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 who solemnly swear and the haven titled action
Speaker 1: find the defendant guilty of the prime. It makes no sense,
Speaker 1: it doesn't fit. If it doesn't fit, you must aquit.
Speaker 1: We all took the same oth 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 are about
Speaker 1: to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and
Speaker 1: nothing but the truth. From Tenderfoot TV and I Heart Radio,
Speaker 1: this is sworn. I'm your host, Philip Holloway. I think
Speaker 1: it took like two years at least over a year
Speaker 1: to do what they called it, and I hung onto
Speaker 1: a lot of hope before that day happened, because I
Speaker 1: thought there's no way, there's just no way. That I
Speaker 1: got the call and I had been indicted, and that
Speaker 1: was that was crushing, because like there is an element
Speaker 1: of like feeling of being judged for something you know
Speaker 1: that you didn't do, and You're utterly defenseless to the accusation,
Speaker 1: like something could fall out of the sky and then
Speaker 1: just change your life forever. You're really powerless and you
Speaker 1: don't know what's going on, and they've got all the cards.
Speaker 1: Welcome back to part two of our case study series.
Speaker 1: This is a continuation of last week's episode, where we
Speaker 1: looked at the horrific night that changed one of Phil's
Speaker 1: clients lives forever. Phil was brought on as the defense
Speaker 1: attorney for a woman who called one after her husband
Speaker 1: was shot. She was immediately arrested. Today we're going to
Speaker 1: look at the charges filed by the d A's office
Speaker 1: and the impossible decision of whether she should plead not
Speaker 1: guilty or if the risks of going to trial are
Speaker 1: too great. We went to the first appearance of court.
Speaker 1: You know, a lot of family was in the courtroom.
Speaker 1: My father was in the courtroom. These guys were not there.
Speaker 1: And the police officer get up there, and then they
Speaker 1: had my friend get up here, who basically said that
Speaker 1: she would be my guardian. I was on house arrest
Speaker 1: there for I can't I can't remember a while. And
Speaker 1: then my friend who's also was a friend of my
Speaker 1: mom's who became a close friend of mine. She actually
Speaker 1: put her house up for my bond. Thankfully she's a
Speaker 1: really nice husband, because I don't even think she asked
Speaker 1: her husband. I think she's just a house I was
Speaker 1: not nice to be around from what I lost, like
Speaker 1: fifty pounds in two months. I didn't get out of bed,
Speaker 1: I and shower. I just kind of like lay there
Speaker 1: and like, it's not easy to to be around. Had
Speaker 1: the ankle wannitor on, which I still feel it. I
Speaker 1: think it's been off for like six years. I can't
Speaker 1: even remember, and sometimes I'll still feel like a buzz
Speaker 1: on my ankle. It's like a ghost house arrest ankle. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and it would buzz if I got like the battery
Speaker 1: would get low, and it had a really crappy battery,
Speaker 1: so it would go off all the time. Phil's clients
Speaker 1: spent most of this legal process on house arrest. There
Speaker 1: were limited places she could go, unlimited times she could
Speaker 1: leave the house. But when I was talking with Caitlin,
Speaker 1: Phil's former paralegal, she brought up a whole another aspect
Speaker 1: of house arrest that I hadn't thought about. I remember
Speaker 1: how expensive it was if the state sentences you to
Speaker 1: house arrest. You are now responsible for the monthly monitoring fees,
Speaker 1: if I remember correctly. They even tell you which company
Speaker 1: to go with, but you have to pay for it,
Speaker 1: and that can be pricey, especially for someone who has
Speaker 1: only let out certain times of the day to work
Speaker 1: and raising four children, you know now as a single mother.
Speaker 1: I remember that there was a big deal. It was
Speaker 1: very costly. She was out on bond the entire time.
Speaker 1: Which that seems so clear to me that there's no
Speaker 1: threat of danger. We're letting this woman walk freely for
Speaker 1: four years. Why are we even charging her. She's a
Speaker 1: productive member of society. She is sweet, she is caring.
