Female Juror Says Male Holdout Had Hard Time Getting over Fact Lindsay Viciously Killed Her Children

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
I guess he's going to address the GOP convention.

Speaker 2 (00:14):
The midterm convention happening in Dallas right now. We're just
coming down. John Fetterman will be addressing the GOP convention,
Democrat senator from Pennsylvania. I think it's going to be
by video, but still. significance. So look forward to that. 303-713-8255,
DAN 57739. Hey, locally, you know, we started the show

(00:38):
by talking about United Airlines has had this big tribute
to those who died on 9-11, including their own, you know,
on Friday morning planned for Denver when a United 777
was going to fly over Denver surrounded by a squadron
of F-16s. And the city had put the word out, hey,
this is a tribute, not an emergency, don't call 9-11.

(01:00):
So we started the show with that. It was interesting
and fresh and responsible of the city. By the time
we got through our first hour, it had been canceled.
So United Airlines has now canceled the flyover due to, quote-unquote,
community concerns. I don't get that. I hope we get

(01:22):
some more information on that. I hope it wasn't canceled
because of a few cranks, right? Because you're always going
to find somebody who's opposed to anything good. Hey, was
there a legitimate concern here that people might mistake this for, oh,
my goodness, 9-11 plane surrounded by a passenger craft surrounded
by F-16s? We have a hijacking. Sure, that concern is

(01:44):
out there. So love your thoughts. Was United right to
cancel it? 303-713-8255, DAN 57739. Aaron Lee joined us earlier
to talk about the latest on the ballot measures, these
ballot measures that should be 90-10, actually 99.999 to zero

(02:05):
in Colorado. They now have official numbers 133, 134, 135,
and And because we've been talking about these as like
Prop 108, but now they have official numbers, 133, 134, 135.
So please do look it up, support it any way
that you can. I'm certainly doing that. These are vital
to protecting children in the state, A, by just outlawing

(02:28):
the mutilation of kids while they're still kids. You know,
at the very least, our kids deserve to not be
mutilated until they're adults and they can make that decision
for themselves, which hopefully they never do. But that's one
of them. The other is no males in girl sports.
That seems pretty obvious, right? And then the third is

(02:52):
sex trafficking, you know, banning sex trafficking, very severe penalties
for sex trafficking. So all three of these in any
sane society should pass. The left will spend whatever it
has to to try to defeat these, which is an
interesting topic in and of itself. Why? And we've talked
about that on the show before, as you know, I
have my own theories as to why the left has
decided to go down with this ship and that ship

(03:13):
is going down. And that is a very good thing
for kids. It's a very good thing for all of
America that the air is out of that balloon, but
the fight is not gone from the left. They, they
will fight that battle till the last dog dies.

Speaker 3 (03:28):
And why?

Speaker 2 (03:30):
Because it's obviously so illogical. It's so crazy. It's so harmful.
So why has the left made it one of those causes?
You know, they're willing to fight to the end, Don. 303-713-8255, DAN-5773,
and I'll get to those texts now. Speaking of fighting
till the end, reliable reporting today, let's hope it's true,

(03:52):
that Elon Musk and some close to him plan on
spending at least $ 50 million to win that Texas Senate race.
to get Ken Paxton elected in Texas. As you know,
Tesla now headquarters there. And the same reporting says Musk
may spend up to $ 200 million to defeat Tallarico in Texas.

(04:13):
Let's hope that's the case. And I know that there's
all sorts of concern out there right now because of
polls showing the GOP losing the Senate at this point.
But one starting point that's undeniable, we all know the
vast majority of polls say are wrong, either intentionally or not,
and overstate Democrat support. That's just been the history of

(04:37):
the polling. Now, there's no question some polls are rigged
that way to try to suppress GOP enthusiasm, turnout, contributions,
and some polls just get it wrong. But there's a
consistent trend, an occasional liar, but a consistent trend. They're
wrong in favor of the Democrats. So By the way,

(04:57):
Denver Post reporting today, let me give you the headline
off that so you get their verbatim, but essentially that, quote,
Victor Marx keeps up with Phil Weiser in governor's race fundraising,
but he's burning through cash fast. And the Nick Coltrane
piece says Republican Victor Marx has appeared to keep up
with Democrat Phil Weiser in the cash race for Colorado governor,

(05:18):
but a much higher spending rate, mostly going to more
fundraising mail, has left Marx with a notably lighter war
chest heading into the campaign's home stretch. Isn't it so
weird to think ballots are going out pretty soon? It's
just mind blowing to me. First, we should not be
doing this. I'm all for making things more convenient for people.

