August 29, 2025 • 30 mins
This week on Crime Roundup, Sheryl McCollum and Joshua Schiffer tackle a courtroom moment that has everyone talking: Cardi B’s bold, unscripted testimony in a civil trial that underscores the power of authenticity on the stand. They revisit the Karen Read case, where Trooper Proctor is fighting to regain his badge despite a misconduct scandal that may have ended his creditability as a witness.
In Georgia, Trooper A.J. Scott faces the consequences of a high-speed crash that killed two teenagers, but a puzzling verdict leaves one family still searching for accountability. The episode wraps with a brief but important warning for parents, as Joshua shares a recent case involving online blackmail targeting a student.
Highlights:
- (0:00) Welcome to Crime Roundup with Sheryl McCollum and Joshua Schiffer
- (2:45) Cardi B takes the stand and delivers unforgettable courtroom testimony
- (4:30) Hair relevance, and how not to question a celebrity witness
- (6:00) Behind the curtain of civil law: contingency fees and when lawsuits go too far
- (8:15) Trooper Proctor and the fallout from the Karen Read investigation
- (9:30) How private texts and off-duty behavior can derail a law enforcement career
- (16:15) Trooper A.J. Scott’s case: high speed crash left two dead, but only one homicide conviction follows
- (20:00) Cardi B owns the stand: embracing her voice, her language, and why authenticity resonates with juries
- (24:30) How attorney’s fees, not injuries, can drive strategy in civil trials
- (29:00) A quick warning for parents: how a student was targeted by online blackmail
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 fearless advocate for accountability.
Sheryl “Mac” McCollum is an Emmy Award-winning CSI, a writer for CrimeOnline, forensic and crime scene expert for Crime Stories with Nancy Grace, and co-author of the textbook Cold Case: Pathways to Justice. She is the founder and director of the Cold Case Investigative Research Institute, a national collaboration that advances techniques for solving cold cases and assists families and law enforcement with unsolved homicides, missing persons, and kidnappings.
🎧 Want more from Sheryl?
Catch her every Wednesday on Zone 7, where she doesn’t just talk cold cases, she works them. She is joined by fellow forensic pros and criminal justice insiders for conversations straight from active investigations. Then on Mondays, tune in to Pathology with Dr. Priya, where the physical evidence takes center stage.
📢 If you enjoyed this episode, follow Zone 7: Crime Roundup on your favorite podcast platform and leave a review to help others find the show. Have a case or topic you want discussed? Email coldcase2004@gmail.com or connect with the hosts on social:
- 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 the crime around up y'all. There's so much
to unpack today, there's no reason to even do a
long introduction about anything. Joshua shit, forget on in here, honey.
Speaker 2 (00:20):
I don't know if I want to come, because it's
it's just gorgeous outside. I tell you, I tell you,
these cool crisp weather. We're having what we call this
out the fakeball because we know it ain't sticking around,
and we know that next week it is going to
be sticking moist like nobody's business. But for right now,
(00:41):
you cannot beat that cool crisp due point level you know,
in the sixties, and it's just going to be one
of those amazing weekends. You got anything, great plan share.
Speaker 1 (00:52):
My sister Sheila calls it a chamber of commerce morning.
It is perfect. The weather is perfect. Yes, you're having
a spectacular time. It's my sister Shavern's birthday, so we
are all just going to celebrate and celebrate.
Speaker 2 (01:07):
That is fantastic. Yep. I'm up to some some land
in North Georgia with some random idiots and we're going
to do some random idiocy because we pretend to be
country boys like our ancestors and around that.
Speaker 1 (01:24):
Sounds like a band from the eighties that I would
have loved.
Speaker 2 (01:27):
We probably we would grow our hair big if we could,
but hair is not one of our strengths. Let's just
let's just say that.
Speaker 1 (01:35):
Who are you going to see Saturday Night?
Speaker 2 (01:37):
The random idiots? Yeah, but random idiots? And and what's
funny is so one of them happens to be this
big shot lawyer that I grew up with. We're just
regular kids. But he now represents a large insurance company
that does property out of some of New York's most
famous buildings. And rather than send all those cases with
(01:58):
New York lawyers to some big shot New York defense attorney,
they send him out to some man that lives out
in Paulding County. And for those of you that do
not know Paulding County, there is no place further in
America from Manhattan than Paulding County, Georgia. And it's quite
a clash of cultures. You could say he has a
(02:19):
good old time with them lawyers speaking to lawyers. This
week in True Crime has been you know, we've had
a couple of big ones going on, and then the
narratives kind of gotten outside of just true crime. And
I love it when the true crime universe has one
of these civil cases that pops up and grabs everybody's attention.
We've had that this week with one of America's most
(02:42):
famous entertainers, who in my perspective, and I think a
lot of other peoples getting the hold up on the
civil case for the fight. And I know you've been
watching Cardi B, haven't you?
Speaker 1 (02:54):
Carti B. She should do a class on how to testify.
Speaker 2 (03:00):
Love it.
Speaker 1 (03:00):
She's natural, this is her, there's no pretense. This is
what happened. Yeah, I said it. I'm gonna say it
again right here. He's trying to get to her. He's
trying to make fun of the wigs. He's trying to say,
how do you know my client is just in it
for the money? Oh, girl says, because she's suing me
for twenty four million dollars.
Speaker 2 (03:23):
I love it, and it's the perfect examp people like, oh,
that's gonna be a bad witness. You know. Lawyers are
filled with all these liar tricks and these old wives tales. Oh,
you just can't do. Teachers are bad jurors for this,
and you don't want an old person for that. And
you look at Cardi b and a lot of people
(03:43):
would just jump and make a bunch of decisions because
here we have this woman who comes from a place
that is very unique, that she's very proud of, that's
very far away from where a lot of that kind
of mainstream America is connected to. And she embraces it,
and she embraces he says, her distinct identity, her lifestyle,
her brand, and guess what, it ain't mine. It ain't mine.
(04:07):
Oh no it is not. But that authenticity shines through.
That's what matters.
Speaker 1 (04:13):
That's what matters all day long. And you know it's obvious.
I think to folks, what the attorney is trying to do.
