The Megyn Kelly Show - Jay-Z Accuser Inconsistencies, Murder One For Mangione, and Trump Lawfare Latest, with Arthur Aidala and Mark Geragos | Ep. 972

Episode Date: December 23, 2024

It's a "Kelly's Court" Christmas to begin our "True Crime Christmas" series this year. Megyn Kelly is joined by attorneys Arthur Aidala and Mark Geragos to discuss whether the new Los Angeles DA will slow or stop the process of the Menendez brothers getting released from prison, the potential gender bias in the case, the new evidence and the problems with the original prosecution, the wild new lawsuit against Jay-Z, the lawyer behind the suit and potential red flags within it, the accuser's "inconsistencies," the latest on Diddy and whether he is being treated fairly, the potential defenses for the UnitedHealthcare CEO assassin, whether an "insanity" defense could come into play, the decision by New York to charge Luigi Mangione with the very rare first-degree murder, the possibility for jury nullification, the lawfare against President-Elect Trump, whether the New York conviction will be thrown out, the latest comments from Alvin Bragg, and more.Grand Canyon University: https://GCU.eduTax Network USA: https://TNUSA.com/MEGYNLearn more about the Durbin Marshall Credit Bill: https://GuardYourCard.comFollow The Megyn Kelly Show on all social platforms:YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/MegynKellyTwitter: http://Twitter.com/MegynKellyShowInstagram: http://Instagram.com/MegynKellyShowFacebook: http://Facebook.com/MegynKellyShow Find out more information at: https://www.devilmaycaremedia.com/megynkellyshow

Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show, live on Sirius XM Channel 111 every weekday at noon east. Hey everyone, I'm Megyn Kelly. Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show and a special Kelly's Court Christmas episode. This kicks off our true crime Christmas series for 2024. Nothing says Christmas like true crime. And we have two, count them, two Kelly's Court favorites to dive into many important cases with. Jay-Z, Diddy, the Menendez brothers, and much, much more. Joining me now, Arthur Idalla, trial attorney extraordinaire and managing partner Idalla, Bertuna and Kamens, and host of the Arthur Idalla Power Hour on AM 970 in New York. Also with us today, Mark Garagos, also extraordinaire trial lawyer and managing partner of Garagos and Garagos and host of Reasonable Doubt,

which is a great podcast. The Megyn Kelly Show is supported by Grand Canyon University. Founded in 1949, GCU is a private Christian university that's dedicated to delivering an affordable and transformative higher education. Their vibrant campus is located in beautiful Phoenix, Arizona, and according to niche.com, ranked a top 25 best campus in the USA. As of June, 2023, GCU offers 330 academic programs with over 270 of them online, allowing you the freedom to earn your degree on your time from wherever you are. At GCU, your degree,

whether it's a bachelor's, master's or doctorate, integrates the free market system and a welcoming Christian worldview. Learn more about GCU's programs, competitive tuition rates, and scholarship offers from your university counselor. They're part of the supportive graduation team that takes a personalized approach to helping you achieve your academic goals, walking alongside you every step of the way. Find your purpose at Grand Canyon University.

Private. Christian. Affordable. For more info or to enroll, visit gcu.edu. Welcome back to the show, guys. Hello. Happy holidays. Oh, whoa, whoa. And to you. How you doing, Mark? I couldn't be better. How about you, Megan? I'm great. I love the holidays and I love true crime. So this is everything that I adore coming together. There's actually a lot going on. You never know whether, you know, we go to these true crime Christmas specials, which always do well. People are like us. They are also into

these stories. Whether you're going to have an embarrassment of riches or a paucity of results. And I got to say, it's the former. Let's kick it off with Mark's biggest current case. Probably not knowing Mark, but it's a big one. It's all over the news. Mark and I have debated it before. Marsha Clark came on and she did not agree with you that the Menendez brothers should and possibly will be released. Something bad happened for your clients since the last time we spoke. And that badness was the LA district attorney, George Gascon, who was pushing to have them possibly let out early, lost his election. And the new guy, Mark, is not a fan of this push and keeps naming you in the press and saying you've been misleading everybody into thinking that they didn't get a fair trial second time

around, that they weren't allowed to discuss the sexual abuse allegations, which he says they were. He said they argued everything you want them to have been able to argue. And the jury rejected it. And so he's calling you out, which suggests to me he's not on board. And they may not. They weren't home for Thanksgiving, but they may not be home even for Valentine's Day at this point. What do you think? Well, look, he has said various things. He has now, as we are discussing, has extended an invitation to meet, which is obviously something that I've been waiting for. And I will point out where he is wrong, and I will help educate him on the law. And the law is, and the facts are that in the second trial,

imperfect self-defense was not allowed as a jury instruction. So not alone. Imperfect self-defense is where you get a jury instruction where the jury can basically say, we're not going to vote for murder. We're going to eliminate malice based on imperfect self-defense. And that is the idea that you felt that there was danger because of the syndrome that you were exposed to. In this case, back in the 90s, we had battered women's syndrome. And I've talked to you, Megan, about the fact that I tried murder cases in the 90s where I used the battered woman syndrome. Back then, it was not extended formally by the legislature to others besides intimate partners. It was formally in 2004, the legislature expanded it. So the second trial, which the

evidence started eight days after the OJ acquittal, there were some dramatically different rulings, and those rulings are what affected the result by the jury. That's on the habeas. Then on the resentencing, you have, and he's talked about it, he being Mr. Hockman, that he has looked at thousands of pages of C-files. C-files are the correctional files. It's everything that these two gentlemen for the last 35 years, actually 30 because for the first number of years they were in the county jail, it's everything they've done in prison. And I will tell you that based on my investigation, based on the DAs who were involved in the investigation who filed the resentencing memorandum. It's the most impressive book of accomplishments by anybody who especially it's amplified when

you think about the fact that as of 2005, they had no hope of ever getting out. They could have gone in one direction. Instead, they went in the direction of starting. OK, so there's two different avenues that you're talking about. You're trying to first you're trying to say the underlying trial was unfair to them. They weren't allowed to present fully the defense of imperfect self-defense, meaning we'd been abused by our parents. We actually did get ourselves worked up to the point where we thought we were going to be murdered by them. That's why we murdered our parents on the night that we did, even though

they weren't rushing after us with loaded guns. We rushed after them with loaded guns, given what we believed in our heads. That's one lane. And the second lane is model prisoners. They've been there for a very, very long time. They've done everything they can to rehabilitate themselves in the eyes of the law and the prisoners and so on. And so either one of those tracks can get them out early. Now here's Nathan Hockman, the new DA. This is fascinating to me. He spoke with Deadline and now he's given an interview to NBC as well. But here's what he said in part. Once I got up to speed, oh, first he says, once I get up to speed, I'm going to call Mark Garagos. I'm going to invite him to come in and I'm going to let him make any level presentation he wants. But he so far doesn't seem impressed with the argument.

He says, look, the assumption that the second trial, that the issue of abuse wasn't raised, he says that's because of Mr. Garagos' mantra, which the media has repeated. He said, Eric Menendez testified in the second trial for seven days, probably, if I had to guess, close to 40 hours of testimony, where he went into great detail, as he did in the first trial. Incident by incident by incident, between the ages, I think, of six to 18, of what his father had done to him. So the notion, again, that the mantra, that the sexual abuse was not explored in the second trial, that the judge kept out all the evidence actually isn't true. Question by deadline. So why do you think that's become so accepted? Hockman, I mean, I've been doing this for 34 years and I've seen it. The media is in search of simple narratives, conflicting narratives.

And so it adopted the Garagos narrative, which was smart, very creative. It's basically that the trial was all about sexual abuse, that their response was because of sexual abuse. It's that a conviction was only attained because the evidence of sexual abuse did not occur in the second trial, but did occur in the first trial. And therefore that the underlying conviction is wrong and should be fixed. Very simple narrative. What makes it a little bit more complicated? Uh, and that's why the media would have to deal with additional work is what he says. And then finally he goes on to say, um, knowing the Garagos narrative is absolutely wrong. The issues that we will be looking at for the trial will be whether or not these two young men faced an immediate threat to their life.

