Neighborhood Watch Gone Wild – When the Prosecutor Cries Jury Nullification

What's up my A&Gers? Happy whatever makes you happy. Got a nice one here for you. Another not guilty bringing another hot one. But this time with a twist. Going to have to listen if you want to know what the twist is. Special thanks to the very busy and awesome fellow public defender Matt Swiatek for taking the time to edit this episode. Also want to take this time to give a shout out to Zoe Janaszek and Colin S for becoming our newest members to the A&G Patreon program. Zoe, Colin, you guys rock.

Thank you so much for the contribution. It really helps keep the pod running. If you too would like to contribute, then please visit our website at another not guilty pod dot com and click on the Patreon link. And lastly, A&G is approaching 100 episodes. It's been a fun ride. I'm not sure how much longer I can keep this going. If anyone out there is interested in helping out with the production of the show or producing the show, that'd be great. Or maybe you're just in an accepting the torch. Maybe it's time that I passed the torch to someone else.

Or possibly you just want to, you know, produce your own episodes and I can just put them up. I don't know something, but you know, I'm open to whatever. So hit me up if you're interested. And with that said, without further ado, here's this week's episode of another not guilty.

There's no lie. My statement is so boring and vanilla. And part of that is informed because I just thought this is so easy. So open and shut. Such a, yeah, I can't possibly miss all you got. Just. Yeah. So my open statement was, was real bland. You're going to see this video. You're going to see this woman get out of her car with a gun. You're going to see, you know, this woman get beat up.

You're going to see her dad show up and assist her in the attack. You're going to see her, her bruised and bloody and swollen face. And you're going to see her face blackened eight days later.

And I'm confident that you're going to return verdict of guilty on both counts or, you know, whatever.

Welcome to another not guilty. I'm David Moore here, along with my fellow public defenders presenting to you the untold stories of the criminal justice system.

Objection. That assumes there's justice in the system, which there ain't. I prefer calling it the American criminal system.

These stories are about the not guilty as public defenders get on a daily basis in an unjust criminal system.

With the deck stacked against us.

Cording. Welcome back, everybody, to another not guilty.

It's your boy, David D here, bringing you the freshest not guilties across these United States.

What's going on? Another not guilty world. I'm so excited today.

One, because of our awesome co-host Lauren is with us again. What's up, Lauren? How you doing?

Hey, guys. Yeah. I'm excited to be here.

Yeah. Lauren, how you been?

Good. I'm just trying not to melt. It's finally summer here.

Yeah. It's been hot. It's the winds. You know, like when it gets hot, but there's no wind blowing.

Yeah. I mean, it's always slow in Southern California to get the summer memo with all the glue and stuff, but now it's proper hot now.

Right on. Right on. Right on. Well, Lauren, speaking of hot, we have a hot guest today on the podcast.

We have another not guilty. We have a first time, you know, we like to, we're very liberal and very, you know, and who we bring on the show.

Sometimes people say like, well, do you have to be a public defender? I'm a criminal defense attorney.

Like, okay, you could be a criminal defense attorney, be on the show. We want to hear from you.

Or I'm a juror. I sat on a jury. Yeah. We would love to hear from you.

Another not guilty is getting so big. It is growing so much that now prosecutors want to be on the show.

Did you know that Lauren? I had no idea.

Today we have, we have Burton Harding, a prosecutor who's going to be on the show today.

Burton Harding, go ahead and introduce yourself to another not guilty world.

We are so happy to have you here today.

The new day.

Hello. Nice to meet you guys. My name is Burton Harding.

I'm a prosecutor in Linn County, Kansas, a very rural county in the south, southeast Kansas, about an hour south of Kansas City.

I, I'm a prosecutor, but I kind of just kind of turned on to the podcast because I have a private practice on the side and do criminal defense work on the side and take public appointments and that sort of thing.

So I kind of do a little bit of both and I was interested in the podcast and in my world as a prosecutor, I had a case that I thought, I'm not a defense attorney, but this is interesting anyway.

This is worth, worth talking about, I think.

Burton, how is this not a conflict of interest?

Like you're the prosecutor, but you also take appointed cases as a defense attorney?

I do it in, in, in different counties.

So I do not do any criminal defense in my own county and really in my own district.

We have districts of three or four counties.

And, uh, so I really operate outside of my district.

So I've not, so we don't have that conflict of interest.

And this was Linn County, you said?

Linn.

That's right.

Kansas.

Kansas.

All right.

Okay.

Okay.

So you're a prosecutor in Linn County, Kansas, but then you're a defense attorney in other

parts of Kansas.

That's correct.

Or you do court appointed, uh, court appointed, uh, defense work in other parts of County.

So you're akin to a public defender.

Yes.

So, okay.

Okay, cool.

And Burton, how'd you find out about the podcast?

You know?

I don't, I think it was a, maybe a Reddit post or something.

I'm not sure exactly.

It must've been Reddit where I was following some criminal defense forum or thread and

somehow the, the, it came up and I thought, well, I gotta hear this.

So I started tuning into the podcast and start, you know, listen to a couple seasons.

And, and again, I, I, the whole time thing, I, I kept thinking, I'd love to have a story

for the show.

And sure enough, something came up.

I was like, this is, this is interesting.

This is interesting.

You want to be on the show, but you want to ethically, ethically be on the show, right?

You know, you didn't like nail, mail in a case to get a not guilty just to show, right?

No, no, not yet.

I didn't get quite that desperate yet.

All right.

This is a legitimate.

All right.

You know, cause sometimes defense attorneys always say, man, if I was a prosecutor, I would

never lose a case if I was a prosecutor.

Like, you don't know what jurors are going to do.

They're so stupid.

They'll do anything that, I mean, like.

Well, that's really the theme of my story today, I think, is never knowing what the heck

a jury's going to do.

Oh, that was nice.

I thought you were going to say it was the theme that they're so stupid.

No.

Well, sometimes I've had some, some thoughts about jurors that aren't very kind, but.

We all can relate to that.

So no matter what side of the aisle you're on, we all can relate to that.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Okay.

So, Burton, tell us about this case that you were prosecuting that got not guilty.

Your client being the people of Linn County, Kansas.

That's right.

What did the people of Linn County, Kansas charge the defendant in this case?

Okay.

So this is going to take a little bit of backstory because this kind of has some history, which

plays into everything.

So, so Linn County is a rural county and it has several lake communities where people, again,

I told you about an hour away from the city.

So, so people from the city will have lake properties and homes and they'll come down,

you know, it's an hour away.

It's an easy weekend trip to, to get down and take the boat out or whatever.

There's one lake community down here in particular that has been problematic in the, in the county

for the last couple of years.

So they have, they've become a gated community.

They put up gates so you can't get in and out without a card.

And so the, the, the board there I think is trying to clean things up or, or make changes.

They want to get it a little more upscale.

And so they have a few years ago, they began a policy where if a individual hasn't paid

their assessments for the year or they're in violation of some of their, their codes

and regulations, their gate card can be shut off.

So they, they would be denied access to the gate community.

The lake community that they are a part of, that they, that they live in.

That they, where they live sometimes.

Yes.

Well, not everyone lives there, but yes, but we're, but that's kind of how this comes

up is there are people who live there who, who have access to their homes shut

off when, when their gate cards are shut off.

And it's particularly exacerbated because, uh, it, because it's a rural area and because

it's a lake community, they don't have, it's not a city.

They don't have city services.

They don't have public utilities, so they don't have water.

So to, to get water, they have to haul in water in a tank and fill up their water.

And so again, when they can't get their water, they can't get groceries.

I'm sorry, these people with vacation homes, like they're wealthy enough to have vacation

homes, they have to like bring buckets of their own water.

Is that, did I get that right?

Uh, some of them do, some of them don't.

So if you live on the lake, you can get a filtration system and, and just pump water.

Uh, but a lot of people who don't live on the lake, cause it's a bigger community than

just lakeside, lakefront houses.

So the people who don't have lakefront houses, yes, they have to, to bring in water and, and

don't, it may be wrong to think of it as like a luxury community, but it's like, you

know, camping and fishing and hunting and, and it's, it's more, it's not, I mean, there

are expensive homes out there, but.

That's not the bulk of the community.

Not the bulk of the community, no.

Okay.

Smaller lake lots for people to come down and put a camper out and, and, you know, invite

the, you know, have a cook steaks on a grill and have a night out under the stars or something.

So the board is trying to up their game, maybe increase the property, uh, the rent, the

property value.

So they're trying to be real anal about things.

Yes.

So what happened one day, so, so this has kind of increased, there, there's been an, a mounting,

uh, friction or tension between the haves and have nots in this community, the, the people

who, who, the, the board and, and the people who support the board and the, the people who

are, are living in a little trailer in a lake lot and have struggled to pay their assessments.

And so they, they get shut off and, and they get very angry and they get very upset and

they'll do things like they'll damage the gate or drive around, you know, tear down part

of the fence and drive around it and get criminal damage to property charges.

And, and this has been going on since before I was a prosecutor.

So it, it kind of culminated one day when there was a woman, uh, there's a, the, the victim

in my case is a 60 year old woman who is driving home, driving into the community.

She scanned her car, gate opens up, she drives through and just behind her is a woman.

I don't know how old she is in her thirties, maybe late thirties, who, who doesn't have

her car to activate.

And she is hoping to swoop in really quickly and drive through before the gate closes.

Well, the, the, the first woman, the, the victim in this case drove through and then got

just past the gate, just, you know, six inches past the gate with her back bumper and then

stopped to allow the gate to close.