He's trying to push her, trying to needle her, trying
to show this woman has a temper. But when you
say to somebody, now, yesterday your hair was black with
bangs and now it's long and blonde. Which one's your
(04:36):
real hair?
Speaker 2 (04:37):
Oh god, he is the cringiest, Like it's killing me.
Speaker 1 (04:41):
Okay, relevant relevance, what are we talking about? You're talking
about her hair? And of course she handled it. I
thought beautifully. They're wigs.
Speaker 2 (04:54):
Yeah, And I love the matter of factness where she
has in a way that I'm almost envious. Up, she
doesn't have this false fear or intimidation or consideration for embarrassment. Nope,
guess what. She has embraced her wig and her hair
(05:16):
and her hair style and totally turned around on this weasley,
sniveling guy that probably, in my opinion, came off terrible
in front of a jury where you're trying to pick
on the physical appearance of someone you're suing, and she
turned that around on him so fast he didn't even
know was And I think he sat down probably going
(05:36):
ha ha, Look I said my witty thing. But yeah,
it just.
Speaker 1 (05:42):
Let's be realistic. He got a client that says I
had some type of interaction with Cardi B. This is
gonna be a simple They're gonna settle out of cord.
I'm just gonna get a quick check, you'll get your cut,
and we'll go on. There's no way she's going to trial.
Speaker 2 (06:00):
And you know, these are the kind of cases we
get pitch so for. People don't understand the economics of
law firms. There's basically a very small number of ways
lawyers get paid. Lawyers get paid for work performed on
a flat rate or hourly basis. That's all your criminal law,
(06:21):
that's all your corporate law, that's all your divorce law
and bankruptcy law and all that kind of stuff, because
the lawyer's going to get paid for work cirt. Now
the other kind of billing you've got is this contingency billing.
That's exactly how injury cases happen, and it puts all
that burden on the lawyer to trust themselves because what
(06:45):
you've got as a client, My client comes in and
tells you their story, and you, as the lawyer, turn around, go,
am I going to invest my resources, time, money, staff,
bandwidth in a joint project with this with this client
and say that I believe him so much and I
can prove so much and I know so much that
(07:06):
I can force other people to give my client their money,
and I'm going to get a piece of that. Now.
If you don't win, you get nothing. So it is
a it is a It's kind of like being a
modern day Viking in business, because it's you're gonna go
out there with your battle acts and try to get
what you can get, eat what you can kill, and
(07:27):
if you don't win, you don't win. So this lawyer.
I get that he has a client that had a
legitimate incident with Cardi B. But the real problem, as
with so many of the lawyers in this space, they're
encouraged to go just swing in the dumbest ways. Twenty
(07:48):
four million dollars for a scratch, it's and it just
gets turned around. Because you're right, if they'd approached Carti
and her people on the front end, it's probably worth
in the tens of thousands, if not even in the
hundreds of thousands, to not deal with this situation. But
(08:08):
twenty four million.
Speaker 1 (08:10):
Now, come on, now, speaking of civil actions, let's talk
about Trooper Proctor from Karen Reid. Y'all, remember he sent
the text messages that were just vulgar and heinous and
broke all kind of SOPs within the police department, but
he is trying to get his job back.
Speaker 2 (08:31):
Joshua, Yeah, And this one just can't stay out of
the news. And for those of us that work in
and around law enforcement, how the system deals with the
remedial measures after something bad has happened, that's really interesting.
Like there was commentary on this officer discipline job stuff
(08:53):
that happened with that AJ Scott case that they tried
down there in Georgia where it was the trooper, and
one of the comments was, you know that he was
responsible for the wreck because he didn't get his job
back with the Georgia State Patrol. And that's what's going
on here with proctors. Proctor is advocating aggressively for Hey,
(09:15):
I made mistakes. You don't judge a man by just
the one bridge that fell down. You judge him by
all the other bridges that he built. Please give me
my job.
Speaker 1 (09:24):
Back, right, and listen, just what we know from the
first trial, because again, as we both predicted correctly, he
was never going to testify in the second one, which
brings up my biggest point. He ain't never going to
be able to testify ever again in any trial ever
(09:46):
as a trooper. What defense attorney is not salivating to
get to him.
Speaker 2 (09:52):
Oh, his value as a member of law enforcement has
dramatically changed. Now that's not to say he doesn't have
substantial value, but he is never testifying again in any
case in any manner.
Speaker 1 (10:09):
Have you ever shared text messages about an ongoing investigation
without outside people from law enforcement? Have you ever sent
text messages of a vulgar nature? About a suspect. Have
you ever admitted to drinking on the job. I mean,
I've got nothing further. My client's walking out of here.
Speaker 2 (10:26):
Yeah, he is just absolutely a chicken on a spit
if you get him on the stand, and someone's going
to realize that. But there's still value that he can
offer law enforcement. I would think it would come in
a substantially reduced salary, as I don't think he can
provide the full services of a certified officer. But it'll
(10:49):
be interesting to see how they deal with this, and
I think that the public is still so interested they
may make an example of him and actually keep him
off the force. But folks, traditionally it's generally pretty permissive
with officers as long as there has been some accountability
(11:09):
some times, some remedial training, some ignoledge, and people get
jobs back because people make mistakes. And anybody that's an officer,
anybody that works in one of these really high stress,
small community jobs, doctors, lawyers, cops, er, firefighters. We're not
(11:33):
on duty twenty four hours a day, three and sixty
five days a year. We have conversations that are not
reflective of our public career and persona, but reflect the
totality of us, including the stuff we're not really proud
of and we don't want to share with everybody. And
that's the consideration that Trooper Proctor is asking for, because
(11:56):
the kinds of discussions that happened, while awful, aren't unprecedented.
And you don't hear anybody saying, oh, I've never said
I've knowed. That's because everybody has some of these conversations
that are off on the side. Was it unbelievably sloppy
for him to do it on duty? Was it relevant
(12:19):
to the prosecution of the case. Yeah, absolutely, you can't
hide that stuff. And I think we're going to see
a lot more of Hey, now that we've got your
official evidence, let's go ahead and get those cell phones.
Because I tell you I in Georgia we are not
traditionally given access to the personal communications of law enforcement
(12:39):
or prosecutors. It's very difficult to obtain those conversations because
we all know what are in them.
Speaker 1 (12:49):
What time is Bible study?
