Legally Brunette: The Parkland Shooting with Judge Liz

Emily and Shane are sitting down with Judge Elizabeth Scherer, who presided over the Parkland school shooter’s trial in 2022.

Judge Liz faced controversy after this trial due to alleged biases towards the prosecution and unfair treatment of the defense. However, she’s here to set the record straight and tell us what led to this apparent “unethical” behavior.

Plus, we’re discussing Nick Reiner and the sudden loss of his legal team, as well as the Diddy trial and where the prosecution went wrong…

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:01):
Hi, guys, Welcome to another episode of Legally Brunette. I
will be your host today Emily Simpson with Shane. First
of all, if you guys haven't listened to our last episode,
it was on Jody Hildebrandt, which if you remember, she
had to do with the Ruby Frankie child abuse case,
and a lot of you DMed me. I know, I
thought it was interesting. Do you remember when we were
talking and Ruby Frankie's YouTube channel was called eight Passengers

(00:25):
and then you made a comment, why is it called
eight passengers because someone has to be driving, right, So
I had several people DM me that said they felt
as if it was the eight passengers and God was driving.
So anyway, I don't know, I just thought I maybe,
but I just thought I would relay that to you
because a lot of people heard that, and then that

(00:47):
was kind of the comment overall.

Speaker 2 (00:49):
So that speculation, we don't know that that was the thinking.

Speaker 1 (00:53):
Well, I don't know, I don't know. I think that's
how people interpreted it, is that they were the eight
passengers and they were a very religious family and so
God was like guiding that right exactly.

Speaker 2 (01:04):
And she's dumb okay, as proven by her behavior.

Speaker 1 (01:07):
All right, let's move on. We wanted to do an
update on Nick Reiner. Also, not only did you guys
dmail out about the last case we did the Jody
Hildebrandt and Ruby Frankie situation. But as you all know,
my obsession with Alan Jackson runs deep. So when you
all saw the news that he withdrew from the Nick
Reiner case, I got I got tons of dms where

(01:31):
people were like, did you see this? What's going on?

Speaker 2 (01:33):
Are you going to talk about it? Did you see this?

Speaker 1 (01:35):
So anyway, so let's talk about it. Nick Reiner's arraignment
has been postponed once again after Alan Jackson quit moments
before the scheduled hearing. So this happened last Wednesday. Jackson
informed the court that he was stepping away from the
case and would no longer represent Reiner, who was charged
with murdering his parents. Jackson told the judge, we would

(01:57):
ask to withdraw as counsel of record. We have no
choice but to withdraw and ask to be relieved.

Speaker 2 (02:03):
He didn't announce why, he just announced that he's removing himself.

Speaker 1 (02:06):
Well, he had some things to say, but there is
no clear cut reason. A lot of people speculate, but
you know, to me, it's interesting that Reiner will now
be represented by Los Angeles County Deputy Public Defender Kimberly Green,
and the judge approved the substitution, and now the arraignment
is rescheduled for February twenty third. I think my personal

(02:28):
opinion is I think it had to do with money,
because that was my question all along.

Speaker 2 (02:32):
What else would I have to do with? Well, some
people not disgusted by crimes, He's been around it.

Speaker 1 (02:37):
No, but we'll talk about some speculation that some other
attorneys and.

Speaker 2 (02:41):
Money mighty talks.

Speaker 1 (02:43):
I My initial reaction when Alan Jackson first took the
case was who is paying this bill? Because I would assume,
and I'm probably correct, that his retainer would be seven
figures for a murder trial and with the complexities of
probably an insanity defense and expert witnesses and all of

(03:05):
the due diligence and that goes.

Speaker 2 (03:07):
Into that does a lot of due diligence involved. When
your clients slit the victim's throats and they have a history,
it's pretty tough to defend, so it's going to take
a lot of work.

Speaker 1 (03:18):
No, but I'm saying if you're going to have an
insanity defense. You're going to have to have a lot
of testing, and you know, all the experts suits insane.

Speaker 2 (03:27):
That's the part I never really get. They're all insane.

Speaker 1 (03:30):
During the brief appearance, when asked by the judge if
he understood the changing council, Reiner replied, oh, yeah, I
agree with that. Before being escorted back to the correctional facility.
Outside the courthouse, Jackson addressed reporters and he said, this morning,
I had to withdraw as Nick Reiner's counsel, adding that
quote circumstances beyond our control, but more importantly, circumstances beyond

(03:52):
Nick's control made it impossible for us to continue our representation.
I'm legally and ethically prohibited from all the reasons why.
I know that's a question on everyone's mind. I'm assuming
I'm legally and ethically prohibited. Is just it's attorney client privilege.
Whatever has to do with who's financing it or what's
going on behind the scenes.

Speaker 2 (04:12):
Client if he wants to break that privilege.

Speaker 1 (04:14):
He emphasized that his departure should not be viewed as
a lack of support for his former clients. So he
says quote be clear, be very very clear. My team
and I remain deeply, deeply committed to Nick Reiner and
to his best interest, asserting that the legal process will
ultimately quote reveal the true facts of the circumstances surrounding
the case. Then he went further declaring, we've learned, and

(04:36):
you can take this to the bank. Is that pursuant
to the law in this state, Nick Reiner is not
guilty of murder.

Speaker 2 (04:43):
Print that pursuant to the law exactly.

Speaker 1 (04:46):
So pursuant to the law means he's I would assume my.

Speaker 2 (04:51):
Illegal legal standard that it does not murder as.

Speaker 1 (04:55):
In premeditated capital murder, because they're going to most.

Speaker 2 (05:00):
Likely you know what he can't insanity defense Reiner's check.
That's what he couldn't take to the bank.

Speaker 1 (05:07):
No, he can't take it Withdrew. Yeah.

Speaker 2 (05:09):
I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that. I'm just
saying that's the.

Speaker 1 (05:12):
Reason no, Because that was my question from the very
very beginning, was why would Alan Jackson represent Nick We
know Nick Reiner doesn't have any money personally, or he
wouldn't be living in his parents guesthouse, you know, And
I mean I don't think he was employed, and I
think they were. His parents were wealthy and well to
do and Hollywood elite, and I think they were continuing

(05:33):
to pay it as happened the.

Speaker 2 (05:35):
Wealth to be able to hire Jackson.

Speaker 1 (05:37):
That's what you're saying, right So to me, the only
way that there could be someone to cover Jackson's enormous
legal bill for a murder trial is if the estate
went to the other siblings and the siblings were willing
to pay.

Speaker 2 (05:54):
At the settled a little bit, the emotions were set aside.
The fan family attorney, state law attorney, whatever, all got
together and started to really realize what they would be doing,
and that would probably be depleting all their worth for
a sibling that was probably troubled and killed the parents.

(06:17):
And it's not about trying to find him a better
opportunity and that's worth every penny. It's we're going to
get this guy like off from a criminal charge and
deplete all our funds when he killed our parents and
he clearly needs help.

Speaker 1 (06:32):
It's also very telling that a public defender stepped in,
because if it was not an issue of money, then
you would probably have another big time elite attorney step
in in Alan Jackson's place, but it was not Kimberly Green,
not a public defender.

Speaker 2 (06:47):
I think I heard her speak, make a public speech
or whatever, like for the press, and she was very quiet,
and she just not one to have public meetings and stuff.

Speaker 1 (07:00):
Alan Jackson, she's not media trained.

Speaker 2 (07:03):
Yeah he likes the microphone.

Speaker 1 (07:05):
Oh, yes he does.

Speaker 2 (07:06):
I don't know if she did so.

Speaker 1 (07:08):
Some legal experts have wide in and said that maybe
Alan Jackson had no chance or had no choice but
to quit offering some insight. A California, New York based
entertainment attorney, her name is Lisa Bonner, told Page six
that Jackson's carefully chosen language strongly points to a professional conflict.
Referencing his remarks to the court, She said that such

(07:29):
phrases like we have no choice and circumstances beyond our
control are commonly used when an attorney is legally required
to step aside, such as an ethical or legal conflict.
I don't know if I believe that. I don't really
feel like it's a conflict of interest. I still go
back to the whole money thing.

Speaker 2 (07:43):
But what if it was something like like Alan Jackson's, like,
oh wait, you did kill your parents? Oh, like I
misunderstood it. Oh, I can't defend you like he got
a bachel later because I heard it as a criminal defenser,
and you never want to ask your clients they did it.

Speaker 1 (08:00):
Oh, so you never you never ask. So you're saying,
maybe he just assumed that, you know, there's some third
party out there.

