Speaker 1: If you will place your left hand on the Bible
Speaker 1: and raise your right hand, and please repeat after me
Speaker 1: and I do solemnly swear vent titled action. Find the
Speaker 1: defendant guilty of the prime. It makes no sense, it
Speaker 1: doesn't fit. If it doesn't fit, it must a quit.
Speaker 1: We all took the same of of office. We're all
Speaker 1: bound by that common commitment to support and defend the Constitution,
Speaker 1: to bear true faith in allegiance to the same that
Speaker 1: you faithfully discharge the duties of our office. Do you
Speaker 1: solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to
Speaker 1: give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
Speaker 1: but the truth. From Tenderfoot TV and I Heart Radio,
Speaker 1: this is Sworn. I'm your host, Philip Holloway. Hi everyone,
Speaker 1: Christina here, Welcome to the last bonus episode for this
Speaker 1: season of Sworn. For the first part of the episode,
Speaker 1: we're going to take you on an audio tour of
Speaker 1: Phil's office, a cozy house shaped office in Marietta, Georgia,
Speaker 1: before sitting down for a round table discussion with some
Speaker 1: of the key staff of the Holloway Law Group. I
Speaker 1: hope you enjoy, Ohsuy, I'll get to see you I
Speaker 1: was just showing in your kids mostly tween my personal
Speaker 1: office face. I don't think it really has much of
Speaker 1: a rhyme nor reason to what's what's in here other than,
Speaker 1: you know, basically the stuff that I need on a
Speaker 1: day to day basis to to do my work. It's
Speaker 1: important to give credit where it's due. My wife, Natalie,
Speaker 1: who the listeners met in one of our earlier episodes,
Speaker 1: she's basically my decorator in chief. She's actually in interior
Speaker 1: design school now working on her master's in interior designs.
Speaker 1: So she sort of helped me get this thing put together.
Speaker 1: And it's nothing special for sure, but what she want
Speaker 1: to do is have people, when they come in to
Speaker 1: meet me, maybe for the first time, be able to
Speaker 1: know a little bit about me and maybe my past.
Speaker 1: So you see some family pictures here, things that you know,
Speaker 1: say you know, I am a real human person with
Speaker 1: a life outside of court and outside of podcasting and
Speaker 1: other media. I've got my documents which proved that I'm
Speaker 1: not lying when I said that I was in the military.
Speaker 1: I've got admissions to the various courts, you know, in
Speaker 1: this case, you've got the trial courts and the appellate
Speaker 1: courts in Georgia. Of course, there's one on the wall
Speaker 1: here somewhere that shows that I am in fact admitted
Speaker 1: to the federal courts and in fact the U. S.
Speaker 1: Supreme Court. We've got um my law school diploma which
Speaker 1: proves that I'm actually a law school graduate until they
Speaker 1: decided to rescind it. And I've got this globe on
Speaker 1: my desk that gets a lot of comments that my
Speaker 1: wife got from me on our first anniversary trip. We
Speaker 1: were in Puerto Rico and she got really lucky playing roulette.
Speaker 1: She took whatever she won from that one role of
Speaker 1: the Roulette wheel and bought me that little globe there.
Speaker 1: And the only reason it's really there that the true
Speaker 1: reason is because it has to cover up a hole
Speaker 1: for for power chords. So I really can't move that.
Speaker 1: This is a small ship, and I may be the
Speaker 1: captain of it, but I can't run it by myself.
Speaker 1: I need another set of eyes, or in this case,
Speaker 1: several sets of other eyes to make sure I don't
Speaker 1: miss anything, because I know that from time to time
Speaker 1: things can can get past me. So I need uh
Speaker 1: some really talented people around me to help make sure
Speaker 1: that we get it right. We're gonna go meet Stephanie,
Speaker 1: she's our paralegal extraordinaire, and we'll meet Addison, who's another attorney.
Speaker 1: That sounds great. This is our great paralegal, Stephanie. She
Speaker 1: really is the person that keeps this train on the tracks.
Speaker 1: She actually was a student of mine when I talked
Speaker 1: criminal justice at university here. She probably made very good
Speaker 1: grades in my class. Although I don't specifically remember what
Speaker 1: her grade was. I remember her as a as a
Speaker 1: very good student. I think I gotta be. I was
Speaker 1: working and going to school and it's very young so
Speaker 1: making it through getting that degree. But I enjoyed his class.
Speaker 1: He was a good teacher. After I took his class,
Speaker 1: started working in the warrant Division midnight shift on the weekends.
Speaker 1: While I was in school, I was pretty trime relice
Speaker 1: officer for I worked at the jail and then making
Speaker 1: decisions on if people should get out or not, and
Speaker 1: then I supervised people that were out on bond, making
Speaker 1: sure they were doing everything the judge ordered them to do.
Speaker 1: I went from working the midnight shift to working at
Speaker 1: the courthouse during the day, so now completely switch roles,
Speaker 1: switched teams, working on this side. It's just it's it's
Speaker 1: totally different. It's interesting to see it from both sides.
Speaker 1: You know, if she had a Walleye since I'd be
Speaker 1: happy to send her to court. Well almost anything that
Speaker 1: we do. That's how much she knows about stuff. We
Speaker 1: keep Addison down here in the basement where we can't
Speaker 1: hurt anybody. Oh my goodness, is that that's a moose
Speaker 1: as a moosehead that belongs to another the attorney who
Speaker 1: owns this building. It's one of his trophies. You know.
Speaker 1: It's as big as I am. This is my cave.
Speaker 1: All I need is a computer or phone, and and
Speaker 1: I am content. I was with Fulton County District Attorney's Office,
Speaker 1: so I handled a lot of a lot of different
Speaker 1: kinds of things. Was there a couple of years, and
Speaker 1: it kind of reached my uh my wall, so to speak.