Speaker 2 (12:51):
Yeah, and listen, I have I will admit it right now.
I have said some inopportunity and downright horrifically offensive and
regrettable things in my life. And I may have said
them related to job issues, because.
Speaker 1 (13:10):
Man, perhaps criminal law's.
Speaker 2 (13:12):
Got some pretty wrecky situations. I don't know. He just
remained silent.
Speaker 1 (13:16):
Josh, you and I were texted last night, just being funny,
and I wouldn't want that red today. And it was nothing.
It was nothing vulgar, it was nothing out of bounds.
It was nothing, nothing, nothing but just friendly, hey buddy.
But I wouldn't want to have to come on here
and go, Okay, y'all, this is what I texted.
Speaker 2 (13:35):
No, because guess guess what. Everybody has that slice of
their brain, and it'll be very interesting to see what
happens with Procer because of the intense scrutiny. I know
law enforcements watching them because it's also one of these
cases where all right, a law and member of law
(13:57):
enforcement did something that was in advice and poor that
resulted in some bad stuff. Okay, so that's a consequence, now,
trooper practice consequence. Due to the high priority or prominence
of the carry prosecution, he wasn't just made an example of.
He became a national calling card for these conversations was
(14:22):
a discussion across every police department in the nation. You
don't think it roll call. Sergeant wasn't like, all right, everybody,
just remember those texts out there, everybody. You don't want
to if you're texting it, it may come into court.
So just watch it, y'all. This is just filtering through
(14:46):
law enforcement. But this is stuff that we deal with
in politics and business and litigation. It's why the whole
signal gate was so important because technically, if you're a
government member, you get to text and do anything. It's
subject to foyer, it's subject to records retrieval and storage.
You are not allowed to be a government agent and
(15:09):
create documents and really willing nearly destroy them. It's one
of your obligations to keep these communications. But what about
these communications that will include obviously potentially inflammatory or you know, discussions.
You want your leaders to be able to freely discuss
(15:30):
things without the risk of defensive talk. And we you know,
we hear about defensive medicine, where doctors are going to
do something because that's going to protect them. You get
defensive talk in policy where you're going to get an
email that is for that is knowing subject to FOYA,
(15:51):
that is knowing subject to discovery rules, and that is
going to be the boilerplate. What about the rest of
the conversation. You might need more as a boss to
explain to your employees this is what I really mean.
But that introduces the opportunity for manipulation, for misstating. You
(16:13):
can twist stuff around, you can catch people up. It
gets real sticky. And we'll see what happens after Proctor.
I'll be interested to see if they what they let
him do.
Speaker 1 (16:24):
Me too. But let's go back to Georgia minute and
talk about Trooper Scott, who you mentioned briefly. So he's speeding,
He's going about ninety miles an hour. He's going to
go meet a friend, another trooper that's going to charge
his battery for his body warn cameras. He causes an accident,
killing two teenage girls. Now what I wanted to ask
(16:47):
you about. He was found guilty of one count of
second degree vehicular homicide, two counts of serious injury by
vehicle while speeding. How in the world was he not
found of two homicides.
Speaker 2 (17:03):
I saw that, and you and I kind of scratched
our heads for a sey. I've got to dig into
that because it doesn't it doesn't logically hit and for
those of y'all that aren't familiar with this case, it
is worth looking up and reading just so you understand.
It's hard like how a regular, straightforward driving issue can
(17:27):
spin into something that literally is going to result in
him going to prison for decades and decades. It's the
loss of two wonderful young women's lives, it's the permanent
brain injury of this young man, and it's the rules
of the road case. This was not a case where
there was deep sifting the challenging acad No, he was
(17:48):
charged with driving too fast, which he was doing, and
he blew through the intersection, which he admitted to, and
it came down to whether the kids were properly or
improperly taking a left in front of them. And that's
the same case you get thousands and thousands of times
to accept. This one involved those horrible deaths, and I
(18:12):
think that that sentence is going to be interesting. You've
got someone who is a trooper, You've got some mitigation,
he was elected to some leadership positions in the community,
but then there was that delay in prosecution. It's been
ten years that these parents have been waiting for justice
for their kids. There's a lot of reason for the
(18:34):
judge to swing hard given the defendant's attitude and willingness
to accept responsibility and some of the statements and things
that he's made. And I don't get that conviction, Like
I don't get why it's not on both both girls.
Speaker 1 (18:53):
I don't either, because I think you've got one family
sitting there going really how my child was dead in
that ca are? I just I was baffled by it,
So maybe you will have some answers.
Speaker 2 (19:07):
Yeah, what I thought was interesting, and it was kind
of one of those things that lawyers see more than
anybody really pay attention to. They had him in cuffs
before the verdict was done being read. I tell you,
I don't believe there's much love lost amongst certain groups
and defendant Scott or inmate Scott. I believe that his
(19:30):
attitude probably extends towards his current facility, and you don't
do great with an attitude inside lock up. A lock
up is meant to teach you that you are not
in control, no matter how much you want to be,
because you can yell and scream about how unfair, Well,
(19:51):
if you're sitting in a locker room with no one
that that's just the way it is. So we'll we'll
see that case. There's there's something else going on that case.
I just I don't know. It didn't settle with me
real good.
Speaker 1 (20:05):
Well there's more and there's gonna be more next week.
But you know, I just think again, I've got to
give a little bit of props to Cardi b the
way she's handling herself. And I gotta just tell you
we'll end with this one, Joshua. I want your opinion
when she turned to that attorney and said, that's an
F and lie, but she didn't say F No. Have
(20:29):
many times have I had to testify or you've had
a client that had to testify that wished we could
have said that, because that's what was happening.
Speaker 2 (20:39):
I love you know, I'm a dad, So it's not
exactly the cultural mentor that I'm like, hey, daughter, go emulate.