(05:38):
But we all need to be voting on essentially the
same information, at least the same information available to us.
And the idea now of having an election month, I
just I don't think that's good for society. Less than
a month before ballots start arriving in mailboxes, Marks this
week reported having about 215,000 in the bank. Weiser reported

(06:00):
about 827,000 in his campaign account. In the most recent
reporting period, Weiser raised 687, Marks raised 625. So again,
you know, strong posting by Marks to stay close to
the Democrat like that. And then obviously the big, big

(06:20):
money in these races is in the independent expenditure committees,
and we don't get the details on those. So we
don't know what's happening there. I think we have pretty
good guests. Let me get to some text, and then
we'll continue to weave in sound from the Clancy jury.
This one I'm going to play again just because it's

(06:40):
the one that's kind of so seminal, and then we'll
branch out into some others.

Speaker 4 (06:46):
That person, the majority of the room was trying to
kind of sway.

Speaker 2 (06:49):
That person from the very beginning.

Speaker 4 (06:51):
So where did you come down from the very beginning?

Speaker 1 (06:54):
Like, what was your vote?

Speaker 5 (06:57):
So originally I felt as though she was guilty and
she was criminally responsible for it. And maybe I still
believe that in a certain way.

Speaker 2 (07:11):
It's interesting because you've probably seen a number of jurors
interviewed together in a TV setting. This is separate from that,
and this is an anonymous juror who is saying that,
wait a second, you had a group of these jurors
who from the beginning wanted acquittal and were leaning on
the holdout. This juror you just heard say that in
the end she was leaning to conviction and then acquitted

(07:32):
and now sounds like may have some other thoughts on that.
And then we get back to Clancy's attorney who you know,
did a real service for her in terms of trying
the case well. But his antics post-trial, I think, if anything,
are hurting her and they're wrong and they're hurting the system.

Speaker 4 (07:53):
So let's say even though your client does not get
a pardon from or does not move on from the
state case, You have also said you would be open
to a plea deal. What would that plea deal look like?

Speaker 6 (08:06):
That's up to Tim. He could reduce the charge to
second degree. We can waive a jury, go to trial,
jury waived, or we could reduce it lower, mental health component,
but that's all up to Tim.

Speaker 2 (08:21):
You say it's up to Tim, but what would you like?
What does it look like?

Speaker 6 (08:24):
You know, I know enough to know that it doesn't
matter what I'd like. All I know is that I'm
not going to ever agree that this young lady do
a day in jail.

Speaker 2 (08:31):
Yeah, coming out and singling out that holdout juror and
attacking that holdout juror post-trial, I think that just violated
every rule in the book. And if anything, I would
think would make the DA more inclined to take that
case back to trial. Hey, we're also talking today about,
and I'm sure you've seen the headlines on this, but

(08:51):
taking some texts and calls on it because I know
it doesn't seem like it right now, but I have
no doubt, and we're seeing it happen in significant ways already,
that AI is about to change all of our lives.
And I'm not talking about all the ways it's helpful
in whatever you do or I do, but alter the
face of our society dramatically, starting with employment and what

(09:15):
that looks like. And we all know that once that
this kind of general employment picture we've all grown up with,
whether you're 15 or 85, it's had the same basic
structure to it with a little bit of shift in there.
It's going to be shattered. It's going to be completely upended,
and none of us are exactly sure what it's going
to look like after that, but we know there's this major,

(09:37):
major upheaval happening, and we see it already happening in pockets,
and it's only going to get more widespread as AI
develops further. But the big headlines today, of course, are
another insider in a prominent position coming out and saying,
wait a second, this AI is developing so rapidly, and
these companies are such in such intense competition you know

(10:00):
to to get the smarter AI before the next guy
that that the the safeguards are largely off and this
guy predicting that within 10 years this is an insider
at Anthropic predicting that within 10 years there's a more
than a 10% chance all of humanity is destroyed by AI.
So I want to deep dive that a little bit
with you because you're probably wondering, well, is that true?

