LIVE! George Pino Found Not Guilty: Did The Jury Get It Right?

[00:00:00] Joshua Ritter: it took a florida jury under two hours to find george pino not guilty for his role in a boat crash off biscayne bay in september 2022 that left one teenager dead and another with permanent disabilities tonight we are joined by former palm beach county state attorney dave erenberg to break it all down all this and more on courtroom confidential good evening and welcome it is monday june 22nd 2026 and this is your monday night special from courtroom confidential the fastest growing true crime news channel on youtube thank you all so much for being here hope you had a great weekend and a good father's day hello to cody in tennessee and afton best nancy heather cooper smith um so nice to see so many familiar faces coming back again and again if you're new let me introduce myself my name is joshua ritter i'm a former prosecutor with the la district attorney's office i was there for about 10 years before i left to go into private practice as a criminal defense attorney and this is courtroom confidential where we do our best to present to you both sides of the courtroom both sides of the issues both sides of the stories and this is our monday night special it is a look at the week ahead in true crime and we happen to have some breaking news tonight our big case for this evening is the george pino verdict i'm not gonna bury the lead you already heard it he was found not guilty and we will dive into whether or not we think the jury got it right and to help us break it all down is is as i said before dave erenberg former palm beach county state attorney managing partner at dave erenberg law stay to the end please uh we are going to run our viewers choice poll so as soon as we're done chatting with dave we're going to put up our poll for some other cases that we're breaking today some a lot of stuff actually going on it's been a very busy monday and we have some announcements some stuff we don't want you guys to meet uh miss and some changes to our scheduling but you know what time it is take that deep cleansing breath it's monday you made it it's the beginning of another week hit that like button if you haven't already subscribe if you haven't already and share this with anyone that you feel might enjoy it but let me go to go ahead and get [00:02:36] Dave Erenberg: my friend on here hey dave how you doing good to be back with you josh i'm fine thanks my friend thanks [00:02:42] Joshua Ritter: for having me thank you for coming on before anything the biggest breaking news that i at least heard today is you have a little personal news to share with everybody is that right yes for the first time i'm [00:02:58] Dave Erenberg: gonna be a father so i'm really excited it's late october so uh you know better late than never as my [00:03:07] Joshua Ritter: october baby scorpio and the only reason i know that is we've got an october baby so i immediately know [00:03:14] Dave Erenberg: it it's you know it's such a blessing and it's it's gonna it's just something that i've been wanting and i'm just very grateful uh got an amazing wife and you know we're gonna make sure that we raise a good true crime baby right someone who's interested in the law that's right right get them in the family [00:03:32] Joshua Ritter: business right yeah right right that is very cool uh i and i love that it comes on the heels of father day father's day that we're talking about that and i couldn't be happier for you and it's such a blessing and i can't wait to talk to you once the desk settles after the baby is born and get a new new found uh perspective on life from dave erenberg because it will change you yeah also apparently changes your sleep patterns that's what oh yeah oh yeah yeah and by that you mean you get no sleep so buckle up my friend all right well switching gears dramatically let's talk about this case out of florida i'm glad that we were able to have you on because this is your home turf after all and a case that i know that you've been following closely on your own channel um and it's a tragedy i don't care what the verdict was we already knew going into this this this was a tragedy uh for everybody who hasn't been following closely here's a quick um understanding of what this is george pinot is a miami real estate developer uh he is on a boat with his daughter who is turning is celebrating her 18th birthday along with about 10 of her friends they go out on the water in this biscayne bay area lots of alcohol over 60 bottles of alcohol are found on the boat there there you go when they're navigating back to the dock wherever they were coming from he is according to prosecutors going too fast on the wrong side of the channel and he runs into what's called a channel marker and this thing is much bigger than that picture leads you to believe it's a it's a huge sign that they have out there in this this kind of day glow green he runs right into it everybody goes overboard or many people go overboard including lucy fernandez she is only 17 years old she's trapped under the boat she tragically loses her life another girl uh kat katie puig is permanently disabled from all of this it's a it's like i said a complete tragedy but they are trying to convict him for um second degree manslaughter and vessel homicide he was looking at 30 years in prison well earlier today we already saw a part of that clip but let me play the entire clip because you can kind of see the emotional reaction from court when the verdict was read out by a jury in less than two hours like we said let's go ahead and take a look [00:06:08] Speaker 3: also found one information runs large on luciana christina fernandez the defendant is not killed [00:06:28] Joshua Ritter: he has a emotional breakdown we've already kind of seen this uh from him before he he kind of hyperventilated during opening statements the whole courtroom uh obviously reacts like i said many people feeling very strongly about this entire thing but i want to hear your reaction what do you think do you think the jury got it right or did they miss something here [00:06:52] Dave Erenberg: gosh i'm the former prosecutor who almost always seems to take the prosecutions point of view, just inherent in me. And in this case, though, there was reasonable doubt. This case, there was reasonable doubt because really to show the felony impairment here, that this was more than negligence, it was recklessness, he really needed to show that he was impaired by alcohol. And all they had were all those bottles of alcohol, which were a lot on the boat, but he maintained he drank two and he was no breathalyzer. There was no field sobriety test. He declined any of those voluntary tests. And he was loopy after the accident, but because they he had an expert at trial to