Crime Fix with Angenette Levy - Bryan Kohberger Lawyers Battle Over 'Bushy Eyebrows' Comment

Episode Date: March 21, 2025

One of the surviving roommates in the murder of four University of Idaho students described seeing a masked man walking through the house wearing all black with "bushy eyebrows." The roommate has given several statements to law enforcement and testified in front of the grand jury. Bryan Kohberger's lawyers want the judge to bar her from saying "bushy eyebrows" at his trial. They're also trying to keep the roommates text messages and 911 call out of the trial. Law&Crime's Angenette Levy goes through the roommates statements and timeline in this episode of Crime Fix — a daily show covering the biggest stories in crime.PLEASE SUPPORT THE SHOW: If you’ve ever been injured in an accident, you can check out Morgan & Morgan. You can submit a claim in 8 clicks or less without having to leave your couch. To start your claim, visit: https://www.forthepeople.com/YouTubeTakeoverHost:Angenette Levy  https://twitter.com/Angenette5Guest: Mark Weaver https://x.com/MarkRWeaverCRIME FIX PRODUCTION:Head of Social Media, YouTube - Bobby SzokeSocial Media Management - Vanessa BeinVideo Editing - Daniel CamachoGuest Booking - Alyssa Fisher & Diane KayeSTAY UP-TO-DATE WITH THE LAW&CRIME NETWORK:Watch Law&Crime Network on YouTubeTV: https://bit.ly/3td2e3yWhere To Watch Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3akxLK5Sign Up For Law&Crime's Daily Newsletter: https://bit.ly/LawandCrimeNewsletterRead Fascinating Articles From Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3td2IqoLAW&CRIME NETWORK SOCIAL MEDIA:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lawandcrime/Twitter: https://twitter.com/LawCrimeNetworkFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/lawandcrimeTwitch: https://www.twitch.tv/lawandcrimenetworkTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@lawandcrimeSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Wondery Plus subscribers can binge all episodes of this Law and Crimes series ad-free right now. Join Wondery Plus in the Wondery app, Apple Podcasts, or Spotify. This witness has claimed memory problems, that this witness has claimed that she's not sure what she heard or saw was real, or whether it was at a dream. Could Brian Koberger's eyebrows and a surviving roommate's description of a man walking through the house on King Road having bushy brows sent him to Idaho's death row? I take a closer look at what that surviving roommate told police about the man and his brows. Plus, the defense is firing back about prosecutors wanting to play that 911 call. We're taking a look at that

and much more on this episode of Crime Fix. I'm Anjanette Levy. Before we get into the very latest in the Idaho murders case, I want to tell you about something new here at Law and Crime. It's a channel called Scandal. It's a place where we look into all of the wildest crimes happening in Hollywood and expose the darker side of fame. Click the link in the description and subscribe to stay up to date on all of the latest celebrity scandals. Now let's get back to the latest in the Idaho murders case and how we're learning much more about what the surviving roommate, D.M., told detectives about seeing a man walking through the house on King Road. Brian Koberger's defense attorneys do not want the jury to hear D.M. say the words bushy eyebrows when describing the man.

The defense says that would essentially be pointing the finger right at Koberger and identifying him. And he's denied murdering DM's roommates on the morning of November 13th, 2022. Those roommates, of course, were Maddie Mogan, Keely Gonsalves, Ethan Chapin, and Zanna Kornodal. They were all found the next morning. A K-Bar knife sheath was laying next to Maddie on her bed. Police would later say that Koberger's DNA was on that knife sheath. Prosecut. Police would later say that Koberger's DNA was on that knife sheath. Prosecutors have now revealed that Brian Koberger bought a K-Bar knife, a sheath, and a sharpener on Amazon in March of 2022, months before the murders. And then he searched for a K-Bar

knife on Amazon in December of 2022 after the homicides. We'll talk about what that could mean later. But back to the surviving roommate. The defense has argued that DM's account of what she saw is unreliable because she was drunk and told police she didn't know what she saw was a dream or real. Here's Ann Taylor at a hearing back in January. That person had credibility issues and she said things that were just absolutely untrue and couldn't have been true. Law enforcement knew that. That was intentionally withheld from the magistrate. That matters when we're talking about credibility and sets this whole thing into motion.