(10:23):
But also exactly mechanically, how would AI be able to
destroy all of humanity? I'll come back and pass along
his cheerful theory on that, the engineering aspect of that.
You're on the Dan Kaplan Show. 521, President Trump, good

(10:45):
looking man. What do you think he'd look like bald?
He did a little presser plain side today and didn't
have a hat on, a lot of wind, everything else.
And yeah, he's just, he's a horse. He's remarkably fit
and energetic for his age and anywhere close to his age.
But clearly, you know, most of the hair gone now,
it's amazing how nice they're able to make it look.

(11:06):
But my personal theory is he'd look really good bald.
I wonder, do you think there's any chance that sometime
before this term is over, he just goes for that look?
I'll do it during the next break. I haven't seen
any computer animation or AI animation of Trump bald, but

(11:27):
I think he'd look very, very good.

Speaker 3 (11:29):
303-713-8255, DAN-57739.

Speaker 2 (11:29):
I personally will be one of the first in line
for this one, the iPhone Duo. their first foldable iPhone. Now,
I'm a little disappointed in the Duo because my hope was,
and I bet you're like me, I'm just looking for

(11:50):
a more compact version of the current iPhone without giving
up screen size. So I was hoping it would be
more of a flip phone version of a standard size iPhone.
You know, because like a lot of people, I'm hooked
on the iPhone, but, you know, I'm I'm working, I'm
going to court, I'm wearing suits, all this and that.

(12:10):
I'd like to have a smaller version of the iPhone,
but it is not that. I think it's probably best
described as kind of a book-style foldable rather than a
small flip phone is the best way to put it.
It's not going to be free. You know, it's a
256 version starts at about $ 2, 000. And then 2 terabyte,

(12:37):
you're looking at $ 3, 200, and that's before all the AppleCare
and other add-ons. Pre-orders start October 16. Availability October 23.
So the main screen, 7.6-inch folding display, the largest screen
Apple's put on an iPhone. But again, this is kind
of a flip, fold-out, little tablet-y thing rather than folding

(13:03):
out to a standard-size iPhone 7. I hope that the
next version is just something that folds up real small
and then opens up into a more standard size iPhone.
The outside screen, 5.4 inches. So when it's closed, it's
kind of a relatively compact conventional phone. But my hope

(13:23):
was Apple would be producing something noticeably small that folded
into a good size. So Apple, same name, battery-powered, dual, wow,
48-megapixel Fusion rear camera, 31 hours of video playback. So, yeah, yeah,
seems like a positive step to me. You going to

(13:45):
get one? Hey, let's go to the phone lines, get
some callers and texters in. Let's start with Troy. You're
on the Dan Kaplan Show. Welcome, Troy.

Speaker 1 (13:54):
Hey, Dan.

Speaker 7 (13:54):
I've been through jury selection process a couple of times.
And my concern with your comment was something about the
jurors should defer to the judge versus the law. Kind

(14:16):
of explain that to me.

Speaker 2 (14:19):
Yeah, Troy. What I've tried to be crystal clear on
is jurors have to follow the law. And if they're
not able to follow the law— Let me just finish
this for those who weren't here for the earlier conversation.
And we had a tremendous conversation with a gentleman from
Pueblo who was asking about jury nullification. And I said, no, no,

(14:40):
that that's not part of our process. Jurors take an
oath to follow the law, whether they agree with the
law or not. And if they can't agree with the law,
they just have to let the judge know that before
they're put on the jury. Or in theory, even if
after they're on the jury, if they realize they can't
follow the law, they have to tell the court that.

Speaker 7 (15:01):
Right, but Dan, you're saying that if the juror cannot
follow the law, the judges are there to interpret the law.
And are you saying that as a juror, that if
I disagree with the judge's interpretation of the law, that

(15:22):
I have to... be blindly obedient to the judge?

Speaker 2 (15:27):
Well, you have to be, you have to follow the
law that the judge gives you.

Speaker 1 (15:30):
I don't know.

