Murdaugh Murders Podcast - TSP #106 - SC Attorney General’s Office Calls Scott Spivey Shooting a ‘Citizen’s Arrest’ + A Closer Look At Weldon Boyd’s Star Witness

Episode Date: July 3, 2025

Investigative journalists Mandy Matney and Liz Farrell continue their in-depth, real-time reporting on the Scott Spivey shooting case (aka the Horry County Police Department public corruption case).  On this week’s episode: Was Heather Weisz from South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson’s office working as a prosecutor or Weldon Boyd and Bradley William’s free defense attorney?  Also on the show, the first part of True Sunlight’s deep dive into the so-called star witness for Weldon and Bradley. Other than Weldon, Witness No. 1 is the only other person who called 911 to report Scott for driving erratically and allegedly pointing a gun at people. Does Witness No. 1’s account hold up after looking at the evidence? Photos taken by the shooters, surveillance footage, Weldon’s recorded calls, body camera footage and a second by second breakdown of what happened on Camp Swamp Road tell a different story.  Plus! We’re sharing part of our Premium Dive on Jury Duty from LUNASHARK Librarian Kate Thomas. Kate’s episode is chock-full of info on why Jury Duty is so important, though flawed at times, and also features an interview with Jim and Meredith Bannon from the Bannon Law Group - our first advertisers and our besties.   Learn more about Premium Membership at lunashark.supercast.com to get more Premium bonus episodes like the Corruption Watchlist, Girl Talk, and Soundbites that help you Stay Pesky and Stay in the Sunlight.  Let’s dive in! 🥽🦈 Episode References “Diddy acquitted on most serious charges, found guilty of prostitution crimes” - NewsNation, July 2, 2025 📰 Sign up for Walking With Stephen Memorial Walk on July 12, 2025 💚 Sunlight on Scott Spivey Spotify Playlist 🎧 SC Code of Law - Title 17, Chapter 13 on Citizen’s Arrest ⚖️ “What are the Citizen’s Arrest Laws in SC?” - Coastal Law, Nov 19, 2021 📰 Check out “The Women They Could Not Silence” by Kate Moore and all of Mandy’s favorite books 📚 Premium Resources 15th Circuit Solicitor Letter to SCAG - Sept 15, 2023⁠ 📄 ⁠Investigation Report from Det. Alan Jones - April 5, 2024⁠ 📄 ⁠AG Office’s Letter to SLED - April 3, 2024⁠ 📄 ⁠Scott Spivey Wrongful Death Complaint - June 3, 2024⁠ 📄 Stay Tuned, Stay Pesky and Stay in the Sunlight...☀️ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Premium Members ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠also get access to ad-free listening, searchable case files, written articles with documents, case photos, episode videos and exclusive live experiences with our hosts on ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠lunasharkmedia.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ all in one place. ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠CLICK HERE⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ to learn more: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://bit.ly/3BdUtOE⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Here's a link to some of our favorite things: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://amzn.to/4cJ0eVn⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ *** ALERT: If you ever notice audio errors in the pod, email ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠[e-mail]⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ and we'll send fun merch to the first listener that finds something that needs to be adjusted! *** For current & accurate updates: ⁠⁠lunashark.supercast.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Instagram.com/mandy_matney⁠⁠   |   ⁠⁠Instagram.com/elizfarrell⁠⁠   ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠bsky.app/profile/mandy-matney.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠bsky.app/profile/elizfarrell.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠TrueSunlight.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠facebook.com/TrueSunlightPodcast/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Instagram.com/TrueSunlightPod⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠youtube.com/@LunaSharkMedia⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠tiktok.com/@lunasharkmedia Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

I don't know why Attorney General Alan Wilson can't just admit that his office mishandled the Scott Spivey case and take action to correct it. But after listening to his prosecutor do mental gymnastics to defend Weldon Boyd and taking a closer look at the evidence that they used to decide that no charges would be filed in the case. I am furious, but more determined than ever to keep chipping away for a shot at justice. My name is Mandi Matney. This is True Sunlight, a podcast exposing crime and corruption previously

known as the Murdoch Murders podcast. True Sunlight is a Lunashark production written with journalist Liz Farrell. A piece based on injustice is a treacherous sleep whose waking is death. Your honor lies in waking out of it." That is a quote from author Kate Moore in my new favorite book, The Woman They Could Not Silence, which is our pesky pick Q&A topic for this month's bonus episode,

just for premium members. Learn more about premium membership at lunashark.supercast.com, and stay tuned at the end of this episode for a clip from our premium dive series on jury duty. The Woman Who They Could Not Silence is a true story about the inspirational and fearless Elizabeth Packard, a pastor's wife in the 1860s who was thrown in an insane asylum for essentially having different opinions from her husband and standing up for herself. Does that sound familiar?

It reminds me a whole lot of Micah's story. In the book, Elizabeth discovers a horrifying reality that isn't discussed enough in our history books. How women in the 1800s were imprisoned in insane asylums, not because they were actually insane, but because they were not submissive and couldn't be controlled by men. The book is so inspiring and important right now as I look around at what seems to be a justice system I can't fix in a cruel political climate that keeps getting worse. Elizabeth's circumstances seemed impossible, as married women at the time had few rights

and men had the right to essentially declare their wives insane to be involuntarily committed indefinitely. Elizabeth could have accepted her fate as most did, but she chose to fight her way out of the asylum and she chose to stand up for women everywhere. Elizabeth Packard in the 1800s said, I want it fixed so that any woman can run on her own feet right straight to the government for help.

You must credit her testimony as well as you do his." My gosh, do those words ring true today as Sean Combs, aka Diddy, was acquitted on three of his five charges, sex trafficking and racketeering, and found guilty of two lesser charges, which was transporting prostitutes. This is a tough one to swallow,

and I know we didn't cover the trial, so I will make these comments brief, but I just want to say to all survivors of abuse and corruption, that we must keep moving forward if we want a system that works for all of us and not just the good old boys with connections. The Diddy trial is further proof that we need big sweeping changes in our justice system that was designed

to protect predators more than survivors and we have to fight for those changes. The fact that Diddy was charged and tried because of the bravery of Cassie Ventura, well that was a victory in itself, as Diddy was seen as invincible to most of the world, which is how we got here. We cannot dwell on losses. We have to keep chipping away at the system and exposing its flaws one week at a time with the attitude that every small victory counts. As we learned in the Murdock case, dragons can be slayed, but it requires all of us pushing

for justice and exposing the truth every single day. Which is why we are continuing to fight for Stephen Smith, to show those in power that this case still matters and so many of us want it solved. Please join us July 12th at 8 a.m. in Hampton County for the first ever Walking with Stephen event to raise awareness and increase pressure in Stephen's unsolved homicide.

