Arrest at Lindsay Clancy Trial, Jury’s Last Chance at Verdict, and Lil Durk Murder-for-Hire Case, with Katherine Loftus and Taylor Parise

attorney for Palm Beach County, and current managing partner of Dave Aaronberg Law, and

I'm joined today by my co-host former Florida law woman from Clearwater now, resigning in Atlanta, GA, Ashley Merchant, Criminal Defense Law, Extraordinary, Hello, Ashley. >> Hey, Dave, it's good to see you. Let's go over what we've got on the DACA today. So at the time that we're taping this, jurors on their fifth day of deliberations in the Lindsey Clancy Trail. They've just gone home for the day, and today we're joined

by friend of the show and Massachusetts attorney, Catherine Loftus. She's going to join and talk to us about what to expect now that the jury has come back twice reporting a deadlock. >> And police activity outside the Clancy Quorum on Tuesday afternoon will go over the details of Dawn Lights arrest, and what we learned during her arrangement on Wednesday morning. >> And later LA magazine reporter Taylor Paris is going to join us to discuss the murder

for higher trial of rapper Little Dirt, and that is currently happening in Los Angeles. Plus, the historic moment that Dwayne, key feed D Davis, was convicted in the 1996 murder of rap legend, two-poch Shakur. But let's get started today with Clancy updates. So Dave,

because we have breaking news out of the quorum, the jury has now returned for a second time

to tell the judge that they cannot reach a unanimous verdict. Take a look. >> Get your question, the question, or by more of a statement, then a question saying after much deliberation, we are still unable to come to a unanimous decision. Now, based on that, I'm going to give you another instruction. All right. And it's this. Our constitution in laws provide that in a criminal case, the principle way for deciding questions of fact, is by the verdict

of a jury. In most cases, perhaps strictly speaking in all cases, absolute certainty cannot be attained, nor is it expected. The verdict to which a jury agrees must be there on the result of their own convictions, and not a mere acquiescence, and the conclusions of their fellow jurors. Yet, in order to bring

“12 minds to unanimous result, you must examine the questions submitted to you with candor,”

and with proper regard, and deference, and respect to the opinions of each other.

>> Well, that sounds like an Allen charge, aka two-y Rodriguez, huh? >> Yep. Sounds like it also known as dynamite charge, and I was talking to my pair of legal about that earlier dynamite, because it's boom. We want you to reach a verdict. >> Yeah. So, it matches your limited, timely time. You can get the charge. You see, if you keep saying this stuff over and over again, it gets to coercion, and what happens if then she's found guilty.

Well, that's an appeal where you go to the appell courts, and your honor, it was going to be a hung jury, except the judge was saying, you're better make a decision or else, and so you can only get away with it for so long, and the judge already gave an informal charge saying, just go back, and do your best. This time, this is formal. It's gotten real. We're now in the fourth quarter, because if the jury comes back one more time, unless the jury agrees,

consents to go back in and keep deliberating the judge can't force him to do so. >> Right, which is crazy, because it sounds like this story. I mean, they're done.

“We're at what, almost 30 hours at this point. It's the sixth week. I think it's important,”

also to look at the timing. We've got Labor Day weekend coming up. It is Wednesday. They do not. They're coming back on Thursday. The day that this airs. They're coming back on Thursday. Friday is the Friday before Labor Day weekend. That's a big deal. This story has worked really hard and given a lot of time. I want to talk to our viewers about this, this dynamite charge, what it really is. The jury has told the judge twice, we can't come to a verdict. We're hung.

We don't know how they're hung, we don't know the split, we don't know what charges, we just know that they haven't come to a unanimous verdict. And the judge gave him a charge. It's called the dynamite charge. It's really to blow this deadlock apart. I mean, that's the whole point. It's to push jurors back towards an agreement. We've used it forever. It's funny because now people are debating it and talking about it and sort of some people are appalled by it. Some people

think it's not strong enough. But, you know, we've had it for over 150 years. I mean, Massachusetts has had it. The U.S. Supreme Court has blessed it back in the 1800s. This is not new territory. This is something that I know every time I've had a trial where the jury has come back and said, hey, we're not really sure the judge has given a version of this. I mean, it's very regularly used. And I can tell you most times it works because usually there's one or two holdouts and

there's one or two holdouts do give in once they hear this judge's charge. So, I mean, it does it's

“job. It's definitely a dynamite charge. But it is a little bit controversial. And I think it's also”

important to note what happens with a hung jury. It's not an acquittal. It's a reset button. They go

the vote. So, if the vote comes out 111, 102 against the prosecution, then I think it's less likely

that they do it again. If it's 102, 111 in favor of guilt, hmm, game on. But that's up to the prosecutor. I mean, so you're saying a reasonable prosecutor and I know you are a reasonable prosecutor. Would if you had a jury that was, you know, 10 people said you didn't prove it. And only two said you proved it. You probably would have counter losses, cut a deal and moved on. Doesn't sound like this prosecutor, and we'll talk about that in a little bit with our guests, but from everything

I'm hearing this prosecutor doesn't sound like that type of person. I know that prosecutor talking about the D8 Timothy Cruz. Yes, I like the guy and he's got a big, big boss in accent.

