Support for this episode comes from add. Yet again is the payments platform may for today tomorrow, and whatever comes next with andean single solution is simple: to accept all kinds of payments in an online in store, touch, free and beyond, and it seamlessly adapts with your business. So keep your customers happy in your business, growing with adequate business. Now boundaries visit agenda com to learn more, that's a d. Why? He in Dhaka, the first animals put on trial, the first stringer at the Superbowl, the first crime involving quail lutes and lemurs criminal. is the first of its kind. Since two thousand fourteen, we ve been reporting on the most curious crimes. It's the craziest story, I've ever heard and to think that I lived, it is kind of hard to grasp, sometimes discover the unexpected side of true crime, something

funny sometimes scary, always human, I'm Phoebe Judge and- and this is criminal now part of the Vocs media podcast network from CAFE and the Vocs media podcast network welcome to stay tuned. I'm preparers people have emphasized by us. They just do as some people are aware that some people, art and some people when called out on it get defensive and go into denial. Linda Donna, casket she's, a senior assistant district attorney in COD County Georgia and she said as the lead prosecutor in the trial of the three men who murdered Ahmad Armoury close to you, the story, but I want to remind folks of the key facts. Marbury was on February twenty third, twenty twenty, while jogging through

the neighbourhood and Southeast Georgia Armoury was a twenty five year old, Latmos, Gregg and Travis, but Michael away, Father and son pursued armoury in their pickup truck Travis. The sun shot them on arbitrary and killed him. Barbary was unarmed, the third man, William Roddy Bryant, who also took part in the chase the shooting on his cell phone, the mental police that basis Beckett armoury has been responsible for a string of apparent break ins in the neighborhood, but offered no evidence. Initially. There were no arrest. but after the release of the cell phone footage over two months later, Three men were arrested and charged in November. All three defendants were convicted of murder and this past Friday the judge sentenced each of them to life in prison. I spoke a Caskey for her first in depth, long form interview. Since the trial we talked about it,

our strategy, what it means to be an effective prosecutor and her unlikely journey to public service? That's coming up stated. Support for this episode comes from Andrea Albion. Is the payments platform built help your business grow with aunt Jane? You can accept payments in an online in stored, touch free and be off think about it more ways to get paid more places. What can they do real higher sales and have your customers for starters, audience payment platform, technology adapts to any business, store industry or shopper journey from retail market place to subscriptions and mobile payments. You can do any of it or all of it.

Flexible features that fit your business with a single integration. You can even get revenue, optimization and customer insights all in one solution. Albion build their platform to help businesses like yours from day one and yet business not boundaries. visit andean dot com to learn more, that's eighty, why in Dakar, first animals put on trial, the first striker at the Superbowl the first crime involving quail, eludes and lemurs criminal is the first of its kind. Since two thousand fourteen we ve been reporting on the most curious crimes. It's the craziest story, I've ever heard and to think that I lived, it is kind of hard to grasp, sometimes discover the unexpected side of true crime. Sometimes

funny, sometimes scary, always human, I'm Phoebe Judge, and then this is criminal. Now part of the Vocs media pot gas network, let it run across key. Thank you so much for being on the show supply should be here. It's a real honour to have you. I am sure that it has been a really experience, trying the case of such significance with the whole nation really really watching our. According this. On Monday January, tenth one business day after The sentencing hearing of the three defendants took place off. We got life to without the possible April, parole one with the possibility of parole, so that very significant. No that's what the government had asked for in that case, but before we get to the sentencing and the trial and your thoughts about the case in general and in specific, I thought I'd ask about your background a little bit. So I understand that you were a sales person in the trade shoe industry

for a number of years and that's a lie? Work that you were engaged in even after lost for about nine years before he made the switch to becoming a prosecutor. So my questions are twofold: one. Could you explain your sort of career choice and too was the job of being in sales. in some ways, helpful to being a persuasive argue to the jury. The answer to the second question, is its ABC always be closing? Every single thing you do is to convey the jury about you watch Glengarry, Glenn Ross. Everyday, oh, yes, always be opposing love that movie so, I come from a line of salespeople my cousin was entails for years. My grandfather was a sales pursued during the depression, so well

I got out of Indiana University with my political science decree. I wasn't really qualified to do anything except read and write, and so I ended up getting a job as a secretary in the training, exhibit industry and my ex husband, it was my husband at the time said to me. He said: tell your board, you really don't like this, you being a secretary budgetary law school. I thought you know what I shall ask you gonna Lascaux and I moved down from Chicago, with him here he was getting his Phd at Georgia, tech, and so I thought all apply and I got into Georgia state. But you know I don't come from a family that was going to put me through so and put myself through ass. I went on the night time, parttime program at church, state, university, college of law, and, while doing I also managed to rise up within the trade show, exhibit office and within three years I was the director

sales. Yes, from secretary to retract yourselves and It was a lot of fun. I've got to do a lot of travel. I worked with a lot of different people from vice presidents of marketing through teamsters and people in the trenches floor that were electricians, pudding, trade transmits together and when we're talking traits exhibits, it was a matter of. I would walk into a boardroom. There'd be twelve people there, including the pressure the company I'd, show them are really pretty. Sure, and go and see yes in January. If you give me a million dollars will build this for you right and they got signed a contract so after going to law school and getting out. I had a fork in the road. It was either go practice law or take an offer in a company made me a real

they nice offer, was one of those you're sure corner, often seizure expensive, how we don't expect you to produce anything because treachery Zeb sales is long term sales, and so it was a deal I couldn't refuse so that's why, even after to ask why went back into the trade shore exhibit industry and had a wonderful time travel the world was in sales for years had great clients had great friends, and it was really wonderful but The writing was on the watch for the trade shillings have an industry with the advent of the internet, because a lot of the companies I was working with, they were going ear. Lima, shipping, the stuff across the country, is seven times year and piracy bright. So for me I was kind of my. I got to go back and packed his law, I'm about to be unemployable as a lawyer, because I've been so far out of the practice of long I years and you can you use your legal skills directly in any way for those nine years right after last, like did, I went and when