Speaker 2 (08:05):
I mean, I was kind of lightly joking, but you know,
but that's the thing. You know, if you ask your
client if they did it, now, you can never say
that your client is not guilty or you know, innocent
or anything like that. Once you heard it, you can't
unhear it and you can't lie. So I talked to
some criminal defense attorneys and they don't want to ask
their client.

Speaker 1 (08:23):
Because they don't want to have the knowledge.

Speaker 2 (08:25):
Yeah, they'll only ask, maybe for what information they want,
but they're not going to say like, did you do it?
How long have you been planning this?

Speaker 1 (08:32):
Yes?

Speaker 2 (08:33):
What were your thoughts? Did it feel good when you did?

Speaker 1 (08:36):
That's those questions. So another theory is well, and this
one makes a little bit of sense to me because
he's a high profile defense attorney, that he might have
a professional fallout from the Hollywood elite. The way I
understand it is there's only a handful of attorneys that
the elite in Hollywood would go to, and Alan is

(08:57):
on that very short listed. So because Rob Reiner and
his wife Michelle were very beloved within Hollywood, and this
is such a heinous crime to be defending, he'd defending, yeah,
and so it could take him off of that high
profile list.

Speaker 2 (09:17):
So if Rob Reiner killed his son, it would have
been okay to represent him.

Speaker 1 (09:22):
Well, I don't know about that either. I'm just saying
I think that's a stretch.

Speaker 2 (09:26):
I think it's simply a money thing. And I think
Alan Jackson has every right to not represent someone that's
not going to pay his fee. That's just the way
it works.

Speaker 1 (09:33):
Yeah, I guess basically it could be that through representing
Nick Reiner there could be some reputational consequences, the backlashes.
He becomes a pariah in Hollywood because Michelle and Rob
were beloved. You know.

Speaker 2 (09:47):
The question I have, which I don't think we'll ever
get an answer to, is how did he get one?
If it's a finance thing and there's no they cut
off funds or whatever, there's no money or whatever it is,
then what made him initially think he could take the case, Like,
did he jump on it before he looked into it.
Did the family initially say hey, yeah, we got it,
we got it, we want to we want our brother

(10:07):
taken care of. And then they she I don't know,
we'll never know, but.

Speaker 1 (10:10):
Yeah, we'll never know. But I that that interests me too.
Was it Nick Reiner that that reached out to Alan? Well,
Alan Jackson is legally barred from reaching out to him.
But I don't know how they came into contact. I
don't know if the family reached out to Alan. I
don't know.

Speaker 2 (10:28):
I don't know. I don't know. I bet you, I
bet you. Some of the key parts were they came
to like things settled down, they talked to attorneys, they
learned how much their parents are worth, how much they're
going to get, how it's going to be dispersed, all
that stuff, all the logistics, and then maybe they had

(10:48):
a realization of you know, we're gonna lose all the money.
And it's not always a money thing, but it's like
we're gonna throw good money after like something that's not
really gonna be productive, and he's just gonna, you know,
and maybe he needs to be in prison. Yeah.

Speaker 1 (11:02):
Yeah. So today on the podcast, we are going to
have a special guest come on who Shane introduced me to.
This is your special guest. And before she comes on,
I wanted to talk about the Parkland shooting because she

(11:25):
was the judge in that case. So she goes by
Judge Liz and before she comes on, let's just talk
about the Parkland shooting. So on February fourteenth of twenty eighteen,
at Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, it
became the site of a devastating shooting when nineteen year
old Nicholas Cruz, a former student who had been expelled
for disciplinary issues, entered the campus and opened fire. Cruz

(11:49):
entered the school at two twenty one pm, beginning in
the freshman building, which housed approximately nine hundred students along
with faculty and staff. He drew his rifle and his
stairwell before moving on to a first floor hallway, where
he fired the first shots. Within about two minutes, eleven
people were killed and thirteen were wounded. Crews then moved

(12:10):
upstairs and discharged his weapon again, though he did not
hit anyone on the second floor. He continued to the
third floor, where he killed six more people and injured four,
spending less than a minute there. At two twenty eight pm,
Cruz left his rifle in a stairwell and exited the building.
He then went to a wal mart at two fifty pm,

(12:31):
stopped at his subway for a drink, and later visited
a McDonald's. He was located by Broward County police and
arrested on a nearby street approximately eighty minutes after the
shooting began. The Parkland shooting left seventeen people dead and
seventeen others injured, and the wake of the tragedy, survivors
organized the student led advocacy group Never Again MSD, focused

(12:54):
on addressing gun violence and promoting policy change. Florida responded
by passing new gun control laws, including raising the minimum
age for gun purchases and imposing mandatory waiting periods. The
shooting also sparked ongoing national conversations about mental health, school safety,
and gun regulations, as survivors and communities continued to grapple

(13:17):
with the emotional and psychological impact of the event. Let
me ask you a question. The high school I graduated
from in Ohio actually had a school shooting oh yeah, yeah,
when maybe ten years ago or so, after that happened,
they they armed teachers with guns.

Speaker 2 (13:39):
Then the community they allowed teachers.

Speaker 1 (13:42):
I don't know exactly what the terms are, but they
allowed teachers.

Speaker 2 (13:45):
They didn't just hand out guns, no, but the teachers lounge.

Speaker 1 (13:47):
Yeah. I mean, I don't know the process that took place,
but they initially after that happened, teachers were then permitted
to carry guns on campus. Then the community where I
used to live was outraged and there were tons of
meetings with school boards and everything, and I believe that
was eventually repealed and they're not allowed to do that anymore.

(14:10):
What is your take on that. I don't know if
that's I mean.

Speaker 2 (14:15):
As if I thought about this, I don't know. I mean,
I would think, at the very least, if professors are
going to carry, they certainly need to have training. You
don't just hand out guns. And I guess if my
children's teacher had a gun in class, i'd understand the
intention behind it, but I probably wouldn't like it. I

(14:38):
would think, I don't know, better to have the place
secured with offense as much as possible, and security on campus,
and then you have a you because what if what
if students find out, Oh, this teacher doesn't have a gun,
but this one does, but that one doesn't. But if
you have armed security, like a lot of private schools do.

(15:00):
I've been to some of those high schools that are like,
you know, run by the Jewish church or community and stuff,
and those are highly like protected, and it's awesome, you know,
and the kids feel this is a place that's kind
of sacred, right, it's a learning ground, right, it's safe.

Speaker 1 (15:16):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (15:17):
So yeah, I always that is more effective.

Speaker 1 (15:19):
I always felt as if a situation like that, if
you're arming teachers, you're adding more issues eventually down the line.
You know. The solution, I mean, there is no solution
that like there is other than it all comes down
to a mental health issue. I mean someone's not mentally healthy. Yea,

(15:39):
who does that?

Speaker 2 (15:40):
Yeah, but that's I think we're talking about the defense mechanisms, Yeah,
the treating mechanisms.

Speaker 1 (15:46):
So the trial of Nicholas Cruz focus almost entirely on
sentencing rather than guilt, as he pleaded guilty in October
of twenty twenty one to seventeen counts of first degree
murder and seventeen counts of attempted murder. The penalty phase trial,
held in twenty twenty two, was tasked with determining whether
Cruz should receive the death penalty or life in prison
without parole. Prosecutors presented graphic evidence of the killings and

(16:09):
testimony from victim's families to argue for death, while the
defense emphasized mitigating factors, including Cruise's severe mental health issues,
fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, childhood abuse, and neglect. In October
of twenty twenty two, the jury failed to unanimously agree
on the death penalty, resulting in an automatic sentence of

(16:30):
life in prison without the possibility of parole. The outcome
drew intense national attention and anger from victim's families, some
of whom criticized the jury and the defense strategy.

Speaker 2 (16:42):
Because he didn't get the death penalty.

Speaker 1 (16:43):
Because he did not get the death penalty because they
could not unanimously agree on it, and.

Speaker 2 (16:47):
That's a Florida thing, then hunt they have to unanimously agree. So.

Speaker 1 (16:50):
Judge Elizabeth Shearer served as a presiding judge over the
Parkland shooters criminal case in Boward County, including both the
pre trial proceedings and the twenty twenty two penalty phase
trial that determined Nicholas Cruz's sentence. She managed an unusually
emotional and high profile proceeding, repeatedly enforcing courtroom decorum, amid

(17:11):
graphic testimony and intense reactions from victim's families. After the
jury failed to unanimously agree on the death penalty, Judd
Shearer was legally required to impose the mandatory sentence of
life in prison without the possibility of parole, which she
did at Cruz's formal sentencing in November of twenty twenty.

