December 7, 2025 • 25 mins
In this week’s Crime Roundup, Sheryl McCollum and Joshua Schiffer Break down the federal hearing surrounding Luigi Mangione, the suspect accused of assassinating UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson in December of 2024. What began as a five-day manhunt has become a master class in what not to do, with missed warrants, coached testimony, and evidence on the verge of being thrown out.
Sheryl and Joshua examine how procedural missteps could weaken a potential death penalty case and why “get a warrant” isn't just good advice; it's the foundation of justice. They then turned their attention to Massachusetts, where the trial of Brian Walshe, who is accused of killing and dismembering his wife, reveals how arrogance, lies, and a trail of Google searches can expose a killer's truth.
Highlights:
• (0:00) Welcome to Crime Roundup with Sheryl McCollum and Joshua Schiffer
• (0:15) "99 percent of the time, you need a warrant... it won’t hurt your case if you get one and don’t need it.”
• (4:00) Coached testimony and the danger of tailoring officer statements for admissibility
• (7:30) What happens when training, procedure, and pressure collide in the courtroom
• (9:00) How early media leaks and “pre-trial publicity” can poison a case before it begins
• (10:30) The potential collapse of key evidence and its impact on death penalty eligibility
• (12:15) The rules of criminal procedure and what it means when they don’t apply equally
• (17:15) The defense’s dream scenario: getting the weapon suppressed because of a“bad stop”
• (17:45) The Brian Walshe trail and the anatomy of a cover-up
• (19:30) Walshe’s “woke up and she was dead” defense and why it’s collapsing in court
• (21:45) The digital trail: how Google searches reveal motive, method, and mindset
• (23:00) Closing thoughts: why “get a warrant” isn’t optional, it’s the rule of law
About the Hosts
Joshua Schiffer is a veteran trial attorney and one of the Southeast’s most respected legal voices. He is a founding partner at ChancoSchiffer P.C., where he has litigated high-stakes criminal, civil rights, and personal injury cases for over two decades. Known for his bold courtroom presence and ability to clearly explain complex legal issues, Schiffer is a frequent media contributor and a fearless advocate for accountability.
Sheryl “Mac” McCollum is an active crime scene investigator for a Metro Atlanta Police Department and the director of the Cold Case Investigative Research Institute, which partners with colleges and universities nationwide. With more than 4 decades of experience, she has worked on thousands of cold cases using her investigative system, The Last 24/361, which integrates evidence, media, and advanced forensic testing. Her work on high-profile cases, including The Boston Strangler, Natalie Holloway, Tupac Shakur and the Moore’s Ford Bridge lynching, earned her an Emmy Award for CSI: Atlanta and induction into the National Law Enforcement Hall of Fame in 2023.
Preorder Sheryl’s upcoming book, Swans Don’t Swim in a Sewer: Lessons in Life,Justice, and Joy from a Forensic Scientist, releasing May 2026 from Simon and Schuster.
https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Swans-Dont-Swim-in-a-Sewer/Sheryl-Mac-McCollum/9798895652824
Stay Connected
Subscribe using your favorite podcast platform and leave a review to support the show. Have acase or topic you’d like Sheryl and Joshua to cover?
Email coldcase2004@gmail.com
Follow the Hosts:
• Sheryl on X: @ColdCaseTips
• Facebook: @sheryl.mccollum
• Joshua on X and Instagram: @lawyerschiff
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:08):
Welcome to Crime Round Up. Joshua Schieffer, I gotta tell you,
I am so irritated. I'm telling you, I mean, I
don't even have anything positive to start with. I try
to be a glass half full. But I'm going to
tell you something, and I want everybody that is wearing
a badge to listen to me right this minute. Ninety
(00:30):
nine point nine percent of the time you need a warrant.
Ninety nine zero point nine percent of the time you
need a warrant if you are searching a person, their home,
their business, or their vehicle.
Speaker 2 (00:47):
We've made it easy, and we've made it easy. Spent
the last fifty years figuring out okay lawrants are now
super required. Let's make it real easy to get them.
And we've done that, and.
Speaker 1 (01:01):
Let me make it even easier. I'm not an attorney.
Listen to me. I am not an attorney, but I
got one sitting here with me. It won't hurt your
case if you get one and don't need it. No, no,
So the question would be to me get one every time? Correct.
Speaker 2 (01:25):
There is no downside save exigent circumstances to getting a warrant.
Warrants are there as the mandatory bright Line Safety World check.
That is easy for judges to attach to, and they say,
all right, here's the stuff that happened when there was
a warrant. Here's the stuff that happened when there wasn't
a warrant. It's pretty easy to separate the two buckets. Cheryl,
(01:49):
You and I know half the damn judges in this town.
We could get a warrant within a very short period. Literally,
it's set up to video appear, get a warrant gone.
Speaker 1 (02:01):
Or the days you had to go search for somebody
at a bar or restaurant, it's all video, it's all electronic.
Speaker 2 (02:09):
They used to hunt judges down in person, just with
the piece of paper. Man, there was an officer whose job.
