Murdaugh SUES Crooked Clerk, Tyler Robinson Defense Tactics, and Prosecuting Athena Strand’s Killer, with Wise County DA James Stainton

and I'm a former police officer. I know a great true crime show when I see one and we have

“one in store for you today. I'm pleased to be joined by my co-host Dave Aaronberg, who is the”

former state attorney for Palm Beach County Florida and managing partner at Dave Aaronberg Law. So Dave, let's go ahead and go over what we have on our docket today. Fresh off his overturned murder convictions in South Carolina, the disgraced former attorney Alec Murdoch is now suing the court clerk accused of jury tampering in his 2023 double murder trial. We'll bring you those details. And an update in the Tyler Robinson case out of Utah. The attorneys for the alleged Charlie

Kirk shooter are again pressing the court to restrict public access to evidence at an upcoming pre-trial hearing and will the prosecution be held in contempt for violating the court's gag order spoiler alert? No, we'll discuss. Dave, you know, I can't wait to talk about that because I'm finding that particular defense theme to be kind of an obnoxious as far as all the secrecy. But we'll talk about that in a few minutes. But later on in the program, joining us is

Wise County Texas district attorney James Stanford who will share his insights on the capital murder case involving Tanner Horner. He's the former FedEx driver and now convicted killer of little seven-year-old Athena Strand. Our guest has personally prosecuted that case and I look forward to hearing what his insights are from that courtroom. And let's start with the Murdoch lawsuit. So we remember the Murdoch case, right? It's back again after the South Carolina Supreme Court

overturned his double murder conviction saying he didn't have a fair trial because of Becky Hill, the clerk of courts who decided to make herself the center of her own story, wrote a book, plagiarized it from a BBC reporter. And then to promote it, she wanted a guilty verdict as fast as possible. So she had talked trash about the defendant to the jury and not supposed to do that. And also there are other issues according to the Supreme Court of South Carolina. So he gets a new

trial. And now he's, you know, he's well, he's suing to get money to be able to pay his lawyers

“from the original trial saying that, well, I got screwed out of a fair trial. So you have to pay me.”

And you know, I think, Phil, that he actually has a claim. But it's only going to go to pay for legal fees for either then or now either way, though, the public is going to pay for his legal fees. Because either the public is going to have to pay for damages from Becky Hill's conduct or they're going to have to pay anyways for his public defenders if he can't afford his current lawyers. So either way, Becky Hill didn't injustice to all the taxpayers in South Carolina, not to mention

the victim's families. Yeah, well, she certainly cost everyone a lot of money in all the taxpayers at least from South Carolina. And she's definitely caused a big problem. She's damaged the integrity of the justice system at large. And, you know, I think I got mixed feelings about this particular lawsuit. I think that if it weren't for Becky Hill and her misdeeds, you know,

he would he being out like murder would not be back having a second bite at the apple because

look, anytime you have a retrial, you get the benefit of seeing the other teams playbook. It's a doover. And so he's able to make different strategic decisions. You know, he testified the first time

“around Dave, you remember that? He testified and he did so badly to terribly and it made him look like”

an idiot and it made him look very guilty. And so this time he could easily say, you know what, I'm not going to make that mistake again. I'm going to do something else and as long as can do things differently. The prosecutors can make some changes Dave, but as you know, having been a prosecutor, they are still having to deal with the exact same evidence. They may make some strategic

changes, but honestly, it worked well for him the first time around while with the change. So

he's not really been harmed about anything that Becky Hill's done. I think he would have been convicted anyway, honestly, for sure. But he gets the benefit of a new trial. So I agree with some of the lawyers claims. In fact, Sott won is the Murdoch Lawyers announcing the lawsuit. Let's take listen what they had to say. And I agree with some of this and some of it we can talk about. We filed a lawsuit on behalf of Richard Alexander Murdoch Senior versus Rebecca Hill. And this

address constitutional deprivation of rights. Those rights were Alex Wright to a fair trial, a right

that him be tried before an untampered, untainted jury. With the South Carolina Supreme Court's ruling, it has been judged as a matter of state law that she deprived Alex of his constitutional rights to prompt him of a right to a fair trial. And as a result, we've got to do it all over again,

“which nobody wants to do. Well, I think Alex Murdoch is glad there's a new trial. So first off,”

they're suing Becky Hill. But in reality, Alex Murdoch should be sending her a get basket because she gave him a new trial when he was going to be found guilty anyways. This guy had his own boys at the scene of the murder. So whether Becky Hill did what she did or not, he was proven to be a

liar, a drug abuser, financial crimes, all these things. Now in the retrial, the prosecution won't

be able to use as much evidence on financial crimes. That's one of the issues the South Carolina Supreme Court said was overkill. And went into the propensity evidence that you're not allowed to introduce, meaning he is a bad guy. So he must have committed the crime here. And personally, as a former prosecutor, I think that the prosecutors went too far in days of evidence about financial crimes. I think they could have lost the Jews boring. And I think the other better case is

streamlineing it. You don't have to go through all the financial crimes. Yes, you bring it up because it's motive. But you don't just bury them with it and the Supreme Court has tied their hands anyways. Now something called, we used to call that Dave over trying your case. So now it's a prosecutor. And I would say maybe a baby prosecutor, the more seasoned folks in the office, they

would say, look, don't overdo it because if you overdo it, you risk having to do it a second time.

