The Delphi Murders: Richard Allen on Trial: Jury Selection: Day One

[00:00:00] Content Warning, this episode contains discussion of the murder of two girls as well as other disturbing topics such as sexual assault.

[00:00:09] Hi everybody, it's Anya and Kevin. Thanks so much for joining us this evening.

[00:00:13] Today we are going to be doing our first of many episodes covering the trial of Richard Allen,

[00:00:20] the man who stands accused of murdering Delphi teenagers Liberty German and Abigail Williams on February 13th, 2017.

[00:00:27] So we will be attending court live and bringing you updates in the evening most likely about what we saw in court that day and what's going on.

[00:00:39] So today to start things off, we sat through the first day of voir dire, also known as jury selection,

[00:00:47] and we saw a jury almost be completely selected for trial.

[00:00:52] Almost but not quite.

[00:00:53] Not quite. Anyways, we'll get into discussing all of that. Just know that again, we're going to be doing these episodes every day.

[00:01:01] There is court for this case. And they may sound a little bit different because we're recording on the go.

[00:01:08] And we are prioritizing getting you information in an expeditious manner.

[00:01:14] So it might be a little bit rar than you're used to. So hopefully you can just keep that in mind.

[00:01:19] We should also mention that throughout the course of this trial, we will occasionally have articles appearing in the Franklin, Indiana Daily Journal.

[00:01:33] Oddly enough, coincidentally, that happens to be the hometown paper of Andrew Baldwin and Jennifer OJ, two members of the defense team.

[00:01:41] We're really thrilled about that. That is a terrific newspaper, the Daily Journal of Franklin, Indiana.

[00:01:47] We're thrilled to be working with them and providing them with sort of up to date articles about what's going on in the case.

[00:01:53] And so we really strongly encourage you check it out. Subscribe.

[00:01:57] That can be another way of getting our reporting in addition to the podcast just for a different medium.

[00:02:03] Exactly.

[00:02:05] My name is Anya Kane. I'm a journalist.

[00:02:08] And I'm Kevin Greenlee. I'm an attorney.

[00:02:11] And this is The Murder Sheet.

[00:02:12] We're a true crime podcast focused on original reporting, interviews and deep dives into murder cases.

[00:02:19] We're The Murder Sheet.

[00:02:21] And this is The Delphi Murders. Richard Allen on trial. Jury selection, day one.

[00:02:28] So I'd like to start out by mentioning something that I think we likely will be coming back to time and again throughout this process,

[00:03:24] which is this trial is basically being put on by Allen County.

[00:03:31] It largely takes place in Carroll County, but it's being put on by Judge Gull and her Allen County team.

[00:03:39] And I think one thing is apparent that providing public access to this trial is not a high priority to them.

[00:03:49] They don't apparently feel that they have any obligation to make it easy for the public to get information about this trial,

[00:03:58] which is one of the most significant trials in the history of the state of Indiana.

[00:04:02] And I'm opening with that because one of the first things in my note is once we finally got into the courtroom,

[00:04:13] and I'll note, Allen and I did not get press passes, but once we finally get into the courtroom,

[00:04:18] a gentleman named Officer Brody who works with Judge Gull.

[00:04:21] I think it was Bodie.

[00:04:22] Bodie, pardon me.

[00:04:23] Officer Jason Bodie, who works with Judge Gull, kind of stood in front of us all and gave a speech warning about the dire consequences of misbehavior.

[00:04:36] And at a time when I'm pretty sure Anya and I were the only podcasters in there, he said,

[00:04:40] yeah, if you make a mistake, then your next podcast will be about you.

[00:04:44] And he kind of sneered it out.

[00:04:45] And I think this just underscores that this Allen County outfit doesn't really seem to appreciate the right of the public to get information about this trial.

[00:04:59] And I think we're going to be talking more about that maybe later on in the week.

[00:05:02] Mm-hmm.

[00:05:03] Yeah, we will.

[00:05:04] We'll be going in depth on some of the things that we learned that we find disturbing about the way the media has been treated in covering this case.

[00:05:11] And what I'm talking about here is actually the mainstream press, but we'll get into that another time, I think.

[00:05:17] And when we say media, we're really talking about the public because the media is the surrogate for the public.

[00:05:22] Yeah.

[00:05:22] I mean, here's the thing.

[00:05:23] We're not, you know, when we talk about the media, I think sometimes people tend to imagine, well, reporters wanted to be, you know, want to be treated like little Lord and Lady Fauntleroys, which is actually not what we're talking about.

[00:05:34] We're talking about just sort of basic access for reporters to do their jobs.

[00:05:38] And reporters doing their jobs is important because that's how you get information.

[00:05:42] That's how the public gets information.

[00:05:45] That's how it seeps in.

[00:05:47] And reporters, no outlet is perfect.

[00:05:49] No reporter is perfect.

[00:05:51] But having a bunch of different reporters from different outlets put out the facts is a good thing in a trial.

[00:05:57] Yes.

[00:05:58] And or having a camera in the courtroom.

[00:06:01] Making it very difficult if you don't have a camera in the courtroom, making it very difficult for reporters to do their jobs is bad.

[00:06:08] Yes.

[00:06:09] And we will have a lot more to say about this in coming days.

[00:06:13] But let's get to what we want to talk about today, which is the first day of this voir dire.

[00:06:18] One thing that I think a lot of people have been curious about or maybe even concerned about is that at every other court hearing when Richard Allen has appeared, he's been in a prison outfit and he has been shackled.

[00:06:34] People wondered, is this how he's going to appear when he is in front of a jury?

[00:06:40] And our understanding was always or maybe assumption is better word or, you know, was no, because when you have someone appearing in prison garb, in jail garb, shackled before a jury, then that can be extremely prejudicial.

[00:06:55] People see that and they start making assumptions.

[00:06:57] This man's dangerous.

[00:06:58] This is a criminal.

[00:06:59] And that's not fair to somebody who's not been convicted of a crime.

[00:07:03] So we were expecting street clothes.

[00:07:06] And today we finally saw that for Richard Allen.

[00:07:09] Richard Allen was in street clothes.

[00:07:12] He did not.

[00:07:14] He was not shackled.

[00:07:15] He at different times he was like drinking water.

[00:07:18] He was, you know, moving about.

[00:07:20] I would also say that of all the times I have seen him in these different hearings over the course of the last two years.

[00:07:28] This was probably the time when his manner and his affect seemed the most, for lack of a better word, normal.

[00:07:37] I would concur with that.

[00:07:39] Yeah.

[00:07:39] Generally.

[00:07:40] And you can imagine.

[00:07:41] Well, I mean, if you're not shackled, maybe you're more comfortable.

[00:07:44] Maybe that's more likely that you're going to be having a more normal affect in fairness.

[00:07:50] I noticed when he first came out, he looked around and I wondered if he was looking for his family.

[00:07:57] And for what it's worth, I looked around.

[00:08:00] I did not see his mother or his wife.

[00:08:03] Did you?

[00:08:04] I did not.

[00:08:05] Now, you know, I wasn't constantly looking around, you know, people behind us, but I didn't see them.

[00:08:12] In fairness, there were very few family members there today.

[00:08:15] Okay.

[00:08:16] Attorneys often talk about jury selection as being potentially crucial to a case.

[00:08:21] You could, in theory, win or lose a case in jury selection.

[00:08:27] But I think to most members of the public, jury selection is a bit dull.

[00:08:33] Yeah.

[00:08:34] It's sort of a boring how the sausage gets made process that I think has attracted more interest in normal and Delphi.

[00:08:41] But that's just because Delphi has attracted such outside influence.

[00:08:45] That being said, all three attorneys from both sides were there.

[00:08:49] So we have Nicholas McClelland, the county prosecutor of Carroll County.

[00:08:53] He's the lead prosecutor on this case.

[00:08:56] His two deputy prosecutors, Stacey Diener and James Littrell.

[00:09:00] Judge Francis Gull of Allen County presiding in Allen County Superior Court in the sort of green courtroom that we've all gotten to know through this case.

[00:09:11] And then you have on the defense side, Andrew Baldwin, as well as Bradley Rosie and Jennifer Ogier.

[00:09:18] Yes.

[00:09:20] When the hearing, should I go ahead and start with the...

[00:09:24] Let's start with the hearing.

[00:09:24] Well, yeah.

[00:09:25] I mean, I guess to start off with some numbers, if that's okay.

[00:09:29] Well, when the hearing began, Judge Gull mentioned some of the numbers.

[00:09:34] Yeah.

[00:09:34] Why don't you run...

[00:09:35] Do you want to run those down?

[00:09:36] She said that there were going...

[00:09:39] There were two groups of 52 potential jurors.

[00:09:42] And she seemed to indicate that we would get through the first group of 52 in the morning and the second group of 52 in the afternoon.

[00:09:52] And since it took an hour to get through a group of 12, it became apparent, I think at least to you and me and anyone else who can do math, that the timing didn't work.

[00:10:03] And so even though Judge Gull decided not to have a lunch break, we only got through the first round of 52.

[00:10:13] And again, when I say the first group of 52, there were five rounds.

[00:10:16] There were four rounds with 12 potential jurors.

[00:10:19] And then the final round only had four.

[00:10:20] Yeah, it was a tiny round in the end, but five rounds in total.

[00:10:24] And there was...

[00:10:25] You mentioned the lack of lunch break.

[00:10:26] Like, to keep it...

[00:10:28] You know, the public and the media and the families and the attorneys, this was a long day for everybody.

[00:10:35] But it was also a very long day for those two groups of 52 everyday Allen County citizens.

[00:10:41] There was one, I think, 10-minute break at 11 a.m.?

[00:10:44] Yeah.

[00:10:44] Does that sound right?

[00:10:45] But other than that, it was full steam ahead.

[00:10:49] So we were in there for a while.

[00:10:50] And I should mention when I say rounds, what I mean by that.

[00:10:54] There would be 12 people in the jury box.

[00:10:58] And someone from the prosecution side, which was always, in this case, Nicholas McClelland,

[00:11:02] would have half an hour to talk with them, ask them questions, try to elicit information from them.

[00:11:10] And then a representative from the defense side, which rotated among them,

[00:11:15] they would have a half an hour to do the same.

[00:11:18] So that's an hour.

[00:11:19] And then after that, they would confer amongst their fellow attorneys and then with each other and with Judge Gull.

[00:11:26] And then would be decided, okay, we're going to accept these jurors.

[00:11:29] We're going to excuse these other jurors.

[00:11:31] So that's what a round is.

[00:11:33] And now, Kevin, correct me if I'm wrong, but there are essentially some reasons that it's okay to strike a juror or not want them on the jury.

[00:11:43] But there's limits to how much you can do that, and there's different rules that can be set by the judge.

[00:11:49] I believe that was sort of mentioned that, like, I believe it was two strikes were allowed.

[00:11:57] Yeah, I don't recall the exact number, but something like that.

[00:12:01] So there's two types of striking of a juror.

[00:12:05] A prospective juror.

[00:12:06] A prospective juror.

[00:12:07] One is a prospective juror can be struck for cause.

[00:12:12] And there is an unlimited number of those if the judge agrees with you.

[00:12:16] So if Anya is on trial for stealing cereal and I'm a potential juror member and say, well, I love Anya.

[00:12:25] Even if she's guilty, I'm going to vote to acquitter.

[00:12:28] Thank you.

[00:12:28] I would be struck for cause because that wouldn't be fair to the process.

[00:12:32] Or if someone is a prospective juror member for Anya who despises her and says, even if the evidence is that she's innocent, I'm going to vote to convict her.

[00:12:40] Well, that's not very nice.

[00:12:41] That would be struck for cause.

[00:12:42] Right.

[00:12:43] So those are silly examples, but it gives you the principle.

[00:12:46] Right.

[00:12:47] You want to talk about peremptory challenges?

[00:12:49] Why don't you, as the attorney on staff?

[00:12:51] So a peremptory challenge is basically if an attorney, for some reason, gets a bad feeling about a potential juror.

[00:13:02] And there's no cause reason to strike him.

[00:13:05] But the attorney decides, I don't want this particular person on my jury.

[00:13:10] Right.

[00:13:11] And you get a limited number of those.

[00:13:13] You can strike them in theory for any reason whatsoever.

[00:13:17] But if, for example, again, Anya is on trial and they are striking all women because they think women would be either sympathetic or not sympathetic.

[00:13:26] Women love to steal cereal.

[00:13:28] It's a known stereotype.

[00:13:29] You couldn't do that.

[00:13:30] You can't use your peremptory challenges to strike out an entire class or group of people.

[00:13:36] That would be, okay, that makes a lot of sense.

[00:13:38] Does that make sense?