Please spread the word and get signed up at walkingwithsteven.com. We made these awesome tank tops to give away and heck, I'll even bring a pen if anyone wants their book signed. I just want Sandy Smith and other victims patiently waiting for justice to know just how many people care enough about Stephen to get up early on a Saturday and walk where he walked. Sandy deserves that and Stephen deserves that. Now speaking of doing what we can do to expose injustice and fight for victims in the cases that we cover, we have got to talk about Scott Spivey and a key witness

that the Attorney General's office relied on when they made their decision not to prosecute in this case. And P.S. It's never too late to join me in my commenting crusade reminding Attorney General Alan Wilson Daley that his office failed in this case and in the Calici case and he needs to make those things right if he wants to be our governor. Today is the day we begin sharing our reporting with you on witness number one. The star of the five witnesses that Weldon Boyd continually referred to in his recorded phone calls and in text messages as corroborating his entire story about what happened on Camp Swamp Road in

Laura, South Carolina on September 9th, 2023. If you're new to the Scots by the Shooting case, also known as the Horry County Police Department Corruption case, and you want to start at the beginning of our real-time coverage, go to the link in our description for our episode playlist. As a reminder, Scott Spivey was shot to death on his way home from North Myrtle Beach after getting into some sort of road altercation with North Myrtle Beach businessman Weldon Boyd and Boyd's friend Bradley Williams. No charges were filed against Weldon or Bradley, who claimed self-defense. Since Scott's killing, his older sister, Jennifer

Spivey Foley, and his family have dedicated themselves to uncovering the truth. And over the past four or so months, evidence continues to come to light, showing the extreme favoritism given to Weldon by Horry County Police Deputy Chief Brandon Strickland and other officers, 15th Circuit Solicitor Jimmy Richardson, SLED Agent Nathan Poston, and Prosecutor Heather Weiss from Attorney General Alan Wilson's office. Over the past few weeks, we've told you about the other four witnesses, starting with witnesses number two and three.

They were a married couple from Virginia who were driving on Camp Swamp Road right as the shooting began. Witness number three didn't see anything because she was playing a game on her phone and because her husband, witness number two, told her to duck. After passing Scott, Weldon, and Bradley, witness number two called 911 and told them this, that he saw Scott get out of his truck with his pistol in hand down by his side with the slide back signaling that it was not ready to shoot. He said Scott was yelling at Weldon and Bradley to stop following him. In his very next breath to 911, witness number two said that he saw Weldon with his pistol on the dashboard already aimed at Scott and that Weldon unloaded his entire weapon at Scott. As for Scott,

witness number two said he saw him move his hand but he never saw Scott aiming his gun at Weldon and Bradley and he never said that Scott shot first. But on witness number two's call with 911, you can hear Weldon in the background talking to other witnesses and giving them his version of events, which includes the phrase he shot at us first. Witness number two not only hears Weldon's version of events, but he also hears from witnesses numbers four and five who had been talking to Weldon. And he relays their versions back to the dispatcher, somewhat retrofitting what he saw to what the others were saying.

Again, what he saw is not that Scott had his gun raised and pointed at Weldon, according to the 911 call, and not that Scott unloaded his weapon at Weldon, but that it was, in fact, the other way around. And we told you about how a written summary of witness number two's account from one of the Horry County Police Department investigators changed the order of events to look favorable to Weldon. So, there's that. We also told you about witnesses number four and five, a married couple from Loras, South Carolina, near where Weldon's Bonnie Bay Blueberry Farm is.

They saw Scott driving aggressively on Highway 9. They saw him interacting with Weldon's white truck and a second white truck, and witness number five says she saw Scott with his hand out the window. They did not call 911 to report Scott's driving. They drove past the crime scene, turned around and drove back to it. And they listened to Weldon talking about Scott driving aggressively on Highway 9. And they were like, yeah, we saw that.

Which Weldon apparently took to mean that they saw everything in the same way he did. Witnesses 4 and 5 spent a lot of time with Weldon and Bradley, even after police arrived. At least twice they were told not to speak to each other, but they continued to do so according to footage from the scene. Witness number 4 also left the inner perimeter of the crime scene tape where he, his wife, their car, Weldon's truck, Weldon, Bradley, Scott's truck, and Scott's body were, and went and spoke with witnesses number 1, 2, and 3 who were outside that inner perimeter of the crime scene tape. He then was allowed by Horry County Police to re-enter the crime scene and go stand with his wife and Weldon and

Bradley again, now armed with the other witnesses' accounts. I cannot stress this enough. Neither witness number four or five saw what happened on Camp Swamp Road, nor did they see most of the chase between Weldon and Scott, and nor did they see a gun in Scott's hand and according to surveillance footage at least part of their story about what happened on Highway 9 is not accurate. Though witness number five never claimed to see a gun in Scott's hand, witness number four after speaking with Weldon, Bradley and the other witnesses, seemed to in part be referencing Weldon's version of events in his interview

with investigators. That said, witness number four did ask police the very important question of why did Weldon follow Scott onto Camp Swamp Road if he saw him with a gun? Obviously the answer to that in our opinions anyway is Weldon was looking for a gunfight and Scott gave him an opening. But the prosecutor had a different answer for it. A really absurd one, which we'll get to in a minute. So that was four of the five witnesses whom Weldon said corroborated his story.

One, a witness who said he heard Scott tell Weldon to stop following him, who didn't see Scott point the weapon or shoot it, who said he saw Weldon pointing his weapon, and who said Weldon unloaded his entire weapon in Scott's direction. Then there's two, a witness who saw nothing. Three, a witness who saw the aggressive cat-mouse game between Weldon and Scott, but didn't witness the majority of the chase, and didn't see Scott waving a gun out of the window, didn't see the shooting, didn't hear the gunshots, and in fact drove past the whole thing before turning around and inserting himself onto the crime scene.

And fourth, witness number five, who was with witness number four and also never saw the gun on Highway 9 or the shooting on Camp Swamp Road. I know this gets repetitive, but it's really important to always start with this knowledge. In the seconds, minutes, hours, and days after the shooting, Weldon was telling everyone who would listen to him that five witnesses had seen the whole thing happen and they were on his side. But as you can see, that is not the case. And any mildly smart person who sits with the interviews and who watches the body camera footage would come to that same conclusion in our opinions. And yet. So today we're going to start talking about that star witness like we said, witness number one. But we're going to begin with

a recording taken by the Spivey family at their April 20, 24th meeting with Sled and Heather Weiss, a prosecutor with South Carolina Attorney General Allen Wilson's office. Heather was explaining her reason for deciding not to press charges against Weldon and Bradley. I want you to keep a few things in mind while listening. The first is that, like we keep saying, witnesses 2, 3, 4, and 5 did not see Scott point the weapon or shoot at Weldon and Bradley, not on Camp Swamp Road and not on Highway 9. Second, witness number one, and we'll get to her account after this, said she did see Scott point his gun on Highway 9, but despite being on Camp Swamp Road at the time, did not see him raise his gun to Weldon or shoot at

Weldon. Again, we'll get into that. Third, we don't know why Scott showed his weapon to Weldon and Bradley. We don't know what led to their nearly 10-mile altercation. We know what Weldon says happened, that he was innocently driving along Highway 9 when out of nowhere Scott pointed a gun at their heads and then randomly started brake checking Weldon. We know that witnesses number four and five and one say that they saw Scott driving aggressively and erotically, but we don't know what Scott would say happened. We can't know.