And I think that's where maybe these prosecutors might find themselves. Yeah. And I think so, it's best that the South Carolina Supreme Court is forcing them to tie their hands and blindfold them to the mass like they did with Indiana Jones and Raiders of the Lost Ark because if you look to closely add it, it'll burn your face off. Do you like that metaphor? Yeah, look, there's so much that you can do with all this stuff. It's just almost surreal what has happened in this Murdoch

saga now at this point. And it is really a truly a saga. We've already had rounds of Netflix shows and all kinds of documentaries and books written about it. And we're just going to have more now. This is just more content, which as true crime content creators, we love it. And we're happy to be here. And we will be here every step of the way. But about this lawsuit, they're claiming $600,000 in damages today. And they also say that Murdoch's entitled to recovery of attorney's fee. So he's he can't

get any of this month, right? Because he knows so many people, so many things. And look, this has to be about an insurance policy. Our friend over at court TV, Vinnie Pollaton, had positive the same idea on a Facebook post that I saw. This seems like, you know, Becky Hill doesn't have any money. She can't get blood out of a turn up, so to speak. She's convicted. She pled guilty. She didn't get any jail time, which is a whole different discussion. But she's pled guilty. She's a convicted

felon after I guess after this. And one of one of the charges was perjury. She admitted to that. So she doesn't have any money. She started to have $600,000. This smells like an insurance policy. And maybe the county has one. And maybe that's where that number comes from. What do you think?

“Yeah, I think that's right. But remember Murdoch's not going to get the money in his own pocket.”

It'll go to victims because there's laws in place to protect victims. He stole from them. There's recitation. So he's not benefiting. He's not going to go to his jail commissary. But the reason why the lawyers are gone home about this is because there's an attorney's fee provision. And so if he wins the lawsuit, which I think he may. I mean, I think there's a decent chance because a South Carolina Supreme Court pretty much said. Yeah, Nikki Hill did something corrupt.

Well, and she's a government official that the lawyers would get an attorney's fee. And so that would help them. Now, what happens in the next trial? How are they going to get paid? I think if they get an attorney's fee from this lawsuit, maybe they'll stick around a little while longer. So I have to add to that. I agree with that. But I also would point out that anytime you have a civil lawsuit, what are you, you know, if you're not looking for something like an injunction,

“you must be looking for what we call legal damages or monetary damage, basically you're seeking”

money, okay? So in order to get money in a civil lawsuit, you have to prove that you have suffered

damn good argument that he has not been harmed because he pleaded guilty to decades in prison.

That he's never going to get out just on the things he's pled guilty to, Dave,

they have to do with the financial crimes and all of that. The things he confessed to on the stand in this murder trial, by the way. That would keep him in jail for the rest of his natural life. And then something, they may not even let him out then because of what he did. So I don't so, I don't know how she can say that he has been somehow harmed because not only does he get a second bite at this apple in his murder trial, he would be in prison anyway. He would absolutely

be there anyway. So I don't know that he can actually demonstrate all the elements of the crime that are asking me of the claim that he needs to make to prevail in the civil lawsuit. But here's,

“here's where I think it was brilliant to file this, even if they never get paid.”

As we'll see here in SOT 2, this lawsuit is filed. And one of the benefits they get from this is

they get subpoena power and they get to investigate all of what Becky Hill did and they can use that maybe for the benefit of him in this murder trial. So they get some investigative powers out of this. Let's take a listen to SOT 2. And the purpose of this lawsuit is to hold Becky Hill accountable for what she did. She has not been held account at all for her conduct and to is to investigate exactly what she did, which will be able to do through the course of civil litigation. We have

subpoena power. We can take depositions. And so we're going to be able to understand the entire scope of her conduct. She's yet to be thoroughly investigated by the state and she's not been held accountable

“by the state. And that's what we hope to do. That's what we intend to do. And that's what we will”

do when this lawsuit. Yeah, well, the lures are doing what they need to do because they also know that they are able to speak out in the court of public opinion more than the prosecution can. And yet the attorney general is pushing back. He's running for governor and he's blaming the defenders or playing politics saying that these defense lawyers are big Democrats. And that's why they're doing what they're doing. And it really is terrible when you're dealing with crime,

not politics and you're dealing with victims. Real victims here and their families and when politics gets in the way it's ugly. So I get what they're doing. They're being zealous advocacy. Still maintain that their very guilty client is innocent. By the way, he's guilty. It's obvious. And the jury the next year will find him guilty too. But even if he's not found guilty, good point Phil. He's not going anywhere. He's got a 40-year federal sentence for his financial crimes running concurrently

with a 27-year state sentence for the same crime. So, you know, maybe it's all due to do about nothing but Maggie and Paul deserve justice. They sure do. And look, before we get to the Tyler Robinson news, I think it's worth pointing out that the defense team is implying that Becky Hill may have had some help with her tampering activities. And this is designed to maybe see if there's any other people involved, maybe there's additional defendants they can sue. Let's check out Sott III.

And the question is, Jim and Phil and I've been talking about this, did she do it alone? Did she have somebody help her with this? And if you were sitting in the judges' chambers, like we were when she brought in information on the jury you would call the "agually," we called my repository and listen to what she had to say. One time it was totally made up about some Facebook

page. The second time, inexplicable of the Phoenix Weekly, a anonymous email came to the judge.

We weren't told about it. It was investigated by the Attorney General's Office and sweat. But without us being involved, no guard rails on that. But I mean, and call us naive because we were. We didn't press that. We maybe should have taken a little more aggressive. But we still couldn't leave that on your back now. But we will now. Okay. There are a suggesting the grand conspiracy.