Speaker 1: She was loving her kids. Her children, who this was
Speaker 1: their father and it was terrible that they were brought
Speaker 1: into it at all, were in complete support of her.
Speaker 1: I mean, she had the support of everyone who knew
Speaker 1: about it. I say still, what surprised me the most
Speaker 1: about it was that we were even going forward with it.
Speaker 1: It also surprised me that it took four It was
Speaker 1: a very lengthy process. So when you took on the case,
Speaker 1: what were your first priorities? The kids? That was a
Speaker 1: big thing for her and for us and for the grandparents.
Speaker 1: These were children who had lost their father and the
Speaker 1: mother was in jail, and it was just a matter
Speaker 1: of time, we felt before the state was going to
Speaker 1: be coming to take them away and maybe put them
Speaker 1: in foster care, do something with them that you know,
Speaker 1: their mother didn't want. So we needed to get them
Speaker 1: placed with loving family members. And in this particular case,
Speaker 1: she's of course presumed innocent and the father's deceased. Even
Speaker 1: though she's in jail, she is still the parent and
Speaker 1: her wishes kind of control legally and practically. But in
Speaker 1: this case, the family home being a crime scene and
Speaker 1: she wasn't able to go back there, we needed to
Speaker 1: do something with the kids. So we had to figure
Speaker 1: out how the hell to do a guardianship. I've never
Speaker 1: done one, but we figured it out, and you know,
Speaker 1: we had to get an emergency guardianship in place. Grandparents normally,
Speaker 1: you know, for visitation type situations, they can't go and
Speaker 1: roll the kids in school. They need a judge saying, look,
Speaker 1: for the time being and for the foreseeable future, you
Speaker 1: have the legal authority to act in lieu of a parent.
Speaker 1: And so that's what the guardianship was about. So that
Speaker 1: was a very pressing matter for everybody. With the guardianship
Speaker 1: in place, Phil's client's children moved from Georgia to Cape
Speaker 1: Cod in Massachusetts to stay with their grandparents. Phil's client
Speaker 1: was able to visit every so often, but there were
Speaker 1: a lot of roadblocks. And then we had a court
Speaker 1: appearance where they were gonna let me go to Massachusetts
Speaker 1: to visit the kids, and at the same time, my
Speaker 1: other friend they swapped custody of me, and for whatever reason,
Speaker 1: she wanted me to move in with her, and I did.
Speaker 1: And you know, she was a great influence on me
Speaker 1: because she made me live. You know, she was the
Speaker 1: one that pushed me to get up every day, and
Speaker 1: you know, she really like momed me. She pulled me
Speaker 1: out and shook the fog out of me and meet
Speaker 1: me live. They just kept dragging it on and on
Speaker 1: and on, and it was literally like, oh, we're not ready,
Speaker 1: we need this. How long will it take you to
Speaker 1: get this? Well, we should be ready by February February
Speaker 1: and roll around, Well, we can't do this because of
Speaker 1: this and so and so is out of town or
Speaker 1: just always something. And I felt like Phil and I
Speaker 1: were mostly ready because I mean, it was what it
Speaker 1: was like, I can't make more out of what happened.
Speaker 1: This is what happened, and that's kind of it. And
Speaker 1: I felt like we weren't procrastinating, they were procrastinating. We
Speaker 1: kept going to court and even asking if I could
Speaker 1: go to Massachusetts to be with them, because it wasn't
Speaker 1: fair to bring them home because they kept saying next month,
Speaker 1: next spring, by February, by April. They kept kind of
Speaker 1: hanging it over us and prolonging it. That wasn't fair
Speaker 1: to them. So we asked repeatedly if I could go
Speaker 1: up there, and they said no. They would let me
Speaker 1: go up there, They let me go for visits, but
Speaker 1: I couldn't continue my time up there. I think that
Speaker 1: was like four years of just constantly dragging it out,
Speaker 1: and they were getting older and older, and I was
Speaker 1: missing everything. You know, my dad and I couldn't afford
Speaker 1: to send me up there every week to go and
Speaker 1: see them as much as we want to. You know,
Speaker 1: that's like and that's an expense. I mean, I'm a
Speaker 1: single mob right now. I worked two jobs. There's no
Speaker 1: way I could afford to fly myself to Massachusetts every month.