Weldon and Bradley killed him. Were Scott alive though, we highly doubt his version would be, I don't know, I just felt like messing with that white truck with the trailer on it for no reason. And fourth, this is the most important part. There are two crime scenes that we're talking about here. The first crime scene is Highway 9, where Scott was reported to have been driving aggressively and erratically and where Weldon Bradley and witness number one said they saw him point a gun. Those crimes, reckless driving and alleged pointing and presenting a weapon,

were reported to 911 by both witness number one and Weldon Boyd, and both shared Scott's license plate number with dispatchers. The second crime scene is Camp Swamp Road, where the shooting took place. Camp Swamp Road is the route Scott was taking to go over the border to North Carolina where he lived, just 14 minutes away. Camp Swamp Road is also the road Weldon elected to go down, so that he could continue to chase Scott, which is a story though recorded on the 911 call that after killing Scott to I went down Camp Swamp Road to make sure my couches and fans were still tied down after Scott ran me off the road. The core question both civilly and criminally is does the Stand Your Ground law, a law that allows you to defend your life with lethal force if you reasonably believe your life

to be in danger, apply to that second crime scene? If someone points a gun at you but then drives away from you, and they continue down the highway at a high rate of speed before exiting the highway after five or so miles of no-gun activity onto a long country road, apparently trying to escape you. Do you have the legal right to keep pace with them, despite the high rate of speed, and continue to follow them, likely scaring them in the process?

Do you have the right to divert from your planned route in the meantime, and then shoot them to death? Think of it this way, who was standing his ground on Camp Swamp Road? Was it Scott Spivey or Weldon Boyd and Bradley Williams? This is why the nuance of what the witnesses are saying and not saying is critical and why critical thinking should have been applied

from the very second officer, Kerry Higgs arrived on the scene less than 15 minutes after the shooting. So keep all of that in mind today. We're going to circle back with y'all in another episode to talk about the full recording from the Spivey family's meeting with Sled and attorney general's office prosecutor, Heather Wise, because there's a lot to unpack there. But first we want you to know what was at the heart of the attorney general's office's

rationale for not pressing charges before we get into witness number one. And we'll do that after a quick break. Okay, so today we are talking about witness number one because her testimony seemed extremely important to the Attorney General's office when they decided not to prosecute in Scott Spivey's case. How do we know that? Because we obtained a recording from the April 2024 meeting where Assistant Attorney General

Heather Weiss sat down with the Spivey family to explain why she wasn't filing any charges. Again, we will unpack this whole meeting in a later episode, because the logic Heather is using here is concerning, to say the least. Listen here. So first of all I just want to say I'm sorry for your loss. There's nothing that I can say that's gonna make that go away. And what I'm talking about is something that happened in a very short period of time in somebody's life. And so I'm not...my explanation is not about...it's not speaking to Scott as the person that y'all knew. My job is to review the case as far as the law and apply the law to facts and see what there is, what we need to do.

Before I get started, I just want to say that I don't know Scott, I don't know Boyd, well, the Boyd, I don't know the side. I don't know boys. Well, boys. I don't know William. I don't I don't know anybody in this for me. This is a Case that I'm reviewing the fact as they were investigated have it as the Now on one call to reveal pictures Statements that's what I'm looking at. But I can't undo what's been done and I just want you to know that I'm not trying to comment on

Scott. Life is a person. I'm supposed to speak everything I talk about is in the few minutes that happened in 2023. So I'm sorry that y'all happened to be here to begin with. I just want to put that out there first.

I know that you've talked to law enforcement. I know that you know that I've decided not to pursue any criminal charges against the shooters in this case. And I'm here to explain my legal reasoning and answer any questions that you all have about that. So, the information as I've got it, as I understood it, is that Scott was driving down Highway 9. He had a blood alcohol level of.13, which we know is almost double the legal limit and can cause people to act out of character. That based on multiple 911 calls, the people that were on the road, he was driving erratically, that he was, some of them saw him specifically targeting the

Some of them saw him specifically targeting the truck that was pulling the trailer behind it, running them off the road, brake checking them. And then there were some people saw him holding the pistol out of the car, holding them in the air. We've seen the pictures of that, pointing a gun out of the car, pulling up in the air, and we've seen the pictures of that, and pointing a gun out of the car. And so we knew that was going on. Based on what was going on on Highway 9, that was... there's criminal conduct there, pointing and presenting. There would be arguments for all types of, you know, when you're using a car, a car is a deadly weapon anyway. So when you're running somebody off the road, there are multiple issues that are going on

there and the safety of not only the car that was the truck that ended up in the other shooting, but everybody else in the road, their safety is in danger as well. So... Okay, so this is the first three and a half minutes of what Assistant Attorney General Heather Weiss told the Spivey family last year when the Attorney General's office decided not to prosecute the case. She just said a whole lot, and there's so much to unpack in this one-hour meeting recording between Heather and the Spivey family. But the first few minutes are the most crucial part of her argument as to why she claims that she couldn't justify any criminal charges in the case.

Heather said that essentially she can't charge Weldon or Bradley in Scott's shooting death because multiple 911 calls reported Scott driving recklessly, pointing a gun, and endangering other lives on Highway 9 on the evening of September 9, 2023. Notice how she said multiple 911 calls from multiple people claimed this and that was her evidence to believe that it was true? Well, the truth is that only two people called 911 to report Scott Spivey driving erratically and pointing his gun. Weldon Boyd in witness number one. Now, you know how he said that what happened on Highway 9 for almost 10 miles before Weldon and Scott's trucks turned onto Camp Swamp Road really didn't matter a whole lot?

Because Weldon was behind Scott for what seems like a majority of the route and had dozens of opportunities to retreat but did not. So stand your ground shouldn't matter when Weldon was the one who chased the threat, right? Well, the Attorney General's office did some serious mental gymnastics in this case to argue that what happened on Highway 9 justified Weldon's actions on Camp Swamp Road, where Heather claims Weldon was justified to fire his weapon because of Stand Your Ground laws. Notice how funny it is that when it comes to the good ol' boys like Weldon Boyd, the

prosecution pulls out all of these Simone Biles-level mental gymnastics moves that benefit the defendant. And then, when it comes to victims like Scott Spivey and Sarah Lynn Colucci, they can't even manage to attempt a cerebral cartwheel to help them. Anyways, so much of the investigation focuses on the Highway 9 road rage event instead of the actual shooting on Camp Swamp. Which is probably why Heather Wise spent so much time coming up with a theory as to why all of that mattered when it came to Scott Spivey's death not being a murder, in her opinion. But in this twisted explanation, which we will talk about more next week, Heather says

that she can't charge the shooters because essentially they could argue that the shooting was justified by Stand Your Ground law. And Weldon following Scott for almost 10 miles before pulling over behind him, she says that that was justified by citizens arrest law. Yeah, citizens arrest, because get this, she claimed there was evidence that Weldon saw Scott

committing a felony, so he had the right to arrest Scott. And he had the right to use quote unquote reasonable force to do so, which meant, in this wacky world of hers, Weldon had the right to essentially pull Scott over on the side of the road and stand his ground without so much as getting out of his truck to stop him from committing more felonies. And yes, citizens arrest is still a law in South Carolina technically, but it's fairly rare to see it used like this as

a murder defense, especially from a prosecutor, whose job it is to find probable cause for charging, not to think of any and all Perry Mason defense tactics for defending the charge. She claimed that she could not, quote, ethically bring a charge that she believed she could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt. And her reasonable doubt here is that Weldon and Bradley

could both claim citizen's arrest and stand your ground for their defense. But wait, there's a big problem with the AG's office's reasoning for not pressing charges due to Weldon and Bradley's rights from stand your ground and citizen's arrest laws. It doesn't appear as though Weldon and Bradley's rights from Stand Your Ground and citizens arrest laws. It doesn't appear as though Weldon or Bradley ever witnessed Scott committing a felony.

