Father Sentenced for Son’s School Shooting, Lindsay Clancy’s Insanity Defense, and Tony Romo’s Arrest

Hello, and welcome back to Positively Legal.

I'm one of your co-hosts Mark Iglarge, and my bio tells me that I'm a former prosecutor, veteran criminal defense attorney,

“adjunct law professor, avid pickleball player, what else, Jonah?”

What else is good to go? No, no. Pizza lover? I love pizza. Great dad.

Thank you, what about you? Oh, enough about me. Let's talk about me. What about you, Jonah? I'm John as billboard.

I'm just a little old criminal defense attorney, founder of my little old law firm, John as billboard law. But guess what, Mark, we have a jam-packed show. Do we? Yes, we do.

We're going to bring you the latest in the linty-clancy murder trial.

This one is, it's really hard. The facts in this case are really, really heart-wrenching. The defense is very novel and end. That's our unhappy know. Our very happy note is that this week marks the one-year anniversary

since the launch of MK True Crime. That's right, Jonah. We're celebrating one year of MK True Crime. I'm enjoying it with you. It's going to be real nice.

And we're going to do happy hour right now. But coming up, by the way, I'm going to ask you a block B, people want to stick around for that. I'm going to ask you some very personal questions. You could with the boy.

Sure. All right, let's start with Happy Hour, though. There is a case that is stuck in my crawl.

Is that the right, stuck in my crawl?

I don't really know where my crawl is. Do we really-- do we want them to--

“they're going to turn out thinking about your crawl?”

Yeah, I don't-- Like I said, I'm not quite sure where it is. But this is stuck in it. The Colin Gray case for those of our listeners who may not be familiar.

This is another novel case. Colin Gray, father of Colt Gray. Colt Gray was 14 when he took a-- a AR-15, I guess, that daddy bought him for Christmas. All right, there's dad.

There's dad, there's dad, there's dad. He walked into his school. He shot it up. I think killing two students-- The kid, the kid that was showing right now--

the father bought him the gun. bought him the gun, bought him, and the father-- so he shot up the school. I think two students, two teachers, died. People got hurt.

This kid, at 14 at the time, lived with Colin Gray. You know, the parents were split up, the word on the street is both parents had some substance abuse issues. OK, they weren't perfect parents, no parents are. But this is a very novel case, because in addition to Colt Gray,

the actual shooter being convicted to life behind bars as he should be, even though he was only-- Not in dispute. You know, that doesn't bother you, right? That's what he told us.

That does not bother me. What bothers me is that the prosecution, in this case, also charged and tried and convicted the father, Colin Gray. All three of those things bother you, that they even brought charges at all,

that they tried him, that they convicted him, one part-- OK, OK. The fact that they charged him not with reckless endangerment, not with some other less than murder charge. They charged the father.

So you're OK with him being charged? I just want to understand your position. You're OK with him being charged. OK, with him being charged with something. Let's kind of get what that's flipping is.

Why?

“Why are you OK on a flip-it before you go and go flip-it?”

Yes, I'd be the prosecutor for one moment before you defend him. Why are you OK with them bringing criminal charges? What facts bother you about this case? Because those are the ones that bother me, I think. OK, so setting aside for a moment that I want everybody

to know, not OK with the murder charges for death. Maybe that clear, we're not there yet. Tell us why criminal charges are appropriate, because you're at least going to not gate open a little bit. Here's why.

Here's why. And this might not-- please, many people. I am OK with criminal charges of some sort, because when you are a parent, you are responsible-- I'm not saying that no parent is perfect.

I'm not saying you're going to raise a perfect kid. But if your child is suffering with some sort of mental illness, emotional disturbance, is exhibiting signs that he could be violent in the future. Be entailed.

He failed. Why? Why? Why? Why?

What did he do specifically? We're leaving that out, and we must inform the viewers, listeners, whatever, of precisely what father knew

to have access to a gun. Go ahead. Hang on, man. I'm being more general, because this won't be-- this will not be the last prosecution of this nature.

I'm telling you why would have been OK with other charges, because as a parent, you should know if your child is struggling with life and suffering such that he could be a he or she could be a danger to himself or others.

And if you fail to act, if you fail to intervene, if you fail to get your child, the help that is needed to make that child a well-adjusted child, who then will in turn, hopefully, become a well-adjusted adult, you bear responsibility for the acts of that child

for your failure as a parent. But that's--

“That's my question, because it's really important.”

Because I generally side with parents who sometimes don't see how bad it is. They don't know. Do they not see Mark? How do you not see?

Because the example-- Donna, I have teenagers. I know I've been through it. You don't know they keep still a lot of stuff secret. But what I'm saying is in this particular case,

that's not what happened. And the viewer still have not heard from you I'll bring it out specifically in this case. It wasn't just that he bought the gun. John, did you want me to say it?

I wanted you to say it. I was telling you, the kid was fascinated with shooters. He was fascinated with Columbine. That's not something that you want your child fascinated by.

Not from that perspective. If the kid was like, gee, I really want to get into the mind of his school shooters. So we can figure out how we can have fewer school shooters. I want to be--

It was interesting that shooting. It was all of them. He was fascinated with it. He voiced it. His family knew it.