[00:13:39] You can't abuse those strikes by trying to, you know, the classic example I think would be, you know,

[00:13:45] in sort of in a racist way, you know, if a black defendant is on trial, striking all potential black jurors.

[00:13:54] Right.

[00:13:54] That has happened.

[00:13:56] And that's an abuse of this.

[00:13:59] So you don't want to have a situation like that.

[00:14:01] We are more than thrilled to introduce to you our next wonderful sponsor,

[00:14:06] The Silver Linings Handbook with Jason Blair.

[00:14:10] This is an excellent weekly podcast where Jason talks to people from all walks of life.

[00:14:16] These are interesting people engaging in conversations that inspire.

[00:14:21] Jason is one of the most compassionate and thoughtful people we've ever met in this space.

[00:14:26] We've been on Silver Linings Handbook ourselves, and he's been on the murder sheet.

[00:14:29] The thoughts he shared with us on the Delphi murders case and true crime in general are just so insightful.

[00:14:34] I definitely find myself citing Jason a lot.

[00:14:37] He honestly makes us believe in the bright side of true crime, the compassionate side,

[00:14:41] the side that can really make a positive difference in the world.

[00:14:44] He's helped us to adjust to some of the challenges around reporting on true crime and tragedy,

[00:14:48] and that is very much in keeping with his show.

[00:14:50] Listening to The Silver Linings Handbook is like getting to sit around a campfire with fascinating people.

[00:14:57] It is fun.

[00:14:58] It is intriguing.

[00:14:59] It is often surprising.

[00:15:01] You get to hear important conversations that can inspire you to consider new perspectives and to take action in your own life.

[00:15:09] You also get to learn so much about mental health, well-being, the criminal justice system, religion, and a lot more.

[00:15:17] Jason is someone that we just think is a terrific person.

[00:15:19] He's been through a lot himself.

[00:15:21] He's worked on his mental health.

[00:15:22] He's rebuilt his life.

[00:15:23] Those experiences have helped shape him into a truly empathetic person, somebody who gets what it's like to have your world turned upside down.

[00:15:31] He brings that gift to his interviews.

[00:15:34] These are unscripted, authentic, engaging talks.

[00:15:37] Jason covers true crime, but his podcast gets into a lot more.

[00:15:42] Subscribe to The Silver Linings Handbook wherever you listen to podcasts.

[00:15:48] And I will never forget this moment when this group of 52 jurors comes in and they look over at the side of the courtroom where there's public and media seating.

[00:16:01] And they just look like, what?

[00:16:03] Like, what's going on?

[00:16:04] And the thing to remember is you and I and all of us here, we are very, very invested in this story.

[00:16:14] We really care about this case.

[00:16:16] We know about it.

[00:16:17] We follow it.

[00:16:18] A lot of people in the city of Fort Wayne have no idea about this case because this jurist election is happening in Fort Wayne, Indiana.

[00:16:26] Like this morning, for instance, at our hotel, one of the employees asked me why I was in town and I tried to explain it to her.

[00:16:35] She had no idea this case was going on.

[00:16:37] Yeah, I think this is something that I've really had a hard time convincing people of.

[00:16:41] But we all overestimate to an extraordinary degree how much people know about things that we're interested in.

[00:16:49] And we're all very interested in true crime and specifically the Delphi murders.

[00:16:53] If you're listening to this podcast, you're probably quite interested.

[00:16:56] But there is a whole world of people out there that don't share that interest.

[00:17:00] And one thing that people have often said to me is, well, I don't know if it's going to be possible to get a fair trial because everyone knows about this and everyone's made up their mind already.

[00:17:10] No. I mean, if what we saw today is any indication.

[00:17:13] I think a lot of people either are only vaguely aware of it and have not made up their minds or in some cases may just not really follow true crime and not be aware of it at all.

[00:17:23] I think that's very much a factor here.

[00:17:26] The comparison Anya always uses, and I think it's an apt one, is football.

[00:17:30] Football, professional football, is tremendously important to a large number of people in this country.

[00:17:37] For whatever reason, Anya and I don't follow the sport.

[00:17:40] So we are completely ignorant of anything that happens in football.

[00:17:44] Yeah, if you came up to us and were talking about the Colts quarterback or what's going on, the Colts are an Indianapolis team.

[00:17:51] We live in the Indianapolis area.

[00:17:52] That's where we're from.

[00:17:53] And we would have no idea.

[00:17:55] You could be throwing names at us.

[00:17:56] We'd be like, yeah, totally.

[00:17:57] And we would have no idea what you're talking about.

[00:18:00] Yes.

[00:18:00] So don't do that to us.

[00:18:01] But, you know, I mean, I think that's the same with any sort of topic that has a bit of a niche.

[00:18:06] And today, more than ever, we don't live in sort of a monoculture.

[00:18:10] We live in a culture where you can kind of pursue your interests and then the algorithm that you deal with on social media and online feeds you more of that.

[00:18:18] So you become more and more into true crime.

[00:18:20] You keep on listening to true crime podcasts and focusing on those documentaries and being interested in that.

[00:18:26] Whereas if someone is not into that, then maybe they're just missing that entirely.

[00:18:31] So the next thing that happened is that the lawyers needed to introduce themselves.

[00:18:38] And then after that, they needed to take turns and give a list of all of the potential witnesses they might be calling.

[00:18:46] And the reason for that is to see if any of the potential jurors has a relationship or knows any of those witnesses.

[00:18:55] Because if they do, then they could potentially be struck for cause, which we talked about a moment ago.

[00:19:01] And I think one key thing to remember about these witness lists is they're not obligated to call anyone or everyone from these lists.

[00:19:10] It's just if you want to call a witness, it better be on this list.

[00:19:13] So it'd be like if I were to make up a list of all the fish restaurants in Fort Wayne I might go to in the next few days.

[00:19:21] It'd be a pretty long list.

[00:19:23] I might not have time to go to more than one or two of them or maybe none of them at all.

[00:19:27] So these witnesses lists were very, very long.

[00:19:31] They were read very, very quickly.

[00:19:33] I didn't really get a big chunk of the names.

[00:19:36] Did you?

[00:19:36] They were read like they were the side effects of a prescription drug at the end of the commercial.

[00:19:43] So at first I was writing them down and then I just gave up.

[00:19:46] But they were very exhaustive and very long and very repetitive because they both had lists that had names on both of them.

[00:19:54] So it was hard to separate out who was doing what.

[00:19:57] But I want to add one quick thing before we get more into voir dire, which of course is another term for jury selection.

[00:20:06] There was a motion around Nick McClelland and Brad Rosey both asking for something similar.

[00:20:14] Brad Rosey asking to have, I believe, one of his young associates, Max Fisher, right,

[00:20:21] be allowed to sit, be essentially allowed to sit in the courtroom during trial.

[00:20:29] And McClelland asking for the same thing for Steve Mullen and Jerry Holman.

[00:20:35] Mullen being McClelland's, I guess, investigator for the prosecutor's office

[00:20:40] and Holman being a lieutenant for the Indiana State Police who is the lead detective on this.

[00:20:46] And I'll explain why this is significant.

[00:20:47] Again, typically in one of these cases of this nature, of course, is what they call separation of witnesses.

[00:20:54] So again, like if Anya and I were going to be testifying in the same trial,

[00:20:58] you wouldn't want me to be able to listen when Anya is testifying

[00:21:02] because then I might tailor my story to fit hers.

[00:21:07] And so these three people that Anya named each are named as potential witnesses.

[00:21:14] But the defense says, yes, this person is a potential witness.

[00:21:17] We need their help during the trial.

[00:21:18] Yes.

[00:21:19] And with Mullen, his thing is that he is, I mean, what McClelland says is he's really been organizing a lot of this evidence.

[00:21:26] He knows where everything is.

[00:21:27] That's an asset.

[00:21:29] And for Holman, he's essentially listed as the lead detective.

[00:21:33] So they want both of them.

[00:21:35] And McClelland did not object to Rosie's motion.

[00:21:40] But Rosie did object to McClelland's motion saying, essentially, statutorily, he only thought one of them should be allowed to be exempt.

[00:21:48] Is that?

[00:21:48] That's what he said.

[00:21:49] And Gold took it under advisement.

[00:21:50] Yeah.

[00:21:51] So I just wanted to throw that out there.

[00:21:52] Sorry to be nitpicky.

[00:21:54] Is it time to talk about the many opening statements?

[00:21:58] Yeah.

[00:21:58] So the many opening statements, this is basically Prosecutor Nick McClelland and Defense Attorney Andrew Baldwin each got about five minutes to present, in essence, a framework of how they see the case to kind of lay the table a bit.

[00:22:15] You want to talk about Prosecutor McClelland?

[00:22:17] Because he was the first one.

[00:22:19] Yeah.

[00:22:19] McClelland was the first one to go.

[00:22:21] He said, quote, to start out with, quote, this case is about three things.

[00:22:27] Richard Allen, a bullet, and the brutal murder of two girls.

[00:22:33] Did he say it was about Richard Allen or did he say it was about Bridge Guy?

[00:22:37] I thought it said Richard Allen, but I wrote down Richard Allen.

[00:22:40] If you wrote down Bridge Guy, then I defer to you.

[00:22:43] He talked about how the girls had a day off school and went walking down the trails.

[00:22:50] He said the people in Delphi tend to enjoy these trails, to go and enjoy nature.

[00:22:58] He talked about there was this Monon Bridge 60 feet above Deer Creek that the kids like crossing.

[00:23:03] Yeah, to prove their bravery.

[00:23:06] And that day the girls crossed the bridge.

[00:23:12] He said they weren't alone.

[00:23:13] Yeah, they were not alone.

[00:23:14] They were followed by Bridge Guy who had a gun and forced them down the hill.

[00:23:23] He said, I have the quote as, quote, he used this gun to force them down the hill and his intent was to have his way with them.

[00:23:35] Which I tend to think is...

[00:23:38] Indicative of...

[00:23:40] A delicate way of talking about a sexual assault?

[00:23:42] Yes.

[00:23:43] He talks about how there was an interruption and that then the Bridge Guy used the gun to force the girls to cross a creek, cross Deer Creek, and remove their clothes.

[00:23:55] And then abruptly he said, quote, and then he cut their throats, end quote.

[00:24:00] But he said Bridge Guy left behind a bullet which was found between the bodies.

[00:24:07] He talked about how you will hear Richard Allen place himself at the scene and you will see that Richard Allen is Bridge Guy.

[00:24:16] He says you will see Richard Allen himself in his own words say that he did it and how and why.

[00:24:24] He talks about there's going to be evidence and video and they're going to show that Richard Allen is Bridge Guy.

[00:24:33] And that they're going to talk about all these confessions.

[00:24:36] He lists the ones to his wife, his mother, correctional officers, his therapist, and quote, quote, anybody else that would listen, end quote.

[00:24:46] And he concluded by saying Richard Allen is Bridge Guy and it was Richard Allen who left the bullet which is traced to one of Richard Allen's guns.

[00:24:58] So what did you think of McClellan's opening?

[00:25:01] Mini opening.

[00:25:02] A mini opening.

[00:25:03] Because the actual opening statement will be considerably longer.

[00:25:07] I thought it was a very effective job of communicating the bare basics of the case as he sees them.

[00:25:17] I think in general he's a good speaker.

[00:25:20] You know, there's kind of a confidence to it.

[00:25:24] I don't know if we saw that from him at the start of this whole process,

[00:25:27] but we're definitely seeing it from him very consistently now.

[00:25:29] He's very comfortable, confident, clear.

[00:25:34] Yes.

[00:25:35] It's interesting because when you look at various figures involved in this case,

[00:25:40] it feels like a lot of people have gotten worse.

[00:25:44] Wow.

[00:25:45] You're really just being blunt today.

[00:25:47] I'm being blunt.

[00:25:48] I'm a little bit tired.

[00:25:49] But he is someone who has steadily improved.

[00:25:52] That's very true.

[00:25:53] Andrew.

[00:25:54] Yes.

[00:25:55] He is a very impressive attorney.

[00:25:57] Yeah.

[00:25:58] It was a good opening and he had a good day today.

[00:26:01] So next came Andrew Baldwin's opening.

[00:26:04] So this is something we know.

[00:26:07] We've seen him do a murder trial before and we knew going into today,

[00:26:11] we were going to be looking for a couple things.

[00:26:13] His mini opening.

[00:26:14] We know Baldwin loves an opening statement.

[00:26:17] Whether it's a mini opening or a real opening.

[00:26:19] And he's very good at grabbing your attention with opening lines.

[00:26:24] And we also knew Wadir was something that we were impressed by when he did it in Brown County,

[00:26:29] the one time we saw him do it.

[00:26:31] So we were kind of interested, how's he going to do it today?