Oh no, I can go find Judge Smith. Let's go
find him. He'll sign this right now. Because warrants now
are so easy, there is no excuse.
Speaker 1 (02:25):
Joshua, Judge Andy Michkel, God rest his soul. We knew
where to find him.
Speaker 2 (02:31):
Oh yeah, oh yeah, wasn't herd.
Speaker 1 (02:33):
Bar Stool's end of a left.
Speaker 2 (02:35):
Yeah, old Judge Fuller out in Gwenett County, who I
knew very very well. Similarly, and you could find it's
not hard to find a magistrate. There's a duty magistrate
on twenty four hours a day in every major county
in the nation like it's And for those of y'all
(02:56):
that are wondering what we're covetching about, it's this mangione
here that is happening right now. Are probably just wrapped
up for the day and listening to very strong arguments
about fundamental stuff law enforcement is supposed to do. Be
(03:16):
aware of how they're supposed to act. Especially when you've
been dispatched on at the tail end of what is
then a five day man hunt for an assassination caught
on video. It has not been the strongest showing for
law enforcement.
Speaker 1 (03:33):
Bottom line, this will be, if not the biggest case
of their career, the biggest media case of their career.
How in the world do five officers show up then
supervisors are made aware of who they got and there's
not a warrant for that backpack.
Speaker 2 (03:55):
And now that they find themselves in this position on
a case of such importance, not just because it's a
big crime and a horrible murder, the politics that are
connected to this run real deep and fundamental, with some
class issues we haven't even gotten into the politics of
(04:16):
what the defense and mister Mangioni and all that, the
social movement. No, we haven't even gotten to that part.
This is fundamental operative stuff and the real problem is,
now that we're in the middle of it, it appears
that it would be fair to conclude the officer has
been specifically coached how to thread this needle in a
(04:42):
very delicate manner in order for the judge to allow
the evidence to stand. And that begs the question that
underlies all these criminal prosecutions and everything in civil courdia.
Are you lying? Is that really what happened?
Speaker 1 (05:00):
Are you?
Speaker 2 (05:00):
Are you just testifying because you know you need to
say this in order to prevail. Because unfortunately, when you
look at police citizen encounters, which have been litigated to
death for fifty years, you got there are tier levels.
There are more opinions on what an officer was and
(05:20):
was not allowed to do with or without what level
of suspicion. We now train officers with big bright highlighters. Hey,
here's how probable cause works. Here's where the lines are.
You gotta stay within the lines because if you get
outside the lines, everything happens outside that line is not
coming into your case, and unfortunately, this officer appeared to
(05:47):
have not taken this, by his own admission, as a
terribly serious dispatch. And he has got to establish it's
I believe dett Weiler is the name. He has got
to establish very specifically that when he was dispatched, he
didn't have any specific probable cause or realization that this
(06:10):
was the guy, that this was man joney. He has
to have been basically zero alert, because if he was
an alert, if he had suspicion, he should have gotten
a warrant. He should have mirandized people in me.
Speaker 1 (06:25):
That's right.
Speaker 2 (06:26):
It's this trap for the poor officer where he can't testify. Yeah, no,
I thought it was him, so I was just gonna
go poker. No no, no, no no. That's gonna lose the
case for you. And that poor officer is going to
get pilloried by the fact that it appears that his
testimony has been thoroughly coached in a specific way.
Speaker 1 (06:49):
Y'all, you have listened to Joshua Scheffer on Zone seven
Crime round Up Court TV al of other places. Y'all
don't always know the words he's using, Let's be honest.
He uses some phrases, some words where you're like, I
(07:10):
need to look that up. What did he just say?
Here's a hint. You don't want that person cross examining you.
Trust me, y'all heard him when he told y'all he
went to camp to learn how to come at you.
Speaker 2 (07:29):
And the reports from the actual examination include, and there
are some wonderful people. This is a course federal court,
so we're really struggling with knowing exactly what's happening inside
the room. But there have been multiple reports of some
admissions from the officers about their procedure that basically stopped
(07:52):
all the criminal practitioners in the room and everybody knows
that knows criminal law stop and looked at each other
and we're like, did he did he just say that? Okay,
let's keep going there and keeping going? That is not
a good feeling when you're the witness. That is not
(08:13):
a good feeling when that's your when that's your witness
and you're the lawyer, because the witness is going to
get down, go how did I do? Man? How'd I do?
And oh man, you did great? When you very clearly
illustrated your lack of knowledge as to this specific training
issue and gutted everything we're trying to do here with
your authentic testimony. And I'm afraid there were a couple
(08:37):
of those conversations coming with some of this When and
how you obtain a warrant because of warrants just that easy.
And I tell you, if the government loses the bag
and the contents, we're going to have a whole nother
discussion about the poisoning the jury. Well, you and I
(08:57):
talked about this last week and how these statements that
are coming out from the administration and other agencies really
push the ethical boundaries of what law enforcement is supposed
to say or not say, most importantly, not say at
the early stages of an investigation. And it brings in
(09:20):
all that pre trial publicity stuff where even the most
conservative justices that are on the most federal panels now
look at that and go, whoa whoa fundamental fairness issue.
