Law&Crime Sidebar - ‘It Was Hard for Me’: Judge in Parkland School Shooter Trial Tells All

Episode Date: January 29, 2024

Judge Elizabeth Scherer was selected at random to oversee the criminal trial and eventual penalty phase for the Parkland, Florida school shooter who killed 17 people and injured 17 more. Now that she’s left the bench for private practice, Law&Crime’s Jesse Weber had a chance to sit down with Scherer and talk about the huge case and its controversies.PLEASE SUPPORT THE SHOW:Stop data brokers from exposing your information. Go to https://aura.com/lawandcrime to get a 14-day free trial and see if your personal information has been compromised.HOST:Jesse Weber: https://twitter.com/jessecordweberLAW&CRIME SIDEBAR PRODUCTION:YouTube Management - Bobby SzokePodcasting - Sam GoldbergVideo Editing - Michael DeiningerScript Writing & Producing - Savannah WilliamsonGuest Booking - Alyssa Fisher & Diane KayeSocial Media Management - Vanessa BeinSTAY 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 Wondry Plus in the Wondery app Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Agent Nate Russo returns in Oracle 3, Murder at the Grandview, the latest installment of the gripping Audible Original series. When a reunion at an abandoned island hotel turns deadly, Russo must untangle accident from murder. But beware, something sinister lurks in the grand. View Shadows. Joshua Jackson delivers a bone-chilling performance in this supernatural thriller

that will keep you on the edge of your seat. Don't let your fears take hold of you as you dive into this addictive series. Love thrillers with a paranormal twist? The entire Oracle trilogy is available on Audible. Listen now on Audible. You need to sit down right now. You're out of line. In fact, you're excused. You need to go sit in the back with your chief public defender. Mr. Weeks, please ask the lawyer from your office to go sit down and not to say anything else. To try to threaten my children and bring up my children is inappropriate. Go to the back of the room now. She's the judge who made headlines during the trial of the Parkland School shooter.

Now that she's left the bench for private practice, we have a chance to sit down with Elizabeth Scher and talk about this year. huge case and its controversies. Welcome to Sidebar, presented by Law and Crime. I'm Jesse Weber. Back on February 14, 2018, a shooter opened fire on students and teachers inside of his former school, Marjorie Stomond, Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. He killed 17 people. He injured 17 others, and he was eventually arrested, and a grand jury indicted him on

34 charges. Broward County Judge Elizabeth Scher was randomly assigned to this historic case, but on October 20th, 2021, the defendant pleaded guilty to all of the charges, murder, attempted murder, and because of the plea, the trial jumped directly to the penalty phase, where a jury would decide if the shooter would get life in prison or the death penalty, what would be the punishment? And that phase started on July 18th, 2022. During the trial, everyone in court and everyone watching live at home heard and saw this evidence against the shooter that included Google searches, drawings, testimony. Speaking of that testimony, this was incredibly emotional hearing the disturbing accounts from those who were inside the school that very day. A student made sure the door was shut. We shut the lights off. My students went into corners.

I had some with me behind my desk. Do you know how many shots were fired into your one? A lot. And I just remember feeling a sensation on the back of my head, like a hot sensation. And I just realized I was in danger. So I reacted as quick as possible and tried to just get somewhere in cover.

Now the shooter's defense team, They presented evidence of mental health issues and a troubled childhood as reasons, as mitigating reasons that he shouldn't get the death penalty. But as the death penalty phase wore on, so did everyone's patience. Don't talk to each other back and forth. It's unprofessional. This is not happening. Mr. Jopony, if you were talking, that goes to you, too. Do not talk directly to the state.

State, do not engage. This is getting out of hand. It got out of hand yesterday, and it's not happening again today. If you all want to speak, you speak through the court. Everyone knows that. That goes to both sides. Well, after weeks of back and forth, the jury eventually got the case. Now, at the time, Florida law required that the decision in favor of the death penalty had to be unanimous among the jury members.