Prosecutors, of course, countered, saying that DM was reliable. Well, the simple answer is investigators knew what she saw was real. And we know it wasn't a dream because they found the evidence, discovered the next morning. Now, DM's account of what happened is coming up again as the defense asked Judge Hippler to bar her from using two words, bushy eyebrows, to describe the man walking through the house. Prosecutors are countering in new filings saying that DM is reliable, beginning with what she did at 419 that morning. Prosecutors write, DM placed several phone calls and sent several text messages to her roommates. The only roommate who responded is BF. They had two short phone conversations, 24 seconds and 41 seconds. Within those phone calls and text messages, DM relayed to BF she saw a person in the residence wearing black and he had on a ski mask that covered his forehead and mouth. Prosecutors then outline what DM told police just after noon that day when police arrived at the house on King Road. DM told Officer Nunez she saw Emil, not insanely tall, wearing all black and a mask that was just covering his forehead and mouth. Later, DM repeated the description.

He was a little bit taller than me. I couldn't really see much of him. And I'm almost positive he was wearing a full black outfit and he had this mask that was just over his forehead and over his mouth. Prosecutors say DM gave the description a third time, repeating that he had a mask. He was an inch or two taller than her. And she said he was basketball player kind of skinny and had a voice that she didn't recognize. Later that afternoon, Detective Lawrence Mowry interviewed Diem at the Moscow Police Department. During this interview, Diem reported she saw a white male she did not know,

maybe my height, a few inches taller, skinny, athletic built, wearing all black, wearing this mask that covers just his forehead and here. Regarding his height, she reported, I'm 5'10", so he's probably around six feet. She reported, I don't remember what his eyes looked like either. Didn't recognize eyes, but definitely a white guy. Morgan & Morgan is sponsoring today's Law & Crime YouTube Takeover. The Morgan & Morgan law firm has more than a thousand attorneys because they win a lot. In the last few months, Morgan & Morgan has secured a $9.3 million verdict for a car crash victim in Florida, a $5.6 million verdict for another car accident victim in Atlanta,

not to mention a $1.8 million verdict in Kentucky after the insurance company offered them a mere $5,000 in that case. Even if you think your case isn't worth millions, why not start a claim and fight for what you deserve? You can start a claim from your phone right here in just eight clicks. So if you're ever hurt, visit ForThePeople.com slash YouTube Takeover, click the link below or scan the QR code on your screen. To back up their point about DM's reliability, prosecutors included a copy of Brian Koberger's driver's license from Pennsylvania, which shows his height. He's six feet tall. This was the license he had at the time of the murders. Prosecutors say DM told police

she went to sleep around 3.20 a.m. and then awoke between 4 and 4.20 a.m. and heard a man's voice she didn't recognize say, it's okay, I'm going to help you. DM told investigators she opened her door and someone, because it, from my mind, it's like I was almost wearing these like blurry glasses, like it's fuzzy and cloudy, but it was like a figure of someone wearing all black. And it was like they had a ski mask that was covering their forehead and their chin and mouth. But I could see the, I, all I remember was seeing their eyebrows. And I don't, I don't remember what their eyes looked like, but I remember their eyebrows. I don't remember the color the eyebrows were. I just remember like bushy eyebrows.

That's all I could think about. The bushy eyebrows term wasn't used by DM in her first interactions with police. Prosecutors continue writing. DM stated she is 5 feet 10 inches tall, so thought the male was around 5'10 and then 6 feet, somewhere around there. DM stated the male was approximately 3 feet from where she was standing. I would say about 3 feet from what I remember. Again, that could be off because I obviously probably still a little bit drunk. I just woke up. I don't remember fully. Again, she described the male. I know he looked at me because I could see his eyebrows. I think it I think I just I think I just saw one eyebrow. I don't know why or how. The defense has said Diem had sketches in her room that focused on eyes and eyebrows.

