Confidential Misinformant …? When the state hides behind lies, this public defender tears down the facade. ⚖️🕵️

Here at Another Not Guilty, we appreciate your support. Don't forget to subscribe or follow us. And please visit our website at anothernotguiltypod.com. Without further ado, here's this week's episode of Another Not Guilty.

She names my client as being the murderer. "All right, you want to get some dinner?" And she's like, "Yeah, I want some Taco Bell." She has to order off the dollar menu. They tell her, "No, she can order whatever she wants." At one point, she's like, "I can't believe you would be so nice to me as to get me these, like, chicken tacos."

And he's like, "I wouldn't just do this for anybody." Her story is, he goes in, he comes back out a time later, covered in blood, sits down in the driver's seat, and sprays his face with Windex. There was no evidence linking my client to the victim at all other than the confidential informant.

Welcome to Another Not Guilty. I'm David Moore, here, along with my fellow public defenders, presenting to you the untold story.

The 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-guilties public defenders get on a daily basis. In an unjust criminal system. With the deck stacked against us.

Another Not Guilty. Okay, well, let's get to it then. For all you guys out there listening right now to this podcast episode, we have some

awesome public defenders all the way, all the way from Indiana. That's right. We got public defenders all over the nation, making sure justice happens on a daily basis.

And these two public defenders just got a not-guilty on a murder trial, right? And we have Amy. Yes. And Noah. Yes. All right, Noah. And you guys are from, like, a small town or mid-sized, like, in Indiana somewhere, or...? Yeah, I'd say a mid-sized town. We have a mid-sized office and a mid-sized office.

A mid-sized prosecutor's office. What I would call mid-sized. How big is your office? Our office has 15 attorneys.

And the prosecutor's office has about 15 attorneys, I would say. And we've got four criminal judges.

And that's, you know, that's all relative. Because, you know, here in Los Angeles, Amy and I were talking about we have 700 public defenders in Los Angeles, so...

And I was telling you, that sounds like an alien universe to me. I don't, I'm like, I don't even know how to comprehend that.

Okay, so let's jump into the trial then. So, so Amy, go ahead and tell me about your case. What are the facts?

Okay, so I got the case in the fall. And it was, my client had just been arrested and charged with murder. So the murder was a beating death. The victim had been found in his trailer.

And the victim was a known drug dealer. He was known to the police. And the reason that he was known to the police as a drug dealer is because the police had, had done some controlled buys of drugs from this person.

So they knew that he was selling drugs at the time, or around the time of his death.

Is it methamphetamine?

Mainly pills, but also meth. So he had some of both that he was selling. And I think the buys actually were maybe for meth.

Okay. Did the police report mention that this person was a drug dealer? Or is that something you found out later?

Yeah, so that's something we found out pretty early on. Because right when they found, when the police got to the scene after the body was found and the police get called, a detective who had been working with the confidential informant to do the controlled buys, the detective was there.

And so he went to find this confidential informant. He actually tells the cops on scene, like, I'm gonna go get my girl. Like, I'll be right back, like, to go get her.

So he kind of thought, like, does she have something to do with this? Or like, what's the deal? He goes and finds her, takes her to the police station. First interview, she denies knowing anything about the murder, knowing anything about anything.

Okay.

So then, like, a week or two goes by. And they're, like, the murder detectives, like, aren't convinced that she said everything that she knows. So they go back and they interview her again. And this time, it's, like, her detective, who I sort of think of as her handler, her handler's doing the interview.

Okay.

And so that interview results, ultimately, in her naming my client as the murderer.

Just to make sure I can sum that up. So the, she did a control buy, like, how soon before, how recent?

It was, like, a month to two months before, I would say. It was pretty, it was recent. They hadn't charged it yet. It was recent.

But it wasn't, like, it wasn't, like, the day or whatever that the murder happened.

So then the homicide detective goes and interviews her. She denies it. Then they go back with the handler, which would be the detective that does the control, that does the control buys.

And then what does she say to him? What does she say?

So, um, one detail I forgot to mention. Part of the reason why they want to go talk to her more or, again, is there's somebody at the scene of the crime, a neighbor, who says, hey, I saw somebody messing around in that trailer where the victim was found the morning that he was found.

Um, and it matched the description of the confidential informant.

Okay. All right.

So they kind of had an idea, like, she's got something to do with this, maybe.

So they, on the second interview with her, things get kind of wild.