The law has since changed, but at the time, it needed to be unanimous. And the jury was not unanimous. No, the jury foreman later saying that it was a vote of nine to three in. favor of death, and therefore they recommended life in prison without the possibility of parole. Many of the families of victims were understandably outraged at the jury's decision, but that wasn't the only controversy. No, in June of 2023, a state board criticized Judge Scherer for some of her behavior

during trial. The Judicial Qualifications Commission is an independent state agency made up of judges, lawyers, and citizens, and a report from its 15 members found that Judge Scherer engaged in judicial misconduct. The commission said that Chair unduly chastised lead public defender Melissa McNeil and her defense team. The report said, quote, in limited instances during this unique and lengthy case,

Judge Scherer allowed her emotions to overcome her judgment. Here's an example during victim impact statements when the defense team expressed their frustration over personal attacks by the victim's parents. When these people are upset about specific things that have gone on from that table, like shooting the middle finger up at this court and laughing and joking, Ms. McNeil, be quiet.

When these people have sat in this courtroom and watched this behavior from that table and they want to say that they're not happy about it, what is the problem? Judge, I have no problem because I have big skin. But once you bring in my children, I think that's highly improper. I didn't even know you have children.

I don't know what you're talking about. Your children, what about your children? What about your children? But then the comment on my children is highly improper. Before the sportful lab, that kind of testing. Okay. There was, I don't remember any comments about any children. And if there was, it obviously didn't, it came and went without me noticing it.

Church, I can assure you that if they were talking about your children, you would definitely notice it. You need to sit down right now. You're out of line. In fact, you're excused. You need to go sit in the back with your chief public defender. Mr. Weeks, please ask the lawyer from your office to go sit down and not to say anything else. To try to threaten my children and bring up my children is inappropriate. Go to the back of the room now.

That just violated about every rule of professional receipts. responsibility that I have ever, I have never, if you're going to get up here and you're going to... Judge, I asked you to go sidebar on this matter. You, sidebar or not, you don't have one of your assistant public defenders say something about my children? Judge, that same venom that the court is expressing is the same venom that defense counsel had to sit through this entire morning when their children will gain the reference. She brought up her children multiple times during the trial. Nobody knows if I'm barren or not. They don't know about my children.

Sit down. Sit down. Judge. Sit down, Mr. Weeks. Please do not summarily dismissing. I'm summarily dismissing you. Go sit down. I'm asking the court. I ask the court to go sidebar.

Go sit down. You don't threaten the court's children. Your assistant just did that. Go sit down. No one in this courtroom had to endure what we have to endure. Go sit down. Now, by the time the commission released its report, Judge Scherer had already announced that she would step down from the bench at the end of June. Sherer is now working at a Fort Lauderdale law firm that her father started almost 50 years ago.

It's called Conrad and Sherer Law Firm. It can be found at Conradsharer.com. And retired Judge Elizabeth Scher joins us now. Judge, thank you so much for coming on here on Sidebar. It's a pleasure to get a chance to meet with you and talk about this case. Thank you for having me. I appreciate it. Now, to be very clear, let's be honest.

I know you're coming back from a cold. So is everybody. Everybody's not feeling great. Just want to let everybody know if you, you know, voice is a little off that's completely fine i've i've been there relatively recently too so but thanks for coming on especially when you're not feeling well um so i've wanted to talk to you for a while um this case uh when you were selected to oversee this case what were you feeling because you knew how high profile and how big it was going to be you know what um i felt ready i i knew that i was the

judge for this case i had a lot of experience a lot of people don't know this, but I was a prosecutor for over 10 years, 11 years, and I tried a lot of cases. And so I felt like, here we go. I can do this. Yeah. And you played it so cool in common collective when you had it. I was, I always think that, like, whenever we're covering like the Alec Murdoch trial, we're covering the Johnny Depp trial, I think about the judge a lot. And I'm like, think about all the attention that's on these people who are going to be presiding over this monumental case. And when it was handed over to you, was there any kind of prep that you did. I mean, you talked about your career as a career criminal prosecutor.