Why they got to that point, Mark, I don't like your chances suddenly. Well, I really do like my chances because mind you, this is somebody who has practiced criminal defense. He represented, I believe, Lee Baca, who was the sheriff here, who was charged federally. So once I point out to him where he's wrong, frankly, on this, once I show him and walk him through, and as you said,

he's welcome to a fulsome presentation, which I plan on giving him, I think he'll change his mind. I think he'll understand. What specifically? Can you speak to that claim that they were allowed to testify to all the stuff that you said they were? Can I make Mark's case for him? Yeah, go ahead. Well, first of all, I have to just say, because Mark talked about, they think battered woman syndrome.

And since it's a special edition of Kelly's Court, I'm going to brag. I actually, my very first murder case as a criminal defense attorney, allowed for the first time in the United States of America, battered woman's syndrome to be used against a man. And they were two gay men and one killed the other based on a series of abuse and all kinds of abuse, financial abuse, emotional abuse, physical abuse, sexual abuse. But it had never been before anything more than husband and wife. And this expanded it. And Megan, it's been used very successfully, not to get people off, not to get people to say, no, I'm not guilty, but as opposed to life in prison or 25 years in prison, it's a tremendous mitigating factor, reduces sentencing

exponentially from life in prison to 15 years. In my particular case, when I came into the case, the prosecutor said, all right, Arnie, I'll give you 22 years. I mean, my guy totally did it. There was no issue about it. I'll give you 22 years. And then I raised battered woman syndrome. That's not going to work. I'll give you 20 years.

And then the judge put on three experts who said battered woman syndrome is not just between a husband and a wife. It can be through very different relationships. And it is gender neutral. It's all about between a husband and a wife. It can be through very different relationships. And it is gender neutral. It's all about control and power. He wanted to plead into six years. So that's where it matters so much. What year was that?

1999. It's exactly right. And that was the first time they had expanded it from the idea. Exactly. And I'm telling you, until the 2000s, this was not something that was recognized outside of what we used to call intimate partners. Well, you know, actually, I have my own story on this, because when I went to law school, it was between 92 and 95. And I did a little internship for a solo criminal defense practitioner, Mark Garagos.

See, I wasn't always prosecution-minded. I'm going to have to stop calling you my pro-host. I know. I don't like it. I object to my nickname. Anyway, this guy had me on this case where it was two lesbians. So it was kind of similar to your argument, Arthur, where I was saying we should argue battered woman syndrome on her behalf. And there was a woman syndrome and there was a woman there.

It just happened to be that her, you know, deceased partner was also a woman. Partner was a woman. So we were on the same path, my friend, and we did argue that. And then I'll tell you the rest of the story later about the guy I interned with. It didn't end well for him. Turned out he was kind of a fan of the criminal law in a different way. Anywho, so back to the Menendez brothers. Wow, that might explain quite a bit about you, Megan. That little tidbit might explain quite a bit about your tilt.

Right? I was like, ew, I don't want to be with these guys. I want to go on the other side. I want you to explain what Eric wasn't allowed to testify to in trial number two, because the first trial was a hung jury and they got let off. Then the DA brought the second trial against them for killing their parents. And the narrative has been, including by you, that they weren't allowed to testify to all the sexual abuse that they DA brought the second trial against him for killing their parents. And the narrative has been, including by you, that they weren't allowed to testify to all the sexual abuse that they suffered in the second trial. It was much more limited. Therefore, the jury didn't get to hear how awful life was under Kitty and Jose Menendez. And you weren't allowed to really defend them in the way that you wanted. So what specifically was denied that you would that you think was there? I believe there were 51 witnesses who the defense called Leslie Abramson, who tried it admirably and

who is still alive and was one of the great defense lawyers around. Leslie had called 51 witnesses, including experts, including family members who testified to the range of things that were going on there. One of the things that sticks out to me is this idea that there was a rule in the household that if Jose was with one of the boys in a room down the hall, you could not go down the hall. And that is chilling to me. There were, in the second trial, literally, I want to say 20 some odd witnesses who were not allowed to testify that could not corroborate what Eric was saying. So you had this idea that by the time you got to the closing argument, you could allow, and this is exactly what happened, the district

attorney to make a closing argument that said, oh, this is an abuse excuse. These are rich kids. They just wanted to inherit money. There was no corroboration. They were a bunch of whiners. In the first trial, you were able to corroborate. You were able to put on the witnesses, including family members, including experts, who corroborated all of this. And there was also a ruling and several rulings as to Lyle, which basically boxed Lyle in from being able to testify. So there was a monumental change in the rulings between trial number one and trial number two, the witnesses that were allowed to be called in trial number one and trial number two. And I look forward to presenting that because those are the things that are, to my mind, irrebuttable. It's factual determinations. Here's what Hockman, the new DA, is saying, Arthur. He says to Deadline,

as I said, Eric Menendez was able to testify in great detail about all the sexual abuse he experienced. He was even able to testify about sexual abuse Lyle experienced. He was even able to testify about the fact that Lyle. He was even able to testify about the fact that Lyle purportedly confronted his father, their father about this whole issue, which is why they had some level of fear that their father was going to kill them. All of that was presented to the jury and the jury still convicted them both of first degree murder. Now, does that sound to you like a DA who still is behind the prospect of taking another look at this case and possibly pushing to let these young men out?

Well, they're not young anymore. Early. Right. No, obviously it doesn't. But also a DA who's just gotten elected. But even though, is he even sworn in yet as the DA? I would think that would happen

in the beginning of the year. We've got this weird thing in la the county charter he gets sworn in on december i believe it was the sixth which is i know you would all right so anyway he was my understanding is he was more of the law and order guy than the last guy so he's probably trying to flex his muscles a little bit that I'm not going to go easy. This is right this second, as far as us New Yorkers know, the highest profile crime in LA right now. So he probably is trying to send the message that we're not going to be going easy on anybody.

The question I think I have for Mark is, did that jury get the appropriate charge from the judge with the California equivalent of battered woman syndrome, battered person syndrome? No, and that's the whole problem with the argument. And by the way, he is, he being Mr. Hockman, is parroting the, and I understand parroting is kind of a pejorative, but he's adopted kind of a narrative of the, what I call, I jokingly say, the 90s are calling and they want their DA's office back. That's been the traditional mantra, if you will, of the DA's office. And, you know, one of the things that Megan had mentioned that

Marsha has, and I have had spirited conversations about this. Marsha was there in the DA's office at the time in real time in the 90s. She knew what was going on. She will, at least in the green room before we get on to Megan's on air thing, she will admit to me that of course they needed to win that case. They had to win it at all costs. The DA at the time was in the fight for his life. And so, you know, there is a symbiotic. But here is what she said to me on the air. You were not there, but we had you on alone and then we had her on alone and I followed up. Listen. I don't think they're going to get out. I don't think it's going to happen. I don't think anybody was that impressed with Gascon's position. I wonder if people are thinking at all about the fact that there are others in prison serving a sentence of life without, which is what they're serving. That means life without the possibility of parole, who are much less culpable. I have clients that are serving life without parole right now who never killed anyone.

The defense is not, oh, daddy boinked me and mommy wouldn't stop him so I get to kill him. It wasn't that. The defense was, you know, daddy threatened to kill me. I believe he was going to kill me, even if you think I'm unreasonable in thinking that. I genuinely believe it because of things he said and did toward the end. That was their defense. I genuinely believe it because of things he said and did toward the end. That was their defense. You have a greater awareness of abuse, child abuse, and the kind of trauma it inflicts.

And we are, I think, are more sensitive to that. And that's a good thing. But you have to remember that that's not a license to kill. It's so good to talk to you because I talk to your partner in crime. He's not really, you just come on together sometimes. Mark Garagos, but I know he's a friend and you guys grew up in the California legal system together. And of course he's representing them and is 100% on the other side and came on and totally convinced me that they should be let out. Now I hear you talk, I'm like, ah, no, these are good points. She got me, Mark. And I think she got the new guy. Remember, Megan, you tilt that way. So

I'm going to bring you back to center. What about her point about all the other more deserving guys who didn't murder anybody who have to sit their asses in prison forever? Two wrongs don't make a right, though, Megan. Just because the system's broken there doesn't mean it should be broken everywhere. And I think, let me try it out. They're famous. They didn't get Lifetime movies made about them. Or what's his name?