At least there isn't evidence that proves it. And we'll talk more about that in a minute. Driving recklessly in South Carolina isn't a felony unless it results in great bodily injury. Brandishing a weapon in the way that Scott did with the gun being pointed at the sky, according to Bradley's own photos, and stay tuned for those, is not a felony.

Beating also isn't a felony in South Carolina, but pointing and presenting a weapon at another human is a felony in South Carolina. And speaking of, how come nobody ever charged Dick Harputlian for doing that on live TV? So only three people claim that Scott pointed and presented a gun before he was shot to death. Two of them are the shooters, and one is witness number one.

That said, witness number one's account of what happened right before Scott Spivey was killed is important to the entire case according to the assistant AG's own words, which we will unpack in a later episode and buckle up for those. So today, let's hear what witness number one actually said that she saw in Denetzee on September 9th, 2023.

It is time to hear from witness number one, a 23 year old woman who was driving along highway nine in a white Nissan sedan on the way to her boyfriend's house. Let's start with her call to 911 at almost 5.53 p.m. September 9th, 2023, almost two minutes before Weldon called 911. I am on highway number nine about to come up on, um, there is, I'm on highway nine about to come up on, um, Minuteman and Little Caesars right here in long there is a guy that is waving a gun in front of me trying to shoot at my car and the other one beside us he's all over the road and I have his license plate number okay okay he's waving the gun right now he's waving it out the window at everybody I

don't know if he's under the influence of anything because he's all over the road. He just made one guy run off the road completely and he's back on the road now. But I'm just, I'm all to hell because I don't know what this man's doing. She is utterly terrified, right? As she should be because that would be really scary to see. And I

hate to say but let's put that aside for a minute because I don't want to discount her fear but let's put that aside for a minute. The important part of this call to us, obviously to Weldon and Bradley it would be the fear in number one's voice, is the location she gave to the dispatcher and what she said was happening at that time. For instance, at the time of this call, witnesses number four and five were on highway nine, somewhere near witness number one, based on their accounts. And this is right at the point

where they said they lost sight of Scott and Weldon. We'll get to that in a second. Around this time, witness number one, and apparently four and five, were 4.8 miles from Bell and Bell in tractor supply. That's around where this altercation reportedly started. Witness number one was about 5.5 miles away from Camp Swamp Road when she made this call.

She said that Scott had just run Weldon off the road, something that was also witnessed by witnesses four and five. But Weldon was now back on the road and that Scott was in that moment that she was on the phone waving a gun at everybody. She also said that Scott was in front of her but based on surveillance video what she really meant to say was ahead of her. Sometimes he was way ahead. One more thing to note, a witness who saw Weldon pursuing Scott just over a mile from where witness number one called 911 said that he saw Weldon and Scott zooming by so fast that he was sure there was about to be a crash.

That's just to give you context there. Also, according to surveillance footage from the Minuteman, which witness number one says they were approaching, shows this. Traffic was sparse with fair amounts of distance between vehicles. Scott's truck is seen coming through first about 10 car lengths or so behind the car ahead of him. Behind him, at around 7 or 8 car lengths, is Weldon and his trailer. Both trucks are in the left lane.

Beside Weldon is a yellow Jeep Wrangler. And 15 car lengths behind Weldon is witness number 1 in the right lane, with a white pickup truck in the left lane beside her. A full 20 seconds after that, you can see witnesses number four and five drive by in their Tahoe. Neither Scott nor Weldon appeared to have been driving recklessly or aggressively at that time. And going back to witnesses number four and five, 20 seconds is a big deal. And it's inconsistent with the story they had told investigators about that

intersection. They said that is where they lost Weldon and Scott at the light right after Minuteman, the so-called Long's Light, and indicated that they got stuck at that light. But according to the surveillance footage, they were already so far back and it doesn't even look like they were stopped at that light at all. So the question becomes were they misremembering that? For instance, maybe they were stopped at another light farther back, and that is where they lost sight of Weldon and Scott.

About 38 seconds into witness number one's call, just a few seconds after that clip we just played for you, is when we have our first photo from Bradley Williams' phone. If there were photos taken before this time by either Weldon or Bradley, they are not part of the Horry County Police Department case file or we just haven't found them yet. The photo is of Scott's truck in front of Bradley and Weldon or Bradley, they are not part of the Horry County Police Department case file, or we just haven't found them yet.

The photo is of Scott's truck in front of Bradley and Weldon. In the upper left-hand corner of the photo, you can see Scott's left hand. His wrist appears to be resting on the ledge of his open window. He is in the far left lane of the highway. The photo does not seem to show a gun from this angle. 18 seconds later later a photo from Bradley's phone shows Scott still in front of them and perhaps two or three car lengths ahead. Neither Scott's hand nor a gun is visible but the photo is

blurry and his license plate number cannot be seen at this distance indicating that perhaps they were using the zoom feature. One second later there's another photo from Bradley's phone now appearing to be almost on top of Scott. You can see that about half of Scott's hand is poking out the window and he's pointing a gun in the air. His hand and the gun are tight up against the truck meaning his arm isn't extended out or up. He appears to be showing the gun and you can see his left index finger is not on the trigger but rather on the trigger, but rather on the trigger guard.

Two seconds after that, Bradley appears to zoom in on Scott's truck with the camera on his phone and Scott is still in front of them and still pointing the weapon to the sky. His arm is not extended up, nor is it extended out and it's sort of again closely hugging the side of the truck. And his index finger is not on the trigger. It remains on the trigger guard. You can also see Weldon's headlights reflecting on the back of Scott's truck.

One second later, it's the same situation all around, but Scott's hand with his gun still pointing upward, not extended, either out or up, has retreated halfway back into his window. It's still pointing upward, and his finger is still not on the trigger. Weldon and Bradley have not yet called police, but here is what witness number one says to her dispatcher 12 seconds after that last photo was taken.