Um, it's like the handler's relationship with her is really, um, unique, I would say.

Because they sort of have known each other for a long time.

She's been a confidential informant for years.

She's done hundreds of drug buys with him.

Made thousands of dollars off these drug buys that she's doing for him.

And so, you know, she's in jail on another, like, minor charge.

And so they're interviewing her and they're like, you know, you got to tell us what you know.

And she's like, you got to get me out of jail first.

And he's like, I will.

I will get you out of jail.

Like, I pinky promise I will get you out of jail.

So they literally do.

A literal pinky promise.

A literal pinky promise occurs.

Okay.

In the end, you know.

Yeah.

All this is, like, on video.

So we're, like, literally watching it.

Pinky promise occurs.

Yes, I'll get you out of jail.

She's like, you got to protect me.

And he's like, I will leave.

I'm legally, like, bound to protect you.

Like, I will protect you.

You just.

I'm your sworn guardian.

Yes.

It's like, literally, that's what's happening.

And so they get down to it.

And they're, like, tell us who did it.

Tell us.

Tell us who did it.

And she's, like, give me a cigarette first.

So they're, like, okay.

Let's go outside.

We'll take a smoke break.

So they go outside.

They take a smoke break.

They have a quick, unrecorded conversation about physical evidence.

Like you do.

And so they come back in.

They, um, she eventually names my client as being the murderer.

Um, as soon as she names my client, they're, like, all right, you want to get some dinner?

And she's, like, yeah, I want some Taco Bell.

So they go and get her some Taco Bell.

She asks if she has to order off the dollar menu.

They tell her, no.

She can order whatever she wants.

Which is kind of adorable, honestly.

Um, it was a very, it was just, it's honestly one of the weirdest, um, like, interviews like

that I've seen.

I mean, it was just very strange.

I wonder if, like, the, if they said, yeah, it has to be the dollar menu, then she would

have given them limited information, you know?

I know.

It is really concerning, but it was just like.

Do you want to supersize your meal at Taco Bell?

Do you want to supersize information or do you just want dollar meal information?

You tell me.

At one point, she's, like, I can't believe you, like, you would get, you would be so nice

to me as to get me these, like, chicken tacos.

And he's like, I wouldn't just do this for anybody.

Like, you're not just anybody to me.

Like, I mean, it's weird.

It, like, um, incited, incited some, um, you know, like, fan fiction within our office about

their, like, relationship.

So, but ultimately she does, uh, you know, get the promise that he's going to, like, get

her out of jail, um, gets the tacos, gets the pinky promise, like the whole nine.

And then she comes out with this story about my client.

So the story is that she, um, needed a ride.

She needed to go somewhere for the night.

She calls my client who she knows has a van.

Okay.

Um, he comes and picks her up and he's like, um, Hey, I know where we can get some drugs.

Um, like, let, I'm going to take you over there.

Like you can, you know, we'll get some drugs and then we'll hang out.

So, um, her story is he then drives the van with her in it to, um, the victim's trailer.

And she says that she sits in the passenger side seats.

Um, he goes in, um, he comes back out a time later and he's covered in blood carrying, um,

like a paving brick, like, um, like a paving stone and a hammer, maybe, um, he's covered

in blood.

He sits down in the driver's seat and sprays his face with Windex, like a true sociopath.

Um, and sprays his face with Windex and, um, then they drive off, they ditch, uh, the murder

weapons, uh, behind a, you know, budget hotel here in town.

Um, and then eventually he lets her out of the van and she goes on to, um, daily reporting,

which is sort of like, you have to go and take a breathalyzer test every morning.

If you're on some kind of, you know, court supervision, which she was at the time.

Whose van was it?

Was it her van or his van?

So it was, um, it was his van.

He, he was driving the van and living in the van.

So he was living in this van at the time.

Okay.

And the hammer was, he walked out with a hammer.

Did he walk in?

He did not walk in with the hammer.

Um, he reappears with what she believes is, okay.

The other thing is her story is that it's a paving stone and some other object that she

thinks might be like a hammer.

Hello, this is David from Another Not Guilty.

If you like this podcast, go ahead and follow and or subscribe.

And don't forget to leave a comment in the link.

And check us out on Instagram, Twitter, and Facebook.

Thanks.

After she gives this story to the detectives, um, you know, she says, I can show you where

we threw the weapons or where he threw, you know, where the murder weapons got thrown.

Right.

So they take her to the location.