Speaker 1: With the prosecution side. One of the biggest problems I
Speaker 1: had was that you really don't have a lot of
Speaker 1: say about what you think it might be the right
Speaker 1: outcome for a k case. My interpretation of how I
Speaker 1: think it should go is not in line with some
Speaker 1: other people's interpretation of how it should go. So here
Speaker 1: it's just a lot more freedom in a way, the
Speaker 1: freedom to to say, here's how we're going to proceed
Speaker 1: with this case because this is how we we think
Speaker 1: it's the right way to go, or whether to take
Speaker 1: the case at all. Just sometimes he just listening off
Speaker 1: the leashes go And then that's what I like. If
Speaker 1: I'm somewhere, Phil will step in and take care of
Speaker 1: something that I worked down likewise too, so it's a
Speaker 1: good give and take. Phil is in the driver's seat
Speaker 1: almost every time regarding the case. But every case that
Speaker 1: we have he has eyes on it, and I had
Speaker 1: eyes on it. You're getting a lot of people looking
Speaker 1: at issues and looking at different facts and seeing what
Speaker 1: can be spotted. You know, when I say it's a
Speaker 1: team effort, I mean I mean that it is. I
Speaker 1: can't possibly do it by myself. It's just no way.
Speaker 1: They're professionals, and I've got a trust them that they're
Speaker 1: gonna comport themselves and conduct themselves as professionals. And they do.
Speaker 1: And you know, like I said, we all have to
Speaker 1: work together. We know that this is a team effort,
Speaker 1: and without working together, we wouldn't be able to get
Speaker 1: a whole hell of a lot done at least not
Speaker 1: done well. So welcome guys to a special addition especial
Speaker 1: episode of Sworn. I've always kind of wanted to do
Speaker 1: a show like this. I'm joined here at the office
Speaker 1: by Ms Stephanie are Paralegal extraordinaire, Mr Addison, who is
Speaker 1: a great attorney that works here with me, Christina Dana,
Speaker 1: our lead producer for Sworn, and Mr Mike, the man
Speaker 1: behind the mike who makes all the sound stuff work.
Speaker 1: How's it going, Mike? How's all right? So anyway, I
Speaker 1: think what we'd like to do is just go ahead
Speaker 1: and start off talking about maybe some things that we
Speaker 1: have learned in our careers that maybe the public doesn't
Speaker 1: understand about the practice of law or the criminal justice system.
Speaker 1: Christina is just gonna go and start us off with
Speaker 1: some topics and then we'll just kind of jump off
Speaker 1: from there and see where it goes. Yeah. So, I
Speaker 1: guess my sort of broadest question topic is what kinds
Speaker 1: of questions do you guys get the most, like at
Speaker 1: parties or sort of when you're just interacting in your normal,
Speaker 1: non lawyer daily life. What are the questions people try
Speaker 1: to like hit you with. So I want to see
Speaker 1: how Stephanie answers that, because she's a very experienced paralegal,
Speaker 1: it's been around the criminal justice system a long time.
Speaker 1: But she's not a lawyer, so I know what my
Speaker 1: answer would be, but I want to hear what hers is.
Speaker 1: People that know what I do usually ask me questions
Speaker 1: about things that are going on in the news. If
Speaker 1: we're dealing with cases like that. They also, of course
Speaker 1: asked me about Phil they'll fill on TV the other day.
Speaker 1: But a lot of people want to know if we're
Speaker 1: involved with things that have been on the news recently.
Speaker 1: Are you often involved in things related to the news. Yes,
Speaker 1: we seem to attract cases that are in the media,
Speaker 1: whether it's on TV, on social media, uh that's put
Speaker 1: out by the local police departments, about new cases that
Speaker 1: have happened, to arrests that have been made. We seem
Speaker 1: to attract cases like that, So yes, a lot of
Speaker 1: times we are what about you, Addison, what kind of
Speaker 1: questions do you get? Pretty much the same about if
Speaker 1: something hits the media, they'll they'll ask me a question
Speaker 1: about what I think about it, even if really no
Speaker 1: information is out about the case yet, And then inevitably
Speaker 1: you'll get the well. My cousin's third wife got arrested
Speaker 1: last week for this, I'd like your your expert opinion
Speaker 1: about what we can do to help her out. Pretty much,
Speaker 1: questions like that if something is familiar to them, whether
Speaker 1: it's a family member who's in legal trouble or something
Speaker 1: that's on the news, they like to get my input
Speaker 1: about what I think about it, sort of like the
Speaker 1: doctor take a look at my rash situation exactly exactly well,
Speaker 1: And I get that too. And of course a lot
Speaker 1: of times people are asking general questions about the law,
Speaker 1: and I'll answer their questions as best I can. And
Speaker 1: sometimes when it gets more personal, like you know, they
Speaker 1: want specific legal advice, I'm thinking, Okay, this person maybe
Speaker 1: there a physician, or maybe their car sales, and maybe
Speaker 1: there's some way that they can repay me in kind
Speaker 1: down the road when I need favors. I do my
Speaker 1: best to try to to answer that. And I think
Speaker 1: people are genuinely interested in the system and in law,
Speaker 1: and and I think that the more accurately people are
Speaker 1: educated than the better off everybody is. So I do
Speaker 1: I do my best to to at least help people
Speaker 1: understand the real justice system. The way that it really
Speaker 1: is the way that I see it and these folks
Speaker 1: see it on a day to day basis, which, as
Speaker 1: we've learned throughout our podcasting experience here, is oftentimes not
Speaker 1: the way people think it is based on what they
Speaker 1: see on TV or at the movies. It's very, very different.
Speaker 1: They'll ask me, they'll say, how do you represent these criminals?