say this because he was in that major accident. And so they couldn't prove that he was impaired. And as a result, I don't see how you can find him guilty. He was apparently speeding. But then there was testimony that showed that the speed, the speed limit signs were not well posted. Apparently, he was driving on the wrong side of the channel here. But it's not like you're driving on the wrong side of the road where the lines and lanes are designated. And it's obvious. In fact, the defense got a jury instruction to say that driving on the wrong side of the channel is not by itself proof of recklessness. So without any of that stuff, and oh, also, they had witnesses that said he did not, they did not see him act impaired. They had people on the boats that he did not seem to be impaired. And so you don't really have enough evidence to prove the felonies. And that's, I think, why this case originally was going to be charges misdemeanors. There was an outcry after that. And they upgraded to felonies. But in the end, they don't think they had enough. [00:08:38] Joshua Ritter: I think you dissected that perfectly. It really, there was evidence, because just to be very clear, he was not charged with any kind of alcohol related crime here. He was charged with a crime that requires some sort of recklessness in the way that he was operating that boat. Now, alcohol can be indicative of that. It could be evidence of that. But it's not like you need to show alcohol in order to show recklessness. And essentially, that's what the prosecution was left with, was these other factors, which you did a great job of saying like, yeah, he was going too fast. But was he aware of that? Or should he have been aware of that? Well, yes, he was on the wrong side of the channel. But you know, like you said, this isn't like a clearly marked road. I mean, the other thing I point out is he ran into that sign, which is a pretty clearly marked sign. But again, just because an accident happens doesn't necessarily indicate recklessness. So my question to you is, the defense, I think, did a very clever thing by making the case about whether or not he was under the influence, even though that's not really the question. They made that the question because they knew that was the one question the prosecution really couldn't answer. [00:09:59] Dave Erenberg: Exactly, exactly. And that really, in turning it into that, that was it. That was like a binary choice. Well, he, there was no evidence of being under the influence. And so that's it. Now he is saying there was a wake that came up, both came in the other direction. And, and he got distracted, and he turned his head away, and he wasn't looking for nine seconds. And that's an accident. That's not recklessness. There is no evidence of any boat. There was no evidence of any wake that looked like that was a figment of his imagination, quite frankly. But is it enough to prove the homicide charge, manslaughter charge? No. And you have to prove these cases beyond a reasonable doubt. They had a neurologist, Dr. Barrett, who testified. And this was key to the defense. The neurologist testified that the defendant suffered a, what's called a TBI, a traumatic brain injury. And they said that that's why he made inconsistent statements to investigators. It was not a lie. It was not a cover up, but a product of his brain injury, because his statements afterwards looked like he was trying to cover up his tracks. And so they were able to convince a jury that no, no, no, he acted that way, not because he was impaired, because he wasn't, not because he was lying, but because he had a brain injury. That's the argument. [00:11:19] Joshua Ritter: I don't want to put you on the spot here. So tell me if you're aware, but do you know how they handled the idea that he, because he was, he refused to take a test initially, right? They had to get that test from him later on at the hospital through a blood draw when he was receiving medical care. And that was something like five hours later. Do you know what, how that was presented to the jury, if at all? [00:11:41] Dave Erenberg: Yeah, when you refuse to take a breath or a sobriety test, it is admissible in court, and it was admissible. But it's, it's a little more complex than the simple, he refused, so he's guilty, you know, so, and there's an implied consent law. So you have to consent to it if there's probable cause to suspect that you're under the influence. And so the prosecutors love this because they present this as consciousness of guilt. If you're sober, why would you take the test to prove it? The defense still had a counter narrative here. They said that he refused because he had the traumatic brain injury. They said that it wasn't that he was drunk. It was that he had an inability to process the situation clearly. So that traumatic brain injury defense was used throughout to try to explain his weird behavior afterwards. And the fact that he did not take the test. And the defense also highlighted that the investigators at the scene, the people who should have been observing signs of impairment did not administer the test immediately. Remember, they, if you have probable cause you, there's implied consent. So they didn't apparently think there was probable cause immediately. And that's why later on when they, you know, got evidence, it just, it's too late. [00:13:05] Joshua Ritter: Yeah. That, uh, that, that, that traumatic brain injury was doing a lot of heavy lifting for the defense. It sounds like in this case. Um, I want to get though, to your thoughts on having worked in law enforcement in Florida for as long as you did. I, in my view, the investigators who arrived and did not go about, you know, performing FSTs, uh, you know, if they, if he refused to take a breathalyzer, whatever, whatever else was available to them or getting a warrant or whatever it was, this idea of being like, well, he didn't appear impaired. So we didn't take a test just rings very shallow to me because you've got a horrible accident, you've got a dead girl and you've got 60 something bottles on the boat. To me, it's like, get the test. Maybe the guy is sober, but let's go ahead and get the test anyways, because this is a, a disappearing piece of evidence, right? If you don't get the test now, you're never going to be able to take, to know exactly what his BAC at that time was. What do, what do you think? Am I being too hard on them? [00:14:19] Dave Erenberg: No, actually I think they, they messed up. This is the fish and wildlife commission, uh, the fish and wildlife conservation commission to be more exact. It's not the highway patrol that's used to doing this on a daily basis. I mean, the fish and wildlife conservation commission, they, they will bust you. If you catch a fish, that's too large. I mean, they do a