Obviously, it's great experience, but did you do any kind of prep for this case? Sure. So Florida, I think, is one of the few states remaining that has the death penalty or that it doesn't have some type of moratorium on the death penalty. But as you can imagine, even though I had tried capital cases, I had not tried a, and I had not presided over a death penalty case because they're few and far between. So I met with some of my colleagues that have actually tried death penalty cases that were assigned to the civil divisions at the time, but had previously tried death penalty cases and, you know, read every case I could get my hands on. I have binders and binders, hundreds of cases. I read everything that I could find

to prepare. How is that different residing over that kind of case than another one? So in reality, it's the same as trying any other case. You know, the evidence, the rules of evidence, the procedure is the same. The difference is it's more highly scrutinized, so you have to be really on your A game, bring your A game when it comes to knowing the law and being quick to be able to, you know, answer legal questions that come up or issues between the attorneys. You know, because you can't say, well, I need a minute. minute, although, of course, you can say that, and I did say that from time to time, you know, I'm going to, I think my words were, I'm going to take this under advisement, my favorite, famous words, so that I could think about it and put something a thoughtful, um, ruling in writing and make sure that it, it would, um, be very clear as to what my findings were, but, uh, the, the biggest difference is just knowing that, that those cases are more highly scrutinized on appeal.

the event that the defendant is sentenced to death, which, of course, in my case, he was not. And I'm not going to lie to you. I've covered a number of different cases, death penalty cases, all different kinds of murders. This case for me watching it was not only a very long trial or phase, but it was one of the most emotionally gripping cases. It was hard. For me, there was times I got emotional listening to this. And it was really, really tough. And I think it was tough for our viewers. being a part of this day in and day out what impact did that have on you um it's draining because you know the judge is the only person in the courtroom that can't cry in fact i don't think there was a dry eye in the courtroom deputies even the even the big you know strong

manly tough deputies that were that were covering the case for me and many times i would look up and see tears rolling down their cheeks and uh And, you know, those guys are pretty tough. They're made of Teflon, most of them. But there wasn't a dry eye in there. And, of course, the judge has to maintain composure because I think if the judge lets it let's loose, then it's going to be not good for anyone. So it was hard.

I had to, I had to listen, but keep some distance between myself and the words that were actually coming out of the witnesses' mouths and the pictures. You sort of have to put up a plexiglass, if you will, and listen and hear and understand, but keep that barrier, somewhat of a barrier so that you don't lose it. Was there one day or one piece of evidence that really stood out to you and that maybe stays with you to this day that you think about? There were two things that I actually had to take up recess because I was I was unable to. to, I felt that I was going to be unable to heat my composure. There was a day during the victim impact statements. When Luke Hoyer's parents were talking and they just, it was all heartbreaking, but when they got up, it broke my heart. I couldn't. And I have to tell you,

it was like that for everyone in the courtroom. There was something about Tom Hoyer's testimony that was absolutely heartbreaking. It was like you could hear your, your own words coming out of his mouth, if that makes sense. That day was really, really hard. And the other day was when they played the, I'm sorry, the, the audio that a child had had taken a cell phone audio and you could hear the kids screaming and the gunfire and you could you could just put yourself right there and imagine what it would be like to hear that kind of terror and that that was that gave me goosebumps it was it was gut wrenching hey i just want to take a quick sidebar from sidebar to really thank our sponsor of this video aura now this may shock you i know i didn't know this but

your personal information can be collected by data brokers and sold, and that is completely legal in the United States. Yeah, I'm talking about your full name, your email, your home address, what type of car you drive, your relatives. It's all out there. I'm going to give you an example. Look at what happens when I type in Jesse Weber. Yeah, that is a lot of stuff, and I have absolutely no idea who's using it now. But that is where ORA comes in. You see, ORA shows you which data brokers are selling information and automatically submits opt-out request for you. Cleaning this information up not only helps reduce the amount of spam that someone gets, but it protects from hackers who could use this information to help them access social media