They drive her over to like where the hotel is and they are out like searching and they

do find a paving stone and a hammer.

And that's when her story really sort of solidifies on the hammer being their murder weapon.

They do all of this in front of her.

Like she's just standing there like sort of one of the team as they discuss whether these

things might have been involved.

And she signs onto the hammer when they find it.

So, um, and you said they found the paving stone also, right?

Yeah, they find both.

Yeah, it's, I'm going to call it a paving stone.

They call it a brick at various times, but it's like a, it's a paving stone.

Now, Noah, is that, does that ring, is that a red flag to you that she's there, uh, recovering

the murder weapons with them or not?

It's a bit of a red flag.

It does get worse.

So she gets out of jail.

Um, and as before she gets out of jail, they make this arrangement for her to, um, video

my clients and for them to have a conversation, um, ostensibly about the murder or whatever

she can get him to talk about.

Um, obviously she's done this, you know, hundreds of times, the same, they use the same mechanism.

Um, it's a video recording device, um, that they like and either a phone or they put it

in a purse, maybe, um, they used to anyway.

Um, they record these interviews, uh, or drug buys.

So she's familiar in the context of using this equipment as like a, for a drug buy.

Okay.

But they wire her up the same way, um, to do this interview with my client, which happens

like, I think like a week, maybe like seven days later.

How does she know your client anyways?

What's their relationship?

You know, they're both like transient, I guess.

And they both are sort of like in the same population.

So, you know, obviously it's like I was saying, it's sort of a midsize town.

So, um, you know, there's like, uh, common areas that they would hang out and there's

common places to, that they would go to have breakfast and lunch and, um, that kind of thing.

Right.

So, um.

They see each other around the druggie homeless circuit.

Yes.

Yes.

Honestly, yes.

That's very accurate.

Yes.

That's exactly what happened.

Okay.

So my client was kind of like a good guy to know in this circuit because he had a van.

So he had a train, a mode of transportation.

So he'd be, you know, handing out, I'm going to say trading probably rides.

And so he was a, you know, a handy person to kind of know.

So they set up a meeting with her and your client.

She's, she's wired up.

She's wired up.

She finds them, um, and hops in the van and records their conversation, which also is bonkers.

So the second recorded interview, that's absolutely off the rails.

What was bonkers about it?

So she's like super pushy to try to get him to like confess, which is really, it's a very

strange dynamic.

So, you know, they're kind of in the car, just like talking and she's like bringing it

up and like trying to get him to talk about it.

And she kind of starts off at one point and says, um, Hey, but like, did you know that

he was dead when you left that night?

And so my client does inculpate himself several times actually in this video, but the worst

in my opinion, probably the worst one is his answer to that question, which is, um, no,

when I left, he was still moaning and asking why.

So obviously that's not a great statement by my client.

Um, does he, is anything said about the mechanism of death or why did he admit to, did he admit

to smacking him with the brick and the hammer or what?

So no.

So the good thing is he doesn't go into any detail and actually that's really helpful for

us because she actually, the informant actually does.

I mean, probably close to 90% of the talking the entire time.

Um, so it's a lot of, um, her, you know, bringing this up over and over him, like saying a statement

like that and then not saying anything else for a long period of time.

And her just being like, um, say that you did it.

Tell me that you did it.

Um, say that I wasn't there, you know, you know, I wasn't there.

You, you better say that I wasn't there.

That kind of stuff.

Um, at one point, at one point he, he goes, you're recording this, aren't you?

Just like that.

Just out of the blue.

And she's just like, no.

And then they just move on.

And I'm like, oh my God.

So, I mean, he says some bad stuff, but he also is keeping his mouth shut like for large

portions.

And it's her just sort of over and over again.

Tell me you did it.

Like that kind of stuff.

It's interesting that her version to the police has her just in the van the whole time.

Isn't that kind of interesting that, you know, she's a, she buys drugs from this person all

the time, but she's going to stay in the van this one time.

Like you're not going to go inside.

Isn't that a little odd?

She didn't have a great explanation for that.

And it's sort of, you know, her story like morphs a little bit, but it's never that she

was like at the door or inside.

Um, it is strange.

Obviously it's strange.

And so, you know, this whole, basically I'm trying to think of the worst stuff that he

says on the wire.

That first statement is really bad.

Um, at one point he can't, and I'm trying to remember what happens right before this,

but he says, you know, I ain't got no conscience about nothing.

Um, which we, we could spin that in a decent way.

