SERIALously - 11: Bryan Kohberger Indicted Feat. Peter Tragos - Lawyer You Know

Episode Date: May 17, 2023

We've just received a bombshell update in the gripping Idaho 4 murder trial! In this exclusive bonus episode, we bring you the breaking news as it happens: Bryan Kohberger has been indicted by a grand jury!  Join us as we dissect the jaw-dropping implications of this unexpected twist with our special guest, legal expert Peter Tragos from Lawyer You Know. We break down the legal jargon and analyze the potential strategies the prosecution and defense might adopt in the wake of this shocking development. This is the episode you can't afford to miss if you're following the Idaho 4 murder trial. Follow Annie: https://www.instagram.com/_annieelise Watch the full episode on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@annieelise Check out Peter's channels: IG: @tragoslaw Twitter: @tragoslaw TikTok: @thelawyeryouknow Youtube: @LawyerYouKnow

Getting you started. This fall at Keanu College in Fort McMurray. We offer small class sizes, competitive tuition fees, and a flexible learning environment to make it easy for you to live, work, and study locally. By providing high quality education, skills, and training necessary for your future, Keanu College is focused on getting you started. Learn more at keanu.ca slash ykeanu. That's Keanu.ca slash W-H-Y Keanu. Buckle up and crank up that volume. This is Serialistly with Annie Elise. Hey everybody, welcome back for a special bonus episode of Serialistly. It is me, your true crime BFF Annie Elise, and I had to drop this bonus episode for you guys today outside of the normal Monday release schedule because breaking news in the Idaho 4 murder case, Brian Koberger was indicted in what seemed like a secret grand jury overnight

that took place, and everybody is buzzing about it. Now, the reason so many people are talking about this and so many people are questioning what's going on, why was this done in secret, his preliminary hearing wasn't supposed to be until June, now he's gonna go to arraignment this upcoming Monday, like, what does this mean? It has a lot of people confused, so I'm gonna break it all down for you, but I'm not gonna do it alone. But let me tell you what's going to break it all down for you, but I'm not going to do it alone. But let me tell you what's going on here. In a recent development, Ladau County officials have verified the grand jury indictment of Brian Koberger,

who we know is charged with four counts of first-degree murder charges, and for felony burglary for the murders of Ethan, Zanna, Maddie, and Kaylee in Moscow, Idaho, the four University of Idaho students that were just tragically slain and brutally killed last November. So now the preliminary hearing that was set for the end of June is no longer taking place, and instead, Brian will be arraigned this Monday, May 22nd, 2023, and a couple of other hearings are scheduled right afterwards for him. So in light of this breaking news and everybody kind of questioning what this means, what's going on, I wanted to keep you guys updated and informed. So I thought, who better to come on and explain everything to us in lay terms than Peter Tragos. Now, if you don't know who Peter is, let me break it down. He is the lawyer you know on YouTube. That is what his handle is. It's the lawyer you know. His channel is absolutely

amazing and personally one of my go-tos for explaining all the legal things. And he has been covering the case of Brian Koberger, the case against him, in depth, as well as a slew of other cases. He is just breaking it all down for us. So I highly recommend going over to his channel, subscribing, tuning in, and hearing what he has to say. But he's agreed to jump on with us super last minute, which I am so grateful for, to break down what this indictment means. Is it good for the prosecution? Is it bad for the defense? A lot of people are also suggesting that the reason the prosecution went this route is so that there wouldn't have to be any exculpatory evidence heard, meaning that if there was, in fact, testimony from one of the roommates that could possibly exonerate or show that Brian was not responsible for it,

that by going the grand jury route meant that that evidence wouldn't have had to have been presented is that true or not true is that the reality or not that's why we need a lawyer in here guys to tell us what is fact what is not and what is just speculation and we get into all of those details so without further ado let me bring on peter tragos the lawyer you know peter thank you so much for joining me today. We have obviously so much to discuss regarding the Brian Koberger case and the updates that have just come out. But before we get into the indictment and all of the new news that has everybody kind of up in arms and going a little bit crazy, can you please just tell everybody a little

bit about yourself and your channel and what it is you do over there? Yeah, so I am a civil trial lawyer in the Tampa Bay area in Florida. I have a full firm that handles cases from catastrophic injuries, wrongful deaths, car accidents, and we also do a lot of criminal defense as well. My dad started the firm. He's a former federal and state prosecutor and does mostly criminal defense now. So we have kind of a wide range of trial work that we handle here. And during COVID, I decided to start doing some YouTube videos talking about that, answering questions people had. And it's morphed into talking about active real life cases going on like this Coburger case where people come on, they have questions.