Speaker 1: There's no way and so I missed a lot and
Speaker 1: they missed a lot. Have you even able to have
Speaker 1: a funeral? I mean there was a funeral, but not
Speaker 1: for everyone. That's Phil's clients do her My oldest daughter
Speaker 1: has told me it was for a funeral for someone
Speaker 1: she didn't even know. From what she told me, there
Speaker 1: was like music that I never want to listen to.
Speaker 1: She said that it was like really strange because she
Speaker 1: didn't know who the funeral was for, because it wasn't
Speaker 1: for her father. And I think that's because I don't
Speaker 1: think people knew him quite the way that his wife
Speaker 1: and his children knew. But I think that's absolutely true.
Speaker 1: But I don't know what it was like. I wasn't
Speaker 1: I wasn't there. I was in jail. Her daughter came
Speaker 1: to the interviews, and she was the child who woke
Speaker 1: up that night the night her father was shot. She
Speaker 1: was eleven when her father died and had to start
Speaker 1: a new life in Massachusetts. While her mother was on
Speaker 1: house arress, we flew up to Massachusetts and it was
Speaker 1: kind of like, I mean, I didn't really understand for
Speaker 1: a while why we were up there. I remember not
Speaker 1: sleeping much. We didn't know how long we were going
Speaker 1: to be there. We didn't know why really we were there.
Speaker 1: Nobody wanted to talk about it or I don't know
Speaker 1: if we were able or what. And I mean it
Speaker 1: was nice, like I love Massachusetts. I was like Cape
Speaker 1: cod like it was beautiful. I missed my mom. I
Speaker 1: didn't know what she was going through, and I mean
Speaker 1: I didn't given time, I didn't even know where she was.
Speaker 1: I was grateful to not have to deal with people
Speaker 1: wondering what happened, wanting to talk about it, or worrying
Speaker 1: about me or anything. I just kind of went and
Speaker 1: pretended like nothing happened, which was probably unhealthy, but it
Speaker 1: was I don't know safe. Coming back was really weird.
Speaker 1: I actually ran into not that long ago, um, a
Speaker 1: girl I used to play with when I was little.
Speaker 1: Her family came into the the store I work in,
Speaker 1: and it was just so weird because I recognized them immediately,
Speaker 1: they recognized me, and they were so nice. It was like,
Speaker 1: how are you? How is your family hugging me? So
Speaker 1: just it was really pleasant night. I was a little
Speaker 1: afraid of what they would say to me, you know,
Speaker 1: because I'm like, oh boy, here we go. I'm at work.
Speaker 1: What's bombard, What's what do you got to say? Let's
Speaker 1: do it? But it was it was surprisingly really comfortable.
Speaker 1: And sometimes it's not just it was I was a
Speaker 1: different human being before and after, like she was saying,
Speaker 1: you know, and it's uncomfortable being pulled back into that
Speaker 1: persona and having to like, I don't know, time travel.