[00:26:34] He started by saying Richard Allen confessed to shooting the girls in their backs,

[00:26:39] but they weren't shot.

[00:26:40] So he admitted to facts that weren't true.

[00:26:42] He confessed to raping and burying the girls in some Shrallo grave,

[00:26:47] but that wasn't true.

[00:26:47] The medical evidence will show that that's not true.

[00:26:52] Richard Allen confessed to a crime he didn't commit.

[00:26:55] That was a quote that I wrote down, end quote.

[00:26:57] Yes, and then he talked about the conditions Richard Allen was in when he was in solitary in Westville.

[00:27:05] He talked about Richard Allen deteriorating under these conditions.

[00:27:09] Did I dream this or did at one point he kind of like, in a sentence,

[00:27:14] kind of emphasize the word context, you know, that was kind of the context of the confessions.

[00:27:20] He was in prison for four months under horrible conditions and, quote,

[00:27:25] he had been languishing, deteriorating mentally and physically in solitary confinement, end quote.

[00:27:32] He talked about the difference between what he calls soft evidence and hard evidence.

[00:27:37] Yes.

[00:27:37] He called out Melissa Oberg, who is going to be the state's, one of the state's witnesses, I believe,

[00:27:43] for the firearms, for the bullet evidence.

[00:27:45] She's going to be very important to the state for that.

[00:27:47] And he's saying, you know, basically, well, that's more open to interpretation.

[00:27:51] So that's soft evidence.

[00:27:52] And she's going to say that she never made a big mistake, but, you know, maybe people in her office did in other cases.

[00:27:59] And he said that the phone, the girl's phone would be an example of hard evidence because it has definite data on it.

[00:28:08] And he claims that this data will show where the girls were and what they were doing.

[00:28:15] And that's hard data.

[00:28:16] And he also alluded to what he described as, quote, infighting between FBI and local police, end quote.

[00:28:25] I thought it was amusing that he referred.

[00:28:27] I mean, I'm assuming that's referring to state police as well as Carroll County Sheriff's Office.

[00:28:33] But the term local seemed a bit derogatory there.

[00:28:38] But saying that basically the FBI, like, left and they had a falling out because they, you know, whatever.

[00:28:44] So after that, it was time for the questioning of the jurors to begin.

[00:28:48] Well, do you want to talk a little bit about how Baldwin did?

[00:28:50] Oh, yeah.

[00:28:50] Sure.

[00:28:51] Go ahead.

[00:28:51] I thought attention grabbing.

[00:28:53] I thought he boiled down some interesting information.

[00:28:55] I don't know how much weight to put into some of his statements because, to be frank, this defense team often says things and then they're kind of debunked later on.

[00:29:06] And so when he was talking about things like, oh, Richard Allen confessed to shooting the girls and raping them and burying their bodies, that was something where I was curious because that directly conflicts with what we previously heard from Detective Brian Harshman on the stand, who, of course, is a state's witness, Indiana State Police detective, who said that in all of Allen's recorded verbal confessions, he did not put false information in there.

[00:29:35] That they were accurate confessions, you know, or contained accurate information and there was nothing about things that were totally wrong, like how they were killed.

[00:29:44] So what I'm interested in is, to use Baldwin's word, context.

[00:29:49] Where are we getting the kind of false confessions?

[00:29:52] Is that something where we have him on recording saying, I shot the girls?

[00:29:58] And is that a long time after his initial accurate confessions?

[00:30:03] Or is that before and then he, you know, like, I'd be just curious the order.

[00:30:07] And I would also be really curious, is this something where he's essentially quoted by people who are getting it secondhand, thirdhand, whatever, and writing it down?

[00:30:19] Because that, to me, is a little bit, if he's saying these things that are wrong, that's good for the defense.

[00:30:25] If other people are quoting him inaccurately, that's less good for the defense.

[00:30:29] Because that could be a simple matter of him saying, I took a gun and I killed them.

[00:30:33] And somebody who's listening in on him and reporting it getting the wrong idea.

[00:30:39] Exactly.

[00:30:40] So I guess I'm just like, I would love to know more.

[00:30:43] But again, I mean, is it fair to say we've been in this situation before where there's been kind of, like, big promises made?

[00:30:49] This is a big check to write.

[00:30:50] And, you know, that's one thing about voir dire is that you're kind of writing checks for your audience.

[00:30:56] To the jury.

[00:30:56] The jury.

[00:30:57] And so I'd be, like, curious to know more.

[00:31:00] Is that something that they can pay off in a big way by showing, hey, on this day he said this and it was wrong?

[00:31:05] Or is it a little more ambiguous than that?

[00:31:09] So then it was time to move on to the questioning of the prospective jurors.

[00:31:15] And I mentioned how the prosecution and the defense each get a turn.

[00:31:19] But actually, it's important to note that Judge Gold gets a turn first.

[00:31:25] And she asks, like, general questions like, do you know any of these people?

[00:31:30] Are there reasons why you can't serve?

[00:31:32] Things like that.

[00:31:33] And she makes them swear an oath under penalty of perjury.

[00:31:36] And I want to say that this process got off to, pardon me for saying this, kind of a rip-roaring start.

[00:31:43] Because right after she asked, was there any reason why you can't serve?

[00:31:46] One juror said, yeah.

[00:31:48] And he said, the reason I can't serve is because I'm a psychic.

[00:31:53] And I can feel people's emotions.

[00:31:56] And, you know, I can be valuable, but not as a juror, but as a help to the prosecution.

[00:32:02] Yeah, lose a juror, gain a psychic member of the prosecution team.

[00:32:07] I'm going to assume that they probably passed on that.

[00:32:10] But I know I locked eyes with at least one other reporter when that happened.

[00:32:13] And we were just like, well, this is interesting.

[00:32:17] That was, yeah, that was wild.

[00:32:20] That was wild.

[00:32:22] I wasn't expecting him to say that.

[00:32:24] I was not expecting that either.

[00:32:25] He didn't say, like, oh, I'm, you know, I got a really important work thing.

[00:32:28] But he was like, I can feel the energies.

[00:32:30] And note, he didn't, he was very, yeah, he was very adamant about wanting to be involved, just not as a juror.

[00:32:35] He wants to help out the prosecution with his skills as a psychic.

[00:32:41] So that was interesting.

[00:32:43] So then it moves on, and it's time for Nick.

[00:32:47] In a way, Varadir is kind of like speed dating because you're, like, asking a bunch of questions of people to try to get a sense of how they think or perceive things.

[00:32:59] But also, kind of imagine if you were on a date with something and there were things you wanted to know,

[00:33:06] but you know that if you ask the question directly, it might look bad or you might not be allowed to ask it or what have you.

[00:33:13] Let's say you're a shallow person.

[00:33:14] You're on a date with somebody.

[00:33:15] You want to know how much money they make.

[00:33:17] You're not going to ask that question.

[00:33:18] You're going to say, oh, what kind of car do you drive?

[00:33:20] What kind of, where do you go on vacation?

[00:33:22] Things like that.

[00:33:23] You kind of dance around it to get the information you want.

[00:33:27] And we're going to start, we're going to talk about some of the questions Nick McCleeland asked.

[00:33:31] But basically, his intent with his questions is he wants to know how comfortable people are with difference,

[00:33:40] with the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt.

[00:33:43] Do people understand that?

[00:33:45] Would they be willing to convict Richard Allen based on the evidence he has?

[00:33:51] That's what he is trying to find out.

[00:33:54] He's not going to ask that directly, but that's what, that's the motive for most of his questions.

[00:34:00] One more thing before we get into his questions is I've never seen Nick McClellan do voir dire before.

[00:34:08] I have read transcripts of him doing it before.

[00:34:11] And I've seen, as have you, Andy Baldwin do voir dire before.

[00:34:15] And what's interesting is lawyers have bits, for lack of a better word, that work for them.

[00:34:23] And they go back to them and they will use them again.

[00:34:26] So there's nothing wrong with that.

[00:34:29] If you have something that works well for you, go ahead and do it again.

[00:34:33] I'm going to say, I noticed both attorneys did that.

[00:34:37] Yeah, I think definitely Baldwin, it was very familiar with the voir dire we've already seen.

[00:34:42] So I kind of knew all the beats.

[00:34:44] And I felt like I was like, oh, here we go.

[00:34:46] He's going to do, there he did it.

[00:34:48] You know, whereas McClellan, there was definitely one moment where I was like, oh, wait a minute.

[00:34:53] I remember that.

[00:34:55] But, you know, it's like comedians.

[00:34:57] They have a bit and they're going to do it.

[00:34:58] So, I mean, it makes sense.

[00:34:59] It works.

[00:35:01] I think McClellan actually opened with something I'm pretty sure I saw in a transcript where he is smart enough to know that the members of the jury,

[00:35:11] the prospective jury, likely feel nervous and unsure in this environment.

[00:35:17] So he starts by saying, well, I'm nervous.

[00:35:20] Are you?

[00:35:21] Yeah.

[00:35:21] Yeah.

[00:35:22] He's sort of leveling with them.

[00:35:24] And I think when you're expressing nerves and asking them if they feel nervous, that's a common bond.

[00:35:29] You're all in this together.

[00:35:30] He's not a scary prosecutor.

[00:35:32] He's just another human being trying to talk to you.

[00:35:34] And I will say this.

[00:35:36] I think having seen five rounds of this, I think he succeeded over winning.

[00:35:43] I think I was seeing a lot of jurors smile and laugh and be very responsive to him and open up.

[00:35:49] And I feel like he did a really good job connecting with them.

[00:35:52] I mean, again, ultimately people are going to be trying things based on the evidence.

[00:35:57] But showing the jury that you're a human being and maybe even a likable one, I think is a positive thing for an attorney to do,

[00:36:05] whether that is a defense attorney or a prosecutor.

[00:36:08] I think he succeeded in doing that.

[00:36:09] I think he was very charming with these jurors.

[00:36:12] That was my interpretation.

[00:36:13] What did you think?

[00:36:14] I would agree with that.

[00:36:16] I would agree with that wholeheartedly.

[00:36:18] He was even telling them they're all good jurors.

[00:36:19] Every single one of you is a good juror.

[00:36:21] You might just not be a good juror for this case.

[00:36:24] Letting them down easy if they get kicked off.

[00:36:26] I think I might have heard him say that.

[00:36:27] Yeah.

[00:36:29] All the hits.

[00:36:30] Do you want to talk about some of his questions or some of his examples from his first round?

[00:36:34] Oh, God.

[00:36:35] There were a couple ones he was breaking out there.

[00:36:38] So one, I guess two favorites of his stood out because we heard these a lot.

[00:36:44] And again, remember, he was the only one on his side doing the voir dire.

[00:36:49] And keep in mind that we have the people.

[00:36:52] There's basically 12 people in the hot seats in the jury box.

[00:36:56] That's a round.

[00:36:57] That's a round of people.

[00:36:58] Everyone else is in the courtroom, so they're listening in.

[00:37:01] So they're seeing the process go through.

[00:37:04] And so one thing he would say is, you know, essentially it was more of a lesson about, you know, people will say, well, I need a lot of evidence in order to believe something.

[00:37:17] And he would say, well, do you think I'm an attorney?

[00:37:21] And I'm like they were, you know, and I'm sure a lot of attorneys probably do this example.

[00:37:26] But he was saying, do you think I'm an attorney?

[00:37:28] And they'd be like, yes.

[00:37:30] And he'd be like, well, I don't have my my bar number out or my my legal degree or my diploma from law school.

[00:37:37] So why do you think I'm an attorney?

[00:37:39] And they'd be like, well, Judge Gull is letting you sit up here and talk to us.

[00:37:43] And he'd be like, yeah, but would you need more evidence to be, you know, fairly certain or firmly convinced?

[00:37:51] And, you know, this would go on.

[00:37:52] He'd say, obviously, you're also using your common sense.

[00:37:56] So I guess it's OK to use your common sense to evaluate things.

[00:38:00] Prosecutors love this.

[00:38:01] You don't have to check your common sense at the door.

[00:38:04] Or that's essentially code for reasonable doubt is not free of all possible doubt.

[00:38:15] So, you know, if you're if you're like you without seeing something unfold on video.

[00:38:22] Right.

[00:38:22] And having every single piece of evidence that you could possibly imagine there might be room for.

[00:38:28] Or, well, maybe, you know, the FBI and the state police and the local police all conspired to plant all this evidence.

[00:38:36] And also aliens did it like there's always going to be that little room for doubt.

[00:38:41] But it's all reasonable doubt.

[00:38:43] Am I saying that right?

[00:38:44] You're saying that's right.

[00:38:45] Like you like you don't it's not to the standard of like you have to literally see it for yourself unfolding before your eyes.