accounts, bank accounts, other sensitive information, or it also does so much more to protect you and your family from online threats that you just can't see. And it's really easy to set up. You don't have to download several different apps to get things like parental controls, antivirus VPN, password management, identity theft insurance, and more. I value my privacy. I value yours so you can go to ora.com slash law and crime to start your two week free trial that is also linked below in the

description. You know, one of the things that I stood out to me and it wasn't even something that we saw was the fact that the jury went on that site visit and they went to the school. And I can only imagine what that was like to the experience that. Any kind of

view you can give us on what that experience was like for those jurors. I mean, it's just to let everybody know they visited the actual school that was sealed off on that day. So, you know, all the book bags were there. All the blood states were there. All the Valentine's Day cards were there. It was literally frozen in time.

What did you make of that? You know what? The jurors were very professional and diligent. They, you know, were observing everything that they could take in. You could tell they were they were concentrating. They were really trying to just take it all in. and pay attention to the details. And there wasn't a lot of,

there was no emotional outbreaks or anything like that. It was just very, very professional and very dutiful, if you will. They did their job as far as looking at everything and taking everything very seriously. And of course, I'm not sure if you know this, but they're not allowed to ask questions or interact with the court or the lawyers during the walkthrough.

So, so we just all sort of stood by and observed them, but it was very, it was very serious and, um, and strategic. We walked floor by floor and they just observed everything very quietly. Some of them took notes. Some of them didn't. What did you think of it? It was hard. The hardest part was that it was frozen in time. You could see that nothing had been changed.

The classrooms were still, in other words, if a student knocked over a desk, the desk was still knocked over in its exact place. The whiteboards with the writing on the walls and the Valentine's Day celebratory messages and things of that nature were still up. It was like going back in time to the day and then being able to picture what happened. Yeah, I go back and I think about that evidence a lot. And look, one of the other things that I think I look upon a lot, and I know our viewers focus on upon a lot, was the shooter. And the shooter's demeanor in that courtroom. What did you make of the way he was behaving in your courtroom?

He did everything his lawyers told him to. He was very diligent in listening to their advice. So whatever you observed was at the, not that I didn't hear, but I can only assume was that the advice of his attorneys. He sat quietly and listened to them very intently. There was clearly a lot of tension between you and the defense counsel. What was that about when you look back on it? I think that the defense attorneys were in over their head.

They were inexperienced. And so there was only one of them out of, I don't know, five or six that was qualified. uh to try death penalty case um which is very unusual that particular office in the past has had at least five to ten attorneys but under their current leadership they had many attorneys quit and so they only had one remaining that was actually even allowed by the florida supreme court to try a death penalty case and i think she was overwhelmed and again not experienced in this type of things so they just pulled every type of antics that they possibly could think of. And ultimately, I'm sure in their opinion, it worked because the defendant was not sentenced to the death

penalty. And I want to talk about that. Before we do, were you at all concerned about how this interaction you had with the defense would be perceived? Did you get any comments from people afterwards because it was being live streamed? I mean, when I really had to, there were times when I felt for the to preserve the integrity of the trial and of the court, I had to get on them and say, enough, cut it out. You know, when, when lawyers act like children, the judge has to act like a parent and tell him, cut it out because it wasn't fair to the people that were involved and the victim's family members that were sitting there watching them day after day. I mean, one of their attorneys was literally brushing her hair during the middle of, in the middle

of the trial. They were on their phones. They were giggling. They were, you know, talking talking. They were they were using their printer. Whenever the state was questioning their witnesses, they were, they were almost like, have you ever seen that that whack-a-mole game at a, at a carnival? It was like every time I looked over there, and normally as a judge, I look over and I give a look and that's it. Lawyers see it and they go, uh-oh, we need to cut it out. Well, a look didn't work with them. I had to give him a look and then another look and then tell them, be quiet. Stop doing that. And I finally had to say, okay, listen, this is what we're going to do.

