2004. Superior Court Judge Robert L. Herzog ruled that the defense could move forward, stating, quote, a defendant has a right to offer a defense no matter how outlandish, silly, or unbelievable one might think it be. End quote. Not demonic possession. He also Judah: Not demonic possession, not demonic possession. Frankie: made a fantastic side comment. Quote, no one ever told me in law school that we'd be having these kinds of conversations in open court. Judah: You know, I have three times. Three times now. Three. Not once. Not twice. But three times. I have been in court and I have had a defendant tell the judge that they tested positive for methamphetamine, because they gave somebody a blow job who Frankie: Mm-hmm. Judah: was using meth and they swallowed. Three times. Frankie: Yep. Not how that works. Judah: That's not how that works. But it wasn't like a one-off where it's ha ha ha ha. Three times I've heard that. Frankie: no, it it's I've heard stuff like that too. It's a thing. It's not actually a thing, but it's a thing people think is a thing. Judah: it's a thing people think it is not a thing. Frankie: Yep. So in that same hearing, in that March second hearing, Judge Herzog also denied the defense motion to eliminate jurors based on gender, as the defense felt women would be biased and more likely to convict given the circumstances. People being too prim and proper to think that someone would give someone else a blowjob while driving, I guess. Judah: There's a cultural nickname for it for a reason. It happens. Frankie: Yeah. Well, so in that case, as Judah has guessed, on April twenty ninth, two thousand and four at trial, the jury took less than an hour to acquit her of all charges. Judah: Okay, so that's that is number one. That is number Frankie: That is number one. Judah: one. Number two, I'm guessing her defense had to argue pretty hard to not have the circumstances of her prior case brought in. Frankie: So that actually didn't really come up at trial. Judah: Okay. Frankie: So four years later, on August 23rd, 2008, and so these facts I'm taking from the findings of fact of a civil case that dealt with the same issues. and I'll talk about that a little bit later on, but that's where this statement of facts comes from. so She drove her 15-year-old son Brandon to pick up his friend Christopher. Christopher was a friend who frequently stayed over at their house. The boys asked her to buy them alcohol, which she obliged. She picked up a cooler of beer for the boys, which they brought home and began drinking. And the boys also found some vodka in the house. The boys each consumed about nine to ten beers and four to five shots of vodka over a three-hour period. At some point, Specyalski went to bed. I think she said approximately nine PM. At eleven PM, Christopher decided to go to sleep. He wasn't feeling well. He went and laid Judah: 'Cause he had had thirteen drinks. Frankie: Yeah. he went and lay down on the opposite side of Specyalski bed. She, you know, got him a towel, stuff like that to help him feel better. Judah: Did he die of alcohol poisoning? Okay. Frankie: He didn't. Judah: His friend did. Frankie: so Christopher's the friend. Judah: Okay. Frankie: Around 12:30 a.m., Brandon tried to wake Christopher up to pick up a third friend named Travis, but Christopher decided to stay in bed. He still wasn't feeling well. Yes. So Brandon Judah: 'Cause he'd had thirteen drinks. That Frankie: went and got Travis, brought him back. They drank more beers and vodka upon returning to the house. And then Brandon went into the bedroom and took Specyalski's purse. There's a little bit of controversy about what the conversation was when he took the purse, but what the court found in the civil case was that she sort of half woke up, made a joke about him going shopping, and fell back asleep. But he didn't actually take the purse for money, even though he was like, Yeah ha ha ha. He took her 100 milligram morphine pills that were in her Judah: No Frankie: purse because she's a chronic pain patient because she has a shattered pelvis. Judah: From the car accident. Frankie: From the car accident. So while they were drinking, Travis, which is friend number two, took one morphine pill, and Brandon, who's the son, took one and crushed up nine more and proceeded to snort the crushed up pills. Eventually, Travis wanted to go home, but didn't want Brandon driving because he was too intoxicated. And they got in an argument. Brandon has a history of getting aggressive and violent when he's intoxicated. And so that altercation woke Specyalski up and Christopher. And Specyalski drove Travis home. again, excusing her son's behavior because he becomes belligerent when he's drunk. Brandon rode in the backseat of the car. and by the time they got home, he had fallen asleep. So Specyalski just kinda like left him in there. She got him