Speaker 1: And that's a very complex question because a they're not
Speaker 1: all criminals, and even the ones that are, there's a
Speaker 1: lot that needs to be done to make sure that
Speaker 1: they get treated fairly. And so a lot of times
Speaker 1: I'll ask the question back, well, you know what makes
Speaker 1: you think they're criminals? And they'll I just assume because
Speaker 1: I got arrested. Well have you ever heard that people
Speaker 1: are presumed to be innocent? And they're like, oh, yeah,
Speaker 1: I forgot about that. So I'll explain to them that
Speaker 1: a large part of what we do is we help
Speaker 1: people get treated fairly and we try to promote fair sentencing,
Speaker 1: and that's a big piece of what we do is
Speaker 1: fair sentencing negotiations. What is a fair sentence is oftentimes
Speaker 1: in the eye of the beholder. But if you ask somebody,
Speaker 1: are you against fair sentencing and nobody's gonna say yes
Speaker 1: to that. Everybody is for and then there in favor
Speaker 1: you know, of of fair sentencing, and they're forced to
Speaker 1: think of it in that way, and then they get
Speaker 1: a better and I think, more accurate picture of what
Speaker 1: this is all about. What do you guys think is
Speaker 1: one of the bigger misconceptions that people have about the
Speaker 1: justice system. I think people jump to conclusions about cases
Speaker 1: without actually doing any so called detective work to figure
Speaker 1: out what's really going on in a case. They may
Speaker 1: pass judgment very quickly. They only see the side of
Speaker 1: the story that's been put out there. You know, it's
Speaker 1: very rare to have a person that's actually been charged
Speaker 1: with a major crime that's on the news to be
Speaker 1: out there saying, hey, at it and do it. Usually
Speaker 1: they're very quiet because their attorney has told them not to,
Speaker 1: so you're only hearing one side of it, and people
Speaker 1: just form an opinion, and you know, they want these
Speaker 1: people to spend the rest of their lives in jail
Speaker 1: or a very long time, and it's just not always
Speaker 1: the right thing that should be done. A lot of people,
Speaker 1: I want to say to them, not all people that
Speaker 1: get arrested are bad people. Things could happen to any
Speaker 1: of us. There are some cases that we have that
Speaker 1: I sit there and think, sometimes this could have just
Speaker 1: as easily have happened to me. And I know that
Speaker 1: I am not a bad person, and I would not
Speaker 1: want to go to jail for a very long time.
Speaker 1: Nobody wants to go to jail. So people need a
Speaker 1: good attorney to have their back and to give them
Speaker 1: good representation. Right, piggyback and off what what Stephanie said.
Speaker 1: I think that when I was a prosecutor, you read
Speaker 1: words on papers, right, you have statutes that you're putting
Speaker 1: down on an indictment. You're looking at maybe pictures or
Speaker 1: police reports, and on this side of the fence, you're
Speaker 1: you're actually talking to people who are charged, and that
Speaker 1: means you're oftentimes talking with their families and and the
Speaker 1: problems that a case is having is posing to them.
Speaker 1: They have children, if if they're worried about immigrations, I mean,
Speaker 1: whatever the case may be, there are dozens of things
Speaker 1: that can impact them. And I never really consider of
Speaker 1: that when I was prosecutor. I tried to, but I mean,
Speaker 1: sometimes you just don't have the opportunity to, like Stephanie said,
Speaker 1: there are good people who can do some bad things,
Speaker 1: and there are good people who can make mistakes. And
Speaker 1: every one of us has done that. And if someone
Speaker 1: says they haven't, their lying could have the most self
Speaker 1: righteous prosecutor defense attorney and they say otherwise, they're not
Speaker 1: telling you the truth. And then the biggest rushes when
Speaker 1: you know you're looking over a case file and you're like, wait,
Speaker 1: this person didn't do it. This person is innocent of
Speaker 1: what they're they're being charged with. That's a tremendous feeling. Addison,
Speaker 1: when you were a prosecutor, did you ever conceive that
Speaker 1: innocent people might be arrested? Absolutely? When I was a prosecutor,
Speaker 1: I was a prosecutor in Illinois and Georgia. I'll talk
Speaker 1: about the experience in Illinois is I would have a
Speaker 1: lot of freedom to do what I wanted, and I
Speaker 1: would actually toss cases if they filed the motion to suppressed.
Speaker 1: Dismissed them on my own motion because I knew that
Speaker 1: the Fourth Amendment was violated in a particular case. The
Speaker 1: Fourth Amendment deals with a search and seizure. For example,
Speaker 1: say it search is bad in a case and they
Speaker 1: file a motion to get rid of the evidence. I
Speaker 1: would dismiss cases if I didn't think it was a
Speaker 1: constitutional stop or if something else was really really wrong
Speaker 1: with that case, because the whole point is getting the
Speaker 1: right result and not counting convictions. That's how I was trained.
Speaker 1: You just have to have someone who wants to see
Speaker 1: the right thing happened, and that interpretations can differ. But
Speaker 1: that I think that's a big problem. Big thing that
Speaker 1: a lot of people don't think about is that you
Speaker 1: have some very very good prosecutors, very good on a prosecutors,
Speaker 1: and then you have some and this goes both ways,
Speaker 1: by the way, you know, defense side too, but then
Speaker 1: you have people who are just notch convictions and sometimes
Speaker 1: oftentimes the conviction is not the right result in some
Speaker 1: of these cases. So that's the hurdle that we face
Speaker 1: a lot. We talked about that on this season about
Speaker 1: sort of what winning means. Having the sort of numerical
Speaker 1: tally of one cases and lost cases isn't necess certainly
Speaker 1: indicative of what justice is, but it's more complicated than that. Absolutely.
Speaker 1: I mean that that's the whole that's the whole point.
Speaker 1: I mean, that's why you know sitting in constitutional law
Speaker 1: in law school was so great because you've got to
Speaker 1: see why we have the system in place and doing
Speaker 1: everything you can to make sure someone is sitting in
Speaker 1: a cage. I guess it's fine if you have the
Speaker 1: evidence and it's it's constitutionally back. But if you don't
Speaker 1: and you know you don't, that's a different story altogether.