You have an elected or appointed prosecutor that owns the
press dominating a narrative while this innocent citizen, and judges
(09:45):
really do think about the innocent citizen, they do they
reverse roles and go, what if it was me in
that position, what would I be able to do? And
they see that fundamental unfairness of a narrative being created
by law enforcem before there's any investigation. That makes it
very hard to have integrity in your judicial system. And now,
(10:08):
if you're going to get some of that key evidence,
i e. The manifesto or not a manifesto, the gun
not a gun, the statements not the statements about the
fake ID that's done a fit, Well, yeah, it's the
only fake ID I had. Man, you lose that stuff.
And I'm not saying the case falls apart, but it
sure isn't as strong as it should be.
Speaker 1 (10:29):
That's right. I don't believe the case is going to
fall apart one because we got a video. However, it
would be great to say, Hey, didn't he check into
that hostel with a fake ID from New Jersey? Is
this the same ID?
Speaker 2 (10:45):
Great?
Speaker 1 (10:45):
And what caliber nine millimeter was used? Is it the
same ammunition that was in that bag? Great? And this manifesto?
Does he not say I want to get a healthcare
CEO or whatever he says? You won't that to come in?
Speaker 2 (11:01):
Yeah, it's it is important evidence. And yet the fundamentals
of the case are going to stay the same. And
I'm certain that a good prosecutor can put together a
case even if the evidence is suppressed, but it is
not the case that the public deserves, and if there's
any chance at the most aggressive remedies being applied, which
(11:22):
a lot of people are calling for as one of
the few legitimate deterrent death penalty cases that's out there
because deterrence and the death penalty. Everybody says that death
penalty is not a deterrent. Well, when you've got a
random victim like this who's being selected purely because of
their political or economic position, Well, now now you've actually
(11:45):
got some deterrence because it tells the would be assassines. Nope, nope, nope,
we'll make these political cases death penalty. If the death
penalty portion of this case gets substantially weaker, that causes
big problems. And I tell you every suppressed piece of
evidence is going to be multiple appeals if this is
(12:05):
a death penalty case.
Speaker 1 (12:07):
But you shouldn't give them, just give them anything. Oh yeah,
I mean, this would be a huge blow. Shouldn't happen,
should not even be up for discussion, shouldn't be something
we're in court arguing about. It should have been done
by the book, by the numbers. They should have called
(12:29):
in a district attorney to say, hey, how do we proceed?
What do we do? This is the guy.
Speaker 2 (12:38):
And what's frustrating from the practitioner perspective is due to
this being so factually driven and rules and procedure driven.
No matter what your political and personal moral persuasions are
in the criminal justice system, you probably haven't attached to
(13:00):
the rules. And you can be pro state, you can
be pro defense. This is a art. Do you believe in?
Rules are not? Because there aren't more clear rules than
some of these. And if these rules, if the rules
don't apply here, when do they really apply?
Speaker 1 (13:22):
I mean, a man's life is on the line.
Speaker 2 (13:25):
One of the big criticisms of our system is every
error is harmless and it's oh the rules, man, they're
all there, but they're not real rules because hold on,
you can violate them and still achieve a conviction that
with stands appellate review. And so now you just don't
need the state breaking one or two rules. Now you
(13:45):
need you need some pretty good stuff, clear violations of
a clear law rule ruling to win on appeal. This
would appear to be kind of clear and sets back
the whole discourse.
Speaker 1 (14:06):
To me if you have an officer testifying and he says, look,
I mean I get this call to go to a McDonald's.
No way, it's this guy. He planned this thing so
well that you would think, Okay, he's been in a hostel.
Nobody's gonna really see him fake id. He moved about
(14:28):
the city without leaving much of a trail, or so
he thought. The way he took the bus, the way
he took you know, other transportations try to hide. Yeah,
I understand, and I would completely when I would be
listening to him, I would get that, no way, this
(14:50):
is going to be the guy. But I'm going to
stroll into the McDonald's and I'm gonna make him happy.
I'm gonna do my job. I'm gonna check him out. Well,
he knew as soon as he saw him, that's the
guy we've all been seeing at that moment. There should
have been a supervisor notified. There should have been you know,
an ada en route. I mean, this thing should have
(15:14):
been let's circle the wagons and let's get to the
smartest person to tell us the best course of action.
Speaker 2 (15:22):
And really, even if you're an inexperienced or undertrained officer,
which this officer unfortunately isn't he knew had well enough
training to know what to do or not do. Let
the training kick in, all right, at the moment you
realize it's him, it's detention, Miranda, and then call for
(15:46):
guidance and backup as soon as you have exigently secured
the scene, because as soon as you realize, oh, look
that's a killer, you get to be a friend. Officer
has the right and the privilege to be fearful for
public and personal safety the moment he realizes the person
(16:08):
that he's interacting with is the subject of a manhunt
and want it. But he'd kind of been told that
before even showing up. He just needed to make sure
he disclaims that enough. And in fact, there was very
specific testimony today about how the supervising officer had said, Hey,
if it's really him, I'll buy you a hogie, trying
(16:33):
to show how much of this wasn't serious and the
state needs this to not be serious until officer actually
identifies him. But then the moment you've identified him, everything's
got to go, according to the book, because this is
going to be picked apart and scrutinized to the highest level.