“The father knew it and just kept allowing him to have access”

to a weapon. All of them in the weapon. He even talked about, I think, again, I don't have the specifics. But I know that there was so much there

that the father knew or clearly should have known that students were at risk, right? And that's important. That's an important fact. Well, I'm going to say, new or shit.

I think you knew. I think you knew. It's a fall to me, it falls under the shit of the shit. Here's the other thing.

A couple of things.

Parents, first of all, don't ever rarely.

Want to believe that there is something seriously wrong with their child, right? Can we agree on that? Oh, yeah. So it's hard.

It's hard for a parent when you see something like-- and trust me, sidebar.

“I have had more than once over the course of my career,”

a parent called me up and say, I cannot live in the same house with my teenage kid. I think my teenage kid is a danger. I don't want to parent him anymore. What can I do?

Those are hard wrenching calls to make. But there are things you can do. There are things you can do when you're in that situation. This parent didn't do that. Why didn't you do that, Mar?

My guess? When you're struggling with your own demons, when you're struggling with your own substance abuse problem, and you're the adult, and you've got a child, and you can't figure it out for yourself.

It's like, put your mask on first, and then--

Is that what it was, Jenna? I actually don't know. I don't know what they did at trial other than twiddler thumbs. I don't know what defense they launched. I know in some of the other high profile ones,

the parents are like, you know, the Schultzee defense. I know nothing. I saw nothing. At least they made that argument. And the jurors said, no, you, no, please.

We have proof that you knew from this text message or from the teachers at the school telling you. But what do you know? Do we know what, in this case, that the fence was? Well, the defense, not where you're going,

the defense was a bit more procedural for lack of a bit of work. So let's-- I want to talk about that, because that is the art that stuck in the crawl that I can't find. So, OK, the way that the prosecution prosecuted this case was they said, all right, we know that the father didn't

walk into school with a gun and shoot people up. So we know that there was no intent for this father to kill, right, as they would need for murder. All right, so how did they get there? Prosecution said, all right, similar to what we know

as a felony murder rule. The felony murder rule, quite succinctly, is if somebody is killed in the commission of some other felony, you are going to be charged with murder, even though you had no intent to kill that person.

That's basically the felony murder rule.

In this case, they take that rule. And they bend it a little bit, and they say, all right, we are going to prosecute based on a child cruelty statute, which acts like the felony murder rule. In other words, if a child dies, and if somebody dies,

and because you're in the middle of committing an act-- I don't like him back in law school.

I feel like I'm-- I mean, it sounds like criminal or something. But no, I'm trying to get to what you're so outraged. All right, so this is why. This is why, Mark, because the theory is the child cruelty that was going on in order to get to this murder charge,

was that the father, the cruelty, was happening to children in the school,

who this father never met.

It wasn't like-- they didn't charge him with being cruel to his own kid, and then people died. No, no, no. That, you could almost try to draw a line between the dots. This was your cruelty, sir, Mr. Gray.

By not protecting children in the school where you would never met children, you would never met children, you have no next to children, you have no relationship with.

“That's where I think the prosecution jumps the shark,”

and that is why I do not agree with you. Which, in this case, was prosecuted. The judge disagrees with you. Sought number two makes that very clear. Essentially tells me, failed as a parent.

Let's listen to Sought, too. I'll get your opinion. All right. It is clear. You failed as a parent.

No, shit. The same way in both, you failed to get cold counseling. You failed to remove the guns from the house. In the one scenario, cold changes is mine. No, no, through it.

You're not charged with any crime at all. You're very same failures. Cold goes through when it hasn't did. Commit's the atrocity. And the state's asking for eight years can find the preview.

But your actions are identical in each of those scenarios. But the loss here is profound. But I still have to distinguish your acts from the malignant heart and the acts that cold gray committed upon the Apple Actions school.

For each of the murders in the second degree,

I'm sending it to you to 15 years in confinement. Damn, it's one another for each of all of this. It's very scary. Concurrent at the same time. So you don't think that's appropriate.

You think 15's too much? Yes. Lowest he could have gotten my understanding for these convictions would have been 10.

“That's what his defense team was asking for under these convictions.”

Right. So I disagree with the fact that he was tried and charged with murder. I think he, I would not be complaining if he were charged with something that's for example, year two ago, not that long ago. Ethan Crumbly's parents.

This is the first time that we really saw it, I think, in recent history where parents were charged for the acts of their child and the acts of Ethan Crumbly was a school shooter. But they were not charged with murder. They were charged with involuntary manslaughter.

One guy's 10 years, one guy's 15 years. The bigger issue, look, I'm with you. I'm with you. How are you? Well, I'm with you, meaning I understand you on whether they should

have be charged this, that ultimately, you know,

ultimately, their felons are being convicted of a felony and the question is how much time should they get to be? That's a bigger issue. And so I ask you, and it sounds like you might not have a problem with the 15 years.

We know that, I don't know, you haven't said that yet. That's what I found out, but before you give us your answer, we know the Crumblies won't got 10 years, won't got 15. We know Deja Taylor, who pleaded, though, didn't go to trial for a child neglect and a federal gun charge

after her six-year-old son shot a teacher. And then you've got another guy, Jeffrey Rup now in Wisconsin, charged with giving a dangerous weapon to a minor. That one, I don't think it's resolved. But what's the magic number?