Was it Ryan Murphy who just redid the story? What does that mean? What does that mean? They shouldn't get relief just because they have a higher profile case? Yes. Maybe it'll help the other people. I'll tie it in.

This was one of President Trump's talking points when he was on the campaign trail, how the system is broken, how it needs to be looked into, how it needs to be fixed, how we can't just do business as usual, the standard thing over and over again. It's time to readjust, to basically take a deeper look. And I think Trump is leading the way. He saw how the system is broken on the state level here in New York, on the federal level. And I think it's going to hopefully have some very

positive change regarding reform in the system, which is long overdue. I don't know how I feel anymore. Like, they definitely murdered their parents. And we talked about how that is the ultimate F in parenting. So the parents have some culpability here one way or the other. There's no question they weren't ideal parents. They definitely, I believe they were abusive. And I actually believe Jose was a sexual abuser, too.

I do. I just think there's been, I mean, with the Menudo guy coming forward to say that he was abused by, by Jose too. Like, why would he have done that? Why would he say all that? You know, all these years later, that's nothing most men want to admit, but he admitted it. So it's like, we know he was an abuser and it's not, they never do it with just one. So I do have some empathy for these young men. Go ahead. By the way, I will, I stand by, I know that Mr. Hockman has at least articulated that he doesn't buy it, but I will go to my grave telling you

if they were the Menendez sisters, they never would have gotten life without parole. It's just, it's a given. Anybody who's in the criminal justice system who's honest with you will tell you that. And the DA in the criminal justice system, who's honest with you, will tell you that. And the DA, we played this out, the DA in the case is on tape saying you can't rape a man. A man cannot be

raped. Let me just make Mark's point. I tried a case in Queens, New York. He's like, I'll make any point I have to make to somebody. Come on, what are you having me on here for? Just to look pretty? You have a handsome bald guy on here? I tried a case in Queens, New York,

of a young woman who cut off her father's penis. And he was screaming and yelling, so she stuffed a towel in his mouth. And he gagged to death. It wasn't the penis injury that killed him. It was the gagging that killed him. Wow, you really dropped a whopper on us there. What? Viewer warning, please.

There you go. Well, I used a proper word. Like you sometimes there, Miss Kelly, who drops some bombs. My mother yells at me. Talking like that. So, anyway, the jury came back and it was a woman. She testified.

She admitted to every crime. Prosecutor, after her testimony, stood up in front of her and said, Miss Richard Harris, you intended to cause serious physical injury to your father by cutting off his penis, correct? Yes. And when you did that, you caused his death, correct? Thank you. Those are all the elements of manslaughter to the first degree, which is a 25-year sentence. The jury came back and said, not guilty. They found her guilty of a much lower charge. She did two and a half years in prison and she was out. So, you know, it's somewhat similar. She had not molested her in a decade, but she saw him making moves on her five-year-old niece. And she said, I was not going to let that happen to my niece. And I took matters literally into my own hands.

Wow. Wait, let me ask you this to finish up on a procedural note, Mark. The report by Variety was that this new DA, Hockman, just removed the two deputies who sought to reduce Lyle and Eric's sentences, which is no bueno for you. So he's stepping in and he doesn't seem sympathetic, but they already filed a motion asking the court to reevaluate this. So does he like, is the ball already in motion? Is it too late for him to reverse course on this? Like this judge is going to decide right once and for all, or can he stop, can he stop the consideration of it? No, I said it publicly after the last status conference. There is a case, an appellate case in California.

It says specifically a subsequent DA cannot pull back the resentencing, number one. And number two, Judge Jessick also at the last hearing invoked what is called AB 600, which is his judge initiated ability to do it. So no, he can't call it back. Resentencing hearing is going to happen on the 30th and 31st, and it's going to be up to the judge. That's the next big date in this case, January 30th or 31st. And we will know a lot more at that point. So, okay. Very interesting. Good debate. And we'll find out what happens. Let's move on to Jay-Z and Diddy. Now we knew that Diddy was facing all sorts of criminal charges and tons of civil suits and my God, like I can't even keep track of the number

of things that have been alleged against, against Sean Combs or P Diddy. But here he is in this picture with Jay-Z, who is also known as Beyonce's husband. And now Jay-Z's been dragged into one civil suit by one of the Diddy accusers. And this now 30 something year old woman, I think she's 37 now, who claims that she was 13 years old at the time this happened to her, has filed a lawsuit through this lawyer who's suing P. Diddy in many cases. Like, this guy's going to build a summer home based on what he hopes to recover. Or three. In these lawsuits. Or three summer homes. Three. recover or three in these lawsuits, three, three. So he says that he's got this woman

who, when she was 13 years old, um, she went to the VMA awards in New York city, like by herself, looking to get in and meet celebrities. Not surprisingly, she says she couldn't get in. She says she decided to chat up the limo drivers waiting for the celebs outside. And that one of them said to her something to the effect of you look like Diddy's type and that then she was brought back to Diddy's house after the made her feel drugged, a drink, and she was raped not only by Diddy, but also by Jay-Z. And that when Diddy then tried to come for her again that evening, she grabbed her clothes and ran out and that her father picked her up at a gas station nearby the home. The father, and I presume she, lived five hours away in Rochester, New York. Now, unfortunately for this woman and her lawyer, this guy Busby,

some inconsistencies have surfaced in the account. Most notably, the father comes out and says that never happened. I don't I never went and picked her up at any post diddy party. I think I'd remember that. I live five hours away. And that would seem to be a near insurmountable problem for Mr. Busby in this lawsuit, Mark. But you tell me. Well, that's the when you say inconsistencies,

that's about as charitable as you can get. And by the way, I'm going to, I'm going to ask Alex Spiro next time he calls him a Busby, the 1-800 lawyer. I call him the 1-800 Diddy lawyer. I mean, he's out there with the billboards, he's filing things anonymously. And then it turns out when Alex was doing his press conference yesterday, that not only was the description of the house impossible 20 minutes outside of Manhattan, but virtually everything else about this story was impossible, not to mention, as you said, the father. But this is not the first time that one of these things as to Diddy has fallen apart. I mean, Gloria Allred brought a case that ended up falling apart. The lawyer I was I actually followed on one of the TV shows, a lawyer who brought three cases against Diddy.

And he said that 60 people had come to his office talking about Diddy, but the 57 of them were so ridiculous that he didn't take them. Well, that tells you 95% of the people making the claims don't even pass the smell test for a lawyer, yet he's going to take three or vice versa. I mean, this is really at the end of the day, if you look at the Diddy case, and there's almost a service that has been done by them expanding it to Jay-Z. Everybody says there's all these celebrities involved. Well, so far, everybody says any minute the tape's going to drop, the tapes are being shopped, blah, blah, blah. The problem is that was in September. Now we're in December. Not one tape has been released that I have seen. Not one other person who is an alleged victim has been identified. It's still a one accuser case that's being brought criminally. I think that a lot of this is totally overblown and there isn't any indication.

Everybody keeps talking about the Diddy parties. Where are the tapes of the Diddy parties where this is supposedly going on? Nobody's ever seen it. It's become like the Loch Ness Monster. And also, but Meg, let's talk about something historical that took place this week. And it's this case that you and I, I don't know how many stories we, which is horrible as what she did was horrible. She's actually just committed

like a little bit of a public service to show like, well, do make these things up. Everybody was like, oh, make this up. I don't want to just create such a story. Never happens. Yeah, it actually does happen. It happened. Those four kids' lives were ruined.

Their families ruined, financially wiped out. A DA was brought to his knees out there. It was just, you know, a despicable situation that happened. And now, almost 20 years later, she admits, yeah, I made the whole thing up. And this girl with the Jay-Z thing, I mean, her own father, yeah, I think I would remember if I drove five hours to pick up my daughter from a nightclub. But for Jay-Z, I agree with Mark that he did perform somewhat of a public service when his name came out. And he fought. He said, look, I feel bad for my kids. I feel bad they're going to have to hear about this. But I am not going to be extorted. I'm not giving a penny.