Oh, and then the worst, the other bad part is he, they, you know, she asks him, did you

throw that brick and hammer so that the police are never going to find it?

And he nods and you see him nod on camera.

So the interview happens.

They, um, arrest my guy in pretty short order.

Um, obviously.

And he's in jail.

Where was the interview at?

Where did it happen at?

In the van.

Oh, inside the van.

Okay.

Yeah.

So she just like hops in like, Hey, you know, going on, like, what about that murder

you did?

And he's like, yep.

I mean, like a sensibly, like, I mean, that's pretty much it.

So, so they arrest him.

Yeah.

They arrest him.

So it's within probably that day.

Yeah.

It's really fast.

I think they go back and watch the recording with like, to get a second opinion, maybe from

another detective.

And then they decided to go ahead and get the warrant at that point.

I think that's pretty good though.

The fact that they're, they had to get a second opinion and they're like, does this mean he's

guilty?

What do you think?

You know, like, yeah.

And I mean, honestly, like the, so her handler, that detective, he says, like, when we talked

to him later and at trial, he says, it's the weirdest thing he's ever seen.

Like, he's like, I've never seen anything like that.

I've never seen, um, an informant push that hard.

Um, even the murder detective says she's obviously trying to manipulate the situation.

So, I mean, they agree that it's like bonkers, like off the wall, but you know, it's still,

you know, I think they ultimately decide that it's still enough because he puts himself at

the scene and he puts himself in the trailer, like with the dead guy.

He acknowledges the weapon too, kind of.

Yeah, he acknowledges the, throwing the weapon.

So I think they were like, well, we're going to charge him and then we'll see where, you

know, what else we'll see what the forensics show.

We'll see whatever else.

Okay.

So they do, they charge him and they, he's, they arrest him like in the van.

So they impound the van, of course.

Um, and they're doing all the forensics and stuff.

Hey, it's your buddy Dave from another not guilty.

Would you like to be a guest on our podcast?

Have you experienced a not guilty before either as a defendant, a defendant,

a defense attorney, a judge, a prosecutor, a bailiff, a court reporter, a paralegal?

I don't know, a clerk, who knows?

You tell us, go ahead and visit our website at another, not guilty pod.com and fill out

the submission form.

And while you're there, go ahead and check out some of that cool A and G merchandise.

Thank you.

The forensics come back, I think is the next big thing.

On the van.

Yeah.

And the murder weapon.

Okay.

Bottom line, none of my client's DNA is anywhere.

Um, but the victim's DNA is actually on that Windex bottle, the infamous Windex bottle.

Which is in the truck still, or in the van still, when he's arrested out of it.

Oh yeah.

So that's how they have the Windex bottle.

It's still in the van.

So his DNA is not on a Windex bottle in his own van, but the victim's is.

Yes.

Yes.

And his DNA is nowhere in his own van.

Now, part of that is because when they, um, when they collect all the samples from the

van, they do not swab any place except the driver's side.

So they don't swab the passenger side.

They don't swab the back.

They don't get anything from anywhere except the driver's side.

Right.

Because that matches the informant's story.

Right.

So they're not really super concerned with gathering evidence that is going to not match

the informant's story.

They're really just, they really sell out hard for that story.

And then they're just trying to, you know, shore everything up with whatever DNA evidence

they can find.

The victim's DNA evidence is also on the hammer.

The DNA is actually on the brick, not the hammer.

So it's on one, but not the other.

And, um, the, but my client's DNA is not on any of the murder weapons either.

What about the confidential informants is, is her DNA on anything?

So they don't find her DNA anywhere either.

Do they check for it though?

They do.

They get her DNA at a later time.

They get a swab.

Yeah.

But they don't like swab any area in the car that she was sitting because that's our friend,

our, you know, coworker sitting there.

She didn't have to do with it.

Your client's arrested.

They do the DNA.

And then, and then what happens next then?

So the real twist then sort of happens.

So everything's kind of at a standstill.

We get the DNA stuff back.

I knew from the moment really that I got the case that it was probably going to go to trial

because my client is in his sixties actually.

Um, and so there really wasn't going to be a lot of negotiating, um, basically for, I mean,

anything, there wasn't anything he was going to take that wasn't going to be for him a life

sentence.

So, um, so, um, so we were prepping for trial.

Things were like happening.

Well, let me, let me stop you there then.

Cause I want to know about the, you know, you got the case.

I mean, you read it over, you go meet your client, right?