But I really respect her for being so right on
and right embracing the person that she is, because that's
brought her this level of success in recognition, and she's
(21:01):
following her dream and she's doing it in an unabashed
nature and more people need to do that, and damn
the torpedoes and full speed ahead. And I really like that,
and I think that this lawyer highlighting how she falls
outside of this mainstream America man, that's going to bite
him in the butt because a jury in America recognizes
(21:24):
difference matters. This is why she's a successful person. And
so in that planet back to what we were talking about,
this lawyer for the plane, it has to show that
there was duty breach, causation and damages, that there was
an attack. That meant that there were injuries, and those
injuries are compensable in the form of money. So the
(21:48):
duty pretty easy. You ain't supposed to be hitting people,
touching people wrongfully without their consent to the point that
it leaves a mark or a scar. That's a civil
or criminal claim. The breach is what we're here in
the tech testimony about who hit who first, Who was
the primary aggressor? And one of the big questions we're
going to get to with the additional testimony is was
(22:08):
this mutual combat or a fray? Was there not a
clear uh, primary aggressor, Because that's the that's the dynamic
that officers are taught to use when they're doing investigation.
Who started it? Was it? Someone started it? And then
the response was disproportionate or was the initial threat in dispropose?
(22:31):
There's all kinds of different ways you can chop that up.
Speaker 1 (22:34):
And did Cardi B have a duty to protect her baby?
Speaker 2 (22:39):
Yet? What are Cardi B's rights here? She is showing
up and I love her quote about I'm here to
get my cat checked out. I just know that it's
solid gold. It is solid and she's and she and
this security officer and this is a medical setting. What's
supposed to happen now if you approach wh's this from
(23:01):
Middle Upper claud whatever man security is supposed to be there.
They're supposed to protect the dignity of where you're at
and make sure that there's no crazy people and that
you are don't have any overt threats and that the
duties of the landlord to protect you were being fulfilled.
So that's what's going on. How this fight started, in
what the response? That's what this jury's looking at, because
(23:25):
it really makes you scratch it. How is security suing
the client, the invitee that showed up to pay for services.
Speaker 1 (23:40):
I can't give legal advice, only Joshua can't, but I
will tell you on this Friday before holiday, if your
ball says something crazy, just holler out, that's an F
and lie? Did y'all hear Cardi B say that.
Speaker 2 (23:53):
That's an F and life? I love it. I'm glad
I'm not having to do the editing over there at
production because, oh my god, nomenclature that for using words
that are really inappropriate. She does it so artful. It
just rolls off the top like that's how she's supposed
to talk. That's her. So I'm not going to get
upset about it.
Speaker 1 (24:13):
Own brand, sir, own brand.
Speaker 2 (24:16):
And God bless her for embracing Is it my brand?
Speaker 1 (24:18):
No?
Speaker 2 (24:19):
But guess what, it's America. And if she wants to
be that, good for her. And I'm proud of her.
And it does make me sick, even though I'm a
plaintiff's guy. It does make me sick when I see
these plaintiff's lawyers that aren't holding the cards to win.
Could you have squeezed out some money from Cardi B's
people for what may have been a legitimate sumthing? Yeah? Absolutely?
(24:45):
Is this a winning case? Not in a million years
when you're asking for twenty four million dollars. That's why
lawyers get the reputation that they do and it's what
starts a fight in the jury room. Now here's the
other thing that I just have to bring up, because
civil is so different from criminal. One of the things
(25:08):
we talk about in civil that drives the civil process,
and it's very opaque, is attorneys fees, an attorney's fees
shifting provisions. Generally, each party is responsible for their attorney's fees.
But obviously in a contested system, people get abusive, and
(25:30):
the courts have created remedies where if the plaintiff's lawyer
or defense is abusing the system, they can use tools
to hold the other side accountable. And one of those
is the offer of judgment. That's what we have here
in Georgia and it's very common other places where the
(25:50):
plaintiff says, hey, I'm going to guarantee on this demand
that I can win X dollars and if I and
the defense has to acknowledge and receive that as a statement,
the defense then gets to say, hey, either they can
or they can't beat that dollar amount. But after an
(26:14):
offer of judgment, if the plaintiff doesn't prevail at or
above their amount of money, the defense can force the
planiff to pay their attorney's fees, and the attorney's fees
on the defense are hourly billed, they are tracked. They
blow up so fast. I bet the defense for Cardi
(26:36):
b is in the multiple hundreds and hundreds of thousands
of dollars. So oftentimes what's really stopping the resolution of
these plaintiffs cases isn't the value of the injury that's
being litigated. Say a two centimeter or scratch is worth
two hundred thousand five or whatever it is, that's nothing
(26:58):
compared to some of the atorney's fees that are built
into these cases. The attorney's fees are how the attorneys
get paid. It's also a way to shift obligations to
other people. How can a plainiff lose? Shoot too hard?
You can win the cases a plaintiff, but still if
you didn't win the right amount or in the right way,
(27:20):
be responsible for the defense's attorneys fees. What happens if
you won one hundred thousand dollars, but there's a million
dollars of attorney's fees.
Speaker 1 (27:29):
And it's also a balance. I mean, you're talking about
a scratch in Trooper Scott's case. You've got families that
bury two young girls. They ain't got twenty four million dollars. Nope,
it's insane, and I think the jury's going to be like, nah.
Speaker 2 (27:44):
Oh, I think you're right. Jury's have such an interesting
relationship with money. Jury's have a really strong connection to victimization,
to being taken advantage, to fairness, and in a plainiff's
case like that, the play lawyer needs to ask for
enough that it appeals to the people that really want
(28:05):
to you see civil justice as justice well at the
same time not offending people who go this is just
a money grab, and twenty four million dollars for a
two centimeter scratch, to me, seems like overreach, and that
means I think the rest of America is going to
feel like that's overreached. Because I'm pretty progressive when it
comes to money. I think that Cardi b is going
(28:29):
to just crush the plaintiff, and I'd be willing to
bet the plainiff is going to be eating a lot
of attorney's fees.
Speaker 1 (28:36):
Come the decision, Well, honey, let's go enjoy this beautiful
Atlanta weather, and I adore you and I will see
you soon.
Speaker 2 (28:46):
I adore you too, My dear everybody, have a fantastic,
safe weekend. Come on, now, you're gonna go out there
and do the fun stuff, stay off the roads, make
good decisions.
Speaker 1 (28:57):
Because the judge ain't there on Monday.
