Crime Stories with Nancy Grace - Mayhem in the Morgue: Cold Cases, Lover’s Lane Murder, and the Brown’s Chicken Massacre

Episode Date: May 17, 2026

In this episode of Mayhem in the Morgue, Chief Medical Examiner Dr. Kendall Crowns examines how forensic pathology, DNA evidence, and meticulous evidence preservation can revive years-long cold cases, specifically focusing on the 1990 Lover’s Lane murder and the 1993 Brown’s Chicken massacre. Dr. Crowns details the physiological realities of neck trauma and the four stages of hemorrhagic shock, and explains how tools like the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) allow investigators to match decades old DNA to identify potential suspects. The episode closes with Dr. Crowns sharing lessons learned from testifying in court and the importance of using precise language. Highlights (0:00) Welcome to Mayhem in the Morgue with Dr. Kendall Crowns (0:15) The Lover’s Lane murders, cold case questions, and Dr. Crowns’ follow-up to a recent Crime Stories with Nancy Grace discussion (1:15) Cheryl Henry and Andy Atkinson are reported missing before searchers discover their bodies in the woods (2:15) What incised wounds reveal about sharp force trauma to the neck (3:00) Why injuries to the carotid arteries and jugular veins can lead to hemorrhagic shock and rapid death (9:00) What Henry and Atkinson likely endured before losing consciousness (10:15) A 2026 tip, CODIS, and the DNA match that may move the Lover’s Lane case toward trial (12:00) How DNA and trace evidence are collected during autopsy and preserved for future testing (14:45) The Brown’s Chicken massacre and how discarded food evidence led to preserved DNA samples (21:30) Breakthrough in the case and the identification of the suspects (22:45) Why substitute medical examiners sometimes testify in older cases and the importance of using precise language in court (29:30) Smith v. Arizona, the confrontation clause, and legal changes affecting substitute testimony (31:15) Closing thoughts on how modern forensic science continues to solve cold cases About the Host:  Dr. Kendall Crowns is the Chief Medical Examiner for Travis County, Texas, and a nationally recognized forensic pathologist. He has led death investigations in Travis County, Fort Worth, Chicago, andKansas. Over his career, he has performed thousands of autopsies and testified in court hundreds of times as an expert witness. A frequent contributor to Crime Stories with Nancy Grace, Dr. Crowns brings sharp medical insight and dark humor to the often misunderstood realities of forensic pathology. About the Show Mayhem in the Morgue takes listeners inside the bloody, bizarre, and often unbelievable world of forensic pathology. Hosted by Chief Medical Examiner Dr. Kendall Crowns, each episode delivers real-life cases from the morgue, the crime scene, and the courtroom. Expect gallows humor, hard truths, and unforgettable investigations. Connect and Learn More Learn more about Dr. Kendall Crowns on Linkedin. Catch him regularly on Crime Stories with Nancy Grace and follow Mayhem in the Morgue where you get your podcasts. If you liked this episode, don’t keep it to yourself; follow the show, share it with a friend, and leave a review.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is an I-Heart podcast. Guaranteed human. Renno mishap? That's embarrassing. You know what's not embarrassing? Using FIG for Home Improvement Loan, a quick, simple, and transparent offer in minutes. Borrow Better with FIG. Visit fig.ca.

Today's episode includes the information about the death of individuals. If this sort of thing upsets you, this is not the episode for you. May I suggest you? watch a movie, maybe something like Night of the Living Dead. Welcome to Mayhem in the morning, with your host, Dr. Kendall Crowns. Today's episode, Cold Cases, Levers Lane murders, and the Browns Chicken Massacre. Once again, recently I was on the Nancy Grace show, and we discussed the Levers Lane murders from Houston, Texas, and there was a question that was brought up that I wanted to discuss a little more in depth. But first, let's go into the details of the Lovers Lane murders. On August 22nd,