[00:38:54] And another example he used was this, which I believe also may I may have seen before.

[00:39:00] This is you leave your residence for a spring break.

[00:39:05] There's snow on the ground.

[00:39:06] You come back home after spring break.

[00:39:08] The snow is gone and there's a puddle in the driveway.

[00:39:11] What happened?

[00:39:12] Well, also, there's two sticks in the driveway.

[00:39:15] Now, do you know what happened?

[00:39:16] Well, what if there's also two pieces of coal?

[00:39:20] What if there's also?

[00:39:21] I was really confused at that point.

[00:39:23] I'm not going to lie.

[00:39:23] I was not.

[00:39:24] It took me a while to get this one.

[00:39:26] What if there's also a carrot?

[00:39:28] Well, there's also a scarf.

[00:39:29] Well, there's also a top hat.

[00:39:31] What if there's also a name tag that says Frosty?

[00:39:34] I got it when the carrot came out.

[00:39:36] But I ever were you confused or you had you read this before?

[00:39:40] Oh, I had no idea what was going on at this point.

[00:39:43] So he's basically trying to figure out how much evidence do these potential jurors need before they feel comfortable reaching a conclusion.

[00:39:54] And this is the way he is doing that.

[00:39:57] And he also asked time and time again, well, if you're on a murder case, what kind of evidence do you expect?

[00:40:05] I mean, you don't necessarily expect DNA, do you?

[00:40:10] You see, he asked variations of that a lot.

[00:40:12] And that's code for, well, we don't have DNA in this case.

[00:40:15] Yeah, they don't have DNA in this case.

[00:40:16] There's no usable DNA in this case.

[00:40:18] DNA is not going to be.

[00:40:19] I'm just going to say this is another thing people often ask us about Delphi.

[00:40:22] And I don't need to have any inside information to know that DNA is not going to be a factor in this trial.

[00:40:29] When it comes to proving Richard Allen's guilt, this is something that had they had DNA, had they had a full profile of DNA,

[00:40:37] it would not have taken seven years for this for this thing to all happen or, you know.

[00:40:43] And McClellan saying over and over again, well, you don't need DNA, do you?

[00:40:46] You know, people would say, well, he'd be like, what do you need for a murder trial to feel convinced?

[00:40:51] And people would be like, well, maybe a murder weapon.

[00:40:53] And, well, do you need that?

[00:40:54] Or, you know, or DNA.

[00:40:56] You know, do you need DNA in every murder case?

[00:40:59] And what most jurors would, most prospective jurors would respond with was, no, I don't necessarily need DNA.

[00:41:06] But I need kind of a robust amount of evidence in order to feel comfortable.

[00:41:10] I'd love to have DNA.

[00:41:12] But I acknowledge that life is not a CSI episode and that there is not always DNA.

[00:41:18] And, in fact, in many cases, convictions happen without DNA.

[00:41:23] And also he kept on throwing out CSI.

[00:41:25] This is something prosecutors also, in my experience, like to bring up.

[00:41:29] Hey, guys, you know CSI is not real.

[00:41:32] You know, we can't just, like, get every single piece of evidence that would, you know.

[00:41:36] Like, that's, it's an unrealistic show because, basically, it assumes everything works out for the prosecution and police.

[00:41:44] And that all this evidence is always available.

[00:41:47] In real life, things get degraded.

[00:41:49] Temperature can degrade things.

[00:41:50] Water can wash things away.

[00:41:52] You have people who are able to just clean.

[00:41:55] You have people who just happen to get lucky and they just don't leave any usable DNA.

[00:41:58] So there's all sorts of things that can happen in real life.

[00:42:00] Like, you'd never watch a CSI episode where that happened because it would go unsolved and, you know, you'd be left very unsatisfied with the storytelling.

[00:42:09] And another thing attorneys often do during voir dire is to, as we mentioned with the DNA, is they kind of offer little hints of potential weaknesses in their case because they want to see if a juror starts, like, fanning himself and saying,

[00:42:24] Oh, my stars, that's awful, you know, to bump him from the case.

[00:42:27] Yes.

[00:42:28] And in this instance, in this particular round, prosecutor McClelland was saying, well, if a witness appears nervous, does that mean you're going to doubt them?

[00:42:39] So that's, he's concerned maybe some witnesses might appear nervous.

[00:42:43] He says, well, what if a witness doesn't remember something unless they have to look at their notes?

[00:42:50] That's not a big deal, is it?

[00:42:52] Yeah.

[00:42:52] So, yeah.

[00:42:53] That's something you'd probably expect.

[00:42:54] And sometimes, like, you have, I think you see jurors, perspective jurors, rather, kind of almost, like, kind of opening up to some of this in real time.

[00:43:04] Because maybe if you ask it in a certain way, bluntly, like, do you want your witnesses to be prepared and knowledgeable?

[00:43:10] They're going to say yes.

[00:43:12] But then if you say, hey, you guys ever need to rely on some notes for something?

[00:43:17] Everyone's like, yeah, I've been in that situation.

[00:43:18] Well, what if we had kind of a nervous witness who might want to refer back to a report?

[00:43:23] Oh, yeah, that's fine.

[00:43:24] I could see myself doing it.

[00:43:25] So sometimes the way they introduce the information to the jury is meant to get them to open up and be a little bit more realistic or sympathetic to whichever party's point of view.

[00:43:36] Do you have anything else to say about Nick's first round?

[00:43:39] Did he talk about law enforcement in this round or was it later?

[00:43:43] He talked about it in a lot of rounds.

[00:43:44] Do you want me to throw it out there?

[00:43:45] Sure.

[00:43:46] He wanted to know, hey, do you think law enforcement is, like, more truthful or do you hold what they say in a higher regard than other people?

[00:43:56] And most people, I think the vast majority of people said, no, I acknowledge that there are good law enforcement, bad law enforcement.

[00:44:04] If a law enforcement officer has a very specific expertise that can be presented, then I might hold that in a higher regard.

[00:44:11] But I'm not necessarily just going to be like, oh, the police said it.

[00:44:15] That's what we're going to do.

[00:44:16] You know, so nuanced answers to all this.

[00:44:20] Honestly, it's kind of fascinating to see these lawyers kind of connect, you know, everyday people coming in, mostly not people who are familiar with the legal system.

[00:44:31] And just seeing their answers and their takes on things is kind of fascinating to me.

[00:44:36] Do you want to say anything about his performance in the first round or do you want to just wrap it all up once we get to the end of the fifth round?

[00:44:42] I was very impressed with his performance in the first round.

[00:44:45] That's not to say I thought he did a bad job later.

[00:44:47] It's just it was a very long day.

[00:44:49] So, I mean, I think the kind of the first impressions were important.

[00:44:53] I think he made a very good first impression.

[00:44:55] Again, I felt like the people we saw seemed to be receptive to what he was saying.

[00:45:01] Now, listen, that doesn't mean they're going to say, oh, well, he must be right about everything and they're going to, you know, vote accordingly.

[00:45:06] It's just I think what I saw was like a good performance in voir dire.

[00:45:12] What do you think?

[00:45:13] I would agree completely.

[00:45:14] Yeah.

[00:45:15] The first round for the defense was done by Brad Rosey.

[00:45:18] We're going to talk about the questions that he asked and how we think he did.

[00:45:23] But before we get into that, I just want to stress that I think the other two defense attorneys did a good, if not great job.

[00:45:31] And we're going to talk about those, right?

[00:45:34] Yes, we are.

[00:45:35] OK.

[00:45:35] Jennifer Oje, excellent.

[00:45:38] Andrew Baldwin, excellent.

[00:45:40] I mean, I thought both of them were very good as well.

[00:45:43] Now let's talk about Brad Rosey.

[00:45:45] OK.

[00:45:46] So he starts out by trying to basically introduce things that might cause doubt.

[00:45:54] He was saying, let's talk about human behavior.

[00:45:58] You know, if someone came to you that you knew and indicated they'd committed a serious crime,

[00:46:06] what kind of behavior would you expect?

[00:46:08] Why you'd probably expect them to be really nervous and maybe try to flee the city.

[00:46:14] And you might even expect them to refuse to cooperate with law enforcement and destroy evidence.

[00:46:20] And so the unspoken implication there, which these jurors won't hear until later,

[00:46:25] is that Richard Allen did not take flight.

[00:46:28] He did not apparently try to destroy evidence, at least according to Brad Rosey.

[00:46:32] And he talked to police.

[00:46:35] So is that what you got from that?

[00:46:38] Yeah.

[00:46:39] And the prospective jurors were not really having that as far as my notes look.

[00:46:45] I, like at least one person said essentially, well, sometimes people hide in plain sight.

[00:46:50] That's not always what happens.

[00:46:52] No.

[00:46:53] So I don't feel like that sold well with them.

[00:46:59] Like sometimes you'd, you'd always have maybe a one or two on, for each round where it's like

[00:47:04] they're not really aligned with one side or another.

[00:47:07] Or maybe something they're saying is actually going completely against what that side obviously wants.

[00:47:12] That was the talking point that I just don't feel like resonated with everyone.

[00:47:15] Because we've all seen cases where, you know, I think anyone with an imagination can imagine a situation where you commit a crime

[00:47:21] and don't immediately flee the country while sweating bullets and being out of your mind with nerves.

[00:47:27] Because that's not always what happens.

[00:47:29] And he spoke a little bit too absolutely.

[00:47:32] He also came over, like, McClellan was very personable, very much like, I'm nervous.

[00:47:37] How are you guys feeling?

[00:47:38] Are you nervous?

[00:47:38] Kind of like a stand-up comedian, like connecting with the audience.

[00:47:41] Brad Rosey immediately is complaining about he can't hear anybody.

[00:47:44] Sorry if it sounds like I'm yelling.

[00:47:46] It was just a little more abrupt.

[00:47:47] His tone gently was strangely aggressive.

[00:47:51] He was very aggressive with these jurors.

[00:47:53] And I'm going to say this in his defense before we go any further.

[00:47:56] It's possible that maybe there's some research that they're privy to or some of his past experiences

[00:48:01] where maybe there's kind of almost like a counterintuitive.

[00:48:04] If you're aggressive with the jury, they want to impress you and they want to, like, make you proud.

[00:48:10] And like, oh, no, he doesn't like me.

[00:48:11] I'm going to try harder to, like, make him like me.

[00:48:14] Like, kind of a, I don't know.

[00:48:16] I mean, that would explain this, I guess.

[00:48:19] But, yeah, a bit aggressive.

[00:48:22] Well, it got worse.

[00:48:24] And then he said, well, let's talk about a person's right to remain silent.

[00:48:31] And I have at that point one juror said, made some comment about how you need to fight to prove your innocence.

[00:48:38] And then Rosie said, well, you know, if a person doesn't take the stand,

[00:48:42] you're not going to draw any bad conclusions about them, are you?

[00:48:46] So obviously the translation there, which I don't think.

[00:48:48] Richard Allen is not taking the stand.

[00:48:50] I don't think that surprises anybody.

[00:48:51] No, I mean, and one thing that's important to stress is that you have a constitutional right not to incriminate yourself, right?

[00:48:57] And that's where not having to take the stand.

[00:49:00] Yeah, the Fifth Amendment.

[00:49:01] Fifth Amendment.

[00:49:02] That's where it becomes important.

[00:49:03] That being said, human nature, human nature being what it is, you want to check with jurors.

[00:49:08] Can they set that aside?

[00:49:10] The human nature instinct is that you're accused of something awful.

[00:49:14] You're going to want to get up and say, I didn't do that.

[00:49:17] Or if you confessed 61 times, say, to doing something awful, you're going to want to come up and say,

[00:49:23] listen, here was my mindset.

[00:49:25] Here's why I did that.

[00:49:26] I'm not guilty.

[00:49:27] Here's the explanation for that.

[00:49:29] I want you guys to know I didn't do this.

[00:49:33] And let's be honest here.

[00:49:35] Let's be blunt.

[00:49:37] Whether you're innocent or guilty, if you're charged with a serious crime, it is almost always a mistake to take the stand.

[00:49:45] Why is that, Kevin?

[00:49:46] Because the fact of the matter is, if you're the defendant taking the stand, there is a prosecutor who has gone to law school,

[00:49:55] has been working on this case, presumably a very intelligent man or woman who has studied your story and everything about you so intently,

[00:50:05] and they are going to focus themselves on trying to try to trip you up into making mistakes, large or small, that could make you look bad, whether you're guilty or innocent.

[00:50:20] Very few people can withstand that.

[00:50:23] And so that's why the classic advice from the lawyers is don't testify.

[00:50:28] Also, jurors being humans, one thing we've heard from defense attorneys is it can be a real risk to put on your client

[00:50:34] because you don't want it to be a referendum on how creepy or nice or cool your client is

[00:50:40] because you can't necessarily anticipate, one, how people react to them, or two, if they have some, if they're not necessarily inherently likable,

[00:50:52] you can't really force that, right?