I mean, clearly, prosecutors want to teach people a lesson, spread some type of message. We know that. Well, that's the set. They're sending a message.

And I don't know that there's, you know, a magic number.

“Do I believe that there should be some criminal responsibility on the par?”

The parents, well, yeah, I mean, look, parents pay guilty. When your kids go out and they take the car and they, you know, drive into a mailbox and they're going to fast, you're going to pay off course. So I got it. But what you got it, the hang on, the hang on before you finally get it.

What is your opinion on these charges? Yes. You can. You're asking about me? Oh, thank you.

Yeah. No, I can't. Hurry, hurry. I am not going to lose sleep over 15 years for this. I am not comfortable with giving a teenager, an assault weapon, and then I'm not comfortable

with not taking it away when he announces on numerous occasions of how unstable he is and how fascinated his with school shooters speaking about fascination. So I don't want to get out of this block without talking about a case that I've been obsessed

We follow a lot of trials. Yeah, I'm really obsessed with the Lindsey Clancy trial, really obsessed.

And I've never used that word before.

I did not try. I never. I never. And I've been watching instead of, you know, certain shows, I'll watch trial testimony because I'm fascinated because here's a woman, the facts are uncontroverted.

She's charged with murdering her five-year-old, three-year-old, and eight-month-old child. She strangled them with gym equipment, this elastic band, each one of them, and what that they went through, they don't die instantly, it's horrible. Then she allegedly slits her wrists, how deep that's in dispute, her neck, and then attempt to commit suicide, and then jumps out the second story window of their home, landing

on ice that was hard, and she now is a quadriplegic, in a wheelchair.

“And the question is, is she not guilty by reason of insanity?”

That's what this case is about.

And I'm fascinated because, like, so many times we hear about these manufactured and

sanity defenses where people create things after the fact to try to make it fit, I've tried to do that on some occasions, in certain cases, and you just wish you had the kind of evidence that you have here, where this woman, fact reached out her hand and said, I need help, wrote in her diary, memorialized that you're seeing that she's saying that she's hearing voices and hallucinations, and she's having thoughts about killing herself and

her kids. She voiced that to her husband, who testified, now her ex-husband, who testified and seems to support her defense. Yeah. So, so, John, I've been eager to hear your thoughts on this.

Where do you stand on this? What are your thoughts? I do agree, this is not a case of what we would call malingering, right? When people make up a convenience, good place to start, mental, mental defense. I don't believe that's this.

“I do agree that her mental informities were genuine, okay?”

I agree with that. Under Massachusetts law, the way you get no criminal liability when you're suffering from a mental disease or defective, you either have to not know the difference between right and wrong.

If you do know the difference between right and wrong, then the second prong is, where

you're able to conform your actions to the law. Clearly not. Clearly prong too, okay. She obviously couldn't conform her actions to the law because she killed three innocent children.

Did she know the difference between right and wrong, though, Mark? Did she know was her mental? I'm asking you, and you set it up perfectly. So, that's a rhetorical question because I cannot answer that at this phase of the trial. I don't think a jury, the jury can answer it at this phase of the trial.

Although I will say, I will say, this is one of those cases where sometimes I am more aligned with the prosecution, sometimes I am more aligned with the defense. Normally, when we analyze these cases, we've been doing this so long in real life, that you can kind of pick aside and stay there. Yeah.

It's not one of those cases. I'm going to say that I'm with you right now on that as well. There's no question in my mind, and anyone is being intellectually honest, that this woman was suffering during that time period from a mental defect or disease, that the prosecution shouldn't even pick a battle on.

But the question is, does the planning, in other words, researching how long it'll take for her husband to go to the CVS and to buy the stool softener for the kid, and then how long it'll take him to go to the takeout place and get food and come home, is that planning,

“and does that negate her argument that she didn't know right from wrong?”

This is a battle of the experts, and I think that we're going to need to hear from them. If someone explained to me how someone can seemingly be totally normal because she was talking to her husband while he was at CVS, he understood her. She sounded fine. I mean, I can only imagine that seconds later, she's killing the kids or had done it

at that point. It was in the process of it. So he's hearing her and he doesn't sound, he doesn't say she sounds cook cook for cocoa puffs. So I haven't expert explained to me how that can happen.

Right? That's going to be key. And what about today, John, we learned from the toxicology results. That benzose, benzodiazepines were benzose, were in her system. I've heard from many people that alone could cause you to go cuckoo, you know, from people

withdrawing from that. We don't know how much was in her system. She had so many drugs in her system. I would call it like the long island iced tea cocktail of psychiatric drugs. That's actually good.

I like that. I like that. Well, the defense is going to need that to say it's from that that you can go from seemingly okay and normal super mom to, you know, just nutty and doing this. And my question to you, John, is if she wasn't suffering from a mental illness at that point,

There's no lover on the side. There's no guy these kids are annoying me. I wish they weren't in my life. There's no financial reason why else would she do it? So I love that you bring that up because that's obviously what we call motive.

There's an element in any crime, but George always want to know the why.

I want to know. And the motive is the why. And in this case, Mark, because of another various do thing that you said, this is going to be a battle of the experts, which means you're going to have the prosecution experts saying, no, she wasn't.