Tell me, tell me about that.

What's that like?

Yeah.

I mean, my client, okay.

He is a pretty big guy, so he's pretty tall.

Um, and God, I mean, I knew his, I knew his height and weight at the time, but I'm not

going to remember now, but he's tall.

He's a pretty big guy.

He is.

I mean, he looks like an older guy.

Um, but for somebody who had been transient for a large part of part of his life, like,

I mean, he was in pretty decent like shape.

Um, he was very, obviously very nice, um, very, um, uh, thankful for like the, you know,

being able to talk to me, really.

I mean, he was very adamant that he didn't have anything to do with this.

Um, he didn't know anything about this murder.

Um, he agreed that he knew the informant, but, um, that was really the extent of what he

said he knew about the entire situation.

And then what happens next then?

Right.

So we're kind of just like waiting and starting our like discovery process, um, which in Indiana,

we get to do depositions.

We don't in Los Angeles.

Yeah.

So it is a little bit unique, I think.

Um, and so, um, we get to talk to anybody that we want.

Really?

We think that the state is going to call, or even if we don't think the state is going

to call, we usually can get to depose them anyway.

Um, yeah, we're in the middle of that process actually, when the case really kind of takes

a left hand turn because the police decide that they are going to, and the prosecutor decides

that they are going to charge the confidential informant with this murder.

Also, they interview her for a third and then a fourth time, um, because they're convinced

that I guess their ultimate theory with her is that she knew that it was going to be a

drug ripoff that that would then make her guilty.

I guess a felony murder, although they charged it as straight murder.

The rule of felony murder is a legal doctrine in some common law jurisdictions that broadens

the crime of murder.

When an offender kills, regardless of intent to kill and the commission of a dangerous or

enumerated crime called a felony in some jurisdictions, the offender and also the offender's

accomplices or co-conspirators may be found guilty of murder.

So, she requests a public defender.

We obviously, our office cannot take it because they're in direct opposition, really.

Um, she gets appointed conflict counsel.

Attorney that gets assigned her case is a criminal defense attorney here in town that's a very

good criminal defense attorney.

Um, has done lots of, um, big cases when she is arrested for this murder, she is probably

five or six months pregnant.

The conflict attorney obviously believes that it will be in his favor to have a trial with

her while she's huge and pregnant.

So, she's in jail.

So, he files for a fast and speedy trial.

And so, that gets set.

Okay.

And did this, um, fast and speedy trial conflict with what you wanted to do?

Well, I wasn't sure.

You know, it took me a while to try to figure out what does this mean for me?

What does this mean for my case?

Ultimately, I decided that it's a preview of the state's evidence because the evidence,

excuse me, the evidence against her is the same as the evidence against my client in large

part.

I mean, they're going to use the same physical evidence and they're going to use, um, you

know, his wire video, maybe, um, and they're going to be using similar arguments probably

against them both.

So, she's tried, um, and she is huge and pregnant.

She's like eight months pregnant by the time they are doing the trial.

Um, and the trial goes really, really well for the defense.

Okay.

Did you watch a lot of the trial?

Yeah, I watched almost all of it.

What were you seeing?

Like, what was the holes in the case for them or what stood out to you?

The, okay, in her case, her attorney got to use these interview videos with her and her

detective and sort of say, look at how much they coerced her.

Like, this is crazy.

Like, what is this relationship?

This is wild.

And the jury really bought that.

So, I knew I was going to have to come at it.

I knew at that point that it would be, I'd have a better chance at making the detectives

the villain.

Right.

Um, and her is sort of a, um, part of the team.

So, she's part of the team of these detectives, right?

Okay.

She's helping the detectives.

She's, you know, you know, running the case and able to, like, get herself out of trouble

by doing so and get paid for all the work that she's doing for them.

Right.

Um, and then they can be the villains.

So, and the, and sort of, like, got the wool pulled over their eyes.

So, then the, like, the defense for the confidential informant was pretty much that the detectives

coerced her and forced her to, to come up with a story, essentially.

Yeah.

And, honestly, their case against her was, was not great anyway, because this idea of, like,

well, you know, people don't love felony murder anyway.

Right.

Um, this idea of, like, well, maybe she knew it was a drug ripoff, so she's on the hook

for the murder.

They didn't love that in any way.

So, that's the state's theory against her, then, was that she pulled up to this drug

by knowing that your client was going to go in there and rip off the drug dealer.