He could match Render's accent, point by point, but would he just try it again with the time and

“expense if it's 102? I don't think he'd do it for 111. Would he do it if it's 102? Maybe I think he'd”

go back to Render and say let's cut a deal and then maybe they could do a deal because Render said that his client can't do it again. Isn't able to do it again? I think some of that's posturing, but still it is a lot to put everyone through. So I know Tim and I just think cooler heads will prevail right now. We're all full of emotion and after, you know, time goes on, I think cooler heads will prevail. Yeah. Well, I know you and I want to kind of debate this unanimity on Juries,

but before we do that, I want to talk about this witness. So John, oh my gosh. No, she's a defendant now. He's an defendant. Yeah. Oh my god. I mean, I guess she would be a witness to jury tampering if she tampered with a jury. I mean, just crazy. She's a Massachusetts lady. She was arrested and she had her arrangement this morning. She is charged with one count of intimidating a witness and also a juror, witness or a juror. She was apparently outside trying to record Lindsey Clancy but caught some jurors

on her phone. And so we've got a thought actually of her. It's an interesting one. It's not too. Just just take a look and then let's talk about Dawn.

“Do you want to try to ruin it? She didn't try to ruin it. What do you think was going to happen?”

I was going to meet you, I want to take a picture of Clancy, you know, you can't do that. Crazy. All right, there's so much wrong here. All right, let's just start. Top my head. Okay.

First, she acts like this is like Mick Jagger. This is a woman who chased down her three children

to violently murder them in a very awful way. Okay. So yes, she, I believe she has, she has mental deficiencies. That's a side from whether she's not legally coupled. What she did was so horrific and you're treating her like the Pope. It's so gross. And then it's gross. Right? And then you don't understand like you're smiling afterwards. And then you're thinking just run like that. What is that? What is she, she's running? What is she running to? What is she running to? She doesn't run that

fast. The whole thing is so much wrong here. And I'm glad she's being charged and will be prosecuted herself. And who was that her husband? They're trying to defend her husband. Yeah, and she's got a lawyer. She got, so she had, it's crazy. And we've got, um, we've got her arrangement, but she was a rain this morning. And after she was arrested, the commonwealth actually requested $50,000 cash bail. Well, you know, it's, it's interesting because I've practiced up in New England

and in the Northeast. And they have bail reform. You know, us down here in Florida and Georgia and the South, we don't have bail reform. We love our cash bail. So $50,000 cash bail in Georgia. Hmm, that's not that crazy. But up north, $50,000 and cash, like that's insane. So the fact that the state, I mean, they were signaling something by asking for that. The judge, of course, didn't, didn't do that. Said no, no money, um, which is the typical, you know, she's probably not a threat. I'm hoping

she's learned her lesson at this point. Hopefully, um, but was ordered to stay away, but how the judge remedied it was had to go through all those shirts and ask them all if they had been influenced

“by this lady. Um, so definitely cost some time and money to do that. And I think that was probably”

the judge's frustration. But, um, we've got sought for where Don was actually a rain this morning. Officers responded to the employee parking lot where there was a restricted area and they found a blue Toyota parked in the back of the parking lot backed in facing the restricted area that was blocked off. Um, they asked her if she was filming or taking pictures of anyone in the parking lot.

Clancy would come out of the building. Thank you. When state police asked her if they could look

through her phone at her photographs. Um, she did consent. She gave them the photograph. She gave them the phone in which they began to look through her photos. They, at that time, they did not see any videos of photographs of any individuals in the parking lot. They then asked her if they could look through her deleted folder or if she could pull up her deleted folder. Um, in the deleted folders file, they did locate a video of a number of individuals coming out of the court house building

from the vantage point that she was located in. Stay police then, um, spoke with court officers who were then able to confirm that those individuals in those videos were the jurors in regards to the Lindsay Clancy trial. Oh, my, my, my. Hopefully this is a lesson to everyone else and we

“won't have this again because I think this jury is kind of done. They don't want any hiccups like”

this. I hopefully they'll be able to, to come back tomorrow and I'm still thinking at this point probably

a hungry, but, you know, we'll, we'll see tomorrow. I guess the, the judge has released some will be back at 9 a.m. So I want to talk to you there, Dave, about this, um, unanimous verdict. So we all know the Constitution requires a unanimous verdict to convict. I mean, that is, that is, in the Constitution, you and I may disagree a little bit about whether or not a jury can reach needs to really reach a unanimous verdict on a knock guilty, but just to catch our viewers up the sixth amendment,

there's Supreme Court case law that says you've got to be unanimous to convict. And that's really something that the Constitution requires, but state law sometimes in most states and in 49 out of 50 requires a unanimous verdict to acquit to actually be found knock guilty. But the difference is that's not a constitutional requirement. That's a state law invention. And it's tradition. It's been