And then you're going to have the defense saying, yep, she was. And when the jurors can't, if they cancel each other out, where do the jurors go to get to their decisions? I'll tell you. I'll be motive, OK, tell me what's another burden of proof in Massachusetts lies on

the prosecutors, unlike in many other states, all right, defense, you prove it.

You prove she didn't know right from wrong.

It goes back to the state. And my argument in closing, and I hope this guy who's done a really good job for our so far says folks, hopefully you realize and we've proven through our experts why this happened and you're comfortable. But in the worst case scenario, there's arguments on both sides.

And that means that they didn't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. They didn't prove that her mindset, what she did was not legally excusable. And I would put it on the prosecution.

“And that, and that's why you are Mark, I gosh, can I guess?”

Oh, that's what I was looking for in 10 years. If you were not, being not, being serious. I might order this one. Yeah. But, but there's just one thing before we wrap up this topic that I want to say that

if I'm not the attorney, if I'm in the jury box, I'm going to tell you where I'm going to tell you where the defense is going to lose me. They're going to lose me when the prosecution goes through and says, OK, this is how long it took to choke the life out of child number one with the bands, right? It's harsh.

And then, and then she moved on to child number two. And at no time was that cold water in her face at no time. Did she stop to reflect, oh, my fucking God, what am I doing at no time systematically child one, child two, child three who survived for three days, brain dead, but survive. That is where, if the battle of the experts is equal, that is where myself as a juror,

“I'm going to say lock it up and that's why these defenses rarely work.”

I love that argument, and that's why again, I want to come to New York, get in trouble, and have you represent me that was phenomenal. Next, we're going to celebrate an MK2 crime milestone. Stick around. We'll be right back.

Welcome back to positively legal. As we mentioned, I believe in the beginning of the show. This is a special episode for us, Mark, and it's a very special episode because it is

the basically the one-year anniversary of MK2 crime, and if you remember Mark, it was

me, you, and Mark Garagos, on the very first episode of MK2 crime. I remember, and you know what, there's a shot, there's a shot, we've got a video clip of that number nine, let's take them back to you. Let's enjoy it. Welcome to MK2 crime, on Mark Eyeglarge, and this is the very first episode ever.

Dave Mark, well, should I call you Mark Eyeglarge, what are you, we can do that. It's a little Mark sandwich, if you will. We got Spilber in the middle, and two marks on the other side. Yeah, all right, so we're going to talk some true crime, okay, you ready to go guys? Ready.

You know, I push back already. I don't know that Ditty is true crime, but let's go.

“So yeah, so I remember that day, finally, because you were the host of the very first”

MK2 crime show, and I remember being a little nervous, and I was like, thank God, it's you. Because we didn't know we had socks and scripts, and we were just used to showing up and answering and giving our analysis and talking smack about these cases, you did a fantastic job.

We're still doing a fantastic job, God bless you. I remember I was nervous, because it's one thing when we show up on these shows, and we give our opinions, right, it's enough planning, you think about what you're going to say. But to host a show, to know what the clips are, and to know what subject matters, you're going to talk about what questions you're going to ask, that was a lot, and it still

We do a lot of work, but it's been wonderful. I've enjoyed it, China. It is, and so have I, and our producers we have, you can't have a, when you're anniversary without, giving a shout out to our fabulous producers, Natasha, Maddie, John, all of them that are here.

They make it, they make it a lot easier for us, and they're busy, busy schedules.

“But before we go on, I think bubbly is an order, right, since, you know, this is being”

a diva. Okay, I want to celebrate big occasions with champagne, but since we're not getting paid, I didn't want this champagne company to know that we're using that. I love it. And you're going to open that up.

Hold this is so funny. I'm going to open that up. Just so we're clear, she's in New York, I'm in Fort Lauderdale, she will be drinking that by herself. Yeah.

Just so we're clear.

It's just how I always open it, right?

Like this. Wait for a week. Did you never know? Right. Oh.

It'd be anniversary. That's wonderful. No pop. No pop. But still.

Okay, pop. Here's my plastic cup. Here's my bubbly. There it is. If any champagne company wants to endorse, or endorse us, my preference is, uh, Veeb

Kleeco. Yes. Is that how you pronounce it? Okay. Veeb.

Right. I don't know. Yeah. Everybody. So thank you.

That was special. Thank you for doing that.

And we would be celebrating with our very first, uh, co-host, um, here it goes.

But it wasn't valid. He was invited. Just to be here. He's still supposed to be here. I am going to expect him to show up during the next 15 minutes or so.

But expectations or future resentments, I've learned. So I will not expect him to show up. Oh. Another good mark is, um, I like that. Ah, it's a totally legal.

So Jenna, we get more of an opportunity to learn about each other, because candidly, I know very little about you still. Hmm. Yeah. Well, you know, I like it that way.

And there, I'm an enigma wrapped in a mystery mark. So I'm, I'm, get real for a minute. I mean, I really get real. And this is a question that that I get asked all the time.

“How do you sleep at night representing those guilty people?”

I was going to ask Garagos as he would give me some long asked, you know, BS about the constitution. But I mean, I'm talking about, you know, that the gift that you have cultivated for decades, coupled with you in your case, a couple of decades, in his case, many, many, many decades. You know, man, I tell you, and the insults are just, keep coming, the longer he stands

us up. If we know how old the Garagos is, did we ask him in the face of the 80? 85. 85. Right.