1990, Cheryl Henry and Andy Atkinson were murdered in a remote wooded area off Enclave Parkway near Breyer Forest Drive in West Houston. They were parked in a cul-de-sac known as Enclave A, which was a wooded secluded area where people would go to be romantic, hence the name Lovers Lane. What happened next is unknown, but the next day a Cisco food security guard doing a routine patrol noticed Atkins' car sitting for hours abandoned in the cul-de-sac. He eventually checked the car, and he noticed Henry's purse on the passenger's side floorboard and the keys still in the ignition. He found her driver's license, called the family, and they told him she had been reported missing. Police were alerted and the search began. Search dogs found Henry's naked body, hidden under wooden boards in the woods.

Her hands were tied behind her back. She had been sexually assaulted and her throat was slashed. They expanded their search and found Atkins' body the next day, about 150 yards away, propped up in a seated position. His hands were tied behind his back and another rope was wrapped around him and the tree going up over his neck. He had a slash wound of his neck that extended all the way down to his spinal column. The cause of manner of death of both cases were determined by the Harris County Medical, Louisiana's office, as sharp force injuries of the neck and homicide.

Both of them were described as having their throat slashed or slit. What that means is they had large incised wounds across their neck. Incised wounds are created by sharp implements. The wound has a clean, smooth edge with no abrasion. and there's no evidence of soft tissue bridging, which you will see in blunt force injuries. The other key thing about an incised wound is it is longer than it is deep. The depth of Atkins' injury was described as being all the way to the spinal column. A wound of this nature along the neck will involve skin, subcutaneous tissue, and the strap muscles of the neck.

This, of course, would be painful, but survivable. The large muscle in the neck is the sternocletal mastoid muscle, and it lies on. on the front of the neck, extending to the sides, and partially overlies the main vascular structures, which are the internal jugular veins and internal carotid arteries. There's both a right and left version of these vessels. They lie next to each other, first starting out more towards the front of the neck, and then perceiving more laterally, book-ending the atom's apple. The internal jugular vein is between 0.2 to 2 millimeters underneath the skin, and the internal carotid artery is approximately 7.36 millimeters under the skin. Both vessels are very close to the skin's surface.

The carotid brings blood from the heart to the brain, and the jugulars bring the blood back from the brain to the heart. Injuries to these vessels are a medical emergency, and injury to just one of them can result in death from bleeding out, also known as exangination. Blood loss from a singular jugular vein incision can be between 400 to 600 millimeters or almost 12 to 20 ounces per minute, with complete bleeding out in under five minutes. If both jugulars are cut, bleeding out is even quicker. Blood loss from the carotid artery is between 500 and 700 milliliters or 17 and 24 ounces per minute. and bleeding out can occur in as little as three minutes, with once again one vessel being cut. And again, if both are cut, the time is even shorter.

Blood loss results in hypovalemic or hemorrhagic shock. On average, adult bodies contain 4.5 to 5.7 liters or 1.2 to 1.5 gallons of blood, and the heart pumps about 2,000 gallons or 7,500 liters of blood per day through the body. Hemorrhagic shock occurs in stages. The first stage, or stage one, occurs when there is less than 15% of the blood volume lost, which is around 700 to 750 milliliters of blood. Generally, at this stage, there are minimal symptoms. Heart rate may be slightly elevated, but blood pressure and respiratory rate are normal.

At stage 2, there is 15 to 30% of the total blood volume loss, which is between 750 and 1,500 milliliters of the total blood volume. Heart rate and breathing go up. Blood pressure begins to drop. The person begins to feel cold. The skin starts becoming pale and cool and clammy. Feelings of anxiety, restlessness, and mild confusion began. At stage three, there are significant clinical changes.

At this point, there is 30 to 40% of the total blood volume lost. which is between 1,500 and 2,000 milliliters. The blood pressure drops significantly. The heart compensates by beating even faster, getting over 120 beats per minute. Breathing becomes shallow. The individual is markedly confused, anxious, and has a feeling of impending doom.