Speaker 2 (28:59):
Yeah. Yeah, it's a long weekend for lock up, so
please everybody be safe out there. Oh and I got
one last I did share. I wish we could just
talk about everything we see in this week. I did
an intake with a unbelievably smart, sophisticated, well put together
ninth grade child and his parent at a prominent school,
(29:21):
good people. And it's another one of these child predator
whatever you don't even know. Kid ends up online sharing
the information with the person who then turns around and
blackmails the kid. And then that tiny, little tiny blackmail
of which is awful and horrible when it's not handled right, exploded,
(29:43):
and it's ruining lives and it's just terrifying. Parents, get
out there with your kids. The first thing I did
was text my daughter and said, sweetie, there is nothing
you can do on the internet that you can't share
with your mom or me. If any anybody tries take advantage,
just run to an adult, talk to a parent. Stop
(30:04):
that process immediately before it spins out of the role.
Speaker 1 (30:07):
Amen and they're out there twenty or seven.
Speaker 2 (30:12):
Ye yep, yeah, I don't understand exactly how full of
nasty people the world can be. Well, we're not going
to think about that. We're gonna go enjoy this weekend.
Speaker 1 (30:22):
Let's go enjoy it.
Speaker 2 (30:24):
Have a great one, ya,
Welcome to the crime around up y'all. There's so much
to unpack today, there's no reason to even do a
long introduction about anything. Joshua shit, forget on in here, honey.
Speaker 2 (00:20):
I don't know if I want to come, because it's
it's just gorgeous outside. I tell you, I tell you,
these cool crisp weather. We're having what we call this
out the fakeball because we know it ain't sticking around,
and we know that next week it is going to
be sticking moist like nobody's business. But for right now,
(00:41):
you cannot beat that cool crisp due point level you know,
in the sixties, and it's just going to be one
of those amazing weekends. You got anything, great plan share.
Speaker 1 (00:52):
My sister Sheila calls it a chamber of commerce morning.
It is perfect. The weather is perfect. Yes, you're having
a spectacular time. It's my sister Shavern's birthday, so we
are all just going to celebrate and celebrate.
Speaker 2 (01:07):
That is fantastic. Yep. I'm up to some some land
in North Georgia with some random idiots and we're going
to do some random idiocy because we pretend to be
country boys like our ancestors and around that.
Speaker 1 (01:24):
Sounds like a band from the eighties that I would
have loved.
Speaker 2 (01:27):
We probably we would grow our hair big if we could,
but hair is not one of our strengths. Let's just
let's just say that.
Speaker 1 (01:35):
Who are you going to see Saturday Night?
Speaker 2 (01:37):
The random idiots? Yeah, but random idiots? And and what's
funny is so one of them happens to be this
big shot lawyer that I grew up with. We're just
regular kids. But he now represents a large insurance company
that does property out of some of New York's most
famous buildings. And rather than send all those cases with
(01:58):
New York lawyers to some big shot New York defense attorney,
they send him out to some man that lives out
in Paulding County. And for those of you that do
not know Paulding County, there is no place further in
America from Manhattan than Paulding County, Georgia. And it's quite
a clash of cultures. You could say he has a
(02:19):
good old time with them lawyers speaking to lawyers. This
week in True Crime has been you know, we've had
a couple of big ones going on, and then the
narratives kind of gotten outside of just true crime. And
I love it when the true crime universe has one
of these civil cases that pops up and grabs everybody's attention.
We've had that this week with one of America's most
(02:42):
famous entertainers, who in my perspective, and I think a
lot of other peoples getting the hold up on the
civil case for the fight. And I know you've been
watching Cardi B, haven't you?
Speaker 1 (02:54):
Carti B. She should do a class on how to testify.
Speaker 2 (03:00):
Love it.
Speaker 1 (03:00):
She's natural, this is her, there's no pretense. This is
what happened. Yeah, I said it. I'm gonna say it
again right here. He's trying to get to her. He's
trying to make fun of the wigs. He's trying to say,
how do you know my client is just in it
for the money? Oh, girl says, because she's suing me
for twenty four million dollars.
Speaker 2 (03:23):
I love it, and it's the perfect examp people like, oh,
that's gonna be a bad witness. You know. Lawyers are
filled with all these liar tricks and these old wives tales. Oh,
you just can't do. Teachers are bad jurors for this,
and you don't want an old person for that. And
you look at Cardi b and a lot of people
(03:43):
would just jump and make a bunch of decisions because
here we have this woman who comes from a place
that is very unique, that she's very proud of, that's
very far away from where a lot of that kind
of mainstream America is connected to. And she embraces it,
and she embraces he says, her distinct identity, her lifestyle,
her brand, and guess what, it ain't mine. It ain't mine.
(04:07):
Oh no it is not. But that authenticity shines through.
That's what matters.
Speaker 1 (04:13):
That's what matters all day long. And you know it's obvious.
I think to folks, what the attorney is trying to do.
He's trying to push her, trying to needle her, trying
to show this woman has a temper. But when you
say to somebody, now, yesterday your hair was black with
bangs and now it's long and blonde. Which one's your
(04:36):
real hair?
Speaker 2 (04:37):
Oh god, he is the cringiest, Like it's killing me.
Speaker 1 (04:41):
Okay, relevant relevance, what are we talking about? You're talking
about her hair? And of course she handled it. I
thought beautifully. They're wigs.
Speaker 2 (04:54):
Yeah, And I love the matter of factness where she
has in a way that I'm almost envious. Up, she
doesn't have this false fear or intimidation or consideration for embarrassment. Nope,
guess what. She has embraced her wig and her hair
(05:16):
and her hair style and totally turned around on this weasley,
sniveling guy that probably, in my opinion, came off terrible
in front of a jury where you're trying to pick
on the physical appearance of someone you're suing, and she
turned that around on him so fast he didn't even
know was And I think he sat down probably going
(05:36):
ha ha, Look I said my witty thing. But yeah,
it just.
Speaker 1 (05:42):
Let's be realistic. He got a client that says I
had some type of interaction with Cardi B. This is
gonna be a simple They're gonna settle out of cord.
I'm just gonna get a quick check, you'll get your cut,
and we'll go on. There's no way she's going to trial.
Speaker 2 (06:00):
And you know, these are the kind of cases we
get pitch so for. People don't understand the economics of
law firms. There's basically a very small number of ways
lawyers get paid. Lawyers get paid for work performed on
a flat rate or hourly basis. That's all your criminal law,
(06:21):
that's all your corporate law, that's all your divorce law
and bankruptcy law and all that kind of stuff, because
the lawyer's going to get paid for work cirt. Now
the other kind of billing you've got is this contingency billing.