Speaker 2 (17:29):
Seven, so her hands were tied, she could not sentence
him to death right.

Speaker 1 (17:35):
During a presentation to Miami law students in twenty twenty four,
Judge Liz sharply criticized Cruse's public defenders, claiming they acted
unprofessionally in overstep boundaries. She said Cruise's defense team lost
their minds during the twenty twenty two trial and recalled
being friendly with lead defense attorney Melissa McNeil and her

(17:55):
team before the case, but said that during four years
of pre trial motions, three months jury selection, and the
three month trial, they all lost their perspective. According to
Judge Liz, the de offense, engaged in disruptive behavior, talking,
passing notes, using a printer, and even brushing their hair
while prosecution witnesses testified. Sounds like a high school classroom,

(18:17):
like this is how I picture Annabelle in school, Like
passing notes, brushing hair.

Speaker 2 (18:22):
Which is unacceptable, exactly seventh grade class.

Speaker 1 (18:25):
She added that one attorney during a recess raised her
middle finger at a camera broadcasting the trial, feeling it
threatened attorney client privilege. This consumed them to a point
where they started doing things in acting ways that I
had never seen before from any defense attorney that I
have ever dealt with, she said. Judge Liz resigned from
the bench in June of twenty twenty three, eight months

(18:45):
after sentencing Cruise to life without parole, but maintains that
this case had nothing to do with her resignation. She
had no choice in the sentencing since at the time,
Florida law required a unanimous vote from the jury to
impose the death penalty, and Cruises panels nine to three
in favor. Florida soon after change the law to allow
a death sentence if eight or more jurors recommended it. Oh,

(19:07):
that's interesting. I did not know that.

Speaker 2 (19:08):
Did you know that? No, But that's why I asked earlier.
If it was it had to be unanimous by the
juror if that was a state law.

Speaker 1 (19:14):
That's interesting.

Speaker 2 (19:14):
Now it's a majority, yeah, well eight of eight or more. Yeah,
two thirds.

Speaker 1 (19:20):
The prosecutors and victims families received hugs from Judge Liz
after the sentencing, which was a decision later criticized by
the Judicial Qualifications Commission for showing quote her emotions to
overcome her judgment. Judge Liz said she offered hugs to
the defense team as well, but was rebuffed. She defended
her actions, saying.

Speaker 2 (19:39):
Quote, I regrets for everybody.

Speaker 1 (19:41):
Yeah, I regret that it the hugging was found to
be inappropriate, but maintained she oversaw the case properly. You
know that's that's.

Speaker 2 (19:49):
Well, the case was over right.

Speaker 1 (19:51):
That's interesting as I think as females, we are innately nurturers.
And if you sit in a courtroom for that long
and you hear all of this horrific things and the
families are sitting there, and then once it's over, it's
very difficult.

Speaker 2 (20:08):
And how long was the trial?

Speaker 1 (20:10):
I think it said three months.

Speaker 2 (20:11):
See, that's a lot.

Speaker 1 (20:13):
It's very difficult to be completely robotic and stone based from.

Speaker 2 (20:18):
So you're saying a male judge would have been like, what, like, well,
he probably over and out. Yeah it's lunchtime.

Speaker 1 (20:26):
Yeah, but you know, women are natural nurturers. So I
think her probably her just innate reaction was to and
she said she tried it. She tried to equally hug everyone,
according to her, so it was an equal distribution of hugs.
But she was rebuffed by the defense. So Judge U.
Liz highlighted during her left the.

Speaker 2 (20:44):
Defense was probably smart by declining because they're like, maybe
they don't want to like, Okay, we know your intentions
are well, but this is bad optics, and my clients
can file for like, you know, some you know trial, Yeah,
sometime of miss trial. You know, he's got a life sentence.

Speaker 1 (21:01):
Not one person on that commission has ever tried a
case like this, much less a case where you have
seventeen families who have spent a big part of a
four and a half years with you. She explained that
she had been a judge for nearly six years when
assigned to the case, and that no other Broward County
criminal judge at the time had handled a death penalty
trial Judge Liz described the challenge of maintaining composure amid

(21:21):
emotional testimonies, stating, quote, the men judges don't cry. The
female judge was not going to cry. She also commented
on Cruz's character, stating that he is a sociopath who
knows not one single bit of remorse for his actions
or the pain he calls the families and the Parkland community.

Speaker 2 (21:37):
So, you know, I never that's something I never said, like, Okay,
if he felt bad, he should have a lesser sentence,
because if you feel bad, like you commit a murder.
I know this was more than just a murder, but
you commit a murder, and then it's like if you
feel bad, it's less of a sentence. It's like, well no,
because the person's still dead, like the crime was still committed.

(21:58):
To me, I don't get that. Maybe in jail or
in prison, if that starts to show and they're educating
themselves and they're going to be a better person, in
productive member of society, and you'd be better off for
you know, putting them out in society where they can
be productive and they're not just taking tax dollars, but
they're contributing then maybe, but at the sentencing hearing, I

(22:19):
never really understood that. I know that's the way it works, yeah,
but I don't get that.

Speaker 1 (22:23):
So you're saying you would, You're okay during parole hearings
that they use the like an indication of remorse as
something to take into consideration during a parole hearing, because
you're saying after the fact, after the sentencing, if they've
shown remorse and they've tried to better themselves, yeah.

Speaker 2 (22:40):
Then and then it also but you're saying.

Speaker 1 (22:42):
It shouldn't be criteria during this initial sentence and.

Speaker 2 (22:44):
Also with the victim's statements, which I know is a
therapeutic thing also, and I would if that happened to
me and I was, you know, family to someone that
was a victim, and I had to give a victis
to name, you better believe I would. So I'm not
opposed to that. But it's like, because there's more heartache,
they should have more jail time. Does that mean if
there was less heartache and this person that was killed

(23:06):
had no family or no victim statements because they were
not really engaged with anyone in their family and their
family didn't come, then that would person would get a
lesser sentence. It's still a life that was taken. So
I kind of don't really know how that comes into
play with sentencing, but I know it does, and I
know it's you know, there's probably more to it than
what I'm just saying.

Speaker 1 (23:26):
Well, because at the end of the day, both sides
want to get to your pull your heart strings of
the jury.

Speaker 2 (23:32):
Oh in some way, okay, yeah, yeah, if the jury
is involved in sensing. But all the time it is
to judge. But you know, everyone's sorry when they get caught, right,
So that makes it hard to believe. I remember, I, uh,
I caught shoplifters, right, that was one.

Speaker 1 (23:46):
Of my jobs. Yes, I love Shane stories. We could
do a whole podcast.

Speaker 2 (23:50):
I was a store investcart and every time it was
their first time, yes, and they were sorry and they
would never do it again. Right, But that's that's not
true because I'd seen him before, right, I'd like, now,
I've seen you many times coming here, and stud just
couldn't catch you. Now I did. It's not your first time,
and they're always sorry when they get caught.

Speaker 1 (24:10):
You know, Shane is an interesting man, and I don't
know if the majority of you out there understand how
interesting he is.

Speaker 3 (24:17):
You know.

Speaker 1 (24:17):
Also, by the way, I had a lot of people
send me dms and they wanted more information about your
your your mission because you didn't give away a lot
of information when we talked about Jody Hildebrandon Ruby, Frankie.
You know, you did get you touched a little bit
on the fact that you did go on a mission
with the LDS Church, that you went to Portugal, that

(24:39):
you went to Cape Verd but you didn't give away
a lot more. And I had a lot of people
reach out and ask if we could do an in
depth podcast just on you and your mission, and someday,
maybe someday we take a deep dive into Shane Simson.
Shane also some of my other favorite stories, some of
his other career choices that people I don't know about.

(25:01):
When you did he did past control at once, that's
time I saved up for my mission. He did past
control before he went on his mission, And those are
some of my favorite Shane Simpson stories. So anyway, maybe
we'll take a deeper dive into Shane Simpson. So Judge

(25:23):
Liz graduated from University of Miami School of Law before
working for the State Attorney's Office for the seventeenth Judicial
Circuit Broward County, Florida. Shearer was first chair in over
seventy five jury trials handling charges of murder, attempted murder,
armed home invasion, robbery, and arson. She worked as a

(25:43):
prosecutor for eleven years before she was appointed to the
Florida Circuit Court bench by Florida Governor Rick Scott. She
spent two years presiding over family court cases before being
assigned by the chief judge to the Circuit Felony Division.
Judge Liz became widely known for presiding over the Parkland
shooting case, which we just discussed, which was the biggest

(26:04):
mass shooting case to go to trial in American history.
It's bigger than Columbine. How many were killed in Columbine,
I don't know. I'd have to look that up.