good job. They're important, right? But this isn't really their nation. This is not their expertise at doing something like this. And the investigators at the scene, they never secured the, uh, the forensic test, the breath test, the blood test. They didn't force the issue. Um, partly, I guess, because of the delay in treating his, uh, the fact that he had injuries, uh, you know, that he just, they, they let, they sort of acknowledged that he had injuries and they did not push the issue of forcing him to take the test. So when he did take a test later, he was transported to the hospital. And then as part of their treatment, the medical staff drew his blood. And what do you think that revealed? It came back clean with no alcohol detected. Yeah. So that's another reason why he was found not guilty because when the test was eventually taken much later, there was no alcohol. Yeah. So the state instead, they were left with pointing at the 61 empty bottles of alcohol in the boat, pointing to the fact that he refused the test on the scene. And, uh, the fact that he was driving the wrong side of the channel and he made up something about a wake that didn't really exist, even though the defense still maintained that it was there. So yeah, this was going to be a tough case for the prosecutors from the beginning. And sort of why I think they were going to just seek misdemeanors. And I think if they had sought the misdemeanors, they could have prevailed. Do you know the other strategy, Josh, what the defense did? They sell all or nothing. We are not going to want those misdemeanors to be a less included offense. [00:16:17] Joshua Ritter: That was smart. Yeah. Yeah. It was smart. It was, it was a gamble, but it was smart. Well, let's talk about, um, Hey, listen, you've already outlined and done a great job of saying how it was a difficult case for any prosecutor, but I'm wondering if, if the prosecutors left some of it on the field, as it were, let's take a look at closing arguments here from, uh, this is prosecutor, Laura Adams. Famously, this scene that we're looking at here was when she got into it, uh, with the defendant in court when they apparently had a little staring contest with each other that she's just no loft, no love lost between these folks. Uh, but here's what she had to say during closing arguments. Um, [00:17:02] Speaker 4: and we'll kind of break it down afterwards. But out of this application of duty that this defendant owed to his own daughter, to his wife, and to those 11 other teenage girls, these 13 other souls that were on his boat, what did he do? He lied over and over and over again about what happened. Why? To shift the blame away from himself and in an avoidance of accountability. You know, this wasn't just an accident. And an accident is if you accidentally blow through a stop sign and somebody gets into a temporary network. This isn't blowing through a stop sign. This is blowing into the stop sign on the wrong side of the road when we've been drinking. It's not an accident. [00:18:07] Joshua Ritter: What are your thoughts? I don't want, I don't want to, I don't want to take an opportunity to like play Monday morning quarterback and really throw her under the bus. But do you, you know, that, that argument there, uh, I think is a clever one, but I don't know if it was executed as well. The idea that, you know, trying to, trying to help people understand what this was like from like a driving perspective. And she says, you know, this isn't just blowing through a stop sign and getting into a fender bender. It's running into the stop sign. Actually, I like the clothes because I thought you [00:18:39] Dave Erenberg: could, you could see it because the other side saying this is an accident. And when you think of an accident, yeah, he, he accidentally didn't see the stops. I know you hit it. And because you were driving on the wrong side of the road to use that example, and there were all these alcohol bottles. So there use your common sense. That's the argument. Problem is that the, uh, defense every, every time that, uh, that Adam's point to a lie, the defense would go lean on Josh, the brain injury, right? So, so every time Adam said lie after lie after life, that's consciousness of guilt, use your common sense. Why would you lie? And the defense, as you said, use that brain injury, some heavy lifting. They just kept turning into the head and expert. And, you know, you have to show intent to deceive. If you're going to show a lie, if it's a lie by accident, because your brain isn't working properly undercuts your best argument. So they didn't have the science and the common sense part required you to take a leap. And that expert to say that he had a brain injury, block that leap, like literally broke that leap in half. Yeah. I mean, even the way you're explaining it, you, [00:19:52] Joshua Ritter: you can tell that this is not going beyond, this is not going beyond the burden, right? There's some arguments there, but even the arguments aren't even full throated enough to really convince you certainly. And it doesn't sound like those jurors struggled much with it at all. Uh, just let, let's take a look at the, this is defense attorney, Howard Srebnik kind of directly responding to that argument about, you know, blowing through a stop sign. Let's see how he handled it. [00:20:19] Speaker 5: I heard the prosecutor try to give you an example, and I thought it was telling. She said, oh, if someone ran a stop sign and they had a fender bender, that would be just negligent. I think that's what she said. But if that same car, same driver, ran the stop sign, but instead of a fender bender, a mother with a stroller was walking in the crosswalk and got hit and severely injured or worse, would that change the character of the manner in which the person who was driving the car operated that deal. The level of injury, the, the, the death that Michael chew under those circumstances does not then define level of recklessness, the level of culpable negligence that we all are here to [00:21:18] Joshua Ritter: evaluate. If you're just joining us, I know that we have a lot of new folks here. I just want to fill you in that we're talking about the recent verdict of George Pino. He was found guilty earlier today for the death of a young woman, Lucy Fernandez. Lucy Fernandez. So what did I say? Not guilty, right? He was found not guilty. If I misspoke, he was found not guilty for the death of a young woman by the name of Lucy Fernandez. And we're breaking this all down with former Palm Beach County state attorney, Dave Ehrenberg. Dave, in that last clip, I always think it is a real clever trial advocacy trick to take the argument of the opposing side and use it to your own advantage, which he did there. And I thought he did it very, fairly