So the woman behind her could not swoop in like she wanted to.

And the woman behind her lives there.

Yes.

The woman behind her lives there.

And so she, the woman behind her, I'll call her Anna, Anna drive, drives up and she's trying

to, to get in and the, the two cars end up bumping each other.

There's a little collision.

It is, there's nothing to speak of.

There's no damage, but you can kind of see in the, in the video that the car's kind of

shake.

Part of the reason that this was interesting is there is every, every bit of this is captured

in three different angles from high definition colored cameras with audio.

I mean, there's no question what occurred this day and who did what and when, because

this happened right at the security gate where we have, there are three different security

cameras.

So the, the woman, Anna bumps the, the victim's vehicle.

I don't think it was on purpose.

She was just trying to get in there.

And so the, the woman and the, the victim feels the impact.

She gets out of her car, she walks back, she, she's calling somebody and the victim and Anna

start exchanging words with each other.

They're, they're kind of, and you can't hear exactly what they're saying, but you know,

they're, they're jabbering at each other.

So that, this goes on for a little bit and eventually tensions heat up enough, tempers flare

up enough that, that Anna jumps out of her vehicle with a pistol in her hand and charges

up to the gate.

So there, there's two women on opposite sides of this gate and, and Anna's kind of waving

her gun around and, and, and kind of using threatening language.

And then the, the, the victim kind of doesn't really back down.

And so Anna puts the pistol down on the hood of her car, climbs through the fence and just

starts really viciously attacking this, this woman who, 30 years her senior and just, you

know, starts beating her in the face, pulling her hair, pulls her down to the ground and they

start wrestling around and Anna's just beating the crap out of this woman for, for probably

10 minutes.

At some point during the fight, before Anna had gotten out of the car, she had called her

dad to, to say what was going on.

And so her dad who lives there pulls up and, and sees her daughter fighting with this woman.

And so he helps extricate, they have the, they're, both of them have each other's hair.

They're pulling each other's hair on the ground.

And the dad pulls the victim's hands out of her daughter's hair and holds her arms back.

So she's defenseless while Anna's pummels her more.

And I mean, just, it's a bad beating.

So then, uh, eventually police show up, everything breaks up.

Uh, you can see on the police body cameras, uh, the victim's face is swollen.

It's bloody, it's puffy.

Her, her eye is kind of swollen shut.

She, she's just in bad shape.

Uh, there's another body cam that we get a hold of that, that they had gone to her house

eight days later to check up on the victim.

And her face is still just black, uh, swollen up.

Hey, Burton.

Yes.

Who's your client?

My client is, is the people.

I'm, I'm the prosecutor.

Oh, right.

I forgot we were doing that.

So, so I get this case and it seems to me to be a no brainer because again, I'm the

prosecutor.

I'm not defending this woman.

I'm, I'm, I'm charging her with a battery, aggravated battery on the, an aggravated assault.

Uh, do you, uh, do you watch the videos before you make the charging decisions?

I think I did.

Yes.

You're just basing off the police report though at this time, right?

Well, I certainly did read the police report.

I can't remember for sure if I'd watched the videos prior to charging or not, but I think

I did.

So you're charging Anna at this point.

At this point, I'm just charging Anna.

What about the gun?

Okay.

So you said aggravated, because you know, like in California, like, you know, you can't do

that with a gun.

I don't know what it's like in Kansas.

I'm sure they have more liberal gun laws than we do.

That's true.

So I, she was charged with, that is true.

So she charged with aggravated battery, which I'm not sure it is in California, but assault

is, is, uh, in Kansas is just putting someone in, in fear of, of bodily harm, imminent bodily

harm.

So I charged her with aggravated battery for actually battering the woman, actually punching

her and then aggravated assault for pulling the gun at her and kind of pointing at her

and using it to threaten her.

Okay.

So she said threatening language with the gun.

I don't remember exactly what her words were, but you know, it's some, you know, and I will

say this in the defendant's defense.

While I do think that she pointed the gun at the victim, I don't think it was an intentional

pointing of the gun.

It was just while she was flailing her hands around and they were, you know, arguing and

talking, you know, the gun at a couple of points ended up pointing at her, but it wasn't

one of those where, you know, she's got her at gunpoint.

Right.

Like the pointing wasn't necessarily an intentional pointing other than just, I mean, I think

she absolutely intended to pull the gun out and use it to, to intimidate the victim, but,

but at no point was it a, you know, intentional pointing the gun at her and.

Right.

So you look at this, you see aggravated assault, aggravated for the, for the gun, threatening

with the gun, aggravated battery because of the, the, the unlawful touching with injuries,

I guess.

Is that what aggravated battery is?

Yes.

Well, there, there are several levels of, of battery and aggravated battery, you know,

whether it's intentional or there's reckless and whether it resulted in great bodily harm

and disfigurement or, or could have resulted in great bodily harm, disfigurement, that sort

of thing, which is something we kind of got into with the jury instructions, but, but yes,

that's right.

How much time is she facing?

So she, in Kansas, sentencing is that we've got a, a sentencing grid, which is determined

by, uh, or one access is the severity level of the crime and one access is their criminal

history.

And so she was charged with, um, in our grid level one is the most serious, uh, very level

and level 10 is the lowest.

So she was charged with a four.

So it was a pretty severe, serious felony.

Uh, depending on her criminal history, she was looking at up to 172 months.

I thought you were just like, they say, they say years.

I was like, no, no, no.

Wow.

Kansas does not play.

Kansas does it by months.

So she was like in 172 months.

So 15 years, 14 years.

You know, so, you know, we're not, how long have you been a prosecutor for or the prosecutor

of Linn County?

Since 2020 or 21.

Okay.

And do you have any prosecutors that work under you?

Like you're the elected official, right?

Yes, that's right.

Does, um, like, um, can you tell us what your role is when you get a police report and evidence?

Like you just, are you trying to charge everything you can?

Are you letting some, some stuff go?

Like, how do you, what's your kind of view on things?

So, you know, I think I'm maybe probably more liberal than a lot of prosecutors just

by virtue of, of having, being a defense attorney first and, and maintaining a defense practice

as I'm prosecutor.

You know, my policy is, is, is kind of, uh, if, as far as, you know, charging goes, if

I think that there's, there's a, I can prove it at court or a trial, then, then I'm not

afraid to charge it.

I, I always encourage the bar that I work with that if they think that I've got a problem

or if they think that there's something wrong with my case to please let me know, because

I don't want to waste my own time.

I don't want to waste their time.

I don't want to waste the county resources prosecuting a case where I've got, you know,

a serious issue, but this is not one of those cases.

Just to be clear, you being the prosecutor of this county means that you're the one making

all the filing determination.

Basically.

So, and you're, she's cross-examining right now.

That's fine.

That's fine.

Yeah.

You're also the one that he will make all the determinations for offers.

For the cases that I'm handling us.

My assistant will have, has a caseload that he handles and he's in charge of those offers.

Okay.

But for your cases, it's all you from start to finish.

There's no one to, that you need to ask permission to, because that's what we hear all the time.

When we want to negotiate an offer, well, I have to talk to my supervisor or when we point

out charges are bullshit, they say, well, I'm not the filing deputy.

So I just want to be clear in this case, in this universe, it's all you.

You are the beginning, middle and end.

That's right.

I'm the guy.

I was the elected official.

There's no one above me in the office.

I'm the prosecutor.

I don't go to anyone else.

Yeah.

No.

Yeah.

We have prosecutors who will be like, I don't want to waste my time, but my boss wants

me to waste everyone's time.

So we don't want to dismiss it.

We'll let the jury dismiss it.

You know, like, so that is not the case in this instance.

So it's all you.

So you have now filed aggravated assault and aggravated battery charges against Anna.

That's right.

And then are you, does she have like a record that you looked at or a history that you kind

of looked at and didn't see there or did see something there or so we, we typically don't

look at criminal history that the defense attorney is very concerned about criminal history

because that again, makes a massive difference on what their potential sentence would be.

As a prosecutor, it, it, it doesn't make any difference whether they have no record at

all or multiple felonies that the, the, the charges, what it is and what, but the sentence

is, is determined by the legislature, not me.

So, so you make your charging decisions, you type up your criminal complaint, you file it

with the clerk, the court clerk, and then what happens next in the case for you?

So, uh, she gets, she hires a defense counsel and I start talking to him and he immediately

takes a position that in line with sort of what we're talking about, that, that she's

very sympathetic.

She, she was just trying to, to get home to her son, that they don't have the right to

shut off these gates, et cetera, et cetera.

And, and my response to him is basically, well, yeah, I don't disagree with you necessarily,

but none of those are, are legal defenses.

She, that doesn't give her the right to, to beat up a six year old woman.

You know, she, she has, if she thinks that she's been blocked out contrary to statute,

she needs to get a, file a civil suit or, or, you know, do something in that vein.

Did these two women know each other?

No, I don't think so.

No.

Okay.

So we're not dealing with this situation where the alleged victim is like one of the people

on the board who's personally making a decision to cut off this other woman's access.

No.

And that's actually something that kind of plays into it later on.

Oh yeah.

So the six, the victim is not on the board.

Okay.

No, that's right.

She's not on the board.

She's, she's just trying to enforce the board's policies by backing up.

Apparently.

And, and, and that's something that I think did not play well with my jury.

Okay.

So you told, so you tell the defense attorney to go pound sand, essentially.

You heartless man, you.

Well, I, I, I guess so.

She put herself into a bad situation.

He didn't even fight you.

Just kidding.