“There's the only thing better for the defense than having Becky Hilder-Click reports,”

engaged in journey tampering, is to have two garment officials engaged in jury tampering. But there's no evidence of that. And she had clear motives who was writing a book with her co-author and she's plagiarized it. And she decided to make herself the center of the story, which is ridiculous.

But the more they can delay, the more questions they can put in people's minds,

the better it is from. Meanwhile, the prosecution is trying to now say, all right. And that we're going to call your auntie. We're going to raise you in a game of poker. And we're going to consider the death penalty now. Even though before, they didn't seek the death penalty. That also, and I know Phil, you've been active on that online debating with people about whether they can actually seek the death penalty. I would agree with you. Generally, they probably can't

because that would be seen as vindictive prosecution. Let's there's new evidence that we don't know about some reason that they didn't do it before, maybe new evidence. Maybe there's a new enhancement, a new aggravator? No, it sounds vindictive. It does. And actually, and I discussed this on the show earlier this week, on Tuesday. And folks can go back and check that out. We covered

“that particular point. I agree with you. I think that the talk about the potential death penalty.”

I think that's political bluster. And I agree with you, Dave. That kind of stuff needs to stay out of these things. However, one thing, I think it's worth pointing out. So these lawyers, they, they're like I said earlier, they're going to do things differently. They're going to ask on retrial. They're going to ask the judge to follow up on DNA evidence that was raised during the first trial things

that were never put into the codeus DNA system. For example, they're going to show that Maggie,

they say they're going to show that Maggie had DNA under her fingernails from an unknown male who was unrelated to her or any of the other murder dogs. They're going to seek individual vordire. They're going to act. They want to question the jurors, the potential jurors, one by one. And Dave, our producer Michelle asked a really good question. Do they have a real

“shot at making this happen? The individual vordire or is that wishful thinking? And I think they”

have a good shot at individual vordire. It probably, I guess, objectively looking at, it probably should have been done that way the first time considering the sort of the publicity surrounding this case. Yeah, yeah, I can see that. But you know, I think you can get a impartial fair jury anywhere you go with or without individual vordire. You just have to make sure that the people are going to follow the evidence and the law. They can know about the case. They can even have their own biases.

As long as they say, I'm going to put everything aside and they swear under oath that they'll be fair. You don't want to trojan horse candidate there. You don't want someone who's just trying to get on the jury so they can write a book or do something to help one side or the other with an agenda. But these lawyers are good at vetting jurors, prosecutors and defenders. And these are very experienced defense lawyers. Can I respond to the DNA? That is so bogious. The DNA that was found

under Maggie's fingernails was touched DNA. It was degraded and it could have been from touching

“a door knob. I mean, remember, the theory of the defense is they had drug dealers who were going”

after the family because they had beef with with Alec Murdoch and their his son and whatever and they used this high caliber rifle and shot and killed Maggie from far away. Well, there's no sign of a struggle. So the fact that there's DNA under fingernails proves nothing. And so

it was introduced in the first trial. And again, a sled, law enforcement division said this is

nothing. This is a red herring. And so no, I don't think it's going to matter. Well, we will see. And of course, folks, make sure you subscribe to this channel on YouTube. Also, on podcast, keep listening to us on series, except because we here at MK True Crown, the channel and on this show, the MK True Crown show, we will be all over this retrial as it grows near. Starting something new, especially a business is a challenge. So much work goes into something

that you're not entirely sure is going to work out. And it can be hard to make that leap of faith. But it helps when you have a partner like Shopify on your side to help you. Shopify is the commerce platform behind millions of businesses around the world. And 10% of all e-commerce in the US from household names like Mattel and all birds to businesses just starting out. With hundreds of templates, Shopify helps you build a beautiful online store that matches your brand's style.

It's packed with great AI tools that write product descriptions, page headlines, and even enhance your product images. Plus, Shopify provides world class expertise in everything from managing inventory to international shipping to processing returns all with 24/7 award winning support. It's time to turn those what ifs into with Shopify today. Sign up for your $1 per month trial today at Shopify.com/mktc. Go to Shopify.com/mktc. I want to talk to you Dave, you mentioned in

They are again asking the court to hide evidence conceal it from the public in an upcoming hearing. They have this preliminary hearing scheduled for July and a preliminary hearing. Sometimes that's

called a probable cause hearing, and it's for the purpose of deciding basically two things.

If a crime probably was committed, and if this defendant is the one that probably committed the crime, that's a very simplistic way of putting it, but they don't have to show much. It's not a beyond a reasonable doubt, but the prosecutor will show some of the cards that they have, but not they won't show all of their cards. But they have said Dave that they're going to introduce forensic evidence, science surveillance footage, recordings of witness statements,

autopsy findings, messages that they alleged contain admissions of guilt by Robinson and various other things, including the note prosecutor say that Robinson left his roommate

romantic partner Lance Twigs, which reads quote, "I had the opportunity to take Charlie Kirk

out, and I'm going to take it." Dave, why, why, why do they keep coming back to this request of this judge to close the courtroom? Because defense lawyers benefit from the conspiracies that are flying around about this case, the less transparent it is, the more you can get a juror who believes one of these ridiculous conspiracies. Maybe they believe a foreign garment was involved, or something else, which is just ludicrous because we have a confession already. We know who this,

we know the killer is. This is not a hard case, but if there is no transparency, then you have all these podcasts who are firing up the conspiracy machine, and all it takes is one juror with some