I try to answer them, try to explain the process in a way that they can understand, because I think it's really helpful for lawyers and non-lawyers to understand how the court system works in our country. If they're ever faced with it or a loved one is faced with it, to understand the process a little better, I think makes it less scary. And then people that are just interested in how it works, I think it's important for them to hear the answers and to have an open discussion about it. And it's okay to disagree.

We talk about that all the time on the channel. Disagreeing is cool. We can understand each other. We can still discuss and sometimes that's the best way to learn. Absolutely. Well, I'm glad you say that because as we go through kind of my list of questions that I'm going to hit you with, I put some in there because surprisingly, at least to me, I'm surprised there are a lot of people who are advocating for Brian's innocence and saying that there is information that's going to exonerate him and all of this stuff. So I like how you said, like, we can have disagreements, but we all need to understand the information and what it really means, because there is a point, which I'll get to here in a minute, too, where a lot of people

are suggesting, oh, no, no, no, the reason that this happened in secret and the indictment, all of that with the grand jury is because they're scared of what the evidence is going to be that's going to exonerate him. So I just going to be very interested to get your take on a lot of this. So let's kind of jump right in. And can you just briefly explain to everybody what a grand jury is, what the purpose is and what it means for Brian to be indicted and why this whole process was done in secret? So in Idaho, there are two ways to get here. You can either do the preliminary hearing where the judge makes the call or you can do a grand jury where a jury makes a call. The process probably wouldn't look that different to lay people. The lawyer picks a jury. The jury sits there. The lawyer presents evidence

to the jury and the jury makes a decision. That's basically what happens at a grand jury proceeding. Now, the defense lawyer is not there. So it is only the prosecutor presenting evidence. But for people that think that evidence may be hidden or that there's so much that the grand jury doesn't know that could just prove Brian Kober's innocence, the prosecutor is obligated to provide exculpatory evidence and information to the jury if it exists. So if there is some major good piece of evidence for Brian Koberger, like maybe the cell phone pinged somewhere else at the same time, I'm just making that up, not that it exists, they would have to tell the jury that that exists. And the jury would consider that when making a decision.

And one of the other big differences between a regular criminal trial that we've all seen and a grand jury proceeding is they are determining whether or not a crime was probably committed and whether or not Brian Koberger probably did it. It is not beyond a reasonable doubt. He is not convicted. He is not guilty after a grand jury proceeding. But they do hear evidence from both sides. Obviously, it's not the same as a criminal defense attorney zealously representing their client, poking holes in the state's evidence and presenting their evidence in the way that they think sheds a light best on their client. But it is not fully one

sided, even though it pretty much is. They still do present evidence that's good for the defendant if it exists. OK, perfect. That actually is so helpful. So thank you so much for explaining that, because that has been something I know not only a lot of people are questioning, but some creators have been saying too is, you know, that they wouldn't have had to present any information. The roommate has been such a topic of conversation and what she may or may not know. So they are saying, oh, the prosecution wouldn't have to submit that during the grand jury. So hearing that they would if they had that evidence is very helpful to hear. that during the grand jury so hearing that they would if they had that evidence is very helpful to hear um so that kind of leads me into the next question does this mean that evidence that wasn't in the probable cause affidavit could have been presented as well to the grand jury from the prosecution whether it's results from the search warrants that were executed at his apartment his office anything like that anything maybe from the white elra, or if maybe they were able to match his DNA or something from the victim's DNA, could there have been additional evidence presented during this?

And something we always say is important as lawyers and on our channel is that words are really important and they help us understand and make sure we're answering the question appropriately. So you said, could it have been presented? And the answer is yes, absolutely. It could have been presented. We don't know, obviously, because it's in secret. So I don't know what was presented, but they're able to present. And actually the rules of evidence are more lax in a grand jury proceeding, probably something more like a hearing where certain hearsay evidence can come in. The prosecutor can just kind of read interviews or read depositions. They don't have to call all of the witnesses to testify. They can, but they can present the evidence in a different way. And absolutely,

I would expect that more evidence than we saw in the probable cause affidavit came out in the grand jury proceeding. Okay. Okay. That's great to know. Thank you. And does the prosecution normally try to go for an indictment rather than a preliminary hearing, or is it just depending on the case, depending on the circumstances? Could it have been used as a way to almost get around the judge hearing any of that exculpatory evidence, even though I know you had mentioned that that would have had to have been admitted? Is this a route that's normally taken by the prosecution? So every jurisdiction is different. And yes, each case is different. And the prosecutor can make these different charging decisions. But actually in Idaho, in this jurisdiction, I looked it up a while back when this stuff was