He is pointing you out the window trying to shoot this car right now. Now again, there are no photos of Scott pointing his weapon at anyone. In this entire time, Weldon and Bradley are driving behind him. Both trucks are in the left lane. It is not clear where witness number one is at this moment. But according to the metadata on these photos and the focal lengths Bradley used to take them, it appears that Weldon and Bradley were right on top of Scott. on these photos and the focal links Bradley used to take them. It appears that Weldon and Bradley were right on top of Scott,

which is weird, right? Seconds after these photos were taken of Scott not pointing the gun, witness number one was telling 911 that he is trying to shoot at Weldon's car, and Bradley is there actively taking photos. But he didn't get a photo of Scott pointing the gun or at all trying to shoot it. Which we have to talk about the phrasing that witness number one now has used twice. Scott is trying to shoot my car. He's trying to shoot this car.

This obviously is a perspective issue. So we all might have a different take here. Do we consider a man driving on the highway, holding a gun with a muzzle pointed up to the sky and his finger on the trigger guard, holding it just enough out the window so that it's visible to the driver behind him, a driver who is also in a high-end, good ol' boy-worthy luxury truck

with a revvy engine, someone who stereotypically understands the language of gun use, to be trying to shoot someone else. There are three answers here. Yes, no, and I have no idea, but I'm calling 911 and keeping my distance. Regardless of the answer from Weldon's and Bradley's and witness number one's accounts, it makes it sound like Scott was not just pointing

his weapon but pointing it all willy-nilly all over the highway like a madman. So how come there aren't any photos showing Scott actually pointing his weapon at anybody on Highway 9. And also, there's this. Just four seconds after witness number one says that Scott is pointing his weapon and trying to shoot Weldon and Bradley, Bradley takes another photo of Scott, who is now in the right lane

about 10 car lengths in front of them. Bradley and Weldon appear to now in the right lane about 10 car lengths in front of them. Bradley and Weldon appear to be in the left lane. The license plate and word Chevrolet on the back of Scott's truck are no longer visible, but you can see that Scott does not appear to be holding his hand out the window anymore. And that's based on the lack of contrast between the pale color of Scott's hand and the side view mirror. It's all just black in that area. Let me try to make sense of this

because I honestly don't get the math. So there are 16 seconds between the two photos that Bradley took. In the first, Scott has the gun pointed upward and his finger on the trigger guard, not the trigger. His forearm and his wrist are not visible, and you would almost have to know he was holding a gun to understand that there was one until you zoom in. Also, both trucks were in the left lane,

which would mean that witness number one would have to either be behind them or in the right lane, on the opposite side of Scott's truck where he is holding something. Like we said, the surveillance footage at the beginning of her call showed her behind the two trucks by at least 15 car lengths, with other cars on the road with them. Oh, and Weldon's headlights are visible in the back of Scott's truck.

And according to that and the photo, Weldon appears to be on Scott's ass, which are Weldon's words, not mine. 12 seconds into those 16 seconds, witness number one tells the dispatcher that Scott is pointing and trying to shoot Weldon, which means at a time when Bradley is clearly trying to get Scott on camera,

pointing the gun and has been taking a series of photos one right after the other, he for some reason doesn't capture that moment as described by witness number one, but the four seconds after she says it, he does capture a photo and it's of Scott driving a good distance ahead of them. And then two seconds after that photo, Bradley takes another one showing that Weldon has once again closed the distance between him and Scott. And Scott is no longer displaying his gun. And then he takes another photo one second later, closing the distance further in the left lane, and Scott remains in the right lane and no gun is visible. This is a really important moment

because it raises questions about the reliability of witness number one's perception of what was happening She told the dispatcher that Scott was pointing the gun at Weldon and trying to shoot him at a time when Bradley was trying To document this on his camera, but that's not what the camera caught four seconds after witness number one said Scott was trying to shoot Weldon We have a picture showing him quite a distance in front of Weldon not displaying any weapon So it seems likely that witness number one saw Scott's hand out of the window. We're not exactly sure how she saw that given how closely he was keeping his hand to that window frame and how he was in the left lane with Weldon on his tail. And she was some distance behind him according to surveillance footage.

And she interpreted that as pointing and presenting and attempting to shoot Weldon who was behind Scott. And that calls everything else she said into question. So stick a pin in that for a minute or two. Six seconds after we see Scott appearing to be fleeing from Weldon, Weldon dials 911, but it takes 24 full seconds for them to answer. Five seconds into waiting for the dispatcher, Bradley takes another photo of Scott's truck and though the distance has once again grown between Weldon and Scott, Weldon is not far behind and it's the same situation.

No hand, no gun, Scott is in the right lane and Weldon appears to be in the left lane. In the final photo we have taken just five seconds later, Scott is still in the right lane and Weldon appears to still be in the left lane. There is more distance between the two. And again, Scott is no longer displaying a weapon. 14 seconds later, the dispatcher picks up for Weldon and Weldon says this. Hey, I've got a guy pointing a gun at me driving. We're armed as well.

He keeps throwing the gun in our faces. I don't like he's about to shoot us. If he keeps this up, I'm going to shoot him. Where are you at? I'm on highway nine. He's trying to run from me now. So we played that because Weldon literally made our point for us. The series of photos that Bradley took from the passenger seat not only don't show Scott pointing his weapon at them or anyone else or trying to shoot them or anyone else, they seem to show Scott fleeing

or as Baldwin put it, he's trying to run from me. Sorry. He said, he keeps throwing the gun in our faces. If this keeps up, I'm going to shoot him. He's trying to run from me. So logical. Speaking of logic, I'm just going to say it again. It's really hard to

understand how witness number one was able to see what Scott was doing or not doing based on what her vantage point was during that part of the 911 call. Not only were both men apparently driving fast at the time, it looks to us that you would have to be really close to Scott to see that he was holding a gun, never mind what he was doing with it. And as witness number one said, he was in front of her, which means Weldon was two because there's no one between Weldon and Scott in any of the photos taken during that part of witness number one's call. And again, you heard the terror in her voice.

If she was driving that close to them to see the gun, why, why wouldn't she hang back? Why wouldn't she slow her speed? Okay, so at this point when Weldon is on the phone with the dispatcher, he says he's passing Marlow Circle, which would place him about 2.4 miles from where witness number one was when she initiated her call with 911. Meaning, in the span of one minute and 49 seconds, Weldon and Scott, who was in front of him, appear to have gone that distance, putting their driving speed at about 80 miles per hour.

Back to witness number one's call with 911. During the next minute or so of the call, witness number one is giving the dispatcher landmarks and updates on what Weldon and Scott are doing. She tells the dispatcher that the three of them are now stuck in traffic, which is interesting because at this point they were on a rural part of Highway 9 with very few businesses on it and very few traffic lights. In the case file from Scott's sister, there was surveillance footage from a firework shop about half a mile from where witness number one was at the time she said this. At 5.55 and 21 seconds, just 53 seconds after witness number one said this to the dispatcher, we see this on the camera. A white pickup truck in the

left lane and a bluish sedan in the right lane, about halfway parallel with that truck. Behind the white truck in the left lane is Scott's truck, about two car lengths behind it. And next to Scott in the right lane, about two car lengths behind the sedan, is another white pickup lane, about two car lengths behind the sedan is another white pickup truck. About three car lengths behind Scott is Weldon and his 16 foot trailer. Scott is boxed in by three white pickup trucks and a bluish sedan. Neither Scott nor Weldon appear to be driving aggressively or recklessly in this footage.