(16:54):
So you put him in custody, secure the safety of yourself,
the defendant, anybody else around, and then you call for
backup and you get the right direction, including before you
search anything, get a warrant, before you say anything to him.
(17:14):
You morandize him, and to miss some easy swings built
a pile of nuggets that the defense is reveling in.
Imagine being the defense lawyer and getting the potential murder
weapon suppressed because of a bad stop. And that's really
(17:38):
how you're going to hear this referred to is this
was a bad stop.
Speaker 1 (17:42):
Get a warrant, Get a warrant, Get a warrant, Get
a warrant.
Speaker 2 (17:46):
Not everybody is as sophisticated as mister MANGIONI. Though we
have some other trial action going on this week, I
don't know if you've been paying too much attention to
that big case out of Massachusetts, this Brian Walsh case,
which you can tell it's a slow trial season because
this is the case that so many people are on
(18:08):
right now, talk about a case that didn't need to
get tried. I one hundred percent believe this was a
zero offer case that it was man. You can plead
to the court, you can take the deal, but we
ain't going to give you one minute off of a
(18:30):
max recommendation because of just the horrificness of the allegations,
followed up by the overwhelming evidence that Brian Walsh, who
killed his wife, dismembered her, hid her body, and then
lied to everyone, including their three kids, about what happened
to mommy. I almost feel bad for the defense crew,
(18:53):
except for the fact that I that I really kind
of am picking a bone with them the defense opening,
and these don't have squat to work with. The big
mistake that lawyers make is that if you don't have
anything to work with, you just get loud and angry
and people will pay attention to you. But that's basically
telling everybody, hey, we don't have anything and we need
(19:13):
to lose. And the defense for mister Walsh is laughable
and is basically guaranteeing he has to show up and
testify and he's going to get eviscerated on cross but
that he woke up in the middle of the night
or was there in the middle of the night, and
she was supposed to be asleep when he gets into
bed and she's not asleep, she's dead. And instead of
(19:35):
you know, calling ambulances and law enforcement and you know,
family members and freaking out, No, he started searching the
internet for the worst how do you dispose of a body?
Admissions of all time? Then he disposed of the body
and what I'm pretty certain is a graphically inexcusably awful
(19:59):
manner involving multiple dumpsters.
Speaker 1 (20:03):
Uh.
Speaker 2 (20:03):
And then he's lied his way into this position where
I expect, after a disastrous attempt, for him to save
himself via testify, and he's going to get convicted and
sentenced to multiple consecutives.
Speaker 1 (20:19):
Well, I try to say as often as I can,
a lie is as good as a confession. But once
once I lock you in and you start changing it
even slightly. Now we're getting somewhere. But you know, it's
always a clue to me, Josh. When your place of
(20:40):
business report you missing before your.
Speaker 2 (20:44):
Spouse bingo being it was like, okay, man, there's just
no logic in no matter what story you start to tell,
because you've failed to pass the first step, Like you don't,
you don't just keep quiet about them. Things wake up
next to a dead woman crawling to bed and the
(21:05):
person's dead and quiet. That is not what's happening. No
one understands or agrees with. No, no, no, you don't
tell anybody about that.
Speaker 1 (21:14):
Yeah, don't tell them. And you don't want to upset
the kids, so chap her up and get rid of her.
Speaker 2 (21:18):
Certainly not the three children you have. Oh and the
fact that you discovered that, yes, she was having an affair,
and that's awful and terrible. It's not death penalty though,
like having an affair shouldn't result in you being murdered
general rules. But yeah, this case and it again, and
(21:39):
a lot of the discussion is about the narcissism and
almost psychopathy of putting up a defense like this, because
it's so ridiculous his Google searches. All right, ladies and gentlemen,
if you did it on the internet, we can pay
somebody to go find out what you did. I know
you think you can encrypt a lot of it. And
there's arguments over the interpretate, but really, digital bits and
(22:03):
bites leave trails, and Google is only too happy to
comply with subpoenas, and man, his search history could not
be more inculpatory. It's can you identify a body when
you break the teeth in what's the best saw to
(22:24):
cut up a body is a hack saw really the
best saw to cut up a bot? Like it is, Cheryl,
I'm telling you, it makes you want to just wish
him into prison so that we don't have to be
exposed to the choices. It's it's insane but gripping television.
In a lot of ways, people really like watching the
(22:45):
case because of its salaciousness.
Speaker 1 (22:48):
Absolutely well, honey, I hate to cut this short, but yeah,
I've got a family dinner to get to. It's gonna
be a tough, tough night, but I do appreciate you always,
and I you know, I just I get so frustrated
because it's like, we've done it. We've told you, we've
(23:08):
trained you, and look where we are. We're in a
position we shouldn't be in.
Speaker 2 (23:13):
And the poor captain, the poor lieutenant, like, man, they
covered this like you go back to the barracks. Man,
you covered this right, like this is nausey on oh my,
it has got to be crushing.