skillfully. What are, what are your thoughts on, on his, [00:22:21] Dave Erenberg: his advocacy in this case? That's why Howard Shredmick is one of the best in the business. He's well-known in Miami as being one of the best criminal defense lawyers. I mean, George Pino is a very wealthy individual, very prominent. So he's going to hire the best attorneys that money can buy. And Shredmick did an outstanding job. And you saw, there's some lawyers who will yell, and there's an old saying, and you know this, Josh, if you have the facts on your side, you pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, you pound the law. And if you have neither, you pound the table. Shredmick was very cerebral in his argument. He was going by the law that it's not the extent of the injuries or the tragedy that occurs. It's whether or not he was reckless and he was not proven to be impaired. And so you can't find him reckless. And it's, it's a, it's like a result neutral argument that it's don't look at the victim, look over here at the defendant. And that was really powerful. And, you know, I, I don't know Howard Shredmick, but here's a weird thing. Josh, you saw how Florida is a smaller state than you would think his brother, who was his criminal defense law partner. And I think they still work together. Scott Shredmick was my camp counselor back in sleepaway camp in 19, like 80, 84, I think. So yeah. Uh, good guy, Scott Shredmick. [00:23:44] Joshua Ritter: I love that. That's a great small world example. Um, yeah, that's a really good way of, of, of describing his demeanor in this case. And even in that argument by saying, Hey, listen, this isn't a results driven crime. This is a actions driven crime. This is a intent driven crime, and they don't have the proof of the actions or intent. So instead they want you to focus on the results, which is highlighting how strangely enough, it's the prosecution, who's being emotional about all of this. And it's the defense who's saying, follow the law. And that's a really strong place, uh, for the defense to be arguing out of. And obviously, again, I keep on pointing to the idea that, you know, it took them under two hours on a very difficult case in my view, but apparently not having the jurors having sat through all of it. They didn't, they didn't struggle too much. I mean, again, we don't know, but it seems like two hours is fairly quick given, uh, given the, the gravity of this case, [00:24:55] Dave Erenberg: definitely quick two hours. Yeah. That's, this was a nationally watched case. This was very emotional. You had arguments between the prosecutor who was well respected and the defendant about who's staring at whom here. And it was, uh, it was, uh, how long was the trial? It was like, a couple of weeks, uh, the trial. So for a two hour verdict, that is lightning fast. And when the jury comes back, when you have a difficult case like this for a prosecutor and the jury comes back [00:25:24] Joshua Ritter: in two hours, you know, your goose is cooked. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. That is, uh, I, you know, we, one of the favorite pastimes of trial attorneys, you know, this is trying to, uh, read the tea leaves of what jurors are doing when they ask a question, what does that mean when they come back with a quick verdict? What does that mean? Um, and when it came back after two hours, I, I, I don't know why I instinctively thought it was not guilty because it just seems like they would have, they would have struggled more with it, but they, they were fairly convinced, um, before going back into that room. Miami-Dade state attorney, Catherine Fernandez Rundle, uh, issued a statement afterwards, obviously for the reasons you just outlined realizing the, the media attention on this case, the loss of life, the tragedy of the whole thing. And she had this to say, sadly, I know that this verdict brings no comfort to the Fernandez and Puig families who forever must live with the tragedy of what happened. In a case like this, there are no winners or losers. Mr. Pino must live with what he did while the Fernandez and Puig families will grapple with the consequences of his actions. These families, and to some extent our community as a whole have been deeply impacted by this tragedy. What happens inside of a prosecutor's office with a big loss like this? How, how does, how does this [00:26:50] Dave Erenberg: reverberate throughout the hallways? Disappointing, but when you lose a case, at least when I was state attorney for 12 years, we had a sense that depending on the defendant, you would see him again. Like when OJ got away with murder, he had a sense that a guy like that was going to, was going to slip up again. And, and they got him later on for the armed robbery. Uh, you know, when you have criminals, people who commit intentional murder and who, or have big rap sheets, they will slip up again. This is different. George Pino, who had never been in trouble with the law before is unlikely to be seen again. So he is going to walk free. And so that won't be any solace to them because they're not going to see him again. At the same time, he doesn't emerge unscathed from this. He's already settled multimillion dollar lawsuits with some of the victims. And so he's going to be sued every which way civilly. The burden is much lower than criminal. It just means that he won't serve any criminal, any prison time or this conduct, but he's gonna have to live with this and he's gonna have to pay out. But in the end, it's disappointing for prosecutors, but also, you know, they're probably gonna second guess thinking that, well, maybe we had a right the first time when the case originally was filed as misdemeanors. And then we decided to take a shot at felonies because it was a public outcry. And in the end, you know, we did what we could, we did the best we could and we'll live [00:28:22] Joshua Ritter: to fight another day. Yeah. These are in many respects, the most difficult things for prosecutors ahead of the trial in making decisions, because you're right, this is horrible, but it probably was, should have remained more in the world of a civil case or a misdemeanor, if anything, just because you have a loss of life. And just because it's a tragedy doesn't automatically make everything criminal. To that point, the, so the Fernandez family, this was wild to me, did not pursue a lawsuit. They instead focused on advocacy efforts and they're heralding what they call Lucy's Law, which would strengthen penalties against leaving the scene of a boating accident against providing false information to law enforcement, penalties for boating under the influence, reckless boating, things like that. They're, they're doing their best. And I applaud them to carry on her memory in other ways. The Puig family, on the other