Witness number one passes by the camera 10 seconds behind the pack. This is about a mile and a half before Camp Swamp Road. I know 10 seconds sounds like no time at all, but things start to happen really fast around this time. Here's what she says to the dispatcher about 30 seconds after she passes the camera at the firework shop. I'm not trying to speed ma'am or anything. I'm just, I'm really trying to get away from this guy because I really don't want him to like shoot me or nothing. Okay and is he

following you or is he just driving down the street? He's driving reckless um he's in one lane and there's two trucks behind him and he's back and forth things like that. Okay. He's getting mad I guess because of traffic but he won't move out of the and he's back and forth saying a lot of things." Okay. He's getting mad, I guess, because of traffic, but he won't move out of the way. I'm not sure exactly what witness number one meant by he won't move out of the way. Because if Scott is the he in that sentence, and he's getting mad, I guess, because of traffic,

but he won't move out of the way. I just need us all to take a breath and picture what that scenario would look like because it makes no sense. And again, no shade to witness number one. She was clearly very rattled by this. But is she saying traffic is congested behind Scott and that Scott is mad about that? But it's his fault he won't move out of the way of traffic? Again, from what we saw on

camera, it looked like he was being boxed in shortly before she said this, so it's not totally clear what she was trying to say there. More from Witness Number One after a quick break, and we'll be right back. Less than one minute later, Witness Number one tells the dispatcher that Scott is the one causing the quote unquote destruction. Here is what happens at 5 57 p.m. and 33 seconds. He just turned down. Okay, what is the road right here?

Camp Swamp Road. Okay. He is pulled over on the side of the road. Actually, I am not on. Oh my God. Oh my God. I don't know what's going on. He's jumping out of the truck. I'm turning the same way. There is a truck behind him and okay. Oh my God. What happened, ma'am? What happened? Did he fire the gun? Oh my god! Ma'am, ma'am. Oh my god! Ma'am, I've got to move! I've got to move! Oh my god! Just keep going ma'am.

Oh my god! Oh my god! Okay, did he shoot at anybody? Yes, he's shooting a truck in front of us. I'm getting off the road. Okay, is he in front of your car? I just pulled off their own camp, their own swamp. Oh my God, I'm so sorry. You're on camp swamp now? Yes ma'am, but I just turned off because he hit my car. He hit your car? He did, but I came down to one of the outer ways off the highway because I turned around like you said, but there, I'm watching them, they're sitting right there.

Okay. Alright, listen. Did you see what he looked like? He's a white male and has dark hair. Dark hair. Okay. Did you see what kind of clothes he had to get out of the car? I didn't. All I seen was the bullet flying off the window. Okay, okay. And do you want his license plate number? Yes, yes I do.

It's capital RC-1538. 1538. And at what state was that? What state do you remember? I believe it was North or South Carolina. Okay. Okay, is he still behind you or is he still sitting out at the end of that road?

He's still sitting at the end of that road. Once you turn down it. So he's at highway nine and camp Swamp. Yes ma'am. Okay. And did he hit your car with the, with the bullets? Um, it either ricocheted or either he shot it because he was shooting the truck in front of me. And ma'am, I don't know if he killed the guy or not because he was firing off, off, off, off.

Okay. I'm not, like I said, I pulled down the road just a little bit because I wanted to turn off because once I said, I was like, oh my God, he shot my car. I don't know if he actually shot it or the bullet ricocheted. I just turned around as fast as possible and now it looks like the roads maybe get

yeah they're still sitting there the roads blocked up okay they're kind of holding up traffic okay okay the people who's holding up traffic at the guy with that was that he was shot shooting at or yes ma'am. That black truck that was shooting that guy, it was a white, I don't know if it's a dually or not but it's a white truck that was behind him. He got out the truck and I reckon they had an altercation because the man, I'm assuming, he was probably like, doing that probably more than likely and then the guy just started shooting. But I know he's a white male with dark hair because I could see him in the truck when he passed me and waved the gun. Okay. Okay. All right. Okay. And are you willing to identify the driver and testify in court if necessary?

Yes, ma'am. Of course. 100%. Okay. Okay, so again, witness number one is legitimately and understandably terrified by what just happened. And from what we can tell at this point, she has no motive to lie about what she saw. But she also doesn't know what she saw. What I mean is she saw what she saw, right? But instead of just saying what she saw, she was assigning value to what she was seeing. She was constantly filling in the blanks with assumptions about motivations and what might be

happening and some of it could be considered exaggeration. Which again, no shade. It's all perception. And perception is a wild, wild thing. I mean, raise your hands if you've ever been told, stop yelling at me at a time when to your mind and ears you are having a very calm discussion. This is where the words reliability and credibility come into play. Can we safely rely on the perception of the person who is relaying details of reality and are they credible? In the case of the person telling me I'm yelling when I don't think I'm yelling, I have to

decide whether to believe them over myself. Is this about the level of my voice or the meaning of my words? Is this person right or are they just a man-child confusing female intelligence with aggression? Hmm. Okay, back on track. We've already shown you how Witness No. 1's perception did not seem to match reality when she said Scott was pointing his weapon at Weldon and trying to shoot at him. It just doesn't make sense. When you look at the photos and surveillance, it just doesn't make sense. But it does make sense that she might have seen Scott's hand and decided that that's what he was doing.

Whether that's because the image of a man holding a gun out of his window on a highway is jarring and caused her to immediately go to, he's pointing the weapon at people and trying to shoot or maybe it was because of what she said she encountered before the call to 911 which is now drawn into question in terms of reliability because of how she depicted the situation happening in real time as we can see it in the photos anyway let's rewind here a little bit to 10 miles earlier none of us knows why Scott had beef with Weldon and Bradley. Was Scott being aggressive or was he reacting to Weldon and Bradley? Did he display his weapon first or did Weldon and Bradley?

All we know is the aftermath and what it looked like from the outside, right? And all we know is what the witnesses numbers 1, 4, and 5 say they saw on Highway 9. Witnesses number 4 and 5's accounts had the gaps filled in by Weldon before they could relay what they saw to police. And witness number 1, who saw the weapon in Scott's hand, reasonably concluded in that moment that he was a threat and therefore any of his actions afterward, absent the context of what may or may not have happened near tractor supply in Bell and Bell would look menacing. It would be so interesting to hear how witness number one's perception got reframed if

Scott were alive to tell his side of the story. Would she still understand what she saw the same way if she learned from Scott that he was trying to get away from Weldon and ran him off the road only because Weldon was driving too fast trying to keep up with him when he decided to break check him. If witness number one had learned from Scott that he wasn't pointing the weapon at her, but rather raising it to the sky to show Weldon and Bradley that he too was armed. Now I'm not saying that's what happened. I don't know.

I'm just giving examples of how perceptions can change when more information is known. The bottom line is, we don't know what happened and it seems Weldon was also questioning things. Here's a call with his mother less than two and a half hours after he and Bradley killed Scott. I mean, mama, it was just, I mean, it... I don't understand it. I mean, the guy... He had his own... It was all out shootout. I mean, I'm good. I don't think Bradley's okay.