Speaker 1: It's not even reliving it because I didn't, you know,
Speaker 1: I didn't go through what she went through. We really
Speaker 1: tried my dad. It was amazing and really getting them
Speaker 1: help and and not further traumatizing them, which was the
Speaker 1: main reason I wanted them to go with him to Massachusetts,
Speaker 1: because I did not want them to be repeatedly traumatized
Speaker 1: after they had already suffered a tremendous loss. And thankfully
Speaker 1: I think I think, you know, probably as an older
Speaker 1: guy and as a parent, the way I do. But
Speaker 1: you know, he gave you guys a safe place, and
Speaker 1: he took care of you, and he got you the
Speaker 1: help that you needed, and they got to make friends
Speaker 1: and they and they got to be kids, which is
Speaker 1: a huge gift after what we went through was a
Speaker 1: laundry list of charges. Did they offered the plea At first,
Speaker 1: I didn't want the plea. I was like, no, I'm
Speaker 1: not taking a plea. I was furious. I think that
Speaker 1: it was voluntary manslaughter and that he told me about
Speaker 1: the Alfred plea. You may remember from earlier in the season,
Speaker 1: and Alfred plea is a guilty plea that defendants can
Speaker 1: enter in order to take a deal offered by prosecutors
Speaker 1: that still maintains their innocence. It's named after the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court case North Carolina v. Alfred. By entering an Alfred plea,
Speaker 1: the defendant is acknowledging that the risk of a jury
Speaker 1: trial is too high. They can accept the terms of
Speaker 1: a deal without admitting guilt to a crime. I can
Speaker 1: appreciate it, but I don't know, like in reality, in
Speaker 1: real life terms, does it make a difference. It doesn't
Speaker 1: really make a difference. It does give me some some
Speaker 1: piece of mind that there is some element of like, okay,
Speaker 1: take it, but you're wrong. There's at least something there.
Speaker 1: Having your voice and having your ability to fight for
Speaker 1: your rights and fight to prove yourself having that taken
Speaker 1: from you and literally held hostage by a system is
Speaker 1: really frustrating because I felt like they had taken this
Speaker 1: horrible tragedy of my life, one of the greatest heart
Speaker 1: breaks in my life, and they hijacked it and they
Speaker 1: made it into something that I can't even describe, you know,
Speaker 1: And then it was always hanging over you, like what's
Speaker 1: going to happen to them if it goes badly. We
Speaker 1: asked the kids what they wanted me to do, and
Speaker 1: they said, they want me to take a plea. I
Speaker 1: understood that it was better to go in front of
Speaker 1: somebody who understood the judicial system that it was to
Speaker 1: go in front of people who have no idea what
Speaker 1: I sadly had to learn over that period of time
Speaker 1: about the judicial system. And I took the plea, and
Speaker 1: for the rest of my life, I'm filling. I'm sorry.
Speaker 1: That's why I were by sweatshot. At the end of
Speaker 1: this process, the prosecutor came to us with an offer,
Speaker 1: and I don't remember if it was the first offer,
Speaker 1: that was certainly the last, but basically it boiled down
Speaker 1: to having to make a choice. What they did is
Speaker 1: they gave us some options basically that we could pick from.
Speaker 1: But bottom line is I think they realized that they
Speaker 1: had problems with proving murder beyond a reasonable doubt. Potentially
Speaker 1: they agreed that they would reduce the charge from murder
Speaker 1: to voluntary manslaughter. Doesn't sound like much of a reduction,
Speaker 1: but in Georgia, murder carries a man to hoary life
Speaker 1: sentence and it could be without parole, the judge says.
Speaker 1: So bandslaughter, on the other hand, carries a maximum of
Speaker 1: twenty years, and you know, without a record, you're pretty
Speaker 1: much eligible for parole after about twelve fourteen years. That's
Speaker 1: still a hell of a long time, but at least
Speaker 1: there's potentially a light at the end of the tunnel
Speaker 1: for you. The option that she had was to plead
Speaker 1: to the reduced charge of voluntary manslaughter and she would
Speaker 1: receive a sentence of fifteen years with eight to be
Speaker 1: served in prison. In that scenario, she would be eligible
Speaker 1: for parole basically immediately. But if we took that scenario,
Speaker 1: there would be no opportunity to ask the judge to
Speaker 1: even consider a lesser sentence. So this was option number
Speaker 1: one for her. Option number two is pleaded that reduced
Speaker 1: charge of voluntary manslaughter. In this option, the prosecutor would
Speaker 1: recommend a sentence to the judge of twenty years with
Speaker 1: ten to serve, and under that scenario, the judge would
Speaker 1: be bound to not exceed their recommendation and he could
Speaker 1: go under it. That's what we call a partially negotiated
Speaker 1: plea with a cap. In other words, they were gonna
Speaker 1: cap her potential exposure at ten years and we could
Speaker 1: ask for something less. Those are too crappy options to
Speaker 1: choose from. But under option two we would at least
Speaker 1: have the opportunity to present mitigating evidence, things that we
Speaker 1: thought wade in favor of a lighter sentence. But also,
Speaker 1: under the rules of evidence and Georgia that had recently changed,
Speaker 1: lots of evidence is admissible at a sentencing hearing that
Speaker 1: had not really been so admissible before, things like hearsay.