I'm just kidding.

Okay.

Okay.

So that's right.

You tell yourself, of course, like, you know, it's like, what are you supposed to do?

Like, it's not like, okay to just beat the shit out of people.

I mean, you know, like, it's like, baby, bad shit happens and you can't take the law.

Whatever.

Yeah.

I get it.

You weren't feeling like making any offers.

No, that's not true.

I was making offers so, and I don't remember exactly what I offered, but the, what.

Because it was bullshit.

Yeah, exactly.

No, because what they were asking for was bullshit.

She, she, her position and his position was, I will plead to a misdemeanor and nothing else.

And I, and that was not good enough for me.

I thought, you know, there, this is an easy case, you know, that I have everything on video

and this woman really went through a lot of suffering.

She went, we went through a lot of pain.

The woman would call my office frequently because, because she was really frustrated with how

long it was taking to get to trial and would tell me about, she, she lost her teeth afterwards

and, and she, you know, was having all these ongoing medical problems and, and, you know,

she, she, she met, she had to move out.

Well, it didn't have to, but she did end up moving out of the lake community because at least

according to her, the defendants, uh, defendant and her family would, would kind of harass her

and try to intimidate her to, to not go forward.

They would drive by her house at night and do things and, and mess with her property while

she was gone.

So she just left the community altogether.

And so I was not willing to offer misdemeanor.

Are either of these charges wobblers?

I don't know what you mean by wobbler.

Oh, so in California, there are certain crimes that can be either a misdemeanor or a felony.

Then we call them wobblers.

Yes.

Both battery and assault can be charged as misdemeanor or a felony.

So they're both wobblers.

So you did actually have the authority without creating a separate charge to give her misdemeanors

on this case.

Yes.

And what made you feel like, aside from what you said that you felt like you could win,

what made you feel like this warranted felony charges as opposed to misdemeanor?

Just the, the severity of it.

I mean, the, the brutality of the attack and, and the pulling a gun and all that.

I mean, I just didn't think that was something that I thought I was comfortable, I don't know,

brushing under the rug for lack of a better phrase.

I felt like the people who elected me would be upset that someone, you know, you pull

a gun on someone and beat someone up and, and just, you know, nothing happens, you just

slap on the wrist.

So I didn't think that was the right thing to do.

So, and I, I, you know, I, I see your point.

Is this misdemeanor conduct?

Is this felony conduct?

You know, that's one thing.

What about, uh, custody time?

What was, what were you looking for?

Could it, could you get, if I was just probation, she has a son, you know, like you want to

incarceration, I don't know what her record is or if that matters at all or so.

So that's an interesting point.

And so, like I said, in Kansas, what your, your sentence is, is, is determined largely

by your, what your criminal history is.

And so in Kansas, we don't often negotiate in terms of time, uh, like, you know, she'll

do 60 months or 15 months, you know, because it's, it's not really up to us that that's

all been determined already, but by the sentencing grid we've got, and it depends on what

her history is.

Now, sometimes we can agree to, you know, departures from the grid and that sort of

thing, but that's not common.

Uh, so her deal was that by virtue of having a firearm by, in the commission of a felony

that, that create a special sentencing rule, which means that really no matter where she

falls on the grid, uh, she would be presumptive imprisonment, that she would be, have a DOC

sentence, uh, even if it would otherwise be a probation sentence.

But is that, I mean, that's the, I guess in my mind, you know, like, yeah, that's if

she goes to trial and loses and a judge is, is bound by the law of presumptive this and

the enhancements that, but as the prosecutor, you could just offer her probation, right?

Or do you have to, are you, you can't make a probation off?

I think, no, that's not true.

I can make a probation off of her.

I mean, again, I go as low as a misdemeanor if I wanted to.

Um, I think, I'm trying, I don't remember explicitly well, but I, I, I think that my

position was, well, first of all, my position didn't matter because it doesn't matter what

I offered.

If it was a felony, the answer was no, she was a misdemeanor or nothing.

So I think that we, I think maybe that's the reason I'm, my memory is kind of hazy

because I don't think we really even explored it very much.

I don't think I even got to the point of offering her probation or not because her attorney

was pretty adamant that, that she will plead to a misdemeanor.

And if it's not a misdemeanor, then she's not going to plead.

Oh.

And so we didn't, we did, I don't think the negotiations really even developed that far

in that direction.

Had you worked with her defense attorney before?

Uh, some, yes.

So it's interesting because when we do this, we usually ask the defense attorney, had you

worked with the prosecutor before?

What were they like?

And now it's kind of fun to ask you if you'd worked with her defense attorney before, what

was that relationship like?

Or what was your impression, what were your impressions of her defense attorney?

So she actually went through at least two, maybe three, I think she had two or three defense

attorneys before it was all said and done.

She had a guy that I think her first defense attorney was a guy out of Missouri, actually,

who she worked for.

And, and I think that she, you know, he, he agreed to take on the case because she was

his employee and wanted to help him out.

But he was not a criminal defense attorney and so he was a very nice guy and I had nothing

bad to say about him, but he was just, he, he, he was unsophisticated in criminal cases.

Yeah.

I didn't know what he was doing and, and, and it was just one of those where, you know,

he was just kind of like, come on, come on, you know, give me misdemeanor.

Come on, come on.

That's like about as much as we got.

Uh, again, he was a very nice guy, but, but he just didn't really know what he was doing

in criminal cases.

So then he got off and, and she got a, another guy who's a criminal defense attorney and this

guy, I also have nothing bad to say about, I get along with him real well.

Uh, but he is very old.

I don't know how old he is, but he is probably one of the oldest practicing attorneys in Kansas.

I mean, he's gotta be late, late seventies, I mean, if I don't know how old he is, but

he's, I want to be kind to him because I like, he's pretty ancient.

Uh, and so, and so he was kind of difficult to work with, not because he was unsophisticated,

but it was sometimes hard to keep him on track.

Cause again, he would make these arguments like, well, you know, she, she was trying to

see your son.

Oh, they shouldn't have locked her out.

It was illegal for them to lock her out.

They can't do that.

They can't do that.

They can't do that.

And I, it was hard for me sometimes to keep him on that doesn't matter.

Like that, that doesn't, nothing that doesn't bear on the facts of the case or anything.

Again, if she has a grievance with the board, that's fine.

And I don't even disagree with that, but that, that doesn't bear, bear on this case.

And, and it's doesn't mean she can attack old ladies.

That's exactly right.

You don't get to beat up old ladies.

But there was, there was times where he would go to the judge and be like, I haven't gotten

the video of your honor.

You'd be like, I sent you the leak.

You just need to download it.

Oh, were you part of this?

Were you there?

Yes, of course.

Of course we dealt with that.

Yes.

We had discovery issues.

He couldn't open the video.

He couldn't open the video.

What did he have in troubles?

And so I gave him the thumb drive.

It's like, I eventually, I eventually had him come to my office and I sat down with him.

I watched the videos with him.

And I was just thinking, it's myself as he watched, like, are you, are you sure you want

to take this to trial?

I mean, there it is in full color and audio.

And, and, but it basically seems like the bottom line is with all of her defense attorneys,

you didn't really have anyone to do a proper negotiation of the sentence.

It was, I would say that's true.

Yes.

Okay.

So now you're definitely headed towards trial.

Now we're definitely headed towards trial because she wants a misdemeanor.

With the old guy.

Yes.

The nice old guy.

Okay.

Well, I believe he called him ancient.

Ancient.

Okay.

Okay.

I said that.

Yeah.

I feel a little bad.

He's a, he's a nice old guy.

All right.

So you got, he came to your, to your office.

You watched the video with, um, um, uh, what, uh, what was his reaction to the video?

So after we watched it, I remember, I don't remember exactly how I phrased it, but it was

basically, are you sure you want to take this to trial?

Are you sure?

I mean, you just saw the video.

I mean, I'm just going to show this to the jury.

I mean, I feel very confident I'm going to win this trial.

Are you sure?

And he, he's, the feeling I kind of got was, he was kind of defeated.

Like he didn't really want to go to trial, but his client's telling him she, she's not

playing to a felony.

And so I think he said, well, I'll, I'll visit with her.

I'll talk to her.

But then.

Well, we've all been there.

No, I'm sure I don't want to go to trial, but my client does.

So that's what we're doing.

Yeah.

That's kind of the gist of it.

So before going to trial, like, all right, you got your video, you're saying that's all

you need.

Is there any, like anything else, any other work you're doing on the case or do you have

a lead officer, investigator, detective dude you've been working with on this?

So really that one of the board members of this community is former law enforcement and he was

kind of my primary contact.

So he, he was very acclimated with, you know, court and trials and what needed to be done

and preservation of evidence and all that.

So he was kind of a rock star on getting that all to me and all that.

So we really didn't, I don't even, I mean, I said, I think I subpoenaed an officer, but

we, we really didn't.

What was, okay.

So for your prosecution, you got one witness, you got your victim.

She's 60 years old, 60 years old.

There's a video, did the, did the, uh, dad of Anna, did he make a statement in the police

report?

Cause he was a witness too.

I don't recall that he did.

No.

Um, did, uh, did you guys, was he interviewed at all?

I don't think he was actually.

I, I, I remember on the body cam, he was still kind of meandering about when the police showed

up and, and I think that he kind of, they, they talked a little bit, but he was not interviewed,

formally interviewed.

No.

Did Anna make a statement to the police?