Clayton County. My girlfriend had opened her la practice down there and I did about a year of defence work, criminal defence work, and I some domestic works it, if she divorces, did some other things, but it really wasn't where I want to be. I didn't know what I want to do with my lot agree at that point in time, and I think I went back into sales because it was easy and it was good money. I was commission sales person and it's a lot of fun. So what we can see the writing on the wall and decide to go back and practice law idea. I also didn't know what I want to do. I thought I hang a shingle out and do all that sort of thing, but I had a girlfriend from law school who said now come to that you can trace office in vote, county and Paul Howard as the day at the time, and I will do so term sales and I pestered him for about six months to hire me and it was, I think,

persistence, because he said why in the world, when I want to hire you, you have no experience law school. As you know, a million years ago, distant past, right, exact idea, but he took he took a chance on you and you came on board in two thousand to night- came on board alive, two thousand to two thousand candy District attorney's office, with no experience at all renewables about them no, I was, I was stupidly- evidence that only the second of easy I can develop watch. What were you thinking retrospect? It was stupid to be their confidence. I was super overly confidence. I came from it a sales background, and I could give its people a thing. So how could this be? And I was used to also hard work, meaning which It should become a government lawyer. You also become the copy repair person. So I learned how to fix the copier, and I had colleagues who were like you know you can get some day

you have for you, I'm thinking it's not beneath me to go ahead and do this sort of work. Now, I'm not special just cause, I'm a lawyer. so it was easy for me to be a little bit arrogant overconfident when I first started at the district attorney's office, but I will tell you This is the very first trial I did. I was sales Linda Ales little. Does that nine? What does that mean? Oh, my gosh was terrible. It was it was what I was used to doing, which is a as The jury likes me, though, my way- and I use but was kind of like what can I do to put you in this party day sort of sales? It was also have their go terribly. Oh they hated me. It was awful. I got. I have to say this. The jury did you be the giant favour of giving me great feedback? that I should never be that way, and so my second trial

decided to be the tv yard prosecutor kind of person, also a complete utter disaster, so that was bad, but my husband, I remarried at this time and my husband, who is still my current husband twenty six years, he said to me he goes listen. You're not connected with the jurors go, take an acting class and I thought well then I'm just acting these I've known. You know you ve got to find yourself. I said, okay, so, went down to the Alliance Theatre in Atlanta and I took an acting class and you know how you look around. You can see that whose Thor's person class cited that and decided. I was the worst person ass. I couldn't act by way of a paper. Bag is just first, but what I did do was I found my own voice as a prosecutor that did have to be a salesman and didn't have to be. Tv version of myself. I could just be myself.

Give the jury. What they wanted, which is all they really want from a prosecutor is for you to be trustworthy. The key advice, which sounds you know trivial in some ways. Frivolous in some ways is be yourself which means there are some prosecutors who gesture a lot and walk around the courtroom. there's some who stand rigid at the podium there, some who speak extemporaneous, There are some who, in a right out reword and memorize, each and every word and pause in their summation or their opening statement and to meet it matter as long as it's the way that that person is because jurors can tell if you're putting on an act degree. I agree so one of the other things before we get to the substance of the trial and so on,

Don T, you have had in law school and didn't really tell you a lot about when you become a prosecutor in the first instance in crimes that have victims, and in this case obviously among arbitrary, was killed. What is the relationship between the prosecutor and the Victor family and and describe how that relationship evolved for you between you and I'm, not Arby's family, something, that's an important story. The people have not talked a lot about the relationship between any homicide, victim's family and the prosecutor is a developing won an evolving one, especially in this particular case. This was a very very I think. Difficult bridge building

trust building relationship, because of how the case started out the case, unfortunately, for wandered Cooper Jones started out with being lied to Island Foresman, about how her son was killed and why her son was killed and it then evolved into a virtues all by the local prosecutor. An assignment to another prosecutor who made some very quick judgment, calls and eventually ended up in the hands of Tom Durden with the Atlantic Judicial Circuit, who realized I hope that she, behind the George View of investigation in on this and then seeing the scope of the case he realized his resources, were not up to handling this particular case on just the scope and his personnel and rest.

forces, and so here the every family is, with Chris Car, the attorney general state of Georgia having to appoint a fourth prosecution team, and at that time it was Cobb County district attorney. Joy at homes So the thing about me was this: I had left Fulton County after seventeen years in the trenches during try work. I had tried over ninety four felony cases to verdict and the majority of them are homicide cases and I was exhausted. I wanted to move on to appeals, but, as a complement to me,

while Howard said to me, I I can't lose you as a trial turn, so I saw the opportunity to come to cod county and had up their appeal section. I took on this job in August of twenty nineteen. Of course the homicide have in February twenty third of twenty twenty and then covert shut everything down in March of twenty twenty. So when joy was appointed to the case. I was home now the news head and my husband said to me: they're gonna value as like fun, I'm the appeals the first one ring and then the phone rang, of course, the phone rang. I mean he like literally Saturday's, like afar, I'm like the funds are them he's like got right there geyser and so joy called me and said on sending the case file over an such send investigate with the case file over and that was it the kurdish question which, when you first

you the case file and obviously you haven't, interviewed all the witnesses yet ready the witnesses yet, and I think all prosecutors are different in this regard. Do you handicap the case? Do think yourself. Well, you know base of high assessment and my many years of experience doing this. We thought about it percent chance of convicting. We have seventy five percent chance. Did you do any of that? And did you do any of that? In this case now, I actually guarantee that what I did you is an assessment of the evidence and the facts and in this particular case, the law. Because I am one of those prosecutors who goes ok. I I can quickly understand case by case is what my case is. What I want to know is what the defences cases gonna be. What am I gonna have to rebut? What am I gonna have to overcome? What am I going to have to answer, and how am I going to block their defense was pausing for second to what was your quick assessment of

for of your case that this case allow the assessment was they murdered Ahmad, and it was obvious plain and simple amateur. This is not a who done it. We don't have to do who did what the only thing everything had to determine what the intent and automotive what's right correct. So in that way, given all the promise, I cases you prosecutor before in that way. a on its face was a little bit easier than some of the other homicide cases. No self defense case is the worst case for a homicide prosecutor and we ve seen another significant and widen follow cases as well, and so what did you make as an initial matter? Would you make out of the self defense strength? Well, we have on the self defense, especially in the state of Georgia, because