I know I didn't do that. And I'll tell you, if Mark and I represented these kinds of people, it is often a lot easier for them to fill out a three-page document, a non-disclosure agreement, write out a check for an amount of money that's not going to change their quality of life, just make it go away. He probably could have done that here, but he didn't and good for him. Yeah, no, Jay-Z is denying it in the strongest terms and he's responding to this. I'll get to her other inconsistencies in a second, but he's responding to the fact that she's been caught with some apparent whoppers by saying today's investigative report proves that this quote, attorney Busby,

filed a false complaint against me in pursuit of money and fame. The incident did not happen, and yet he filed it in court and doubled down in the press. True justice is coming. We fight from victory, not for victory. This was over before it began. This 1-800 lawyer doesn't realize it yet, but soon. And here are some of the other problems with her story as she told it through this lawyer. Okay, she claimed that she talked to specific celebrities at the Diddy after party. She said, for example, she spoke to musicians Fred Durst and Benji Madden, recalling a conversation, quoting her from a Washington Post report, about the Good Charlotte member's Last Supper tattoo. I have a religious background, she said, so it was something to talk about.

Okay, but NBC News said a representative for Benji Madden confirmed that Benji, as well as his twin brother Joel Joel were touring in the Midwest at the time of the 2000 VMAs and did not attend the event. Um, so there's that there's, uh, the father. And then there is this. Okay. She claimed that she went back to the after party at Diddy's house to a large white residence with a giant U shaped driveway. And NBC news is reporting that I guess there was a party, but it was at Lotus. Is that what it is? But they said that the building's now closed and it does not match the description of the place she claimed she was taken at all. So there's a few things here that don't match up. And she is saying I have made some mistakes, but she stands by her story saying I may have gotten some of the

details wrong, but I stand by it. And, but here's the capper, all right? This is the last piece of info for you guys. This is devastating. This is the worst part to me. Busby puts out a statement in the wake of this, right? This is terrible, Arthur. And he says, Jane Doe's case was referred to our firm by another law firm. So already it's bad. Like, we don't know Jane Doe, right? Somebody else did the legwork on this who, who vetted it prior to sending it to us. I'm innocent. Don't hold it against me, Busby. Our client remains fiercely adamant that what she has stated is true to the best of her memory. I mean, how many qualifiers can you get in there? She, she has, She is adamant that what she has stated is true, to the best of her memory, and then says, we will continue to vet her claims. Hello? That should have been done

before you filed a lawsuit against Jay-Z and Diddy and collect corroborating data to the extent it exists. Okay. Well, we will look forward to that, Mr. Busby. Then he claims she agreed to submit to a polygraph, though he doesn't claim she's actually sat for one yet. And then he says, we'll do our best to vet every claim made in all of our cases, just as we will in this case. This has been extremely distressing for her. Here we go. Ready? To the point she has experienced seizures and had to seek medical treatment due to the stress. I don't believe one word of that. She did not get seizures from the stress of this. Did she get seizures, Arthur Adala? I doubt she's gotten seizures. And, you know, as lawyers, we raise our hand the day you're sworn in and you take an oath. And some people take that oath more seriously than others.

So I had a woman come in here, a woman, not a young woman, a woman, 38 years old in the end of August. And she made these types of claims. And I have had three retired judges in my law firm and three other lawyers. And I believe her. I believe what she's saying. But I am fallible. I make mistakes. We've all now interviewed her over the course of four months. And now finally, I think in January, we will file a suit along these lines, but it's not until six human beings with different life experiences, different ages, have evaluated this

individual before you make such a serious claim. And this is, it's not a case that's going to make the news, but it's going to affect somebody else's life. And when I took that oath in 1992, that's still in the front of my mind in 2024, that I'm always going to try to do the right thing and make sure I'm very, very careful and not throw people's names and reputations under the bus. You know, when they just named Beyonce the singer of the first quarter century, they didn't include her last name Carter in her remarks or whatever it was. And that's, in my opinion, a direct ramification of this new lawsuit. And, you know, you can't just be so careless, even if you are going to get three summer homes

or six summer homes or a yacht out of it. To my own self, be true. And I think Mr. Busby is struggling with that. Would you have done things like calling, you know, the guys in this band, like their reps to say, I'm investigating this case. Can you confirm whether your clients were in New York at the VMAs in 2000? Like, would you have done that kind of work before submitting a complaint?

I mean, before you look, I'm not going to BS you and say, yeah, I would do that in any case before I was going to go after someone, the likes of Jay-Z who look, the guy started off life as a crack dealer. So, you know, he wasn't exactly in the seminary before he became a billionaire. But he's led a pretty clean life the last three decades or so, if not four decades, well, I'd say three decades. Well, okay. But as far as we know, as far as he's in the public eye, he's under public scrutiny on a regular basis. You have to do some minimal fact checking. Like does the location exist where this person is saying it took place? I would definitely pick up the phone and be like, okay, let's talk to your

dad. And that's a simple one. My dad picked me up. Okay, good. Let's just chat with your dad. I mean, that is not hard. It's the way I'm going to go back to the case that I talked to you just to show you how careful I am, Megan. This particular case in my office, this woman has the potential defendant on tape admitting things. And I'm still being overly cautious before I start a lawsuit to this magnitude. So we have a responsibility of lawyers as as lawyers, to cross our teeth and dot our I's. That's a no shit moment when you hear the dad say, no, no. I think I'd remember like, oh, God, help us out. But no, this does not look real.

And Jay-Z is denying it in the strongest terms. And I know it's very fun to say, oh, a very rich celebrity. I'm in. Let's tell me all the terrible stuff he's done. But we have to be just as cautious about what look like bullshit allegations. And, you know, when they smell bad, call it out as such. OK, let's move on. I say penis.

You yell at me and you just say the whole word BS. And I can't, you know, that's OK. It's not about saying penis. You were like, oh, she chopped her dad's penis off and shoved it down his throat. Go on. People listen to this. They're driving their cars. They don't know what they're coming at them. Okay. Let's talk about the horror that was the UnitedHealthcare CEO murder, Brian Thompson, killed by this guy, Luigi Mangione. It's so bizarre. You know, this young guy, 26 years old with everything in front of him, you know, had the world at his fingertips,

valedictorian, went to an Ivy league university, UPenn, got a master's, was never in trouble with the law before, you know, like one minor traffic violation, something stupid. Um, and now facing charges in New York of second degree murder. Uh, let's just start there. I'll start, I'll stick with you on this, Arthur. Why, why is second degree murder instead of first degree murder in New York? Well, second degree murder is the typical charge. First degree is for police officers, firefighters, EMT workers. Uh, I believe as you kill someone under 14 years old if you execute someone who's going to be a witness there's very very specific

first degree murder elements of a crime can you still go to jail forever? you can still go to jail I believe in first degree murder you get life without parole and murder in the second degree it's 25 to life the first

degree murder is is very very rare thank god actually i'm just going to say this this friday will be the 20-year anniversary of the 10-year anniversary when detective ramos and detective lou were executed on the streets of new york sitting in their police cars that's a first degree murder case oh god that was Mark, let's say they call you up Luigi Mangione. And I believe he's just hired Karen Agnifilo, the wife of Mark Agnifilo, who represented Keith Raniere in the NXIVM case. So I interviewed when that whole thing was going down. He did not get Keith Raniere off. But in any event, so he let's say he has second thoughts and he actually wants Mark Garagos. How do you defend Luigi Mangione? Well, you're going

to get mad at your booker for this. Mark Agnifilo's partner is who is a Garagos is a Garagos. Yes, my daughter is your daughter, right? I'm not mad at my booker. She told me. Okay. That firm also represents Diddy. So full disclosure. And I've represented Diddy for years. So full disclosure there.

I'm glad you put that at the end of the segment, Mark. Most people want to put the full disclosure. So do you have the right to remain silent? Well, if they hadn't turned off over her penis cutting, then they're still listening. This is their reward. I don't know. And all I know, I haven't talked to Karen other than just briefly about it so far. She used to be of counsel to me before she went with her husband and Tenny.