Pulses are weak, and the extremities are cold. The final stage, or stage four, there is greater than 40% blood loss, which is greater than 2,000 milliliters. This is a critical, life-threatening condition. There is a profound drop in the blood pressure. The heart rate exceeds 140 beats per minute. The respiratory rate is elevated.

Skin is cold. The lips are pale and blue. The person experiences severe confusion and agitation, followed by tiredness, eventually coma, organ failure, and death. Any injuries to these vessels of the neck are considered a medical emergency. The next structure of importance in this area is the vagus nerve. It lies more towards the atoms apple or larynx and trachea, which will be discussed next. It's behind the internal jugular pain, an internal carotid artery, and is on top of the spinal cord.

It's a major nerve structure and is involved in the control of heart rate, blood pressure, respiration, and also plays a role in immune responses, mucus and saliva production, skin and muscle sensations, urine output, as well as speech, taste, and even your mood. When it's transected, it can cause rapid irregular heartbeat, hoarseness, difficulty swallowing, digestive issues such as bloating and constipation or diarrhea, and changes in blood pressure, as well as excessive sweating, anxiety, and depression. The center of the neck contains the other structures of importance, and these are the larynx or voice box, and the tracheer windpipe,

and behind them the esophagus. Deep to the esophagus is the spinal column. Let's start with the larynx. It's above the trachea. It's part of the upper respiratory tract, bringing air to the lungs. It's composed of framework of cartilages, including the thyroid cartilage,

which is also known as the atom's apple. This overlies the vocal cords, which are the main part of the larynx. There's also the chrychoid cartilage and the epiglottis, which is a flap that covers the larynx when you swallow food. The trache is,

immediately below the larynx, and it is a tube-shaped structure composed of C-shaped carolaginous rings. Its purpose is to conduct the air the rest of the way to the main stem bronchine that is attached to the lungs. The larynx is usually one centimeter under the skin surface, and the trachea is 1 to 2 centimeters from the skin surface. When an incised wound cuts through the larynx, if it goes through the thyroid cartilage, it will actually cut the vocal cords and stop the person from being able to speak or scream. When it goes through the trachea, it will create a new hole in which air passes through,

but often because of the hemorrhage associated with the wound. It will instead begin to fill up with blood, and if the person survives for any amount of time, they will begin to inhale blood and potentially could drown from it. On the Nancy Gray show, she asked me what Atkinson and Henry would have endured when they were murdered. I disgusted on her show, but I will go over it again,

here. They both would have experienced pain as the incised wound cut through the skin, subcunate's tissue, muscle, vascular, larynx, and trachea, they would have felt a sharp burning pain, followed by a rapid loss of blood. They both would have gone through the various stages of hemorrhagic shock, becoming cold, thirsty, confused, feeling their heart rate greatly speed up until they lost consciousness after less than a few minutes. Both were tied up, and Henry was also sexually assaulted before she was killed, and evidently Atkinson had potentially watched this happened. The part of what they experienced that can't truly be measured is the fear that they would have had going through this as each one of them was killed. Henry, dying first after being sexually

assaulted, would have experienced the fear, pain, and suffering of that, but Atkinson would have had this further compounded by having to watch what happened to Henry, and then know, what his fate would be. The thought of this is unimaginable, and it can never be known what they truly went through, other than it was extremely horrible. The Levers Lane case went unsolved for nearly 36 years until March of 26, when Houston police officers received a tip, naming an individual by the last name of Parrot. He had been involved in a previous sexual assault in 1996, and his DNA was obtained from the charge. But he was no billed by a grand jury, meaning they found insufficient evidence to charge him with a crime.