They wanted to go with that theory, but then also, um, believe her when she says a lot of

other stuff.

So, they wanted to believe the most, the big part of her story, and then disbelieve this

little chunk that made it, like, easier for them to charge them both.

And what part did they want to disbelieve?

They want to disbelieve the part where she says, I didn't know anything about why we

were going there.

I didn't know he was going to rip them off.

I didn't know he was going to, um, you know, use force to, like, get the drugs or whatever.

They, they don't believe that part, but yet they're going to believe this entire, like,

90% of her story otherwise.

Right.

They're picking and choosing a little bit here.

Yeah.

And did they have, did they have any other evidence other than what she said?

I mean, the only evidence they have is what she said, the fact that they, that she led

them to the murder weapon, and then there's DNA of the victim on the, on the murder weapon,

and then there's DNA on a Windex bottle.

Yeah.

Other than that, was there any other evidence they presented?

So there was one other, um, witness, I guess, who says that he was in the van, um, with my

client and, um, the confidential informants prior to when the murder would have occurred.

Okay.

And that, that my client and the confidential informant are kind of, uh, making plans about

this robbery or whatever that they're going to do.

Um, and then they sort of drop him off and that's what he, that's the extent of like what

he knows about what's, what happened.

He's just a street person.

Um, and he, so he was somebody that the state used and relied heavily on in the confidential

informants trial.

And there was a, there was just a lot of, um, fertile grounds for cross-examination on

him.

And I don't think that the jury really bought much of what he had to say either time.

Um, in her trial or in ours eventually.

So she's not guilty.

She's not guilty, right?

Yeah.

So she's acquitted, um, which she just sort of, I mean, she walks out of the courtroom,

so she's done.

Um, and she's gone for all intents and purposes.

Like she is not about trying to talk to anybody about anything.

Did she testify in her own case?

She did.

She did.

She did.

And she, uh, she's a pro.

Like she is a pro.

He held it together.

And I mean, she got the best of the prosecutor on cross.

Do you remember that moment?

Like when you say she got the best, why do you say that?

The prosecutor, you know, prosecutors in my experience here anyway, don't tend to be the

best at doing cross examination.

Yes.

So they sort of, they sort of, um, you know, expect that the person's going to agree with

them, which is just the craziest thing to think on cross examination that you can just

be like, well, you did this, didn't you?

And they're just going to be like, yep, I did.

I totally did.

And I mean, she was, you know, the confidential informant was never going to do that.

And so they kind of got like, they, I just remember them getting in the weeds on so many

like weird things.

And it just ending up like the prosecutor looked like she, the prosecutor almost looked like

she was losing her cool.

The confidential informant could kind of just be like, look at this crazy person.

Like, look at this crazy person asking you these questions.

Like, I don't know.

Do you think, can you think of any other specifics?

No, I think it's about right.

The CI definitely, uh, got almost to anger a few times during the cross.

And if the prosecutor kept pushing just a little, I think the jury would have stopped seeing

her as like, uh, the sweet, like pregnant victim that this prosecutor is being so mean

to.

Right.

But, but the CI can make up lies fast enough that the prosecutor never felt like she could

really go in for the kill, so to speak.

So then the case is done.

And where is this, what's the status of your case now?

So we're still doing discovery.

We are set for trial per the confidential informants trial was like in June.

And then we were the, the like two months later in August.

Okay.

Let me ask this.

What's your, do you know what your defense is at this point?

Just not enough evidence, confidential informants lying.

What's ultimately, um, the defense is it was not my client.

My client was not there.

The confidential informant, um, either committed this murder alone or committed this murder with

someone else.

And we had to then be able to place, um, the confidential informant as having like,

drove, driven, uh, the van.

Because obviously some physical evidence was found in the van.

Just, but just the, the Windex bottle.

Yeah.

Yeah.

The Windex bottle.

Right.

So then you, you had to, you had to go with the confidential informant drove that, that

van that night.

That's what we were trying to pin down.

And we actually got pretty close.

There was actually a witness that kind of showed up that indicated that they had seen her driving

that van.

There was no evidence linking my client to the victim at all.

The cops tried somewhat, I would say, to come up with a link between them and couldn't find

one other than the confidential informant.

Whoa.

That sounds like quite the case Amy and Noah have on their hands.

Make sure you catch next week's episode to hear how Amy and Noah attacked the evidence

and walked their client out the courthouse with a big fat, not guilty.

Music