[00:50:54] So you're basically relying on them to charm the jury and explain away some bad stuff, but it could backfire in a huge way,

[00:51:01] and people could be like, well, that didn't really resonate with me at all,

[00:51:04] and then walk away being like, well, I think he's guilty now.

[00:51:08] So it's a huge reward if it goes well, but also very high risk.

[00:51:14] So it's not common.

[00:51:16] I would not expect to see Richard Allen.

[00:51:19] This whole voir dire session seemed very much like an exercise, and don't expect anything.

[00:51:23] He's not going to go on the stand.

[00:51:25] And what I heard from the jurors is what essentially was people,

[00:51:30] the people who were selected generally seemed to want to hear from him,

[00:51:35] but to accept that he doesn't have to, and they're not necessarily going to hold that against him.

[00:51:38] But they would have really liked that because if there are confessions,

[00:51:43] they want to hear how that happened, and they might want to hear it from him.

[00:51:48] Yes.

[00:51:49] Speaking of the confessions, I have in my notes Brad Rosey then saying,

[00:51:53] well, tell me why someone might say incriminating things.

[00:51:57] So he's challenging the prospective jurors to help him with his defense, I guess.

[00:52:02] And one juror said something about, well, maybe mental health.

[00:52:05] And then Rosey says something to the effect of, well,

[00:52:09] maybe you might say something incriminating just to bring something to an end

[00:52:14] or to bring others peace.

[00:52:16] So I guess the implication there is maybe Richard Allen was just trying to do his wife a good turn.

[00:52:23] Do his family a good turn perhaps to sort of let them move on with their lives.

[00:52:28] He's sacrificing himself to say, no, I mean, given how much his wife and mother have supported him,

[00:52:33] Kathy and Janice Allen throughout this process,

[00:52:35] I would think that him doing that would be more devastating.

[00:52:40] They want him to fight.

[00:52:42] But I guess what they're saying is in his mind it was like, go on without me.

[00:52:47] You know, my life is over.

[00:52:49] You can move on.

[00:52:50] I'll just end this whole thing.

[00:52:51] So that's kind of what it seemed to be reading behind the lines.

[00:52:55] And then he said we all have our breaking points.

[00:52:58] And then he compared the conditions Richard Allen was in to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

[00:53:03] Yeah.

[00:53:06] So there you go.

[00:53:08] Do you want me to do this next part?

[00:53:10] There's a couple of things here.

[00:53:12] He talks about, quote,

[00:53:13] quote, do you have a problem holding them pointing to the prosecution to this highest of standards?

[00:53:18] Well, let me explain the context of this.

[00:53:20] He said, let me give you all a four minute mini course on burden of proof.

[00:53:25] And he brings out this piece of poster board on which he's written different standards of proof.

[00:53:31] And he says, well, you know, folks, I tried to dumb this down.

[00:53:34] Oh, oh, God.

[00:53:37] I cringed.

[00:53:37] I cringed when he said that.

[00:53:39] And you know what?

[00:53:39] There's nothing people love more when someone's condescending and say,

[00:53:45] I tried to dumb this down so you could understand it.

[00:53:48] That was, yeah, that I forgot about that.

[00:53:51] I'm so glad you're, I cringed.

[00:53:53] Yeah, that was not good.

[00:53:55] I tried to dumb this down.

[00:53:57] And then do you want me to say what he said to a juror a moment later?

[00:54:00] Can I say it?

[00:54:01] Please do.

[00:54:16] He said, you know, you might look over at the defense table and you might say,

[00:54:36] yes, laughing and seeming to have a good time.

[00:54:39] But, you know, it's just gallows humor.

[00:54:40] And don't think that Brad Rosey thinks this is funny because I don't.

[00:54:46] So don't you have a problem with that?

[00:54:48] You said that in part very defensively.

[00:54:51] Sometimes you just have to smile or laugh.

[00:54:56] Yeah.

[00:54:57] I mean, I think I got what he was saying there because I saw Baldwin do something more elegantly

[00:55:04] in the Randy Small trial that we covered where he was talking about, listen,

[00:55:07] if you look over at the defense table and Randy Small is, you know, an accused murderer

[00:55:14] is smiling or doing something that you don't think you'd be doing if you were accused of murder.

[00:55:19] Are you going to judge him?

[00:55:20] Are you going to assume that he's guilty?

[00:55:22] I mean, like, I think he was probably talking about Richard Allen's behavior

[00:55:28] as opposed to the attorney's behavior.

[00:55:29] I don't think the attorneys are going to be, like, having a party over the defense table.

[00:55:34] I mean, presumably.

[00:55:35] So, yeah, it was asked, I felt, in a way that should have perhaps narrowed it down a little bit more.

[00:55:42] I think most people would understand that, like, everyone in the courtroom might smile or laugh

[00:55:47] if, you know, something's happening that would warrant that.

[00:55:50] But I think he made it, he spoke so broadly it sounded like we're not going to take it seriously.

[00:55:56] I don't know.

[00:55:57] It was a weird way to end.

[00:55:59] There was a lot of missteps here.

[00:56:01] And he ended with a very aggressive tone.

[00:56:07] Having insulted all of the jurors, all the prospective jurors in that round.

[00:56:11] I didn't know what to make of this.

[00:56:13] Here's the thing.

[00:56:14] Brad Rosey, when I think of him in the context of this defense team,

[00:56:18] I think he can be very good at being aggressive.

[00:56:19] I've seen him do some really good work with being aggressive, cross-examinations, digging into alternate suspects.

[00:56:28] I think he did a great job with the Kagan Klein questioning at some recent hearings.

[00:56:33] I think his strengths tend to be the more aggressive bulldog side of things.

[00:56:38] So maybe not charming jurors.

[00:56:39] This did not play to his strengths.

[00:56:41] I do not understand why he did so much of this today, especially when we saw what we saw from Auger and Baldwin.

[00:56:48] Yeah, spoiler alert.

[00:56:49] Baldwin we knew was going to do well.

[00:56:50] Auger did great too.

[00:56:52] They were both great.

[00:56:53] They should have alternated.

[00:56:54] I don't know why they had Rosie do anything.

[00:56:59] If Wadir is partially about charming the jury, I don't think they succeeded in that to the extent that they perhaps should have or could have

[00:57:10] had they perhaps divided the labor a bit differently.

[00:57:13] And I think out of this first round, we got six jurors.

[00:57:18] Is that correct?

[00:57:19] Yeah.

[00:57:19] So everyone immediately is like, in the public, it's like, all right, we're going to be almost done now.

[00:57:27] People were like, yeah, it's going to be one day.

[00:57:29] And I don't blame them.

[00:57:31] But when people started saying that, I immediately was like, nope, something's going to go wrong.

[00:57:36] And nothing went wrong.

[00:57:38] But I mean, spoiler alert, we're not done with jury selection.

[00:57:43] Then it was time for round two with McClelland again.

[00:57:46] And I think a lot of McClelland's questions are a bit repetitive.

[00:57:51] They hit the same points, understandably.

[00:57:54] One thing I think that was new in this one is he said, the state is not required to prove a motive.

[00:58:00] Are you okay with that?

[00:58:02] So the implication is that perhaps they're not going to be able to prove a motive.

[00:58:07] Well, okay.

[00:58:07] Okay.

[00:58:08] The language here, and this kind of got brought up later, but the language here is prove a motive.

[00:58:13] I mean, they can suggest a motive.

[00:58:15] But proving something beyond a reasonable doubt requires an extra level to that.

[00:58:22] So what he's saying is that we don't, that doesn't need to be part of the proof.

[00:58:26] That doesn't need to be part of, like, you need this in order to convict.

[00:58:29] It's more of, like, we can suggest things and we can tell you why we think this happened and we can tell you what Richard Allen said about why he thought it happened.

[00:58:37] But that doesn't need to be part of the proof stew.

[00:58:41] Because what they talk about, you know, in terms of the statutory definition of the murder, you have to prove Richard Allen killed said victim at said time.

[00:58:52] So that doesn't have anything about why.

[00:58:54] Now, everyone wants to know why.

[00:58:56] That's perhaps the biggest question people want to know.

[00:58:59] But a trial isn't a story.

[00:59:01] A trial is a trial.

[00:59:03] And so perhaps some of that will have to either be filled in with the imagination or, you know, may just kind of be loosely kind of compiled through what comes up at trial.

[00:59:14] Another question he asked for, I think, the first time in this second round was, if the judge rules against admitting a particular piece of evidence, are you going to be able to set that aside from your mind?

[00:59:31] So obviously an important question to ask.

[00:59:34] Was there anything else from his second round that you wanted to mention?

[00:59:38] Hmm.

[00:59:40] I don't think so.

[00:59:44] You know, I thought it was interesting.

[00:59:46] One person said that they were going to have a really hard time getting past something in the juror questionnaire.

[00:59:53] And basically that, like, they couldn't forget it and they would not ever forget it and they would be almost, like, stymied by it at trial.

[01:00:01] And that was something that was ironic because it's not even really going to be included in trial to the same extent.

[01:00:06] And that is the, there was a question about the role of the occult, which was a defense question, I imagine.

[01:00:14] The role of the occult in these murders.

[01:00:16] And this juror, you could tell this person was incredibly confused and, like, I'm not going to be able to, like, just switch that off.

[01:00:22] And so, yeah, that was something that stuck out to me about that round.

[01:00:27] Next, Andrew Baldwin took it on.

[01:00:30] Do you want to start here?

[01:00:31] Very, very similar to what we saw in the small.

[01:00:35] Oh, I didn't know what he was going to do.

[01:00:36] But I was like, oh, man, wouldn't it be funny if this was exactly like the small trial?

[01:00:41] And it was, literally.

[01:00:42] In the small trial, he started off very dramatic.

[01:00:46] But I think effective.

[01:00:48] Where he goes over to Randy Small, puts his hands on his shoulders.

[01:00:53] Keep in mind, Randy Small looks pissed.

[01:00:55] I mean, he doesn't look happy to be there at all.

[01:00:57] He puts his hand on his shoulders and says, like, is it possible that any of you could, you know, like, find this man innocent?

[01:01:04] Like, kind of imploring them to open their hearts.

[01:01:08] He did basically the same thing here.

[01:01:10] He goes, he stands behind Rick Allen.

[01:01:13] He puts his hands on Rick Allen's shoulders and says, look at this guy, Rick Allen.

[01:01:19] And when he says this, Rick Allen kind of has, like, an awkward little smile on his face like he's uncomfortable.

[01:01:25] I don't blame him.

[01:01:26] But, you know, but I think it's a grabbing opening and I liked it.

[01:01:29] He said, is it really possible that he is innocent?

[01:01:32] Look in your hearts and your minds.

[01:01:34] You've heard talk of confessions.

[01:01:36] And then McClellan says, may we approach?

[01:01:41] And then he goes back to doing it.

[01:01:43] He goes back.

[01:01:44] Do you really believe that?

[01:01:46] Like, there's a lot of hearts and thoughts and feelings in this opening.

[01:01:50] I remember he continued then and then McClellan interjected again, right?

[01:01:56] Yes.

[01:01:57] And then he comes back, Baldwin, and says, well.

[01:01:59] A little bit more calm.

[01:02:00] Who among you was bothered by all the talk about confessions?

[01:02:06] And he says, oh, I'm sorry.

[01:02:07] I'm nervous.

[01:02:08] We want fair jurors.

[01:02:11] Who's bothered by these confessions?

[01:02:14] You know, look at hearts and minds.

[01:02:16] Things aren't always as they appear.

[01:02:18] Juror, and that's a direct quote.

[01:02:22] And yeah, I mean, I'm just curious.

[01:02:25] What did you think of that opening?

[01:02:26] I mean, the objections and the fact that he, I think, pushed it a little far kind of threw

[01:02:31] it off a bit.

[01:02:32] But I like the concept.

[01:02:33] I think I might find it a little bit much as a juror, but I didn't hate it.

[01:02:38] What did you think?

[01:02:39] I thought it was effective for what it was because it's very important.

[01:02:45] And if everybody's pointing to Rick Allen and saying, this guy is a child killer.

[01:02:52] He's a monster.

[01:02:53] He's an other.

[01:02:54] And you go over and you put your hands on him and say, well, maybe he's innocent.

[01:02:59] I think that's very striking and that gets people's attention.

[01:03:02] Yeah.

[01:03:02] I think Baldwin's always the attorney we see interacting with Allen a lot.

[01:03:07] They have that relationship.

[01:03:09] They're sort of whispering.

[01:03:11] He's often got his arm around him.