Speaker 1: And get all the front page headlines of this huge
Speaker 1: conviction you get, but it doesn't mean anything if someone
Speaker 1: else is still out there who did do it and
Speaker 1: the person who didn't is sitting in a cage somewhere.
Speaker 1: I'm not confining it to people who are innocent in
Speaker 1: the crimes. I'm also including people who are asking for
Speaker 1: punishments that don't fit the crime itself, and that's to
Speaker 1: appear tough on crime. Maybe it's a media case and
Speaker 1: a lot of times maybe they're getting pressure from their
Speaker 1: higher ups to to do this. I mean that that's
Speaker 1: often the case. Everyone should do the saying for the
Speaker 1: right reasons, and that includes defense attorney, includes all attorneys.
Speaker 1: One of the jobs I had with the local government
Speaker 1: is I was supervising people there were out on bond
Speaker 1: and we have to keep in mind. When I was
Speaker 1: doing that job, the people that I was supervising had
Speaker 1: not been convicted of anything, but yet they were having
Speaker 1: to answer to me on a weekly basis. On a
Speaker 1: daily basis, I got to know so many of them,
Speaker 1: and I dealt with people that were charged from d wise, shoplifting,
Speaker 1: child molestation, rape, arm robbery, all these different people, they're
Speaker 1: still people. I remember one case supervising that was an
Speaker 1: armed robbery case and a person and no prior record
Speaker 1: made one mistake and he went to prison for ten
Speaker 1: years to the door, and I remember, I just don't
Speaker 1: feel like this is the right thing. He made one mistake,
Speaker 1: he took responsibility for it, and because of what he
Speaker 1: was charged with, he was going to go to prison
Speaker 1: for a very long time and miss out on his family,
Speaker 1: his children getting older. And at the same time, I
Speaker 1: thought about how his victim felt. But you have to
Speaker 1: look at both sides of it. I think some of
Speaker 1: the things that have been spoken about are like mandatory minimums.
Speaker 1: This was a young man that made one mistake against
Speaker 1: someone that maybe made a continuous decision and committed a
Speaker 1: crime that was maybe not violent. Um ends up getting probation.
Speaker 1: But they've made that decision to commit that crime ten times,
Speaker 1: twenty times, and they have a prior record. But because
Speaker 1: their charge wasn't an arm robbery was something different, they
Speaker 1: didn't have to go to prison, and they got to
Speaker 1: see their family, you know, their kids get older, and
Speaker 1: it just felt wrong to me. You have to make
Speaker 1: sure you have to hold people accountable because if someone
Speaker 1: isn't giving a person that's committing a crime their rights,
Speaker 1: what makes you think that that officer prosecutor isn't going
Speaker 1: to give you your rights. Because everybody has the same
Speaker 1: rights and we have to we have to protect those rights,
Speaker 1: and everybody deserves that. They deserve to have good representation,
Speaker 1: and they deserve to be protected. That's such a good
Speaker 1: point of like when we see things in the media
Speaker 1: and we're like, oh, that was a bad person. They
Speaker 1: deserved this, but something went unconstitutionally wrong. That could happen
Speaker 1: to you too. If the system is broken, you're also
Speaker 1: in that system. If you are driving down the road,
Speaker 1: you could get pulled over and your car could be
Speaker 1: illegally searched. What if something was in there that you
Speaker 1: didn't know was in there? What if And I think
Speaker 1: people a lot of times, well that would never happen
Speaker 1: to me. You can never say what would ever happen
Speaker 1: to you because there are so many variables. You could
Speaker 1: be in the same situation. You could match a description
Speaker 1: of someone that did something, or not even match it
Speaker 1: and just there be a mistake in communication and you
Speaker 1: get pulled over. There's so many things that can happen.
Speaker 1: That's why it's so important. You know, when we get
Speaker 1: these calls from people, they're calling you in a moment
Speaker 1: of their life is probably wrought bottom for them and
Speaker 1: they need help, and you have to think, what if
Speaker 1: I was in that situation, I would want someone to
Speaker 1: help me. It's like some of the law enforcement officers
Speaker 1: that you know I've represented over the years. A lot
Speaker 1: of these folks will sit in my office just be
Speaker 1: just in tears because they're thinking, well, wait a minute,
Speaker 1: I've been a you know, a cop all these years
Speaker 1: and I didn't realize that innocent people can get arrested.
Speaker 1: And then here they sit, They've been accused of something
Speaker 1: and they're absolutely innocent, and they're just they're shocked, they
Speaker 1: can't believe it. I'm like, well, you know, welcome to
Speaker 1: my world. This happens, and unfortunately is happening to you.
Speaker 1: So we're just gonna have to deal with it. Addison
Speaker 1: had do you ever known anybody before you came to
Speaker 1: work here who was innocent and accused of a serious
Speaker 1: crime or no, not of anybody. Yeah, I've known. I've
Speaker 1: known some people who were innocent and some crimes. It
Speaker 1: goes back to my point. I mean a judge once
Speaker 1: told me that that the most powerful person in the
Speaker 1: courthouse is the district attorney. They had the charging decisions,
Speaker 1: and they can decide how a case is going to proceed.
Speaker 1: Not only can can someone be be innocent, but take
Speaker 1: Stephanie's example about the arm robbery in Georgia, there's a
Speaker 1: mandatory minimum ten years. Well, you know, all cases are different.