That's exactly how injury cases happen, and it puts all
that burden on the lawyer to trust themselves because what
(06:45):
you've got as a client, My client comes in and
tells you their story, and you, as the lawyer, turn around, go,
am I going to invest my resources, time, money, staff,
bandwidth in a joint project with this with this client
and say that I believe him so much and I
can prove so much and I know so much that
(07:06):
I can force other people to give my client their money,
and I'm going to get a piece of that. Now.
If you don't win, you get nothing. So it is
a it is a It's kind of like being a
modern day Viking in business, because it's you're gonna go
out there with your battle acts and try to get
what you can get, eat what you can kill, and
(07:27):
if you don't win, you don't win. So this lawyer.
I get that he has a client that had a
legitimate incident with Cardi B. But the real problem, as
with so many of the lawyers in this space, they're
encouraged to go just swing in the dumbest ways. Twenty
(07:48):
four million dollars for a scratch, it's and it just
gets turned around. Because you're right, if they'd approached Carti
and her people on the front end, it's probably worth
in the tens of thousands, if not even in the
hundreds of thousands, to not deal with this situation. But
(08:08):
twenty four million.
Speaker 1 (08:10):
Now, come on, now, speaking of civil actions, let's talk
about Trooper Proctor from Karen Reid. Y'all, remember he sent
the text messages that were just vulgar and heinous and
broke all kind of SOPs within the police department, but
he is trying to get his job back.
Speaker 2 (08:31):
Joshua, Yeah, And this one just can't stay out of
the news. And for those of us that work in
and around law enforcement, how the system deals with the
remedial measures after something bad has happened, that's really interesting.
Like there was commentary on this officer discipline job stuff
(08:53):
that happened with that AJ Scott case that they tried
down there in Georgia where it was the trooper, and
one of the comments was, you know that he was
responsible for the wreck because he didn't get his job
back with the Georgia State Patrol. And that's what's going
on here with proctors. Proctor is advocating aggressively for Hey,
(09:15):
I made mistakes. You don't judge a man by just
the one bridge that fell down. You judge him by
all the other bridges that he built. Please give me
my job.
Speaker 1 (09:24):
Back, right, and listen, just what we know from the
first trial, because again, as we both predicted correctly, he
was never going to testify in the second one, which
brings up my biggest point. He ain't never going to
be able to testify ever again in any trial ever
(09:46):
as a trooper. What defense attorney is not salivating to
get to him.
Speaker 2 (09:52):
Oh, his value as a member of law enforcement has
dramatically changed. Now that's not to say he doesn't have
substantial value, but he is never testifying again in any
case in any manner.
Speaker 1 (10:09):
Have you ever shared text messages about an ongoing investigation
without outside people from law enforcement? Have you ever sent
text messages of a vulgar nature? About a suspect. Have
you ever admitted to drinking on the job. I mean,
I've got nothing further. My client's walking out of here.
Speaker 2 (10:26):
Yeah, he is just absolutely a chicken on a spit
if you get him on the stand, and someone's going
to realize that. But there's still value that he can
offer law enforcement. I would think it would come in
a substantially reduced salary, as I don't think he can
provide the full services of a certified officer. But it'll
(10:49):
be interesting to see how they deal with this, and
I think that the public is still so interested they
may make an example of him and actually keep him
off the force. But folks, traditionally it's generally pretty permissive
with officers as long as there has been some accountability
(11:09):
some times, some remedial training, some ignoledge, and people get
jobs back because people make mistakes. And anybody that's an officer,
anybody that works in one of these really high stress,
small community jobs, doctors, lawyers, cops, er, firefighters. We're not
(11:33):
on duty twenty four hours a day, three and sixty
five days a year. We have conversations that are not
reflective of our public career and persona, but reflect the
totality of us, including the stuff we're not really proud
of and we don't want to share with everybody. And
that's the consideration that Trooper Proctor is asking for, because
(11:56):
the kinds of discussions that happened, while awful, aren't unprecedented.
And you don't hear anybody saying, oh, I've never said
I've knowed. That's because everybody has some of these conversations
that are off on the side. Was it unbelievably sloppy
for him to do it on duty? Was it relevant
(12:19):
to the prosecution of the case. Yeah, absolutely, you can't
hide that stuff. And I think we're going to see
a lot more of Hey, now that we've got your
official evidence, let's go ahead and get those cell phones.
Because I tell you I in Georgia we are not
traditionally given access to the personal communications of law enforcement
(12:39):
or prosecutors. It's very difficult to obtain those conversations because
we all know what are in them.
Speaker 1 (12:49):
What time is Bible study?
Speaker 2 (12:51):
Yeah, and listen, I have I will admit it right now.
I have said some inopportunity and downright horrifically offensive and
regrettable things in my life. And I may have said
them related to job issues, because.
Speaker 1 (13:10):
Man, perhaps criminal law's.
Speaker 2 (13:12):
Got some pretty wrecky situations. I don't know. He just
remained silent.
Speaker 1 (13:16):
Josh, you and I were texted last night, just being funny,
and I wouldn't want that red today. And it was nothing.
It was nothing vulgar, it was nothing out of bounds.
It was nothing, nothing, nothing but just friendly, hey buddy.
But I wouldn't want to have to come on here
and go, Okay, y'all, this is what I texted.
Speaker 2 (13:35):
No, because guess guess what. Everybody has that slice of
their brain, and it'll be very interesting to see what
happens with Procer because of the intense scrutiny. I know
law enforcements watching them because it's also one of these
cases where all right, a law and member of law
(13:57):
enforcement did something that was in advice and poor that
resulted in some bad stuff. Okay, so that's a consequence, now,
trooper practice consequence. Due to the high priority or prominence
of the carry prosecution, he wasn't just made an example of.
He became a national calling card for these conversations was
(14:22):
a discussion across every police department in the nation. You
don't think it roll call. Sergeant wasn't like, all right, everybody,
just remember those texts out there, everybody. You don't want
to if you're texting it, it may come into court.