[01:03:13] So it's like, hey, I'm a good guy and I'm going to say this guy is...

[01:03:18] You're kind of almost like, give him a chance.

[01:03:21] Look at him as a human, not a potential child murderer.

[01:03:24] And I think it's good.

[01:03:26] Again, it's a little bit dramatic.

[01:03:28] Some people might not like that style, but I tend to think it's a good idea because it

[01:03:33] maybe shakes up some people's worldview or kind of like gets them to consider it in a

[01:03:37] different way.

[01:03:38] And then he had a call back to McClellan's thing because we mentioned that McClellan kept

[01:03:44] on saying, well, about burden of proof and stuff.

[01:03:47] Well, do you believe that I'm a lawyer even though you don't have much evidence?

[01:03:50] Sure you do because you're using your common sense.

[01:03:53] And so Baldwin says, well, you know, folks, we had an attorney in Greenwood.

[01:03:58] Oh, you know, we have an office in Franklin.

[01:04:00] You're by Greenwood and you should come to Franklin.

[01:04:02] It's a nice little town.

[01:04:03] That's true.

[01:04:04] Franklin is a nice little town.

[01:04:05] And then he says, this attorney in Greenwood, he looked good.

[01:04:09] He said the right things, but he wasn't really a lawyer.

[01:04:13] And so maybe sometimes you need to look a little deeper and not just assume something that

[01:04:19] is said.

[01:04:20] There you go.

[01:04:23] Yeah, I mean, just, I mean, like that's a good point, kind of throwing it on his head

[01:04:27] a little bit.

[01:04:27] And then he read the entire definition of beyond a reasonable doubt and he asked a question

[01:04:33] of them.

[01:04:34] So even if you think Rick Allen is probably guilty, that is not enough to meet the standard

[01:04:42] of beyond a reasonable doubt.

[01:04:43] Does that surprise you?

[01:04:45] What do you think of that?

[01:04:46] I thought that was good.

[01:04:48] I think that was good because, you know, it's forcing the juror, it's forcing the

[01:04:52] prospective jurors to really consider, you know, how sure do I need to be?

[01:04:58] It can't be a situation where you're like, well, the state didn't really quite prove it,

[01:05:03] but I guess he's the best of several bad options.

[01:05:05] You don't want a situation like that where they're just basically saying, well, like,

[01:05:10] I guess they, you know, they didn't really.

[01:05:12] What else is the explanation?

[01:05:13] You want them to be, you want there to be a level of certainty there.

[01:05:17] Baldwin says, we plan on being critical of police.

[01:05:21] Does that bother you?

[01:05:22] So again, obviously he is signaling that they are going to be critical of police, but I don't

[01:05:28] think surprises anyone who's been following this case.

[01:05:32] He looked at one juror at one point and says, you know, I can't get a read on you.

[01:05:35] Do you play poker?

[01:05:36] Yeah, I remember him doing some of that in small.

[01:05:39] Because it's, again, it's a way of showing a little bit of vulnerability and also being

[01:05:44] kind of funny.

[01:05:44] It's fun.

[01:05:45] Yeah, it's fun.

[01:05:45] And it's like, it's, it's connecting with them personally and it's kind of a, it's a compliment,

[01:05:49] but it's also kind of like digging at them a little bit.

[01:05:51] Like, what are you really thinking?

[01:05:52] So I, I really do think Baldwin has a skill with, with Wadir.

[01:05:56] I think he's got a very good personality for this.

[01:06:01] I think he's, he's, he's kind of entertaining without being too much.

[01:06:05] I think, I think this is just something that he's skilled at, you know?

[01:06:10] Then he asked a question.

[01:06:13] I'm going to paraphrase it a bit, but basically he said to the jurors, are you, are you more

[01:06:18] emotionally at base?

[01:06:20] By that, I mean, if you see a witness come up on the stand and start, start crying, you

[01:06:25] just be so swept up in emotion that you won't think.

[01:06:28] And, and McLean says judge.

[01:06:32] Yeah.

[01:06:33] Because basically you're not supposed to use Wadir to make argument.

[01:06:37] And what he, what Baldwin was doing there was suggesting that one or more potential witnesses

[01:06:41] who we may not be offering a reliable testimony.

[01:06:45] So after the conversation with the judge, Baldwin came back and said, well, will you look at the

[01:06:50] evidence fairly and logically, even in the face of emotional turmoil and testimony?

[01:06:55] Exactly.

[01:06:56] Yeah.

[01:06:57] He, you know, I, I, again, I think Baldwin has a gift for this.

[01:07:01] I was disappointed that he didn't lead it.

[01:07:03] I think if we'd seen him do all of them or him and OJ team up, this would have been perhaps

[01:07:11] much more evenly matched.

[01:07:13] And frankly, I think Baldwin for some reason to me, like started off a little bit shaky,

[01:07:18] but he really got comfortable.

[01:07:20] And it really like, he got into this flow with the jury.

[01:07:23] I, this is what we saw at small.

[01:07:24] I felt like where he's kind of almost vibing with them.

[01:07:27] He's kind of, you know, as you said, it's like speed dating, but it's like, you can kind

[01:07:30] of tell when someone's good at that kind of flirtation with the jury.

[01:07:34] And I felt like he was building up to that.

[01:07:37] And I felt like I would have loved to see more of that because I felt, I felt like he had

[01:07:42] something there.

[01:07:43] I mean, I don't know.

[01:07:44] He just seemed more personable, less aggressive.

[01:07:46] He was able to kind of put in pointed concepts and sort of almost accuse them at times of

[01:07:52] being like, I want you to be fair to this guy.

[01:07:53] You better not be not fair to this guy.

[01:07:55] But in a way that didn't feel aggressive, it felt like, oh yeah, that's a reasonable,

[01:07:59] like for some reason coming from him, the way he phrased it, it was more of like, guys,

[01:08:04] I'm just so worried because I care so much.

[01:08:07] I'm a worrier.

[01:08:08] I'm a worrier.

[01:08:08] We lawyers worry about these things.

[01:08:10] I just care so much about this, my client and about this case.

[01:08:14] And I just want to make sure you guys are fair.

[01:08:16] I need to trust you.

[01:08:17] And it's like, you can tell the jury almost once to be like, yeah, you can trust us.

[01:08:20] We're going to be fair.

[01:08:21] With Rosie, it just seemed more like, I think you guys suck.

[01:08:24] Let me dumb this thing down for you.

[01:08:26] It's like, okay.

[01:08:26] So, I mean, Baldwin did a great job.

[01:08:28] And then he says, can you focus on what the witness is saying and not on any interactions

[01:08:32] or possible tensions you might see between the lawyers and the judge?

[01:08:37] And then he said, there's going to be experts.

[01:08:39] Battle of experts.

[01:08:41] Does anybody have thoughts on experts?

[01:08:43] Experts.

[01:08:44] I'm always asking people that.

[01:08:46] No.

[01:08:47] Yeah.

[01:08:48] I mean, there's going to be a battle of the experts in this case.

[01:08:51] It's fair.

[01:08:52] And he closed very strongly.

[01:08:54] He said the question.

[01:08:55] He says, can you wait?

[01:08:57] Because we have a story to tell, but they get to go first.

[01:09:01] Are you going to believe the first thing you hear or can you wait to hear our side of

[01:09:05] the story?

[01:09:05] I remember his wait for me rejoinder was also, I believe, in small.

[01:09:10] And I found it very good and actually almost poignant.

[01:09:14] There's something very poignant about someone saying wait for me, to me at least.

[01:09:18] And so I think that's effective.

[01:09:22] And then there was a 10-minute break.

[01:09:23] There was a 10-minute break.

[01:09:24] Well, we got a few more jurors out of that.

[01:09:26] Oh, yeah.

[01:09:26] We got a, what?

[01:09:27] I think four.

[01:09:28] Four?

[01:09:28] Okay.

[01:09:28] So, okay.

[01:09:29] We're sailing.

[01:09:29] People at this point, and again, are buzzed.

[01:09:32] The audience is a buzz, and they're saying, this is all going to be done very shortly.

[01:09:39] During the break, Alan, again, he's not shackled.

[01:09:41] He's drinking from a bottle of water.

[01:09:44] He's standing up.

[01:09:44] He's pulling up his pants.

[01:09:45] He's brushing off his shirt.

[01:09:47] Yeah.

[01:09:48] It's definitely more.

[01:09:49] Just guy stuff.

[01:09:50] Just guy stuff.

[01:09:50] But it's also just a more normal situation.

[01:09:53] Again, what you would expect to see when he's around jurors, you do not want people

[01:09:56] to be seeing him in a light that could make them be prejudiced against him, because that's

[01:10:02] not fair to him.

[01:10:03] That's not conducive to a fair trial.

[01:10:06] After the break, round three, started again with Prosecutor McClellan.

[01:10:11] Anything to say about this particular round?

[01:10:14] I'm looking through, you know, one thing I was just noticing with a lot of the jurors,

[01:10:19] a lot of people, I mean, I think it kind of underscores that we have a caregiving crisis

[01:10:23] in this country.

[01:10:23] A lot of people's conflicts were that they couldn't get childcare or that they're the

[01:10:27] sole caregiver for a sick or elderly relative or a grandchild with special needs.

[01:10:33] And, you know, that's something that resonates and that's something that just came up a

[01:10:40] lot.

[01:10:41] And it just, again, we have a problem in this country and it's going to boil over sooner

[01:10:44] than later.

[01:10:45] But that was one thing.

[01:10:47] A lot of people had things where they're like, I feel very anxious and depressed and

[01:10:51] like, I don't think this is going to be good.

[01:10:52] But, you know, people had different reasons.

[01:10:55] Some of them very poignant.

[01:10:56] But, I mean, I think out of respect for privacy, we're not going to go into too many specifics.

[01:11:00] It's just that that was something I noticed a lot of jurors saying, I want to do my civic

[01:11:04] duty.

[01:11:04] I want to help.

[01:11:05] But I really cannot.

[01:11:07] Yeah, that was said over and over again in this round.

[01:11:11] Very similar questions from McClellan.

[01:11:14] Does anybody think that the burden of proof for the state is too low?

[01:11:18] Does anybody think you actually need to see a video of someone actually committing the

[01:11:22] crime?

[01:11:22] Well, I mean, if you look on true crime spaces online, there are a lot of people who, you

[01:11:27] know, might jump to like, no, if he's accused, he must be guilty.

[01:11:31] And then you have a lot of people who are the opposite problem where it's like, no, I need

[01:11:34] to personally be at the scene watching the murder occur in order to buy that this guy

[01:11:39] did it.

[01:11:40] And both are obviously too extreme and do not have no place on a jury, frankly, in my

[01:11:45] view.

[01:11:46] So they want to make people, they want to get reasonable people.

[01:11:50] Exactly.

[01:11:50] Basically, they want to get the middle.

[01:11:53] Do you want to talk about this next round?

[01:11:56] The defense questioning was done by Jennifer Oje.

[01:11:59] Jennifer Oje, yeah.

[01:12:00] She, you know, she's more, she's a newcomer to the team.

[01:12:03] Not, I mean, I don't mean newcomer like she came on very recently, but she's the newest

[01:12:06] member.

[01:12:07] So for a long time, it was Baldwin and Rosie.

[01:12:09] They brought on Oje.

[01:12:11] And, you know, she hasn't really gotten a lot to do in the courtroom, at least, where

[01:12:15] we've been able to like showcase her skills.

[01:12:17] Like, you know, there was some confused question of questioning of Christopher Cecil that other

[01:12:21] reporters still cite as being very confusing.

[01:12:24] You know, whatever.

[01:12:26] But I thought she did a very good job.

[01:12:27] She, you know, what I wrote down was clear and calm.

[01:12:33] Right.

[01:12:33] And just kind of reassuring.

[01:12:35] Just very, you know, like very reasonable, methodical.

[01:12:38] I thought she did a good job.

[01:12:40] She.

[01:12:41] I thought she did.

[01:12:41] There's kind of a funny moment early on.

[01:12:43] Yeah.

[01:12:43] Go.

[01:12:43] Go.

[01:12:44] Where she says, you know, sometimes defense attorneys like myself, they get bad raps.

[01:12:50] People think we're shady.

[01:12:52] And a potential juror said, is that true?

[01:12:54] That was amazing.

[01:12:56] That was amazing.

[01:12:58] Like he was asking her suddenly, like the tables have turned.

[01:13:03] But she did a good job just being personable without, you know, it was just like, I felt

[01:13:06] like, I felt like in some ways, even though I love Baldwin's kind of over the top and emotions,

[01:13:11] I really liked her style too.

[01:13:13] It was different.

[01:13:14] It was a little bit more pared down, but it felt very reasonable.