Speaker 1: Our strategy was, look, if we take option too, yeah,
Speaker 1: you might get two more years in prison, but we
Speaker 1: also can maybe get two, three or four years less.
Speaker 1: You know, I never thought she was gonna get none.
Speaker 1: I thought there was definitely some prison in her future.
Speaker 1: But I was hoping to get something less than eight
Speaker 1: because eight was what we had. Is the bird in
Speaker 1: the hand option, so to speak. So she had to
Speaker 1: choose between two pretty bad options that were pretty risky.
Speaker 1: Of course, the judge didn't have to take either one
Speaker 1: of those. He could have said, no, I'm not going
Speaker 1: to accept either one album, then you're gonna stand trial
Speaker 1: for murder. We always had that is a potential outcome
Speaker 1: of this too. We also had the mechanism at our disposal.
Speaker 1: There's something called a an Alfred plea. If you believe
Speaker 1: that a jury might very well find you guilty, notwithstanding
Speaker 1: you know your innocence, you can you can take advantage
Speaker 1: of the special kind of plea. The judge can pass
Speaker 1: judgment and sentence on you without an admission of guilt.
Speaker 1: Otherwise you've got to actually say you're guilty. We couldn't
Speaker 1: do that with her. I couldn't put her under oath
Speaker 1: and say she's guilty when she's not, and what I
Speaker 1: don't think she is. If you'd like more information about Alfred,
Speaker 1: please mandatory minimum sentencing and the risks of taking a
Speaker 1: case to trial take a look at some of our
Speaker 1: previous episodes. This season. We covered these topics more in
Speaker 1: depth in some earlier episodes. It was more than one conversation.
Speaker 1: It was a process, and it involved not only she
Speaker 1: and I, but it involves dozens of conversations with her family,
Speaker 1: and I'm sure they consulted, maybe at least the older kids.
Speaker 1: I even wrote it all out and had her sign it,
Speaker 1: basically saying, look, these are your options. This thing can
Speaker 1: all go south and you could still wind up standing trial,
Speaker 1: and if you're convicted, you can still wind up in
Speaker 1: prison forever. You know. I had to basically sign a
Speaker 1: document that says I understand and acknowledge that the decision
Speaker 1: is mine and mine alone and cannot be made my
Speaker 1: my attorney or any family member or friend. I needed
Speaker 1: to put that in writing so that she's kind of
Speaker 1: like informed consent. If you go to have minor surgery,
Speaker 1: that doctors is gonna have you sign something, say you
Speaker 1: know the risks, and you're doing it anyway. So that's
Speaker 1: what I had to have her do in this case.
Speaker 1: It's very rare that I do that, but we did
Speaker 1: it in this case because well or not, things went
Speaker 1: our way. At least I would know that not only
Speaker 1: had I told her everything verbally, I had given it
Speaker 1: to her in writing so that she could take it
Speaker 1: home and study it and think about it. I did
Speaker 1: not want her to make a fast decision. I wanted
Speaker 1: her to make an informed decision, and I wanted her
Speaker 1: to have as much time as she needed. Whether or
Speaker 1: not to go to trial. As always, the client's call,
Speaker 1: and it should be made after consulting with counsel and
Speaker 1: anybody else that's relevant in their life, like spouses, kids, moms, dad's, brother, sisters,
Speaker 1: what have you. It's a personal choice, and you know,
Speaker 1: we we weigh all the factors. We weigh the likelihood
Speaker 1: of conviction, we weigh the chances of maybe an acquittal.
Speaker 1: Of course, you never can You never know what the
Speaker 1: hell of jury is gonna do. Juries are so unpredictable.
Speaker 1: You have to make the best decision that you can.