“doubts, and that's a hungry. So I think that's what's going on here. Plus, they'll say that the”

more of the evidence that gets out of the public, the more likely there is a jury taint. Well, maybe so, but I think another reason is what I just said, that the conspiracy theories benefit the defense. That's said early on. This judge allowed them too much room to pursue court closures, no cameras, media blackouts, gag orders, and all this stuff. He should have forcefully come out early on and said, "Look, I'm not entertaining all this nonsense unless you've got a really

damn good reason." And he didn't do that, okay? His style, his personality, he's much more gentle, he's pleasant, he's Utah. He's not, he's Utah, he's not confrontational, and so, and look, usually I'm complaining that judges don't let lawyers be lawyers, but sometimes lawyers can be like toddlers, and you gotta put, you gotta have boundaries, right? And so he didn't establish those,

“and these lawyers keep trying to go back to this well over and over and over again, and honestly,”

I find it to be tiresome. I'm going to talk more about gag orders, and my closing a little later on the program, but Dave, they are accusing the defense team. They're accusing these prosecutors of being in contempt of court for responding publicly, sort of, to the defense motions that basically raised the idea that because there was a fragment of a bullet that couldn't be sufficiently tested at the crime lab to be matched to a specific rifle that maybe that gives

rise to some other person being the shooter. It's a total red herring, and the prosecutor said, look, I can't talk specifically about the case because the judge has a gag order, and I'm paraphrasing here. He said, but generally speaking, when you have these bullet fragments that can't, they're too tiny, they're too degraded to be tested, it doesn't necessarily mean that that gun can be excluded, and that's true, it's accurate, it doesn't comment specifically about this case, but they want

him thrown in jail. Never going to happen, I don't like the tactics, and I know need to do you

feel. Remember, the defense, they put out some information that, again, spread like wildfire, which was, oh, there's a finding that the bullet doesn't match the gun. Oh my goodness, and so the conspiracy theorists had a huge day with it. Well, that's not what was said, that's not the reality, right? So the prosecutors came out and said, we know, no, no, no, it's just that they couldn't determine whether it matched or didn't match. It was inconclusive. It was not that it did not match,

“and that's why the prosecutors came out because they want to stop the conspiracy theories and give”

the truth. They're allowed to say it. I think it was a responsible thing to do. Shame on the defense lawyers were trying to sanction them for, but doesn't matter, this judge is not going to punish the prosecutors for coming out and speaking the truth in response to a lie. Well, before we get to, before we get to our break and our guest from Texas coming up in the next block, Dave,

and on this show. I will continue to do so. This is 18-year-old Florida resident Anna Keppner,

“who was found deceased while on vacation on a cruise with her family back in November of 2025.”

We have some video of the FBI who has jurisdiction of the case and the medical examiner removing her body from the ship. And of course, we have her father now who has gone to her high school graduation and has accepted her high school diploma in her stead. Let's run sought for. Oh, it was hard. Now, Dave and her place to do that is very hard. Christopher Keppner stepping up to collect his daughter's high school diploma at what should

have been her high school graduation. Our time with Anna is short, but it left us with many memories that we will forever cherish. We wait for her name to be called, and I walked up and we've got the diploma. My wife set up the senior table and it was great. And as father walking off stage, shedding a tear as his daughter's classmates and their families applauded up out of their seats. The family telling ABC News they're frustrated and upset that Anna's stepbrother,

TH, the son of Christopher's wife, Sean Tell, remains free. Well, first of all, it's heartbreaking.

And just so you know, they wore shirts with blue butterflies on it as a tribute to Anna, blue

“was her favorite color. So, that's why they both wore those shirts. You know, Phil, I'm just hoping”

for justice here. As far as why he's out, he's, remember, he's being tried as an adult, but he's been out for a while on house arrest. He's not committed any new offenses. He's not really a threat to leave the country. And they apparently feel that he's not a threat to anyone else while he is waiting trial. I do think he evidence against him is very strong. Well, in the prosecution, the government, I should say that's how we refer to federal prosecutors. They are seeking

his detention. There's a detention hearing coming up later this month, or at least a decision. We expect from the judge in the case as to whether or not the stepbrother should be in custody

“pending his trial, which is currently scheduled for later this fall. We'll be keeping an eye on that.”

Coming up folks, we have Wise County Texas District Attorney James Stanton. He will be here to discuss the capital case against Tanner Horner. He's the ex FedEx driver accused and now convicted I should say. And since it's to death for the brutal murder of seven-year-old Athena Strain, stick around. Did you know that three out of four U.S. homes have toxic chemicals in their tap water gross, even though contaminated water looks clear, it could put you at risk for devastating health

concerns, including fatigue, hormone disruption, cognitive decline, and even cancer. Surprisingly, standard fridge and picture filters do little to remove most contaminants, and bottled water contains microplastics. So what's the solution? Introducing Aqua True, the countertop water purifier tested and certified to remove 84 contaminants, including chlorine, lead, forever chemicals, and microplastics. We all hate those. It's a patented four-stage reverse osmosis system that goes way beyond

ordinary filters. For pure healthy water, you can trust no plumbing, no installation. Aqua True has been featured in business insider, popular science, and named best countertop water filter by good housekeeping. Join 98% of customers who say they're drinking water is cleaner, safer, and healthier. Go to AquaTrude.com. Now for 20% off, you're a purifier using promo code true crime. AquaTrude even comes with a 30-day best tasting water guarantee. That's AquaTrude.com

AQ-U-A-T-R-U.com. promo code T-R-U-E-C-R-I-M-E. Welcome back to the MK True Crime Show. Joining us now is Wise County District Attorney James Staten. Welcome James. As a reminder for audience, James prosecuted the case against Tanner Quarner. He's the guy who's convicted of killing seven-year-old Athena Strand. Earlier this month, the jury sentenced Horner to death. So James,

first off, thank you for your service. It's a prosecutor. I used to be the State Attorney in Palm Beach

courtroom and try murder cases yourself. Kudos to you. Yeah, can you tell us what it was like in the courtroom and Horner injured his last minute guilty plea moments before the trial was set to begin. Yeah, that was a surprise. It doesn't really change anything. You know, I don't know if you guys would try these types of cases before. But you know, all the evidence is still coming, whether it's a guilt case or whether it's a punishment case. It's going to be the same.