a blanket, what have you. She's like, okay, he'll just sleep off. So when she came home, Christopher let her know, because Christopher stayed at the house. Christopher let her know that he had found the crushed up morphine pills on the counter and suggested taking Brandon to the hospital. But Specyalski just wanted to let Brandon sleep, but agreed to check on him every 15 minutes or so, and if he got worse, they could take him to the hospital. So Christopher went down to the car, checked on him after about 15 minutes, and Brandon said that he was okay. And then about a half hour later, Christopher checked on him again. Brandon was less responsive, but still able to have a conversation, so Christopher went to bed. and this was about 3 or 3:15 in the morning. When Christopher woke up in the morning, he asked Specyalski how Brandon was doing, and she said that she hadn't checked on him. Judah: He was dead. Frankie: So Christopher went down to the car to check on his friend, who was non-responsive, and blue. Specyalski told Christopher to call emergency services. And then while waiting for them to come, told Christopher to hide all the empty bottles. Brandon was transported to the hospital and pronounced dead at eleven thirty AM on August twenty fourth, two thousand eight. At that point, which was after an overnight, his BAC was a point one two. Judah: Well and a huge amount of opioids. And for our listeners who don't know, Frankie: And a huge amount of morphine. Yep. That's just a bad combination. Judah: opioids, any kind of opioids and any kind of alcohol is a res Frankie: independently could kill you. Judah: independently could kill you. Yeah. And especially together they have a synergistic effect to depress the respiratory system and kill you. Frankie: Yep. before the emergency responders got there, Specyalski was beside herself sobbing. She called her ex husband, Brandon's dad, screaming that she had killed her son. Judah: So she was charged with manslaughter for providing the substances, I'm assuming. Frankie: Yeah. So that day, Connecticut State Police initiated a suspicious death investigation. The coroner as they're required to do for anything like this. The coroner Judah: As they are required to do for any Yeah. Frankie: determined the cause of death to be acute alcohol and morphine intoxication. In other words, he overdosed. Based on the investigation, an arrest warrant was issued. It's so it's a an arrest warrant that I'll drop in the show notes, not a search warrant. Apologies. And Specyalski surrendered herself on December 9th, 2008. She was initially only charged with three counts of risk of injury to a minor. And then after additional investigation, charges of second-degree manslaughter and negligent homicide were added. As she neared the trial, Specyalski insisted that she had nothing to do with her only son's death. She believes she got arrested because the state was upset that she got acquitted of Esposito's death. Which, of course, the prosecution denies. They're like, no, you killed your kid. she did tell the police when they were doing their investigations that she felt that Brandon had had too much to drink because he could barely walk, and that she had found the crushed morphine on the counter. But denied that she knew that he quote had done what he did before she went to sleep leaving him in the car. She said, I am totally not at fault for what happened to Brandon. and she told that to the AP when she was interviewed. Prior to trial, Brandon's father sued her for wrongful death as the administrator of Brandon's estate under both reckless and negligent theories. In her response, Specyalski denied acting recklessly or negligently and forwarded the defense of parental immunity and requested pretrial remedies. There was a hearing on the request on March nineteenth and April twenty-first of twenty ten. So while the criminal case is still pending, and that hearing for pretrial remedies is essentially a probable cause hearing to determine if there's probable cause of at least the damages requested in the complaint. And so it's essentially like a preliminary hearing for criminal cases to determine if there's probable cause to move forward. So the court founds the facts of the case, as recited, satisfy the elements of either reckless or negligent wrongful death. So he's got all the widgets there for the claim, but the question was whether that parental immunity doctrine applied. And so under Connecticut common law, parental immunity was a bar to liability for negligent, reckless, or wanton conduct that harms one's own child. The quote from the case law is the parental immunity doctrine bars all parental civil liability to an unemancipated minor for personal injuries inflicted during minority. and that case is Squeglia v. Squeglia from nineteen ninety four. So there are only five exceptions through case