So, so of course her statements were, were patently false about how she was attacked and,

and, uh, that the girl, you know, was the aggressor, the, the, the victim was the aggressor

and, uh, she didn't have it, didn't know anything about a gun, never seen a gun, didn't know what

she was talking about with a gun.

But so I guess let me, I don't know if it's worthy bringing up now or not, but in the video

during, you know, dad shows up and breaks him up.

He also goes and, and gets the gun off her car and puts it in his car and hides the gun

to, to keep that out of police.

Look at that.

I would do that for my daughter.

Yeah, there you go.

I do.

I do that.

As any dad would, right?

Sure, sure.

Absolutely.

Absolutely.

So, Vernon, you're a father of five now.

You do the same.

I would do the same.

Absolutely.

You said that this happened at the security guard tower.

Was there a security guard on duty?

No.

So when you say tower, it's just a light pole that just has cameras mounted on it.

So there, and again, it just has a card reader.

So there's no, uh, uh, active security guard manning a post or anything.

It's just a, a gate.

Do the extent of injuries matter at all?

Are you getting hospital records and stuff like that?

So that's actually, that's an interesting question.

Yes.

So, okay.

This is, it's, they do matter in terms of the severity level of battery.

So like we talked about, battery is a wobbler.

So, uh, depending on the, the facts alleged, it can be as low as a, a misdemeanor if it's

just, you know, unwanted touching, for example.

Uh, and then it goes up that you can have like a level seven battery, level five battery,

level four battery, depending on, you know, the intent, intent versus recklessness and

great bodily harm versus bodily harm and that sort of thing.

So it's a very low or severity of, of damage does play into it.

Now, what I did a prosecutor thing here.

I'm going to confess to you up front now that, that we got that she, we were trying to get

her, uh, medical records and we did get her medical records, uh, but her medical records

did not really jive with the complaints that she was making.

You know, I told her, she's calling and saying, I've, my teeth have fallen out and I've got

this injury and I've got that.

And, and, and, but the, the, the medical records I got didn't really support that.

They, you know, she, the, the, she went to the hospital that day and they talk about

abrasions and some bruising and stuff, but, but nothing really near the, the level of what

she's complaining about.

Now, in my mind, I think that's partially because again, I saw the, the aftermath, you

know, the eight days, I saw her blackened face.

And I mean, I know I'm confident that she had, she was hurt pretty badly, but I don't

know that when she went to the hospital immediately, that a lot of those things had developed and

maybe not observable.

I don't know, but the medical records didn't really reflect the type of injury that she

was describing that she had.

Uh, and so I just didn't put them on as, uh, evidence during the case, the defense attorney

could, but I didn't bother putting them on because for me, in my mind, that the, the, uh, the,

the videos speak for itself.

And again, they're, they're not really conclusive.

They just don't show very much.

And, and she was supposed to go, I think she had some follow-up visits and I never got any

records from that.

So there, there may have been something I didn't have access to, but, but she didn't provide

those.

So.

Did you turn those over to the defense attorney?

Yes.

All right.

I don't play hide the ball.

Well, I was concerned there for a second.

Cause he said like, Oh, I did this possible thing where I got the records.

And I was like, please, please.

No, no, no.

I absolutely turned it over.

I was like, okay.

The reason I got them is because he was asking for them.

So I got them through her.

So we had it and he had it.

So.

Okay.

Everyone had everything.

Okay.

And then what, uh, how long did it take for this case to go to trial?

It took a long time.

Uh, and I don't remember exactly why it was probably like 18 months or more, maybe, maybe

even a couple of years, but, um, you know, obviously we had COVID and she went through

a couple of attorneys and I think we had, our victim had moved.

And so I think we had some issues in the victim to appear and all in all, I'll, I'll call it

two years.

What is the racial makeup of the defendant and the victim?

Uh, the defendant is Latina and the, I'm sorry, the defendant is Latina and the victim is

a white woman.

Okay.

Yeah.

Is that, is that common, the racial makeup of your community?

Uh, white, Latino?

Um, no, my community is, is very predominantly white.

We don't have a whole lot of, I don't know what the makeup is, but it, it, again, a big

Latinx, not a big Latinx, no, I mean, there are some that we've got, we've got a little

bit of everything, but it's very much mostly white.

And then, all right.

So let's talk about the, the trial then you're, you're in front of the judge.

Do you get sent to that judge the day of, or do you know it's the same judge you've been

in front of the whole time?

Yeah.

So we.

There's probably only one in the whole County.

That's exactly.

That's right.

We have one, one judge in the County and we have a magistrate judge that travels the circuit

for our, our district.

So there we have, yeah, it's just the same judge we've had the whole time.

The one judge, one judge in our County.

Let's talk about any pretrial motions, motions to limit the evidence.

We call them 402s in California.

Yeah.

Yeah.

We have motions eliminated.

No, we, we, he had filed pretty standard ones.

The only one that we really had was maybe worth noting is again, as, as we've discussed

batteries, a wobbler.

And so in our jury instructions, uh, that the jury can find either that, that they're

guilty as charged or the lesser included offenses.

So I've charged her as a level four battery, but the jury could find that she's not guilty

of a four.

It wasn't, you know, intentional, but it was reckless.

So it wasn't a four, it was a five, for example, or, or, you know, all the way down to a misdemeanor.

And so when the jury instructions, we have to give them the option of, of, do they find,

you know, guilty of the four or guilty of the five or guilty of the seven or guilty

of misdemeanor.

And so I kind of raised the issue that I, I didn't really know, I didn't want the jury

to say it was a severe level four, severe level five, because they're not supposed to

know what the potential sentence is or anything like that.

They're just supposed to weigh on, on, on guilty or not guilty.

And I thought if we said that, you know, it's a four versus a seven, they might, you know,

that might impact their decision on, on, on what.

But both of those are felony designations.

Yes.

So you were just basically saying that the jury instructions should say, do you find

her guilty of a felony or the lesser included of the misdemeanor conduct?

So when, when we attorneys talk about these charges, we would say, you know, a, a, a, a four

battery or five battery or a serial seven battery.

And, and the attorneys know what that means.

And the, the, the lay person, the jury, what I was afraid of is if they hear this, that

this is very little four is very little five.

They may, they may, that may impact their decision.

They may think that, that meets the elements for, for, for example, but be sympathetic to

her.

So say, well, we'll just do a seven.

Cause that's a lesser, it sounds less.

It's a, it's a lesser severity.

Does that make sense to you?

So, so, so, so level one is the most severe.

That's right.

Do you hear afraid that they say, well, they do find the elements for level four, but my

God, level four seems so steep.

Right.

Let's just make it a level seven instead.

Yes.

That was exactly what my concern was.

I didn't want them to be swayed by the severity level of the crime.

I just wanted them to, to find the elements or not.

I mean, for me as a defense attorney, that's something I don't like here.

I don't like that.

Um, but I don't, I think it makes sense.

So I'll be like, oh yeah, I don't like that judge, but I, I don't, I just, I'm confused

though, because the jury has the option to say, if we're not giving it a number designation,

right?

We're just saying it's a misdemeanor or felony.

The jury has the option to say, we don't believe this is felony conduct.

Is that correct?

They could find a lesser included.

Well, so the jury can do what they want, which is part of the, part of the interest of the

story.

But what I'm saying is in Kansas, anyway, one of our instructions is to the jury is you

are not to consider, you know, punishment when you're making your deliberation.

Right.

That's standard.

Well, let me just clarify my question because I just want to know if you're arguing against

the classification of how serious of a felling it is, or if you're arguing that,

they shouldn't have the opportunity to decide if it's a felony or a misdemeanor.

Does that make sense?

I think it makes sense.

And so what I'm arguing against is kind of classification of the felonies at all, not

necessarily felony versus misdemeanor.

And so what we ultimately ended up landing on is, is again, what makes a severe little

four versus five, for example, is, is great bodily harm or just bodily harm.

And so what we did ultimately with the jury instructions, instead of saying severe little

four battery or severe little five battery, we just said battery with great bodily harm

or battery with bodily harm.

So that way they had just the language instead of, yeah, just the language.

That's exactly right.

So that's, that's really what we spent most of our time on.

That was really the only thing of interest with the pretrial motions is getting those jury

instructions correct.

So we, we weren't swaying the jury with the language of the severity level.

Okay.

Okay.

And then, so what did the judge, what did the judge say?

And the judge agreed with me and that's what we ended up doing is just, we, we took out

the, the, the, the classification of the felonies and just said, this is reckless battery

or this is intentional battery or battery with bodily harm or great bodily harm or whatever.

Okay, cool.

And then, uh, any other, uh, motions of limity of, of note?

Nope.

That was it.

Okay.

All right.

So time for jury selection then, right?

All right.

So, all right.

So hold on.

What is the, the overconfident prosecutor with no holes in his case?

How does that prosecutor approach jury selection?

Well, obviously I can't lose, so it doesn't matter.

Right.

No, my thought process was what I was trying to do is I wanted, I wanted, my thought was

I wanted someone with a nursing or medical background because I wanted someone to be able to evaluate

being hit in the face and, and what kind of damage that could do and, and seeing the bruising

and seeing the swelling and, and being able to determine, you know, if that's.

You thought they would appreciate how serious the injury is?

I think so.

Especially because as I mentioned, I'm, I'm not putting on medical records.

So I want them to be able to make their own observation about whether or not the attack

was serious or not.

What I was trying to avoid was, again, we're in a, a rural community, so we've got a lot

of farmers and a lot of, you know, big, good old boys.

And, and I didn't want to get someone who, who is overly tough, overly macho, who, you

know, been in fights before, I don't know, and, and would downplay the, the seriousness

of getting punched in the face several times.