“around for a long time. And obviously I'm a little biased. I think it's wrong. I don't think that they”

have, they should have to all be found knock guilty. It shouldn't have to be unanimous, but I'm pretty sure as a former state prosecutor. Do you probably have a little bit different opinion on that Dave? Well, yeah. I mean, I know the burden is on the prosecution, but now you're saying that it should be a knock guilty verdict. If one person doesn't go along, that's a hung jury, right? I mean, and if you're going to make it that way, then why would prosecutors ever do multi-count

charges? Because if they know that all it takes is one acquittal or one charge to be not guilty, one person, then you can't try anyone else again unless that person is convicted of the crime,

then you can't charge them again anyways, right? So, so you're saying that it would never be another

trial. Like there would never be a missed trial. It's either going to be a conviction or an acquittal or is that what you're saying? Well, let's take it this way. What if what if the law said if 10 people vote not guilty and two people vote guilty, you know, and where would the line be? But if the majority says you're not guilty, why should the state get another bite of the app? Oh, so you're saying no, it's unanimous for a prosecution, but not unanimous for a knock guilty verdict, right? Yeah,

not unanimous. So, so in this case, Lindsey Clancy, let's say that we hear tomorrow that nine folks think she's not guilty. And three are like, nope, guilty. The state gets to retry her. Of course, I know. Well, they shouldn't. They shouldn't just get to keep shooting, you know, darts to see what sticks. You only have a limited number. And at this point, it's unlimited.

“I think a lot of people didn't know that. I think a lot of people were really surprised to find out what”

happens when a jury hangs, particularly if the majority votes not guilty. Well, you have the six amendment, right, to a fair trial. And it says the state doesn't have a right to a fair trial. But it's asymmetry, right? You wanted to be a symmetric where the state has to prove it beyond reasonable doubt, correct? And get all 12, whereas it offense doesn't need all 12 to a quick or not talk about a hungry jury, right? I wanted to be symmetric all. I wanted to be

symmetrical, but the Constitution only protects against wrongful convictions. It doesn't protect against wrongful acquittals. You know, I think of victims. I just think for everything, the victims have gone through. And then to allow a minority of jurors to then hold up justice. I mean, it doesn't seem fair if, you know, you have three jurors out of 12. And because of those three jurors who hold out not only is the case not going to be retried, but the, but it's an

acquittal, is that what you're suggesting? It was shipping a quote. And what about what about the victims that are waiting for their day in court? I mean, think about it this way. In this case, Lindsey Klancy, they've had six weeks, six weeks to put up their best case to convict her. There are tons of other defendants and victims that are waiting their day in court. If the state has six weeks and they can't do it, they cannot prove to 12 citizens beyond a

reasonable doubt that she's guilty. Why shouldn't she walk free? Because of the reasons that I have

holdouts deprive them of justice, especially because there should be some sort of symmetry. The

“prosecution already has the entire burden of proof. The defense doesn't have to say word. In fact,”

if the defense gets convicted, they can appeal. If the prosecution loses, they can't appeal. So you already have all of this asymmetry against the prosecution. I think this is one area where the six of them should be symmetrical, which is if you want a conviction, if unanimous, if you want a quiddle, unanimous, and then there's a place for in between, which is a hungry. What you're

saying is, there should never be hung juries. It should either be conviction unanimous or in a quiddle,

even if you want a quiddle. I like what Oregon does. Oregon's the outlier. It's the only state that does it, and Oregon's one of the cases that actually went up to the spring fort, but it's one of the few that says, you know what? If you don't have, you have a majority, but not a full unanimous verdict, you can still give a knock guilty on a hunt. And what we would call a hung jury. So I'm all for the Oregon method. And I think that in this case, if the state hasn't proven this, I mean, it's been

six weeks. We're basically saying the prosecution gets unlimited free throws. This one skits

“try again. Do you need to get that luxury? Yeah, but how do you protect public confidence and”

legitimacy of a jury verdict, right? If you have like a ten to two verdict, and that means you

lose, right? I mean, like, right? It has to be with a woman. It's a majority. It has to be something

like I've been exonerated. Yes, I lost ten to two exoneration. That doesn't seem right. It's got to be something where there's a majority. But if a majority is saying state didn't prove it, seems really unfair that the state gets to try again, and defense has to just sit there. Again, another six weeks. Hopefully we won't see that in this case. Hopefully they'll reach a verdict, but I am not really holding out a lot of hope. Did you know that a bag of cat food labeled

natural has zero legal definition behind it? In fact, natural is largely unregulated in the pet food industry. Isn't that outrageous? But I want to tell you about one of our sponsors. Smalls. They make fresh human grade food for cats. It's made from the same stuff you were I would eat, but formulated specifically to help cats thrive. Cats need lots of real meat to stay healthy. Most cat foods out there use meat by products, and they cut their food with cheap grains,

fillers, and artificial ingredients. But smalls is different. Their fresh recipes are made with over 80% animal protein, giving cats the nutrition they need to thrive. Cat parents, report noticing better digestion, softer shinier coats, and more energy for play after switching to smalls. So stop serving your little carnivore, a bowl of processed shortcuts for a limited time,

get 60, I say, six zero percent of your first order plus free shipping and free treats for life

when you head to smalls.com/truecrime. That's 60% off your first order plus free shipping and free treats for life when you head to smalls.com/truecrime. So joining us now, we've got a local Massachusetts lawyer. We've had her on the show before. Thank you for coming back. Catherine Loftus is here to talk to us a little bit more about on the ground, what's happening with Lindsey Clancy. So we know right now that the judge has sent the jury home again for the night,

and they have come back. They have gotten your Massachusetts version of the Allen charge, and apparently they're going to sleep on it and come back in the morning. So what happens next in Massachusetts? So what happens next is if they come back deadlocked again, then that's it. A mistrial is declared. So this is really sort of the last step for the process in Massachusetts. As we know, they came back yesterday morning thinking about 1030 was sent back out by Judge Sullivan.