hand, like I said, she is forever disabled by the events of this day, have sued. They reached a $16 million settlement against Cecilia Pino, the wife of George Pino, and an undisclosed private settlement against George Pino, which you got to imagine maybe, you know, maybe in the same ballpark, as far as, as far as money, I'm not sure why one was disclosed and the other was not, but, um, that is kind of where things end now is that this, this, you're right. He's probably likely never to commit another crime. Wasn't a person who was committing, you know, had a, had a rap sheet before this. And this is kind of where things end. Do you think, um, do you think, uh, we should all be satisfied with this? [00:30:19] Dave Erenberg: The prosecutor not satisfied, but I predicted this in watching the case because although I'm still a prosecutor at heart, even though I'm now a defense lawyer, which helps me by the way, as you know, Josh, you know, helps as a defense lawyer to be on the other side. It it's the system. And when you have a system that says we'd rather a hundred guilty people go free than one innocent person be incarcerated, then you're going to lose cases like this. This was not a strong case to begin with. You're dealing with someone who's not going to reoffend, who's not a threat to the community. You're dealing with finding enough evidence here to somehow convince a unanimous jury beyond a reasonable doubt that someone committed severe recklessness here that led to a death. That's really hard to do. So it was always an uphill climb and it's not like your loss was is going to let a murderer go free. It's he was never charged with anything intentional. And remember the reason why they prosecuted this case was in part because there was a feeling in the community that this was not a misdemeanor. That's that was the original charge here. Misdemeanors that this should be more treated more seriously. But in [00:31:32] Joshua Ritter: the end, the evidence just wasn't there. Yeah. Yeah. Well, I'm going to let you get out of here because I know you've got to go prepare dinner and your wife is now eating for two. So congratulations once again. Thank you so much for your time, my friend. Is there any where that you want to direct anyone? We've got up links to your YouTube channel and your Instagram and your X handles. Is there [00:31:55] Dave Erenberg: anywhere else you want to tell people? Well, I have my sub stack at Dave Ehrenberg. I'd love to have you follow me there. Also, I have a YouTube page, my own YouTube page, Dave Ehrenberg. Check that out. I think actually Dave Ehrenberg was taken. I think by me early years ago, years ago, Dave Ehrenberg was taken. So I had to change it up a little bit. And you know, it was taken by me. I took it and then someone on my campaign when I was a state senator, they lost the password. So I couldn't, I can't get back into it. So now I have a channel. It's Dave Ehrenberg [00:32:30] Joshua Ritter: official. There you go. Good, good, good, good. All right, my friend. Thank you again. I really [00:32:36] Dave Erenberg: appreciate your time. Hey, thank you, Josh. Great show, man. Take care. There you go, everybody. [00:32:42] Joshua Ritter: Please check him out on his YouTube and his Instagram and his X accounts. Send him some juice boxes from us. Really appreciate him taking the time. And I, I'm, I'm so thrilled for that new blessing that him and his wife have in their life. All right, don't go anywhere. I'm watching you all. This is what we got coming up. This is your viewers choice poll for this evening. We have three options. One Carmelo Anthony, new trial evidence was released. The judge released evidence that was shown to the jurors during trial, including 911 calls, surveillance footage, body cam footage, and photos. So we can talk a little bit about that. Number two, Tyler Robinson was in court today. The judge actually made some rulings. He issued a ruling on the hearsay issue and he delayed issuing a ruling on the sanctions issue. And we'll get into why that was delayed and what to expect later on this week. And then option number three is Alec Murdoch. Becky Hill, the, the woman at the center of all of this new trouble has filed a response to Murdoch's federal civil lawsuit against her. And she's asking the court to toss it. We can get into the reasons why. So get your votes in now. Number one, Carmelo Anthony, two, Tyler Robinson, and three, Alex Murdoch. In the meantime, I would like to thank everybody so much for their support tonight. Thank you, therapist, you know, for gifting the memberships. Very kind of you. Farm girl, same deal. Thank you for gifting a membership. Very kind of you as well. Court dog Daniel says, Hey guys, uh, J.I played a huge role in this verdict. Uh, what am I, what am I missing? J.I. If you, if, if, if, if everybody can decipher that one, I don't want to miss out. Carolyn, thank you so much for supporting the mods with coffees. That's very sweet of you. Court dog Daniel again. Thank you for supporting the mods with coffees. And Kim P. Oh, from the UK. Thank you for the super sticker. That's very nice of you. You're up late. You guys are up late. Flo, Floakis is up late as well. Great news. So glad to, the jury saw through the weak prosecution and vile prosecutor. It wasn't, if this wasn't an accident, what is he didn't commit any crime. I, I flow, Floas, Floas is got some strong feelings about that. Thank you for sharing. Appreciate that. Jury instructions. Duh. Uh, so go back. Jury instructions played a huge role in this verdict. Uh, you know, jury instructions usually do play a, a huge role in how things, uh, come out. I think, I think probably though, Dave is, is right over target on what the issues were on this whole thing. And, and, and it's a very difficult argument to make. This case would have been difficult had we'd been talking about driving, but it's even more difficult, I think just from the nature of boating. And we just kind of feel that it's a little more dealing with the elements and you're kind of out there surviving. Um, and I think jurors just couldn't see this as being reckless enough to rise to the level of, of, um, of what's required for a crime. And I'll add this because they didn't have results. And when I say they didn't have results, I'm saying, I don't know what those results would have revealed. If those results think about this, if they had taken blood from him, if they had done what I was saying, I expected law enforcement to do and he refuses and they go out and they get a warrant and they get his blood drawn right away. And it comes back with no, no blood alcohol or very low, then they shouldn't have even filed this thing. Right. Or they would have taken a real hard look about whether they filed it at all or might've just kept it at the