The things that normally you would assume that lawyers know and that lawyers will abide by the rules of professional responsibility, I had to lay it out. There's no talking. There's no laughing. There's no passing notes unless you absolutely have to because they would do it in such a way that it was extremely distracting to the rest of the court. And again, the victim's family members were maybe 20 feet away, 25 feet away, watching all of it. this. They had a better view than I did. And at times, it was, it was embarrassing because it wasn't fair. It wasn't their day in court. It was the victim's day in court and the defendant's day in court. But they were making it about them. And I felt that that needed to be stopped. I appreciate you saying that because, and adding context to that, because a lot of people might not have understood why it blew up the way that it did. And to add kind of what we maybe didn't see or hear,

I appreciate you said that because you look back on one of the most tense days was that the blowup regarding the victim impact statements and what the defense counsel said. Do you look back on that and say you regret any part of how that was handled or you wish you said something differently or do you stand by this you were totally justified in your response to the defense counsel? Looking back and looking over the transcript, yes, I do see there were times where the victims should have been stopped by me and sort of redirected. There was one particular victim who had a strong accent, and she was using the word defender, where she meant defendant. And so when you read the transcript, you go, oh, that's why everybody thought she was saying defendant,

excuse me, defender, meaning public defender, but she was talking about the defendant. And those types of things don't connect until you go back and you either listen to it very carefully, you know, very slowly and or read the transcript. So things that I was receiving. In other words, I knew the context she was saying defendant, excuse me, defender meaning defendant where everyone else thought he was, she was talking about the public defender or defender of the shooter. So yes, there were times where I should. should have redirected the victims, you know, in hindsight, but at the time, it was very emotional and I was trying to let them have their day in court. And I want you to take the time to clear up any misconception that people might have regarding your decision to leave the bench and how this unfolded, because I understand that there might be a misunderstanding about this. Yes. So I told the chief judge, first of all, I was appointed when I was

35 or 36. I never intended for this to be a lifetime appointment. It's not like on the federal bench where it is a lifetime appointment. You run every six years, and I had served two, or I think I was into my third, second term, wait a minute, second or third term. Because the first term, you don't wait six years.

You run when that position is open. In other words, whenever that seat was going to be open, when you take it, you have to stand for the first election. So my first term was only like 18 months. So I believe I was in the middle of my third term. And I had told the Chief Judge Jack Tudor, who by the way was very supportive and wonderful and throughout this whole process.

And I had told him, Judge, I will serve until this trial was finished until it's completed. But, and I won't leave early because I know, I knew that the continuity was very important. But I told him when the trial is over, either, you know, immediately or very, shortly thereafter, I'm going to retire and I'm going to move on and do something else. So that plan was in place for years, nothing specific.

Then I put in my notice with the Chief Judge and the governor pretty much at the exact same time that I was served with the paperwork saying that there was a professional complaint, a conduct complaint filed against me regarding the Cruz trial. So the two events were separate and not related to one another. I was not required to resign. In fact, even in the findings of the Judicial Qualification Commission, they wrote that my resignation had nothing to do with the proceeding or the complaint that was filed or pending. So in other words, your plan was always to step down off the bench, regardless of what

happened in that courtroom. Yes, yes. Although they probably made it a little bit easier to take the next step by the way that that trial unfolded. I mean, it certainly didn't leave a good taste in my mouth about the judicial system. But, you know, like those, that situation was very unique. And like I said, does not that that's not, I don't want anyone to think that that's typical behavior of how lawyers act in my circuit because it isn't. it's something that most people have absolutely never seen before and the judges the judiciary was horrified by as a whole by the way that that those lawyers particular lawyers behaved talking about what happened in that courtroom though so we know that nicholas cruz the jury recommended um for the shooter they recommended uh life in prison um i imagine though no matter what they came back with it wouldn't have been easy for you to to come forward with a sentence if you could talk about what it was like for you to sentence somebody to life in prison in this kind of case.