Went home the whole day. So we know that they're working at it. Going through the evidence, having those conversations, we heard from them again this afternoon. The judge gave them the two-year-odd regas instruction and then said they wanted to leave by four o'clock. So my guess is, they've been deliberating for quite some time now. I don't think this is something that they've rushed and said, "Oh, you know, we can't decide. I think it seems like they really

have tried their best to reach a unanimous verdict, but I would expect they'd probably come back in the morning and say, you know, we've really tried, but we're at an impasse."

“Yeah. I don't see any hope for this one because the only way that they could go back and”

deliver it is if they agree to consent. Why would they consent when this has got to be a real toll on that, right? And so I think I don't see any, I would be shocked if there was a verdict other than a non-verch. I'm just trying. I'd be shocked if they agreed on anything except for what they're going to eat for lunch. That's right. And I think, you know, all things considered they've been deliberating tomorrow will be a week. They got the case last Thursday afternoon and, you know,

the summer. You know, people have real lives. They've, you know, it's not like they got the

“case yesterday and then I was just rushing it. So I think you're right in that the only really”

realistic outcome at this point is likely a mistrial. Unfortunately. So you know this DA, and Dave and I were talking about him a little bit earlier. Dave knows this DA, so Tim Cruise. He's the Pulmouth County District Attorney. I know Kevin Readington has said he doesn't think he'll ever drop it. I know you've said you don't think he's dropped it. And Dave and I were just talking about, well, maybe if the jury comes back, like, you know, 11 to 1, 11 folks not guilty and one guilty. Do you

think then maybe he'll say, hey, we need to talk about a deal here? Yeah. I mean, I think it's interesting. It's sort of a lot of factors to consider because, you know, there are three children who are deceased here and they lost their lives in a, you know, a very gruesome tragic way. And, you know,

I always, when I put my prosecutor head on, think that, you know, their job is to represent

those victims. You know, and I do think that first degree murder was the appropriate charge out of the gate. That doesn't mean that they couldn't, couldn't have, you know, reached some sort of resolution. As Kevin Readington mentioned yesterday when he was outside of court in Massachusetts, you cannot go bench. You can't go jury-waved on the first degree murder charge. It has to be second or below. And so I don't know if there was any conversations or attempt to, you know,

get them to reduce the charge and then go with a bench trial. We don't really know, obviously, the attempts at sort of pre-trial negotiations. I do think that they're going to pursue the case

“one way or the other. Do I think that they will go forward, again, with, you know, with the first”

degree, maybe they'll think about bringing it down. But I think it will have to go to number one, whether they ask to pull the jury. Usually the judge will not do it on their own unless one party or the other. I don't think the comm all the defense asks for it. But I think it could be telling to either side. Quite frankly, you know, both parties sort of have real decisions to make here. The comm all wants to get justice for Kora Dawson and Kallen. And Troney Readington also needs

to think about, you know, what are the, what are the likely outcomes on the other side? I mean, it could be the other way that they were really persuaded by the comm walls theory and the closing arguments and that they were, you know, tend to two towards guilty. And then that gives, you know, a Clancy and her council, some things to think about. But I think whatever happens, they absolutely won't, they're not going to drop the case. They're certainly going to continue to pursue it.

What, whether, you know, we see a reduction in charges is probably likely on what the split really was. Exactly. So I'm curious. So the judge denied what we call a directed verdict and we saw Kevin Readington, you know, at the close of the state's, the commonwealth's case, move for a verdict of a quiddle. I know we've got this 13th juror theory and a lot of states have this 13th juror theory where if the jury gets it wrong and the judge is mine, the judge can still direct a verdict. Is that

something that if the jury and Massachusetts, I'm just using this as an example, if they come back and they're like 12 non guilty to guilty, could the judge decide that he's going to direct a

“non guilty burger to that point? I mean, in theory, I suppose, I think realistically, in theory, obviously.”

Yeah, sure, sure. I mean, I don't see anything like that ever happening. I just don't see that as a likely possibility. Yeah, not this kind of high profile case, right? You imagine the judge took that phrase here. And to be honest, to he, Judge Sullivan recently had a case in Massachusetts another woman by the name of Natasha Sanders who was a charge of 1st degree murder of her children and the defense was mental health. And there was a lot of decisions that he made it eventually

went up to the SJC and was just recently overturned because some of the decisions he made relative to medical records. So I don't know that he wants to be, you know, dipping his toe into, you know, being the ultimate fact finder on this, right? Yeah, most judge just don't. They want to steer them so far clear of that. Yeah, I was just wondering if it was something that maybe he could do if he really felt strongly about it, you know, or direct a verdict on manslaughter or something,

you know, some middle ground because it just seems like he's so helpless in this situation.