So my, my ideal juror, I thought was an older lady, cause my victim is older, someone, you

know, 50 or 60 years old who has some medical or nursing background or, or teacher or something

like that, who would feel sympathy for an older woman getting beaten up.

But it's just bruising, right?

I mean, at this point, she just has a messed up face from getting punched in the face, but

there's no broken bones.

She claims chipped teeth or losing teeth.

Yeah.

She claims chipped teeth, but, but no broken bones.

That's right.

So in my mind, like she just looks bad, but really it is just bruises, which, uh, I guess

I can't necessarily get on.

What's so severe, what's so severe about it?

I don't know if I can get bored.

You know, I think that what's the severity.

I love this so much.

The defense attorney, what's so severe about getting her ass whooped?

There are people who get brain damage or killed from a single punch.

And this one took, but that's not this case.

And that's, you don't have the medical records to back that up.

So like, what's the severity here?

Like, so, but my, so I guess what's on my side is that the statue doesn't require necessarily

that she does get brain damage or kill just that it, she is attacked in a way that could

result in death or disfigurement, for example.

Uh, you know, if, if she doesn't actually have to suffer death or disfigurement, just the

attack has to be an attack that can result in.

If a big country boy is attacking her, possibly, but another, you know, female, I don't know

how big she is.

Like, what's the size difference here?

Uh, they're both probably about the same size, roughly.

I don't even think my pants could, are deadly weapons.

You know, they're not.

Actually, I already know, I already know they're not.

I'm sorry.

I don't, I know they're not deadly weapons.

My hands, I guess, you know, it kind of goes towards, I guess it kind of goes towards that

she's, if I'm, if I'm successful, you know, she'd be found guilty of, of some degree of

battery.

Maybe not the four that I charged, but the five or the seven, for example, I, I didn't

really care necessarily.

You know, I didn't, I wasn't out for blood and had to get that four.

I just wanted the jury to find that there, there was a battery.

And if they didn't think, I think I might move to exclude the, uh, pictures of her face

on the, a week later, you know, as a defense attorney, but I, I know I would move.

I don't, I'm sure if a judge would grant that, but yeah, we would have a defense expert

to probably just testify about the lack of injuries as well.

Knowing Lauren and I, we would, right, Lauren?

Yeah.

Yeah.

You guys are very thorough.

You definitely got to get someone up there to, to explain.

It's not that big of a deal.

Yeah.

These are just, yeah.

Like, it also like bruises develop, are worse a couple of days later.

Sometimes it take a couple of times, some time to develop, as you know.

Some people develop really terrible bruises from light.

So, so it's funny.

So we actually, I, maybe I'm skipping ahead a little bit in the trial, but that, that very

argument came up.

Yeah, it did.

Because, because if you remember, she was there or because her son had gotten to a car

wreck the day before and he was fine.

He felt fine that day.

And the next day he started to hurt a lot and wanted her to come get him and take him to

the hospital.

And that was her testimony.

And, and so when she was downplaying the bruising, oh, you know, it didn't look that bad.

You know, it was not that bad.

I, I, I remember exactly what I asked, but on, on cross, I said, well, you, so you were,

you agree, you know, don't you, that, that a person can get into a pretty serious injury and

not feel it that day.

And then the next day, all of a sudden they're hurting pretty bad and they want mom to come

and take him to the hospital.

Oh man.

That's just perfectly reasonable and yet still perfectly hateable.

As the defense attorney, still just perfectly hateable.

So, so one, you want, you want medical people that, uh, know about injuries, even though

they, which are old ladies.

Yeah.

Yeah.

We want to, yeah, I don't know.

Yeah.

We want old ladies.

I mean, that's basically, I wanted some, I want a female, I want it older and I want

it with a medical background.

That, that, that was kind of my thing.

And what I wasn't looking for is for, I don't know, military, you know, diesel mechanic,

you know, something like that.

I, but I think even men would be feel protective towards a 60 year old woman.

No one's like being like, oh, she could take a punch, you know, like.

And you're probably right.

But, but I just thought that, you know, women and her demographic would be, you know, just

as more specific.

Yeah.

I don't, I feel, I mean, sometimes, you know, women are the heart, are the toughest critics

on other women.

Yeah, that's true.

Amen.

Well, and maybe that hurt me.

Yeah.

Also, maybe you don't want moms on this case, right?

If the defendant is, Anna is going to talk about, if, but you don't know this yet, right?

That she's going to talk about her son.

No, I didn't know that, right.

So, yeah.

Did these rural gated communities come up?

Because do the jurors know about these issues?

So I think so.

So my county is a county of 9,000 people.

There are not a lot of people.

So everyone kind of knows what, what's going on and all that.

So I don't think it was any secret.

And there may have been one or two who didn't know, I guess.

But, you know, it's been in the news for years as these people have fought and things

have escalated.

So I think most of them kind of knew what was going on.

Okay.

So you got, all right.

So tell you, any memorable moments during jury or is there a certain way you ask questions

that you want to share with the podcast?

No, so I have always believed, as an attorney, that's my weakest thing.

I'm worse at voir dire than anything else I do as a lawyer.

I've never been good at it.

I don't pride myself.

I wish I could do better.

I've tried to read books or watch YouTube videos.

I just can't get the swing of it.

Or listen to another not guilty.

Or listen to another not guilty.

I just, I don't know what, I'm just not charming, I guess.

But I don't have that.

You should start, you should start your voir dire off like that.

I bet you that would score your points.

I'm just not charming.

I'm not charming.

I'm sorry.

Okay.

Well, how about this though?

Did the defense attorney do anything during their voir dire that you objected to?

Like any bats and Wheeler motions, anything like that?

No, pretty, pretty bland, pretty vanilla.

In fact, I don't even remember, I don't think he asked hardly anything.

Bats and Wheeler.

There was, there was no people of color to kick off the jury.

What are you talking about?

Honestly, I don't think there were any people of color.

I think it was a-

Gender's a protected class here, David.

Candace, Candace, Candace always boasts about how there's no bats and Wheeler challenges

in their state.

Oh no, come on.

So there were the 12 jurors that were selected.

Do you remember overall?

Like, so I remember, I remember being pleased with this jury.

I remember getting what I want.

I remember that it was like maybe nine females and three males.

And most of them were older.

I got several, five or six, you know, nurses or ex-nurses.

I remember being very pleased getting what I wanted.

I remember there was, there's one guy I wasn't sure about.

And I, you know, visited with my assistant.

She's like, no, he's good.

He's good.

So I, I, I kept him on and, and I don't know how that turned out for me, but for the most

part, I, I was happy with the jury selection when we were all done.

Okay.

And, um, do you have a, a, a, a detective or investigating officer sitting with you at the

table?

No, it's just me and my assistant, my, my paralegal, I should say.

Great.

Great.

So that was jury selection.

Now let's talk about opening statements.

The state gets to go first, right?

Tell us about your opening statement.

So I hear you guys on the show all the time, talk about how boring and vanilla prosecutors

opening statement are, and, and I'm going to hang my head in shame here.

Where's the lie, Bernie?

It's, there's no lie.

There's no lie.

My statement is so boring and vanilla.

And part of that is informed because I just thought this is so easy.

So open and shut.

Such a, yeah, I can't possibly miss all you got.

Just, yeah.

So my open statement was, was real bland.

You're going to see this video.

You're going to see this woman get out of her car with a gun.

You're going to see, you know, this woman get beat up.

You're going to see your dad show up and assist her in the attack.

You're going to see her, her bruised and bloody and swollen face.

And you're going to see her face blackened eight days later.

And I'm confident that you're going to return a verdict of guilty on both counts or, you

know, whatever.

And you brought up her age too, right?

60?

I'm sure I did.

I'm sure I did.

But you don't, you don't, but you don't bring up like the, the history, right?

Like, uh, how she, you didn't bring up how she tried to like prevent her from going into

the gate and stuff like that.

I don't think so.

I think I probably gave an abbreviated version of it.

You know, said that, said that she was trying to swoop in through the gate and wasn't allowed

to.

And there was a, a collision and.

That's an interesting element.

I mean, I feel like in, uh, motions and limiting, maybe like, you know, limiting the evidence

of the history of what's going on.

I think if like, well, I mean, it's funny cause now I know that it's like, I know the outcome

of this case, but like, if, like if the jurors were not allowed to hear about the, the, the

evil board, right.

And how they try to keep their own residents out.

Right.

Then that may be, but then even she would have to get up and testify why she stopped.

So I don't know.

Maybe it's, it's, it's, it's all, it's all the evidence.

So maybe you can't keep that out.

I don't know.

I'm just exploring that idea right now.

Well, I guess maybe I should have mentioned this earlier cause I, I didn't think about

it cause it wasn't actually a formal motion, but the, again, the, the defense attorney's

position really hinged on the, the, the civil side of this, that it was not proper for them

to be, um, locking these gates and, and that's not legal and, and that sort of thing.

And the judge admonished him prior to the trial that, that, that, that had, again, that's

not relevant.

That doesn't need to come in.

You know, you can talk about the gate card being turned off, but whether or not that

is, or isn't legal and their claim against the board and all that, that, that, that is

not part of the trial.

So that wasn't a motion limiting per se, but the judge did give an admonishment that, that,

that, that civil, that civil talk wasn't coming in.

Yeah.

You got to reign that in a little bit.

I feel like.

Yeah.

So, but as a defense attorney, I would want as much of that in as possible.

Sure.

Uh, so, okay.