I mean, I've been through this shit before, but I don't think Bradley's okay. I know. And I was thinking that my son... Well, I mean... I don't know if he just... I don't know. I kept asking, I asked Bradley, I said, did I like swerve over and not know it and almost hit him or, and Bradley said we didn't, he said we were fine. He just, Bradley literally looked over and I wasn't even paying attention. He was like, do you know him or something like that? And I look

over and dude's just got a gun going down the road aiming it. There are two ways to take this. One, you just listened to a man truly stunned and confused by what happened to him and searching for his own fault in the matter. Or two, you just listened to a man who would later describe this as having a blast, and

who would later change key details of the story to explain why he kept following Scott, despite Scott clearly making moves to get away. Which makes his mention of the did I swerve question relevant. Because was he trying to tell on himself there? He sort of fumbles a little when trying to relay how Bradley responded to that, right? Also, I have to point out for fact checking purposes here, Weldon never saw combat.

He admitted that he'd never pointed a gun at another human being before this, nevermind shot a person to death. So, lies. And it wasn't an all-out shootout, at least according to witness number two, who saw it go down, and according to the shell casings collected from both trucks. But I can see why Weldon, who witness number one described as emptying his magazine on Scott would think that because perception. See how that works? Which brings us back to witness number one.

Let's talk about what she says that she saw when she turned onto Camp Swamp Road because again, her perception is off and further hurts her reliability. Here is Weldon at 5 57 p.m. and 17 seconds. Also this audio might be tough to hear so listener discretion is advised. Here is Weldon again at 5 57 p.m. and 24 seconds. All right, so he's turning on to Camp Swamp Road. Here is witness number one at 5 57 p.m. and 33 seconds.

He just turned down. OK, what is the road right here? Camp Swamp Road. And here is Walden at 5 57 p.m. and 35 seconds. Hey, we're about to have a fucking shootout, dude. This dude's got a gun. He's got a fucking gun. Here is witness number one at 5 57 p.m. and 41 seconds listener discretion is advised He is pulled over on the side of the road. Actually, I am not on oh my god. Oh my god I don't know what's going on. Here is Weldon at 5.57 p.m. and 45 seconds.

Hey, hey, hey. Weldon back up. Weldon back up. I can't, I can't take this. And here is witness number one at 5.57 p.m. and 49 seconds. I don't know what's going on. He's jumping out of the truck. At 5 57 p.m. and 51 seconds, Weldon begins shooting. Who's there? The shooting went on for a total of 26 seconds.

Here is witness number one at this exact same time. Her screams come five seconds into the shooting. Five seconds after the shooting stops, as you all know, Bradley says this to Weldon. Back it up, back it up, back it up. God damn it. 14 seconds later, witness number two calls 911 and says this. Camp 12th Road and somebody just unloaded, shot through his windshield and shot this guy.

Going back to what witness number one told the dispatcher, she said that she had seen Scott jump out of his car and that he was shooting out the window of Weldon's truck. But she also never saw Scott on Camp Swamp Road. She later admitted this to a detective and we'll get into this in another episode. But she did assume correctly that Scott had jumped out of his car. She assumed incorrectly that he had shot out Weldon's window. Weldon and Bradley did that and according to evidence Scott did not hit Weldon's vehicle. And witness number one was likely wrong about anything hitting her car because one, police

found no evidence of anything hitting her car, and two, she was not close enough to Weldon's truck to get hit. Remember, he had that 16-foot trailer on the back of his pickup. From witness number one's perspective, her perception was that Scott was shooting out Weldon's window because he's the only person she said she saw with a gun that evening. Witness number two, who was the only one who actually saw Scott outside of his truck with a gun and the only one facing and then driving right by Weldon at that time, described the incident differently. He said Scott yelled at Weldon to stop following him.

He said that Scott had the slide back on his gun, again a signal that it's not ready to shoot, and that it was down by his side. He said that Weldon had his gun pointed at Scott and rusting on the dashboard and that Weldon unloaded his gun on Scott. But still, it's witness number one's account that police and prosecutor Heather Weiss seemed to put the most weight on. Investigators later referred to her as the witness who saw everything from start to finish. The truth is that she did not see the shooting. She was there. She experienced it for sure, but she didn't see it. What's more, her call is filled with several more moments of her filling in the gaps with

her assumptions. That Scott was mad because of traffic. How did she know that? She said that Scott was trying to shoot Weldon, but there's no photos of that. At a time when photos were being taken, and seconds after she said that, a photo shows Scott far down the road from Weldon. She said Scott was the one causing destruction, but surveillance videos show that Scott was ahead of Weldon on Highway 9.

Weldon wasn't a part of this. Weldon didn't do anything wrong. And yet Weldon's 911 calls tell a different story. One of pursuit, and one that was predicting that this would end in gunfire. That's not to mention the story we learned from his recorded phone calls. I was on his ass, mama. I had a blast. He messed with the wrong one. And yet, the Attorney General's office depended so much on that testimony in those 911 calls when they made their decision not to prosecute because of citizen's arrest and stand your ground.

There is so much more to talk about when it comes to witness number one, including her interviews with investigators, her written statement, her online comments after the shooting, and her immediate correspondence with Weldon Vod, who she framed as a hero. And there is even more to unpack when it comes to the attorney general's horrific mishandling of this case. So please keep making noise, keep writing letters, and keep calling Alan Wilson's office to ask him to do the right thing and appoint a special prosecutor. Because, when you really look at it, his office failed here. And we have to keep chipping away.

We have to keep fighting for what is just, in this case and so many others. If we don't, I fear that no one else will. Remember what Dr. Seuss said, unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better. It's not. Stay tuned, stay pesky, and stay in the sunlight. Thank you for listening to this episode of True Sunlight. Your listenership and support helps us keep pressure on public agencies to do right by the victims in the stories that we cover.

If you want to go the extra step and support our mission to expose the truth wherever it leads, give voice to victims and get the story straight. Please consider joining Lunashark Premium. Our Premium members get access to case files, articles, and video episodes. And awesome bonus episodes like the Corruption Watch List, Girl Talk with Liz and Me, Soundbites, and our Premium Dive series. This next clip is from our Premium Dive on jury duty, led by Luna Shark librarian Kate Thomas. Kate's episode is chock-full of information on why jury duty is important, though flawed at times. And it also features an interview with Jim and Meredith Bannon from the Bannon Law Group, our first ever advertisers

on this podcast, and our besties. We hope you enjoyed this clip and stay tuned for more samples from premium bonus episodes that help you stay pesky and stay in the sunlight. Hello and welcome back. I'm Kate Thomas, your Lunashark Librarian, researcher and guide for another Premium Deep Dive episode. Today we're back on the topic of Jury Duty. Before we dive into today's discussion, let's hit rewind for just a moment. In part one, we uncovered the surprisingly ancient roots of the jury system. Yes, ancient.