Speaker 1 (23:31):
So to me, the training should be you get a warrant.
Every time, get a warrant.
Speaker 2 (23:36):
It's that easy, y'all. It ain't hard, you hear, Oh,
it's hard to get no, no, no, really, you raise
your hand, you say that you're a sworn police officer
with lots of training, and then you say, well, my
belief is I observed, since I observed this evidence, I
believe a crime has been committed. I would like to
show the permission of the court to put this person
(23:57):
under arrest and go search them. Most of the time
judges go and ask you a couple of questions such as,
it really is you and you really did see them
and this happened, or this is what you saw and
heard and reported from people. Yep, it's it's it's a specific,
articulable suspicion. It is not beyond a reasonable doubt. It
is not clear and convincing. It is not preponderance. That No,
(24:18):
it is the lowest bar in law. You have to
be able to enunciate and articulate a crime might have occur.
That's it. So there's just no excuse to skip. It's
(24:39):
like making a grilled cheese sandwich and you're like, well,
we're gonna do this, but we don't need cheese. Like
it just heals me.
Speaker 1 (24:48):
It just it just is so frustrating.
Speaker 2 (24:50):
I love talking at these conversations. The highlight of my week.
I love y'all in the audience, Michelle, I know that
you're gonna go celebrate some wonderful stuff with some love people.
So I'm gonna say good night to everyone. Go love somebody,
even if it's yourself. And I'm sorry if you heard
one of the Justice kitties purring the entire time. She's
(25:12):
just relentless these days.
Speaker 1 (25:15):
All right, have a good week. Can he not talk
to you, sir by?
Speaker 2 (25:18):
Y'all
Welcome to Crime Round Up. Joshua Schieffer, I gotta tell you,
I am so irritated. I'm telling you, I mean, I
don't even have anything positive to start with. I try
to be a glass half full. But I'm going to
tell you something, and I want everybody that is wearing
a badge to listen to me right this minute. Ninety
(00:30):
nine point nine percent of the time you need a warrant.
Ninety nine zero point nine percent of the time you
need a warrant if you are searching a person, their home,
their business, or their vehicle.
Speaker 2 (00:47):
We've made it easy, and we've made it easy. Spent
the last fifty years figuring out okay lawrants are now
super required. Let's make it real easy to get them.
And we've done that, and.
Speaker 1 (01:01):
Let me make it even easier. I'm not an attorney.
Listen to me. I am not an attorney, but I
got one sitting here with me. It won't hurt your
case if you get one and don't need it. No, no,
So the question would be to me get one every time? Correct.
Speaker 2 (01:25):
There is no downside save exigent circumstances to getting a warrant.
Warrants are there as the mandatory bright Line Safety World check.
That is easy for judges to attach to, and they say,
all right, here's the stuff that happened when there was
a warrant. Here's the stuff that happened when there wasn't
a warrant. It's pretty easy to separate the two buckets. Cheryl,
(01:49):
You and I know half the damn judges in this town.
We could get a warrant within a very short period. Literally,
it's set up to video appear, get a warrant gone.
Speaker 1 (02:01):
Or the days you had to go search for somebody
at a bar or restaurant, it's all video, it's all electronic.
Speaker 2 (02:09):
They used to hunt judges down in person, just with
the piece of paper. Man, there was an officer whose job.
Oh no, I can go find Judge Smith. Let's go
find him. He'll sign this right now. Because warrants now
are so easy, there is no excuse.
Speaker 1 (02:25):
Joshua, Judge Andy Michkel, God rest his soul. We knew
where to find him.
Speaker 2 (02:31):
Oh yeah, oh yeah, wasn't herd.
Speaker 1 (02:33):
Bar Stool's end of a left.
Speaker 2 (02:35):
Yeah, old Judge Fuller out in Gwenett County, who I
knew very very well. Similarly, and you could find it's
not hard to find a magistrate. There's a duty magistrate
on twenty four hours a day in every major county
in the nation like it's And for those of y'all
(02:56):
that are wondering what we're covetching about, it's this mangione
here that is happening right now. Are probably just wrapped
up for the day and listening to very strong arguments
about fundamental stuff law enforcement is supposed to do. Be
(03:16):
aware of how they're supposed to act. Especially when you've
been dispatched on at the tail end of what is
then a five day man hunt for an assassination caught
on video. It has not been the strongest showing for
law enforcement.
Speaker 1 (03:33):
Bottom line, this will be, if not the biggest case
of their career, the biggest media case of their career.
How in the world do five officers show up then
supervisors are made aware of who they got and there's
not a warrant for that backpack.
Speaker 2 (03:55):
And now that they find themselves in this position on
a case of such importance, not just because it's a
big crime and a horrible murder, the politics that are
connected to this run real deep and fundamental, with some
class issues we haven't even gotten into the politics of
(04:16):
what the defense and mister Mangioni and all that, the
social movement. No, we haven't even gotten to that part.