So that was your opening statement.

And then what was the defense attorney's opening statement like?

So his tactic at trial, since he couldn't really talk about the civil stuff really was

just all about sympathy for the defendant about how she's just this poor betrodden mother trying

to get to her sick child and, and she's kept out and, and she can't get in and, and she

can't get to, to, to her child, can't bring her groceries in, you know, it was locked out

of her home and, and the evil board is, is really.

That's great.

I mean, you know, like where you're supposed to tell your client's story, anything at the

end of the day, you just, you stay, if you don't know quite sure where you're going, you

stay in your lane, you just tell your client's story and tell from their perspective.

Now, is this an opening statement?

Is this the first time you heard of the sick child?

Yes.

So I didn't know anything about the sick child or the, the car accident.

Yeah.

Before.

And not that I don't know what it would have made any difference to me.

I was pretty sort of tunnel visioned on just here are the facts.

These are the facts.

Here's the video.

I mean, here's the elements of the crime.

Here's the video.

But legally speaking, that's not a defense either.

I mean, unless she's saying that there's an emergency and she's trying to get to her child

and this woman was willfully refusing to allow her access to her child in an emergency situation.

It really doesn't have any legal bearing.

It might affect the jury in their perception of the defendant in terms of having sympathy

for her, but it's not factually relevant.

Right.

And that's exactly why I agree with you a hundred percent, which is why, again, I say, I don't

think it would have made any difference to me knowing that ahead of time or not, because

I, I, for me, it was all about the elements of the crime and the damn video.

I'm excited to see how this goes south for you, Burton.

Well, let's, let's get into it.

Yeah.

So you're chasing chief.

How you, how do you roll this case out?

So mostly I think what I did is I just put on the, I really wanted to save the video for

last because again, that, that's what I, what I, what it all wrote on.

So I had the victim get up and talk and, and I don't think that she was particularly sympathetic.

Uh, you know, she, she was, I guess I'll just leave it at that.

She wasn't really sympathetic.

She, you know, kind of talked about what happened and what, what she was doing that day and, and

that she, she got hit in the face several times, et cetera.

I mean, nothing.

Was she a Karen?

Cause in my mind, I'm picturing when you say she's not very sympathetic.

I'm picturing a Karen.

Yeah.

She, she, she was maybe, she was maybe a six year old Karen.

We can say that.

What about, so how does she describe her decision to stop her car and not let somebody else in?

What she said, oh gosh, what did she say?

I think what she, what she said is that she was not, again, she was not on the board, but

the, but the board member who was former law enforcement, I guess, directed her to do that.

So when you guys come in, this is what you need to do.

You need to come in, stop, let the gate close and go.

So that way people aren't coming in who don't belong in here.

She's just a rule follower.

Yeah.

So she, her, her testimony was, she was directed to do that by the board.

She's following the orders.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

So then she testifies, Hey, I was just following orders.

They told me to not let people in.

I'm not going to let people in.

That's, that's a bad situation to be in.

She's a rule follower.

And I think she kind of exacerbated or exaggerated maybe the, the, the collision between the vehicles.

Both of them did actually.

The, Anna claimed that the collision never happened whatsoever.

And, uh, the victim, you know, made it out to be a bigger collision than it was.

And again, you can see on the video that there, there was a contact, but very minimal.

How does, how did the video, the, did the gate close all the way then?

If their vehicles collided, how does the, the gate close?

So the gate, the gate did close all the way and then I think got opened again.

And then that's when she tried to, to go up and then, and then the gate was kind of opening

and closing as there's something in the way.

Um, but, but yeah, so yeah, she got out.

Yeah.

I remember now she, she got out and it was, or she was testifying that she, her car was

hit.

There was a bunch of damage.

So she wasn't going to let anyone go because she had to call police and call insurance.

And it turns out that she didn't call police.

She called the board, uh, to complain about this woman.

And I think that didn't play well with the jury that she, you know, was running to, to

tattle on her to the board instead of calling the police, which is what she was supposed

to do.

And, and she, it just wasn't a very sympathetic testimony overall.

Okay.

And how did, and this is, you said this was two years later.

So I imagine her face looked fine, right?

Yeah.

So, yeah.

So she was, there's no visible injuries at this point.

Yeah.

How did, uh, in no permanent injuries either.

Right.

Well, she was missing some teeth.

I mean, that's true.

She was missing teeth.

So then, uh, anything else of note with her testimony?

Cause yeah, you're right.

That her calling the board right away as opposed to the police, you know, kind of, yeah, it's

just, it just lets people know where, where she's at.

So yeah, that's exactly right.

Yeah.

So she, so that they, I don't think they were real sympathetic to her.

So then my, how did the, how did the cross examination of her go?

Unremarkable.

I don't know if there was much of any cross examination again.

Was he awake?

How did Sleepy Joe do?

Again, his whole case was garnering sympathy for the defendant.

So he didn't do much in the way of aggressive cross examination or anything like that.

And I think he asked a few questions, but they were kind of went nowhere.

Okay.

So then what, what, who do you put on next?

So then I put on my videos and the videos by perception at the time was,

that they, they made a big impact.

You know, again, there's three different videos.

And so I kind of showed them one at a time as the fight moves, you get different angles

of each one.

And so the, the first video just shows that, you know, the gate where the collision is at

the, you know, the front of her vehicle and the back of the defense vehicle.

And, you know, you see her jump out of the car with her gun.

You see her put the gun on the hood.

You see her jump through the gate and just start battering the woman.

And, and then they, they kind of go off screen.

And so you, the two women are off screen fighting.

And so you can't see them, but you just hear this, like these wet, smack, smack, smack, just

hear it.

And it, and of course in your mind is it's, you know, it's a lot worse in your mind than

maybe what it really is.

And I remember the jurors kind of wide eyed listening to that.

And then we showed that, you know, the, the next video where you see it and, you know,

that's exactly what's happening.

She's getting punched in the face and, uh, and then the dad coming up and pulling her

hands off and, and again, my perception was that, that it had the desired effect that these

jurors, uh, not only saw what happened, but were impressed that this is a, this is a battery.

This is not good.

This woman was really attacked.

They seemed, I remember what gave me the impression, but I remember thinking at the time that they

seemed to be on my side.

I thought I was in a good spot at that time.

So who did you put on the video?

Did you lay the foundation with, uh, with the alleged victim?

No, I had the, uh, the custodian of records for the, the late community who collects those

videos and preserves them.

Oh, great.

Just to say, you know, these are an accurate depiction and not altered and that sort of

thing.

Okay.

Okay, cool.

And, uh, so you laid all the videos.

Did the defense attorney make any points on the videos?

No, not really.

I think he had something to say about, I showed the video again, or they came to her

eight days later to do a checkup on her and her face is real blackened.

And I think he maybe had some dispute with that, but there wasn't much to it.

And, you know, Burton, I'm asking the question, like, you know, did the defense attorney cross

examine the alleged victim at all, or the defense attorney make any cross examination with, uh,

the video?

Cause you know, and they don't, and they haven't really done much, but that's okay because they

don't have to, the burden's entirely on you.

That's exactly right.

Right.

You know, that's exactly right.

You know, they could, they could, they could just get up there and sleep throughout the

whole trial and it's not going to matter because the burden of proof is on you.

That's very true.

I agree a hundred percent.

I have.

I love it when I talk about the burden of proof and then the prosecutor gets up and

they're always like, and that David Maury's exactly right.

And I, and I'm okay with that.

We're all okay with that.

Yeah, we're all okay.

Yes.

So.

That's, that's exactly how it is.

So I put on my evidence and I thought I've, I, at that point they'd seen it all.

There's really nothing else to say.

And so I, I think I rested at that point.

How, how, how, how did the people rest in that moment?

How do they say it?

Oh, I think I just said that.

I don't know if I can say it or I should say nothing further, no further witnesses, no further

evidence.

Did you look at the jury when you said it?

I think I was looking at the judge when I said it.

Ah, man.

Okay.

Yeah.

Okay.

The people.

So then time for the defense, right?

It's time for the defense.

Yeah.

So he, he, he, here comes the hero.

Let's go.

Yeah.

So our heroic defense attorney wakes up, wakes up, calls his client to the stand.

And, uh, she, you know, testifies all about how she got, her son was in a car wreck the

day before and she got called to come back and take her son to the hospital.

And, and she was really trying to get in and, and this mean woman wouldn't let her and, and

she, uh, she, when she got out of the car, her, her purse spilled out and the gun fell

out of her purse and she never had a gun or the gun was never in her hand.

She didn't know how anything about a gun.

And, uh, that in the video, when, when the, when the defendant attacked the, the victim,

the victim does the kind of normal thing where she, she leans back and sticks her arms out,

you know, in a defensive posture.

And she also raises her, her foot, you know, three limbs to keep the victim away or the defendant

away.

And the, the defendant got up and painted that as, well, she kicked me first.

I, I, she, she hit, landed the first blow.

She kicked me before I did anything.

And, and so I was just responding to, to her kicking me.

Did you say that the defendant said she never had the gun in her hand on the stand?

Cause the video had already been played in court, right?

Which clearly showed her sort of waving it around.

The video showed that there was a collision between the vehicle.

She denied there was a collision.

The video showed that she did have a gun.

I think she didn't, I think she did not have the gun.

I remember she, at least for sure said that she didn't remember anything out of a gun.

You know, the gun had fallen out of her purse, that her purse had fallen over when she was

getting out of the car.

And I think she said it landed on the ground.

The gun landed on the ground.

Because I remember making the argument to the jury.