Speaker 2 (15:31):
And try, let me ask you a question. I mean,
I mean, no, let me try. I've got to put
you on hold for a second, not to be rude,
but you, you raised an important point and I've got
to make sure I understand because you asked this question
about interpretation and you're saying, if you as a juror
disagree with the judge and judge's interpretation of the law, no. And,

(15:52):
In that setting of a jury trial, there's not an
interpretive element when it comes to the law, that the
judge is handing jurors the law, and that law needs
to be applied. Maybe I'm missing something, but when we
talk about judges interpreting the law, we're talking about, say,

(16:15):
a judge— start with an appellate court judge or justice— sitting
down and looking at a constitutional issue and attempting to
interpret the original intent to the founders, by the time
the law is boiled down into jury instructions, it should
be very clear and there shouldn't be an interpretation issue. Now, Troy,

(16:35):
you've served on a jury, not me, so please tell
me what you mean by interpretation.

Speaker 7 (16:42):
Well, so because of my background in the firearms industry, laws.
Get interpreted, challenged, head up to district courts, circuit courts,
and then eventually to the Supreme Court. So there are

(17:04):
battles between the different courts over the interpretation of the law,
but my question to you is, as a juror, and
the judge says, you know, this is my understanding of
the law, and you... So I'm assuming that I've already
gone through the jury selection process and I'm in the

(17:27):
panel and I'm hearing the case and we get to
the end and the judge gives me the jury instructions
and I get to the deliberation phase of the process.

Speaker 1 (17:42):
And I.

Speaker 7 (17:44):
Am battling with 11 other people that think that the
defendant is innocent, and they're arguing against me that.

Speaker 2 (18:02):
And I'm going to jump in, Troy, only because we're
coming up on the end of the hour, and I
want to be able to land this. You lead us
to a very important point. That battle that you would
be having in that situation or that discussion with other
jurors should be about the facts, and when you Apply
the law to the facts. What is your verdict going

(18:25):
to be? It shouldn't, in most normal situations, be so
much about, hey, what does this law actually mean? I
know there are some exceptions to that where sometimes there
is some uncertainty and the jury will send a question
out to the judge about what the law means. My
key point is this, and it's an absolute one, and

(18:47):
everybody who's served on a jury knows it. Every juror
takes an oath to follow the law whether they like
the law or not.

Speaker 6 (18:59):
That person, the majority of the.

Speaker 5 (19:01):
Room was trying to kind of sway that.

Speaker 2 (19:02):
Person from the very beginning.

Speaker 4 (19:04):
So where did you come down from the very beginning?

Speaker 1 (19:07):
Like, what was your vote?

Speaker 5 (19:10):
So originally, I felt as though she was guilty and
she was criminally responsible for it. And maybe I still
believe that in a certain way.

Speaker 7 (19:23):
Wow.

Speaker 2 (19:23):
Fascinating insight into some of the jurors on the Clancy case.
And obviously everybody's talking about the jurors and Hey, the
holdout just couldn't get over that. She viciously killed her
kids and, and you could understand why. Correct. And I'm
not being at all critical of the other 11. I
wasn't in that trial. I didn't watch every piece of it, but, um,

(19:45):
But I do respect, just in life in general, world history,
most of the greatest figures have been holdouts. Now, you've
got to be holding out for the right reasons. And
in this particular case, not having followed it every day
in the courtroom, I can't say who was right or
wrong in that jury panel. I can say their attorney,
the defense attorney was wrong. This defense attorney, I think,

(20:06):
has done his client no favors at all after the
trial ended, during the trial, from everything I heard. And
I know our daughter, who's going to be a brilliant,
brilliant trial lawyer. She's had this great trial lawyer's mind
since she was 12. You know, just thought the defense
attorney did some very effective things during the trial. But afterwards,
my goodness, coming out and attacking the holdout juror individually

(20:29):
and saying he's a bigot and stuff like that, that
is way, way, way, way out of bounds. And I
don't know if there'll be any official sanctioning, ethics investigation, whatever.
I don't know the Massachusetts Code of Professional Responsibility, but
it's a wrong, wrong, wrong thing to do. And again,
I don't think it's going to do his client any favors.
I think it's just going to make the prosecution dig