Speaker 2 (26:13):
I don't know, but Columbine was as far as I remember,
like prior to that, there didn't seem to be such
a school shooting. I don't Also, security camera something so dramatic,
the way they dressed up, the way it was the
students that went in, and you know, how did the
parents not know? And you know, with media being more accessible,

(26:34):
it spread faster. So I don't know. To me, that
always felt like that kind of sparked school shootings, but
at least that that's also just from my generation and
what I've seen.

Speaker 1 (26:45):
Well, No, I believe that there's a lot of truth
to that. I don't There might have been some school
shootings prior to that, but I don't know if they had.
I don't know if they were widely known or talked about.
Columbine was definitely.

Speaker 2 (26:56):
And it almost like came on the news in real
time almost you know, everyone was outside the school trying
to figure out what's going on, and bombs and lots.
It wasn't one handgun, right, they had lots of weapons.
You know, they were gonna you know, it was like
an army kind of what was.

Speaker 1 (27:10):
Well thought out and well planned. I think they planned
for over a year.

Speaker 2 (27:13):
I believe probably. Yeah.

Speaker 1 (27:15):
So, Sheer's career plan was to retire from the bench
after ten years in order to go into private practice
at her family's law firm, but at the request of
Chief Judge Jack Tudor, she agreed to stay until the
completion of the Parkland case. Shortly after the trial concluded,
she followed through with her career plan, retired from the
bench and now works as a partner at Conrad and Shearer,

(27:37):
specializing in civil litigation. Judge Sheer also works as a
legal analyst, making frequent TV appearances on Fox News, CBS
News Nation, Long, Crime Court TV, and now Legally Brunette.
She recently started her own YouTube channel. You can find
her at the Judge Liz, which is how she came
on our radar because Shane watched.

Speaker 2 (27:58):
Her YouTube ita of her in the courtroom before, Yeah,
before her YouTube but then you.

Speaker 1 (28:03):
Also watched some of her YouTube.

Speaker 2 (28:04):
Channel, right, and then somehow it popped up and so
I got one of it.

Speaker 1 (28:08):
Yeah, right, where's she? On her YouTube channel, she shares
her insight on a variety of legal issues and cases. So, Hi,
Judge list, thanks for coming on Legally Brunette today. I
appreciate it. It's nice to chat with you. Thanks, thank
you for having me. Of course, we've actually wanted to
have you on for a while. Shane, my husband Shane
uh was watching your YouTube videos and that's how we

(28:31):
were like, oh, we should have her on the podcast.
So we enjoyed watching.

Speaker 3 (28:35):
You and I'm so great.

Speaker 1 (28:37):
Yeah, anyway, and you do have a YouTube channel. It's
called at the Judge Liz correct if anybody wants to
find you, correct, I know on your YouTube, do you
just kind of take whatever's currently going on and kind
of talk about it from a judge perspective or just
a legal perspective. Is that kind of what you like
to do?

Speaker 3 (28:53):
Yes, I try to get I try very hard. And
you all know because you do this, it's hard to
think of topics that not everybody's doing all the time, right,
So I try to take a case it's popular, that's
in the news that people are very interested in, and
I try, you know, my best to think of an

(29:14):
aspect that no one else is covering. Right of course,
like I said, you all know how hard that can be,
especially if you don't have if you're not big enough
to have you know, producers and writers and things like that.
But I try very hard to think of something that's
interesting that has not been talked about at nauseum.

Speaker 1 (29:32):
Right, Well, I would think because I feel like a
lot of content creators, I mean, they don't have legal backgrounds.
So it's like everybody's talking about, you know, the Blake
Lively case, and everybody talks about Diddy and everybody talks
about the big things that are out there. But I mean,
you're You're not only an attorney, you're a judge, and
so you can have like that very deep perspective that

(29:53):
other content creators can't. So yes, you know, I think
that's always interesting that you can take a deeper dive
into that. So anyway, before you came on, we were
talking about the Parkland shooting, and you know, I just
had a I had. First of all, I didn't realize
it was twenty twenty two. For some reason, I felt
like it was farther back in time, but it actually

(30:13):
was pretty recent.

Speaker 3 (30:14):
The sentencing was actually in twenty twenty.

Speaker 1 (30:17):
Three, was it? The sentencing was in twenty twenty three. Now,
I know that you were tired right after that. Was
that that was a choice that you had made previously
though not because of the case? Correct?

Speaker 3 (30:28):
So yeah, so I had, I had. I was appointed
to the bench at a young age. I was I
thirty five or thirty six, so I knew that wasn't
going to be my resting place, so to speak, so
I wanted to get the experience. I was very flattered
for the appointment, and I loved doing what I did,

(30:52):
but I knew there was a shelf life. I have
a family that has a very successful law form in
Fort Lauderdale. It's always been my dad's dream to have
me come help him run his firm with my brothers,
and so I had put him off for twenty years,
ten years as a prosecutor, in ten years as a judge.
So I told him at the end of at the

(31:13):
end of the Parkland case, I gave the chief judge
my word that I would stay through that case so
that the case would have continuity. But at the end
I was going to resign and perhaps take part in
my family business or do some other creative type things.
So that decision was made before. I can tell you

(31:34):
that the Parkland trial solidified my decision. In other words,
if I was on the cusp of should I do
it now or should I wait a few years, I
felt as though, you know what, I need to see
things and hear things that are not the worst of
the worst, because as a criminal judge, especially presiding over

(31:56):
a case like that, you hear things that are just
absolutely tragic, and you hear the worst parts of society
as opposed to the best. And you know, I like
to tell people. I've learned in my profession that most
people are good, most people are kind, most people would
lend a hand if they if they had the opportunity.

(32:17):
There are very few and far between are the criminals,
hardened criminals like the Parkland shooter. So I just felt like,
you know what, I need a new, fresh perspective right now.
I'm in civil I do civil litigation now, and it's
boring and I'm not sure it's the fresh perspective that
I was anticipating or needing. But at least I'm not

(32:40):
dealing with, you know, the death of children, or shootings
or just people, the worst people and the worst behavior,
if that makes sense.

Speaker 1 (32:50):
You were offered where they came to you and they
wanted you to preside over that case, and you know seventeen,
you know, people were affected by that. How do you
prepare for something like that. I mean, that's a huge trial.
I mean you're dealing with seventeen families that were affected.

Speaker 3 (33:03):
So it came out during the trial that I was
randomly assigned. I'm not afraid to say now because it's
been long enough. It was random, But the chief judge
had told me that if you don't get assigned this case.
I'm going to assign it to you because I had
the most experience and I knew how to handle myself

(33:24):
in front of the cameras. A lot of judges really
wanted the attention, the media attention. I had judges that
were close to retirement that were like calling me, begging me,
can I cover the arrangement? Can I cover this? Because
they wanted to be on TV? And the chief judge
knew that I wouldn't do that, that I would take
it seriously, that I wouldn't show both. So I knew

(33:47):
it was coming my way. I you know, you can't
prepare for it. At first, I said, you know what,
this is like any other case. He's not getting any
special treatment. I'm going to run this this case like
I do any other case. There's going to be deadlines.
You know, I'm gonna hold their feet to the fire
on both sides as far as discovery goes. He's gonna

(34:08):
come in with all the rest of the inmates. He's
gonna sit in the box like the rest of the inmates.
And then, very very quickly it was brought to my
attention judges is not a regular case. We can't bring
him in with the other inmates because it's dangerous to him.
Somebody's going to try to kill him. We have to
have him in a separate hearing where nobody else is
in the courtroom. We have to be able to accommodate

(34:30):
all the different lawyers on both sides. So you know,
my point of view is I'm going to handle this
like any other case.

Speaker 4 (34:38):
Then I realized because of the specific circumstances with all
of the victims' family members that wanted to be present
for all of the hearings, and the network's live streamed
every single minute of every single hearing for five years,
and the fact that there was such a security risk
on the part of the shooter, which a lot of
people would think, well, who cares.

Speaker 3 (35:00):
Well, the sheriff's office in any state or county, they
do care because if an inmate is killed or badly
hurt on their watch, it leaves them open to liability,
and they certainly did not want that to happen. So
there were all kinds of precautions that were taken. So
I just I went in with a mindset, this is
just like any other case, and I tried to keep

(35:21):
that that mindset. You know, this is like any other case.
I'm going to call balls and strikes. I'm going to
deal with what's what's put in front of me, and
then you know, we'll go from there.