So it wasn't really that big a deal. I did have to change my opening. The judge gave me five minutes to change my opening and said, "Here you go, big boy. You know, make it happen." So sometimes you get that. You guys have been around judges. You know how that works. So the judge, Judge Gallagher, in this case, was wonderful. He was a real blessing. I think for both sides, he was fair for both sides and very direct. You know, when he made rulings, I don't know if you'll watch any of the trial and saw

a lot of it, he was very direct and quick in his rulings, which makes things very efficient. But, you know, getting that guilty plea, we had gotten a report in the week before from one of our

“experts, and it did not play well for Mr. Horner. And I think that's why I ended up doing that.”

Well, look, I have you asked you if either one of us has ever been involved in cases like this,

and I would just say there's never been a case like this. This is one of the worst most

egregious horrifying cases. I have ever seen of any kind. And I just, I just, you know, it was different. You asked if we watched it. Yeah, we watched a lot of it. We talked about it a lot on this program. Our producer Natasha was actually in the courtroom for a lot of us. And yes, so we followed it, but it was difficult for us to do. I can't imagine what it must have been like for you, but I have a couple of follow-up questions on that. You answered one of them, I think, a moment ago,

about why you think he pleaded guilty. And I agree with you. It seems to me like sometimes, it may be your best defense to a jury. It's like, okay, ladies and gentlemen, the jury, he's admitted his responsibility. We're not denying that. We just want you to spare his life.

“And I think, I mean, I get it objectively. I see how that could be a reasonable type of defense.”

I've seen it before in other cases. I'm sure you have two, but on a personal level. I've done it. Was that a relief to you? Yeah. Yeah. But so it makes sense. But was it a relief to you? I mean, to be honest with you, to be honest with you, to be honest with you, the evidence in this case was so overwhelming from the beginning. I mean, it's not often that you actually get

video and audio of a kidnapping, which is very rare anyway. I mean, kidnapping is almost never happens.

And if it does, it almost never happens as a stranger. Right? I mean, you guys are aware of that, newsy kidnappings are family related or, you know, a mom and a dad. And that's only how it works. But it's almost never a stranger. But when you have video of that, and then you know that obviously, you know, what they know was killed, the guilt. I mean, I'm never going to say something is a slam dunk case because you don't know because it's a jury. But there wasn't a more slam dunk

case that was out there as far as the evidence for guilt. It was absolute. We had it on video.

“I mean, when do we have that? So James, why do you think you played guilty in the end?”

I mean, just as you mentioned earlier, just to save his hide so he wouldn't get, I agree. I think it was strategic. It was strategic. I think it was just one way to say, hey, I took responsibility. Hey, I took responsibility. You know, that works in a dope case. It works in a DWI. It works in something that, you know, people kind of go, I think we as a, as Americans, you know, we appreciate when people come in and say, hey, I did it.

I think we appreciate that as a society. But in this case, because of the type of case it was, I, I think it felt flat. And the case was like, but almost four years old when we do this, I think if you play this thing two years in, year and a half and I think that makes a difference. But when you wait four years and you do it when you're staring down the barrel of everything, I just, I don't, I don't think it carries as much weight.

Hey, James, could you walk us through sort of your decision making process as the district attorney, the person who makes the decision to seek the death penalty in the case? I understand this is your,

your first one. You've had opportunities in the past to seek the death penalty. What goes through

a prosecutor's mind, I guess, and when you, when you make that difficult decision, what kind of things do you consider? Well, I'm, I'll be honest with you. I mean, this is Texas. And, you know, a lot of people have a

execution state. But in the reality, it is a tiny, tiny, tiny percentage of cases. And you remember in

“Texas, there are cases that they are available to seek the death penalty, but the majority of the time”

the DAs do not. So it's a very, very small percentage. And my decision process was it was based on the age of the child, the level of violence, the, what we believe to be some form of inappropriate sexual, you know, conduct on the part of the defendant, all of those went in there. But ultimately, the decision was based on the level of violence. And when I got all that video back, and I knew the level of violence that he'd inflicted upon a thing that, that was not a, a difficult choice to make.

James, one of the most powerful moments is when we watched you show Tana Horner sneakers.

And that was just such a moment. I want to show the shot. And then, I'm going to ask you, if you can explain why you thought it was important to show the jury of the sneakers. So first, let's show the video. And then, we're going to have you answer that question. And I don't want anybody to ever forget what kind of warrior that little role was. I don't know if anybody could have, could have listed what she was doing. He can shelter,

he can beater, he can do it over and over again. But what do we know? We know the end result was right here. This is what it took.

“That's what it took to beat the life actor. If the facts were not bad enough,”

hit the sexual assault was it bad enough? The level of violence that one person can inflict on a child, including stomping them with a pair of shoes. And I wonder where that tread like print came from anymore, because we know. James. Yeah, please. Can you talk about that here, decision to bring up the sneakers? Well, what you didn't see? And we kept from the public with the autopsy photos.