(20:51):
in even further. All righty, we'll get to the phones
and to the text here. Dan Reed Prey for a
journey into what AI might become. That's from Bob in Arvada. Dan,
it's shocking how some jurors were willing to ignore the
law based on their feelings. That's from Alexa. Interesting, Alexa.
And if you want to call on that, I'd love
to follow up on it. I'd love your thoughts on

(21:15):
which jurors were ignoring the law, because to me, you
can have lots of situations where everybody understands the law,
But they have disagreements on the facts. And when you
apply the law to the facts, what outcome does it
lead to? So that's where I see the disagreements in

(21:38):
this case. It doesn't sound to me as if anybody
failed to understand what reasonable doubt was. Now, we reviewed
last week on this show the incredibly demanding, proof beyond
a reasonable doubt standard that they have back in Massachusetts,
which requires, you know, proof to a moral certainty. I mean,

(22:00):
it's really a very rigid standard for prosecutors. But Dan,
how did nine, another one of these, how did nine
women get on the jury? And I would never in
a million years be critical of the prosecutor for that,
because I think that I'm guessing the prosecutor's bedrock belief
was that every single mother is going to say there's

(22:22):
nothing on the face of the earth that could cause
me to strangle my three kids that's my guess as
to why the the prosecution wanted women on the jury
now i don't know what the whole panel looked like
whatever but but we all know we all know it's
it's just foundational in the world and and world history

(22:43):
and Mothers have this intense, and I believe fathers as well,
I know I do, but the mother who carries that child,
gives birth to that child, just this intense, ferocious protectiveness
of the child. And so I could certainly understand why

(23:05):
prosecutors would think, yeah, mothers are not going to go
for any excuse for viciously murdering your three young children. Dan,
I worry about AI from the perspective it seems almost
everything intended for good ends up getting corrupted by bad actors.
We're lucky that at least Dr. Fauci and Wuhan Lab

(23:25):
are in charge of AI. And then it goes on
from there. Let me start with that starting point. You're 100% correct,
my friend, in the sense that so much of history
has been an ongoing battle between good and evil. And
we know that good wins in the end because we
know God wins, but that doesn't mean evil rolls over.

(23:48):
So you're 100% correct that as we speak right now,
you can be sure, I mean, you know, pick your evil.
Let's say Communist Party of China. You can be sure
Communist Party of China is doing everything it possibly can
to be able to turn AI into a weapon every bit,
if not more powerful than nuclear, and to use it

(24:10):
to dominate the world. There's no doubt that's happening, right?
And there's no doubt that as we speak, there are
bad nation state actors and other actors who are working
furiously around the clock and using AI to do it
to try to get AI to the point where they
can reach in and take everything you own that's stored digitally.
I mean, there's no doubt that's going on right now.

(24:33):
So what we have is we have a nuclear arms
race in a different technical form with the potential to
absolutely destroy undermine and devastate society. Not in a fiery,
violent ball like that, but in a way that completely
undermines society. And that's why this anthropic, this anthropic, he's

(24:57):
not an executive, high-level manager, came out today and said,
wait a second, with the competition between these AI companies
and the race is so fast and furious that people
are taking guardrails off and allowing AI, you know, to, to,
developed to the point where it can be doubling and

(25:19):
tripling its own effectiveness in a day or two, in
what used to take a year or two, and get
to the point where AI decides that humans are an obstacle,
whether it's because of demands on electricity, water, et cetera,
but humans are an obstacle, and then take over certain
systems to eliminate humans. This guy came out today and

(25:39):
he wrote a piece, you may have seen it, that
says he thinks there's a greater than 10% chance that
all of humanity is destroyed by rapidly developing AI within
the next 10 years. So thank you for that text,
my friend. Yeah, and it's just a matter of, you know, will, good.
And it's an ongoing issue with nuclear weapons, right? Look
at President Trump courageously doing what no Republican or Democrat

(26:02):
president has been willing to do before. President Trump is saying,
not on my watch. We're going to stop, you know,
these evil people who run around from getting nuclear weapons.
And he sent an interesting signal on that today. It
wasn't subtle. He said, this will all end the day
after the midterms. And I think he was just sending
the clear message to Iran that, yeah, the day after