Yeah, I mean, and I think the reason for giving the manslaughter in the first place was really an

attempt to give them sort of a compromise verdict. But I think ultimately it comes down to, you know, from obviously this is pure speculation, but from my perspective, they're probably hung on what her mental state was, you know, not what whether it's 1st degree, 2nd degree, or manslaughter, because I think if 12 got to the place where she was mentally sound, it's really, you know, likely a 1st or 2nd degree. So, you know, I think I think that's the issue and that's why

around? Yeah, I'm with you. You know, I've been saying that the case is overcharged, but to be honest,

either you're going to think that she is mentally able to conform her conduct or she's not. So, really, to be consistent, either charge her with what you charged or you don't charge her at all. So, I don't have as much of an issue as I did at the very beginning. I just knew that it would be so hard to get a jury to unanimously convict her 1st or 3 more. I thought, almost impossible. And they could get a compromise verdict and they say, well, how can you get a compromise verdict of

involuntary manslaughter when it really doesn't meet the elements, but it's a compromise verdict.

“And that's why you get something that is imperfect, but at least it satisfies both camps of”

she needs to be held criminally responsible and she shouldn't go to prison well. Maybe she should go to prison book for less time than the rest of her life. That's what I was thinking. Yeah, and I think in giving that, you know, everybody really sees and, like you said, has seen the writing on the wall. You know, I've talked about it extensively in that

there, there always was the concern, how are you going to get 12 people to decide, you know,

when this is such, you know, it's really not only a tragic case, but really interesting issues getting into, you know, women's health and into your mental state. So, I think you're right. Yeah, it's a tough one, but you're your great captain to have on with us. You're such an expert. Also, you have a much better accent for this case than we do because, you know, those Florida accents are just non-discriminate. Yeah, it's not as much fun. Yeah, thank you so much, Catherine.

Yes, thank you. Yes, thank you. Yes, that's Ellie Magazine contributor Taylor Paris joins us. Share the list out of the wrapper, little dorks murder for hard trials. They too.

Everybody's talking about weight loss injections because the results are so dramatic.

They work by lowering blood sugar and reducing appetite. So what if you're looking to lose weight, but not interested in painful weekly injections, especially when you hear about some of those

“intense side effects? That's why doctors create a weight loss supplement called lean and the”

results are remarkable. The studied ingredients in lean have been shown to lower your blood sugar, burn fat by converting it into energy and curb your appetite and craving. So you're not as hungry. But listen, lean is not for the casual dieter with only a few pounds of loose. The doctors at Burick House Nutrition created lean for frustrated dieters with 10 or more pounds to lose. So let's get you started with 20% off and free rush shipping so you can add lean to your healthy

diet and exercise plan. Visit takeleane.com and enter MK for your discount. That's promo code MK at takeleane.com. Welcome back to the MK Tree Crime Show. Joining us now is L.A. magazine contributor Taylor Perries. Welcome Taylor. It is so good to have you. It's good to be here. Thank you. I've been I've been glued to your Twitter because we are here to talk about a story that we haven't discussed yet on this program. But I'm really excited to talk about it. It is the

alleged criminal acts of little dork. So he's on trial out in Los Angeles. Can you catch a

“up on some of the key player involved? We've not talked about it again on our show. So catch us up”

as we don't know anything that's going on in this case. Absolutely. We have a lot to catch up on. It's only been a week and a half since this trial began. But a lot has happened. We have seen all three key witnesses for the prosecution test of bile ready. So those are going to be little dorks or dork banks friends. This is OTF Jam also known as KC Huster. We have Keith Jones. He was Flaka and we also have the biggest witness who everyone was anticipating. This is the

right hand man to little dork. That is going to be cave on grant who also goes by cuts or fawny. So we have a lot of names in this case. But these three case, these three people on these testimonies were kind of the biggest. There are people who have turned on dork and we have a lot of people upset about this testimony. But they say dork orchestrated all. Cave on grants, that's specifically dork made us do it. And that's that's pretty incriminating. But the defense has come back and

pointed out these people's history on what they've pleaded guilty to, which is murder and the conspiracy to commit murder. And so yeah, these key witnesses have been pretty, pretty big for the prosecution. But also the defense has poked a lot of holes. And little dork is accused of the murder for hire for Cuando Rondo. But it ended up hitting his cousin Savaya Robinson. Wow. So okay, so I almost feel like I need a chart. But let's go back through the players for just a minute. So

little dork, he is from Chicago, Grammy Award winning rapper Dork's bank. So he is on trial for

Cuando Rondo. That's not his real name. His real name is Mr. Bowen. But Cuando Rondo was in LA

and some masked gunman actually fired at him allegedly 18 times into a vehicle carrying him. Bowman wasn't hit, but his cousin, Lil Pab, did I say that right? Okay, Lil Pab was killed. Okay. And so the prosecutors think that five men traveled from Chicago to LA to carry this hit out apparently. And it sounds like they think that Dork orchestrated all of this because like you said it was retaliation because one of Dork's protégés King Vaughan had been shot back in 2020.