happening. The grand jury proceedings and process is actually the minority. The majority of cases go the preliminary hearing route. And there are some reasons for that. It's more cost effective. Usually it's easier to just present it in front of a judge. You don't have to go through the process of picking a jury, teaching a jury what the proceedings are like, explaining to them the decisions they have to make, and then waiting for them to take their time to make that decision. And I'll say that whether it's a preliminary hearing or a grand jury proceeding, the vast majority of them come back with probable cause to continue forward on charges against the defendant that's implicated. Okay, so you touched a little bit on the pros and cons of why the prosecution would do

this. What does this now mean for the defense? How does it affect them? For over 55 years, Green Park Group has consistently built communities people proudly call home. Introducing Thompson Towers, Green Park's newest condo in Milton. With suites starting from the low 600s, residents will enjoy a full range of unique modern amenities. A rooftop pool, stylish lounges, and state-of-the-art recreational facilities. Inspiring the people who bring communities to life. Green Park is the people's filter. Visit greenpark.com for condos.

Now selling across the GTA. Changing a light bulb should be simple. Whoa, whoa, whoa. Uh-oh. That's not supposed to happen. Quickly submitting and tracking a claim on the Bel Air Direct app actually is simple. Bel Air Direct insurance simplified. So from the defense's point of view, I believe in this jurisdiction, again, every jurisdiction is a little different. I believe they get a transcript of everything that happened in the grand jury proceeding. So they'll hear what the prosecutor or read what the prosecutor said, the evidence that was presented, the interviews that were read, the depositions that were read. If a witness did take the stand, unless of course

they seal it and the judge blocks it, but under normal circumstances, the defense would get that information. So that wouldn't be a surprise. Like they don't know what evidence the prosecutor has against them. Maybe it's presented a little differently than if the prosecutor knew that the criminal defense attorney was going to come up and cross these witnesses and poke holes before a judge. I really don't see this as an opportunity to get around bringing it to a judge or get around exculpatory evidence. I just see it as maybe something that they saw as a clearer and cleaner and easier path

to get the charges finalized so we can get to arraignment and get his plea deal and kind of start the clocks ticking. I don't know if I can't remember some of the questions are running together. I don't know if we're going to get into it in the future, but I do think potentially the media coverage and gag order is having an effect on this process as well. So that is going to be something that I'm getting into. Yeah, very quickly here, because to your point, and I heard you say like starting the clock and things like that. But really quickly, I just want to ask you with the defense, do you think that they were blindsided by this? Or is it

at all possible that they were in cahoots at all, so to say, with the prosecution and knew about this, and that it was kind of their motive as to get the gag order to stay in place as well? that it was kind of their motive as to get the gag order to stay in place as well. So I'm not going to say they knew, right? But is it possible that they were made aware of this or knew that this was coming or knew that this was the timeline? Absolutely. I think that it's a possibility the defense was perfectly fine with this and it extended some time periods for them to waive their right to a speedy preliminary hearing, not waiving their right to a speedy trial. So they got a few months. We've seen discovery go on. We've seen thousands of documents and terabytes of audio visual pictures of evidence be produced to the defendant. So they've taken

this time to start preparing for the case. They are not surprised that a grand jury came back indicting Brian Koberger. They would not have been surprised if they lost the preliminary hearing. So the way that they could have been in cahoots together, I think, is really the secrecy of the process, not having the fight yet as to whether or not we're going to have cameras in the courtroom or microphones in the courtroom. So the defense, knowing all of that would be avoided by a grand jury proceeding. I think it is possible they knew about it and were actually okay with this part of the process. Okay, that's interesting to know. And I don't know if you've read through all the documents, but I was, and I'm not fully caught up either on everything, but I was seeing that they are going to allow, I think, what is it? Pool

cameras? Is that how you say it? Or something like that? Um, and, and audio, but the audio will be delayed, I believe. So, and again, that's, they already had a hearing, right? Where they read him, what he was arrested, the charges he was arrested for. Um, and I don't know, cause in Idaho stuff's happened, you know, with the Daybell Vallow case and how they had cameras, they had microphones, then they removed the cameras and then they delayed the microphones. So again, I think that that is going, I'm just totally guessing. I think that's going to be a fight. I think that's something that's going to be litigated as to whether or not if they would have had this preliminary hearing or mini trial, as some people are calling it, if they would have just live streamed it like it was any other trial. And I think to bypass that fight, this grand jury proceeding takes it off the table

and they don't even have to argue about it. Okay, that's interesting. That's a good point. Thank you. So now going back quickly to where we were just talking about with this, with the clock starting and everything like that, since the indictment will officially start the clock, so to say, for a speedy trial starting this Monday, would the defense have kept this in their mind at all thinking like, hey, we need more time, but we have no intention of waiving a speedy trial. So is it possible that maybe the defense thought that about a grand jury indictment coming in and took that into consideration back in January when they pushed out the preliminary hearing to the end of June as sort of a means of buying time, maybe? Absolutely. It could have been in their mind. And they know that, again, this is something I said this morning when we started talking about this. The prosecution did nothing wrong by making an audible and going with the grand jury proceeding versus the preliminary hearing. There was nothing shady about it. There's nothing illegal about it. And the defense knew at any moment, this was an