What was that like for you? Well, the verdict form, first of all, there was 17 victims. And so the verdict forms were four or five pages, single space pages for each individual victim. And so as a judge, the first thing you do is you have to look through the verdict forms. And that took me a while because, of course, the jury could find life on one particular victim, perhaps finding that the state didn't meet its burden of heinous, atrocious, and cruel. And, for example, the very last victim, number 17, was a young man named Peter Wang. And he was, let's just say, out of all the victims, he probably got the worst or close to the most physical damage.

I don't know how to put it I don't I don't want to No I understand I understand It just it was so as I'm going through these verdict forms Even you know you go one and then two and then three And I know that number 17 is Peter Wang So I really didn't know that the verdict was life across the board Until I got to the 17th one and I saw

They had found life for number seven one through 17 Just reading that I wasn't surprised As soon as I saw the first victim that they found life in prison, I assumed it was going to be that for, I didn't, that's so interesting that you thought there was a possibility that they would come back for the death penalty with respect to one victim. I thought whatever decision they have for one, it would be for all of them. Well, in my experience, even though I've not tried a death penalty case, okay, I tried a lot of cases that had 10, 20 life penalties, so they have those

interrogatory verdict forms where if you find A, you go to B. If you find B, you go to C. and there are pages and pages and pages. And I've had many, dozens, as a lawyer and a judge, where one victim they find not guilty, and then the next victim they find guilty is charged. Yes, did he discharge a firearm? Yes, did he inflict great bodily harm? And then you go to the next one and guilty is charged.

However, no, there wasn't great bodily harm. So I've had verdicts for sure, especially if the jurors are very diligent and very, you know, methodical in going through each count. There's definitely cases where a jury finds that the state met its burden as to one victim but not as to another. Maybe I was naive in this case to think that, but, you know, I hoped that they did their job and that they looked at each each victim separately. Were you surprised? Yes, I was. I was very surprised. To me, the state met its burden and then some. I mean, it's whether the aggravators outweigh the mitigators and the

aggravating circumstances, I mean, planning and methodically carrying out this gruesome killing and then writing a manifesto in the jail about to the next school shooter and what that person should do and how much it would cost and the supplies that they needed. I mean, there was so much premeditation and and and and the details were just just horrific horrific did you do you happen to know any idea why they came back with that decision i i don't know i mean it's not and again it's i'm not finding fault with the jury's verdict because it was their verdict they were sworn uh they took an oath and that was their their decision to make um you know And ultimately, even if the juror in Florida, even if they find that the prosecution has met its burden of proof and that the aggravators outweigh the mitigators, the jury can still find.

However, we want to find in favor of life. And that's okay. They're allowed to do that. And we tell them that. And that's part of the instruction. So in this case, they decided that they wanted to spare his life. And when you sentenced him, going back to that, what was that like? And I think what I've also always wanted to ask you is if the jury had come back with the death penalty,

what would that have been like for you to officially sentence somebody to death? I mean, were you mentally prepared to do that? I mean, you sentenced him to life in prison. So if you can walk us through that, too. Sure. I mean, as a judge, you have to follow the law. So even if you don't like it, and I'm not saying I don't want to. like the law. I like it or I don't like it. It doesn't really matter because you have to follow the law. And in this case, I do feel that the state, the prosecution had met its burden and that the aggravators outweighed the mitigators. So if the jury had found in favor of death, then I would have had to conduct a hearing and review all, re-review all of the testimony and evidence and make sure that the decision was legally sound. And then I would have, so it would have been, um,