law to this doctrine. One is that an unemancipated child can sue their parents' employer for negligent harm to the child during the course of the employment. the next one is a child who is emancipated may sue for prior tortious conduct. So once they are freed from their parents. they can then sue their parents. the next one is an unemancipated child can sue a parent for negligence of a business enterprise conducted away from the home. So again, we're getting away from that parent-child relationship in these exceptions. One is parents job. One is kiddo's emancipated, so there's not the relationship anymore. One is there's a business franchise that's not at the home. So we're getting away from the home and that's where these exceptions lie. The next one is an unemancipated child can sue a parent for injuries from negligent use of a motor vehicle, aircraft, or watercraft. And the last one is if the parent sexually abused or exploited the child or any other willful, malicious abusive act. So those are all outside of this parental immunity doctrine. Judah: So I mean, just listening to that, unless they're saying somehow in using the car that would apply, then she also has immunity to the wrongful death. Frankie: Correct. The court found that this wasn't willful or malicious conduct, but rather reckless and quote delinquent behavior. The court expressed that it felt like its hands were tied by the appellate rulings, though it wished it could extend the exceptions of parental immunity doctrine in this case and denied the application for prejudgement remedies. Judah: this is just really depressing 'cause this is the death of a child and this is an overdose death. So Frankie: Yep. Yep. Judah: she's charged and what's in her defense is that she what didn't provide the the morphine to him intentionally and he needed that to die and then she gets off. Frankie: Yeah, she essentially and you'll see it in the arrest warrant in the show notes, her statements to the police were quite different from Christopher's, essentially saying that she hadn't bought the beer, the beer was already in the house, and they started drinking the beer that was already in the house, and that, you know, she specifically told him not to take the morphine pills. that he was asking for An aspirin because he had a headache and he grabbed something else that was like an antihistamine, and she's No, that's not aspirin. and she was like, Don't you grab the morphine. So, like, her point of view was that she was doing what she could with an out-of-control kid. Cause the kid has a history, like the backstory of how he wound up in mom's care is that. In the divorce, because mom was so like medically compromised at the time, because the accident happened like right after they split, dad had custody, and then Brandon just started drinking, he started using drugs, and dad just kind of kicked him out of the house. And so he wound up with mom. Judah: Did 'cause we still have three what would be kind of our equivalent of a recklessly endangering of a minor charges Frankie: Mm-hmm. Judah: for the three boys with the alcohol. Did did anything stick? Frankie: Well, on March twenty first, twenty thirteen, after more than a week of testimony, the jury found Specyalski not guilty of causing the death of her own son. I did not find an article regarding the Reckless Endangering counts. most of the articles were focused on the negligent homicide and the manslaughter charges. There were a couple like Hartford Times articles that may have had more information, but they were paywalled and I didn't feel like paying for it. Judah: Yeah, how many Connecticut articles are we possibly gonna need to read? Frankie: Right. Judah: Well, I mean, those were reasonable defenses. If you're thinking about this being your client, that's what you're going to do. Frankie: Mm-hmm. But it's pretty damning when like she's screaming on the phone to her ex husband, I've killed my son, right? So Judah: Yeah. And there was no well, her child's dead. She didn't want that, that her child's Frankie: Right. Judah: had died. His friend said you know, she did provide us with this alcohol. Even by Frankie: Mm-hmm. Judah: the friend's story, she didn't intend to provide him with the morphine, and we don't have Frankie: Right. Judah: medical evidence to show that the alcohol independently would have killed him. Frankie: Mm-hmm. Judah: Cause the death report said it was a combination. You Frankie: Correct. Judah: know, which we usually see But boy that's depressing. I Frankie: Yeah. Judah: I'm glad I picked the one that I picked. I mean somebody still Frankie: Ha ha. Judah: died but it was you know, it's been so Hollywoodized. Frankie: But like like this I think they did wind up in terms of like the wrongful death case, there was some sort of settlement because when the defense attorney was cross examining the ex