So her mind may have been playing tricks on her. But the state says that almost makes her more reliable. She would have focused on the eyes and eyebrows, Diem said about the mask. I don't know. Weird looking ski mask. It wasn't like the regular ski mask with like eyes and you know, because I saw his eyebrows and I could, I think I saw his nose and like this part of his face, but I don't know. Detective Gooch then asked Diem whether she knew what a balaclava was and showed a photo of one to her and asked whether she could see the man's mouth. DM stated, no, and I don't remember if I saw it. Like, I don't remember if I saw his nose, but I know I saw eyebrows and I don't

remember his eyes. I just feel like I can see eyebrows, but I mean, that could be it. I mean, that would make sense why the forehead was covered and this part of his face was covered. DM continued. No, I don't remember what his eyes looked like. I don't remember what his nose looked like. I just remember eyebrows. I don't know exactly what the eyebrows looked like at all, really. I just remember thinking like eyebrows. Yeah, bushy, but that's all. Like. I just remember thinking like eyebrows. Yeah, bushy,

but that's all. Like I don't remember the shape. I don't remember like the color. I just remember like bushy eyebrows. That's the only thing I can remember. Then on December 1st, 18 days after the murders, detectives interviewed DM again. She told them about her day and waking up around 4 a.m., hearing a man's voice, and it wasn't Ethan Chapin. The man said, it's okay. I'm going to help you. DM said she called BF and said there was a man in all black in the house. I couldn't see any of his hair, but I remember just like seeing like, it was like almost rectangular, like not the circle ones. It was rectangular because I remember seeing like just like I don't know how to explain it. Just seeing like this. Maybe I'd be able to see like a cross, but I don't remember seeing his eyes.

But I feel like his eyes were there. I could just see like an eyebrow. I feel like that's how I know he saw me because I could see his eyebrow. Like if I can see his eyebrow, he can see me. To this day, we don't know whether the man in the house saw DM or not. And if he did, why did he spare her? Thank goodness he did. DM continued describing the man. From what I remember, I think he was like just like walking past that little wall and going towards the kitchen. And I don't know, like I just remember seeing an eyebrow. I don't know why I just see one. It was just like one bushy eyebrow. I don't remember the color,

like the full shape. I just remember it being bushy. Prosecutors said that DM told them the man was wearing black long sleeves, black pants, and black boots, and he was carrying something. Police interviewed DM again the day that Brian Koberger was arrested. She was asked whether the man she saw in the mugshot was the man from the house. I have no clue. From what I remember, I just remember seeing this figure that was like not fat, obviously, but more of like the skinnier tone build and some mask on. I don't know what the mask exactly was. But when I thought about it, it was just like covering here and here.

I don't know if it was covering his mouth, his nose or below his mouth and nose. I just remember knowing that he was white, but I didn't know how he was white. I just knew he was. And this knowing there's like I knew he had looked at me because of the bushy eyebrow. That's all I remember. DM is also quoted as saying, all I remember, but I don't remember big nose at all, like at all. That's like all I remember is like some bushy eyebrow in all black and some sort of mask. But it wasn't like one of those circle ski masks. That's all I remember is like some bushy eyebrow in all black and some sort of mask. But it wasn't like one of those circle ski masks. That's all I remember.

Several months later, on May 15th, 2023, DM testified in front of the grand jury in Latah County. Prosecutors said DM testified she awoke to the sound of music, Murphy the dog, talking and singing. There was like, from what I think, I remember it was like a black mask, almost like a ski mask, but not, it just like covered the head and then maybe up to the mouth, maybe more. I can't remember if it covered just the chin, the mouth or the nose or lower. Prosecutors argue that Diem is competent to testify and she's reliable and will testify from her personal knowledge. Meanwhile, the defense is objecting to prosecutors wanting to introduce text messages exchanged between the surviving roommates, saying they don't fall under two exceptions to the hearsay rule,

present sense impression and excited utterance, and the state hasn't presented a complete record of the phone activity from the roommates. The defenses included more of the roommates' phone activity, which includes BF actually calling roommate DM before the two exchanged a number of text messages. DM also called all of her roommates who did not answer. There were also Snapchat messages sent by DM at 4.27 a.m. At 4.30 a.m., BF tried to call Kaylee, Maddie, and Zanna. And later that morning at 7.30, BF called her dad and then her mom. The roommates, according to the defense filing, had also accessed social media accounts, including Instagram and Yik Yak, later in the morning. Were the roommates trying to contact the victims on social media? We don't know because those

records are not included, but the defense doesn't want the records allowed at trial saying that they're incomplete and they don't fall under those exceptions to the hearsay rule. The defense writes, the state has selected text messages as excited utterances and present sense impression. The totality of circumstances defeat the state's request. BF and DM texted each other a handful of times and then they were in the same bedroom. They were together with the ability to talk to each other. They were not asleep for eight hours. The messages the state seeks admission of as exceptions to hearsay began with a call and a message about being confused.