number one on the video. This is in self defense. The first thing when you see that video is why do you know what? But why you're watching this? There is absolutely no reason for Travis Big, Michael to shoot. A moderate then use start hearing the narrative that greatly Michael's putting out you have a choice you had to defend yourself. He attacked my son, and so it was like Kay will wait a second, that's not what really going on here. But you want to claim self defense. Well, let's look at the law and the law in a state of Georgia is number one. You can't started aid started it. They brought the shock unto the party number two. You can't go to some one else into defending themselves. In my opinion that also done that number three. You can't be committing any felonies and then claim self defence They had done that aggravate assault, criminal, attentive, false imprisonment, false imprisonment, so the next south. Who had to be? How are they gonna get out of that and their big problem was they went with citizens. Rest

and the result was a problem- is, nobody had ever said at the scene or at the police station hours later, that they were making a citizen's arrest. In fact, they were also uncertain whether he committed a crime. They were urging the police to go back out there to find out what crime it was that he must have committed. So, all that it was like a legally. We ve got this factually. We ve got this, so we are they gonna come from and how are they gonna try, and in this case too, we pretty confident them the legal assessment. I am one of those people who is incredibly confident and goes forward an prosecutes while riddled with unbelievable doubt. less confident than you were with respect to your first case ever? Yes, because you will

and from painful experience the things on always goes plant. It's never as it seems. I want to talk about jury selection and how odd that was for lay people to understand so and we'll talk about raised to the extent that fact it into this sword was deliberately avoided as a theme at the trial, shivered unarmed black man, whose cornered and killed by three white men in the south Laundry selection takes place. The defence keeps striking Black yours and you end up with a jury of eleven white people in one black person and the judge in the case, in response to objections that you and your team made? I should point out by the way that you don't try to case languidly prosecutor did the major jury dresses, but you had an excellent team. The EU is well in response to objections about what you said:

we're racially motivated strikes of potential jury members. The judge said something odd that you think it's hard for lay people to understand him. You can explain it that the courts are there. They found that there appears to be intentional discrimination on the part of the defence and yet under existing Supreme Court precedent they could do nothing about that. Can you make sense of that folks sure so, Batson versus Kentucky is the case and for the stated, some column challenge and there's three parts to it. The first time is the side making the challenge? In this case it was our team that was making. The challenge has to provide a premiere fish, a case of racial discrimination. And for lay people what that means is it's just math? That's all. It is so black sure, after blacker, after blacker get struck me were making what you call a premature case that it must be based on race, script, cracked, because

the numbers support that finding. So when judge ones, they made that finding it was strictly just math you, the defence, had twenty four strikes. You used a Levin of them on our twelve african american jurors. You used eleven of your strikes to strike eleven african american jurors. Unethical By the way, I know the argument you make us aware, when the defence is doing that, are you? Are you dispassionate? Are you getting angry and annoyed or irritated, or you to sort of emotionally needs emotionally neutral, because I knew they were going to do it? I can see it coming So for me I do they were going to do it. I didn't know the extent I was haven't, as I was hopeful that they would not strike all of them.

Yours I do that there were certain black chairs that they had a very good reason for striking, and therefore I was very much expect those strikes some of them were you not say that every strike was inappropriate or improper. Because in some cases there were things that the jurors for the perspectives. Yours said. That indicated they might have biased, either knew the victim. Or had some other connection right. Actually no and you're the reason I say that is because every the person who knew Ahmad New, Marcus, arbitrary or the ivory family had already been struck for cause. So these particular twelve jurors had all indicated that they can be fair and impartial. They could put aside anything they heard in the media and do about the case and decided based on the evidence presented within the four walls of the court room and the law. The gent honestly would give them

but they were struck for other reasons, and it just has to be our race neutral. Now that's I'm saying is there are certain lecturers right. We understood, based on other answers to other questions, why the defense was striking them and therefore I didn't move to have them receded, but I did move to have receded those jurors. Those factors that I felt had been struck because of their race, not because of

the other reason, because they were perfectly acceptable jurors. The George found as long as some particular bull non racial basis could be put forward by the defense. He had no choice but to strike them. Do you think that I ask you to hear a room legal reform person for a moment? Getting Batson needs to be updated to think that remains a good and vital tool, or is it added a file that isn't really good question because airs part of me. I've had people do Batson challenges against me. Do I think it's a good tool? Yes, because it makes the now the proponents of the receding, but the other person, the other side put on the record Race, neutral reason for their strike and sometimes in the explanation you can tell in this is racially motivated. This there's oppression

Sir bias, you ve decided that you don't want black people or women or at a certain person on your jury because of reasons that are really have nothing to do with whether they're gonna be a fair and impartial ter, because your forcing that person to explain themselves is a very odd concept for some people to grasp, because you can literally have a lawyer going in, depending on the type of case, absolutely intent. site unseen- that they don't want black lectures or in its different kind of case. They don't want. Women jurors and then it becomes an exercise in finding through some other excuse some of the proxy for why you would strike the juror when the intent of the person is to just keep blacks off the jury. And you know some people who haven't lived under the regime of Batson just find it very peculiar and- and I just wonder,

better way to do that, I hope somebody figures out a better way to do it, because this is the way we've got right now. So it's a subject that has been talked about and debated and I'm sure you've seen people talk about in debate at there was an entire episode of the daily podcast discussion your trials. g in this matter, and there is a lot of talk about how much race was overtly cited and addressed and talked about. And there are speculating about in your strategy and thinking in the case, you care to address how you thought about it and and whether you stayed away from those issues and for what reasons sure we took a look at this cases, a team, and we started back in twenty twenty because we got the case. We got it through indictment and uncovered. We had our bond hearing, but we first hand the preliminary hearing than the bond hearings and

defence actually started a drumbeat, not us that Kinds didn't do this based on race, and it's not something anybody from the prosecution and ever like put out there. This was something it was not because it's not a hate crime, which was even chargeable back then in the state, cracked, it wasn't part it was, of the evidence and the proof of the elements of the statutes people to understand this at the outset and will get back to the discussion you didn't have to prove racial bias, oration motivation in any way, shape or form, given the count that these three men were charged with right cracked restructured are indictment on the law that was in place at the time, and Georgia had no hate crime statute at the time. So the