Speaker 1: I will say this about this case. I felt that
Speaker 1: if we went to trial, we stood a decent chance
Speaker 1: of getting a jury to acquit her own murder, but
Speaker 1: maybe find her guilty of manslaughter. Anyway, if for example,
Speaker 1: they thought, well, she killed him in the heat of passion. Um,
Speaker 1: this was like an argument, and she didn't really have
Speaker 1: time to think about it. She just got really piste
Speaker 1: off and pull the trigger. And if that had happened,
Speaker 1: then the judge would have had to make a sentencing determination,
Speaker 1: and in that scenario he could have given her no
Speaker 1: jail time or twenty. But if a jury finds you
Speaker 1: guilty of manslaughter, the judge is gonna give you twenty.
Speaker 1: That's just kind of a given. We knew that was
Speaker 1: what was going to happen, which helped us decide to
Speaker 1: enter a plea to manslaughter because we felt that there
Speaker 1: was a decent likelihood that she would at least be
Speaker 1: found guilty of manslaughter. I don't necessarily trust the juries
Speaker 1: to always get it right. We felt that our best
Speaker 1: chance was to let the judge see this whole case
Speaker 1: for what it really was, which was I think a
Speaker 1: house of cards. I trusted the judge to do the
Speaker 1: right thing, and in hindsight, thank god I'm right, because
Speaker 1: if my plan had on south, I would have really
Speaker 1: looked like It's kind of like the football coach who
Speaker 1: decided to go for it on fourth down. If you
Speaker 1: make it, you look like a hero, and if you don't,
Speaker 1: you're the goat. This was fourth and long for us,
Speaker 1: and we we decided to go for it. We decided
Speaker 1: that we would take advantage of the new rules of
Speaker 1: evidence and we would just try to have a little
Speaker 1: miniature trial in the context of a sentencing hearing. So
Speaker 1: I was able to bring in a forensic psychiatrist, Dr Norman,
Speaker 1: who did a really good job, I think, getting inside
Speaker 1: her head and trying to show whether or not she
Speaker 1: had any intention to kill anybody, whether or not she
Speaker 1: was suffering as we suspected from PTSD, or how accurate
Speaker 1: could she be expected to be in relating to a
Speaker 1: nine one one operator what happened when she's got her
Speaker 1: husband bleeding out on the floor at her feet. When
Speaker 1: his client decided to take the plea, Phil started looking
Speaker 1: into more evidence to convince the judge to give his
Speaker 1: client a lighter sentence. As he mentioned, one piece of
Speaker 1: that evidence was a psychiatric evaluation by Dr Matthew Norman.
Speaker 1: He spoke with Phil about his experience with and memory
Speaker 1: of this case. I am Matthew Norman and I am
Speaker 1: a general and forensic psychiatrist in Atlanta, Georgia. That case,
Speaker 1: my recollection was you had contacted me and there was
Speaker 1: some material to review, which included a nine one one
Speaker 1: audio tape. It was a little different for me. It
Speaker 1: was not a traditional competency to stand trial or criminal
Speaker 1: responsibility that is insane any case. It was much more
Speaker 1: looking at a set of information you know, the discovery
Speaker 1: in the case, the documents in the case, what the
Speaker 1: police were saying, what the individual who wind up getting
Speaker 1: arrested was saying, and also listening to the nine one
Speaker 1: one calls and trying to see one is there something
Speaker 1: going on psychiatrically or psychologically, they could explain what law
Speaker 1: enforcement was saying. Hey, these inconsistencies, they don't add up
Speaker 1: to us, and therefore we think this person has done
Speaker 1: something that's not right. I did that and notice something
Speaker 1: almost immediately within that, and certainly after sitting down and
Speaker 1: interviewing this individual and doing a psychiatric evaluation, was able
Speaker 1: to arrive at an opinion the inconsistencies were better explained
Speaker 1: through science. It is uncommon for most of us to
Speaker 1: have to be presented with the situation that she had