misdemeanor level. But with that question lingering out there and all of these alcohol bottles, you're thinking to yourself, how could you drop the ball like this? And that's really where my issues with all of this lie. Uh, did the jury get it right? I, I don't have any problem with that. I think that this case was probably lost at the investigative phase, if anything. Um, so thank you guys, get your vote in. All right. Every down to the deadline here. I think this is it. Do we have any more thank yous I can get to? Oh, night bot says, are you enjoying this ad free life? I am. Are you, uh, we appreciate everybody who, who, who provides all their support so that we are, uh, uh, able to continue to do these live streams without interruption from YouTube. So thank you all for that. All right. Let's get to the results. Shall we? Do we need a little more time? Should I do a little more entertaining? Should I sing a song? I'm just getting blank, blank stares from the ladies. Oh, really? Squarely down the road. All right. All right. I can do this. We can do this. Um, let's get into the Carmelo Anthony case first split between Carmelo Anthony and Alec Murdoch, uh, 36%, which I imagine meant that the other one was not far behind, right? That's nearly a third. Wow. Okay. Let's get into Carmelo Anthony because the judge, um, and it's interesting and ironic to me that the judge decided to release all of this new evidence because the judge was concerned about the public perception of this case. I am not trying to go after this judge more than he deserves, but you know what would have really cleared up for the public, what went on in this case, allowing cameras inside the courtroom, right? Cause then we would have been able to watch all of this along with it. This is great. And I appreciate this. And I applaud the judge for doing this, for releasing this new information, this new evidence so that we can take a look at it ourselves and decide. And all of the controversy and, and, and, and conspiracy theory taking place online can, you know, you can rebut that with what we're looking at here, or you can decide that people have just dug in their side on this whole thing, and they're never going to see it any differently. I will tell you one thing that stood out to me is that this video here is the best video that they have of the actual incident itself. And you can see in even watching this, you can't really see anything to the far left there with that, that yellow tent. That's the, that's the tent. That's the pop-up where this all took place. I cannot tell, certainly not to the degree that a jury would be asked the question of determining what took place here, what's happening there at all. Um, what I can tell you, I don't see is some sort of huge melee, is some sort of huge group, um, uh, gang up on one individual. It looks like there's kind of a push back and forth. And then you see highlighted there, that's Carmelo Anthony running away from the scene after the stabbing takes place. Why do I highlight all of this? I don't think the jury sat down and took a look at this and said, Oh, you know, this decides the case for us. I think what decided the case for them was probably hearing from the eyewitnesses, several who testified as to what took place. Um, probably his lack of injuries as well, but why this is important is we were told ahead of time before the trial by representatives of Carmelo Anthony, that the video evidence would vindicate him. That the video evidence would show how this was an unjust prosecution of a young man. And that's what we were, that's what we went into this believing, or at least if you were believing what they were saying. And I imagine that's the same thing they were telling Carmelo Anthony and his family. And if they were, I think they were doing them a great disservice because this videotape does not exonerate anybody in my view. I don't, I also don't think this videotape convicts anybody in my view. I don't think this videotape is all that helpful. The only thing it does do is eliminate certain narratives that were out there about, oh, it was a complete pile on or that the, there was a very violent fight. I mean, I, again, all you kind of see is it looks like maybe, you know, uh, uh, some physical contact between two individuals and then he takes off running. The other thing that has been released though, is, uh, some audio, uh, of some 911 calls that are very sad to listen to. I'm going to kind of just warn you ahead of time, not fun stuff. This is number two, Kalen. Uh, this is, uh, one of the 911 calls that was made soon after the stabbing, uh, uh, that was released recently. [00:41:59] Speaker 6: So it's going to 911. What is the location of the emergency? [00:42:04] Speaker 7: Hi, we're at Teichendall Stadium. My friend just got stabbed. Okay. Do you know who stabbed him? [00:42:08] Speaker 6: Um, we have no clue. We're sitting in our camp, but you need to send an ambulance right now. They're on the way. Okay. Give me a description of the person that stabbed him. [00:42:17] Speaker 7: He was wearing a gray essentials hoodie. Uh, he was black. He's standing out on the track right now. He had teeth on the track. Yeah. Okay. His blue club pants on and gone. Okay. And what did he stab your friend with? I don't know. My friend's bleeding everywhere. [00:42:35] Speaker 6: Okay. Okay. Where was he stabbed at? Okay. And do you still see the person that stabbed him or did he leave? [00:42:49] Speaker 7: It was Austin. Austin, I stabbed him instead. [00:42:53] Speaker 6: I'm sorry. What did you say? The person that stabbed him. Is he still there? Do you still see him? [00:42:58] Speaker 7: Um, there's adults on him. I think, uh, yeah. [00:43:03] Joshua Ritter: I mean, I think this just gives you a small taste of what, uh, jurors, you know, experience and had to go through. Um, you know, it's a very emotional case, very difficult. I imagine something they are going to live with for the rest of our, their lives. Here's some more, uh, trial exhibits. This, this is that tent. You can see, you know, kind of the area that we're talking about where, where, you know, how they felt this was like kind of their team locker room and why they were asking him to leave again, not really all that important in my view as to whether or not a crime was committed here, but just to give kind of a basic understanding as to why there would have been a conflict between these young men to begin with. But the last piece of footage that has been going around, um, the media and on the internet is body cam footage of the arrest of Carmelo Anthony. And again, this is a little difficult to listen to because this is one of those cases where there's no, there's no, you know, I don't walk away from this case going, Oh, Carmelo Anthony was some sort of career