[01:13:17] Very emotional in an understated way.

[01:13:20] Very.

[01:13:20] Yeah.

[01:13:21] And I think she had a good moment.

[01:13:23] She held up a book that was blue.

[01:13:26] And she said, we're going to talk about experts.

[01:13:29] And so a great way to discuss this is, you know, an expert may look at this blue book

[01:13:34] and say the book is blue.

[01:13:36] But another expert may say that it's red.

[01:13:39] So how do you as a juror deal with that?

[01:13:43] And what she wanted them to say was, well, you would use your own background and experience

[01:13:46] and maybe feel comfortable coming to a different conclusion than the expert.

[01:13:52] And she suggested people who do that are independent thinkers.

[01:13:56] So obviously this is to set the stage for them disputing some expert testimony down the road.

[01:14:05] She wanted to know if people could see disturbing images and be able to still logically and rationally

[01:14:11] think things through.

[01:14:14] So that was something she was trying to vet a lot.

[01:14:16] Like, can you see the images of dead, murdered children and still be able to basically function

[01:14:23] and keep an open mind?

[01:14:25] Or are you just going to sort of assume Richard Allen did it?

[01:14:31] Anything else from Oje's round?

[01:14:33] No, it was, you know, I know she kind of ran out of time at the end.

[01:14:36] But I thought she, again, she and Baldwin, if that had been the team here,

[01:14:44] I think that would have been much better than it was.

[01:14:47] And am I correct that in this round we just got one?

[01:14:50] Yeah.

[01:14:51] So, like, the first round was like, okay, a lot of these people are in.

[01:14:56] And I think we could sense that.

[01:14:57] The second round was like less.

[01:14:58] And then that round I was like, most of these people are totally out.

[01:15:01] I was surprised that it was only one that got in.

[01:15:04] But honestly, a lot of people were just like, I can't do this.

[01:15:07] I can't do this.

[01:15:08] Like, I have this conflict, this conflict.

[01:15:09] No.

[01:15:10] And then a bunch of people kept saying, I've watched the media

[01:15:13] and I've already made up my mind.

[01:15:15] None of those specified I made up my mind for guilt or innocence.

[01:15:18] But people said, no, I made up my mind.

[01:15:21] I'd say the most common issue was conflicts, though.

[01:15:24] Yes.

[01:15:25] There were some people, though.

[01:15:25] I mean, we said that you can find a fair jury.

[01:15:28] And I think the fact that we got most of the jury so quickly today

[01:15:32] is a testament to that.

[01:15:33] But there were people who were honest and said, listen, I've been watching it.

[01:15:36] One guy kept, I forget what round this was, but one guy was like,

[01:15:39] this is all my work talks about.

[01:15:41] This is all the people at work talk about.

[01:15:43] And I just, I cannot be fair.

[01:15:44] I already have an opinion.

[01:15:46] And I will not leave that opinion.

[01:15:48] Again, no idea what his opinion was.

[01:15:50] They didn't want them to go into that.

[01:15:51] But, you know, some people did have that experience.

[01:15:56] Fourth round, again, starts with Nick McClelland.

[01:16:01] He asked some of the juries about some of the hardships they would have

[01:16:05] if they were chosen.

[01:16:09] Anything else from the fourth round from him?

[01:16:14] Not really.

[01:16:16] Fourth round, yeah.

[01:16:17] No, I mean, it was pretty much the same.

[01:16:19] And honestly, him asking so much about hardships made it look like he was,

[01:16:22] like, very caring.

[01:16:23] So I think that was probably a good strategy.

[01:16:26] Yeah.

[01:16:26] You know, it's not like he was basically like,

[01:16:28] we don't want to traumatize you.

[01:16:29] We don't want to force you to be on a jury.

[01:16:31] Like, if it would be really bad, we want to give you an out.

[01:16:35] So I thought that was, you know,

[01:16:37] that was something that he was able to emphasize a lot.

[01:16:39] In the next portion for Brad Rosey, I just wrote,

[01:16:43] he's cross-examining the prospective jurors.

[01:16:46] Yeah, he got back on,

[01:16:50] Prosecuting McClelland, you know, he had this thing,

[01:16:52] well, do you think I'm a lawyer even though you haven't seen my paperwork?

[01:16:58] Yes, you do think that because of your common sense and context.

[01:17:03] And that example really seemed to get under the skin of this defense team

[01:17:09] for some reason.

[01:17:10] And so Rosie was like, do you really think that example,

[01:17:14] is it all comparable to something as serious as the guilt or innocence

[01:17:17] of Richard Allen?

[01:17:18] And then the McClelland said, approach.

[01:17:21] They went up to the judge.

[01:17:22] What was wild was then some of the prospective jurors

[01:17:25] were going back at Rosie when he was like, kind of,

[01:17:28] was that in this round or later on?

[01:17:30] I don't know.

[01:17:31] In one of the final rounds, they were going back at him.

[01:17:33] They were like, well, we think McClelland was just using that

[01:17:36] as an example.

[01:17:36] And we understand that the murder charge is obviously a lot more serious

[01:17:39] than us believing whether or not McClelland is an attorney.

[01:17:41] But we're adults who are capable of thinking through examples.

[01:17:44] And we kind of, you know, we understand what he meant.

[01:17:49] I think he, I think Rosie had a problem where he was

[01:17:52] underestimating some of the prospective jurors.

[01:17:54] And then he had an interesting line of questions.

[01:18:00] And it is possible that this line of questioning was just him trying to come up

[01:18:08] with a dramatic way to illustrate the point that under the law,

[01:18:13] a defense attorney doesn't have to prove anything.

[01:18:16] A defense attorney does not need to prove his client innocent.

[01:18:20] The burden of proof is on the prosecution.

[01:18:22] So if the prosecution puts on a whole presentation,

[01:18:25] puts on a whole case and the defense says we rest,

[01:18:27] we don't, we're not going to put on a case.

[01:18:29] That doesn't mean the defense should lose.

[01:18:31] The prosecution has to meet that burden.

[01:18:33] If they don't, they should, yeah.

[01:18:35] So Rosie may have been just trying to make that point

[01:18:39] or he may have been trying to foreshadow something

[01:18:41] because he says, what if we did not present a defense?

[01:18:46] Do you think we have an obligation to put a defense on?

[01:18:50] So I do not know if he was just trying to make a point

[01:18:52] or if he was trying to suggest that it is possible

[01:18:55] they won't even put on a defense.

[01:18:56] They're just trying to poke holes in the prosecution's case.

[01:18:58] I feel it's hard to believe that they won't put on a defense

[01:19:01] after all this time.

[01:19:02] But, you know, we don't know.

[01:19:03] And it is not their burden to put on the defense.

[01:19:05] So, I mean, that would be completely within their rights.

[01:19:09] He asked him, do you think all cops are honest?

[01:19:12] He said, you know, people can be good, hardworking people,

[01:19:15] but maybe they just don't have the capacity to do the job.

[01:19:19] He brings up Richard Allen not testifying.

[01:19:22] He talks about what he called, like, government processes.

[01:19:28] This next bit might be of interest to Carol Weineke

[01:19:31] because he mentioned that, you know, the government invested in NASA

[01:19:34] and we went to the moon.

[01:19:36] But does the fact that the government buy into a process

[01:19:39] necessarily mean that everybody has to accept it?

[01:19:42] So basically, just because the prosecution is the government

[01:19:45] and represents the state doesn't mean they're right,

[01:19:47] which, yeah, that's fair.

[01:19:48] And most of the prospective jurors were basically saying,

[01:19:51] yeah, we know that the government does good things

[01:19:53] but is also capable of making mistakes.

[01:19:55] I found when he was talking, to go back a little bit to the point

[01:19:58] where he was making about the, we don't need to put on a case,

[01:20:01] he was very, very aggressively drilling a lot of those questions

[01:20:04] specifically towards one prospective juror.

[01:20:08] And, uh...

[01:20:09] That was odd.

[01:20:10] It was odd and I don't want to say off-putting

[01:20:12] because I understand what he was doing,

[01:20:14] but he seemed to be kind of getting frustrated with this person

[01:20:16] and it just was like, listen, like,

[01:20:18] you could probably make your point in a more chill way

[01:20:21] that then people will understand

[01:20:22] because I don't think people who are in the legal system

[01:20:24] necessarily understand that.

[01:20:26] And it's probably better to explain it to them

[01:20:29] in the form of questions

[01:20:30] rather than kind of be getting,

[01:20:34] like, not getting the answer you want and keep going

[01:20:37] because that's not really getting anywhere.

[01:20:43] So, at the end of that round,

[01:20:44] I think we got two more jurors for a total of 13.

[01:20:48] Of course, you need 12 jurors

[01:20:51] and the idea was to have four alternates.

[01:20:53] Now, bizarrely, to watch...

[01:20:58] I'll get more into this later.

[01:21:00] I wonder sometimes if there is a competence problem

[01:21:03] in Carroll County.

[01:21:04] Not Carroll County.

[01:21:05] Pardon me.

[01:21:06] I wonder sometimes if there's a competence problem

[01:21:08] in Allen County.

[01:21:09] Carroll County is great.

[01:21:11] Carroll County gets a lot of what, in my opinion,

[01:21:14] is undeserved grief

[01:21:15] because, frankly,

[01:21:18] the prosecution team of Nick McClelland...

[01:21:24] Stacey Diener and James Luttrell.

[01:21:27] They're doing a great job.

[01:21:29] The clerk at the Carroll County Courthouse

[01:21:32] is incredible, very responsive to questions.

[01:21:36] The security team at the Carroll County Courthouse

[01:21:40] is just the right mixture of serious and intimidating

[01:21:43] but also human and friendly.

[01:21:46] They do everything great.

[01:21:48] I think a lot of the problems people have

[01:21:50] with the way this trial is being conducted,

[01:21:55] their complaints are really with this Allen County outfit.

[01:21:58] So the last panel,

[01:22:00] we needed, in order to complete it,

[01:22:03] the number of jurors...

[01:22:07] We needed three.

[01:22:08] They needed three.

[01:22:10] Which, for if you had another panel of 12 people,

[01:22:13] I don't think that would have been a problem.

[01:22:15] Yep.

[01:22:15] We could have gotten it.

[01:22:18] But because of, I don't know,

[01:22:20] the last panel was just four people.

[01:22:25] And...

[01:22:26] We didn't get it.

[01:22:27] We didn't get it.

[01:22:28] We missed it by two.

[01:22:31] And maybe more,

[01:22:33] based on some of the things that were said.

[01:22:34] So there was this one final mini panel.

[01:22:37] It was kind of the same old thing from McClelland.

[01:22:40] Was that pretty much it?

[01:22:41] And at this point,

[01:22:42] everyone's kind of flagging in terms of energy.

[01:22:45] At one point, Brad Rosie made an awkward comment.

[01:22:49] Because, again, for some reason,

[01:22:50] they had him do the finale,

[01:22:52] where we talked to one juror

[01:22:55] who talked about having past legal problems

[01:22:57] and referred to him as a bad boy.

[01:22:58] It was just like...

[01:23:02] I think he has a tone problem.

[01:23:03] And I think that's not great to have with this voir dire process.

[01:23:09] And I just...

[01:23:11] You know,

[01:23:12] that kind of wrapped it up.

[01:23:13] And they got one more juror out of it.

[01:23:16] But that leaves,

[01:23:16] we need to have two more alternates.

[01:23:18] And then it came up that maybe we need another juror

[01:23:21] because something came up

[01:23:22] that the judge mentioned saying,

[01:23:24] like,

[01:23:25] maybe one juror brought up some issues

[01:23:27] that weren't uncovered during voir dire.

[01:23:29] So how's the...

[01:23:30] Would the process for that be?

[01:23:31] They, like, remove...

[01:23:32] Like, they dismiss that juror

[01:23:33] and bring in a new one?

[01:23:34] Potentially.

[01:23:35] Well, I hope so.

[01:23:36] Because, you know,

[01:23:37] they don't need that, like,

[01:23:39] halfway through trial.

[01:23:40] And I want to mention,

[01:23:41] again,

[01:23:41] there was no meal break.

[01:23:43] And this went on from, like,

[01:23:45] roughly 9 a.m.

[01:23:46] to, like, 4.45 maybe.

[01:23:49] Uh...

[01:23:49] Uh...

[01:23:50] Judge Gould noted

[01:23:51] that the 52-person panel

[01:23:52] that we mentioned

[01:23:53] at the beginning of this episode

[01:23:54] was ensconced downstairs

[01:23:56] and that they were getting

[01:23:57] pretty frustrated by the end.

[01:23:58] So, yes.

[01:23:59] But again,

[01:24:00] if you had...