After texting each other and unsuccessfully speaking with any of their roommates, the pair were together. The state is looking at the messages with the benefit of hindsight. The analysis has to be done in the moment the utterances were made. Text messages in this case. The defense argues a significant amount of time passed before the roommates called 911, and they sort of question the roommates' actions. DM first claims confusion, and then after communicating with BF, claims fear to leave her room. Despite her stated fear of leaving her room, she does so and

joins BF downstairs. To get to BF's bedroom, DM passed the front door of the residence. BF was steps from the front door. Neither of them left the house. Neither of them called friends, family, or law enforcement for help. Instead, both have a substantial amount of activity beginning in earnest less than four hours after DM made her way to BF's room. BF and DM communicate with friends and parents, and DM is on social media. The defense also objects to the 911 call being played and the transcript being admitted under those present-sense impression and excited utterance exceptions to the hears call being played and the transcript being admitted under those present sense impression

and excited utterance exceptions to the hearsay rule. And tell me exactly what's going on. One of our one of the roommates who's passed out and who's drunk last night and she's not like, yep. Oh, and they saw some man in their house last night. Yeah. The defense writes, the phone activity of DM and BF shows the statements on the 911 call are not an excited utterance. The phone activity is more extensive than a few messages between DM and BF. Phone activity did not stop once they were together. It did not begin right before 911 was called. The 911 call was not contemporaneous with DM and BF's stated awareness of something happening in their house. Eight hours passed until they called for friends to come to the residence.

An excited utterance is a statement that is made while under the influence of an event. The 911 call and statements contained therein came after conversation, calls, texts, internet surfing, and other phone activity. So we have a lot to talk about today, and I want to bring in Mark Weaver. He is a death penalty prosecutor out of Ohio. He also sits as a judge occasionally in the state of Ohio, and he has prosecuted some really high-profile cases. I want to talk to you about the knife, the knife purchase, Mark. But first, let's talk about the bushy eyebrows and the fact that the defense does not want DM, the surviving roommate, to be allowed to say that the man she saw walking through the house had bushy eyebrows or a bushy eyebrow, depending on how you read her description

to the police. And so the state's coming back and saying, look, she's reliable. She said that she may not have said it in her first interaction with law enforcement, but she said it in the subsequent ones. And so she should be allowed to talk about what she observed from her personal knowledge. Of course. Our viewers should know that this wrangling that's happening now, this pretrial wrangling, this normally happens in open court right in the

middle of testimony when the judge and the lawyers go to sidebar. So in some ways, it's good that we're getting these issues resolved before the trial, but this is an over-the-top aggressive request by the defense that somehow one of the witnesses, who by the way, in her statements used the term bushy eyebrows five different times, that somehow she's not allowed to say that. The judge is not going to grant that motion. Witnesses are allowed to describe what they remember, even if in this case she said she still might be a little drunk from the night before, even if the memory slightly altered or impaired by something like sleep or being a little bit hungover. This is really important. I mean, the defense is basically

saying how important this is to them. They're not upset about her saying the guy was wearing all black. The guy was wearing a mask. I mean, she straight up said to the cops, I looked at his mugshot and I can't, I can't say that that's him. She couldn't do a composite sketch. She wasn't even comfortable doing a composite sketch after the homicides because all she remembered was the guy was in all black. He was wearing black boots. He had this weird ski mask on. She said it wasn't a circle ski mask. It was this other type of ski mask and the bushy eyebrow. That's what she remembered. I mean, so they're basically saying you're essentially, it's almost like she's going to be pointing at

our guy, but she's not. She's just saying he has a bushy eyebrow. So they're like sweating bullets about this. Yeah. The defense is really being aggressive. For example, they've claimed that this is some form of eyewitness identification. And if it were, there are two landmark U.S. Supreme Court cases that have to be applied to see whether that identification can come in. But what the state has said in its response is we're not saying she's making an eyewitness identification. When she looked at the photo, she couldn't identify him. What we're saying is that the jury, the finders of fact, ought to be able to listen to what this woman remembers. And then it's up to the jury to look over at the defendant, who I bet you has had some eyebrow work done since then, or look at the

selfie that he created hours after this crime occurred and allow the jury to decide whether or not he had bushy eyebrows. Because if he did, that is a relevant piece of evidence. And I want to talk about the selfie. I mean, the prosecution, they include the selfie with the thumbs up and the little grin. I mean, you can take that any number of ways. I mean, context is important. We don't know if Brian Selfie was an avid selfie taker. We don't know if he sent that to somebody. We don't know what else is in the phone. So I think it's important to point that out. But they're essentially