One of the things that Parrot would do in perpetrating his crimes was deposed as a police officer, which may have been what he had done during the murders of Atkinson and Henry, which would explain why he was so easily able to subdue them, both by tying them up. The DNA sample that was taken in 1996 was loaded into CODIS, which is short for combined DNA index system, which is maintained by the FBI, which is a national DNA database and software that stores, matches, and links DNA profiles from convicted offenders, arrestees, and crime scenes. It allows local, state, and federal crime labs to compare DNA profiles from suspects and connect them with cold cases. With the tip that the Houston police received, the DNA that was taken from the murder scene in 1993, as well as from the autopsy, was then compared with the DNA from this 1996 sexual assault case, and it was found to be a match.

So now that they have a potential suspect, the case can go to trial. And hopefully this cold case will come to a close. Reno mishap? That's embarrassing. You know what's not embarrassing? Using FIG for Home Improvement Loan, a quick, simple, and transparent offer in minutes. Borrow Better with FIG. Visit fig.ca. DNA is collected along with trace evidence at the time of autopsy when requested.

The procedures for doing this have changed little in the 26 years that I have been a medical examiner. Typically, a body is received in a sealed body bag, the seal is broken, and the body bag is opened. The body's photographed as is, and in the process for obtaining DNA and and trace evidence begins. Trace evidence can be hair fibers, papers, anything that's kind of stuck to the body that may be of evidentiary value. Head hair and pubic hair is combed and the combings are saved. Then the head and pubic hair is pulled from multiple sites, making sure to get a root structure.

Dene swabs, which aren't long, Q-tip-like swabs that are either used dry or coated with normal saline, are rubbed unsuspected areas of trauma, such as in strangulations and neck. They're also rubbed across the knuckles of the hands underneath the fingernails of the fingers and other areas of interest. Fingernails are also clipped and retained. Swabs are placed in the oral, anal, and vaginal cavities in an attempt to get further DNA evidence, particularly semen. With males, the shaft of the penis is also swabbed. Once all the DNA samples and trace evidence is obtained, they are packaged, sealed, and then turned over to law enforcement, who takes them to the crime lab that they're. work with. After all this is done, then the actual autopsy is performed. The DNA, once it reaches

the crime lab, if properly stored, can last for years, maybe even hundreds or thousands of years, which is helpful with cold cases. The use of DNA to solve cases is relatively a recent development. DNA profiling was first used to solve murders in 1987 when it was used to catch Colin Pitchfork, who had raped and murdered two teenage girls in the United Kingdom. It was also used in the United States to convict Tommy Lee Andrews in Florida who had burglarized and raped a woman at knife point. Since that time, DNA techniques have continued to improve. In the 90s, there was the advent of polymerase chain reaction, which is a process consisting of thermal cycling that creates millions and billions of copies of a minuscule amount of DNA, which allows labs to create a clear, readable, genetic profile from a sample.

that before this point would have been too small. Also in the 90s, the use of short tandem repeats was developed as well, and this offers an even higher level of discrimination. Recently, more advances such as massively parallel sequencing, which sequences millions of DNA or RNA fragments simultaneously, have been developed. With these advances, more and more cold cases are being solved all the time. In my career, I've experienced, one very famous cold case being solved, and that was the infamous Brown's Chicken Massacre that

occurred in Cook County. If you're not already familiar with it, let's go into the details a little bit more. To start with, Brown's Chicken is a fast food chain into the Chicago land area, specializing in fried chicken. It was opened in 1949 by its namesake, John and Belva Brown. And as their website states, Their fried chicken is a little different because it's made with buttermilk batter and fried in cottonseed oil, delivering a delicious golden crunch on the outside with a moist and flavorful inside. They also have other food options, as well as a number of tasty sides. I have eaten at one of their restaurants, a time or two while I lived in Chicago. The chicken was good, but I really enjoyed the fried okra and mushrooms.

The Brown's Chicken Massacre occurred on January 8th. 1993 in Palatine, Illinois, which is in the northwest suburbs of Chicago within Cook County. The day had been like any other day. There were seven employees at the restaurant that day. Lynn and Richard Ellenfeldt, who were the owners of this particular Browns, Guadalupe Maldonado, a recently hired cook, Thomas Meninas, a chicken breader, Marcus Nellis, who was a manager in training, and part-time high school students, Michael Castro, Enrico Solis, who worked the cash register. It was getting late in the evening.