[01:24:01] If you knew each panel took an hour

[01:24:03] and you knew that after that hour

[01:24:06] you probably needed 10 or 15 minutes

[01:24:08] for the attorneys to decide

[01:24:10] who to accept

[01:24:10] and who to reject,

[01:24:13] why would you assume

[01:24:15] you could get through

[01:24:17] 10 panels full of people

[01:24:20] in anything close to an 8-hour day?

[01:24:24] Hubris?

[01:24:25] I also want to...

[01:24:27] Again, we're going to talk more

[01:24:28] about our issues

[01:24:28] with the press pass process.

[01:24:31] And actually,

[01:24:32] just the media process in general.

[01:24:34] But I wanted to say

[01:24:34] the press pass thing...

[01:24:36] Public access, I should say.

[01:24:37] The press pass thing in particular,

[01:24:39] there were five press passes

[01:24:41] allotted today

[01:24:42] and three of the people

[01:24:45] holding those passes

[01:24:46] left early.

[01:24:48] Yeah.

[01:24:48] Not necessarily their fault

[01:24:50] because people who are reporters

[01:24:51] have obligations.

[01:24:52] They might have to go out

[01:24:54] and do a live shot

[01:24:55] or whatever.

[01:24:55] And then they can't come back in.

[01:24:56] And then they can't come back in.

[01:24:58] So you're in a situation

[01:24:59] where if you only have

[01:25:01] a handful of these

[01:25:03] precious press passes

[01:25:05] and people have to leave

[01:25:06] for one reason or another

[01:25:08] and aren't allowed back in,

[01:25:09] at the end of the day,

[01:25:11] there's going to be

[01:25:11] a coverage problem.

[01:25:12] You're penalizing reporters

[01:25:14] for having, you know...

[01:25:16] Jobs.

[01:25:16] Jobs.

[01:25:17] And you are also depriving

[01:25:18] the public of the most

[01:25:20] robust coverage possible.

[01:25:21] And it's very unfortunate.

[01:25:23] We'll have more to say

[01:25:24] about that.

[01:25:24] We'll have a lot more

[01:25:25] to say about this.

[01:25:26] But yeah,

[01:25:26] it is troubling how clear

[01:25:28] it has been made

[01:25:29] to one and all

[01:25:30] that public access

[01:25:32] to this tremendously

[01:25:33] important

[01:25:34] and this tremendously

[01:25:34] complex trial

[01:25:36] is by no means

[01:25:37] a priority

[01:25:38] to this Allen County outfit.

[01:25:40] It's very discouraging.

[01:25:41] Yeah, it is.

[01:25:42] But you know what?

[01:25:43] In the meantime,

[01:25:43] we'll continue to attend

[01:25:45] and try to...

[01:25:47] Do our best to attend.

[01:25:48] Do our best to attend.

[01:25:48] We don't have a press pass.

[01:25:49] We don't.

[01:25:50] I do want to say

[01:25:51] tomorrow we should finish up

[01:25:52] the jury selection.

[01:25:54] And they also indicated

[01:25:56] that Judge Golan

[01:25:57] tends to rule

[01:25:58] on outstanding motions.

[01:26:00] Yeah.

[01:26:00] And then Wednesday

[01:26:01] is going to be

[01:26:02] an off day.

[01:26:04] On Thursday,

[01:26:05] they're going to swear

[01:26:06] in the jury.

[01:26:07] I don't think we're going

[01:26:07] to attend that.

[01:26:08] No.

[01:26:09] And then Friday,

[01:26:10] the trial itself starts.

[01:26:12] The process we're all familiar

[01:26:13] with with opening statements.

[01:26:15] Absolutely.

[01:26:16] And we'll try to keep you

[01:26:17] informed the whole time.

[01:26:18] But in the meantime,

[01:26:19] you know,

[01:26:20] stay safe.

[01:26:20] And thanks so much

[01:26:21] for listening.

[01:26:24] Thanks so much

[01:26:25] for listening

[01:26:25] to The Murder Sheet.

[01:26:26] If you have a tip

[01:26:28] concerning one of the cases

[01:26:29] we cover,

[01:26:30] please email us

[01:26:31] at murdersheet

[01:26:32] at gmail.com.

[01:26:35] If you have actionable

[01:26:37] information about

[01:26:38] an unsolved crime,

[01:26:39] please report it

[01:26:41] to the appropriate

[01:26:42] authorities.

[01:26:44] If you're interested

[01:26:45] in joining our Patreon,

[01:26:47] that's available

[01:26:48] at

[01:26:48] www.patreon.com

[01:26:52] slash murdersheet.

[01:26:53] If you want to tip us

[01:26:55] a bit of money

[01:26:56] for records requests,

[01:26:57] you can do so

[01:26:59] at

[01:26:59] www.buymeacoffee.com

[01:27:02] slash murdersheet.

[01:27:04] We very much

[01:27:05] appreciate any support.

[01:27:08] Special thanks

[01:27:09] to Kevin Tyler Greenlee,

[01:27:10] who composed the music

[01:27:11] for The Murder Sheet,

[01:27:12] and who you can find

[01:27:14] on the web

[01:27:14] at kevintg.com.

[01:27:17] If you're looking

[01:27:18] to talk with other

[01:27:20] listeners about

[01:27:20] a case we've covered,

[01:27:22] you can join

[01:27:22] the Murder Sheet

[01:27:23] discussion group

[01:27:24] on Facebook.

[01:27:25] We mostly focus

[01:27:27] our time on

[01:27:27] research and reporting,

[01:27:28] so we're not

[01:27:29] on social media much.

[01:27:31] We do try to check

[01:27:32] our email account,

[01:27:34] but we ask for patience

[01:27:35] as we often receive

[01:27:36] a lot of messages.

[01:27:38] Thanks again

[01:27:38] for listening.

[01:27:41] Thanks so much

[01:27:42] for sticking around

[01:27:43] to the end

[01:27:43] of this Murder Sheet episode.

[01:27:45] Just as a quick

[01:27:46] post-roll ad,

[01:27:47] we wanted to tell you

[01:27:48] again about

[01:27:49] our friend Jason Blair's

[01:27:50] wonderful Silver Linings

[01:27:52] Handbook.

[01:27:53] This show is phenomenal.

[01:27:55] Whether you are

[01:27:56] interested in true crime,

[01:27:58] the criminal justice system,

[01:27:59] law, mental health,

[01:28:01] stories of marginalized

[01:28:02] people, overcoming tragedy,

[01:28:05] well-being,

[01:28:05] like he does it all.

[01:28:07] This is a show for you.

[01:28:08] He has so many

[01:28:09] different conversations

[01:28:11] with interesting people,

[01:28:12] people whose loved ones

[01:28:13] have gone missing,

[01:28:16] other podcasters

[01:28:17] in the true crime space,

[01:28:19] just interesting people

[01:28:20] with interesting

[01:28:21] life experiences.

[01:28:23] And Jason's gift,

[01:28:25] I think,

[01:28:25] is just being an

[01:28:26] incredibly empathetic

[01:28:27] and compassionate

[01:28:28] interviewer,

[01:28:28] where he's really

[01:28:29] letting his guests

[01:28:30] tell their stories

[01:28:31] and asking really

[01:28:32] interesting questions

[01:28:33] along the way,

[01:28:34] guiding those

[01:28:35] conversations forward.

[01:28:36] I would liken it

[01:28:37] to like you're kind of

[01:28:38] almost sitting down

[01:28:38] with friends

[01:28:39] and sort of just

[01:28:40] hearing these

[01:28:41] fascinating tales

[01:28:42] that you wouldn't

[01:28:42] get otherwise

[01:28:43] because he just

[01:28:45] has that ability

[01:28:45] as an interviewer

[01:28:46] to tease it out

[01:28:48] and really make it

[01:28:49] interesting for his

[01:28:50] audience.

[01:28:51] On a personal level,

[01:28:52] Jason is frankly

[01:28:53] a great guy.

[01:28:54] Yes.

[01:28:55] He's been a really

[01:28:55] good friend to us

[01:28:57] and so it's fun

[01:28:59] to be able to

[01:29:00] hit a button

[01:29:01] on my phone

[01:29:01] and get a little

[01:29:02] dose of Jason

[01:29:03] talking to people

[01:29:04] whenever I want.

[01:29:05] It's a really

[01:29:06] terrific show.

[01:29:07] We really recommend

[01:29:08] it highly.

[01:29:09] Yeah, I think

[01:29:09] our audience

[01:29:10] will like it

[01:29:11] and you've already

[01:29:11] met Jason

[01:29:12] if you listen

[01:29:12] consistently to our

[01:29:13] show.

[01:29:14] He's been on our

[01:29:14] show a couple

[01:29:14] times.

[01:29:15] We've been on

[01:29:15] his show.

[01:29:16] He's a terrific

[01:29:17] guest.

[01:29:18] I say this in one

[01:29:19] of our ads about

[01:29:20] him but I literally

[01:29:21] always, I'm like,

[01:29:21] oh yeah, I remember

[01:29:22] when Jason said

[01:29:23] this.

[01:29:23] That really

[01:29:23] resonated.

[01:29:24] Like I do

[01:29:24] quote him in

[01:29:26] conversations

[01:29:27] sometimes because

[01:29:27] he really has a

[01:29:28] good grasp of

[01:29:29] different complicated

[01:29:30] issues.

[01:29:30] She quotes him to me

[01:29:30] all the time.

[01:29:31] I do.

[01:29:31] I'm like,

[01:29:32] remember when Jason

[01:29:32] said this?

[01:29:33] That was so

[01:29:33] right.

[01:29:33] So I mean,

[01:29:34] I think if we're

[01:29:35] doing that and

[01:29:36] you like us,

[01:29:37] I think you should

[01:29:38] give it a shot,

[01:29:38] give it a try.

[01:29:39] I think you'll

[01:29:39] really enjoy it.

[01:29:40] And again,

[01:29:41] he does a range

[01:29:41] of different topics

[01:29:42] but they all

[01:29:43] kind of have

[01:29:43] the similar

[01:29:44] theme of

[01:29:45] compassion,

[01:29:46] of overcoming

[01:29:47] suffering,

[01:29:48] of dealing

[01:29:48] with suffering,

[01:29:49] of mental

[01:29:49] health,

[01:29:50] wellness,

[01:29:50] things like

[01:29:51] that.

[01:29:51] There's kind

[01:29:52] of a common

[01:29:52] through line

[01:29:53] of compassion

[01:29:54] and empathy

[01:29:54] there that I

[01:29:55] think we find

[01:29:55] very nice and

[01:29:57] we work on a lot

[01:29:58] of stories that

[01:29:59] can be very

[01:30:00] tough and we

[01:30:00] try to bring

[01:30:01] compassion and

[01:30:02] empathy to

[01:30:02] it.

[01:30:02] But this is

[01:30:03] something that

[01:30:04] almost can be

[01:30:04] like if you're

[01:30:05] kind of feeling

[01:30:05] a little burned

[01:30:06] out by true

[01:30:06] crime,

[01:30:06] I think this

[01:30:07] is kind of

[01:30:07] the life

[01:30:08] affirming stuff

[01:30:08] that can be

[01:30:11] nice to listen

[01:30:11] to in a

[01:30:12] podcast.

[01:30:13] It's

[01:30:13] compassionate,

[01:30:15] it's

[01:30:15] affirming,

[01:30:16] but I also

[01:30:17] want to

[01:30:17] emphasize

[01:30:18] it's smart.

[01:30:20] People,

[01:30:21] Jason is a

[01:30:22] very intelligent,

[01:30:23] articulate person.

[01:30:25] This is a

[01:30:26] smart show but

[01:30:26] it's an

[01:30:27] accessible show.

[01:30:28] I think you'll

[01:30:29] all really enjoy

[01:30:30] it.

[01:30:30] Yeah,

[01:30:30] and he's

[01:30:30] got a great

[01:30:31] community that

[01:30:32] he's building.

[01:30:32] So we're really

[01:30:33] excited to be a

[01:30:33] part of that.

[01:30:34] We're fans of the

[01:30:35] show.

[01:30:35] We love it and

[01:30:36] we would strongly

[01:30:37] encourage you all

[01:30:38] to check it out.

[01:30:39] Download some

[01:30:39] episodes,

[01:30:40] listen.

[01:30:40] I think you'll

[01:30:41] understand what

[01:30:42] we're talking about

[01:30:42] once you do.

[01:30:43] But anyways,

[01:30:44] you can listen to

[01:30:45] The Silver Linings

[01:30:46] Handbook wherever

[01:30:47] you listen to

[01:30:47] podcasts.

[01:30:48] wherever you

[01:30:48] listen to podcasts.

[01:30:49] Very easy to

[01:30:50] find.

[01:30:50] Absolutely.