And I don't know if they are conceding that he is the shooter or not. Obviously, that's the first thing. They've got to see what the evidence is and what the prosecution has. I mean, as of right now, I believe he's still in Pennsylvania. I don't think I'm telling any secrets in that I think extradition will probably get waived and that they'll get to New York and then they'll get the discovery, which is the package of information. And then they'll make a decision as to what's going to happen here. obvious here that people have already assumed that he did it and that he did it for the reasons that have been kind of tapped into the public consciousness, which is that people have a lot of animus towards these health care companies and these insurance companies for the way that

they treat people. I mean, you know, it's amazing to me if you take a look at this act, which normally if this was any other situation, people would be screaming. But within hours of this act, Aetna had to reverse the fact that they had said they'd come out and said they weren't going to pay for anesthesia for the entire length of an operation right and they they had to reverse that based on the uh based on the uh kind of public outright outrage over this i remember i'll be like arthur and talk about prior cases 20 almost 20 years ago there was i had a young lady uh or family where they the stigma would not pay for the liver transplant and claimed it was too experimental. And until we organized a protest in front of Cigna, they changed their mind, but it was too late. And this beautiful 17 year old girl died. And we ended up trying to go after Cigna for that. And it was amazing to me that became a kind of an issue in the then presidential election.

There are all kinds of public sentiment, and probably in a lot of cases, rightfully so, where if they embrace that and they go down that road, that jurors may say that there is some mental element that justifies that if in fact it turns out that he is the shooter. And I think you have to focus a little bit on... Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. When you say there may be some mental element that justifies it, are you talking about an insanity defense? Because that's the only mental element that would justify this. No, I don't know that that is the only mental element. I don't know enough about the facts. I don't know enough. I'll tell you the facts. He murdered Brian Thompson, I think, because he's a nutcase. I don't know that he's going to rise to an insanity defense.

But the reason we know it's not some speculation is because he had a fucking explanation written down on his person right next to the gun that he used to shoot the man. This is not going to be a tough one. We don't need to pretend that this is like the Jay-Z situation. He is cooked. Okay.

Yeah, I mean, the first thing I would do, Megan, is you order at a Raymond's. Go ahead, Mark. Yeah, just save the tape. Go ahead, Arthur. At a Raymond's. At a Raymond's. I arraignments, at arraignments, haven't been in this position before.

I've represented someone who, I don't know, Luigi, but this guy, I got him the insanity defense without a trial. Prosecutors agreed. So you do what's called a 730 exam, right at arraignments, which means when he's incarcerated, doctors who work for the city of New York and under the supervision of the judge examine him.

And that examination isn't about his mental state at the time that the crime took place, but his mental state at that point to see whether he can represent himself, to see if he can help in his own defense. If a judge says, this kid doesn't even know that we're on the planet Earth, he thinks we're on Mars, he just gets warehoused and keeps getting evaluated until that happens. So he's not out on the street, he's in a facility with bars and chains. But then at times, if you find, your expert finds that this person is so, just really is not in touch with reality, you could then bring him into the DA's office, their expert or experts evaluate that person, and they can agree to,

all right, we're not going to put him in prison, we're going to put him in a hospital prison. And statistically speaking, this is why you don't usually want to do that. Statistically speaking, on murder cases, you spend more time incarcerated in a hospital prison than you do if you pled guilty to 22 years to life and you're up for parole at 22 and then at 24 and then at 26 and then at 28. Yes, you wind up spending more time incarcerated. A lot of these times, Megan, they really are, to use the word, crazy, but they are really crazy. It's scary. John Hinckley Jr. got out. After, what, 40 years?

I'm just saying. It wasn't a life sentence for him. But at 25 to life, you usually get out at 30, 32, 35 years. So he was in there, John Hinckley Jr. was in there a very, very long time. This guy, you're telling me Luigi could get out,

he could get convicted and he could get out after 34 years? Yes. That's ridiculous. That's absolutely ridiculous. This guy, how much more could you tell him? Are they used to prosecute cases? How much more could you ask for? You find the prosecute cases how much more could you ask for you find the guy he's got the gun on him he's got a confession saying let me save you the trouble i

didn't work with anybody it was me all me and here's why i did it you've got his fingerprints at the scene you've got him on camera multiple times and you've got the exact gps of where he like look mark started off with, you know, do you, do you come out and not lose credibility and admit that it was him right off the bat. So you don't look like a fool.

Whereas his first lawyer in Pennsylvania is like, I've seen no evidence that it was him. That's a little bit of a, it's a little bit of a stretch. What's more scary to me is the people who look at him as a hero and people who are putting money in a goFundMe for him and whatever. You know, some host on another television show when I was on tried to compare Luigi and the GoFundMe played at Daniel Penny. The guy was just acquitting the subway.

I mean, it was absolutely ridiculous. One guy, Luigi, plotted this thing out for a long, long time and executed someone. This Daniel Penny woke up one day and was heading from point A to point B and saw something he thought was going to be of tremendous danger, if not death, to somebody else. back taxes or unfiled returns? Well, get ready because since COVID relief ended, the IRS hired 20,000 new enforcement agents proposing millions of pay up notices for 2025. Oh, joy. If you're worried about IRS collection tactics, you don't have to face them alone. Tax Network USA can help Tax Network USA is the nation's premier tax relief firm, and they've negotiated over $1 billion in tax relief for their clients. Their services include penalty forgiveness and hardship programs. Whether you owe $10,000 or $10 million, their experts are ready to assist you.

Even if you're behind on taxes, Tax Network USA can guide you through the process. Contact them for personalized support. Handling IRS matters without professional help is risky and unpleasant. Protect your financial security with guidance from Tax Network USA. To schedule a complimentary consultation, call 1-800-958-1000 or visit tnusa.com slash Megan. Don't let the IRS's aggressive tactics control your life. Empower yourself with Tax Network USA support and take charge of your financial future. Visit TNUSA.com slash Megan today. So I have a question for you then that prosecution by that DA's office.

And I said it before about Trump, which I never understood in that prosecution. But this prosecution makes zero sense to me. Daniel Penny. I don't understand it. I don't understand. Talk about be careful what you wish for. When that jury came back, as they often often do on a Friday afternoon at around three o'clock and said, we're hung. And then they gave the Allen instruction, which, by the way, I don't know why you guys still haven't had that declared unconstitutional in New York. In our state courts, you can't do it. Get back in there and deliberate.

The fact that they moved to have that greater charge dismissed and then have them come back on a Monday to deliberate on the lesser charge, if that isn't once in jeopardy, I mean, they should be, and they were trying anything to get a conviction. What was the point of that? What were the, what was the... Luckily for Daniel Penny, it'll never be appealed because when you win, you don't appeal. So no one's going to know whether it was correct or incorrect. Let me add to Mark's question because my question too was,

so the prosecution realizing that the jury was hung on the most serious charge in Daniel Penny, reckless endangerment, said, never mind, we'll drop it. We'll pull it. Okay, they can't agree on it. We'll pull it and just make them decide criminally negligent homicide, yes or no. And the reports uniformly said they dismissed the reckless endangerment without prejudice. But hadn't Jeopardy already attached at that point? How do you how could they possibly have argued that they were preserving their right to try him again on reckless endangerment? I'm not sure. First of all, they were only able to do that with Judge

Max Wiley's approval. And I don't know what Judge Max Wiley said or what his ruling would have been. So it's and again, we're not going to find out because he was acquitted let me just go back to the beginning mark but it doesn't attach when the jury is sworn in yes the jeopardy had attacked that's what he said it was once that's what yes that's why i don't think i don't think that's relevant i mean i don't think it was meaningful oh we were dismissing without prejudice of Of course it's with prejudice. They're in there deliberating. It's definitely with prejudice. Yes, of course. Your case just got hobbled. Okay, go ahead. Going back to the beginning, Mark, when this happened, primarily because it was on video.