Right. Right. And so my question to you, Jenna is, how do you feel using your gifts that you've cultivated for so many years to help someone avoid any type of penalty, any type of accountability for especially heinous crimes that you defend these people for.

Go. Well, I would also give you the constitutional bullshit speech, because it's not bullshit. It's not bullshit. It actually is real. It is part of it.

I don't think we're talking human. This is now, how does Jenna Spielbore look in the mirror and feel? How does she feel when she thinks about what she's done? So what I've done. You know, two stories come to mind.

One is one of the very first child molesters that I ever represented when I was a much

younger, much more wet behind the ears attorney. And I'm trying to remember, and I did that and slept perfectly well. And I actually, and I'm trying to think of losing viewers, losing. I know. I know.

I'm ready to turn you off. And I'm trying to think of why. And this might not be the reason, but I, this is what I remember about that client. Mark, we're going back. Why do you take them?

First of all, and I'm not judging, trust me, if you have, turn the questions around. I'll be like, listen, if you've seen what my kids, schools cost. But my question to you is, no, and everyone deserves a defense and who knows whether they're really in a center non, again, it's usually just, just giving me the best outcome that they can get.

“But I want to know what you think, like, why did you take the case?”

Thirty years ago, I took the case because I needed the money. Thirty years ago, I needed the money, I needed the experience, I needed all that, that's my case. Great. But, and I remember developing, it was not an unprofessional relationship.

But I, I mean, I got to know him as a person. And to this day, and I know you're saying, well, I was a child molester. There was different things going on there that I'm not going to reveal. But I will say to this day, when I take any case, any case, I don't care if you're Jay walking or murder.

I look at it from two angles off the top. I look from the legal angle, what did the cops do right in wrong, what did you do, what

And then I always look at the person, because I don't care who you are, don't care what

you're accused of. Did he do it? And of the day, you are a human being, and I don't even know that you're human being doing. Did he harm a child?

No. Did he harm a child? I'm not going to answer that question, but I do want to tell you the second quick story. And that is, again, same time, I was brand new at this. And I had sort of a mentor, a very good male criminal defense attorney.

By the way, in the comments, it's just lit, you can go ahead and say that John should have answered that question. And she chose that too. He's great. He could criticize her for that.

Go ahead, go ahead. We read them all.

“But I remember I was accompanying him to jail, and we were interviewing a client in jail.”

And it was a lengthy interview. And we got out of jail, and I turned to him, and I said, how come you didn't ask that guy if he did it?

And he said, you never asked your client if he did it.

You will only tell your client what the evidence supports. And if the client tells you he did it, okay, but you're never going to ask them if they did it. That stuck with me, obviously, to this day, that stuck with me. And I never.

You've never, never, ever since ever asked the question, at least not in so many words, but another way you don't ever, I mean, I'm going to be honest with you, no, I have not asked that question. I will. Well, I do.

And I'm going to tell you why. Yeah, I'm going to tell you. Not always. Not always. When I read the arrest report, for example, you know, and they say a bust load of none

to solve. Do it. There's video. We confessed DNA puts them there. I don't got to ask that question.

I'm going to answer that. And I don't need to start off a relationship putting us at odds. I don't need that. But in certain instances, where they could possibly be innocent, I'm about to stick my neck out before I get all the evidence before I know.

And really try to get the prosecutors to do the right thing. And I don't want to get burned later. So there are times where I'll just say, look, they're alleging x, y, and z. Tell me now if the evidence that I'm going to get later is going to, you know, and there's ways that I can ask it.

I can say something like, listen, would you stipulate to a 10-year prison term for this

“if the polygraph test comes back and shows it your line?”

I'll just throw that out there. Just see the reaction. Well, I don't believe in those tests. Oh, yeah. Sometimes I can tell.

Well, you know, and then I know not to put the car before the horse. But there's certain instances where I do need to know. But back to my question, do you have you-- let's put it this way. And if you're not asking about whether the guy did it or not, have you gotten somebody off that you know did something really bad?

And do you take any ownership to that? Do you feel like you did anything bad wrong? Something. No, I have not-- not one day in the last 33 years, have I ever questioned my own ethics, certainly

not, never, not a single time, never, never what.

It's easy to be ethical. I think it's much harder to be unethical. So no. But do I have-- let me be real. Have I had some scumbag clients who, like, I don't want to run into this guy in a dark

alley?

“I wouldn't want this guy anywhere near my mother.”

Have I had, though, of course, of course I have. OK, I'm going to-- I'm going to admit something to you. I may regret it, but it's just coming up, and I'm going to admit it. OK. All right, just us, I'll tell you.

The one time that I'm really, really bothered is when I know that I have to cross examine certainly a victim, but even any witness, vigorously cross-examine, and make them look bad in front of the judge or the jury. And I know that they likely aren't telling the truth. Barns?

Barns? Or that they are telling the truth, but I have no problem if somebody's lying in their obituary the government, and making them look like they're lying. No problem there. I'm talking about your average decent person, victim, eyewitness, whatever, and if they're

to be believed by either the judge or a jury, then my client is guilty and will go away for decades. And that's contrary to my objective on the case, which is to get them the best outcome. And I'm being completely candid. I do it.