we're just charged with murder, felony murder, the aggravated assaults with the shock on India, the vehicles and also imprisonment criminal attempted false imprisonment, none of which the state has to prove a motive for, and yet, as I have often thought to new junior colleagues and explain to people again and again in most criminal cases, there's some exceptions. I k crimes but most criminal cases. Will you to prove its intent? Did the person intend to kill to the prison intend to commit arson? Did the person intend to commit fraud? and their motivation, whether its greed or jealousy or some other animus, doesn't matter as a legal issue. What kind of your does occur to yours? Who want to understand the complete story of your? Why human beings did what they did, to determine whether I was justified or explained what people should be held legally responsible for it. typically you will. You will see in different kinds of cases pro

you decide, as is the case about greeted the case about hatred, or this is a case about you know. Whatever would have it. that they're saying it's about, even though it does need to be proven as an element of the crime. So, given that natural instinct to sort of explain what was going on here- and here you have an unarmed black man who is basically lynched and killed by three white men, race was clearly a part of it. There's if there's a federal hate crimes case pending query, whether or not you would have charged hate crime if that had been available in Georgia. So it's clearly present in the case, not me, to be proven? How did you think about introducing that are not introducing that was just like you just said it was clear, and our teams mind what was going on

was happening, was crystal clear cause. He was on the video here. Are these three white men and they ve all made assumptions about about our very and they ve gone after him with their tracks in their guns? So, part of what we felt was we don't need to say this out loud repeatedly to the jury, they're going to see the video they're going to understand. less is more if less is more on this on this count less his mind, I mean you're saying that you, but a theme of your opening- I can ask you about this, as you just mentioned, was assumptions that these these three men acted not based on evidence not based on facts, based on their own eye, witness testimony of any crime being committed by an assumptions which is, I guess I'll have you thought about this over is. Kind of a proxy for saying they racially profile right, cracked, and he didn't feel the need to save more explicitly. Let me just say one point and that you set at one point all nay assumptions.

Maybe something about what was going on that day and they made their decision to attack arrayed in their drug was because he was a black man running down the street with deliberate. Yes, because I was quoting great big, Michael and Great Big, Michael on his name, one one call when he finally, eventually made. It basically said when asked what what's your emergency help towards the boy my web browser will there's a black man running down the street. That was his response on his name. When one call his own words right. Do you think

I do hope that a golden counterfactual if a monopoly had been white and every other fact remained the same. Although I know people will say it's hard to imagine that that would have been the case because of the role of race and racism in the conduct here, but just assume for the sake of argument that the victim here was white with this had been a very different case in which I have tried it differently. It would have been an incredibly different case. I dont think we'd have tried it differently because you didn't, it would have been different result, no, because as because what I did what we brainstormed about this, I went to my boss, an isolated. If everybody was greed and everybody was the same socioeconomic strata in class. Then it still illegal what they did and there is no justification. There is no excuse under the law for what they did. So it doesn't matter, and he didn't want to make it your my boss, the district attorney Flint

He said I don't want to make this us against them. I don't wanna, make us away versus black thing. What they did was illegal go show the jury. What they did was illegal we'll be right back with more of my conversation, Linda Donna Kuski after this. Did it matter to you in crafting you arguments and in the decision not to over emphasised raised because it was so. I visited matter that there were eleven wagers now because we made this decision early on and our ultimate jury pool didn't necessarily matter in this, is that, once we selected those doors, we knew that they were going to be good jobs. We knew for we had. We knew that they were gonna based their verdict on the evidence that they saw within those four walls

They were: gonna fall, the law, the judge once they gave them and they paid really really close attention. So I was worried about the actual jurors we ve gotten. We were more concerned strategically about presenting the key in a way to those doors when we ultimately got them. That would not alienate any of them, so I'm gonna I had explained it this way, what we decided that the war was on our side with self defence, ancestors rasta we could completely or about that, and we knew that the facts our side this was murder, was on video, it's not a who done it like you said it was obvious what they done and their own words were assumptions the tours to lose to lose, and so we started with what. How do we lose this case? What could we possibly do? That's going to ensure not guilty verdict or a hung by alienating the jars

and the person who is really telling us this was the defence they did at the great favor of constantly going on the news and being in the media? and say what we were going to say, even though never said it. They proclaimed while the prosecution says this. The prosecution has said that I'm thinking I've never said that we ve never said that. No one ever said that Stroman Bright, but they did us the favor. I mean I went back before I did my closing demand, and I listened again to every interview they given, especially the most recent interviews because they did lay out they're, closing arguments for me in advance, which was a great favours. I knew what they were going to say and how they were gonna position it.

So what would? But what was the thing that you, as a team determined, might alienate the jury when it was yours to lose? People have implicit, I ass, they just you and some people are aware that some people, art and some people when called out on it, get defensive and go into denial because nobody thinks that there are racist and nobody thinks that their biased and the minute. You start attacking people. You get them back up, you get the minute defensive posture and the worst fear was not just give this as an example pointing out politically, the Travis think Michael had the stars and bars, which is the old flag from Georgia on the front of his truck, pointing that out to the jurors may have backfired on, especially if we,

A female juror whose favorite nephew also has that in front of his truck the servants do nothing for people to understand There are lots of things that you would have been completely within your rights to do. You could have pointed out, you could have belaboured the point. You probably would not have had an objection sustained, and you made certain choices to keep your case. The strongest possible- yes, fair, yes, Where did you have a sense when you were giving your opening statement described for people, how a quorum lawyer. This is the question I can ask the defence lawyers and also prosecutors

do you get a feeling a generally and physically in this case, if you get a feeling of the jury was with you or not with you, and they react with body language and expressions in a way that you can actually detect when you're arguing your case. Yes, so opening statements are very important because there, the road map, I have found that if you know your case- and you know it inside and out which I did, that I can go ahead and get a little deeper into the evidence that we anticipated being shown a lot of prosecutors, I think hole that. They give servant general overview. They talking generalities, they dont get really specific, which I don't want to do that. I like to get specific you're gonna hear this evidence. You can hear the this witness say that you're gonna hear that with its reach single use, why? Why do you think you do urge from that's regiment, depending on the case in case