You guys know this. When we were kids and you heard testimonial evidence, it was one thing. When you're actually watching and then you're actually, and it's the same thing with George Floyd, if there was no video on the George Floyd case, we would never know the name George Floyd. So it's the video that incites, it's the video that makes things much more important. And I think Greg had no choice to put it into the grand jury. However, those of us who have been prosecutors know there are ways to put cases into the grand jury to kind of maybe get one result or another result. And they decided, look, they didn't overcharge the case. I'm shocked they didn't ask for the higher charge of manslaughter in the first degree.

But they got the manslaughter, the man too. It would be naive to say there wasn't a racial aspect to this, even though besides Daniel Penny, there was a black person holding him down. It's the reason. Well, the video was huge, though, Megan. The video was huge. When you watch a person's life get snuffed out, like you watched

George Floyd's life, his leg, he's kicking, kicking, and then he just dies. That's one human who is killing another human. There's no doubt about dies. That's one human who is killing another human. There's no doubt about that. And, you know, that's not the type of thing that, you know, we really need to examine. I go back to this.

Who would I rather have on the subway? Of course. Jordan Neely or do I want Daniel Penny? Well, that was in the summation. And I worked very, I was very supportive. I'll leave it at that with the team on Daniel Penny's case. They did a great job, Tom Kniff and Steve Reiser. But here's where the prosecutor messed up.

The jury's charge, when the judge told them, is you cannot deliberate on the lesser included of criminally negligent homicide until you have a verdict on manslaughter in second degree, the more serious charge. So they went under the assumption that, well, we'll get him on the criminally negligent homicide, but we're not going to get there unless we give them an out on the man too. So if they're hung on the man too, they can't get to crim neg. So we'll say, which is something we've never done before, dismiss the higher count and victim of the lesser count. And in fact, it backfired. They really wanted to get him, which just showed they were not just checking a box. They desperately wanted to get him. And the reason they desperately wanted to get him is because you had a woke prosecutor. She was on camera having said,

oh, you know, I'm always looking for the racial justice and I make sure I look out for the marginalized communities when I decide who to prosecute and who not to. And in this case, she thought that Jordan Neely was the marginalized one and Daniel Penny was some privileged white guy, even though he's like a former Marine with no money. That's how this DA's office sees everything. They're as woke as they come. We've seen this time and time again from them. It was a video or no video. They never would have charged this case if if Penny had been black and had wound up holding nearly a white man in a chokehold to his death. Never. But what I just can't get my head around is how do you, as a defense lawyer, you defend against the more serious charge. You go through all the case. You're focused on the more serious charge. The jury deliberates, says they're hung. I defended the whole case. You defend the whole

case based on the more serious charge. They're hung. You give them the Allen charge, which in a lot of jurisdictions, as I've already mentioned, is unconstitutional. To coerce the jury, they still stand tall. And then you say, sorry, we were just joking. We're going to dismiss that. How is that not once in jeopardy on this case? I don't understand that. Well, the defense objected, first of all. The defense strenuously objected to the top count being dismissed. And the reason why the defense bar was so first of all. The defense strenuously objected to the top count being dismissed. And the reason why the defense bar was so up in arms over the weekend was, we don't want this to be a trend where prosecutors overcharge cases.

Hey, I'm on the top count. We get two bites at the apple. All right, fine. We didn't get the man one. We'll dismiss that. Make sure you convict him on the man two. But again, it'll never be appealed since he was found not guilty. Well, I see that perfectly.

They have a reasonable, they have a reasonable, reasonable objection. Before we leave the subject of this, I want to do two things. I want to talk about this DA. Actually, let's do the civil suit in the Penny case first, and then we'll go back to Alvin Bragg because he made just an outrageous decision about the Penny case first, and then we'll go back to Alvin Bragg because he made just an outrageous decision about the Trump case. And the judge, of course, sided with him because the judge continues to side with him against Trump, Judge Mershon. But anyway, let's stick on Daniel Penny for a second because now Penny's off the hook criminally, but not civilly. So much in the same way we saw in the O.J. Simpson case where O.J. got off criminally but then got sued by the Goldman family and lost, was found civilly liable for wrongful death of Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson.

That's what they're trying to do to Daniel Penny. So Jordan Neely, the decedent's father, has now brought a civil suit against Daniel Penny. I mean, even though this guy was absent from his son's life, his son was in the system in and out on drugs. So where was the dad then? Nowhere to be found. But now that there's potential money involved, he's back and he's filing a civil lawsuit, Mark, where he wants to try to get blood from a stone. That stone is named Daniel Penny. What do you make of it? Unfortunately, it's a story often told and it is, to some degree, it's repulsive. The whole idea here that you have, first of all, the idea that Daniel Penny would be prosecuted, I know that you want to go under the civil.

I just can't leave the criminal. This, to me, was such an outrageous prosecution. As a defense lawyer, and I'm not a member of the New York State Bar, but I will tell you that if I was in the criminal defense bar, State Bar of New York, like Arthur, they should be outraged. They should be up in arms. The idea that you can overcharge somebody, bring a prosecution like this, the jury, coerce the jury by giving an Allen charge, a dynamite charge, and then pull this stunt and have this guy. I mean, does anybody understand just how over the top this is? You already said that.

I just, I can't. We're moving forward. No, you must. I insist. I refuse. No, regarding, listen. I'm hung on this, Megan. I'm hung and I'm not moving.

Regarding the civil case, Megan, I have repeatedly said what you just said. See, there's an opportunity to reclaim the microphone. There you go. He had, he had, I'm trained in this, you know, I, he, the father, the uncle, the aunt, all these people were there. This guy, Jordan Neely was a sad case. He was mentally ill. He was a drug addict. He was a criminal. And yet I think one of the people in his family did give an interview and say, I would drive around Manhattan and try to find him. And occasionally I would and bring him in my car and try to help him. They definitely gave him a lot more attention in death than they did in life. And that's why he's in the position that he's in. And I know we focused

on these two individuals, Penny and Neely, but we need to look, I'll just speak for New York City, the bigger problem with mental illness in the streets of New York. Neely is not a unique character, unfortunately. And it's not only the streets of New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Dallas, Miami, there is mental illness that's prevalent. I don't know if it's not only the streets of New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Dallas, Miami. There is mental illness that's prevalent. I don't know if it's always been prevalent. I don't know if it's a newer thing. Drugs are much more intense.

Even straight up marijuana is much more intense. But they have this K2 stuff and people are like losing their minds. And we are not doing anything to address it. The NYPD is not supposed to be the entity that approaches a guy in the street who's doing nothing, but his pants are around his knees. He's absolutely exposed.

It's 20 degrees outside. We need like a different unit. We need someone else. It should just be cops putting handcuffs on a guy who doesn't even know his name and is dribbling. We need to address this in a much bigger way. And maybe the Daniel Penny case is opening up some eyeballs and some brainpower to figure out how to prevent tragedies like this

from happening, because it was a tragedy for Daniel Penny as well. Of course, it was a tragedy for Neely and his family, but for Daniel Penny, he's been going through hell, that kid, for a year and a half, and will for a little while longer. It's fine for this dad to claim, oh, gee, you know, but there's going to be testimony about him. There's a report in the New York Post saying he and his son would argue after the dad asked Jordan Neely to share the proceeds he earned

from his performance as a Michael Jackson impersonator, and he refused. This dad was always trying to get money from the son. That's how it makes it sound. Even in death, he's trying to get money off of his son. I don't think a New York jury is going to fall for this for one second. I don't think he's going to get anything. We'll see. But wait, we got to go back to Luigi because this just breaking as we're talking. Arthur, they just charged him with murder in the first degree. Are they listening to us right now?

Did we persuade them that the second degree wasn't good enough? I will look at the subsections. It would be interesting to see if, obviously we know he's not a cop fireman, EMT or anything, peace officer. I don't know if he was about to go testify at a congressional hearing or some sort of a trial, but they do know if you kill a witness. So I don't know exactly what theory of murder in the first degree they're going to be looking for. Or maybe they're just overcharging and see if it gets, you know, what sticks and if they want to lower the charge. But a grand jury would have to approve the murder in the first degree charge.