Speaker 1 (35:33):
Yeah, were you surprised by the jury's decision that he
did not get the death penalty? So you were was
that shocking for you?

Speaker 3 (35:43):
So okay, yes and no. So my court reporter, who's
been a court reporter for like thirty years, she's the best.
She's worked with all of the judges who has tried
death penalty cases. So she has been the court reporter
for let's say, like I don't know, twenty five to
fifty death penalty cases and so many trials, and I

(36:03):
was lucky enough to have her. So she, you know,
the core reporter sits in front of the bench, right,
and they have a direct view to the jury.

Speaker 1 (36:12):
Right.

Speaker 3 (36:12):
I'm on the bench. I'm up here, so I'm sort
of looking down on them. So if they see me
looking at them, they sort of look up and smile.
The court reporter is a couple of feet from the
jury and sits just you know, five feet from them,
so she's watching them. So she had told me throughout
the trial judge, there's gonna be a problem with journal
number so and so. And I said, what do you mean,

(36:33):
and she said, I can tell by the way she
looks at the shooter. She said, he kind of just
makes a face like like she's so sorry for him.
And I said, Trisha, I don't want to hear it,
because there's nothing anybody can do.

Speaker 1 (36:49):
If she's you know, sympathetic, it is what it is.

Speaker 3 (36:52):
And you know so. But she kept telling me that,
and as much as I wanted to believe that she
was mistaken, because even if a jury is sympathetic, they
shouldn't be staring at the defendant and making like, you know,
like mom eyes and kind of like you know, sad
faces and that type of thing. They should be professional,

(37:16):
which mosturs are. So when the jury was out deliberating,
which was only for I think it was like five hours,
and considering the amount of evidence in the number of victims,
it was a very short amount of time. But during
that time, my chambers were like right down the hallway

(37:38):
from the jury, and the we had armed deputies and
so they would come into my chambers, like, Judge, the
jurors are screaming, they're pounding they're pounding on the doors.
They want to get out. They say they can't. They
have to get away from her. They need a break.
What do you want us to do? And anytime you
hear that kind of thing as a judge, it's like,
oh boy, this is not good. And then I found

(37:59):
out later on from my bailiffs that this particular juror
would not engage with any of the other jurors. Like
they go to a hotel at night and they're all
sitting at the table eating dinner. She goes to her
own table. She has her arms crossed, she's giving all
of these signs like she doesn't even want to participate
in with the rest of the of the members. So

(38:28):
when I got to the verdict and it was so quick,
you know, it's hard. It's hard to guess what a
jury's going to do. Especially this was my first death
penalty case. I had tried capital cases, but not death penalty.
So I mean, the evidence, as you all know, that
the the aggravating factors have to outweigh the mitigating factors,

(38:52):
and in my opinion, my legal opinion, the aggravating factors
grossly outweighed the mitigating In fact, there was the mitigating
evidence was so just. I mean, one of the mitigating
factors was Nicholas Cruz is a human being. I mean really,
because basically you have to include anything that the defense wants.
So that was a mitigating factor.

Speaker 1 (39:14):
Can we just clarify for just the listeners, and mitigating
factors means the evidence that the defense presents that would say, okay,
he was wasn't there some evidence of abuse and things
like that.

Speaker 3 (39:26):
Sure, So the state will come forward and they will
present aggravating factors, and they're statutory and the very similar
state by state. Because I've looked at them. One of
them is heinous, atrocious, and cruel. In other words, And
I hate to give this example, Emily, but if I
came into your office right now and shot you in

(39:46):
the face, that would not be considered heinous, atrocis and cruel.
If I tied you up and tortured you for an
hour and a half and then played Russian Roulette at
the back of your head until one boat finally came out,
that would probably be considered heineous choices and cruel. So,
as I've explained to my daughter, who's always very curious
about this, not every murder qualifies for the death penalty.

(40:10):
It has to be the worst of the worst. So
some of the aggravating factors were, this shooter came in
with a high powered assault rifle. Those the ammunition and
that type of rifle. They're about this big and I
would say about two and a half inches, and they
are made to tumble. So imagine a tumble weed going

(40:31):
through your body, so it just shreds whatever's in front
of it. So if I shot you with a regular gun,
it would go maybe through and through, maybe the bullet
would enter your flight, but this type would basically tumble
weed all the way through your body until it came out.
The fact that he planned this, the fact that it
was so high premeditated, a higher level of premeditation. The

(40:55):
fact that he went up and down the hallways shot
some people, and and then when he went back and
made the second pass through, he realized that certain people
weren't dead yet, and then he shot him again. Like
the terror, the fact that it was done on a
school grounds. All of these things were aggravating factors. The
fact that he killed so many people each victim can

(41:17):
be an aggravating factor in the other victim's case. Okay,
so the state presented all of the aggravating factors. The
mitigating factors are by the defense and their factors, like, look,
this person is not like you and I. He or
she has special circumstances that you should take into account

(41:39):
so you can understand the person and know more about
them why they committed the crime. And then you should
weigh that according to the aggravating factors and say which
one outweighs the other. Many people are under the mistaken
belief that Nicholas Cruz came from an abusive home. It was,
in fact the oppice it he was. He and his

(42:02):
younger brother were both adopted at birth by a lovely
couple who wanted nothing more but to have kids, but
they hadn't been able to, so they adopted them. They
gave them every kind of thing physical and emotional that
they could think of. His father died when he was

(42:22):
rather young, but his mother was always there, you know,
And as he became more and more troubled, she had
him in therapy, she had him in you know, special programs.
She she got him tested, she she she worked with
the schools for absolutely not. That's the mistake and belief.

(42:43):
This woman was a saint. She tried everything. At the end,
it got so bad, even with all of these services
in place, that she would walk around the house and
she was terrified. She was terrified of him and his
younger brother because they just they got they got a
kick out of terrorizing this this lady. But no, she tried.

(43:05):
She tried very hard. They lived in a nice area
of Parkland, so that wasn't that's that's sort of a
mistake and belief. What the defense did try to present
is that he he suffered from fetal alcohol syndrome. The
problem with that was that there was no evidence of it.
His marconium I think, I believe that's what you call

(43:27):
the like the umbilical cord stuff. I'm not very good
at science, but it tested negative. He didn't have any
of the signs. There's all these factors that you have
to have all of these symptoms. He didn't. He didn't
even have let's say there's I can't remember off the
top of my head, but let's say in order to
be diagnosed with this illness, you have to have like

(43:51):
five factors. He didn't even have two.

Speaker 2 (43:54):
So you're saying, you're saying absent all these possible mitigating factors,
he still didn't get the.

Speaker 3 (44:00):
Correct he was a psychopath.

Speaker 1 (44:10):
Do you think it was the one juror that you
were talking about earlier. Do you think that she because
I know it was nine to three, So do you
think maybe she managed to convince to other people or
something and she was kind of the cancer in this
jury pool.

Speaker 3 (44:24):
I don't think it was nine to three. I think
because this particular juror wrote me a note after the
verdict in its public record, and she said, Judge, all
the jurors are accusing me, saying that I hadn't made
my mind up from the beginning, and I wouldn't deliberate,
and I just want you to know that that I

(44:44):
deny that fully, and etcetera, and et cetera. There were
two jurors, from my understanding, that had not made up
their mind, and so people put the one hold out.
I wouldn't even call her a holdout. I would I
would say she she she got I'm that jury to hijacket.
I believe because all of her answers in a definitely case,

(45:06):
the lawyers are Aret vadier Or. Jury selection went on
for I think it was two months of jury selection,
so each juror was questioned, I mean at nauseum, to
the point where you're like, oh, how many times can
you ask the same question? So you would have to
be really, really good to be able to answer all

(45:28):
of the questions to gives. You'd have to try very
hard if you were not fair. Okay, if you said
I'm anti death penalty or I'm absolutely pro death penalty
and I think this guy should get the death penalty
and I can keep an open mind. If you had
either extreme view, you would have to try very very

(45:48):
hard to answer the questions from the lawyers on both
sides to be able to make it through to the end.
If that makes sense, because both sides get hours and
hours to question each your individually and ask them in
many different ways, and the jurors are told, listen, if
you have a belief that you're against the death penalty,

(46:11):
that's fine, that's okay, but not in this case, because
you have to at least you don't have to say yes,
I'll give them the death penalty. You just have to
say I will keep an open mind. I understand that
my duty, my legal duty, and I just have to
be willing to be fair and impartial. And consider the factors.