I do it very well. I teach you that the law school, cross-examination is my gift. That said, it doesn't mean that I always feel 100% comfortable about it. Really? Yeah.

I'm surprised you don't feel that way sometimes. You don't feel uncomfortable. If you know, we're talking about the witness who you know, they are just telling the truth about what that person did to them, and it's your job, like a rape victim. You're now pointing out all the challenges with their testimony, but you didn't see this.

You know how to do it. You know how to move." I love it.

“You're pointing out the reasonable doubt.”

And cross-examination is the best part of this, but fast.

Can you personally? We can go all day long about the art form that is cross. I have no problem with that. I'm talking about personally, right? And I'm cross-examining a victim, a woman, who is the same age as my daughter.

And I can picture, I mean, how dare somebody treat my daughter that way on cross-examination when she's telling the truth. I'm not saying I can't do it. I'm saying especially at this age, it gets to me. Well, you're a special person.

You really are. You're a special person because you're very, very spiritual. But I think most people really... You really? Because here's why Mark had the outlier, you think most people are comfortable doing that.

In the best way. But here's where, I guess, this is how I look at it. I don't know. I don't know that that hurt that witness on the stand is telling the truth. I wasn't there.

I wasn't there. All I know is what the evidence presents in front of me.

“And if there are our holes in the evidence that I need to drive a truck through, well,”

then I'm getting in my big, fucking truck and I'm starting it up. And I'm putting it in the truck. I can't get it. But that's not my hypothetical. I get it.

You don't really get it. If you don't really know that's different, then you can lie on that.

Never, Mark, you weren't there.

You don't know. You only know what the evidence in your client tells you, that's your truth. That is your truth. You weren't there. I once made a girl who was, I believed in the evidence supported, had lied about a rape

accusation against my client. And she was a teenager, but not she was old age of consent, like 17. I made her throw up in the hallway. And I slept perfectly well that night, perfectly well. And to this day, because you didn't know my proudest moments.

Got it. And then I'm with you. And I've had those moments. And I'm very good at what I do, still even with this conscience. But the hypothetical is, for some reason, you know, yes, you weren't there.

You're never there. Right.

“No, let's be intellectually honest now with one another.”

Just assume you know, maybe because he mentioned it to you in the office, he could see it. Yeah, yeah, I did it, but I need you to go after her, whatever, whatever it is, you know. And that doesn't bother you personally. I'm not judging.

I'm asking you. Seems like it doesn't. And I'm just curious how you're able to do that. It's funny. It's funny.

How you're just asking and not judging. I feel judged, but it all, I'm totally not. I'm going to be honest with you and I'm curious. People like you. We need people like me.

We need people to defend people. There's no system for just the innocent. Boy, that'd be great, you know? I know. Well, that's Mark Garagos' system.

You only represents the innocent. Correct. Right. Yeah, yeah. Another thing again.

It's not going to defend himself. Yeah, yeah. No, it does not bother me. I just, to me, that's part of the job. And maybe it's like this, Mark.

Maybe it's like if you were a surgeon or a medical exam or a medical exam, or make it, medical exam. After a while, we know, I've looked at plenty of autopsy photos, plenty of gunshot wounds. After a while, it's just kind of academic, right? And it's kind of like that.

All right. And if you, you know, they have those cheesy dramas where the defense lawyer gets somebody off and then the person goes out and does it again, that's not on you. You have no problems with that. Then I know me.

I didn't do it. I didn't do it. How is that on me? Not on me. Is there any, is there any case you wouldn't take?

Yes. There are cases I will not take. I will not take if you are accused. And there is evidence to support that you have injured an animal, any animal, but especially dogs, cats, pets.

If you have done that, fuck you, rotten hell, ain't taking it.

You could give me $10 million.

So, that was my last trial. No. Yes. Yes. And I talked about having her on the show and I was overruled on it.

She'd love to come on the show. But here's the thing. Hold on. My client guessed sat for all these dogs, this woman like considers her children, these tiny little pomeranian dogs.

But hold on. She was given specific instructions on how much to feed these dogs. And then eventually they were malnourished and they were one died as a result. The turned out she was giving raw dog food per the instruction of the owner and the owner had not calculated properly how much food should be given.

And my client did everything she could, but the jury acquitted her in 45 minutes.

It wasn't enough raw dog food.

“So in that instance, yes, I was uncomfortable until I learned the truth and then the jurors”

learned the truth. But you're right. Those cases are very difficult. Here about dead animals or kids or anything like that. But your client's an idiot.

Anyway, thank you for being candid. It was not judgmental. I was putting on the hot seat and you didn't turn it back on me. I turned it back on me a little bit just to take the heat off. And again, congratulations for doing this a year.

It's been wonderful. And we get to rant. Apparently you have a long one coming up. But you know, I'm excited to hear it. No, go take your P-break now.

All right. It's going to be a little longer than usual, Mark. I'm looking forward to it. I know you put it up for me to it. OK, so stick around.

We're going to be right back. And we're going to rant. I love that part of our show. Be right back. Welcome back to Positively Legal.

“And now I really enjoy this part of our show.”

We get to rant. And Jenna, apparently, you are really upset about Tony Romo for some reason. Former quarterback football and analyst. Let's hear your rant.

OK, Mark. But let me give you a little warning.