(26:23):
the midterms, the gloves are off. And he acknowledged that
Iran is just trying to cost the GOP the midterms
so they can get who they want in office. And
betting that Trump won't respond the way he needs to
before the midterms. But I think he's quickly disabused them
of that. So, yeah, when it comes to AI, it's
going to be the same thing. is this ongoing battle

(26:44):
to stop evil from getting nuclear weapons and using them
to destroy the world. The problem here, and it's a
much more challenging scenario, is because you take an evil
nation-state actor like the Communist Party of China. It has
so many ways that it can deploy AI for evil

(27:07):
with plausible deniability, which is a lot harder to do
with nuclear weapons. So I'm not trying to be Danny
Downer here. I'm just, you know, the truth will set
you free. And I do believe in the end, there's
no doubt in the end that God wins, but I
do believe in the end that, you know, good conquers evil.
But in order to do that, good has to be

(27:28):
smart and fast and nimble and work hard and be
absolutely dedicated and have a lot of great people who
are willing to make extreme sacrifices. That's the only reason
that you and I live in freedom today. And now
this battle has been elevated to a different battlefield. Dan Trades,
my youngest, is just finishing up a couple of welding certificates. Very,

(27:50):
very nice paying jobs are already being offered. That's from Dave.
That is such a beautiful thing to hear, Dave. And
I know so many people going into the trades and
in his case, his son, you know, coming out of school.
But you have a bunch of older people as well
shifting to trades because at least for now, they're better protected.
from AI and can also just be extraordinarily satisfying. I mean,

(28:13):
there's a reason, you know, St. Joseph was a carpenter
and Jesus was too. I mean, trades can be extraordinarily satisfying.
And then, you know, you work a trade and you
go home at the end of the day and you're
going out to your kid's Little League game, maybe you're
coaching your daughter's lacrosse game or whatever. And okay, the
work's done for the day. you're there, you're fully present.

(28:36):
I mean, there's a lot to be said for it. Now,
I think what's going to be critical as we move
forward on AI, like as of today or yesterday, he said,
take Dave's son who's a welder. Okay, well, guess what?
Very soon we're going to be flooded with robots who
can do welding. So the key is going to be,
I think, within each trade, staying ahead of the curve

(28:57):
so that your trade is, you are finely tuned to
be able to say that in this example, Use those
welding skills in the construction of robotics or have a
form of specialty within welding that it's going to take
robots longer to achieve. Just that sort of thinking, I think,

(29:19):
is what we need right now. You're on the Dan
Kaplan Show.

Speaker 3 (29:26):
We read to him on numerous occasions the definition of
a reasonable doubt from Judge Sullivan's instruction. He actually said
one day in the end, well, why don't we have
the judge come in and read it again? And we
were like, no, we have it in front of us.
We don't need that. And we would highlight it and,

(29:48):
you know, so-and-so, this is the definition of reasonable doubt.
But he had the hardest time getting off the fact
that Lindsay viciously killed her children.

Speaker 2 (29:58):
Wow. 303-713-8255, DAN-57739. That sound has triggered a broader conversation
today about jurors and jury service, et cetera. And my
starting point, which I know isn't popular, is that, especially
after a soundbite like that, is that 43 years of
trying cases, I'll try another one next week, hopefully 43

(30:21):
more years, I just don't think we can fairly criticize... jurors, A, B,
criticize jurors from a distance in a case that we
weren't in. And I'm just telling you that the Lord's
honest truth, 43 years of trying cases, vast, vast, vast, vast,
vast majority of the time, I believe that the jurors

(30:41):
got it absolutely right. And the big cases I've followed
and reported on around the country, like Rodney Kincaid's Mike Tyson,
OJ Simpson, things like that, I think the jurors Get
it right. And they're often subject to criticism from a
distance from people who weren't in the courtroom. But if
we're not in the courtroom, I mean, just logically, how

(31:04):
could we even begin to criticize them? And here the holdout,
I mean, hey, you've got to be impressed that somebody
felt strongly enough to hold out unless that holdout was
in some way completely irrational or contrary to the law.
But I haven't seen anything to suggest that it was.
But yeah, great conversation. I like the OJ jury. And