So this is, you know, this is all retaliation sort of. And so they think that Dork bought these black ski masks for the shooters, books accommodations, and obtained the cars that they used for the ambush. Now the defense is obviously saying these guys did it on their own. I guess that's kind of what they've been saying. These guys are liars and they did it on their own. If you've been watching your tweets, sounds like all we've heard so far, like you said are those

there's people that are snitches. And so let's talk about the cross examinations because I'm sure

“those have been fascinating. And we've got some big lawyers. I think it's important to talk about the lawyers.”

So you've got Drew Finling and Brian Steele and both, they're both from Atlanta, both friends of mine, both great lawyers, but very different styles. So I'm curious because we can't watch because it's federal court and that makes me angry. But we can't watch. So I'm curious about their different styles and how you've been in the fore and how the jury is really taking these witnesses. Because we know these witnesses are liars. I mean, that's kind of hands down, right? Like that's not really

up for debate. Yeah, I do want to clarify it. We are not saying they are not saying little Dork bought the ski masks. They're not saying he booked the accommodation. They're actually saying that cave on Grant his assistant did it. And so that's a really huge thing for the defense. Because we know for a fact he's admitted to it, cave on Grant has actually been a part of organizing this entire hit. So Lill Dork's team is saying cave on Grant's cousin was the one

that died. King von was very close with cave on Grant. And so cave on Grant is actually the one that is trying to get revenge for his cousin, where's the prosecution is saying Grant did what

“he was told. So I think that's a really, really key thing for the defense get four Lill Dork.”

But yeah, we have Brian Steele, who is he, he's almost like a steamer. Like he comes in, he knows what he's doing. And he gets through his cross very quickly and very assured. He has a way of getting the witnesses to kind of say what he wants them to say,

whereas we have Drew finally, like you said, he's a little more sauce spoken, a little more

reserved. And we we see him kind of taking a slower approach, but both gets the job done. But with Drew actually, he cross examined cave on Grant, which a lot of people were surprised by a lot of people thought that Brian Steele was going to be doing that cross because he's such a big witness. But it was actually Drew. And Drew, he wasn't taking the attitude. We actually saw him got more worked up than we ever have in that courtroom because Grant is

really cocky and Grant has a lot of comebacks. And Drew was not having it. He told him, he told Grant that, you know, I know you have a big ego and you have trouble watching your mouse. And that was kind of a moment where the jury was like, like, we saw a couple of chuckles in the, in the jury when between cave on Grant and Drew findling. And we heard a lot of people in the, um, in the gallery, just kind of mocking Grant as he was giving this testimony or giving, being cross a exam and

by Drew findling. Wow. Actually, you know Brian Steele, don't you? I do. I know Brian Andrew. You know both of them. I know both of them. Yeah, they're a land they're a land a lawyer.

“That's why it's so interesting to me because they're a land a lawyers are out there. And you know,”

this, there's always a, whenever it's wrapped, there's not an interconnection. You know, this is,

this is hip hop capital. And so, you know, there's definitely connection there. But yeah, it's interesting. Drew's had this case for a while and then Brian is more of a recent addition. But I really am bummed that I can't watch the cross examinations. But, you know, they both have great styles, but very different styles. So, I'm curious how they pick and show, you know, picked to who they would each cross exam in and I'm sure it's based on their styles. And I'm curious,

you know, how the jury is responding them. But yeah, Brian Steele, you know, he was the one leading the YSL trial here in Atlanta. A lot of people probably followed that a lot of our viewers probably know about that. So, that's YSL, that was the name of the label here. And OTF, that's Dirk's label, right? That's his actual record label only the family? Yes, that is, that is his record label. So, when we hear OTF funny, it's like we heard that in the YSL case, you know, YSL. I mean, it's kind

of funny because my kids, I, I represent, I had one of the gentlemen in the YSL case early on, we resolved our case, but then I ended up representing Brian Steele on his contempt charges. And I got the nickname online of YSL Barbie. And I am still in my 19-year-old daughter's phone labeled YSL Barbie.

names. OTF funny. OTF, whatever. It's, it's interesting. So, tell me about the jury. What's the jury

like? Yeah, the jury? Yeah, the jury, I mean, I'd say it's used a little younger, actually. I feel like it's very diverse as, as far as who's sitting up there. I saw some comments online

“that there's a rumor going around. It's a very white jury. I think there's about six people who”

are white on the jury other than that. It's fairly diverse. But we, we did rescue younger. I would say under most everyone seems to be under 40. And then there's a couple older people sitting up there. But everyone in the jury is really good at keeping a straight face. I even struggle sometimes when specifically OTF Jam or Casey Hester and Bonnie also came on grant. They have quick comebacks. They are kind of humorous to watch sometimes. They have these comebacks for Brian Steele

and forger-finding. And yeah, I look around in the gallery. You get some trouble for chuckling. But

the jury seems to have a straight face most of the time except for with cave on grant towards the end. His attitude as as attitude got bigger. The jury kind of started to laugh at him. And I, I don't know if this works in the prosecution's favor or when the defense is favor. But I know that the attitude grant was giving was apparent by everyone in the room. That would seem, since he's

“a star witness who cut a deal with the prosecutors. I would seem to help the defense, right?”