Speaker 1: to be presented with that evening. It's not something thing
Speaker 1: most of us would ever wish, even somebody we may
Speaker 1: not like to have to go through for a law
Speaker 1: enforcement to turn around and go, well, you know what,
Speaker 1: because she made these inconsistent statements, we think she may
Speaker 1: not be telling the truth or it may be a
Speaker 1: different story. And I think what the trouble is is
Speaker 1: when you see those situations on a regular basis, and
Speaker 1: perhaps that's what law enforcement did, is they thought, well,
Speaker 1: I might behave differently, but most of us don't have
Speaker 1: to go through what this individual had to go through
Speaker 1: and deal with. And the science behind what the brain
Speaker 1: will do in the midst of a traumatic experience is
Speaker 1: different for different individuals, but certainly also can then cause
Speaker 1: impairments in memory and cognition. The adrenaline gets flowing. With
Speaker 1: that adrenaline, we start thinking in a different way. Then
Speaker 1: our memory starts getting a little warped. And in listening
Speaker 1: to the nine one one call that she made and
Speaker 1: going through the statements and meeting with her, that certainly
Speaker 1: was My opinion is this was something that she'd never
Speaker 1: dealt with before, and most of us don't know how
Speaker 1: we would respond, and I don't think she knew how
Speaker 1: she would respond, even having to call nine one one,
Speaker 1: I mean having to make that decision and being presented
Speaker 1: with the situation that she was presented with, where there's
Speaker 1: I mean blood and gore and and it's not a
Speaker 1: pleasant situation. It is traumatic. Tell something traumatic happens right
Speaker 1: in front of me, It's hard to know how an
Speaker 1: individual would respond. You might remember from the last episode
Speaker 1: that Phil also enlisted the expertise of a new medical
Speaker 1: examiner from Kentucky when he thought the assigned examiner's findings
Speaker 1: were suspect. Normally it is extremely expensive to fly on
Speaker 1: experts from out of state and have them testify on
Speaker 1: the stand. But there are different rules for sentencing hearings
Speaker 1: than there are for a jury trial. So we were
Speaker 1: able to bring in some live witnesses and get into
Speaker 1: some of the underlying facts of the case. But we
Speaker 1: also were able to get in some hearsay. I could
Speaker 1: not have to spend the money in front, but her
Speaker 1: parents didn't have the money. Her family didn't have it
Speaker 1: to bring the medical examiner from Kentucky, so I was
Speaker 1: able to use his very detailed report. So the judge
Speaker 1: was able to consider a mixture of live evidence and
Speaker 1: some some documents, some photographs to try to convince the
Speaker 1: judge that prison was not the place for her. The
Speaker 1: judge begged me almost not to do this. I don't
Speaker 1: think he wanted to have this type of hearing. He
Speaker 1: basically said, you know, Ms Hollway, Look, if he thinks
Speaker 1: she's innocent, you need to have a trial. This is
Speaker 1: what we have trials for now. The judge didn't know
Speaker 1: what all we knew, and he didn't understand the case
Speaker 1: as intricately and as personally as as we did. I
Speaker 1: just think that he would have rather not have to
Speaker 1: make the decision. But in retrospect, if I had to guess,
Speaker 1: I would think the judge is glad we did it
Speaker 1: the way we did. She didn't want to take the
Speaker 1: chance of being found guilty of murder and spending the
Speaker 1: rest of her life locked up away from her kids.
Speaker 1: That's a mandatory sentence. The judge would have had no
Speaker 1: always but to give her life, and even if she
Speaker 1: were eligible for parole, it would be thirty something years
Speaker 1: before she were eligible for parole. She wanted to see
Speaker 1: her kids. This was all about her kids. This was
Speaker 1: a heart wrenching, tearful decision that she made. She did
Speaker 1: it for her kids, to essentially plead to manslaughter when
Speaker 1: she knows she's innocent. She did it for her kids.