I've ever seen. Often you'd want to go into too much detail, because its evidences. That's gonna come in through a witness. You can't, never know that with this is gonna, be is good and his tight in his crisp as you want to describe it in the opening, and so you don't have too much variants between What you say, the evidence will shown with the evidence will ultimately shown. So how do you think about that? I walk into a fearlessly. I it for me. It's been successful for me and in the state, or do we have prior consistent prior inconsistent statements and I've do a lot of prosecutors are afraid to impeach their own witness, but I've done enough domestic violence cases to know that unfortunately she or he is gonna- get the honesty- and indeed my back up on me and I'm prepared for that, because I'm got my. Her best friend, I've got the doktor who saw her where she made these things and other enforcement officer. I got her name, one one call I've got the body. Can video so sometimes

doesn't matter what the witness is. Gonna say what that that gang member. If he's gonna now the sun have amnesia understand, because I know you to be able to get the statement in any way sigh kind of walk into opening route fearlessly, because I want the jury to understand what the scope is right off. The bat Iberian rooted your answer to the question of getting to address the issue of with another comes a moment when you think that the jury is with you or not. No, I am always terrified of the jury. I will tell you why, because there I've had enough Hungary's and I've had a couple of not guilty verdicts where I was stunned at the not guilty verdict where I thought they understood the evidence. I thought they were following me in my closing argument. I thought to me: it was fairly obvious that the murderer had done

the homicide- and I thought the evidence was really good and to have them come back. Not guilty was a stunner on a couple of occasions to me so I have also had Hungary's that there was nothing I can do about that. I had I had one where I had a thirty year old young man, who told you female jurors that they were stupid. Oh, that was the end of it. It was hoped that there's no coming back, especially you can do better. I can't do anything to help them save face to change their mind that jury room. He had slammed the door when he got so frustrated back there with them, questioning everything so yeah there's nothing. me back from that. So there's no way to know what's going on in the jury room, it's we'll talk, but the defences that you mentioned a couple times already in inflation. for another minute, this idea of citizens arrest by the way we should also mention, although losers of this programme, might

be aware that that citizens arrest law was repealed. So big, the case that you tried to conviction was significant, not only in terms of what it meant for the victim in them Kim's family, but also for legal policy in Georgia, generally passage of hate crimes, bill and repeal of the citizens arrest law. You don't want what I've been discussing this case throughout on the inside or pod, with Joyce Vance before that, with a milligram, former co host in a we were struck by how weak dissidents arrest argument was. Did you think that was weaker or the city or the self defense weaker? Or do you think that they had to make both defences in tandem with each other? And one of the reasons why nothing you destroyed this during the trial that the pretty citizens arrest statute. Among other things, the crime had been committed within the present

of the person doing the arresting and they have to have immediate personal knowledge, none of which was here, admittedly so right, cracked, so the citizens arrest statute was mostly used as affirmative defence and mostly used for false imprisonment Claims civilly sometimes criminally so there was a lot of case law on it and every pulled all of the case law in the state of Georgia on citizens arrest and we all looked at it. We discussed it and it has to be within your immediate knowledge, meaning you really have to have witnessed this crime, especially if it's a misdemeanor to go ahead and arrest this person. Now the defence wanted to argue because there's two sentences that the second sentence, meaning if the crimes a felony and you have probable, cause to believe that the person committed the crime. They took that to mean that

you just have to have proper cause like any police officer, might have probable cause and that you can go ahead. Neurons days later and of course, since there is well that's a really really big problem, because I'm in the parking lot of women issues that act, my current some that comes up and pulls a gun on get on the ground, three months ago you broke into my house, I'm looking at him like what are you talking about and what am I thinking? I'm thinking I'm about to be kidnapped by some crazy person, not that I'm actually being arrested by this non uniform person. So you can't really do assistance arrest like that because you restaurant, and they're, not that I know what you're doing and they might actually fight back and want to escape from the crazy person. So there are all kinds of problems with their argument. I think common sense level, but it's all they had they had to overcome. They had overcome the self defence. If you want to claim self defense, you can't be committing felonies ain't. You can not,

have started it and the only way for them to say. Oh, we didn't started we work make felonies is we have to have a legitimate reason for doing this? Well, its citizens. Rest, as you said, I think, more than once Dunkel looking for trouble for acts, light, which is a nice colloquial way of making a very profound legal point. Reuse you when trot Smith Michael took the stand. Nobody even gave it away is opening statement, but I guess the summit. We surprised when he to learn the opening statement that he would be taken. A stand. Yes because when we did our analysis on the case, we were leaning more toward scraping, Michael taking a stand. And the reason for that is in fact you can you remind few people because they may be confused. Grimly Michael, is the Father Kravis with Michael is the sun, I frankly buckles the father and he had been previously. Law enforcement officer and an investigator for the local district attorney's office ensue,

having been in that role in that capacity, and given that we can tell she was the kind of man who would do whatever it took for his son, I'm giving his behaviour after the homicide that he probably would be want to take the sand, and maybe do a mayor culpa, maybe do something to get something for himself for the jury and explained things because of his background. So I crept up extensively for great big. My glinda cross examination for him, we didn't think Travis like Michael, was necessarily going to testify partially because we didn't think you do a very good job based on having seen him in that before his demeanor, and also he had a lot of there is a lot of ways. It could go terribly wrong for him. and then there was defended Brian, the one who took the video we ninety if he was gonna, testify or not, but we prepared for it anyways so