We did that on purpose. We did not show the jury, the entirety. We admitted them, of course, and evidence. But we showed the jury one picture. One. And it was just the picture of her face and her about this level right here, about her chest. And we did that on purpose. The autopsy photos, I will tell you, gentlemen. You can't unsee it. Okay, let's just put it that way. We showed the jury one picture. We also did that with the body recovery. We showed them one picture

with her body out of the water. That was it. The picture we showed them, you could see the tread like pattern. I mean, if you remember the testimony of the ME, the ME described a zigzag tread like pattern in her report. That came from those shoes. And though the jury has seen that one picture with that tread like pattern. And it is very, when I say distinctive, I mean, unmistakable what that pattern is on her body. That's why you have the shoes. Because if you've

seen that picture and I turn those shoes over, you know exactly where that pattern came from.

“And that's why we show them the shoes. That's, that's why it's important. Because that size”

13 shoes stomp the life out of her. That's a truth though. It's just so powerful. I mean,

that's, and look, I mean, it's, it's really effective trial advocacy as well. And, you know, he certainly gave you a lot to work with. I think the evidence of guilt was obviously overwhelming convincing a jury, though, to, to pose that death penalty is is sometimes a, a tougher ask than just, you know, saying, well, I want you to find the person guilty. So I think that that was really effective. I think what else was really effective. You had a, you had a part of your closing where you

something missing from that. So let's, let's talk about what that something is missing. We'll

“talk about that after we have a look and listen to such six. I, I, I've done it through some stuff.”

That's a bunch of reports, notes, everything that came out over here. Everybody, how many hundred hours, hundred hours or more, how many psychologists, how many experts, you know, what you won't find in this box right here? I'm sorry. Not a single time in this entire box. Now, what this entire box is full of? It's all about tenor. He's more than happy to talk about his life. More than happy to talk about his problems. He's more than happy.

To talk about that, but you would think in a hundred hours, you would think all those experts somewhere, some place, one single time. Stop what you're doing, quit talking about me. And just say, I don't think that's too much to ask me. But you can dig. Beating in there.

No better way in my view. I've never seen anybody really demonstrate lack of remorse in such an effective way.

Just to give you a full disclosure, a little inside baseball. That was, that was kind of spur of the moment. Sometimes when you're in the middle of it, things hit you and you feel passion, you feel something that really sets the tone. And in that particular case, I'd sat there through, I mean, I'll solve the experts, one psychologist after the other, one expert after the other, one person on there. And I'd had to listen to them talk about all about tenor. Woe is tenor,

tenor this, tenor is bad employment, tenor this, tenor, I mean, it was just on and on. And I just sat

there and I was fuming. I mean, I literally was angry because I'd heard so much about him.

And I'm sitting there and I looked down and I see this pile of paper and I was like,

“that's it. That's what I haven't seen. Literally six psychologists, evaluators, experts.”

It's the guy with fetal alcohol, the brain scan guy. I mean, the lead pink guy. I mean, all these experts, that's all their reports in that box. I took them all. I took all their notes and I put them in that box and I asked myself, is there a single time he's ever said he's sorry? Nope. Not in the box. It ain't in there. And that's, that's just, it came to me like that. It's not in there. He talked for hours about himself and his conditions and his bad home life.

And don't get me wrong. There's, there's a lot of truth to a lot of that stuff. He did have a bad home life. His mom does have prison struggles and drug issues. I mean, that's all true. But you would think somebody who's been taught to for, I don't know, how many hours by these people would just go, man, I'm, I'm not a good person. I need to be sorry about this or something. It's not in there. Not a bit. I mean, maybe the, honestly, I'm kind of surprised, I mean,

obviously a lot of these things are done for purposes of trial preparation. I'm kind of surprised that maybe his lawyers didn't coach him to at least interject some of that in there. Yeah, I don't know. I mean, it's, it's one of those things. I mean, you've, you've done all this

“stuff, but if you, if you want, if you want to come in there and say that you have some redeeming qualities,”

that you don't deserve a death sentence, that you deserve life without parole and you have some redeeming values. I mean, that's, that's the theory behind it. That's the theory behind question number two. We found you to be a future danger, but is there something redeeming about you that can kind of pull this back a little bit, kind of pull it back away from the death penalty and allow you to serve your life in prison. Being remorseful, that's what you do. You know what I mean, legitimately

remorseful about, about how it happened and he just nod. I mean, I guess he is, you know, that one psychiatrist lady, she said something about how, well, he's remorseful, but apparently you got to have a degree in psychiatry to be able to understand how he's remorseful. I don't,

common sense in the anger of a community that, and here's all these eggheads with fancy degrees,

trying to tell them, oh, yes, he's remorseful. And they also tried to say that he didn't have

“the intent to kill. That was key to the defense. He had a woman, Dr. Eileen Reed, a child”

forensic psychiatrist who claimed that that Tanner Horner did not intend to kill, and you crossed her really well. Eileen Ryan. Yeah, Eileen Ryan. Oh, is it Ryan? Dr. Ryan. Well, I'm going to play. Yeah, Dr. Ryan. Right. Right. We're going to play that sought, and then I'm going to ask you on the other side a question about it. So let's play sought seven.

Yes, when he put her in the truck, in my opinion, he didn't plan on killing her. It wasn't until

he recognized now it's so much worse because I've put him in the truck. And now what I'm I'm going to do. I think it may be in my notes. It was when she asked him, are you a kidnapper that he thought now this is now I'm really done something to that effect? And that's when he made that decision. Not when he saw her, when she saw snoring the cocaine. So we had the end result, but would you miss what happened in the middle? Which one? Sexual assault. That happened in the middle?