(31:24):
I think I saw every minute of that trial, covered
it on air. I was in and out of the courtroom.
Didn't go to the courtroom that often, whereas in the
Rodney King case, I was in the courtroom for months
at a time, or at least as long as that
trial went, it seemed like months. But I think the
OJ jury got it right, even though I think he

(31:44):
probably committed the killing. If you're going to apply proof
beyond a reasonable doubt, There was so much mishandling of evidence,
so much that was botched by the prosecution. If you're
going to strictly apply that standard of beyond a reasonable doubt,
then I think that jury got it right. And I
know that's a very strange thing to say if that

(32:04):
means that somebody gets away with murder. But if you
go back, and believe me, I would want true justice
done in every single case. And justice means that guilty
defendants are convicted, but.
But when you're on a jury and you're given this
law to follow and the people who wrote the laws,
going back to our founders, said, because you remember the

(32:27):
system they were coming out of where a lot of
innocent people were getting convicted, you know, because it pleased
the king or other political motivations. You know, the people
who founded this country, they made a conscious decision that
they would rather see nine guilty people go free than
have one innocent person convicted. And they built a criminal

(32:48):
justice system around that. And that's what we have today.
So it just comes back to having been, you know,
a guy trying cases for so long. Now, it's very,
very clear that very often judges, and I think it's
one of the hardest things about being a judge, is
the vast majority of judges, they follow the law, even

(33:11):
when it leads to a conclusion they don't like. And
that's really hard on a judge, but that's why they
put a robe on, because it's not about them anymore.
It's about a commitment to the law. And jurors too.
That's why in jury selection, if you've been through that
process before, maybe you've sat on a jury. If you have,
I'm jealous because I never will. Nobody will ever let
me on a jury just given the job I do.

(33:34):
But then you know that what's focused on in jury
selection is, hey, everybody has to swear an oath, take
an oath to follow these laws, whether you like the
law or not. And there are sometimes people say, man,
I just can't do that because I really dislike that law.
And then everybody in the courtroom applauds him. You know,

(33:54):
the attorneys are happy to see it. The judge is
happy to see that kind of honesty because, you know,
nobody's trying to change anybody's deeply held beliefs. If somebody
disagrees strongly with the law and can't follow it as
a juror, you know, then they just don't serve on
the jury. So, yeah, it's, and again, not to be
greeting card, but I'm just so grateful we live in

(34:17):
a country where we get juries and we have this system.
Shifting gears, Shannon, did you stay up till 1.30 to
watch the end of that U.S. Open last night?

Speaker 3 (34:27):
No, I'm a fan, but I can't do that.

Speaker 2 (34:29):
Ben Shelton and Carlos Alcaraz, just one of the great
matches ever. I mean, I'm an early to bed, up real,
real early to get working guy. I think you're the
same way, aren't you?

Speaker 3 (34:38):
I've been getting up at 3 since 99.

Speaker 2 (34:41):
Holy cow, my self-esteem just plummeted because I'm more of
a 4 guy. What time do you go to bed?
I try to sleep twice a day between 11 and 4.

Speaker 1 (34:50):
Okay.

Speaker 2 (34:54):
But anyway, so my wife is a big, big tennis fan.
And let's face it, I mean, those are two really
handsome young studs. So she was going to stay up
and watch it. She's more of a night owl. But
when I saw her this morning, yeah, I just checked
X when I got up and saw some highlights, but
I think she made it till maybe midnight and then

(35:16):
passed out. And why, if you're the U.S. Open, why
do you set up your prime match to go to
3.30 in the morning local time? Yeah, I don't get it,
but fun stuff. And so much great football ahead. Hey,
thank you for your time today. Really do appreciate it,
and Tomorrow, we've got a lot on the agenda, but

(35:39):
tomorrow we're going to deep dive the really good jobs
and good-paying jobs that are best protected from AI. And,
of course, we'll cover all the political stuff and everything else, too.
So hope you have a safe, fun, beautiful summer evening.
Shannon Scott, thank you again for your magnificent work. And
God and management, we'll be back tomorrow at 4 on
the Dan Kaplan Show.