The answer is yes, we release prepares, released, prepared for the guy who ended up testifying, and do you conclude that it was a mistake for him to testify the answers I dont know. If it was a mistake, because what did your case good stroked, the Detroit? Let me ask you this way when you can your cross examination of traps with Michael, which was very very good, I must say- and you and very crisp was my favorite word when I describe it examinations of witnesses and I got made fun of the office for using the term but re crisp. Did you feel that you had advanced your case or just avoided damage your case after the cross? Examining I felt we had advanced the case, so doesn't it does not necessarily mean it was probably a mistake for drivers to testify yes, but my experience with self defense Cases- is that unless you can understand and look there,

surely in the eye and say I was in fear for my life and they believe you, u dont, really necessarily have a chance, because your claiming self defence, but if you don't tell the jury How it was that you were in fear and the level of your fear why you were in fear and why it was reasonable for your actions. They really don't have an opportunity to assess that and, so I think he had to testify, or least Greg had to testify for him. That's such an important point. You know that they often don't teach you in law school, and that is we learn about the doctrine of self Defense and you learned about and you learn about the presidency learn about what the elements are and who has the burden all that, but the end of the day in an in an actual courtroom with actual human beings sitting as yours. It's not the doctrine that carries the day right. It's it's a eight and observe the belief as you were saying that the person making the self defense claim was actually fearful for there,

and some people can pull it off and often a can't off, because he wasn't in fear of his life, as you made very clear in the cross, exact and that is always the fear for the prosecutor that the defendant is going to get up there and he's been so prepped and he's sober Hurst, and he knows when to cry those crocodile tears that a drawer, all the drawers, are going to believe him and that's the fear was at hence case. You know you're calling to mind. Obviously another very significant case. It was followed by many people in the country happening around the same time call Rittenhouse who took the stand, who cried, who started self defence in connection with it. Killing of two people entering a third did you did you follow? Any of that? Did you pay attention? Are you two laser focus on your own case? We had no idea what was going on. something that I am so pleased to hear that, because people ask me that question people think from time to time that prosecutors, we're in the middle of trial,

have the luxury of following the news and was going on with a pigeon. What's going with other cases, you had no time for that. No time for that at all, we were out that five, forty five in the morning out the door to the court house out of the courthouse by six o clock home, trying to dinner, trying to be in bed at nine p M, just like it, of course stare at the ceiling from two I am too, for I am thinking about the case. And trying to back to sleep well done there, a couple of other weird things have happened: the trial, for example. This claim the capping made by one of the defence lawyers about black pastors being in the in the galley. Obviously, there's always only after shaken have in effect. The path is AL sharply right now, that's fine, but then it will want more black. Have you come in here or other Jesse Jackson? Whoever was it was a year earlier this week? Would you make of that our first? I want to say that having off the attorney for mister

is a brilliant legal scholar. He wrote the best motions. He wrote the most comprehensive brief on citizens arrest. He did an excellent motions job. The guys is just intellectually brilliant In my humble opinion, he lacks emotional intelligence of reading the room and understanding we, the room, read the room very right right, and so he would his style presentation in my opinion, was off, putting I think for a number of reasons, but those particular- comments about black pastors. That was made all outside the presence of the jury and his whole argument and everything he did was calculated for appeal. So this is how smart, I think, having office Kevin Gas New,

Mr Brian was gonna, be convicted. He knew what is claimed. It said he noticed Klein had done, he knew it met the elements, a felony murder based on the idea of a salt, false imprisonment, promote tempted, false imprisonment and human doing every single thing he could to create issues than he could then bring up on a p and he was doing a very, very good job of it. And I know a lot of people are very prize when I actually stood up and told the court on the record. That he's really an attorney this is my first Rodya and I've seen this strategy before I've. Seen some defence attorneys attempt to do things that cause I'll just called a hub? effort that later claim that that hubbub, somehow prejudiced their client when they were in fact the reason for that that beyond expect that, having conclude the trial to be any kind of basis for America, his appeal do now not at all so here's another weird thing can happen at the trial

One of the other defence lawyers said in describing the victim who was killed, em on arbitrary, describe them as having long dirty toenails turning a Maud arbitrary into a victim after the choices that he made does not reflect the reality. of what brought my arboretum scintilla shores in his catchy shorts, with no socks to cover his long dirty. Tell me what the hell was the answer. I don't know why Laura Hoag's, the attorney for Greg Mcmichael, said that in her closing argument- and I don't know if it was an attempt to once again try to make a mod out to be the intruder- which is what they call

him throughout the trial to do that. Saddam stranger danger or he's not one of us kind of arguments, but I personally think it backfired her immensely does when she said it. I was aghast and thought it was. Do you have a you have given philosophy of maintaining poker face? That's genoa, prosecutors. I shall travellers are taught. Did you maintain a poker phaser do try? I try very very hard to maintain a poker face because I dont do it very well so I tried over I'm and what about on that? At that moment I have no idea sure by I was taking notes, remember thinking my eyes- probably got really big and I thought dont look up, don't look up because they'll see that your eyes have gotten really big, and what is she talking about talk about not reading the room and you give a philosophy of making objections. Yes, I do have a flask and making objections, my philosophy as this at the beginning make objections

so that the defence knows where the line is because I've seen way too many of my colleagues. Let the defence get away with it get away. Then. Finally, Vellum Jack Road and you have taught the defence anything you kind of time, the judge or the court and the court has also not been trained to be sure of, in a vigilant about the line too. If the prosecution is I'd, go unchecked for so long red, correct, so right out of the gate. I am cheers with the line. Is I'm going to ejector going to do the stuff, I'm an object, and I'm going to stand up now, as the case info We all know you analyze whether an objection is appropriate. You analyze, whether its fourth, it is this evidence. Gonna hurt us. Is this something you need to object to, and you make those judgment calls in the moment, and you have to be quick on your feet- failed to do that, but rather the gate. I liked to go ahead and set the parameters and the rules that I'm gonna be playing by. You said earlier that you don't follow other cases, news of other cases

busy in your own case, but because your case was so prominent. There were a lot of armchair quarterbacks dude, nor all of that to during the trial you get told what people are saying about the strategy and how it's going or due to bear down on the case and only the case well, because we have an excellent, excellent team. What I told the team to do his best to look at any constructive cod system that actually was meaningful because one of our people on the team who is monitored. that is actually a lawyer, not just a media person, and so really be able to say here's, some constructive criticism that we're getting- and I told her the rest of it is just noise. I don't want to hear it really it so you used it as it as a device to actually improve your strategy and approach a trial. It's what you sort of crowd source to today, cable networks and the Pandit tree. A little bit of extra help right if someone was making a good point. There are some constructive

isn't- there was something I was doing, or the team is doing that we needed to not do or do better. That was great, constructive criticism, but anything else was just noise and I don't want to hear a green down. Right was ready, ample about because from everything, I saw it was mostly praise for your performance. Actually, the most memorable piece of advice came Another lawyer, a female lawyer, and it was You and Miss Olivia AIR need to stop cutting up and and kind of baking faces and laughing, and she does the programmers through the poker faces. And she said basically it's a double standard, but as women we get away with it, and and basically she wanted us to not. She was trying to help and she's. So they don't want you to alienate the jury because women can't get away with doing this, you gotta maintained a poker face, so that was some feedback we got early on in the trial. Some