it would have been weeks where i would have had to go through all of the the testimony and evidence and do a very detailed written order um but you know that that was part of the job and you know i was as much as you can be prepared for it i was it wouldn't have been easy because sentencing another human being uh to a punishment of you know even five years in prison is not it's not an easy task but when it is necessary to protect the public it's something that as a judge you just have to, you know, you have to do it and then you have to understand it's for the good of the people and you have to move on. But it's not easy. It was also the end of a chapter in what is a very traumatic and emotionally taxing case. And now the victim's family members, they're trying to

move on with their lives. Have you still remained in contact with them, the people who spoke out in court? Are you in touch with them at all? I am. I recently. was invited by the it's a nonprofit organization I think it's called I can't remember what it's called off the top of my head shoot sorry I just can't remember but it's a nonprofit organization that helps anybody in the community that has been affected by shooting so they provide they have a really nice facility where you can go and sit down you know they have all of them these beautiful paintings on the walls you can

stop by you can visit I believe they provide counseling and those types of services it's located right on University right on the border of Coral Springs and Parkland so this nonprofit invited me to have dinner with the victims family members back in in November and it was it was absolutely an honor it was it was it was really great that's great that's great And how are the family members doing? I mean, how are these families and loved ones doing? You know, they're all making sure that their children did not die in vain, is what I can say.

They are making the most of such a terrible situation. It's the type of thing where I don't know if I could, I could do it. You know, they have so, they have every reason in the world to just be mad, to be mad at the world. Because why? I think about it all the time. Why? Why? Why does this happen? I mean, it's just, it's, it's unspeakable. And the fact is, I believe that most people in this world are good and most people are kind. There are a few that are just evil. But these family members have, have developed non-profit organizations. They have one of them sends, underprivileged children, pays for them to go to summer camp. They have walks. They have all kinds of fundraising beach cleanup and all kinds of things to honor their particular children. In fact, starting on January 28th, today is dedicated to Alyssa Al-Hadeph, and what they ask people to do is participate in outdoor activities.

January 29th is Scott Beagle. He was a coach, run, job. or walk and then it goes all the way through to February 14th where they ask people to spend the day with your loved ones so that you can appreciate what you have which is it's beautiful and each day is it's for each victim and it talks about something that that particular victim like to do with their life and they want people to really you know celebrate and remember their their very young lives which is beautiful that is beautiful that's amazing that's an amazing thing to do um judge listen I don't want to take too much of your time up.

I wanted to ask you one more question. My understanding is you have a book coming out as well. If you could talk to us about what the book is about and what we can expect because, again, I think it's important for people who've been following this case and been following you and following your career to understand a little bit more about what was going on. So we're in the very beginning stages, but it's going to be, and when I say beginning, I'm talking just, you know, an outline at this point. I do have a publisher that is...

taken me on or that's very interested and that is going to be helping me with this uh through this process but it's going to be uh all of the ins and outs and a lot of the details that were not disclosed during the trial um it's going to go through the back my through my life um how i became sort of developed into a judge what i did before my role as a prosecutor um my family because I have all everybody in my family is a lawyer including both of my my older brother my younger brother and my dad and my sister-in-law and I have also cousins like way too many lawyers in one family but it will be a lot about that and a lot about um sort of the drive and and the things that motivated me to become um the judge a judge and and then what i'm doing now it doesn't sound that

exciting when I'm saying like that. No, no, I think we all look forward to reading it because, again, this is, I guess you could even say what you're saying now is kind of a preview and a teaser to what you're going to be talking about more in depth. Yes, for when the book comes out, I'd ask you if you have a title, but, you know, I won't put you on the spot. No. All right. I don't think so. Um, listen, uh, retired judge, Elizabeth Sherer, really thank you so much for coming on. Um, really enjoyed our conversation and wish you the best of the luck. Thank you so much. It was very nice to, to be on your show. And I was It's nice to meet you.

All right, everybody. That is all we have for you right now here on Sidebar. Thank you so much for joining us once again. Please subscribe on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, wherever you get your podcasts. I'm Jesse Weber. Speak to you next time. Join Wondery Plus in the Wondery app, Apple Podcasts, or Spotify.