husband, he was like, Well, you got a two hundred fifty thousand dollar settlement, blah blah blah blah blah. So there was some sort of settlement that wound up happening, I guess, after that probable cause hearing. but otherwise, like, this lady's complete Teflon. Judah: I hope that she's no longer using substances. But boy, yeah, that is something else. She had smart counsel and Frankie: Yeah. Mm-hmm. Judah: I think that first case it was a really smart call to go for like the more kind of outrageous but simple Frankie: Mm. Judah: level of defense. And Frankie: Yeah. Judah: we don't know. She very well Could not have been driving that car. Frankie: Yeah. Well and the cops initially found that the boyfriend was driving, right? So it's like within the realm of possibility that she was like they Judah: Yeah. Frankie: were right the first time and it was just like this dude's dad being like this lady like for whatever reason decided to push the issue, but the initial investigation was like, Yeah, he was probably driving. Judah: And at trial, I mean, legally speaking, he was driving. Legally speaking, he was driving. Frankie: And it took them less than an hour of deliberations to acquit her on a manslaughter charge. Judah: On a manslaughter charge. Yeah, and if you're thinking about it has to be beyond a reasonable doubt, and what you were telling me about like all the prosecutions putting together through like paint scrapes, and a lot of that accident reconstruction stuff is not precise. Like you and I know that. Frankie: No, it's not precise at all. Judah: It's very, very imprecise because there's been a huge wreck. There's stuff everywhere. Frankie: Mm-hmm. Judah: and so Frankie: Yeah, and this car like careened off the road, flipped over and hit a tree. So Judah: Yeah. Frankie: it's just like mangled and yeah. Judah: and I mean at the end of the day she was seriously injured, she has lifelong disabilities and pain and her child is dead. It's Frankie: Yeah. Judah: not like this when you're saying this lady's Teflon, I can't imagine that her life is full of joy, happiness, and contentment. Yeah. Frankie: No, I I'm not I'm not say I'm not saying that. I'm just like to be twice charged with killing somebody and get convicted of neither is kind of unheard of. Judah: Yes. Well, let's go to a happier note. Frankie: Ha ha ha. Judah: I guess for children. California Governor Gavin Newsom this week signed a law that will go into effect january first, twenty twenty seven, outlawing any children for any reason getting married in the state of California. Frankie: Yay. Judah: Yay. So California joins seventeen other states in banning children getting married for any reason. In every other state, except for Georgia, there has to be parental consent or a combination of parental consent and judicial approval, like petitioning Frankie: Mm. Judah: the court. in the state of Georgia, emancipated minors can get married at age seventeen, but their spouse cannot be more than four years older than them. Frankie: That makes sense. Judah: so a lot of the other states and I encourage them especially New Mexico where there's no fixed minimum. You can get married at sixteen with written consent of each parent and under sixteen with court order. There are a few states that fifteen year olds can get married with judicial approval. I'm happy that state of Oregon children cannot get married and there's an activist who kind of was drugged through the ringer years ago. Courtney Staden was only sixteen years old when she married fifty one year old actor Doug Hutchinson. Frankie: No. Judah: And she was really drug through the mud and later after her divorce and you know reflecting on the set of circumstances that led her being married to a fifteen one year old at only sixteen years old, became an advocate against children being able to get married even with parental consent. Frankie: Mm. Judah: so you know, She works with an organization called Unchained at Last. Frankie: Mm. Judah: So she is somebody that experienced that trauma as a child, was married to a much, much older man who was kind of famous, and she was put through the media ringer at only 16 years old. Frankie: Hmm. Judah: but came back around later. so I hope that she and all the other activists that made this legislation possible feel really Good about themselves because previously Frankie: Absolutely. Judah: California did not have a minimum age for marriage. you could get married at any age with parental consent plus a court order, plus a meeting with court officials to screen for coercion. But Courtney Staden had had talked about her mother's pressuring her to get married and coercing her and and kind of coaching her around things to say the right things so that she was allowed to be legally married to this fifty-one year old man. So great job. Yeah, Frankie: Mm yeah. Judah: yeah, gross, gross. great job, California, for outlawing the marriage of children for any reason. Frankie: Mm-hmm. Judah: And big thank you to the activists that are working to go state by state to outlaw children being able to get married. And I consider that to be very good news. California is a Frankie: Yeah. Judah: hugely populous state. previously, you know, actually still today, because the law doesn't go into effect until January first. It's really terrifying to think about fourteen, fifteen year olds children being coached to get through these court orders and, you know, to say the right things, but they're still children, they're still very impressionable, and then being married to Grown ass creepy adults. Frankie: Mhm. Yep. Yeah. And Judah: So think Frankie: I mean I just it that's great. I still, you know, like even eighteen, nineteen, twenty is probably too young to really know yourself well enough to get married, but legally they're adults. Judah: Yeah. Frankie: I just one of the judges that I used to work for was telling me about how he didn't like doing weddings because like every so often you get like The twenty five year old and the seventy two year old and you're like Mm Judah: Mm yeah, you're allowed. Well, I'm happy to say that Oregon marriage of children is not permissible. My home state of Washington, children cannot get married. And your home state of Massachusetts, children cannot get married. Frankie: Mm-hmm. Yep. Yep. Massachusetts had some interesting age of minority rules in terms of like statutory rape type stuff. There were two ages. So there is sixteen and there's eighteen. And so if both people are under *sixteen it's fine. If both people are between sixteen and eighteen, it's fine. If both people are over eighteen, it's fine. But if Either of those lines are crossed, it's illegal. Judah: and Oregon has an age gap law. Frankie: It's like three years. Judah: Yeah, I think it's like if you hit four years to the day, it's illegal and no child under fourteen can consent to any kind of sexual activity regardless of age differences, which is good. but if you know, if you're listening to us from another state, look up in your state is it legal for children to legally wed and then that relationship is protected by spousal immunity Frankie: Mm. Judah: in your state. And I'm gonna say if the answer is yes, that a child could get married in your state, it's a good idea to talk to somebody about that. Because Frankie: Yeah. Judah: here on the Dumb Defenses podcast, is it fair to say we haven't talked about this beforehand? Is it fair to say we don't support children having the ability to legally marry? Frankie: Dude, I was like twenty three when I got into my first marriage relationship and I was too young. Judah: You're in your thirties for number two, that seems to be going pretty good. Yeah. Frankie: Yeah, yeah, that's because I actually like had therapy and shit first. Judah: Yeah, I also got married. I got married in my early thirties. my wife also in her thirties. She's two years younger than me. I feel pretty good about that. we've been together eight years now. Frankie: Mm-hmm. Judah: So yeah. But children and Frankie: Not so much. Judah: Mississippi's got a big if you're in Mississippi, you have a big problem. boys can get married at seventeen with parental consent But girls can get married at fifteen and anyone can get married younger than that with judicial approval. So it's there's sexism. Frankie: it's like the rape culture is built in to the law there. Judah: super duper. Really gross. Really, really gross in Mississippi. Y'all should work on that. And Frankie: Yeah. Judah: but good news, illegal in California starting January first. Yay. Frankie: Yay. Judah: And next week I'm gonna be doing the big story. And I'm kind of between things because it's spooky season. I don't know what I'm gonna do yet. It might be because I have to do the longer one. You might be getting the Grab Bag ADHD spooky season surprise if I can't find one long enough. Frankie: So I also failed to pick one, but as we were chatting, I went back over my list of weird defenses that I haven't used yet, and we'll talk about why one man needed to speed home. Judah: I'm one man needed to speed home and it'll either be I found a good one that I think's long enough for the long session podcast or we're gonna wait for my ADHD medication to wear off and we're just gonna popcorn it. All right. Frankie: Sounds good. All right. So, as always, like, subscribe and share so we can keep the podcast growing. You can reach out to us on Facebook, Instagram, and Blue Sky or at dumb defencespodcast at gmail dot com. And we'll see you next week. Judah: And a message for our listeners that's gonna be my new sign off. If police are talking to you, the best thing to say is nothing. Frankie: Shut the fuck up Judah: Shut the fuck up. Bye. Frankie: Bye.