So just watch it, y'all. This is just filtering through
(14:46):
law enforcement. But this is stuff that we deal with
in politics and business and litigation. It's why the whole
signal gate was so important because technically, if you're a
government member, you get to text and do anything. It's
subject to foyer, it's subject to records retrieval and storage.
You are not allowed to be a government agent and
(15:09):
create documents and really willing nearly destroy them. It's one
of your obligations to keep these communications. But what about
these communications that will include obviously potentially inflammatory or you know, discussions.
You want your leaders to be able to freely discuss
(15:30):
things without the risk of defensive talk. And we you know,
we hear about defensive medicine, where doctors are going to
do something because that's going to protect them. You get
defensive talk in policy where you're going to get an
email that is for that is knowing subject to FOYA,
(15:51):
that is knowing subject to discovery rules, and that is
going to be the boilerplate. What about the rest of
the conversation. You might need more as a boss to
explain to your employees this is what I really mean.
But that introduces the opportunity for manipulation, for misstating. You
(16:13):
can twist stuff around, you can catch people up. It
gets real sticky. And we'll see what happens after Proctor.
I'll be interested to see if they what they let
him do.
Speaker 1 (16:24):
Me too. But let's go back to Georgia minute and
talk about Trooper Scott, who you mentioned briefly. So he's speeding,
He's going about ninety miles an hour. He's going to
go meet a friend, another trooper that's going to charge
his battery for his body warn cameras. He causes an accident,
killing two teenage girls. Now what I wanted to ask
(16:47):
you about. He was found guilty of one count of
second degree vehicular homicide, two counts of serious injury by
vehicle while speeding. How in the world was he not
found of two homicides.
Speaker 2 (17:03):
I saw that, and you and I kind of scratched
our heads for a sey. I've got to dig into
that because it doesn't it doesn't logically hit and for
those of y'all that aren't familiar with this case, it
is worth looking up and reading just so you understand.
It's hard like how a regular, straightforward driving issue can
(17:27):
spin into something that literally is going to result in
him going to prison for decades and decades. It's the
loss of two wonderful young women's lives, it's the permanent
brain injury of this young man, and it's the rules
of the road case. This was not a case where
there was deep sifting the challenging acad No, he was
(17:48):
charged with driving too fast, which he was doing, and
he blew through the intersection, which he admitted to, and
it came down to whether the kids were properly or
improperly taking a left in front of them. And that's
the same case you get thousands and thousands of times
to accept. This one involved those horrible deaths, and I
(18:12):
think that that sentence is going to be interesting. You've
got someone who is a trooper, You've got some mitigation,
he was elected to some leadership positions in the community,
but then there was that delay in prosecution. It's been
ten years that these parents have been waiting for justice
for their kids. There's a lot of reason for the
(18:34):
judge to swing hard given the defendant's attitude and willingness
to accept responsibility and some of the statements and things
that he's made. And I don't get that conviction, Like
I don't get why it's not on both both girls.
Speaker 1 (18:53):
I don't either, because I think you've got one family
sitting there going really how my child was dead in
that ca are? I just I was baffled by it,
So maybe you will have some answers.
Speaker 2 (19:07):
Yeah, what I thought was interesting, and it was kind
of one of those things that lawyers see more than
anybody really pay attention to. They had him in cuffs
before the verdict was done being read. I tell you,
I don't believe there's much love lost amongst certain groups
and defendant Scott or inmate Scott. I believe that his
(19:30):
attitude probably extends towards his current facility, and you don't
do great with an attitude inside lock up. A lock
up is meant to teach you that you are not
in control, no matter how much you want to be,
because you can yell and scream about how unfair, Well,
(19:51):
if you're sitting in a locker room with no one
that that's just the way it is. So we'll we'll
see that case. There's there's something else going on that case.
I just I don't know. It didn't settle with me
real good.
Speaker 1 (20:05):
Well there's more and there's gonna be more next week.
But you know, I just think again, I've got to
give a little bit of props to Cardi b the
way she's handling herself. And I gotta just tell you
we'll end with this one, Joshua. I want your opinion
when she turned to that attorney and said, that's an
F and lie, but she didn't say F No. Have
(20:29):
many times have I had to testify or you've had
a client that had to testify that wished we could
have said that, because that's what was happening.
Speaker 2 (20:39):
I love you know, I'm a dad, So it's not
exactly the cultural mentor that I'm like, hey, daughter, go emulate.
But I really respect her for being so right on
and right embracing the person that she is, because that's
brought her this level of success in recognition, and she's
(21:01):
following her dream and she's doing it in an unabashed
nature and more people need to do that, and damn
the torpedoes and full speed ahead. And I really like that,
and I think that this lawyer highlighting how she falls
outside of this mainstream America man, that's going to bite
him in the butt because a jury in America recognizes
(21:24):
difference matters. This is why she's a successful person. And
so in that planet back to what we were talking about,
this lawyer for the plane, it has to show that
there was duty breach, causation and damages, that there was
an attack. That meant that there were injuries, and those
injuries are compensable in the form of money. So the
(21:48):
duty pretty easy. You ain't supposed to be hitting people,
touching people wrongfully without their consent to the point that
it leaves a mark or a scar. That's a civil
or criminal claim. The breach is what we're here in
the tech testimony about who hit who first, Who was
the primary aggressor? And one of the big questions we're
going to get to with the additional testimony is was
(22:08):
this mutual combat or a fray? Was there not a
clear uh, primary aggressor, Because that's the that's the dynamic
that officers are taught to use when they're doing investigation.
Who started it? Was it? Someone started it? And then
the response was disproportionate or was the initial threat in dispropose?
(22:31):
There's all kinds of different ways you can chop that up.
Speaker 1 (22:34):
And did Cardi B have a duty to protect her baby?
Speaker 2 (22:39):
Yet? What are Cardi B's rights here? She is showing
up and I love her quote about I'm here to
get my cat checked out. I just know that it's
solid gold. It is solid and she's and she and
this security officer and this is a medical setting. What's
supposed to happen now if you approach wh's this from
(23:01):
Middle Upper claud whatever man security is supposed to be there.
They're supposed to protect the dignity of where you're at
and make sure that there's no crazy people and that
you are don't have any overt threats and that the
duties of the landlord to protect you were being fulfilled.