saying, look, this is from six hours after these homicides occurred. This is a picture of Brian Koberger. The jury can look at this, listen to DM. They can determine whether or not she's credible. The defense can cross-examine her. And then they can look at this photograph, this selfie. You know, bushy eyebrows is in the eye of the beholder. Yeah, I suppose somebody could say that this is evidence that shows that maybe he didn't commit the crime. Let the defense argue. Why would he's a Ph.D. criminal justice student. He's not dumb enough to take a selfie right after a crime. Let each side argue that evidence for whatever value it has. But the notion that the jury can't hear it, I think, is far fetched. Right. Let's move on now to the text messages and the big kerfuffle over that. The state wants to admit these text messages under two exceptions to the hearsay rule, excited utterance and present sense impression.

And they're saying basically, look, these roommates heard stuff. DM was scared out of her wits. She sees this guy in all black walking through the house. She's she's calling BF, BF or actually BF calls DM. They must have both heard something. They're going back and forth. It basically shows and confirms what she is telling police in her interview. And so these should be allowed in.

The defense is saying, well, look, no, it shouldn't. Because guess what? They're like going back and forth for hours and hours, and they're on Instagram, and they're on Yik Yak and Snapchat, and they're calling mom and dad, and they're doing all this stuff. And all these hours pass. And so this shouldn't be allowed in. Plus, the state didn't give a complete record in their original filing. Your thoughts?

The rule of completeness means that certainly if the defense wants to put in all the chats, that's fine. I don't think that's an issue. The judge can let that in. But normally we don't allow hearsay in, which is an out-of-court statement offered to prove its own truth, unless it fits an exception. All you need is one. And we've mentioned both the excited utterance and the present sense impression, either of which allows it to come in. So there was an exciting event. Something horrible has happened at our house and we're waking up to it. Things that people say after an exciting event are more trustworthy because we tend to exclaim things that are on our mind that are true. And even if that weren't the exception,

the present sense impression, what I'm feeling right now is something that's accepted as well. I think the judge allows both of those exceptions to apply and the text will come into evidence. Okay. Now onto the 911 call. I mean, how many cases have you watched, Mark? And then how many cases have you prosecuted where the first witness on the stand, because they move in chronological order, is the 911 dispatcher or records custodian and they play the 911 call. And the state wants this admitted and they're they're citing present sense, present sense impression as an exception to the hearsay rule and excited utterance. Defense says, no, no, no, no, no, no. This is not, this is not. It was eight hours later. You know,

the only thing that might be an excited utterance is the next door neighbor saying, you know, oh, blah, blah, blah. This is what they're saying. That might be an excited utterance. You know, I find it hard to believe that the judge would not let the 911 call in because it's literally what starts this whole investigation. Sure. Listen, we understand defense lawyers have a job to do. Their job is to try to block the state from its burden of proof. We understand that. So I don't quarrel with the defense counsel making these motions. I just think they're largely frivolous. Nearly every 911 call is going to fit into either the excited utterance exception or the present sense impression. Or let's remember, it's not hearsay if you're not offering it for the purpose of the truth

of the statement asserted. And so if some of the things said during that 911 call are not being entered into evidence to prove that this happened, there's numerous ways this call comes in. Good on the defense counsel for giving it the old college try to keep it out. The judge will let the 911 call in. All right, let's move on now to one of the biggest pieces of evidence in this case. I mean, it kind of just you don't even need the 911 call. Right. I mean, you don't you don't need it. It's just kind of there and it sets the stage for the, you know, the unfolding of the investigation. But the purchase of the K-Bar knife sheath and knife and sharpener, the prosecution says they have Amazon records from Brian Koberger. It was a shared family account, but that Brian Koberger in March of 2022 ordered a K-Bar knife sheath and a K-Bar knife and sharpener. And he ordered it. They didn't say whether they ever found it,

but they say that he ordered it. And then after the homicides, he was searching for the same item, a K-bar knife and sheath, and that his DNA was found on this like underside thing. You know, they didn't swab this part up here because they wanted to, you know, look at it for prints. But his DNA was found on, you know, these parts underneath. So they have this and this evidence, the defense does not want it coming in. They say it's unreliable. The judge is not going to not let it come in because they're going to say, he's going to say, you can cross examine the Amazon guy on this. You can cross examine. And they're going to have to explain though mark what in the heck was going on here i mean that's a huge piece of evidence they're going to have to say the def the defense has no burden but aren't they going to have to explain what happened to brian