This is fundamental operative stuff and the real problem is,
now that we're in the middle of it, it appears
that it would be fair to conclude the officer has
been specifically coached how to thread this needle in a
(04:42):
very delicate manner in order for the judge to allow
the evidence to stand. And that begs the question that
underlies all these criminal prosecutions and everything in civil courdia.
Are you lying? Is that really what happened?
Speaker 1 (05:00):
Are you?
Speaker 2 (05:00):
Are you just testifying because you know you need to
say this in order to prevail. Because unfortunately, when you
look at police citizen encounters, which have been litigated to
death for fifty years, you got there are tier levels.
There are more opinions on what an officer was and
(05:20):
was not allowed to do with or without what level
of suspicion. We now train officers with big bright highlighters. Hey,
here's how probable cause works. Here's where the lines are.
You gotta stay within the lines because if you get
outside the lines, everything happens outside that line is not
coming into your case, and unfortunately, this officer appeared to
(05:47):
have not taken this, by his own admission, as a
terribly serious dispatch. And he has got to establish it's
I believe dett Weiler is the name. He has got
to establish very specifically that when he was dispatched, he
didn't have any specific probable cause or realization that this
(06:10):
was the guy, that this was man joney. He has
to have been basically zero alert, because if he was
an alert, if he had suspicion, he should have gotten
a warrant. He should have mirandized people in me.
Speaker 1 (06:25):
That's right.
Speaker 2 (06:26):
It's this trap for the poor officer where he can't testify. Yeah, no,
I thought it was him, so I was just gonna
go poker. No no, no, no no. That's gonna lose the
case for you. And that poor officer is going to
get pilloried by the fact that it appears that his
testimony has been thoroughly coached in a specific way.
Speaker 1 (06:49):
Y'all, you have listened to Joshua Scheffer on Zone seven
Crime round Up Court TV al of other places. Y'all
don't always know the words he's using, Let's be honest.
He uses some phrases, some words where you're like, I
(07:10):
need to look that up. What did he just say?
Here's a hint. You don't want that person cross examining you.
Trust me, y'all heard him when he told y'all he
went to camp to learn how to come at you.
Speaker 2 (07:29):
And the reports from the actual examination include, and there
are some wonderful people. This is a course federal court,
so we're really struggling with knowing exactly what's happening inside
the room. But there have been multiple reports of some
admissions from the officers about their procedure that basically stopped
(07:52):
all the criminal practitioners in the room and everybody knows
that knows criminal law stop and looked at each other
and we're like, did he did he just say that? Okay,
let's keep going there and keeping going? That is not
a good feeling when you're the witness. That is not
(08:13):
a good feeling when that's your when that's your witness
and you're the lawyer, because the witness is going to
get down, go how did I do? Man? How'd I do?
And oh man, you did great? When you very clearly
illustrated your lack of knowledge as to this specific training
issue and gutted everything we're trying to do here with
your authentic testimony. And I'm afraid there were a couple
(08:37):
of those conversations coming with some of this When and
how you obtain a warrant because of warrants just that easy.
And I tell you, if the government loses the bag
and the contents, we're going to have a whole nother
discussion about the poisoning the jury. Well, you and I
(08:57):
talked about this last week and how these statements that
are coming out from the administration and other agencies really
push the ethical boundaries of what law enforcement is supposed
to say or not say, most importantly, not say at
the early stages of an investigation. And it brings in
(09:20):
all that pre trial publicity stuff where even the most
conservative justices that are on the most federal panels now
look at that and go, whoa whoa fundamental fairness issue.
You have an elected or appointed prosecutor that owns the
press dominating a narrative while this innocent citizen, and judges
(09:45):
really do think about the innocent citizen, they do they
reverse roles and go, what if it was me in
that position, what would I be able to do? And
they see that fundamental unfairness of a narrative being created
by law enforcem before there's any investigation. That makes it
very hard to have integrity in your judicial system. And now,
(10:08):
if you're going to get some of that key evidence,
i e. The manifesto or not a manifesto, the gun
not a gun, the statements not the statements about the
fake ID that's done a fit, Well, yeah, it's the
only fake ID I had. Man, you lose that stuff.
And I'm not saying the case falls apart, but it
sure isn't as strong as it should be.
Speaker 1 (10:29):
That's right. I don't believe the case is going to
fall apart one because we got a video. However, it
would be great to say, Hey, didn't he check into
that hostel with a fake ID from New Jersey? Is
this the same ID?
Speaker 2 (10:45):
Great?
Speaker 1 (10:45):
And what caliber nine millimeter was used? Is it the
same ammunition that was in that bag? Great? And this manifesto?
Does he not say I want to get a healthcare
CEO or whatever he says? You won't that to come in?
Speaker 2 (11:01):
Yeah, it's it is important evidence. And yet the fundamentals
of the case are going to stay the same. And
I'm certain that a good prosecutor can put together a
case even if the evidence is suppressed, but it is
not the case that the public deserves, and if there's
any chance at the most aggressive remedies being applied, which
(11:22):
a lot of people are calling for as one of
the few legitimate deterrent death penalty cases that's out there
because deterrence and the death penalty. Everybody says that death
penalty is not a deterrent. Well, when you've got a
random victim like this who's being selected purely because of
their political or economic position, Well, now now you've actually
(11:45):
got some deterrence because it tells the would be assassines. Nope, nope, nope,
we'll make these political cases death penalty. If the death
penalty portion of this case gets substantially weaker, that causes
big problems. And I tell you every suppressed piece of
evidence is going to be multiple appeals if this is
(12:05):
a death penalty case.