Speaker 1: What if you have a fifty five year old man
Speaker 1: who holds a like replica and gets ten dollars from
Speaker 1: a gas station with no injuries. And someone else who
Speaker 1: probably doesn't have a clean history, maybe he's been arrested five, six,
Speaker 1: seven times and does rob a gas station for say,
Speaker 1: threatens to shoot the person in the head. Each one
Speaker 1: of those cases, the man is facing ten years in prison. Maybe,
Speaker 1: just maybe they should be treated differently, and you need
Speaker 1: a prosecutor who is able to see the bigger picture
Speaker 1: what is best for everyone involved, including the person who's
Speaker 1: being charged with the crime. Does putting someone with no
Speaker 1: criminal history in prison for ten years where he's exposed
Speaker 1: to real hardened criminals on a daily basis is that good?
Speaker 1: Is that the right call? Probably not? And I think
Speaker 1: a lot of people you can lose focus of of
Speaker 1: how each case is different and and and they're not
Speaker 1: just words on an indictment. You need to have discretion,
Speaker 1: and you need to have the freedom to do what's right,
Speaker 1: and what's right doesn't always mean to have someone convict
Speaker 1: did on the entire sheet. We've been a lot of
Speaker 1: time in the podcast world talking about things that that
Speaker 1: I'm aware of in the criminal justice system that the
Speaker 1: public may not necessarily be aware of, and we've tried
Speaker 1: to bring a lot of that to the front. That's
Speaker 1: my platform. You guys work here in this office, so
Speaker 1: you don't necessarily have that platform. So I want to
Speaker 1: share it with you just for a minute. If you
Speaker 1: have any things that you know about that you're aware
Speaker 1: of things that exist in the real world of the
Speaker 1: criminal justice system that you think the public may not
Speaker 1: be aware of. And ask you to just maybe mentioned
Speaker 1: one or two of those things, if you can think
Speaker 1: of anything right now that people just wouldn't otherwise be
Speaker 1: aware of. I think that people sometimes underestimate the power
Speaker 1: that media can have on a prosecutor's decision. If you
Speaker 1: see a story on the news consistently all the time,
Speaker 1: total exposure, how that can lead and alter someone's decisions
Speaker 1: regarding whether the charge person, how they're charged. I've seen
Speaker 1: prosecutor's offices try to criminalize accidents and make it a crime,
Speaker 1: transform it into a crime because of reasons that have
Speaker 1: nothing to do with what's in the statutes. That happens
Speaker 1: a whole lot. Well, actually, let me let me be
Speaker 1: more specific. In Georgia, there's a sentencing scheme where you
Speaker 1: can go to prison and then be placed on probation
Speaker 1: for many, many many years afterward after prison. So say
Speaker 1: someone gets sentenced for twenty years and they have to
Speaker 1: serve the first five years in prison. Now they have
Speaker 1: to report to a probation officer for fifteen years. That's
Speaker 1: not a mine field away to trip someone up and
Speaker 1: get them back into a jail cell. I don't know
Speaker 1: what is, and I believe Georgia leads the country in
Speaker 1: people number of people under sentence, and that is not
Speaker 1: taking into account per capita in other jurisdictions. I've been
Speaker 1: it's a prison case. There, it's a probation case, and
Speaker 1: if it's a prison case, parole will supervise that person
Speaker 1: after their release from prison. How the FEDS do it
Speaker 1: a lot at the federal government, and so I think
Speaker 1: one of the problems with the criminal justice system is
Speaker 1: the amount of time that someone is expected to report
Speaker 1: and be under lock and key. I'll tell you one thing,
Speaker 1: when I was twenty three, I don't think I would
Speaker 1: have been able to do that consistently, and most people
Speaker 1: wouldn't be able to do that consistently, and that's a problem.
Speaker 1: I think it's my personal opinion. If it's a prison case,
Speaker 1: it's a prison case, and when they get out of prison,
Speaker 1: they spend a couple of years on parole and you're done.
Speaker 1: I don't think that helps anyone. I don't think it
Speaker 1: helps the court system. I don't think it helps to
Speaker 1: defend it, and I know it doesn't help the victims
Speaker 1: in the case. So that would be probably my fix
Speaker 1: to eradicate some of the nonsense that I see going on, Stephanie,
Speaker 1: what are you What are you aware of that the
Speaker 1: public might not be aware of. I think a lot
Speaker 1: of people have heard heard the term debtors prison. I
Speaker 1: want everyone to realize jails in our area house people
Speaker 1: that should not be in jail simply because they cannot
Speaker 1: afford to post a bond. There are people that are
Speaker 1: out on bond because their family is well off, they
Speaker 1: have a lot of money, that are walking around not
Speaker 1: being supervised. We're in jail for a very short amount
Speaker 1: of time, and there are people that are being housed.
Speaker 1: You know, I don't know the exact numbers of how
Speaker 1: much it costs to house one person in a local
Speaker 1: jail for one day. I've heard it's anywhere between thirty
Speaker 1: to fifty dollars a day per person. They're being housed
Speaker 1: there because they cannot post a five hundred dollar bond,
Speaker 1: and they will remain in jail until their case is completed.
Speaker 1: A person that cannot post a five hundred dollar bond
Speaker 1: or one thousand dollar bond most likely is not going
Speaker 1: to be able to afford their own lawyer. Then that
Speaker 1: person that can't afford to get out has to get
Speaker 1: a lawyer that's paid for by the state, which means
Speaker 1: you and me and everybody you know that pays taxes.
Speaker 1: That person will sit in jail for weeks, months a
Speaker 1: year waiting for trial because they can't afford five a
Speaker 1: thousand dollars because they don't have a family or friends
Speaker 1: that can post that, and it's awful. It's a dangerous
Speaker 1: situation for the inmates. There isn't enough money to pay
Speaker 1: for law enforcement to be able to properly supervise that
Speaker 1: many people that are in jail. It's a dangerous situation
Speaker 1: for deputies or police officers that are supervising them all
Speaker 1: because we're holding people in jail because they don't have
Speaker 1: a low amount of money and it ends up costing
Speaker 1: everyone so much more money than that bail would have
Speaker 1: ever been and it's incredibly inefficient. It almost forces people
Speaker 1: that have been in jail for an extended period of
Speaker 1: time to enter please against things that they are may
Speaker 1: not be guilty of, or the charges may need to
Speaker 1: be reduced, but they want to get out because they've
Speaker 1: been in jail, they've been away from their family or
Speaker 1: friends for so long. Then they end up with a
Speaker 1: conviction on the record because they wanted to get out
Speaker 1: sooner than it spirals from there where it can limit
Speaker 1: them to be able to get a job in the future.