Another lawyer. I think she was out Tennessee. cases over everyone rests. The jury gets the case. Do you make an assessment at that point, or do you think yourself? when in really well- and we should get a conviction or based on what you said earlier- which I think is like the case among most prosecutors, you never know what to do. It will do so. Don't feel necessarily any confidence, or did you in this case I never know what a jury is going to do, because I don't know what the dynamics are going to be in the drawing room, because you can have a number of people getting along beautifully during. We can talk about the case. Phase put you start talking about the case or how bricks right, because then I've told you this. I said you may look at me and think oh yeah Mister MC know exactly what you talked about and with you, but the persisting. Next, you may be thinking, that's not all, but I believe- and I totally believe what the defences thinking and you dont know that to you talk about it in a jury room sir. I never know I never know what to do.

When'd you or what the dynamic and house from play out the jury room. Do you um? Did you look at the jury when they came back before the and also voted? Yes, I always do and how they look to Philip resigned in sad and that that indicate you likelihood of conviction. Yes, the did. I think you'll believe that twelve people, having seen that video and the evidence we presented, would come back with a not guilty verdict. I had enough faith to think that that that would be really really.

Really hard. I was more concerned about a hung, jury and doing it all over again and when they actually announced a verdict. All I could do was say: please let it be the right verdict, please let it be the right verdict and when they walked in- and they were sad and resigned. That to me is an indication of their acknowledgement of the tragedy about their verdict, which is we're going to hold you responsible. What? What? What do you do for your actions? Had there been no video in this case we would have been tribal. Oh, yes, and wouldn't do you think the conviction was very, very less certain, somewhat less certain? How would you how'd you make the difference in the strength of the case whether without the video. a video always makes a case stronger. It always does because people in Sade age really want to see with their own eyes

yours trust themselves and a video will always make a case so much stronger. Was it tribal unwinnable without them? you. Yes, just based on their actions in their own statements in the aftermath of what took place and how it went down, it still would have been a tribal winnable case so I asked you earlier in the interview about your relationship with the armory family, to take us to the moment after the verdict with a series of verdicts and and how the armory family reacted in in your conversation. So after the verdict came back, the court house we had kind of besides some space so that they could be alone and have the moment to themselves. because for the lawyers- and this was really a family matter for them in the moments right after the verdict,

but after that we all went into the jury assembly room to meet and hawk and everything and it was very emotional. Everyone's crying everyone was hugging, and so it was it was. It was really meaningful to be able to have been part of the team that brought justice. for their family. It's interesting use that term and after terrible cases like this was likely. Racial animals involved and people say You know just as was done. There are folks who will say, and sometimes as members of the family, that no justice would have been the crime to happen in the first place or justice would have been an earlier arrest or some other such thing. How do you think about whether the case and the verdicts accomplish justice, or not every case is a long road and every case hesitant pumps and problems? It's never save it's never tv

We got where we needed to go to trial and to holding the murderers accountable so I know they always say it's, it's never the destination is the path and how you got there, but sometimes it is actually the destination, is the verdict and is the sentence so

this case? We got therein and justice was done. We surprised at all, but the court agreed with you on the sentences. No, I think Judge Walmsley had been thinking about this ever since the verdict. I think he spent the entire month by December boiling over the evidence that he heard that was presented to the jury, their verdicts and what the sentence ranges were, and I think he did a lot of deep thought. Our team had done a lot of deep thought about what we were going to recommend and we talk to the family, about our recommendations and recommending life without the possibility of problem for the make Michael's and then life with pool for defending Brian. So I think he put in the same amount of energy

g and thought into it, and what we recommended happened pebbly be exactly what he thought as well give up based on experience. You have a view about whether there should be cameras in the courtroom and what was that experience like that's, fraught and fretful enough just to try. a very significant homicide case because of the case in the family, members and the rule of law and everything else but Fritz. Be televised day after day after day nationally. How did you cover them? Well, my coming, and is it was to tell myself that only three people were actually watching and one is my sister achieves a big fan, so it didn't really matter, and this is it been my first time, the first time. on a high profile case. They got this kind of level of media. Attention had been the Atlanta public school cheating scandal, trial and you just to ignore it, because you just put your case up and it becomes part of the courtroom equipment

and I allowed myself to go there. This time I told myself, the most important thing is doing the job, doing it well doing it right and to let the junk stress of of the tv cameras come into. That is a disservice to the family, and I wasn't gonna. Let that happen. It has been. My experience with lately give a lot of things happening in the country that, for some folks it's not very fashionable to become a prosecutor. What would you say to people who are coming to law school who wanted to public service? What's the argument would make to them people who care about criminal justice reform people who care about the rule of law, people who care about inequality. What would you say to them about why they might consider a career as a prosecutor, because his passage cheater? You actually are the person making the biggest

difference and the reason I say that is twofold: number one. You are the voice of victims. People forget about the victims. They they they are upset that someone's been charged for a homicide but their forgetting that the per there's a dead person doesn't a crime actually did take place and there's potential that this person who murdered this other person to do it again and there has to be justice and accountability, but the prosecutors also percent. Who has the power to go behind law enforcement and go yeah? We got the wrong. This is right. We have you got the wrong person. You ve charge the wrong man. We have to discuss this charter we got it fixes persons record- and I have done that on numerous occasions in to her say cases we actually reinvest get it, and when oh yeah, these are three people. These are not the people committed these murders

and so I've dismiss dismissed charges against numerous defendants where we ve researched it. We ve looked at it. We ve gone back in interviewed the victims, found victims who have lied various reasons. I am found victims who were mistaken for various reasons and as a prosecutor, your evil to go ahead and fixed. I make that right and you are also the one who can make that decision about. Is this somebody who is a danger like is this somebody who really should not be with the rest of us, because they are a danger. They they don't care they're going to do. this again, or is this somebody who has just caught up in It's one of those things were reminded them, we're gonna, like hey, could you just