They were beginning to start the process of closing, taking out the trash and cleaning up when two individuals walked in and ordered a four-piece chicken dinner. The meal consisted of four pieces of their signature buttermilk batter-fried chicken with a mix of breast, thighs, legs, and a wing, served with two regular sides, fries and coleslaw, and of course a fresh buttermilk biscuit. It was purchased at 908 p.m. and cost $6.69.

It was the last meal purchased that night. Through two individuals who bought it were James Degorsky and Juan Luna. They sat down and Luna ate some of the chicken. After a short period of time, Luna wiped his greasy hands on one of the napkins. Then both he and Degorski put on latex gallows underneath the booths they were sitting in. Then they both got up, and Degorski said to Luna, let's do it. They threw the remainder of the meal into one of the trash cans, walked to the front counter where the cash registers were,

and Degorski announced that they were robbing the restaurant and began rounding up employees. They had a hunting knife with them and a 38-caliber revolver, and they weren't there just to rob the store. Luna had told Degorski he wanted to see what it felt like to kill someone. Luna first approached Rico Solis, who was mopping the floor and told him to go to the back of the restaurant. Degorsky then fired a shot and told everyone to get on the floor. Tom Meninas at that point tried to jump over the counter trying to escape, and Degorski shot him in the back, and then dragged him into one of the freezers.

Degorski then said to another person to get up and more shots were fired. At this point, Richard Ellenfeld had also been killed. Degorsky dragged his body into the same cooler as Menendez. Luna was on the opposite side of the restaurant on the east end, watching over four of the other workers, including Ellenfeld's wife, Lynn. They were all facing downward on the floor near the walking cooler. At some point, Degorski walked over and ordered three of the people into the freezer. Marcus Nielsen at that moment ran for the rear door behind Luna,

but Luna pushed him back and then hit him in the head. Nielsen, who was at this point drowsy and wobbly, was then put in the freezer. Deskorski evidently handed Luna the knife and told him to take Lynn Ellenfeldt to go open the safe. Luna stated she was very scared, hands trembling, as they walked to the room with a safe in it. When they got there, she stuck the key in the safe and opened it. He said to her, turned around, and then he cut her throat. He stated the reason he did this was he just got caught up in the moment. He stated she lay there on the floor gargling and then ran out of breath.

At that point, Degorski came over and dragged her into the East freezer and herded the remaining employees in it. He handed Luna the revolver and told him to fire a warning shot into the freezer, which he did. Luna said that the remaining employees were all yelling, Don't shoot us, please don't shoot us. They mopped up the blood on the floor and then Degorsky returned to the freezer, opened the door and began firing multiple shots at the individuals still alive in it. He even reloaded the gun and continued shooting.

After it was all done, he went into the freezer and kicked the bodies to make sure they were dead and possibly stabbed one in the stomach. Degorski and Luna then shut off the circuit breakers, causing the lights to go out, shut the doors, and left. They then met up with Degorski's girlfriend at the time, Anne Lockett, and told her what they had done. They told her to keep her mouth shut. When the murdered individuals did not come home that evening from their job, families became worried.

Eventually, police checked out the Brown's Chicken and made a horrible discovery. They found the bodies of all the individuals who had been shot and stabbed in the Brown's chicken. Shortly after this, the crime scene processing began. While examining the scene, one of the investigators saw the register receipt on one of the cash registers showed the last meal purchased at 908. She also noticed that although the garbage receptacle on the west side of the dining room had a relatively fresh bag in it, it contained a cardboard box with four pieces of chickens, scattered french fries, biscuits, coleslaw, and paper products, including four used napkins. She also noted some of the chicken pieces had been partially consumed.