First, this week's rant is just a tad bit longer

than usual. I'll get comfy. I'll get comfy. I'll use you a position anyway. I don't want you to be kidding.

Her answer, great. Listen to her. This is important. I watched a lot of video this weekend. OK, so I am not a football fan.

I would not know a first down from a goose down. And I couldn't even tell you who Tony Romo played for. But I do know how to defend a DWI charge, because I have done it thousands of times in dozens of counties with lots of success.

So, as mentioned, I watched the body cam footage of what is obviously a rookie cop with a fabulous manicure. Going through a drunk driving script with a celebrity who was very confused about what the hell was happening with good reason.

First starters, the arresting officer sucked.

Just my opinion, not because of her heavy size and crappy attitude, cops don't need to be all peaches in cream when they're making an arrest. But because she was going to make an arrest for DWI or OUI, as the case may be, no matter what.

Probably because who needs it? She sure didn't mistake numero uno. Tony Romo answered this question. Where are you coming from? He says the golf course.

Surely Tony Romo thought that was an innocuous enough answer. Low, it was later cited by this cop as one of her incredibly thin bases for probable cause to arrest him. But Tony wasn't playing the back nine with Bob from accounting. He was golfing in the Wisconsin State amateur, a WSGA event

where the rules prohibit drinking on the course. I guess officer, hang 'em high, miss that. Oops, mistake number two. Rookie cop asks him to take the fields, meaning the standardized field's sobriety tests.

These tests are not designed to measure whether or not you have the physical stamina to stand on one leg two legs or your head for that matter. They are designed to measure whether you can walk and chew gum at the same time.

This is known as divided attention and includes not just whether you can put one foot in front of the other, but rather if you can pay attention to the directions.

“And that's why most people fail, including Tony.”

My professional opinion of these tests book for the entertainment value, they're useless.

Don't kid yourself, you will never walk

and turn your way out of a DWI arrest. Ergo, never take them. Mistake number three, if you do not heed this advice and decide to take the field sobriety tests anyway, never ever, ever, never do calisthenics to prepare.

[INAUDIBLE] Is this even searched or like petted on check? OK, OK. OK. OK. [INAUDIBLE] Tony, what in the actual fuck?

Moving on.

First, she had little to know probable cause

to suspect him of drunk driving.

“He's on a highway and apparently passed someone on the right.”

Under the circumstances, that's a pretty bullshit reason for a traffic stop. Tony caught on pretty quickly that officer cream cheese had an agenda and attempted to call his lawyer. This was his one and only smart move, by the way.

Had Tony reached his lawyer, it's quite likely he would not have done another thing, not answer a question and not take a test except for maybe the breathalyzer because from an evidentiary standpoint, this would have been helpful for Tony Romo, not so much for the cop.

And that is one reason why she was not going to let that happen. And now for the best part. The cop gets Tony into the Sallyport where she plans to administer said fields. At this point, Tony had a 20 minute car ride.

Hands caught behind his back to contemplate the situation which included the public humiliation.

“His $18 million a year broadcasting job.”

His wife, his kids, the impending mugshot. And at this point, he seems to be appropriately annoyed. Get together. I don't blame him. Make no mistake.

He is not free to leave folks. He has been more than detained. There is zero point and Tony taking these tests at the cops, the cop sticks to her script literally and begins giving him the instructions.

And because she doesn't know how to articulate the directions without reading them, she manages to turn confusing instructions into impossible instructions. Take a look. Three, four, three, four, three, four.

What did she learn how to be a cop? Reno 911. All right. Remarkable.

I've actually never seen anybody do that.

Oh, my bladder. I'm not worried about your bladder right now. Sure. All right, well, you've got a pretty good balance. Thank you.

I want you to step bump, step bump, bump, step bump, step bump, bump, bump, five, six, seven, eight, step bump, step bump, bump, step bump, step bump. Last thing, Tony is charged with refusing to take the breathalyzer.

This is big because this part of the program is governed by the DMB, not the core, which means you can beat the charges in court and still lose your license for a year if you lose the DMB hearing.

“You want to know how easy it is to win a DMB repusal hearing?”

About as easy as getting a DMB clerk to give you a smile when you walk through the door at 455 p.m. But did he actually refuse? Take a listen to this. Take off the tube, take the help of three minutes,

tap that this wrong point that we need. The advice for you to turn. What is that? You might also-- That's your old truth.

You might also have a test conducted by a qualified person that you're twice a year. You, however, will happen. I'll do that. That doesn't sound like a refusal to me.

And if I'm handling Tony's refusal hearing, that's how I'm going to win it. The criminal charges are also winnable. Granted, we are waiting the result of the forced blood test, which, I guess they do in cheese country,

but not here in New York. In New York, you won't get strapped down for a forced blood test unless you've also run over a gaggle of nuns. Tony may know how to win a big game, but I know how to win these cases.

And as I always say, if you drink, get a ride.

If you're arrested, get a lawyer. And not your monkey-democ pencil-pushing harbor, puke. No, Tony needs a scrappy attorney who knows her way around the Fourth Amendment. Because this case is full of holes.

And with the right lawyer, it just might be the charges. And not Tony, that gets sacked.

That was great. You still awake? You still awake? No, I listen to you. You take a good bite.

I paid attention. It was great.