(46:31):
That's it. You don't have to say yes, I will
give the death penalty or no I won't. You just
have to say I will participate in the legal process,
have the discussion, and if you have a belief that's firm,
like I don't believe in the death penalty, that's okay,
but you need to be a different case.

Speaker 2 (46:51):
That makes sense because if if you were a jury
member for a case that was over a crime that
the the juror member didn't believe was criminal, right, like
marijuana or something, and they felt that that should be
legal and it's not, then obviously they're not going to
consider issuing any punishment or finding anyone guilty of a

(47:12):
crime they don't believe it's a crime to begin with.
So it's the same with death penalty. It's not a
matter of there's nothing wrong with being opposed to the
death penalty. The problem is if you're opposed to the
death penalty, then you won't even consider it. And that's
what needs to be considered, whether it's right or wrong
in this case.

Speaker 3 (47:28):
And we tell them, listen, there's absolutely nothing wrong with
being opposed to the death penalty under any circumstances. There's
a lot of people that believe that. There's a lot
of states that are like that. But in Florida, we
have the death penalty. So you have to be able
to say you'll consider it. You have to be fair.
I'll give you a great example. So the head of

(47:49):
the sexual battery unit at the State Attorney's office here
in Broward County never went in Roward County. The hierarchy
is homicide is the sort of considered the highest trial unit.
It's the most elite trial unit. So as a trial lawyer,
if you want to devote your life to public service,

(48:10):
be a prosecutor, your goal would be to get to
get to homicide. So I once asked him, why aren't
you even homicide? Why have you been in the sexual
battery unit for so long? And he said, because I
don't believe in the death penalty. And that's a perfect example.
He's a prosecutor. He has no trouble prosecuting cases. He
believes in the law. But he knows that if I

(48:31):
don't believe in the death penalty, I can't go to homicide.
I can't make a decision whether or not the state's
going to seek the death penalty because I don't believe
in it.

Speaker 2 (48:39):
Person take over correct.

Speaker 3 (48:42):
But I think someone who can recognize that even as
a prosecutor, I give that person a lot of credit
because you know, not everybody has the same beliefs as judges.
It's hard.

Speaker 1 (48:53):
Also, I'll tell you, was the jury decision difficult for you?

Speaker 3 (48:58):
I was frustrated because we spent so much time and
I did not feel that. I believe what happened is
there were a lot of younger jerors, and I believe
that this woman was so adamant that she wouldn't discuss
it that they just threw up their hands and gave up.

(49:19):
And in my opinion, there were thirty five victims if
you divide, I did the math one time. They gave
less than like ten minutes of consideration to each victim.
And by the way, there were victims who got it
much worse than other victims, so the aggravating factors would

(49:40):
be worse. For example, I always call him little sweet
Peter Wang. He was count seventeen of the indictment. He
was holding the door on the third floor for the
mass of students to get out. Will this shooter is
heading towards them. Shooting into the crowd. He was shot

(50:01):
something like seventeen times. His skull was completely I mean
it was held together by skin. To me, someone like
that's much more aggravating than someone who was perhaps shot once.
So the fact that they did not even take the

(50:22):
time to go through each victim. And also I mentioned
there were two or three victims that were shot once
and would have lived, and they were trying to crawl
to safety, into the bathroom or trying to get away.
And what he did was he made two passes. On
each floor. There was a coach and at least two

(50:47):
children who were crawling to safety, and he didn't get them.
The first pass. There was a video of a coach
who had been shot numerous times, and he was trying
to get up. And I'll never forget it. And he's

(51:08):
trying to get up, and he's trying to get up
and and and I'm imagining this guy is just he's got,
he's got he's got two kids and a grand baby
on the way, and a wife who just absolutely adores him,
and I and I could just you can tell he's
trying to get up. He he's hey, I'm going to

(51:29):
get out of here. For my family, you know, and
he's get and he actually got up and he managed
to walk a few feet when when the shooter made
the second pass, and even after he shot him again
light on him two or three times, he still struggled
and he's still moving. And you can just see this
guy was a veteran, a marine, wonderful family man, wonderful coach,

(51:57):
you know, barged right in trying to save his kids,
and he didn't make it. Now, certainly there's a lot
more aggravating factors to that murder than there would be
to another person who was shot once. So yes, I
was frustrated. I don't believe that. I think that the

(52:19):
attitude of the one juror made it so that the
other jurors were just because they knew if they don't
all agree, if it's not unanimous, by the way that
law was changed, like I don't know. Thirty days after the.

Speaker 1 (52:29):
Verdict, I know we read that I was going to
ask you about that.

Speaker 3 (52:32):
That was because of my case. Basically the law. The
Florida Supreme Court had written an opinion maybe two years
before the Parkland shooting case went to trials, saying that
the Constitution does not require the verdict to be unanimous
as far as life versus death. But the and by

(52:57):
the way, when I read that opinion as a judge,
I thought to myself, that's scary, Like I almost panicked
because I thought that means it's going to be up
to me. And I'm Catholic. Catholics are anti death penalty.
I can tell you personally, I am not anti death penalty.

(53:18):
But on the other hand, being the person that essentially
pulls the trigger, that's a huge responsibility. So the the
the Florida legislature never codified that opinion. They just never
got to it. I couldn't help but think, you know,
maybe I rushed things. Maybe I didn't give you know,

(53:42):
as a judge, you have to move things. You have to,
you know, in that case went on forever, and I
still I needed to be efficient and I needed to
be fair, and sometimes that means putting your foot down
and saying no, we're not going to take another day
to do this. We're gonna you know, and give deadlines
and moving things. So I couldn't help, but think, in hindsight,

(54:04):
did I did I push too hard to get you know,
maybe I should have given him longer In jury selection.
You know, maybe I should have done this, maybe I
should have done that. If if I didn't know all
of the reasons about if I didn't know that that
particular juror had refused to participate in the jury deliberation process,
I wouldn't feel bad because a jury's verdict, it's a

(54:26):
jury's verdict. It's a jury of your peers, and that's
their decision. If that's their decision, even if I don't
agree with it, I have to accept it.

Speaker 1 (54:32):
Right.

Speaker 3 (54:33):
My frustration was with all of the banging on the door,
get me out of here, get me away from her her,
you know, with the with the arms crossed, not engaging
with the jury, not considering anything. That was frustrating. I
mean when when the jurors came out with the verdict,
there were two or three jurors that put their heads

(54:56):
down and were crying hysterically. They wouldn't even look at me.

Speaker 1 (54:59):
Yeah, because they so disappointed in the verdict.

Speaker 3 (55:02):
I don't know if they knew that I would be disappointed,
But I think that I think good jurors if they
see as a good judge who follows the law and
tries very hard to be fair and impartial. I think
they don't want to disappoint you. And I think they
knew that they had failed and that there was no
substance deliberation, and they just finally all gave up. I

(55:26):
mean there were a couple of them that fell down
in the parking lot crying hysterically, that had like ms had.

Speaker 1 (55:31):
To be called wow really.

Speaker 3 (55:34):
Yeah, because they were just besides themselves. And like I say,
there was a lot of younger people twenties and thirties,
and I think that if and I don't know this,
but I think that maybe if they if the jury

(55:56):
had been older, maybe they would have the strength to
sort of fight and say, no, you have to deliberate.
That's your job. You took an oath to deliberate, and
we're gonna, you know, we're gonna tell the judge if
you don't, if you don't participate in this instructions, and
the instructions are given to them about how they should,
you know, elect a four person and they should go

(56:18):
around the room and what they should do. What I
believe they should have done is pass a note and
say this juror is not following her oath and she's
refusing to deliberate. What would I have done with that,
and would I have been reversed? I don't know, but
at least it would have given me the opportunity to.

Speaker 2 (56:36):
To address address in fashion.

Speaker 3 (56:39):
Yeah, to address it and to perhaps excuse her and
replace her with one of the alternates, which we had. Again,
that's never been done, but in the in the context
of a jury saying this juror won't deliberate, But to me,
that means she's not being fair and impartial if she's
refusing to have any discussions.

Speaker 1 (56:59):
You know.

Speaker 3 (57:02):
So, yes, that was sort of a long answer.

Speaker 1 (57:04):
I'm sorry.