No, I think that he, maybe I'm misunderstanding you. He's a kidnapper. He sexually assaulted her.

“Then he killed her. That's how this goes together. Actually, that's not what he told me and that's”

not my opinion. Oh, that's not what he told me. Oh my gosh, that's such a great moment. So he's lying to the expert. James, yes. Oh, he lied to all those experts. So that, that lady Dr. Ryan, and he just pulled this closer. Dr. Ryan in her field is a legitimate professional. She is, um, agreed. She is, she's credentialed in her field. I mean, she is a, a, a, a very well-recognized professional in her field. So I'm not going to speak ill of her, obviously, because in her field,

she is, I mean, all these experts that you saw, I mean, I beat up on a few of them, but they are legitimate experts in their field. But on that particular day, you know, you just kept giving me fastballs down the middle, and I'm just going to keep hitting them. I mean, I mean, you know, you know, the whole point of that of Dr. Ryan's testimony was the catastrophe theory.

“Y'all may remember that from what you was talking about. The seven-year-old girl saw him doing”

blow, you know, off the hood of his truck, and then all of a sudden he has a catastrophe because of all of these conditions and kidnaps her and kills her. The problem with that theory is one, I think it's a lie. I think he's figured out that we now know he has to explain why you covered up the front camera. And so that's his reason now. But it doesn't explain why in the middle of that, he decided to be inappropriate with her sexually. That's the problem. We actually have that,

I don't mean to interrupt you, but I think this is an excellent topic to dive into. We've got sought eight, which is some of the defense talking about this theory, this idea that, you know,

I think I saw him do some cocaine, which basically triggered a chain of events that basically

to pull the jury away from pre-meditation and say it was sort of spontaneous thing, spontaneous decision, no pre-meditation, let's run sought eight, which is part of the defense closing argument on that point. Tanner delivered the packages to the thing's house, parties, and he got out, delivered the package, decided to sort a little cocaine because he had hadn't saw him yet, was tired, had all these other issues, and she saw him, and he thought that

she was going to tap on him, and if she told, he would lose his job. If he lost his job, he would lose his car, if he lost his car, he wouldn't be able to have transportation for the baby, if he didn't have transportation for the baby, something could happen, he couldn't do this, and just kept snowballing in his mind. There was no planning, there was no pre-meditation, there was no preparation. All right, so there I wanted to just go ahead and just for the benefit

of our audience, and so I had interrupted you, so please, I'm curious to hear your thoughts on that part of the strategy. So, I mean, it makes sense, the defense team on this, they are definitely

defense that they could make. There was, I believe, some pretty clear evidence of pre-meditation,

you know, when we find you on the same road the day before, at a different house, covering up the camera, an hour and 15, hour and 20 minutes, before he ended up on the road, two days in a row, and there just happens to be two seven-year-old blonde-haired little girls that

“just happened to be on the same road. I'm not a coincidence guy, so I think that was definitely”

some form of planning, but when they're arguing that, you know, he just was doing cocaine, just he figured out, we knew there was something else going on, and that was what he came up with to cover that, if you will. And I'm sorry, I think you may have seen my closing when I talked about how that what seven-year-old girl is going to know that he's doing blow off the hood of his truck. I mean, come on. I mean, I hope a seven-year-old girl does not know that.

I hope that she does not know what that is, but it misses the point. The point being is you had this stopping off point in the middle where you decided to be inappropriate. I mean, you can't have a catastrophe with a pause in the middle where you do something else. It

“just doesn't make any sense, but you know, given the evidence, I mean, I think that was probably”

that the smartest argument to make. James, this is so interesting to hear what was going on in your mind, and also your thoughts about the defense lawyers, because it was something that happened

out of the jury's ear shot that was picked up by Natasha, our amazing producer here. And she is

from that community, from your community, and she was there on the courtroom, and she said that she was sitting on his own, right? And we're so happy to have her lead the way here. Natasha was sitting on the defense side, right behind the defense team, and heard one of the members of the defense team say out loud, all this circus for an automatic appeal seems kind of calm. How would you respond to that? You know, I think anybody who's been in trial then hasn't said something that

they would like to take back his life. These are high pressure situations. This is a maximum pressure situation, both for me and them, and I'm sure that I probably lived off to somebody somewhere sometime that I'd probably like to take back as well. I don't usually hold my tongue, and I've definitely had to apologize in some stressful situations when I said something that was inappropriate. Now,

“I would hope if that's what was said. I don't know who said that. I would doubt that that was”

defense counsel. I seriously doubt that. I'm not sure because I didn't hear anything. That's not how they operate, as far as the two defense counsel that was on it, Ms. Anderson and Mr. Gobel, they don't operate that way. But you know, I mean, we're all lawyers, and you know, if that was said, I would, I would hope that, you know, somebody, you know, didn't mean it, or it was just reacting to the stress of the situation. Because obviously, you just found out your

clients going to the, you know, going to death row. James, in 30 seconds or so, we got left. Tell us what your office is going to do in terms of being involved in speaking of the appeal, the automatic appeal we know this is going to take years. What is the degree of, I guess, involvement that your office is going to keep with the case moving forward? Obviously, we're going through all the evidence and notes and files and everything else. We're

packaged and all that up. We don't do the appeals here. You've got to be certified to do that in Texas, to be a capital-appellate, writ lawyer, and that kind of thing. We have somebody in the office that that what we do some appeals here, but it's, we're, we're going to contract that out, which is what happens in most rural offices and gets contracted out. Well, James, Staten, we appreciate very much. That was an amazing statement. Yeah, and we hope to have

you back sometime, but hopefully we'll never have a case like this again and up next, your questions

and your closing arguments, our closing arguments. Stay tuned. This podcast is sponsored by QColour, the only FDA-clear device in its category designed to help protect the brain from sports-related impacts. While we've always relied on helmets, there's a key distinction to make. A helmet protects the head, but QColour helps protect the brain.