Speaker 1: Is a cycle, and it could be done more efficiently.
Speaker 1: An interesting thing about both of the points you guys
Speaker 1: brought up is that it stops people from being contributing
Speaker 1: members of society. If someone is stuck in jail, they
Speaker 1: can't work, they can't support their families. If someone's on probation,
Speaker 1: they can't travel, they can't do all these things that
Speaker 1: we sort of uplift as a society of people contributing.
Speaker 1: And so then what are we doing because we're not
Speaker 1: rehabilitating people, were not reaping the benefits of their skills
Speaker 1: as a community. It just seems punitive exclusively at that point.
Speaker 1: At some point, I mean, there are there are cases,
Speaker 1: I mean, don't don't get me wrong where people do
Speaker 1: need to be punished and how accountable for their actions.
Speaker 1: But we have to again, we have to look at
Speaker 1: the long view on some of these cases. Does putting
Speaker 1: someone under a twenty year probationary sentence for something he
Speaker 1: did when he was eighteen, does that make sense when
Speaker 1: he's thirty five years old and has never been able
Speaker 1: to get a job because he's got a felony on
Speaker 1: his record. And I'm not saying if that person deserves it,
Speaker 1: not to punish that person appropriately, But that goes back
Speaker 1: to my point what's appropriate. The bond issue is tremendous
Speaker 1: and what a lot of people don't understand. These people
Speaker 1: are all presumed to be innocent. And sometimes I know,
Speaker 1: I've been in bond hearing many, many, many many times
Speaker 1: on both sides where it's almost a little mini trial,
Speaker 1: and it shouldn't be. The primary purpose of a bond
Speaker 1: hearing is to ensure that someone returns to court for
Speaker 1: future court dates. The government needs to show why this
Speaker 1: person is a flight risk, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. I think
Speaker 1: some of those principles get lost sometimes the presumption of
Speaker 1: innocence that all those things we almost becomes becomes a game.
Speaker 1: It seems like where once I just wants to one
Speaker 1: up the other and one side just wants to win
Speaker 1: on whatever little tip for tat little miniature issue. It
Speaker 1: is like I've seen in bond hearings, which is really
Speaker 1: a judge's call to make, and the judge will hear
Speaker 1: from witnesses from either side. Really, but what you'll see
Speaker 1: is you'll see the defense, who has got to have
Speaker 1: the burden of proof, making their case for why somebody
Speaker 1: in any given case should get bond. But then sometimes
Speaker 1: maybe the prosecutor will put the arresting officer back on
Speaker 1: the witness stand to give his or her opinion on
Speaker 1: why the person, who they don't even know except for
Speaker 1: this one encounter, why they shouldn't be granted bond. And
Speaker 1: that's really not what the police are there for. There
Speaker 1: there to present sort of the facts, not necessarily their
Speaker 1: opinion on whether somebody gets bond. But I see that
Speaker 1: kind of thing happening. I see it all the time.
Speaker 1: I never did that when I was in the prosecutor's chair.
Speaker 1: It is treated almost like a little game. You try
Speaker 1: to find a little legal theory, or you went up
Speaker 1: someone in one way in order to get what you want.
Speaker 1: Sometimes prosecutors one they make decisions. They make the right decisions.
Speaker 1: You know, it's not There are some very very very
Speaker 1: very excellent prosecutors out there do the right things, and
Speaker 1: then there are sometimes when you know you're faced with
Speaker 1: the situation and you're thinking, well, wait a minute, why
Speaker 1: is this person still in jail at the end of
Speaker 1: the day, we can go through the theater if you
Speaker 1: will all you want. Why is this person still in
Speaker 1: jail when he doesn't when he shouldn't be. To flip
Speaker 1: almost to the other side, we've talked a lot about
Speaker 1: how the purpose of a defense attorney is to be
Speaker 1: a zealous advocate for your client. Have you guys ever
Speaker 1: had a moment where you were sort of like, oh,
Speaker 1: this is the bad guy. They should have been punished more.
Speaker 1: What's the new term throwing shade. I don't want to
Speaker 1: throw all the all the shade on the prosecutors because
Speaker 1: I used to be one and there was a case
Speaker 1: I had. I'm not going to get into specifics. It
Speaker 1: wasn't in this jurisdiction at all that this guy was.
Speaker 1: He belonged in the cage, and he belonged in a
Speaker 1: jail cell for the rest of his life. He was
Speaker 1: just born a certain way and and I would have
Speaker 1: done everything within the boundaries of the law to make
Speaker 1: sure that he's spent every second in the jail cell
Speaker 1: because he would hurt people. So yeah, I think that
Speaker 1: there are cases on both sides when that happens, and
Speaker 1: you just have to know. I mean that when you're
Speaker 1: defending people charged with crimes. You're defending more than the person, right,
Speaker 1: You're defending the freedoms that we all have. Okay, it's
Speaker 1: like that saying, would you rather have ten guilty people
Speaker 1: go free so that an innocent person can go free
Speaker 1: as well? You're willing to have people be acquitted who
Speaker 1: are guilty so that you could save the person who
Speaker 1: is not guilty. Because everyone can find themselves in a
Speaker 1: position where you're charged with the crime. You're defending all
Speaker 1: those those liber these that you have. And you have
Speaker 1: different cases, and you have different personalities, and you have
Speaker 1: different clients and different kinds of cases. But if someone's
Speaker 1: not going to defend client zealously, what are we doing?