It seems to me like it didn't look good when he was kind of giving back chalk. And we even had a phone call played where he calls the prosecution stupid, which was played by the fence and that that doesn't make him look super credible up there on the stand. Wow. Wow. So okay, so let's go through these people. Let's break it down. So OTF Jam, that's used like Casey Hester. So he's the one. He actually said Dirk was involved in the shooting, right? When he testified.

Yes. He, everyone has Dirk's name come out of their mouth when they're talking about who orchestrated this. Wow. Okay. So, but he is, I mean, he's admitted that he participated in the attack. You know, he's been sentenced for that. He talked about the planning. He talked about that they planned to kill this guy, Bowman, as he left the address, but they delayed it a day, because there was too much police activity in the area. So how did, I mean, how did they wrap

that into their theories? The defense of the prosecution. Yeah, that will both really, I mean, why did he come back, you know, the following data carry out the hit, that seems like even extra

“planning. Yeah, I think that is kind of the prosecution is saying that this was, that's why”

the witnesses are saying this was sloppy. All three witnesses have testified that this was a sloppy hit, and that they didn't feel good about it. But then the defense is coming back and saying, well, we have you on these phone calls, these jail calls, bragging about it, or so, you're saying you feel bad about it, but specifically Casey Hester, a part of his plea deal was he has put guilty not only to the murder of Saviah Robinson, but to two other murders as well. So he is a confirmed

murder of three people, and the defense really homes in on that, and they're saying you're a killer, you're a liar. You don't feel guilty about anything, whereas the prosecution has Casey Hester saying that he feels guilty, and this murder of Saviah Robinson has been weighing on his chest. So a lot of back and forth there, but same thing with Grant Grant says that he separated himself from Dirk afterwards, and he didn't because that he didn't feel good about the hit, he felt like it was sloppy.

These two days of going back and forth between whether or not they will or won't try this hit on Quando Rondo at these certain moments. So he says he separates himself from Dirk, and he

have ultimately gets fired because he has put that distance between him, but you have the defense

saying you were fired, and now you're talking. So it's a lot of back and forth in the courtroom, and the prosecution, they seem to make good points, but Drew and Brian are really good at poking holes. Yeah, they are. So we want to talk about another case, but before we do, I got a quick question about this, or they try to bring in rap lyrics in this case, because that's a thing that's been heavily litigated and debated. So the prosecution using Dirk's rap lyrics against him, they are. And honestly,

I think this was a really big thing leading up to the trial. Everyone was talking about these song lyrics. They haven't been used as much. They were mostly just used while it came on Grant was on the stand. So he could testify that Grant was angry and Grant's explaining why he was angry, but the defense comes in, Drew asked him, "What is your experience in interpreting song lyrics? This art that little Dirk created, what is your experience interpreting lyrics?" The production

interprets those lyrics and decides whether they're going to be hits and then puts them out and chooses to do that. What is your experience in Grant said I have no experience doing that. So it honestly wasn't

funny thing to note is that Dirk does not along with his songs or being played. He seems to enjoy his

“music. Wow. That's interesting. Well, so we've got some updates in two Pachshakhor's murder.”

This was a very, very long unsolved mystery back from, we're really not a mystery, but unsolved crime back from 1996 and apparently they think they've got the shooter, at least the jury thinks they've got the shooter. So Kephy D was just found guilty. Well, he was a shot caller. He wasn't the shooter. He was a shot caller. He was, right. He wasn't the actual shooter, but he was convicted and he actually had given some statements if we could play saw six where his interview, where he described the night

of the shooting. It's out of me just in a minute. He was going to party this year. There are no drinks, but we came up with a harm, you know, shit. He coming up and being done with it. All the chicks was lying. Two pah, two pah, he used that. And like a celebrity was like using a parade. He

didn't even have been out the window. We were going to never see him in the front of Pachshakhor,

you pulled up, I was in the front seat, happened to see him off ran, chill. She looks over. He sees you. He looks right at you. You said the shots came from the back, big tray, Orlando, who shot two pah. They came before the codel, the streets, and this came from the back. So yes, so he's the shot caller, but the defense has said, you know, repeating his fiction, repeating his story doesn't make it a fact. So curious, because you're the only one here who's actually been watching the dirt trial,

“I mean, it's similar. You know, they're saying that it's sort of the mastermind. I mean, that's what”

they're trying with the dirt trial. What they did with this Keffy D trial, right? Yeah, exactly. And it's interesting because it's 30 years later, and we're still having the same type of thing happening where these wrappers are at war over fights and beef between other other states, other wrappers. And yeah, that's essentially what's happening, little jerk. I think the difference is he hasn't outright written a book saying he did it or gone on it.

They're saying he's wrapped songs or like his book, right? Exactly, exactly, but yeah, he's spinning it as it's all art and Brian steals pointing out that wrappers have a brand to live up too, and that's just what Lil Dirk is doing. But I think that something that was played in court today was a DJ academics interview where he talks about a little bit how like slide for Vaughan, those comments he was getting online and how DJ academics pointed out that

“that that was getting to him. And I think that was apparent in the media. And so the prosecution”

is saying that's proof and the defense is saying it's not. Wow. Well, we'll see if it ends up like the Tupac Shakur, murder with Kefidi, who was found guilty, who will be sentenced coming up in October. But thank you so much Taylor. It was so great catching up on these cases with you. Tell our audience where they can find you. If they want to follow your Twitter, like I have, because you've been reporting on everything happening in the Dirk trial.