blood volume inside the skull. This creates a cushion effect that reduces brain movement during

“an impact. It's backed by over 25 peer reviewed independent studies. Think of it as a seat belt”

for your brain. When you're checking off the equipment list for neck season, make it helmet, mouthguard, and QColour. So when you're getting your family ready for the neck season, think, helmet, mouthguard, and QColour. Head to Q30.com/mk and use code mk for a free sleeve with your order. Once again, that's Q300.com/mk for a free sleeve. It's available in 15 colors now with your order. Welcome back to the mk True Crown Show. I'm Phil Holloway along with my co-host Dave Ironberg.

This is the part of the program where we give you our closing arguments. So Dave,

I'll let you go first because it's a Florida first kind of day. I love it. It should always be

that way. Thank you Phil. On Sunday, I attended my niece's high school graduation in Delray Beach, Florida. I'm proud to say that she finished at the top of her class. But here's the kicker. She didn't apply to a single Ivy League school. She was not interested in applying the Harvard her uncle's alma mater. Instead, she's heading to her top choice, Northwestern. And she was not alone. I watched some of the best and brightest students in South Florida actively issue the traditional

liberal bastions of the Northeast. Why? Some are worried about campus antisemitism. Others are just tired of the chaos. So they're choosing schools like Northwestern, Stanford, and Southern schools, places we're learning still comes before mob rule. In fact, since 2019, applications to Southern universities have shot up by 50, 50% far outpacing North Eastern schools. For some of America's so-called elite institutions of higher learning, the bill has come due. And the real cost is not

the looming Department of Justice Fines for failing to address campus antisemitism. The real cost is the loss of talented students who want to learn not get indoctrinated. So, in fact, listen administrators, cow-towd to extremism, ignorance, and students radicalized by Chinese TikTok and Kateri billions, this is what happens. You lose your lustre. It breaks my heart to see students pass over my alma mater. But until these institutions clean up their act,

focus on independent thought and protect all their students from harassment. The Exodus will continue. Weakness and appeasement have a price tag. And right now, Harvard and other Ivy League schools are paying it. That's my closing statement. Well, that's good stuff Dave. And look, I want to talk about something that we discussed a little earlier in the program, the context of the Tyler Robinson case. There's a gag order there. And the defense team is saying that the prosecution has violated

that gag order by responding to some pleading that the defense filed, and they did so in public.

“And I think that's just dangerous. I think gag orders in general are dangerous. So, why is that?”

It's because they silence the very people we need to hear the truth from. So, when a judge

slaps a gag order on the case, they're basically telling the public, you don't need to know

what's happening here. And that's just not wrong. I think it's dangerous. gag orders violate our first amendment rights to a free speech. And of course, to a free press, the first amendment is more than just free speech. It includes the right of the press to gather the news and to report it and our founders did not create the first amendment. So, judges could decide what we are allowed to hear and what we're not allowed to hear.

The press exists to gather news and to inform the public, particularly in high-profile news

worthy cases that affect all of us. In every criminal case of any type, society at large is always

“at least one of the victims. And that's why here in my home state of Georgia, every criminal indictment”

ends with the language that it's brought in the name of and on behalf of the people of the state. And it's against the good order piece and dignity thereof. Society is a victim. Other jurisdictions use similar language because the people at large are the victims.

to know the truth about what's going on in courtrooms. Another problem with gag orders is that they

“create an information vacuum. As Dave was talking about earlier, what fills a vacuum is rumors,”

speculations, and conspiracy theories. Without facts from actual parties and their attorneys, the public is left in the dark and they make up their own narratives. And folks, that's not justice. That is chaos. The Supreme Court of the United States has repeatedly said that

prior restraint on speech is the most serious and least tolerable infringement on the first

amendment rights of us as citizens in the United States. Yet judges keep issuing these orders like they're going out of style. They claim it's to protect the fairness of the trial, but there are plenty of other ways to ensure the defendant gets a fair trial without shutting down

public courtrooms. A vigorous and thorough jury selection process is almost always sufficient

to offset any risk of prejudice from pretrial publicity. The public has a right to know what their government is doing and that includes courts, especially the courts. gag orders don't protect justice. They protect secrecy. And secrecy in government is where mistrust and doubt are born. When you silence the voices closest to the case, you're not protecting the system. You're actually undermining the system. So next time you hear about a gag order

“in a high profile case, ask yourself, who benefits from the public being kept in the dark?”

The answer is almost always never the public itself. I want to say thanks to all of you for

watching and listening to us today here on the MK True Crime Show. And if you haven't already subscribed on YouTube and on podcast, please do that. And of course, listen to us when you get a chance on serious XM, the Megan Kelly channel. And I want to say a special thanks to James Stanton,

“the district attorney who had to prosecute that the worst of all cases that I think we've ever”

even talked about on this program. And of course, thanks to my co-host Dave Aaronberg. And thanks again to all of you for joining us. And we'll see you back here next time on the MK True Crime Show. Have a great week.