Speaker 1 (12:07):
But you shouldn't give them, just give them anything. Oh yeah,
I mean, this would be a huge blow. Shouldn't happen,
should not even be up for discussion, shouldn't be something
we're in court arguing about. It should have been done
by the book, by the numbers. They should have called
(12:29):
in a district attorney to say, hey, how do we proceed?
What do we do? This is the guy.
Speaker 2 (12:38):
And what's frustrating from the practitioner perspective is due to
this being so factually driven and rules and procedure driven.
No matter what your political and personal moral persuasions are
in the criminal justice system, you probably haven't attached to
(13:00):
the rules. And you can be pro state, you can
be pro defense. This is a art. Do you believe in?
Rules are not? Because there aren't more clear rules than
some of these. And if these rules, if the rules
don't apply here, when do they really apply?
Speaker 1 (13:22):
I mean, a man's life is on the line.
Speaker 2 (13:25):
One of the big criticisms of our system is every
error is harmless and it's oh the rules, man, they're
all there, but they're not real rules because hold on,
you can violate them and still achieve a conviction that
with stands appellate review. And so now you just don't
need the state breaking one or two rules. Now you
(13:45):
need you need some pretty good stuff, clear violations of
a clear law rule ruling to win on appeal. This
would appear to be kind of clear and sets back
the whole discourse.
Speaker 1 (14:06):
To me if you have an officer testifying and he says, look,
I mean I get this call to go to a McDonald's.
No way, it's this guy. He planned this thing so
well that you would think, Okay, he's been in a hostel.
Nobody's gonna really see him fake id. He moved about
(14:28):
the city without leaving much of a trail, or so
he thought. The way he took the bus, the way
he took you know, other transportations try to hide. Yeah,
I understand, and I would completely when I would be
listening to him, I would get that, no way, this
(14:50):
is going to be the guy. But I'm going to
stroll into the McDonald's and I'm gonna make him happy.
I'm gonna do my job. I'm gonna check him out. Well,
he knew as soon as he saw him, that's the
guy we've all been seeing at that moment. There should
have been a supervisor notified. There should have been you know,
an ada en route. I mean, this thing should have
(15:14):
been let's circle the wagons and let's get to the
smartest person to tell us the best course of action.
Speaker 2 (15:22):
And really, even if you're an inexperienced or undertrained officer,
which this officer unfortunately isn't he knew had well enough
training to know what to do or not do. Let
the training kick in, all right, at the moment you
realize it's him, it's detention, Miranda, and then call for
(15:46):
guidance and backup as soon as you have exigently secured
the scene, because as soon as you realize, oh, look
that's a killer, you get to be a friend. Officer
has the right and the privilege to be fearful for
public and personal safety the moment he realizes the person
(16:08):
that he's interacting with is the subject of a manhunt
and want it. But he'd kind of been told that
before even showing up. He just needed to make sure
he disclaims that enough. And in fact, there was very
specific testimony today about how the supervising officer had said, Hey,
if it's really him, I'll buy you a hogie, trying
(16:33):
to show how much of this wasn't serious and the
state needs this to not be serious until officer actually
identifies him. But then the moment you've identified him, everything's
got to go, according to the book, because this is
going to be picked apart and scrutinized to the highest level.
(16:54):
So you put him in custody, secure the safety of yourself,
the defendant, anybody else around, and then you call for
backup and you get the right direction, including before you
search anything, get a warrant, before you say anything to him.
(17:14):
You morandize him, and to miss some easy swings built
a pile of nuggets that the defense is reveling in.
Imagine being the defense lawyer and getting the potential murder
weapon suppressed because of a bad stop. And that's really
(17:38):
how you're going to hear this referred to is this
was a bad stop.
Speaker 1 (17:42):
Get a warrant, Get a warrant, Get a warrant, Get
a warrant.
Speaker 2 (17:46):
Not everybody is as sophisticated as mister MANGIONI. Though we
have some other trial action going on this week, I
don't know if you've been paying too much attention to
that big case out of Massachusetts, this Brian Walsh case,
which you can tell it's a slow trial season because
this is the case that so many people are on
(18:08):
right now, talk about a case that didn't need to
get tried. I one hundred percent believe this was a
zero offer case that it was man. You can plead
to the court, you can take the deal, but we
ain't going to give you one minute off of a
(18:30):
max recommendation because of just the horrificness of the allegations,
followed up by the overwhelming evidence that Brian Walsh, who
killed his wife, dismembered her, hid her body, and then
lied to everyone, including their three kids, about what happened
to mommy. I almost feel bad for the defense crew,
(18:53):
except for the fact that I that I really kind
of am picking a bone with them the defense opening,
and these don't have squat to work with. The big
mistake that lawyers make is that if you don't have
anything to work with, you just get loud and angry
and people will pay attention to you. But that's basically
telling everybody, hey, we don't have anything and we need
(19:13):
to lose. And the defense for mister Walsh is laughable
and is basically guaranteeing he has to show up and
testify and he's going to get eviscerated on cross but
that he woke up in the middle of the night
or was there in the middle of the night, and
she was supposed to be asleep when he gets into
bed and she's not asleep, she's dead. And instead of
(19:35):
you know, calling ambulances and law enforcement and you know,
family members and freaking out, No, he started searching the
internet for the worst how do you dispose of a body?