Yeah, I am at Taylor Paris, P-A-R-I-S-E on X, and I'm also Taylor M. Paris on Instagram. And we're all of my stories breakdowns of the case right, L-A-Mag.com. Awesome. Thank you so much. We'll

next up. We've got our closing arguments stations. Washington politicians are always getting in

your wallet. Now they're messing with your credit card. Your credit card and the security offers are under attack. Senators Dick Durbin and Roger Marshall want to change the nation's payment system to benefit corporate mega stores like Walmart and Target at the expense of every day Americans. Credit cards keep your payments secure and provide rewards that families use to make everyday purchases more affordable. The Durbin Marshall mandates would let corporate mega stores

cut corners on credit card processing, routing transactions over cheaper, untested networks with weaker security and fewer protections. That means higher risk of fraud, greater chance of stolen personal data and the loss of rewards programs, just to corporate mega stores can pocket billions of dollars in higher profits, tell Congress to guard your card, visit guardyourcard.com to take action and learn more. Welcome back to the MK True Crime Show. Now it's time for our

closing arguments. Ashley Merchant, take it away. Thanks Dave. Well, I want to talk about what we just did as a legal system to the 12 people who have been giving up their lives for six weeks to perform one of the fundamental civic duties of our society, our free society, jury service. The jurors in the Lindsey Clancy case for days, we have stood up here and told the jury, don't surrender your honest judgment. Don't cave to the room. Don't let 11 voices or 10 voices

or 8 voices talk you out of what you believe is true. We told them in jury charges their

that instruction so seriously that their deadlocked. Somebody in that room looked at the other

“people and said, "I don't care how alone I am. I don't care that I'm not with you. I will vote”

guilty or not guilty whichever side they're on against what I know to be right. That's not a failure. That's our system actually working exactly as it was designed to work and how do we repay those jurors for that courage to stand up to their conviction? We call them back into that box and we tell them to reconsider. We tell them to rethink their position to ask themselves whether they're being unreasonable. Unreasonable for holding out. Unreasonable for doing the one thing that we

told them over and over again in jury charges earlier to do. That's not a jury instruction. That's a threat with better vocabulary. It's dynamite and everybody in the room knows exactly what it's built to blast through. The resolve of the one, two, three, six people standing between the

state and a conviction that the state couldn't earn at this first trial. You can't tell a jury

to hold the line and then send them back in to punish them for holding it. Pick aside. Either a

“jurors conscience is sacred or it's an obstacle to be dynamited out of the way and that's what it”

means. Dynamite. They're courage out of the way. The court can't have it both ways. The Allen charge is not a tool for justice. It's coercion in a rogue and it's long past time that we bury it. Thanks Dave. Wow. You are a criminal counselor through and through. I am Dave. I am my own it. I own it. There's no prosecutor DNA inside. You're at least not me, isn't it? Right. Right. I'll be honest. Well, I'd like to talk about a couple of individuals who are

kept behind bars without being charged in the United States. That's Andrew and Tristan Tate. Remember, they are subject to an extradition back to the UK where they're being charged. And in

“the meantime, the debates over whether they will get pretrial release bail. So they're facing”

extradition to the UK on dozens of serious charges, including rape and human trafficking. And they trotted out a Hail Mary argument last week to get out on bail. Your honor, let us out or we'll be tried in absentia in Romania. There's only one slight problem with that pitch. There are no receipts to be tried in absentia. You actually need a trial dates. You need a trial. In Romania, either cases have been stuck in procedural purgatory for years, bouncing around with zero confirmed

trial on the docket. They aren't rushing a court. They're trying to use an imaginary schedule as an exit ticket. And besides, even if there is one day a trial there, it's very unlikely to happen while the brothers are in jail in the United States or in prison in the United Kingdom. And look at the sheer irony that they're asking the judge now to believe them because up to this point, the defense narrative in open court has been that their entire top G persona was essentially

just theater, the supercars rented, the super yachts, promos. They'd literally compare themselves to Sasha Baron Cohen's character, Ali G. Incessing their just comic performers who play characters and exaggerate for engagement, their lawyer even told reporters outside the courthouse that if you believe what Andrew Tate says, there's something wrong with you. Well, apply that same logic here.

You can't build a multi-million-possly billion-dollar empire, bragging that your entire brand

is an act. Tell the court you're just satire and then just ask a judge to take your word on invisible Romanian court date. You don't get the claim you're a fictional character on Monday and then expect a court to treat your scheduling excuses as gospel on Tuesday. That's not going to be a successful legal strategy. That's just bad comedy. And that's my closing statement. Dave Aaronberg, aka the Florida Lawman, and before we go, a quick reminder to subscribe to the

MK True Crime Show on YouTube and wherever you get your podcasts. Thank you to my coes Ashley Merchant to our guest Catherine Loftus and Taylor Perise and thank all of you for joining us. Have a great week.