That's what happened. They said that he was indicted by a grand jury on murder in the first degree, charged with 11 counts, including murder in the first degree, one count of murder in the first degree, two counts of murder in the second degree per the Washington Post. So they did it. There's got to be a reason why they were able to increase it. And I have to say, thank God. Thank God. There's no way this guy should be getting out after 32 years. Bullshit. He cut this guy down in the prime of his life.

You know, 16 year olds, 18 year old son running a big company, self-made, didn't come from any sort of money. Brian Thompson, these cretins who are celebrating it are absolutely disgusting. We saw a poll showing 41% of 18 to 29-year-olds approve of Luigi's behavior, more than the number who disapprove, which was just 40%, so not by much, but they do. And so here's the question I have for you, Garagos, knowing that if you actually do get hired by Luigi, like someone in your family did, um, do you go for jury nullification? You, you try to stack the jury with young people and you try at every turn to get in the terrible misdeeds of the insurance industry. And when you get an objection from the prosecution, that that is totally irrelevant to the trial. You try to

sneak it in however you can. Even if it gets stricken, you make the jury hear it and you hope one of those young people is in that 41 percent. There you go. Channeling your pro ho again. Every just when I thought we had gotten to kind of you centered and being more moderate. You know, you just go off. Luigi, I am definitely very pro. Like I said, I'm not going to go as far as Dickie and tell you that I've seen no evidence, but I don't know what the evidence is. But I will tell you, whenever somebody argues about jury nullification, I'm always a little leery about that. I you know, there's always the overcharging by prosecutors. I don't hear people, you know, protesting or being upset when prosecutors overcharge.

A defense lawyer has a duty, and that's to zealously defend. It's different. It's a different duty than the prosecutor. The prosecutor is supposed to seek justice. Now, what you call jury nullification, there, I'm sure, I would guess, there's going to be a robust exploration of the mental state of this young man if the facts are as simplistically and powerfully overwhelming as you've described them. I just don't know that yet.

But if they are, as a defense lawyer, the first thing you do is you look at the evidence that the prosecution has. At the same time, you walk and chew gum and you take a look at exactly what the mental state of your client is. And that's the important thing to do as a defense lawyer. And you don't get swayed by kind of one side or the other. And you're not looking necessarily when people talk about jury nullification, I always

say, well, yeah, there's only two things that are not appealable in the criminal law. One is a not guilty verdict as well as Arthur mentioned, and the other is a presidential pardon. So those are the two kind of escape hatches. That's what our Constitution is based on. And I don't call it jury nullification. I call it not guilty. This holiday season, millions of families across America will rely on credit card rewards to visit their loved ones. But according to our sponsor, the Electronic Payments Coalition, D.C. politicians are trying to pass a bill that would lead to the end of credit card rewards. What? They say the Durbin-Marshall credit card bill would mandate credit cards run on alternative networks, not the trusted and stable networks you probably use today.

And they say there's no guarantee that the convenience, zero liability fraud protection and rewards programs you know and love will remain. The Electronics Payments Coalition says corporate megastores will make more money while you sacrifice your payment convenience, rewards, and peace of mind. Find out more at guardyourcard.com and consider telling Congress to guard your card and to oppose the Durbin-Marshall credit card bill. Learn more for yourselves at guardyourcard.com. Kelly show and triumph a serious XM channel featuring lots of hosts. You may know, and probably love great people like Dr. Laura, I'm back.

Nancy grace, Dave Ramsey, and yours truly Megan Kelly. You can stream the Megan Kelly show on serious XM at home or anywhere you are. No car required. I do it all the time. I love the serious XM app.

It has ad free music coverage of every major sport, comedy, talk, podcast, and more. Subscribe now, get your first three months for free. Go to SiriusXM.com slash MK show to subscribe and get three months free. That's SiriusXM.com slash MK show and get three months free. Offer details apply. This same DA we've been debating who brought the criminal charges against Daniel Penny for protecting those subway passengers is the one who brought the charges against Donald Trump for falsification of business records around his nondisclosure agreement with Stormy Daniels. And one of the many problems that Alvin Bragg now faces is, A, his client was elected president again, and it's going to make sentencing Trump very complicated. When will he serve his time, if ever? Will there be actual time assigned and so on? But secondly, the U.S. Supreme Court then ruled that presidents have immunity for their official acts and that not only do they have immunity, but you can't even introduce into evidence in a case against them evidence of their official acts.

They're just totally off limits as an evidentiary perspective. And yet that ruling came after this trial. And at the trial, they did have testimony about Trump while he was in the Oval Office doing various things, including with Hope Hicks, who was his advisor. And the prosecution argued that it had been critical evidence in closing. So Trump recently filed a request to Judge Mershon to throw out the criminal verdict, saying this is not consistent with the Supreme Court's ruling. You allowed evidence in against me, which has now been deemed inadmissible by the highest court in the land. And Mershon, shockingly, didn't see it that way and will not order a new trial and does not think that this was a problem. So while we're on the subject of Alvin Bragg,

what's going to happen in that case, Arthur? You're a New York lawyer. Well, the judge relied on what's called the harmless error. He's like, even if it did come in, the evidence against Trump was overwhelming without this bad evidence. So it's harmless error of that process that I allowed it in. And we're going to stick with the result that the jury gave. Typically, that's what an appellate court does. An appellate court rules. Yes, the trial judge should not allow this in. He did allow it in. The jurors did hear it. But there was so much other evidence that it didn't matter. So that's where we are with that piece of the puzzle.

The sentence in this case, I believe, was supposed to be July 16th. Then in between the conviction and July 16th, that's when the Supreme Court decision came on, came down with the presidential immunity. There have been all kinds of motion practice that was supposed to happen in September, that was supposed to happen in November, but that Trump won. And I looked up, I try to look up today what the next date is for a sentence. And I don't see one, but I may have, it may have just been announced because this decision came down yesterday. A lot of people, maybe the judge was going to dismiss the case, but that was not the case. And a 41-page opinion, so those of you know, in state criminal court is a very big opinion. They're normally like four to five pages, not 41 pages. There now has to be some sort of a sentencing to end this. Alvin Bragg has suggested,

let's just all agree, adjourn it until after President Trump's tenure as the president of the United States. But a defendant has the right to a speedy trial, and this falls into all of his constitutional rights. So I don't see that happening. I think Merchant's hands to surrender to be processed or a unconditional discharge, which means, OK, you're going to put this over four years and change. Then you'll go to jail after your presidency. I think a lot of nothing's going to happen. I would suspect Richon will give him a tongue lashing saying you've been convicted. You're a convicted felon. I think what you did was horrible. And you set a horrible precedent. But this is a unique case.

And I would have sent you to jail. But now I think I cannot send you to jail in the interest of justice. You know, you should send him in for community service. He's about to do four years of that. Go ahead, Mark. Right. I was just going to say, I didn't realize we'd be talking about this, but I pulled up the quote that I noticed yesterday that Todd Blanche, who's now nominated to be the number two at DOJ, wrote. of DA Bragg's desperation to avoid legally mandated dismissal, DANY proposes that the court pretend

as if one of the assassination attempts against President Trump had been successful, quote unquote. And that is exactly right. There is no reason in the world for him to be sentenced. By the way, Arthur, you can correct me, but if this had been in most courts, the fact that he hasn't been sentenced means that he is not a convicted felon. I don't know if there's some nuance in New York, but federally and in the state courts that I've practiced in, without sentencing, you're not convicted, per se.

And the fact that they had to dance on the head of a pin to try to say that the evidence that was brought in, where they're talking about things that happened when he was in office. I mean, Megan, you covered this in real time. They had all kinds of days and hours of evidence about what happened post-election at the White House. And to say now, well, sorry, we were just kidding. It was overwhelming. And therefore, it didn't implicate presidential immunity is just nonsense. The appellate court will see through this.

They will see how the prosecution argued in closing that that evidence about Trump's official behavior was critical to their case by their own admission. The prosecution's own admission, not to mention all the other ridiculous legal gymnastics that were pulled in this case. So many appellate arguments here. So many, so many arguments here. It's a case of first impression. It's a federal case brought in state court. The jurors didn't have to be consistent on what underlying crimes Trump allegedly committed. There is so much appellate practice here. It's actually exciting.