We know that that's not true because we saw the, the video that was never on the ground.

But yeah, she, she denied the gun.

She, she claimed that she was attacked first.

So this woman, you had this all on video and this woman got on the stand and lied and contradicted

what the juror's own eyes could witness.

And you still lost this case?

Well, hold on.

Hold on.

Well, so did you, so did you impeach her at all?

What was your cross-examination like?

In my cross-examination, you know, one of the things that she said, it was, I don't remember

exactly how they did it, but they downplayed the injuries of the defendant, that she wasn't

really that hurt.

She didn't, you know, even, she did not, when the ambulance got there, she didn't want

to take the ride to the hospital.

She couldn't have been that hurt.

But there's no medical, you've seen no medical records to show that she, you know, was injured.

Surely, you know, you'd see those if there was a serious injury, et cetera, et cetera.

Wait, she said all that?

No, no.

The, the, these are things that were, the, the defense attorney were saying.

During what?

During?

I mean, they came out, I think you said it probably in the opening, closing, and it probably

came out.

Oh, okay.

Okay.

So that's, at that time, I kind of, I remember the main, the main memory I have crossing her

was calling her out on some of that and saying, well, you agree, don't you, that, that your

son, your, your son was in a car wreck and felt fine that day, right?

Yeah, that's right.

And, and, you know, you, she called you the next day saying, I don't feel good.

I need to go to the hospital and you've rushed home to get him.

Yeah, that's right.

So you agree, don't you, that it's entirely possible for someone to suffer serious injury and,

and not really be aware of it at that time.

And not really that, that doesn't be, not become aware of it until the next day or after.

Yeah, I guess that's true.

And, you know, kind of made her admit that, that, that the victim or the, you know, the

victim could have been injured and just didn't want to go to the hospital at that time.

And, but she also, yeah.

But you reaffirmed the whole son being injured in the, in the car accident.

And her, I guess so.

And that's like, you kind of read, you know, that fact there by doing maybe.

That may be.

It's always, it's always 2020, right?

You know, like when you look at these trials in hindsight, like, ah!

Sure.

You know, we don't, we've, we forgot to let you off.

We let, we almost let you off the hook here.

What about the medical records?

Did you introduce those in the dream?

I did not introduce the medical records.

And why is that?

The reason I didn't introduce the medical records is because all I just had the initial records

from when she first went to the hospital and they didn't really reflect a lot of the injuries

that she was complaining about later and seemed to contradict what her, her testimony was.

And she, she says that she went back to the doctor later and would have more records that

would verify those, but she never produced those and we never got them.

And, and so.

And that didn't give you any pause for concern as the prosecutor that your victims seem to

be lying about the injuries she sustained?

I guess I, I may have had some suspicion that, that maybe her injuries weren't to the extent

that she claimed they were, but I never had any doubt that she was pretty severely beaten,

I guess, and that she did suffer injuries.

Yeah.

I mean, everyone's going to like heighten or be over-exaggerate everything that happens

to them.

I understand that point of view.

Like, um, even though she may not be truthful on some things, it's not like, I mean, I don't

know.

You still felt like she was a victim.

So.

I felt like she was a victim.

I'll, I also maybe rationalize it too, by thinking again, it was two years at least

or so between the events and she may not get everything right.

And when you, you know, when you go through a traumatic event like that, you may not remember

everything totally clearly.

And, you know, I gave her some grace there, but I did believe that something happened.

Now, one thing I want to know is then we haven't really heard it and maybe everybody's

not really sure, but like what, what did the alleged victim say that escalated it to

getting her ass kicked?

Did something, what was, like, what's the victim's version?

What's the victim's version for what led up to her getting punched?

And then what's the defendant's version for what led to, well, the defendant thinks she

got hit first, right?

Supposedly.

Is that what?

Well, that's what she says.

I don't know if she thinks that, but she said that.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Uh, so the, the, the victim's version is that again, that she was pulling up, that she

got hit from behind.

So she got out of the car and, and was going to keep everyone there to get law enforcement

there and, and call insurance and that sort of thing, which she didn't end up doing.

And, uh, in her version, she was, uh, in her version, she was very, very cordial and polite

and, and, uh, and the video shows that they were, again, I can't hear, I think that they

were just, she was kind of just demeaning, you know, probably insulted the, the, the defendant

and, you know, made some comments about, you know, her hitting the vehicle and she was

calling the board and, and the board's going to hear about this.

And, and I think that's kind of what through.

Does the board have the authority to, uh, evict anybody?

Yes.

So when she's threatening her, like, I'm going to call the board, she could have been saying

stuff like, we're going to get you out of here.

Yeah, she could have, I don't know if she was, but yes, that, I mean, she wasn't on the

board herself, so I guess maybe she wouldn't have said we're going to, cause she has no

authority or that, but maybe.

Yeah.

It's possible.

Yeah.

There's a total, like, um, sort of class issue here.

It seems like one of the points that was made, I think in cross too, was there are three,

three entrances to this community.

There are three gates.

And, uh, I think I tried to make the point that if she was really so concerned and she's

getting blocked here, she could have gone to another gate, but it wasn't really about getting

to her son.

It was about her conflict with this woman.

And yeah.

Um, so you asked, you made the point about the three gates.

You made the point about how injuries can appear more severe later down the line.

Anything else in your cross-examination of the, the defendant, Anna?

I think I just had her repeat some of her testimony that was clearly contradicted by the video,

like the gun falling out of her purse and not having the gun in her hand.

And I think that was about it.

Um, all right.

And then, uh, any other evidence by the defense?

He put on, uh, the, the defendant's dad, uh, and I don't really remember his testimony.

I don't even think he really testified about what he saw or what happened.

I think it was more just, again, more of the sympathy.

Character evidence?

Yeah.

Well, not necessarily character evidence, but, oh, we're so, you know, we have, we're, we're,

we can't use our cards.

We're kept out.

My son or my grandson was not feeling good.

Needed to go to the doctor and, and that sort of thing.

I mean, it kind of sounds like the defense strategy was jury nullification.

I think, I don't know if that was their intended purpose, but that's exactly where we're headed.

Okay.

So yeah, he, he brings up this, the talk about the son.

Okay.

Cause that's what the defendant talked about was her son.

He's talking about his grandson.

Okay.

Did you, um, make any points with this guy at all?

So my, my main, I just said that, that normal prosecutor question, would you lie for your

daughter?

Would you, would you, would you, do you help your daughter?

Yeah.

And yeah.

Yeah.

What about the gun?

Would you take a gun from, would you, would you, would you like, yeah, remove a gun from

the crime scene?

And his answers were kind of ambiguous.

He wasn't saying, well, yeah, I would.

It was like, well, I don't know.

I don't know.

And so I didn't come across as believable.

So, so again, in my mind, I'm thinking she, the video, I think was showed everything.

She came across as unbelievable.

Her dad is obviously lying for her.

And that's clear.

Like this is, this is done where this is easy.

So, and that's it.

That's the last witness.

Okay.

All right.

Let's talk about closing arguments then.

How'd that go?

So I, I did my boring, vanilla, bland prosecutor closing.

You've seen this.

You've seen that.

Got to stay on theme there.

Got to stay on theme.

Check the boxes with each element.

We proved this element.

Oh, did you do PowerPoint?

No, no PowerPoint.

I didn't, didn't use any.

Well, I did, I did bring up still frames.

I showed clips of the videos again.

I showed a still frame of the woman's face, you know, eight weeks later.

And so, so I got them, you know, to refresh your memory.

This is the, the ass kicking this woman got.

I said, you know, it, there's just no way you can deny that this is, this woman got beat

up, you know, that, that she didn't, it didn't consent to getting beat up.

And she was the, the, the defendant was the aggressor or so on and so forth.

And I asked you do your job and return a verdict of guilty or whatever.

Did you say it like that or whatever?

You know, I was like, yeah, yeah.

Kind of speaks for itself, right?

You know, use your comment, use your common knowledge and experience.

And I think you'll find that you can meet these elements that state has met their burden

of proof.

All right.

Then sleepy Joe, what does he do?

So he actually, he actually gave a fair, this is where he came to life.

He, this is the best.

He gave a pretty impassioned closing statement.

He gave the, he told this story from when he was a boy and, and some boys came and egged

their house and what his mom had to say about that and how he ran into him years later.

And I don't remember the gist of the story much after that, but it was about compassion

and forgiveness and, and that sort of thing.

And, and, uh, you know, it just really beat the drum about how these people are, are poor

and they're kept away from their house.

And she was just trying to get to her son and, and it's not this woman's job to, to be a gatekeeper

for the community and, and that sort of thing.

And, and then that was it.

But you know, who is the gatekeeper of the justice system?

That's you, the jury.

That's you, the jury.

That's right.

He didn't say that, but he should have.

Okay.

So, all right.

So, but yeah, he's, he's drawing upon the emotions of the jurors, you know, he's, he's

humanizing his client in that situation.

Humanizing the client, demonizing the victim.

Humanizing the victim becomes the stand in for all of the bad things that are happening

to the poor community.

That's exactly right.

So the jury goes back to deliberate.

And at this point, again, I'm, I'm feeling good.

You know, I feel like this is, couldn't be simpler.

I, I actually, so the, the defendant and her family are, are, can be a little rough around

the edges if people leave that.

And, and so I actually got, pulled the bailiff aside and I said, you might, because it was

just one bailiff and it was a female who was very small, like, you know, five foot three

or something like that.

And I was like, you might, we might need one or two additional people.