She and her colleagues removed the plastic bag, set it on the floor, so they could compare the cashier to serve a seat with the general comment. contents of the garbage bag to see if it appeared to be consistent. After going through it, they determined that the contents of the trash bag and the receipt were in good alignment. They separated the food items and the paper items and sealed them in paper bags and transported them to the laboratory. They were able to get fingerprints from the four napkins found in the bag, but none of the fingerprints matched a known individual. The paper napkins and the chicken bones in the garbage bag were then taken into an evidence room, and that's where they stayed. A few times over the

years, they attempted to get DNA samples from one of the chicken bones, but the amount of DNA potentially present was too small for the type of testing needed. In 1998, tests were done on the saliva of the partially eaten chicken bone, and they were able to get a DNA profile, but there was no successful match, and that's where the case went cold. Four years later, though, on March 25, In 2002, Lockett allegedly revealed to another high school friend the facts that Dikorski, her now ex-boyfriend, had told her. Lockett even provided key teetails that no one outside the investigation knew, which one of them being that one of the workers had vomited French fries.

Her friend encouraged her to come forward and tell police what she knew, and Lockett did do this. The police arrested Degorsky and Luna, and they obtained DNA samples of their saliva. This was matched to what was recovered from the chicken bone. The perpetrators of this massacre had finally been caught. A little too relaxed during yoga? That's embarrassing.

You know what's not? Debt. Consolidate your debt with a loan from FIG. No early repayment fees and low interest rates so you can pay off your debt faster. Borrow better with FIG. Visit fig.ca. When the trial started, it had been nine years since the incident occurred and some of the investigators, police officers, crime scene technicians, had been promoted or left the area, and most notably, Dr. Stein, the first chief medical examiner of Cook County,

who had performed some of the autopsies from the massacre, had not just retired, but he had also died. It's not an uncommon occurrence when a medical examiner dies or moves away that another medical examiner from the office will be used to testify in their place to the autopsy findings. In fact, that is how I got started in testifying at trials. In my first year of fellowship, I testified in several cases for doctors that had either left the Cook County Medical Examiner's office or had died. I was the newest member of the staff, so it was always my job to take over the old cases, and I did this a lot. One of the main reasons for this was right after I arrived at the office,

the county had offered a buyout to all the employees where individuals could pay a sum of money and retire early, to which a number of doctors opted for this. And because of this, we were short-staffed, so I was always testifying. In the entire nine years I worked there, there was only nine months where we actually were full-staffed. So I was always very busy. And like I said, since I was the newest attending, I was often assigned one of these cases. To get experienced testifying. It was, in a sense, a trial by fire. My training consisted of accompanying one of the senior doctors to court, and in about a month later, I started testifying on this case. I started out with simple gunshot wounds, at first, progressing to more complicated cases later on. It was an excellent experience, and I quickly learned what was important when testifying and what not to say. As an example, I learned terms like mild, moderate, severe, or massive were not good. to use. I was testifying on a case in which the doctor stated in the report there was a massive hemothorax, meaning there was a lot of blood in the chest cavity. At trial, the lawyer said,

Doctor, how much is massive? When asked this, I had no idea. Before I could say anything, the lawyer then said, well, what is it? Is it 10 milliliters, 20, 50, 100? What is it? What is massive? He had me there. I had no idea. What mass? He had me there. I had no idea. What was, and I stated I did not know what the previous doctor perceived as massive. The defense attorney then said, can you tell the members of the jury what the medical literature defines as massive? I again said I was unaware of a definition in the medical literature. He then said, so you just don't know, do you? To which the defense attorney objected and told the judge, asked and answered, the judge agreed, and told the defense

attorney to move on. After that trial, I made sure on my cases that I always quantified the amount of blood, or fluid, or whatever that I found in the body, and I never used mild, moderate, severe, or massive, because there is just no definitions of what these terms mean. One of the other memorable vocabulary word moments while testifying was during a murder trial. It was at least my own case this time. It was a woman who was arguing with her boyfriend about her heroin addiction. It started out as a verbal altercation that escalated into a physical fight and eventually ended with her, force onto her knees, looking into the barrel of her boyfriend's 357 magnum.