Yeah, it is kind of exciting. I can't wait to see it get reversed. Okay, so we've got to move on to Derek Chauvin. I don't understand this one. Maybe you guys understand it better than I do. I don't totally get what's happening here, but the headline is that, uh, he has won the right to examine George Floyd's autopsy results. Um, as he challenges his murder conviction lawyers for Derek Chauvin quoting here from the daily mail have been granted permission to examine heart tissue and fluid samples taken from George Floyd's body. U.S. District Judge Paul Magnuson granted the motion after attorneys argued it was a heart condition that claimed the 46-year-old George Floyd's life, not Chauvin's knee on the neck. Defense team now will have the

ability to procure evidence from histology slides and tissue samples taken from the victim's heart during his initial autopsy, the results of which were used to convict Chauvin along with three other officers. Chauvin's lawyers are also allowed to inspect and make copies of any photographs taken of Floyd's heart during the initial autopsy, which found Floyd's heart had stopped while he was being restrained and that his death was a homicide. So what is happening here? Who wants to take this one? I'm not exactly sure why they would not be permitted to have all of that at the trial. Usually, at least in New York, you get extensive access to the medical examiner's

files, including some of the items that were just articulated. They're in federal court now, so he's exhausted all of his state court remedies. So they're in federal court. It's under, I assume, some sort of habeas corpus, free the body claim, saying, look, our theory of the case was it wasn't the choke that killed him. There was other factors that killed him. But we weren't allowed access to all of the initial autopsy, the best evidence that could have been provided to us. We need that evidence to reopen this case and say, because we didn't have this evidence, we were not able to prove that it was a heart condition or drugs that were in his system that caused the death, not the compression on his neck.

And the judge is now saying, okay, I'm going to give it to you. Go at it. I don't like, I don't get it because they definitely argued during the trial that it wasn't the knee on the neck that, that caused him to die. That, that, that George Floyd was on a bunch of drugs and had a heart issue and a lung issue that caused his death. And I don't get why they wouldn't have done the whole, let's see the tissue to see it, the deprivation or whatever they're looking for during the course of the trial or how the judge could be going down this lane. I mean, is there a chance here, Mark, that this judge is going to grant the request for a new trial, which is what they're asking for, or at least an evidentiary hearing?

So I'm going to wildly speculate because I wish I could talk to the lawyer who's representing him. But it has, I'm like Arthur, trying to figure this out, that you would assume that you had access to this. And he had a very able defense lawyer. I was always impressed with the way he tried the case. I'm going to assume that there is an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, which is often the case when you get to federal court under a 2255 that you allege that the defense lawyer didn't do A, B, C, or D. And one of the ways you would prove that is that they didn't get or that there was some, I guess, the flip side to that prosecutorial misconduct for not turning over certain items. If there are items that were not turned over, or if the defense lawyer did not request those items or the items somehow got lost in transit, then I could see where this revolves around either prosecutorial misconduct or IAC, wild caveat, wild speculation. But even if you, and the point you made, Megan, if in fact, and it was, you're absolutely right that they

argued that in closing, and if they find something that either wasn't turned over or should have been requested that supports that and supports a narrative that if the jury had known about it, it would have changed the direction of the conviction. And I can see where this gambit has legs. This should be reexamined. There was so much pressure. You got to watch The Fall of Minneapolis by Alpha News. You can, I think, just Google it on YouTube and watch it on their YouTube channel. That's a very respected news organization there in Minnesota. And they took a deep dive on this and found the amount of pressure that was on the coroner to say, oh, the official cause of death

is cardiopulmonary arrest caused by law enforcement, caused by law enforcement, as opposed to maybe it was caused by drugs. Maybe it was caused by, you know, the stress, maybe, but that guy was under pressure. The DAs were under pressure. I mean, the jury was under pressure. All of these people were under, nor this guy did not get a fair trial and he should be given a new trial. I really hope he gets one. Okay. Last but not least, Liam Payne, the former singer of One Direction who died in a Buenos Aires hotel room a couple of months ago on October 16th. He was just 31 years old. There's something interesting happening now in that investigation. Rolling Stone exclusive reporting that

according to new documents they've obtained, the judge in the case has charged, that's the word they use, two workers, including the receptionist head who called 911 as the judge investigates them for wrongful death. The judge has also called for all suspects in the case to be questioned as part of the investigation. The judge is investigating them, again, for wrongful death, being investigated for possible imprudence, negligence, or lack of skill in their profession, leading to the death of another person, according to the statute. According to the Buenos Aires judicial system, after interrogation, the judge must determine whether the defendants should be further prosecuted, dropped from the case,

or if there is not evidentiary support for either decision. Remember, this guy went off the balcony when he was reportedly, well, he was seen to be high on drugs or appeared to be high on drugs. So what's what do we think is happening here? I don't think either of you guys are likely admitted in Buenos Aires. But what's happening, Arthur? Who are they trying to charge? Like the security staff, the front desk person, because they're they knew that he was acting crazy. Apparently, he had reportedly broken a TV and there was buzzing around him like something's wrong with this guy. And I think the allegation is they didn't do enough to stop this. So the only thing analogous was here and actually

in Brooklyn, New York, they charged some child welfare agency workers who worked for the city with criminally negligent homicide when a parent caused the death of their child when there had been reports that there was some domestic violence in the house. But apparently the investigators went there and they didn't see anything, but there were real questions about did they do a thorough investigation or did they ring the bell and say, okay, we were here and leave. And I believe they pled guilty to a very low charge of murder. They were held responsible for something that they were very far away from when it took place. I mean, if we're going to start charging people with murder for not being good citizens, now, of course, this is in Buenos Aires, not in Brooklyn, New York, but that raises the

standard on all of us as human beings to act. Then you juxtapose that with Daniel Penny, who did act to save someone who almost went to jail himself. It gets a little confusing. Hey, I'd like to point out that Arthur brought it back to Daniel Penny, not me, who was still stuck with Daniel Penny. I just want to point that out. It's okay, Mark. I like story time with Arthur. Yes, exactly. But I'm not so sure that this isn't a function of the Argentinian process. It's similar to some of the European countries where the judge does the investigation.

There's a prosecutor. The prosecutor kind of lays it in the lap of the judge, and the judge does the investigation. There's a prosecutor, prosecutor kind of lays it in the lap of the judge. And the judge is more of an activist role as opposed to an adjudicated Italy. Yeah, exactly. And I think that's, what's happening here would be my informed, unadmitted in Argentina speculation.

This is, I mean, we'll find out. I'm happy to jump back and talk about Daniel Penny again. Did you really like the Allen charge? Did you think it was right the way they dismissed it without prejudice and it could be brought back? I think the Senate is a good message. Look at that. You know, I'm going to, like I said, I'm giving you,

I'm giving the pro ho all of her ammunition that she needs. What is this? Is this a stand for prosecution ho like horror? I don't know what this nickname is. I'm not going near it. It's a little scary. That's exactly what it stands for, Megan. Prosecution ho. How am I supposed to celebrate the horror

label? I object on my own behalf. I object on behalf of Doug. This is your chance to apologize. I'm not hearing anything, so now you've got to go. Segment's over. It landed on a very. Okay. Yeah, this is your chance to apologize. I'm not hearing anything. So now you got to go. Segment's over. It landed on a very dark note.

Arthur, Merry Christmas. Mark, good luck. Thank you, Megan. Thank you, Megan. To you too, and Happy New Year. Merry Christmas.

Love you guys. Thanks for coming on. Bye-bye. Take care. All right, see you soon. And that will wrap up today's edition of Kelly's Court. I'll allow Mark Take care. which he's right. I am, but it's case by case. I mean, you know, I was definitely not pro prosecution in the Trump case. I was not in the Daniel Penny case. Uh, so, you know, I recognize very well that these prosecutors can be, and they must be called out when they behave that way.

I hope you don't have any in your life this Christmas holiday, And I look forward to getting you through it if you do with some exciting and interesting true crime episodes all week. We'll see you tomorrow. Thanks for listening to The Megyn Kelly Show. No BS, no agenda, and no fear.