Cause if, if this, the jury returns a verdict of guilty, then, you know, this family might,

you know, react and there, you know, I feel like we might need somebody more.

So she actually caught.

So you offended the bailiff.

All right.

I don't think, I don't think you could take them.

I don't think you got it.

She appreciated my concern.

And so, so they called in some additional, uh, security and I'm, and the, the defendant

was, I, you know, I wasn't, I couldn't overhear everything, but it was clear from the body

language and demeanor that the, the, the, the, the, the defendant and her parents who were

there, they were kind of hugging each other and it's kind of saying their goodbyes.

I think everyone expected the jury to come back with a guilty verdict and, and even the

defense attorney, I don't remember exactly the words he used, but it was very clear that

everyone in that courtroom's belief was we were about to get a guilty verdict.

So I went back to my office, which was across the hall and I was there for, I mean, 10 minutes,

maybe 15 minutes.

And we get the call, they got a verdict.

I was like, oh my gosh, that I'm just that good, I guess.

Dang.

Honey, honey, make reservations at my favorite restaurant.

We're going out and celebrating tonight.

That's right.

That's right.

So we, we go back in and, uh, the judge gets the, you know, her forms and, and, uh, she

starts reading it and even the judge, this is, it's so funny to me.

And she reads it, you know, we, the jury, blah, blah, blah, find, uh, for count one, aggravated

battery, find the defendant guilty, not guilty.

The, the, the judge tripped over it, guilty or not guilty.

And it goes through all the lesser included, not guilty, not guilty, not guilty.

And then gets the aggravated assault and aggravated assault is a wobbler too, but it doesn't have

all the, the, the range of battery does.

It's just the felony, the misdemeanor.

And so the jury actually found that her not guilty in the aggravated assault, but I think

just as a concession to, to make my feelings feel a little bit better, gave, returned a

guilt, verdict of, of guilty on misdemeanor assault, the lowest, you know, one step up from

a traffic infraction basically.

Which honestly, at the time until now is almost, I'm, I'm more insulted that they returned

to guilty to, to misdemeanor assault than if they'd done nothing at all, than a full acquittal

because there was no misdemeanor assault.

The only assault that occurred was the assault with the deadly weapon, but she didn't, aside

from threatening her with a gun, there was no other threats.

There was just a threat with the gun and then the, the attack.

So there, there was no misdemeanor assault.

I could, I would have found not guilty to misdemeanor assault, but they, they returned

from misdemeanor assault.

Got what she wanted from the beginning.

I, yeah, that's exactly right.

She got what she wanted from the beginning and, and I just am floored.

I don't know what to say.

This is not what I expected.

So I kind of sat there speechless for a little bit.

And what about the defense, what was the reaction on the defense side when that, all these

not guilties were being read?

So again, I was kind of wrapped up in my own shock at that moment.

So I wasn't really paying attention to what the defense was doing, but.

You couldn't even hear it.

Yeah.

But, but when I came to, they were smiling and back clapping and congratulating and, and

having a, a good old time over there at the defense table.

So, and I've moped my way out of the courtroom after that shortly.

Did, uh, did you talk to any of the jurors afterwards?

So, so I personally didn't, but, but, uh,

I, I, I, people in my office did, my assistant did.

And, and what I heard afterwards is basically exactly what you'd think is, is that, again,

these are people who have been aware of, of what's been going on in this community for

a while.

And I, the, the feeling, the pervasive feeling among the jurors was that this defendant had

no business being a gatekeeper for the, the community, that that was not her job.

She shouldn't be keeping mothers away from children.

And, and, and, you know, if, if they board wants to, yeah, but she deserved it.

So it was a jury nullification that they, they didn't find that it didn't happen.

They just found that they weren't going to convict this woman.

They didn't think that she was worthy of conviction for, for the crime because, uh, this victim

deserved it, I guess, that she shouldn't have blocked her out and kept her out.

And, and so that, that's, that's the, I guess the, the takeaway of the moral of the story.

Don't forget about jury nullification.

That's apparently a real thing.

It's still, it works.

It happens.

Yeah, I know.

We're just not allowed to mention it.

Yeah.

You're not allowed to mention it, but.

Can't mention it.

But, but it's, uh, apparently it's an effective defense from time to time.

But the jury's still allowed to do it.

Yeah.

The jury's allowed to do it.

So I got jury nullified.

Got nulled.

Got nulled.

I have to say that feels good.

Yeah.

It feels good as a defense attorney to hear.

Yeah.

There's always a happy ending on another not guilty.

That's true.

That's true.

Happy for somebody.

For somebody.

For somebody.

So my, my victim was not real happy, but you know.

Yeah.

I'm sorry.

But she'll live to Karen another day.

She'll, she'll make it.

Yeah.

Did, so did you have to call her on the phone then and tell her that?

Or was she in the courtroom when the verdicts came too?

No, she, yeah, she was in the courtroom.

So she heard the verdict.

Excellent.

So she got to, to hear.

Yeah.

So what kind of talk do you have with him?

Like with her?

Did you just say, hey, I'm shocked too?

Like, hey, this is crazy or like.

Yeah.

I think, I don't really remember, but I think that's, you know, the just, yeah.

You know, I'm sorry.

You know, there's nothing we can do.

I mean, I guess we can appeal it, but I'm not appealing this.

Well, this is cool.

I'm glad you came on the show still to share this interesting story that you put your,

aside your pride and ego and you shared this not guilty on a jury nullification.

Sure.

I mean, we don't usually have people come tell us their stories where they lose.

So that was.

Yeah.

So this is, this is a, I get to be a first on another not guilty.

Thanks for being a good sport.

Yeah.

Sure.

But Bernard, Bernard's a good, he's a good guy.

We talked on the phone a little bit earlier.

He's, he's a, he says he doesn't charge any marijuana cases as a prosecutor for Linn County.

And the police get upset with him all the time.

Right?

No, that's true.

I usually don't do that.

That's our county is right on the Missouri border.

And so we get a lot of medical marijuana from six miles to the east there.

And it just, it doesn't make any sense to mess with it.

Not my county or at all, but.

So then let's talk about this.

So how should we close our show?

Usually we ask the defense attorneys why they became a defense attorney or why they became a,

why they became a public defender.

Burden, you are a prosecutor and a defense attorney.

What's, where, where's your heart lie here?

What, where are you, what's going on here?

I identify as a, as a defense attorney primarily.

I, I, uh, when I ran for election in 2020, I, it was always my intention to just do it

for a single term.

I did it kind of for a number of reasons, but I wanted the experience.

I thought it would make me a better defense attorney to, to see what it's like on the

other side and that sort of thing.

But I have became a lawyer in 2009 and have done criminal defense ever since.

So it was my 15th year and, and, uh, and I, I got into it because in law school,

I interned with a criminal defense attorney who was one of the most zealous, passionate

advocates for, for criminal defendants.

I've, I've not one of the, the most passionate criminal defense attorney I've ever met.

And, uh, she was really wonderful to work with, you know, she, she kind of lit a fire in me

for that sort of thing.

And I remember, uh, we, one day she, she gave me this movie to watch called, oh, just another

Sunday.

I think, I don't remember what it's called.

It is a movie that, that, uh, about a case in Florida where a public defender, um, was

appointed to a case where a black teenage boy was, uh, accused of murder, um, that someone

had, had robbed and murdered a, an old couple and, um, or an old, there was a couple and

she, someone had robbed and murdered the woman.

And, uh, so the police go looking for a young black male and they pick up just the very first

kid on the street, first black kid they see on the street and drive them back to this hotel

and, and, and have the, the, the old man point out and say, that's him.

That's the guy.

And, and just an absolute miscarriage of justice.

And, and they, they take the police, take this boy out into the woods and, and, and beat

him up, punch him until he confesses.

And they get a, uh, they, they write out a confession, have him sign it.

And, and it's about this, this defense attorney's, uh, journey to freeing this, this, this kid

as a, this is a documentary.

Yeah, it's a real story.

Let me, let me find it.

I got to find this now.

Murders on a Sunday, murder on a Sunday morning, 15 year old African-American.

Yes.

Yeah.

It is a fantastic movie.

And after I watched that, I was like, this is, this is it.

I gotta, I gotta do this.

So yeah, if you get some, if you get a chance, you should watch that movie.

Murder on a Sunday morning.

It's a documentary about a 15 year old boy who, who gets falsely accused of murder and

and his public defender, who's got a, there's the cross-examination.

You just like, you want to jump out of your seat.

Like, yes, get them.

It's, this is good.

It's good.

Yeah.

Well, dude, Burton, thanks for coming on the show.

Thanks for being an undercover defense attorney serving as a prosecutor.

Sure.

Uh, nullifying cases.

Um, just like I set out to do.

Yeah.

Um, this is great.

And Lauren, always good to see you.

You too.

Thanks for being a good sport, Burton.

No problem.

And dude, Burton, come back next time when you're, with a not guilty, when you're on

the other side.

Yeah.

All right.

I'll do that.

I'll do that.

I'm too late as a defense attorney.

Yeah.

All right.

But when I'm, when I'm, when I'm back, I got six months, more months on my term.

So next year I'll give you guys, give you guys a call.

Okay.

Okay.

Sounds good.

That sounds good.

All right, guys.

Take it easy.

All right.

Talk to you later.

Thanks for tuning in to this week's episode of Another Not Guilty.

Shout out to Daniel Mark, original A&G theme music composer, and Mike Grimm for the

remix.

And guess what?

We'll be back in two weeks with another Not Guilty Straight from the Trenches.