criminal or something like that. He's a young man who made a incredibly bad decision that is now going to affect the rest of his life and has already affected the rest of the, uh, Austin, um, Metcalf family's life. Um, but listen to what he had to say to officers [00:44:30] Speaker 8: shortly in the aftermath and I'm just protecting myself. Don't reach for anything. All right, man. Stop right there for me. Right there. Dispatch 443. I got these and they're currently treating the victim. How long? He put his hands up. I know I'm not. I got the alleged suspect in ankles right now, [00:44:54] Speaker 7: Okay. Memorial tent over there, guys. All right. He put his hands on me. I told him he put his hands [00:45:13] Speaker 8: on me. I'll tell you what, lean this way. So you're not resting on your hands. Okay. All right. See a little bit of blood on your hands there. Okay. All right. Sit tight for me. Okay, bud. All right. [00:45:24] Joshua Ritter: Just so, so unnecessary. So sad. Again, though, you hear him there. I mean, he, you know, there's no question as to whether or not he's the one who did it. And in a self-defense case, you know, the most that he is saying in probably his most honest moments, right? This is before he's had a chance to consult with attorneys and construct a defense and everything else. The most he's saying is he put his hands on me. And I think that's what the other witnesses said. Yeah, he did put his hands on him. He shoved him. That should not result in taking a knife like this and stabbing somebody else in the chest. Just the avoidability of this tragedy is so profound. Why was he carrying a knife? Why did it escalate to the extreme that it did? Why didn't he brandish the knife? That's the part that sticks with me so much. And that's the part that I'm most bothered by is that he concealed that knife in his backpack till that final moment, according to all the witnesses until that final moment that he stabbed Austin. Why do that? If you're really trying to be a big guy and a tough guy, pull out the knife, let him, let him show what he's going to get. If he dares touch you, but to keep it concealed and wait for him to touch you as if that gives you full fledged license to do whatever you want. And then you stab the young man in the chest. It's not like he stabbed him in the hand that touched him. He stabbed him in the chest. That's a murder case. That's a murder case. Really sad. And, and, and the family of this young man, um, you know, 17 years old, loses his life, dies in the arms of his twin brother, family forever, forever ruined from this. All right. Um, the second case that you go, you all wanted to talk about this evening is the latest developments in the Alec Murdoch case. First of all, he's going to be in court, uh, at the end of this month, June 29th is his first court date. It is status and scheduling conference regarding his retrial. So we, you know, buckle up everybody. We are back at this again. But the reason this was in the news today is that Becky Hill was sued back in May by Alec Murdoch. And you're sitting there thinking to yourself, how in the world can Alec Murdoch be suing anybody for anything? Well, he did. Uh, after all, she was found, uh, as to be even by the Supreme court in South Carolina, there to be the person responsible, uh, for influencing the jurors. So he's saying, well, I'm going to sue this lady. And their lawsuit highlights kind of all the misdeeds, uh, that we already know that Miss Hill committed, but then it seeks damages. Okay. Here's what her response that she filed today was to all of this. Was it today or yesterday or earlier? In any case, this is what's, what's making the news about this June 18th. Pardon me. Her response says in part one, most critically, even if plaintiff states a compensable claim, defendant is nonetheless entitled to 11th amendment immunity, quasi judicial immunity and qualified immunity, all of which bars plaintiff suit. She's claiming this kind of immunity that we talk about with prosecutors and with, um, law enforcement and judges, this idea that they are just doing their job. If it was in the course of their duties, um, then they should enjoy some immunity from that. You can't sue a judge because a judge makes a bad decision. Otherwise you're going to have judges who are in a constant state of anxiety that they can't make a decision because they might get sued for it. That's the public policy reason behind this. And to a certain extent, other members of courtroom staff enjoy these same immunities. And they're saying that she was acting in her duties as a clerk of the court when these things took place and therefore she enjoys some sort of immunity. Huh? Well, what's interesting about that argument is that I imagine the, the county where this took place is going to have something to say about that because they don't want to be on the hook then for allowing someone to, um, commit this kind of misconduct. And that's part of their duties. Their claim is certainly going to be, she was well outside of the performance of her duties. Her duties do not include trying to influence jurors, right? Her duties may include speaking with jurors about non-deliberation, non-evidence, non-trial issues, but they certainly don't include things like telling them to watch the defendant real closely when he testifies. I imagine if this lawsuit, these suits go on, you're going to hear from the county probably weighing in on this in to a certain extent, Alec Murdoch's favor, ironically, because they're going to say, no, this lady was out on her own doing this. But the other part of it, of their argument, which I think actually carries a little bit more weight is they go on to say, again, this is her response to this lawsuit. A plaintiff must show that his damages were caused by the defendant's actions. Such cannot be the case here where the entirety of the economic damages claimed by the plaintiff would have been spent on his criminal trial, regardless of any actions taken by this defendant. I actually think that's kind of a clever argument. How are you going to try to claim attorney's fees as damages when what puts you in that defendant chair was the murders, not my actions? That probably is a more convincing argument. And we'll see what the courts have to say about all of that. But again, you know, what kind of a bizarro world are we in here where you've got Alec Murdoch, a one time convicted murderer of both his wife and child is now suing anybody over, over, you know, trying to play the victim in any kind of way is a little ridiculous to me, but apparently not, you know, ridiculous enough to get itself immediately laughed outside of court. We'll see how this all ends up. We'll continue to track it. But more importantly, like I said, his actual retrial is set for its first