Speaker 1: This is Phil's wife, Natalie. I think it's helpful for
Speaker 1: me to know a little bit about what's going on,
Speaker 1: but I also think it's better for him to take
Speaker 1: a break from it, the business that he's in. It
Speaker 1: seems to be very heavy on his heart, and so
Speaker 1: I think for him to have an opportunity to take
Speaker 1: a break from that is difficult, for sure, but good
Speaker 1: for him when it can happen. I actually had met
Speaker 1: her one time via happenstance through some mutual friends. But
Speaker 1: he just came home and told me that this woman
Speaker 1: had been charged with murdering her husband. Didn't he didn't
Speaker 1: think that she had done that, and he felt that
Speaker 1: there were probably a couple of other people that she
Speaker 1: might have spoken with it didn't believe her side of
Speaker 1: the story, but that he truly believed that she hadn't
Speaker 1: done anything incorrectly or wrong or out of alice. Those
Speaker 1: days before our kids were in school, I would go
Speaker 1: there and have lunch, or you know, I would be
Speaker 1: running to my mom's house for something and then stop
Speaker 1: by it to see Phil or just to you know,
Speaker 1: bring something to him to the office that he had forgotten.
Speaker 1: So I know that she was there because there was
Speaker 1: so many limited places that she could be, so I
Speaker 1: know she was there frequently. I think what I remember
Speaker 1: the most about it is over the course of kind
Speaker 1: of start to finish at the trial, you could just
Speaker 1: see on her face and in her being the weight
Speaker 1: of what this was doing to her in her family.
Speaker 1: I mean literally she lost weight. You could see it,
Speaker 1: pushing your shoulders down to the ground. This case was
Speaker 1: such a big part of Phil's life that Natalie came
Speaker 1: to the sentencing hearing to support him and his client.
Speaker 1: I was there with his form paired legal Caitlin and
Speaker 1: our good friend Pat and we sat there from start
Speaker 1: to finish. And I don't go to many I've probably
Speaker 1: been to UM four or five of Phils trials, so
Speaker 1: I kind of always say that I felt I felt
Speaker 1: like I was in church. I don't know how else
Speaker 1: to describe that, Like I felt like I was at church,
Speaker 1: and all of a sudden I was overcome by a
Speaker 1: power bigger than me. Again, we have been dealing with
Speaker 1: us for a number of years, and you know, what
Speaker 1: happens in the office impacts us in our family life
Speaker 1: as well. And so we were there, her family was there.
Speaker 1: It was very emotionally heavy and draining and exhausting and
Speaker 1: long for everybody that took the stand that day. There
Speaker 1: were people on both sides of the aisle that had
Speaker 1: very particular feelings and were very vested in the outcome
Speaker 1: of this case. I just believe that she hadn't done this.
Speaker 1: I believe that there was evidence of her that she
Speaker 1: hadn't done this. And I don't know when the judge,
Speaker 1: When the judge came on the bench, it was like
Speaker 1: I was overcome. I don't know. I mean, we started
Speaker 1: crying and we just I could not get myself together.
Speaker 1: I felt it was just it was the highest emotion
Speaker 1: and then the lowest. You know, you're kind of just
Speaker 1: going up and down. It was. It was unbelievable. M
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 Albright,
Speaker 1: and Hallie Beat. All 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 I Heart Radio from u t A or In
Speaker 1: rosenbaumd and Grace Royer, Ryan Nord and Matthew Papa from
Speaker 1: the Nord Group, Back Media and Marketing, and Station sixteen.
Speaker 1: I'd also like to extend a very personal and special
Speaker 1: thanks to all of our contributors and guests who have
Speaker 1: helped to make all of these episodes possible. You can
Speaker 1: find Sworn on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram at Sworn podcast
Speaker 1: and follow me your host, Philip Holloway on Twitter at
Speaker 1: phil Holloway e s Q. Our website is sworn podcast
Speaker 1: dot com, and you can check out other Tenderfoot TV
Speaker 1: podcasts at www dot tenderfoot dot tv. If you have
Speaker 1: questions or comments, you can email us at Sworn at
Speaker 1: Tenderfoot TV or leave us a voicemail at four zero
Speaker 1: four four one zero zero four f one. As always,
Speaker 1: thanks for listening.