Speaker 3 (57:06):
I was disappointed because I can't help but feel like
I may have played a part and what went wrong,
And also because the world was watching. And I have
to tell you that ninety nine percent of juris they
try really hard to get it right, and they listen intently,
and they listen to the instructions, and I think, even

(57:29):
if maybe I don't agree with their decision, that they
give it. They're all And I feel that this was
such a bad example for the nation and in other countries.
I mean, this case was watched in every country in
the world, and I just felt like, this is not

(57:50):
how justice is supposed to work, and for that I
had to blame myself because ultimately the responsibility of making
sure the tireless fairs up to the judge.

Speaker 1 (58:09):
Now, Nick Reiner has been in the news a lot.
Have you been following that I have to a certain extent. Yeah, yeah,
And we just talked about before you came on, how
Alan Jackson was representing him and then he you know,
at the arraignment he withdrew. We me basically, I'm of
the opinion that he withdrew because of finances. Do you
have an opinion on the reason.

Speaker 3 (58:29):
You know, It's funny. Before the podcast, I was preparing
and reading everything and trying to figure things out, and
the first thing I thought was money, because he's not
gonna have access to his parents' money. He's in jail.
And when I read that he's been in and out
of rehab so many times, I'm assuming he doesn't have
some trust fun sitting in the bank. So yes, I

(58:51):
assume money. But the way that the defense attorney, mister
Jackson responded saying it would be aune ethical for me
to say that, I was a little confused about because
attorneys come forward all the time at least in Florida
and say Judge that he can't he doesn't have the
money to pay me. I can't stand.

Speaker 2 (59:10):
But that's all. But that's also in a courtroom setting,
right when they're trying to present and they're making emotion
to withdraw or something.

Speaker 3 (59:16):
Sure, but it would be public.

Speaker 2 (59:19):
Well, maybe he just doesn't want to look like he's
a greedy attorney.

Speaker 3 (59:23):
Well, I'm thinking that a lot of people would want
to take this case for free anyway for the publicity.

Speaker 2 (59:27):
Right, I thought I thought so too, but that I
read that he doesn't do probona, but I would have
thought he did it. In fact, I think I told
Emily that, I'm like, he's probably doing it for free,
and then he gets a lot of free I think,
gets a lot of potential criminal cases. And then he
might throw him down to his other attorneys in his
firm and he's doing the head this big one.

Speaker 3 (59:42):
You know.

Speaker 2 (59:44):
Well, Emily is just in love with Alan Jackson, and
she wants to find every reason to say that he's
a gentleman and his hands are tied.

Speaker 1 (59:52):
Well, I'm a big fan of I became a big
fan of Alan Jackson watching him do the Karen Reid trial.
So yeah, well here's the thing.

Speaker 3 (01:00:02):
You know, like you you all are lawyers practicing lawyers,
so you know that for example, my law firm, we've
stopped taking not completely, but we have tapered down the
amount of contingency cases that we take because you have
to bankroll the litigation and then it can be years
and then the case is on appeal and you may

(01:00:22):
not get paid for ten to fifteen years, and while
who's paying at all, you know, who's paying keep the
lights on. So I wouldn't think an attorney is a
bad person just because they won't take a case for free.

Speaker 2 (01:00:33):
No, No, I said that earlier. I said, he has
every right to charge what heah he's worth, and he's
given him his time, and if they can't afford it,
then he's going to put us, you.

Speaker 3 (01:00:41):
Know, and he may not. He might not have the funds.
He may not have the money to be able to
bankroll that that case. He may not. You know, I
don't know that much about him, but that's going to
be an expensive case to try, I would imagine.

Speaker 2 (01:00:56):
To put it lightly, Yeah, you know all.

Speaker 3 (01:00:58):
The experts that they're probably going to hide, psychologists, psychiatrists,
I mean, I don't know what the defense will be, but.

Speaker 1 (01:01:09):
We've discussed we're some type of insanity defense, right.

Speaker 3 (01:01:16):
I mean, I wasn't able to find like a probable
cause affidavit or anything like that. I was able to
find just the injuries to the victims and then the
fact that he was arrested. I don't know if there's
more to it that I don't know, but.

Speaker 1 (01:01:30):
Well, I've read some things about I mean, just like
his past, his past behavior, some of the way he
was acting the night before at a party that he
was on meds, but the meds had been switched, and
so I don't know. I was just taking all that
into account, thinking that, you know, when we're talking about
mitigating factors, that that's probably something that's going to come
into play eventually. And the fact that a public defender

(01:01:51):
took the case made me think it also had to
do with money, because I felt like if there was
money to defend him, they would have brought some other
big name defense attorney. And but it's not. It's a
public defen or.

Speaker 3 (01:02:01):
It may be that what happens a lot of times,
and I feel bad for the public defenders for this,
but they'll say, let the public. You know, a private
attorney will say, let the public defender work up the case,
Let the public defender take the depots and do all
the leg work, and then all come in substitutent at
the end. Now, of course they don't say this, but

(01:02:23):
when it happens, it's very frustrating to the public defenders
and unfair because they bear the brunt, so that that
could be an angle. I wouldn't be surprised if mister
Jackson or another prominent attorney were to substitutent once the
heavy lifting is done.

Speaker 1 (01:02:38):
Oh yeah, you know, I didn't think of that, But
that's that's that's an interesting take.

Speaker 3 (01:02:42):
You know what I mean. Yeah, because then they pay
for the depots, they pay for the they pay for
everything in two months before trial. You know, you have
a right to pick your own lawyer, and as long
as the lawyer can be ready within a reasonable time period,
the judge has no other choice but to let the
person substitute in. I would not be surprised if that
were to happen.

Speaker 1 (01:03:00):
Right, that's interesting. We'll have to keep following that case
and see what happens. Just one one more question. Now,
I'm sure you followed Diddy.

Speaker 3 (01:03:10):
I did.

Speaker 1 (01:03:11):
Were you surprised by the verdict.

Speaker 3 (01:03:14):
You know, because it's in federal court and you don't
get to watch it, hear it, see it every day.
I mean the bits from what I could, you know,
you had to rely on reporters to tell you what
their sense of what was going on. I mean, my
opinion is they just didn't think that they believed it
was consensual, so it didn't rise to the to the

(01:03:34):
level of trafficking.

Speaker 1 (01:03:36):
Right. Well, we had discussed a few times on this podcast,
and I think we always said was I felt like
they were going to have trouble with the Rico part
of it. Yeah, it didn't that seemed I mean, obviously
he was a horrible person. We all watched the video
of him, you know, attacking Cassie in the hallway. He
was violent. We knew that. But I felt as if

(01:03:57):
those higher charges, the reco charge, those were going to
be difficult.

Speaker 3 (01:04:01):
Yes see, if the prosecution was smart, and I've I
said this on another podcast that I was on, if
they would have prosecuted him for the dragging her in
that hotel, at least in Florida, and I don't know
about California. But that could have been a kidnapping. That
could have been a false imprisonment, holding somebody against their will,
that could have been an aggravated battery, that could have

(01:04:23):
been a number of felonies that would where he would
face fifteen plus years in prison. And it's all on
video and he can't explain it. There's no way to
explain away what he did. Why they didn't prosecute him
for that and asked for the maximum punishment. I don't know,
because certainly that was a much that would have been
a one day trial. You show the video he hit

(01:04:45):
her with I believe multiple he was throwing multiple objects
at her in Florida. That's an aggravated battery with a weapon,
deadly weapon. And again, kidnapping because when you're holding somebody
against their will and false imprisonment.

Speaker 1 (01:05:00):
Like back to the room or something, right right, he
doesn't let her get on the elevator right right.

Speaker 3 (01:05:05):
And that's like for anybody that doesn't understand, a kidnapping
does not necessarily have to be that you put somebody
in your car and you take them away for like
two days. A kidnapping can be fifteen seconds, you know,
trying exactly, trying to get her before she gets on
the elevator and keeping her from escaping. To me, they

(01:05:25):
should have gone for that. That would have been a
slam dunk. But this other case, you know, I think
the jury didn't buy it and so they came back
with a lesser charge. I wasn't I wasn't totally surprised.
I you know, I think they deliberated for quite some time.
They were listening, and they did their job. And if

(01:05:45):
that's what they if that's what a jury does, then
then you know, to me, I'm fully in favor of
our of our system of justice. I think juries get
it right most of the time. So you know, without
having been there, I don't know, but it does not surprise.
The verdict did not surprise me.