coberger's k-bar knife you know more about criminal procedure than a lot of lawyers i know because you you just stated exactly correctly the defense has no burden to prove anything, of course. But the jury is going to look at them and go, you got an answer for me? Very few people buy large knives on Amazon. So that narrows the population down to some small fraction. And then there's several thousand kind of knives you can buy on Amazon. And this just happens to be the same kind of knife that killed these young people. And the fact that we have touch DNA on the sheath, this suggests to me that it's as close to a smoking gun as we have in this case, which is why, of course, the defense doesn't want it to come in. But the rules of evidence are there to allow competent evidence to be heard by the jury. This is competent, reliable evidence.

Of course, the judge is going to let it in. I've got to imagine the defense lawyers are trying to find some way to resolve this case because they know that the evidence is stacking up against them. But that typically means taking the death penalty off the table. And the death penalty cases I've worked on, when we had solid, reliable evidence, we didn't want to take it off the table. We wanted to go all the way to trial and have the jury decide. Really? So do you think from where the prosecution sits, I mean, what do you think the prosecution wants to take this all the way? And, I mean, it seems like the family of Kaylee Gonsalves wants this to go all the way.

They want the death penalty. They've made that very clear. We don't know how the other families feel. They've been pretty quiet about this. But I mean, do you think the state's not willing to take the death penalty off the table? Let's remember, in the mind of a local prosecutor, they have limited staff, limited budget, and they have crimes that have to be prosecuted. And so if you can get a good outcome by resolving a case, one that the victims don't hate, maybe they don't love it, they don't hate it, that's often a great way to go. Particularly, remember, under death penalty jurisprudence, not only do

you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt all the elements of the charges at the first stage of the trial, and then you have to prove that there are more aggravating circumstances than mitigating circumstances in the penalty phase of the trial. And at any point, a juror who goes sideways, one juror who goes sideways, stops the death penalty from being used. As a result, it's a difficult burden to meet. And that's why a prosecutor might say, you know what, all the money, all the time, all the witnesses, and one jury could put it sideways. Maybe we should put life without parole on the table and see if they'll take it. I'm not saying they're going to do it. I'm giving you the analysis that a prosecutor makes when he or she has to make that decision. Yeah. I've been kind of wondering about that a lot lately. And then of course,

you know, let's, Brian Koberger's maintaining he's innocent. I mean, he's through his attorneys and through the first lawyer he had in Pennsylvania. He would have to be willing to accept that. Oh, yeah. He has to plead guilty, not just because he wants it to be over with, but because he did it. And this guy is not dumb. They've got a motion saying he's autistic. You can't hold him accountable.

He's a Ph.D. student in criminal justice at Washington State University. He motion saying he's autistic. You can't hold him accountable. He's a PhD student in criminal justice at Washington State University. He knows what he's doing. Is he a little odd and quirky? I think so. That's not a crime. But he might be hard to get on the side of a resolution because in his mind, he's going to see this case disproved or he's going to see the prosecution fail to prove its case. And so there may be what we as lawyers call a client control problem where the lawyers

know which direction is going, but the client won't go there with you. And so the lawyers are back at it doing their best to try to keep things like a knife from coming into evidence. Well, I think that they've made clear in their motion that there are client control issues. But the prosecution has responded to the autism stuff. They say that his own experts say that he's level one, which is like the most high functioning form. And also, Mark, they say that he's articulate. He understands the proceedings.

So his own experts, according to the state, are basically saying no big whoop. That's the standard. Can you help your defense counsel prepare a defense? Do you know what's happening around you? Listen, nearly everybody who commits a serious felony has some mental health problem. Doesn't make them crazy. Doesn't mean we shouldn't hold them accountable. But well-adjusted, rational people typically do not commit felonies.

Sometimes it happens, crime of passion, that sort of thing. But most of the defendants who I've prosecuted over the years who had serious felonies, deep down, there's some adjustment issue or mental health problem. We're going to keep an eye on it. Mark Weaver, thank you so much. Thank you. And that's it for this episode of Crime Fix. I'm Anjanette Levy. Thanks so much for being with me. I'll see you back here next time.