Admissions of all time? Then he disposed of the body
and what I'm pretty certain is a graphically inexcusably awful
(19:59):
manner involving multiple dumpsters.
Speaker 1 (20:03):
Uh.
Speaker 2 (20:03):
And then he's lied his way into this position where
I expect, after a disastrous attempt, for him to save
himself via testify, and he's going to get convicted and
sentenced to multiple consecutives.
Speaker 1 (20:19):
Well, I try to say as often as I can,
a lie is as good as a confession. But once
once I lock you in and you start changing it
even slightly. Now we're getting somewhere. But you know, it's
always a clue to me, Josh. When your place of
(20:40):
business report you missing before your.
Speaker 2 (20:44):
Spouse bingo being it was like, okay, man, there's just
no logic in no matter what story you start to tell,
because you've failed to pass the first step, Like you don't,
you don't just keep quiet about them. Things wake up
next to a dead woman crawling to bed and the
(21:05):
person's dead and quiet. That is not what's happening. No
one understands or agrees with. No, no, no, you don't
tell anybody about that.
Speaker 1 (21:14):
Yeah, don't tell them. And you don't want to upset
the kids, so chap her up and get rid of her.
Speaker 2 (21:18):
Certainly not the three children you have. Oh and the
fact that you discovered that, yes, she was having an affair,
and that's awful and terrible. It's not death penalty though,
like having an affair shouldn't result in you being murdered
general rules. But yeah, this case and it again, and
(21:39):
a lot of the discussion is about the narcissism and
almost psychopathy of putting up a defense like this, because
it's so ridiculous his Google searches. All right, ladies and gentlemen,
if you did it on the internet, we can pay
somebody to go find out what you did. I know
you think you can encrypt a lot of it. And
there's arguments over the interpretate, but really, digital bits and
(22:03):
bites leave trails, and Google is only too happy to
comply with subpoenas, and man, his search history could not
be more inculpatory. It's can you identify a body when
you break the teeth in what's the best saw to
(22:24):
cut up a body is a hack saw really the
best saw to cut up a bot? Like it is, Cheryl,
I'm telling you, it makes you want to just wish
him into prison so that we don't have to be
exposed to the choices. It's it's insane but gripping television.
In a lot of ways, people really like watching the
(22:45):
case because of its salaciousness.
Speaker 1 (22:48):
Absolutely well, honey, I hate to cut this short, but yeah,
I've got a family dinner to get to. It's gonna
be a tough, tough night, but I do appreciate you always,
and I you know, I just I get so frustrated
because it's like, we've done it. We've told you, we've
(23:08):
trained you, and look where we are. We're in a
position we shouldn't be in.
Speaker 2 (23:13):
And the poor captain, the poor lieutenant, like, man, they
covered this like you go back to the barracks. Man,
you covered this right, like this is nausey on oh my,
it has got to be crushing.
Speaker 1 (23:31):
So to me, the training should be you get a warrant.
Every time, get a warrant.
Speaker 2 (23:36):
It's that easy, y'all. It ain't hard, you hear, Oh,
it's hard to get no, no, no, really, you raise
your hand, you say that you're a sworn police officer
with lots of training, and then you say, well, my
belief is I observed, since I observed this evidence, I
believe a crime has been committed. I would like to
show the permission of the court to put this person
(23:57):
under arrest and go search them. Most of the time
judges go and ask you a couple of questions such as,
it really is you and you really did see them
and this happened, or this is what you saw and
heard and reported from people. Yep, it's it's it's a specific,
articulable suspicion. It is not beyond a reasonable doubt. It
is not clear and convincing. It is not preponderance. That No,
(24:18):
it is the lowest bar in law. You have to
be able to enunciate and articulate a crime might have occur.
That's it. So there's just no excuse to skip. It's
(24:39):
like making a grilled cheese sandwich and you're like, well,
we're gonna do this, but we don't need cheese. Like
it just heals me.
Speaker 1 (24:48):
It just it just is so frustrating.
Speaker 2 (24:50):
I love talking at these conversations. The highlight of my week.
I love y'all in the audience, Michelle, I know that
you're gonna go celebrate some wonderful stuff with some love people.
So I'm gonna say good night to everyone. Go love somebody,
even if it's yourself. And I'm sorry if you heard
one of the Justice kitties purring the entire time. She's
(25:12):
just relentless these days.
Speaker 1 (25:15):
All right, have a good week. Can he not talk
to you, sir by?
Speaker 2 (25:18):
Y'all
Host
Nancy Grace
Popular Podcasts
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.