Get it together become become a good citizen and and and just you know, we're going to give you the chance to be that person, criminal justice reform and the prosecutors, the person who has the ability to do that. The other thing I agree with you that we're missing are those career prosecutors. We have a lot of people who do as young people right out of law school. They want to become prosecutors. The problem is once again is there underpaid their overworked and once you

enter into the lifecycle and uphold the lifecycle once once you enter into that I'm getting married having having children and oh my gosh, I to put them in private school or sent him to college. It becomes about the money. Unless you have a passion and you become that career prosecutor, it's a lifestyle. It is a choice and it's wonderful. It is actually wonderful when you are that person who is able to be that voice for that victim who was never going to have a voice unless you were there to do it for them. It's it's a very, very satisfying thing: Lilliput you ve been very kind with your time in a lot going on, Linda Donna, Kuski, I'm so glad you left sales and annually, contains your service to the public. Not only this case, but in so many other cases, and I hope you continue to do it for a very long time, thanks again for your time. Thank you. So much for having me My conversation with Linda down a costly continues for members of the cap,

Insider community. The membership free for two weeks had carried out Slash insider again Kathy dot com, slash insider I want to end the show this week by recognising some of the lessons that we have lost in recent weeks. On new year's eve, we lost Betty White at the young age of ninety nine? Last Sunday we lost one of America's. On television that Bob Sagoth, who play Danny Tanner on full house, if only sixty five and last Thursday, we lost actor director writer and activist Sidney Plantier at age. Ninety four and its part A but I would like to linger on many of his successes and achievements are well known here: An academy award for best actor for the nineteen. Sixty three film lilies of the field.

He played a handy man who becomes a close friend to a group of catholic nuns who begin to leave. He is a divine force that marked the first time that a black and had ever been honoured as best actor, it would not happen again. For thirty eight more years when Denzil Washington wanted. in nineteen sixty seven alone, Quartier start in three redefining films to Sir, with love, guess, who's coming to dinner, and one of my favorites in the heat of the night when the Academy award for best picture and that Film Quartier played Virgil tips black police detective from Philadelphia who joins up with a white Sparta, Mississippi Police Chief named Bill Gillespie, a memorable turn by rod, stagger to invest to get a conspiracy surrounding the killing of an industrialist. To me. It must watch and poignant film about racial hatred and redemption party. was born in poverty to tomato sellers in the Bahamas. Nineteen, twenty seven his parents. So

him to live with relatives in Miami when he was fourteen he came to New York. While he was still a team He lied about his age and served as an army medical orderly during the final years of world WAR two after the war. He began to dream of acting career. But while dreaming that dream he worked as a dishwasher in a story, a queens. He still spoke at this point with a thick west, indian accent and so acting was a bit of a dream, and so he listened to the radio and read the Journal American to work on his English. While working in the restaurant twenty. I had a chance and counter the changed. His life, he explained in the thirteen CBS Sunday morning Interview with Leslie Stall, one of the waiters jewish guy elderly man

I had a newspaper and he walked all the way and he looked at me and he said what's new in the paper and I looked up at this man and I said to him: I can't tell you what's up in the paper. I said, because I can't read very well: is a semi ass, the sun? Would you like me, you re ready. I set it. Yes, if monetary something every night every night, the place closed everyone's gone and he sat there with me week after week, after

I learned a lot alive and then things began to happen. The rest, as they say, is history cod. You told us of his kind waiter teacher many times one thousand nine eighty memoir this life. He talked in more depth about the impact. That that teacher had had on his life quote this soft spoken natural teacher with thick bifocals, bushy, eyebrows and silver white hair. Sat with me. Night after night in the twilight of his years and gave me a little piece of himself. I have never been able to thank him proper. because I never knew then what an enormous contribution he was making to my life.

I don't know if he's alive or dead, probably dead by now, but he was wonderful and a little bit of him is in everything I do. I find the story of a waiter and a dishwasher incredibly moving. We say all the time the trailblazers stand on the shoulders of giants and, of course they do, but they also need kindness and soup. Word from ordinary people to reach their own level of greatness, and so I also find myself marvelling at a man who admitted his weakness and so honoured a kind teacher when a legend and what a lesson God bless Sidney Plantier in May he rest in peace That's it for this episode of statehood, thanks again

my guest, Linda Donna, Kuski if you like what we do rate, Review to show an apple pie casts or wherever you listen. Every positive review helps new listeners, find the show Send me your questions about news, politics and justice tweet them to me. I prepared with the hashtag aspirin, or you can call and leave me a message at six hundred and sixty nine. Two hundred and forty seven seven thousand three hundred and thirty, eight that's six thousand six hundred and ninety two for praetor or you can send an email to letters. A cafe, dotcom stay tuned is presented by cafe and the Vocs Media Parkhurst Network executive producer is tomorrow, supper the technical director

Who's David Tattersall senior producers or Adam Waller and Matthew Billy, and the cafe team is David, curl Andor, SAM, overstating Noah oscillate, not wiener, Jake Kaplan, Chris boiling Sean washed, Walsh and Namrata Shop. Our music is by Andrew Dost. I'm your host reed baronne stay tuned. Support for this episode comes from add. Yet again is the payments platform may for today tomorrow, and whatever comes next with annual single solution, is simple to accept all kinds of payments in an online in store, touch, free and beyond, and it seamlessly dams with your business. So keep your customers happy in your business growing with add. Yet is this not boundaries visit andean dot com to learn more, that's a d? Why he in Dhaka? If you

what to disappear successfully. Figured that successfully you got to be on the job every minute of every day. The rest of your life criminal is about cast about crime. By remember, there Cuter tell me well, you're not going to see her husband for at least fifty four years, and I remember looking into into the news Cameron Aims- and I said you wanna bet stories of people have done. Both have, I think, was addicted to the crime as well as the drugs people who have been wrong. I don't know what Lee, but I didn't understand as a twenty or you'll how bad things happen, a good people. I do not understand that at all in fair and people who ve gotten com, someplace in the middle much extra help. John and Ass John? How was the rat out to address said where the rad was good, but it was gone the wrong way

I'm Phoebe challenge- and this is criminal now part of the Vocs media podcast network.