He had the last word in the argument by pulling the trigger of the gun, shooting her in the forehead, at a near contact range. At the trial, the defense attorney made an argument that she was an out-of-control drug, addict and her death was not a premeditated murder, but a crime of passion from a partner who was tired of the never-ending abuse. He went on to state that even on the day she died, she was probably high, and that is where I came in. After being questioned about her execution, Sile Gunshot Wooned by the prosecution, the defense attorney glossed over this and went straight to the toxicology findings. He had made a mistake, thinking her toxicology showed she was high on her.

multiple drugs. What he didn't understand was he had read the reference ranges, thinking that she was very high on drugs, but instead her toxicology was completely negative. When I pointed this out, the defense attorney spun around facing the jury and said, well, doctor, how do you know that the toxicology lab didn't make a big mistake? And there was actually drugs in her system. I answered this with, I have faith that the toxicology lab did their job correctly. The defense attorney jumped on the word faith, like a cornered, injured animal, and reacted violently. He did a ballerina like spin. He spun so fast his light blue suit jacket fluttered off from his back. He faced the jury, raised one fist high in the air, and then said, faith. He has faith. No scientific fact, but faith.

I ask you, do we convict someone on faith? I saw this as an opening to respond and said, I'm sorry, it's not faith, but instead I know the toxicology lab did not make a mistake because they're an accredited lab, and to my knowledge had not made a mistake on any of my cases. And even if they had, it wouldn't have changed the fact that the decedent had been forced onto her knees

and then shot in the forehead, as she was facing her boyfriend. The lawyer said to the judge, I was being argumentative. The judge cautioned me and told me to only answer the questions asked. The defense attorney turned, faced me, and said, Nothing further, Your Honor. The district attorney did a quick redirect saying that the toxicology was negative, correct, doctor? To which I responded, yes.

He then said he had no further questions. The defense was asked if they had any further questions, to which they responded no, and I was told I was allowed to leave. The faith incident took a half an hour to resolve on the stand, and needless to say, I have never said I have faith again at trial. This practice of supplying a substitute medical examiner has been how it's worked almost my entire career, and it was only until recently that this practice came under fire. With a case known as Smith v. Arizona, it is a Supreme Court case. about the fairness in criminal trials focusing on the Sixth Amendment's confrontation clause.

The Sixth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution guarantees essential rights to individuals facing criminal persecution, ensuring a fairer, speedy, and public trial by an impartial jury. There are a number of key rights guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment, which includes the Confrontation Clause. This clause guarantees the right to confront and cross-examine the witness test of against them. Smith v. Arizona decided the confrontational clause is a legal right, and when someone is accused of a crime, they should have the chance to see and talk to the witnesses who are against them, which means they can ask questions and make sure the witnesses are honest. The right helps to make sure that evidence against the accused is fair and can be trusted. So what could be done if the original

medical examiner was not available, and the answer is, a substitute medical examiner can be used, but they have to, at minimum, independently review the original data and records and form their own independent conclusions, and not just regurgitate the information from the original report and the original medical examiner. If the original data and notes that were generated are determined to be non-testimonial, meaning they were not created specifically for trial, then a substitute expert can likely rely on them when testifying. Also, the substitute expert cannot testify that the absent medical examiner accurately performed the autopsy or that their findings were correct. Instead, they can render an opinion as to if they feel the autopsy was done

correctly and was useful in coming to their conclusions. In closing, these cold cases are finally being solved and prosecuted. And currently, it doesn't matter if the original medical examiner is available because someone can still testify for them, which finally provides the families of the victims, the closure that they rightfully deserve. And that brings us to the end of the episode. I hope you learned something, and I hope you are entertained. Until the next time. This is an I-Heart podcast. Guaranteed human.