What you didn't answer was whether you actually thought he was drunk or not.

Did the cop take somebody off the road, it was impaired. That I'm curious, you know? I lip it, my lip in this. OK, all right. That's it.

It's cool.

“I think we understand where you come from.”

She's country-free, Tony. Right. OK. What's up? Do you play again?

OK, sorry. Yeah. All right, my rant. Here we go. This may sound political, but it's not.

I assure you. I don't do politics. I'm coming at this from a legal perspective, so keep your hate mail. I'm talking about David Hurn, 67 years old, former Olympic gold medalist. He won three, lots of other accolades, and he is a canoeist.

And he was the one famously charged by the Department of Justice, Judge Piero, and Trump they made it a priority to prosecute him. He was initially charged with a felony, because there was an incident at the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool, where he allegedly in Washington, D.C., went in there and ripped this thing up and caused destruction of property.

He was looking it up to 10 years in prison. They took it to a grand jury, no surprise, because a grand jury will die to ham sandwich. There's no defense players there, and they of course indicted him for a criminal offense. And this week, we learned in spite of Piero, saying how strong her case was, really strong.

Ultimately, she dropped the charges.

And this wouldn't be a rant if that's where the story ended.

“But apparently, and just so we're clear, you should know why she dropped it.”

Because the evidence proved that he was actually innocent. The interior department made it clear that it wasn't he who caused all that damage. It was the contractor. They had flawed installation, and they rushed it to get it ahead of July 4th celebration, whatever the reason he didn't do what he was accused of doing.

And so she dropped the charges. And again, this is not political. Forget about it. I'm just saying, fact, the leader of the free world, who is now Donald Trump, said that he quote 100% disagrees with Piero's decision. And he accused her of folding like an umbrella.

Now, understand something. No one has ever accused Judge Piero of being soft on crime. And she's an ally of Trump's a huge ally. He appointed her, and they are, you know, thick as thieves, normally. But he criticized her.

And I would tell you that that was inappropriate. I will say that she deserves to be commended, although I wonder why he was indicted in the first place. But let me just focus on what she did. When it was clear that she didn't have the evidence, and that he was innocent,

she did her job. She did what most prosecutors do. However, there are many who don't. They cave to political pressure. And if there was ever a time, she was going to do it.

It would have been now because this was a top priority of both the Trump administration and her office. So today, I commend you, Judge Piero. I thank you for doing your job, instead of condemnation, you deserve praise. And Mark, Tommy, what?

Why? I actually, I agree with that part of your very well-spoken rant. I agree that Judge Denim Piero should have dropped these charges. I disagree, like, well, I kind of disagree on the reason why. I have a different theory of why these charges were dropped.

But I do, I like the fact that I do commend her. She did the right thing. OK. But I also think I also did.

“Did you want to tell us your why you think that the charges were dropped?”

You know what? Here's why. Here's why. Money, honey. Let me explain.

This botched poll, reflecting poll job costs $14 million, OK?

$14.7. But who's counting? Right. But who's counting? $14.7 million?

I'm going to say, I'm going to say the contractor in a breach of contract action, breach of warranty action for the shoddy job they did on this 14.7 million dollar pool job.

First thing, I'm going to say, or I'm representing. First thing I'm going to say is, whoa, whoa, whoa. Wasn't us, Mr. Trump. It was all those vandals. And all that you'd have to prosecute, $14,000 in charge of them, $1,000 each in restitution

to get your $14 million back.

So what Janine Perot did was very fiscally sound. You know what? You're right. Wasn't these little fiscally. You hear this?

This is wild. And yes, it's possible. I can't prove that that's not the reason I can't believe that.

“I think it was clear they couldn't proceed, or I'd like to believe.”

It was because they did the right thing and didn't have the evidence. The guy was innocent. He didn't do the damage. He did pull a piece of that lining. He didn't cause the significant damage that they're talking about.

That's what he was accused of doing. If somebody comes not me, if Mark Garagos comes to your house and he spray paints the left side of your house with a eye heart janna, that spray paints it. And then I come over and I spray paint the right side of your house with a eye heart mark.

We both guilty. It's not like I'm not guilty, just because somebody vandalized it first. We will, we will leave it at that.

You make always so many good points.

“And that's why janna, as we wrap up positively legal, I am grateful for you.”

And it's not just on air fake stuff. I truly am grateful that you choose to give your precious time to positively legal. And that I get the chance to speak to you, to hear your thoughts, to get your analysis on cases, and to get to know you. So I'm extremely grateful.

Thank you. And I am grateful for you as well. I'm grateful that we made it a year on this wonderful channel MK True Crime. I also, in case this didn't, did I show you this? Let me see.

Did I show you the other thing?

I'm grateful for this necklace. It's an early birthday present and it says, "I am loved." What? You what? I thought it said, "I love Mark.

I love Mark." That's on the back. That's on the back. Yeah. What does it say?

Say it again? I am the storm. It's a little nod, too. That's done from Yellowstone. I love her attitude.

Got it. Got it. All right. We'll love you, janna. You're great.

I love the two sisters here. They're all wonderful.

“And thank you to the audience for joining us.”

We're extremely grateful. Put all your comments down there. We actually read all of them and try to make the show better based upon it. And thanks for joining us. We hope you choose to have a wonderful week.

Take care.