Speaker 1: So if that man that you were talking about, the
Speaker 1: one that should have been locked up, had come to
Speaker 1: you as a defense attorney, what would you have done?
Speaker 1: Would you have just not taken the case or tough question?
Speaker 1: I don't know. One of the things I love about
Speaker 1: working here is that we have some a little bit
Speaker 1: of flexibility and freedom about what we take on. And
Speaker 1: I would have to think on that it was a bad,
Speaker 1: bad situation. Well, every lawyer is not right for every case,
Speaker 1: and let's face it, in the criminal justice world, there's
Speaker 1: some really gnarly stuff that happens, and so if a
Speaker 1: lawyer is not able to objectively deal with it, they
Speaker 1: shouldn't they. I think they have an obligation to not, because, look,
Speaker 1: we're not right for every case. Every case hitting right
Speaker 1: for us, and if somebody chooses to hire somebody other
Speaker 1: than us, that doesn't hurt our feelings either, because what
Speaker 1: I want is the person to have the counsel that
Speaker 1: they're most comfortable with, because I think the system works
Speaker 1: better in that sense. If a lawyer can't objectively take
Speaker 1: a case, they just need to leave it be let
Speaker 1: somebody who is able to do that handle the case.
Speaker 1: We have ethical obligations to not take everything, if that
Speaker 1: makes sense. Are there ever instances where you're watching the
Speaker 1: news and it's one of these big maybe like serial
Speaker 1: killer cases, and you watch how the defense attorney is interacting,
Speaker 1: maybe sort of critically, or oh yeah, when I see
Speaker 1: something on the news and I see these press conferences
Speaker 1: on the courthouse steps, I look at it very carefully
Speaker 1: because some lawyers go too far and the things they say,
Speaker 1: they sometimes say some pretty ridiculous things. They will make
Speaker 1: guarantees that their client is innocent, and they look forward
Speaker 1: to fighting it tooth and nail, and then the next
Speaker 1: thing you know, they're a month and a half later,
Speaker 1: though there are pleading guilty. Why would you come out
Speaker 1: and say that if you know that there's a chance
Speaker 1: you might wind up pleading guilty next month. When it
Speaker 1: comes to high profile or media cases, a lot of
Speaker 1: times it's best to just not say anything, because, especially
Speaker 1: early on in the case, you don't know what's going on.
Speaker 1: You're still gathering information, and what you're being told may
Speaker 1: or may not wind up being the case ten minutes
Speaker 1: or ten weeks from now. Do you guys have pet
Speaker 1: peeves about the way people talk about the criminal justice
Speaker 1: system or maybe using legal terms wrong, something that just
Speaker 1: really gets under your skin. You hear the people say, well,
Speaker 1: proof beyond the shadow of a doubt or proof beyond
Speaker 1: all doubt, and it's really common, and it's and I
Speaker 1: shouldn't be so critical about it because it is a
Speaker 1: legal term of art, but it's it's not it's not accurate.
Speaker 1: There's no requirement anybody prove anything beyond the shadow of
Speaker 1: that What the hell does that even mean? But I
Speaker 1: do have a bigger pet peeve about the system in general,
Speaker 1: to all the judges who might be listening to this
Speaker 1: or whoever know me. What I won't say to your face,
Speaker 1: but I might be thinking when I'm in your courtroom
Speaker 1: is stop wasting our time. And I'm referring to not
Speaker 1: just my time, but my client's time, their families time,
Speaker 1: the prosecutor's time, all the other people in the courtroom
Speaker 1: there time. I've had things that have happened recently where
Speaker 1: I'm in court for eight hours to accomplish something that
Speaker 1: should take eight minutes. When we talk about our system
Speaker 1: is inefficient and there's not enough judges, there's not enough resources,
Speaker 1: I'm thinking to myself, well, why don't we just use
Speaker 1: the resources that we have more wisely? Time wasting is
Speaker 1: a big piece of this. This is one of my
Speaker 1: major pet peeves about the system in general, one of
Speaker 1: those like this meeting could have been an email situations,
Speaker 1: except it's lasted eight hours and you've held all of
Speaker 1: this captive your honor in this courtroom. Unnecessarily talk about
Speaker 1: faults imprisonment. Judges know something about that, How dothen do
Speaker 1: you have any pet peeves? Sure? I don't like it.
Speaker 1: When people who have never been to law school cite
Speaker 1: me some article they read on the internet written by
Speaker 1: someone who probably sixteen years old, about how the best
Speaker 1: way to proceed in this case is and say, look, relax,
Speaker 1: the words in that article that you're quoting to me
Speaker 1: aren't even spelled correctly. I don't think the legal principles
Speaker 1: under writing them aren't correct either. Let us try to
Speaker 1: find the best way to proceed. Okay, we we know
Speaker 1: what we're doing. And sometimes you know, you have parents
Speaker 1: who are very, very very involved. Quite frankly, some of
Speaker 1: the best clients are the ones that have been, unfortunately
Speaker 1: been in the justice system so long because they know
Speaker 1: the game. They know it. They don't call all the time.
Speaker 1: They let you work the case, and they know that
Speaker 1: you're going to do a good job. I told someone
Speaker 1: a couple of weeks ago, I talked to them about
Speaker 1: three times in one week and there was absolutely nothing
Speaker 1: really to report. And then find ways said, look, I
Speaker 1: can call you and we can talk about the Chicago
Speaker 1: Bears for an hour if you want to. I love
Speaker 1: the Bears, all right, but at some point you're taking
Speaker 1: away you're taking away my time to be able to
Speaker 1: work on your case. That kind of annoys me a
Speaker 1: little bit. Another one that that I hear a lot
Speaker 1: is like, oh, the police trapped me. Well, what do
Speaker 1: you mean they trapped you? We don't know they trapped me.