So that's what's going on. How this fight started, in
what the response? That's what this jury's looking at, because
(23:25):
it really makes you scratch it. How is security suing
the client, the invitee that showed up to pay for services.
Speaker 1 (23:40):
I can't give legal advice, only Joshua can't, but I
will tell you on this Friday before holiday, if your
ball says something crazy, just holler out, that's an F
and lie? Did y'all hear Cardi B say that.
Speaker 2 (23:53):
That's an F and life? I love it. I'm glad
I'm not having to do the editing over there at
production because, oh my god, nomenclature that for using words
that are really inappropriate. She does it so artful. It
just rolls off the top like that's how she's supposed
to talk. That's her. So I'm not going to get
upset about it.
Speaker 1 (24:13):
Own brand, sir, own brand.
Speaker 2 (24:16):
And God bless her for embracing Is it my brand?
Speaker 1 (24:18):
No?
Speaker 2 (24:19):
But guess what, it's America. And if she wants to
be that, good for her. And I'm proud of her.
And it does make me sick, even though I'm a
plaintiff's guy. It does make me sick when I see
these plaintiff's lawyers that aren't holding the cards to win.
Could you have squeezed out some money from Cardi B's
people for what may have been a legitimate sumthing? Yeah? Absolutely?
(24:45):
Is this a winning case? Not in a million years
when you're asking for twenty four million dollars. That's why
lawyers get the reputation that they do and it's what
starts a fight in the jury room. Now here's the
other thing that I just have to bring up, because
civil is so different from criminal. One of the things
(25:08):
we talk about in civil that drives the civil process,
and it's very opaque, is attorneys fees, an attorney's fees
shifting provisions. Generally, each party is responsible for their attorney's fees.
But obviously in a contested system, people get abusive, and
(25:30):
the courts have created remedies where if the plaintiff's lawyer
or defense is abusing the system, they can use tools
to hold the other side accountable. And one of those
is the offer of judgment. That's what we have here
in Georgia and it's very common other places where the
(25:50):
plaintiff says, hey, I'm going to guarantee on this demand
that I can win X dollars and if I and
the defense has to acknowledge and receive that as a statement,
the defense then gets to say, hey, either they can
or they can't beat that dollar amount. But after an
(26:14):
offer of judgment, if the plaintiff doesn't prevail at or
above their amount of money, the defense can force the
planiff to pay their attorney's fees, and the attorney's fees
on the defense are hourly billed, they are tracked. They
blow up so fast. I bet the defense for Cardi
(26:36):
b is in the multiple hundreds and hundreds of thousands
of dollars. So oftentimes what's really stopping the resolution of
these plaintiffs cases isn't the value of the injury that's
being litigated. Say a two centimeter or scratch is worth
two hundred thousand five or whatever it is, that's nothing
(26:58):
compared to some of the atorney's fees that are built
into these cases. The attorney's fees are how the attorneys
get paid. It's also a way to shift obligations to
other people. How can a plainiff lose? Shoot too hard?
You can win the cases a plaintiff, but still if
you didn't win the right amount or in the right way,
(27:20):
be responsible for the defense's attorneys fees. What happens if
you won one hundred thousand dollars, but there's a million
dollars of attorney's fees.
Speaker 1 (27:29):
And it's also a balance. I mean, you're talking about
a scratch in Trooper Scott's case. You've got families that
bury two young girls. They ain't got twenty four million dollars. Nope,
it's insane, and I think the jury's going to be like, nah.
Speaker 2 (27:44):
Oh, I think you're right. Jury's have such an interesting
relationship with money. Jury's have a really strong connection to victimization,
to being taken advantage, to fairness, and in a plainiff's
case like that, the play lawyer needs to ask for
enough that it appeals to the people that really want
(28:05):
to you see civil justice as justice well at the
same time not offending people who go this is just
a money grab, and twenty four million dollars for a
two centimeter scratch, to me, seems like overreach, and that
means I think the rest of America is going to
feel like that's overreached. Because I'm pretty progressive when it
comes to money. I think that Cardi b is going
(28:29):
to just crush the plaintiff, and I'd be willing to
bet the plainiff is going to be eating a lot
of attorney's fees.
Speaker 1 (28:36):
Come the decision, Well, honey, let's go enjoy this beautiful
Atlanta weather, and I adore you and I will see
you soon.
Speaker 2 (28:46):
I adore you too, My dear everybody, have a fantastic,
safe weekend. Come on, now, you're gonna go out there
and do the fun stuff, stay off the roads, make
good decisions.
Speaker 1 (28:57):
Because the judge ain't there on Monday.
Speaker 2 (28:59):
Yeah. Yeah, it's a long weekend for lock up, so
please everybody be safe out there. Oh and I got
one last I did share. I wish we could just
talk about everything we see in this week. I did
an intake with a unbelievably smart, sophisticated, well put together
ninth grade child and his parent at a prominent school,
(29:21):
good people. And it's another one of these child predator
whatever you don't even know. Kid ends up online sharing
the information with the person who then turns around and
blackmails the kid. And then that tiny, little tiny blackmail
of which is awful and horrible when it's not handled right, exploded,
(29:43):
and it's ruining lives and it's just terrifying. Parents, get
out there with your kids. The first thing I did
was text my daughter and said, sweetie, there is nothing
you can do on the internet that you can't share
with your mom or me. If any anybody tries take advantage,
just run to an adult, talk to a parent. Stop
(30:04):
that process immediately before it spins out of the role.
Speaker 1 (30:07):
Amen and they're out there twenty or seven.
Speaker 2 (30:12):
Ye yep, yeah, I don't understand exactly how full of
nasty people the world can be. Well, we're not going
to think about that. We're gonna go enjoy this weekend.
Speaker 1 (30:22):
Let's go enjoy it.
Speaker 2 (30:24):
Have a great one, ya,
Host
Sheryl McCollum
Popular Podcasts
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.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
NFL Daily with Gregg Rosenthal
Gregg Rosenthal and a rotating crew of elite NFL Media co-hosts, including Patrick Claybon, Colleen Wolfe, Steve Wyche, Nick Shook and Jourdan Rodrigue of The Athletic get you caught up daily on all the NFL news and analysis you need to be smarter and funnier than your friends.