Speaker 1 (01:06:03):
Can I ask you one more thing? And I don't
know if you're comfortable talking about it, but I do
know when when when the jury came out in the
Parkland case and they gave the verdict and everything, and
then you hugged the families and then I think you
got some backlash because of that, I guess because you
weren't showing what impartiality or whatever is that that's what
the accusation was but I was before you came on.

(01:06:26):
I was discussing that with Shane, and I said, I said,
women are innately nurturers, and like how you were talking
about before with like a man on the bench, and
I could picture if it was a male judge, the
verdict would have come out, he would have whatever and
then walked away. But as women were mothers, were nurtures,

(01:06:46):
were like were innately that way. So I feel as
if what you just giving the families a hug is
just a natural progression of what women do well.

Speaker 3 (01:06:58):
So let me just say this. It started off I
was going to shake hands with the lawyers and whoever
wanted to shake my hand, which men, male judges do
all the time, and the way the bench was set up,
I had to reach so far over that I was
afraid my thiek were going to come out from under
me and I was going to sort of fall forward.
So I said, let me come off the bench and

(01:07:20):
come around. Now at this point, I know it's a
life sentence, so I know there's no appeal. The defendant's
already been taken by the corrections officers, so I'm not
worried about being unfair because I was planning to shake
hands with anybody, including defense, prosecution, anyone.

Speaker 1 (01:07:38):
Right, So I go.

Speaker 3 (01:07:40):
Up to the first prosecutor and I thought, you know what,
we've all been together hearing this horrible story for five years.
I'm going to give them a hug. It's kind of uncomfortable. Women,
we don't really shake hands, right.

Speaker 1 (01:07:57):
I'm more of a hugger.

Speaker 3 (01:07:58):
Yeah, I'm a but under those circumstances, I just thought,
you know what, a hug is more appropriate. So I
started hugging the lawyers and then I walked over to
the defense and I said, thank you all very much,
before you leave, I would love to give you, know,
give you all. I've come down off the bench. If
anyone wants a hug. I'm not a big hugger, but

(01:08:19):
now it's your chance. And they all just sort of
looked at me like they were not interested. I said, okay,
going once, going twice. And then after that the prosecution said, Judge,
the family members would like to meet you and thank you.
Do you mind And I said no, of course not, because,

(01:08:41):
like I said, if it had been a situation where
I had stayed behind the bench, anybody can come up
to me. The if the defendant had family members there
and they want to come up to me. It'd have
been fine because I was off the bench again, and
because the family members had seen me hugging the lawyers.
I hug the press, you know, yeah, to see me
hugging lawyers. So I the families come up and they

(01:09:03):
start hugging me. And I thought to myself, you know,
as a human being, if I can do this, if
this gives these people some sort of reprieve from their grief,
if I can offer them some kind of human kindness
in this just simple, simple gesture, I'm going to do it.

Speaker 2 (01:09:25):
Now.

Speaker 3 (01:09:25):
I knew the cameras were rolling, I knew I was
being filmed. I made the decision. I didn't care. I
knew this is this is uh, this could be considered unfair.
But I felt because I hugged the press, you know,
I was hugging everybody that it was like, you know,
it wasn't expartey because I wasn't just hugging one side.
I was, you know, hugging everybody, right, But I knew

(01:09:48):
this could come back to get me. And my staff
attorney was there, and afterwards I said to him, Michael,
he said, Judge, I think you're fine, And I said,
you know what, even if I'm not, I don't care
because offer these people just that small gesture. I think
it made such a difference to them to know that. Look,
I tried my best, and I listened, and I understand

(01:10:13):
and so yes, I was brought before the Judicial Qualifications
Commission for that and they told me that it, you know,
was not fair and the appearance of impartiality, and we
had to we agreed to disagree. I can tell you

(01:10:36):
I that none nobody on that committee has ever tried
a case like this. Most of them are appellate judges.
They've never even tried a case in their life. But
the I don't regret my decision.

Speaker 1 (01:10:50):
That's why I was going to ask you, given the
chance to do it again, would you do it the same?

Speaker 3 (01:10:54):
Yes, well absolutely, and I could have. I could have
taken that charge to try. I basically pled no contest,
meaning I'm not going to dispute this allegation. And the
punishment was, oh, we're going to reprimand you. And by
way of this order, this is the reprimand, which has
by the way, never been done before ever in the
history of Florida. A reprimand as you go before the

(01:11:16):
Florida Supreme Court and on national television they shame on
you and really let you have it on national TV.
The Florida Supreme Court did not do that. They issued
a one sentence order that says this will be the
reprimand which to me says that they either didn't agree
with it or felt it was over overdone. I could

(01:11:39):
have gone to trial, which my family wanted me to do,
to dispute it, but I said no, because my witnesses
are going to be that these family members. I can
have these people go through this again. There's no way
I can't if I have to take a slap on
the wrists or whatever it was. Plus I kind of

(01:12:02):
I mean, this is gonna sound maybe not that nice,
but it's okay because I haven't been a judge for
two years so that they don't have jurisdiction over me anymore.
But I was thinking, you know what, fine, bring me
up before the Phoidacy Supreme Court, because guess what's gonna happen.
A whole bunch of my colleagues, fellow judges, and all
of those family members. We're going to go and sit
in that courtroom right behind me so I don't regret it.

(01:12:27):
I feel close to a lot of those families, even
though we never spoke for all those years, just from
listening to their stories and having me opportunity to interact
with them.

Speaker 1 (01:12:42):
Well, sometimes at the end of the day, it's about
being human and not as what the black and white
legal rules of the courtroom are. And I think you
just showed humanity.

Speaker 3 (01:12:53):
I mean, thank you for saying that. I think that
the people who criticize me, I just I know for
a fact no one has ever been in that situation before.

Speaker 2 (01:13:08):
Well, none of the people would criticize you have never
been in your place either to be able to say
what is right and wrong.

Speaker 3 (01:13:15):
And I have to tell you that trial, everybody was
crying in the courtroom. The defense attorneys were hysterical, the
state shed tears, the court deputies shed tears, the security
shed tears, the family were crying. Guess who never cried? Me?
I never cried. And I had male judges coming up
to me every day saying, Liz, how did you do that?
How did you not cry? Because I put on my

(01:13:37):
big girl pants and I said, if a male judge
doesn't cry, this female judge is not going to cry.
But I had a lot of stuff that I buried
deep to make sure that that trial was fair and impartial.
And you know, if I had broken down in tears,
I don't think I would have gotten trouble because they
would have said, well, you can't help that, you know

(01:13:58):
what I mean.

Speaker 1 (01:13:59):
Yeah, But to me, that's more if that would have happened,
that's more showing some kind of emotion when you hugging
after the sentencing and the verdict, after the.

Speaker 3 (01:14:10):
After the defendant was excused, when there's I know there's
not going to be any appeal. If he had been
given the death penalty, I would not have done that
because I know there would have been an appeal, but
I knew there's no there's no appeal. This is all over.
You know, I buried that, that my emotions this whole time,
and I'm going to be a human being and you know,
I'll deal with it later.

Speaker 1 (01:14:31):
So yeah, well, you know what, thank you for sharing
all of that. We really appreciate you coming on today
and being so vulnerable and talking about that case and
your experience. And you can find your YouTube channel. It's
at the judge list. So I would suggest if if
you guys have the time to watch her. We've watched

(01:14:52):
several of your videos and I really enjoy them. I
like your perspective and I think, thanks you done so.
But anyway, thank you so much for joining us today
on Legally Brunette. Really appreciate it.

Speaker 3 (01:15:01):
It was so great to meet you both. I'm so flattered.
And your show the was it? Was it a wife
swap last week?

Speaker 1 (01:15:10):
Oh yeah, I've been on white Swap. Yeah. Yeah.

Speaker 3 (01:15:12):
So my assistance text, you got to turn this on.
You got to turn this on. She's a really nice lady.
You're going to love her. And so I turn it
on for a few minutes. So I was telling a
lot of my friends at my barn like I'm gonna
be on this podcast and she's on Housewives of Orange
County and they were like, oh my god, that's so cool.

Speaker 1 (01:15:33):
So yes, well, thank you, thank you so nice to
meet both of you. Thanks Liz, We appreciate it all right,
take care you too, Bye bye Bay. Thanks guys for listening.
We appreciate it. Again. You can find us anywhere you
listen to podcasts. You can just search for Legally Brunette.
Make sure you tell your friends and family and Also,
I always appreciate the feedback. You guys dm me on

(01:15:55):
Instagram and let me know what cases you're interested in
and thank you and we will see you soon.

Speaker 2 (01:16:00):
Thank you. Follow h