Speaker 1: You know they did this. I'm like, oh, you mean
Speaker 1: they caught you. And so, you know, entrapment is maybe
Speaker 1: what they're thinking of. But there's all these misperceptions. Most
Speaker 1: things are not entrapment. In fact, very few things are.
Speaker 1: Merely providing someone with an opportunity to commit a crime
Speaker 1: that they might be otherwise inclined to commit is not entrapment.
Speaker 1: So I've actually seen this happen when I was a prosecutor.
Speaker 1: But if the police officer is selling little bits of
Speaker 1: soap undercover on the street corner, telling you that it's
Speaker 1: cracked cocaine, and you buy it, they have not trapped you.
Speaker 1: They have provided you with an opportunity to do something,
Speaker 1: and then they've arrested you. So that that's a little
Speaker 1: bit of an extreme example, but but I hear that
Speaker 1: a good bit. Well they trapped me, now they didn't
Speaker 1: trap you. They call you. Another thing I just thought
Speaker 1: about was when clients don't tell you the truth, there's
Speaker 1: a privilege there exercise. It's funny. I remember there was
Speaker 1: a case up that I was sitting in and up
Speaker 1: north a lawyer, a very high price lawyer from Chicago,
Speaker 1: came down to the probable cause hearing and his his
Speaker 1: client had not told them what had really happened, and
Speaker 1: so we could go for the hearing. And he goes
Speaker 1: into the side room where he and his client were talking,
Speaker 1: screaming obscenities, basically told them, I'll tell you what's a
Speaker 1: good idea. Why don't you drive your car right into
Speaker 1: the police station, show them the drugs, showing the guns.
Speaker 1: In that way, they can arrest you very, very easily.
Speaker 1: You're not told the right information, sometimes it hurts the
Speaker 1: person who's been who's been charged. Yeah, you should never
Speaker 1: talk to the police, but you should always talk to
Speaker 1: your lawyer, and you should always tell the truth to
Speaker 1: your lawyer, because if you don't, they can't help you.
Speaker 1: In fact, if they've got the wrong information, they may
Speaker 1: make tactical or strategic moves that are not in your
Speaker 1: best interests. I will say one of the things I've
Speaker 1: learned the most from working on this is never talked
Speaker 1: to the police. If you're accused of a crime. When
Speaker 1: do you have to say anything? Never? You never have
Speaker 1: to say anything. You don't even have to tell him
Speaker 1: your name. You may not be able to post bond
Speaker 1: until you give them enough information to proceed with booking,
Speaker 1: but you don't really have to say anything. I had
Speaker 1: a case once where someone was accused of obstructing a
Speaker 1: law enforcement officer because they would not talk to them.
Speaker 1: This person was actually arrested posted bond, and you know,
Speaker 1: the charge eventually got dismissed, and that the prosecutor just
Speaker 1: was laughing about it was like, I can't because it
Speaker 1: was hysterically funny in the sense that it was something
Speaker 1: so obvious. You know, you can't arrest somebody for not
Speaker 1: talking to the police. They have an absolute constitutional right. Now.
Speaker 1: It wasn't funny that they got arrested. That wasn't why
Speaker 1: we were laughing, but it was just so obviously wrong.
Speaker 1: Even the prosecutor didn't bat night dropping that charge. I
Speaker 1: want to thank everybody for making this season really, really good.
Speaker 1: I think we've opened up a lot of topics for
Speaker 1: discussion that needed to be open, and I hope that
Speaker 1: we will continue to build on it. But if it
Speaker 1: weren't for the people who have subscribed and listened, none
Speaker 1: of this would be possible. So I just want to
Speaker 1: say thanks to to everybody, not only our listeners, but
Speaker 1: also to you folks who have helped with production. I
Speaker 1: want to say thanks to everybody who has participated this
Speaker 1: season as a as a guest and has provided their
Speaker 1: time and their expertise to give us some really eight interviews,
Speaker 1: because without all of those pieces in place, we couldn't
Speaker 1: have put this together. And I think it's been awesome.
Speaker 1: So thanks to all those folks collectively, and with that,
Speaker 1: I guess that's a wrap on season two of Sworn.
Speaker 1: Sworn is a production of Tenderfoot TV and I Heart Radio.
Speaker 1: Our lead producer is Christina Dana. Executive producers are Payne
Speaker 1: Lindsay and Donald Albright for Tenderfoot TV, Matt Frederick and
Speaker 1: Alex Williams for I Heart Radio, and myself Philip Holloway.
Speaker 1: Additional production by Trevor Young, Mason Lindsay, Mike Rooney, Jamie
Speaker 1: Albright and Hallie Beadal. Original music and sound designed by
Speaker 1: Makeup and Vanity Set. Our theme song is Blood in
Speaker 1: the Water by Layup. Show art and design is by
Speaker 1: Trevor Eisler, editing by Christina Dana, mixing and mastering by
Speaker 1: Mike Rooney and Cooper Skinner. Special thanks to the team
Speaker 1: at Heart Radio from U T a or In Rosenbound
Speaker 1: and Grace Royer, Ryan Nord and Matthew Papa from the
Speaker 1: Nord Group that Media and Marketing and Station sixteen. I'd
Speaker 1: also like to extend a very personal and special thanks
Speaker 1: to all of our contributors and guests who have helped
Speaker 1: to make all of these episodes possible. You can find
Speaker 1: Sworn on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram at Sworn podcast and
Speaker 1: follow me your host, Philip Halloway on Twitter at phil
Speaker 1: Holloway e s Q. Our website is sworn podcast dot com,
Speaker 1: and you can check out other Tenderfoot TV podcasts at
Speaker 1: www dot tenderfoot dot tv. If you have questions or comments,
Speaker 1: you can email us at Sworn at tenderfoot dot tv
Speaker 1: or leave us a voicemail at four zero four for
Speaker 1: one zero zero four four one. As always, thanks for listening.