Picture this. Citizen juries in ancient Rome, sometimes hundreds of people strong, gathered to weigh in on justice. But the real blueprint of the jury system that we know today took shape in 1215 with the Magna Carta. That's where we first see the powerful idea that no free person should be harmed, quote, except by the lawful judgment of their equals, end quote. Sound familiar?

That concept echoed across centuries, management of their equals." Sound familiar? That concept echoed across centuries, shaping everything from the Declaration of Independence to the U.S. Constitution. Our founders believed so deeply in the right to a jury trial that they called out King George for denying it and even listed it as a major grievance in the declaration. You can listen to part one of this series on your Lunashark Premium podcast feed or click the link in the description. Fast forward to today and you'll find that belief still alive in the 6th and 7th amendments, guaranteeing

jury trials in both criminal and civil cases. This right isn't just legal boilerplate. It's a vital part of our checks and balances that keep our democracy running. A trial by jury? That's your chance, our chance, to have a direct say in how justice is served. So, how does someone go from everyday life to suddenly holding that kind of power in a courtroom? It all starts with something called Venier, the list of potential jurors. States build this list using voter registration, driver's license records, and sometimes even tax or unemployment databases. If you're

a U.S. citizen, 18 years or older, and live in the judicial district, you're in the mix. Then comes the moment of truth the jury summons. Yep, that official looking envelope that lands in your mailbox. Even in our hyper digital age, it's still mostly snail mail. Partly for legal reasons, partly because it gets your attention. Some courts are experimenting with email or text reminders, but beware of scammers. No court is ever gonna demand payment over the phone.

Did you get a summons? Read it carefully. It will tell you when and how to respond, sometimes online, sometimes by phone, and sometimes the old-fashioned way. Miss it and you could be dealing with a bench warrant. No joke. Jury duty might not be glamorous, but as we've seen, it has a way of leaving a deep impact. Whether through books, TV, or interactive experiences, jury duty continues to capture our imagination and challenge how we think about justice, responsibility, and truth.

It's not just a civic obligation. It's a human story told time and time again. I am so thankful to Jim and Meredith Bannon of the Bannon Law Group for taking the time to sit down with Mandy and David to tackle some of my most pressing jury duty questions. Their legal journey is a fascinating one, from starting out as prosecutors in Arizona to running a leading law firm with offices in Bluffton and

Charleston, South Carolina, and also Pooler, Georgia. Now specializing in real estate and criminal law, the Bannons draw on their experience in both the prosecution and defense side of the courtroom. This interview lips the script on jury duty, offering insights straight from the lawyer's point of view. What are some things that you see in a lawyer that you would say, oh, that's never going to work for a jury? Like, oh, that's bad. I would say a lack of passion and a lack of preparation, Being prepared and organized and having a cohesive theme that links up

everything in your case is really necessary because you're telling a story. You have to have a very clear narrative. There are some trial lawyers who like the showmanship, the flashbang of it, but you're like, what are you actually saying? What is your actual theory? Absolutely. I know public speaking is the number one fear, even over death. And so if that's not what you're interested in, definitely don't get into this line of work. I remember this is a long time ago, that was prosecuting a case and the defense attorney

was just freaking out. And the judge was like, would you mind if I speak with her in private? Because we were all the way to the end and she wasn't going to post. And so, I was like, sure, judge, go ahead and talk to her. And he spoke with her and she was able to finish the trial and I was like, thank goodness, we were able to finish this thing. We didn't have to declare a mistrial because the defense attorney couldn't bear facing the jury for 15 minutes to deliver closing arguments. Is that a strategy ever where the defense or any counsel sort of screws the pooch, if

you will, in order to get a mistrial? Does that ever happen? Health problems, any of that? I mean, again, I'm sure it must. It's not something I'm interested in. Because I mean, here's the thing, trying cases is a lot of fun. Preparing to try a case is not a lot of fun. It is an enormous amount of work. And so, if I've taken the time to get everything ready to go, I want to be first on the docket. I want to seat the jury. I want to try the case because that's my job and that's what I've been working to do.

Katie Fetcher It's funny. I remember one of our bosses said that getting a guilty verdict was better than sex and Jen's comment back was, I think you're doing sex wrong. It's not that good, my friend. One last question I have. What do you guys know about education levels of average juries? What are you taught to? Sixth grade. Sixth grade. Sixth grade.

You have to be able to be a juror, you have to have a sixth grade education or it's equivalent. I know Judge Mullen says if you've had a job, raised a family, you have the equivalent of Pagerbills, you have the equivalent of sixth grade education. So for speech and for concepts, we're taught to present to the sixth grader. One of the best things you can do when you're dealing with themes and ideas and concepts is just talk about it in the community. You go to get coffee in the morning, be like, Hey, I have this case. What do you think about it? You know, you stop at the gas station and be like, hey, what are your thoughts on this?

Because a lot of times it's easy to get blinders on, talk to other lawyers and come up with these brilliant things. And then the average Joe is like, no, that's not important to me. I don't get it. And why do you care so much? Right. And I think what I always try to do Why do you care so much? Right. And I think what I always try to do is the idea is that you want to take complicated ideas and make them as simple as possible to understand.

And that's for whether you're prosecuting a case or defending a case, right? Is because I don't want juries guessing, so I want to be able to boil everything down to like its very base elements for no other reason than it's just easier to understand. I don't want it to be opaque and mysterious what's going on. I want it to be very, very clear.

And you don't want to use big lawyer words because that separates you emotionally from the jury. You want the jury to be nodding along with you, to be like, yes, go, like feel them in your corner and you can always feel the jury shift. I always really enjoyed that and being like, Oh, I got him on my side. Like, that's the best feeling. Is there anything else do you want to share with the audience? Just that we have offices in Bluffton Charlestonle, Georgia, ready to serve your real estate and criminal defense needs.

That's right. Thanks, guys. Jury duty can be a stressful time for so many people. And let's be honest, it's rarely comfortable or convenient. But as we've explored in our jury duty episodes, it is vitally important to our justice system. Our jury duty system isn't perfect, as we've learned in today's episode. And we still have a long way to go, especially when it comes to the financial and emotional toll jury service can take. But change is happening and there's real progress being made to make the experience

more accessible and fair. When we have thoughtful, attentive and diverse juries, we can get closer to combining those two cups of justice into one. So next time you hear someone groan about jury duty, share a few things you've learned over the past two premium deep dives. Until next time, stay curious and always check your sources. Thanks for joining us for part two of our premium dive into jury duty.

This episode was supposed to drop as the Kaluci murder trial was set to conclude and designed to be available as we were waiting for the verdict. But as y'all know, that didn't happen. So we're dropping it now as we similarly wait for justice. Remember to go to justiceforsaralynn.com and sign the petition As always, stay tuned, stay pesky, and stay in the sunlight. True Sunlight is a Lunashark production created by me, Mandy Matney. Co-hosted and reported by journalist Liz Farrell. Research support provided by Beth Braden, audio production support provided by Jamie Hoffman, case file management provided by Kate Thomas. Learn more about our mission

and membership at lunasharkmedia.com. Interruptions provided by Luna and Joe Pesky.