court date on June 29th for a status and scheduling hearing. We will be watching this one closely because I'm just fascinated, fascinated by this entire saga. I started watching the whole Netflix docu-series all over again and reading the books. I'm just back at it, back at it again, everybody. We will continue to watch this one. All right. Don't go anywhere. I got some quick announcements and then we'll get you guys out of here. First of all, I want to tell you about Beth Ringel. Thank you so much for supporting the mods with coffees. I want to tell you about a website, Matt, my back hurts. Thank you so much. Says I I'm new here, but feel lucky to have found this channel and community. Oh, that's, I love those comments. Thank you so much. That is so sweet. Um, the courtroom confidential.com. If you're new here, then you should also learn about this website, the courtroom confidential.com, because you will find the three M's one, um, membership. Let's say you did not receive one of the very generous gifts this evening that people gifted of memberships, but you still want to be part of the CC crew. Fear not. You can go to the courtroom confidential.com and click on become a member and join our membership. And we put a lot of work into it to make sure it's worth your while to messages. You can also go to the courtroom confidential.com and click on that bar to the right and leave us a message. Why would you want to do that? Well, every Sunday, we take your messages, whether you ask us a question about true crime or the law in general, or a case that you're following. And we answered them live on our show, Sunday, fun day. And then finally merch it's summertime, everybody. It's my favorite time of year. I, I, I enjoyed some of that summertime heat today. Well, we've got you covered here at courtroom confidential for all your summertime needs with our, not my fault, summer merch, carefree summer from courtroom confidential. We've got bags, we've got cozies, we've got flip-flops, we've got slides, we've got t-shirts, we've got, what else do we got? This shirt I really love. I'm a big fan of that one. Uh, we've got, um, beach towels, the not my fault beach towel, the tan lines and timelines beach towel, and the alibis melt in the heat beach towel, which I'm told because I'm not provided with, uh, one of these beach towels. Um, I'm not in that membership tier just yet, but I've been told that they are very comfortable and almost blanket like. And then finally, we've got our not my fault bumper magnet. Keep those in your car in case of fender benders. All right. What did you miss on Sunday? We had our aforementioned Sunday fun day. We talked about some of the highlights. Some of the questions were how close to the line are lawyers allowed to get with, with, uh, without being without lying, like how close to lying can you get? Uh, we were answered the question. If I was charged with a crime, who would be on my dream team? And we talked about Taylor Parker, the Idaho four, Summer Wells, George Pino and much, much more. So please check that out. It's up on our channel now. Well worth watching. If you didn't, if you weren't able to catch it live and leave us a comment, if you're watching it on replay, we'd love to hear from you and your thoughts on it. Then stay tuned. Here's what we got coming up this week. I'll get through this quickly. Wednesday. We've got our Wednesday night live. That will be back here at 5:00 PM Pacific, 8:00 PM Eastern Thursday. It is the hottest new show on YouTube, but unfortunately, if you're not a member, you're not going to be able to watch it because it is a members only tea time with TIFF every Thursday at 1:00 PM Pacific, 4:00 PM Eastern. Um, how long was the last one? Right around just under an hour, 30 minutes, 33 minutes. I don't know what that means. 38 minutes, 38 minutes. Wow. Did something happen? Did you have to go somewhere? That is, that's a short episode. Usually they're pushing the 60 minute mark. Then Friday. Uh, we're back here again for our weekly rap sheet, uh, covering all the news, uh, that took place this week or part of me. This is the weekly rap sheet. This is a show that I co-host alongside Donna Rotuno and Paul Morrow over on Fox nation. Please check that out. Um, would love to have you then back here on the channel. Uh, oh, you had, uh, court dog, Daniel has a special guest. Got to check that out. Everybody special guest, a courtroom confidential special in court correspondent court dog. Daniel is how the, the, his true title. Um, then we will have the weekly route roundup back here at 4 PM Pacific, uh, 7 PM Eastern this Friday. Uh, also we had, I didn't add this, but what you may have missed was our, um, our June classified and above members only live that was available, uh, last Friday as well. So if you are a member classified and above, please check this out. Um, we had a lot of fun. I'm trying to think of one of the highlights. We talked about how Kaylin doesn't have time to read or watch anything. That was the only thing that stood out to me is that Kaylin, Kaylin has no free time. And I felt awful about that. Uh, please check it out. All right. And then, uh, as I said, Sunday Funday back here at 10. Oh, new time for Sunday Funday. That's the big one. We are moving Sunday Funday an hour later to give you a little more time to get going in the morning. So it now will be at 10 AM Pacific, 1 PM Eastern. Is that permanent now ladies? That is our new time moving forward. We'll be 10 AM Pacific, 1 PM Eastern. So I don't know, mark your calendars, whatever you got to do. All right. Let me thank the following new members for being so kind as to join the crew to Lisa F. So much corruption, Mary Jean, Canadian cutie, Oklahoma Mima and Fetzer, Ruth and Reagan. Say no to globalism. Uh, may Mags Holland, Nancy's Surgeoner, Ray Day, charve, charve, four 77, Gen art, Miranda's Panda, Paula, Paula Campbell, crazy cat, Sandra, Lindsay. That's so Jenny, Kimmy, James, Emmy Nikolov, Diana, my sky, Monique, La Garda, Diane Newton, Olivia rock, Jennifer, Jennifer Rivard, crazy, Mary Fitz, Hazel Monte angle, Sandy C and Mandola Jane. Thank you guys so much for joining up at the members of the members crew here at courtroom confidential. Big shout out. And congratulations to my friend, Dave Ehrenberg for joining us tonight. And for the new blessing in his life, please stop by one of his social medias or his YouTube and share a little love with him to Afton shy, shy gal, Kathy therapist, you know, and best Nancy. Thank you for being the best mod squad on YouTube. Kaylin, you're so awesome. Can't thank you enough for everything you do. And Tiffany, you are as always the best thing that ever happened to me. Take care, everybody. We will see you all here on Wednesday night. Bye-bye. [01:00:44] Speaker ?: Bye-bye.