option that they can do this. They don't have to tell the defense. This isn't a right the defendant had like he had with his speedy preliminary hearing. If he would have invoked that right, we would have already had the preliminary hearing by now. But because he waived it and they agreed on this date, they knew that any moment from the time he was arrested to the preliminary hearing, the prosecutor can go to a grand jury and get him indicted. And kind of going back then to to the gag order really quick. So we know that there's a new judge that's been assigned. And so at first, when this first broke overnight, a lot of people I was seeing who I was seeing who was active on Twitter on you know Instagram YouTube you name it a lot of people were hoping that this meant that the gag order would either be thrown

out since there was a new judge in place or that the judge would make a new gag order allowing some of the things that were previously barred however now we know today there was an order that was issued with a new seal. Now, the seal is just for the witnesses' names and the witness list for the grand jury, I believe. That's what I was reading over. But I guess my question with that is, does it mean that it is still possible that in addition to the original gag order, even more information now may be kept quiet? Or can that gag order be revised? information now may be kept quiet, or can that gag order be revised? Will some information be able to come in? How does that exactly work? So throughout the case

and any case, really, either side can file a motion to seal something or a motion, excuse me, for a protective order. So if that happens, the judge will take that up on a case-by-case or instance-by-instance basis and make a call. But when it comes to the overarching gag order, because the case is now under this new court's jurisdiction or this new judge's jurisdiction, they would make the call as to whether or not to continue with this gag order, throw this gag order out, or amend this gag order. And I think the timing of the arguments and the motions and the media and the victims' families and the defense and the prosecution around this gag order and delaying it and pushing it off with when they're actually going to have just a conference to schedule it, I think the media was right in that they were pushing it off. They weren't handling it as quickly as they could have because other people and parties probably knew this grand jury stuff was happening. The media obviously did not. And so I think that all of that is kind of culminating in this judge

is eventually going to have to make a call, hopefully sooner rather than later, because if he makes a call that the victim's families or the public or the media doesn't agree to, then they can appeal it up to a higher court and take the proper channels that they skipped the first time around. So if the judge does decide to amend the gag order or throw it out, depending on when that decision happens, I know that the order was for seal was approved with the grand jury witness list, but there could be a lot of information then that comes out to the media that we haven't known about in the last few months. Is that right? For sure. There could be a lot of information if the gag order is lifted that we hear, but anything that is specifically sealed

by motion will not be unsealed because the gag order went away. So this grand jury witness list, because the court ordered it sealed today, if the gag order was lifted tomorrow, this would still be sealed. Right, right. Okay. Okay. Perfect. So we also know that Brian could possibly face the death penalty and that Idaho has no insanity defense. So is it 90 days starting from Monday that the prosecution then will have to decide if they are going to pursue the death penalty or not? Or is that a different time duration?

I believe it's 60 days from entry of his plea. I could be wrong, though. It could be 90 days. It's either six or nine days. I thought I read 60 days before. That's just in my head. So it could be wrong. We can double check that after. I'm sure anybody that listens to this can look it up and see whether it's 60 or 90 days. Roast us in the comments, guys. Go ahead. Yes. Yes. Just let us know. So that clock does start

when he, which we assume, or I assume he's going to enter a plea of not guilty. The clock will start there. So they'll have 60 or 90 days to provide notice to the defense if they intend to seek the death penalty. I think that they would in a case like this. And then we'll see how that kind of changes the process. There was something else that you asked me there that I wanted to touch on. As far as if they're going to have to pursue it, the no insanity defense. Yes, the no insanity defense. So it's interesting. And again, this came into play with the Lori Vallow case as well, that while there's not a not guilty by reason of insanity defense, there is a mental health and mental capacity and how it affects your ability to form the criminal intent or what we call the mens rea, the criminal mindset to commit a crime. So it can actually be

an argument that you can make throughout trial that you didn't know what you were doing, or you thought you were killing ghosts or certain things like that, that can come into play. And the jury can eventually find you not guilty because they can say the prosecutor didn't prove that you had the mindset to create the, the culpable or criminal mental state to commit this crime. So it can still be part of the process. And it is something specific where the defense has to put the prosecution on notice if they do intend to use that. I think it's called like deficient mental capacity or something like that. If they are going to make those arguments and they're going to call mental health experts, they have

to notify the state. That's really interesting. So, I mean, obviously, guys, i don't want anybody to get confused we're not saying that that has been brought into question or that that is what the defense is trying to do but i am curious and i want to get your opinion on this if let's just say big if if the defense were to go that route is it your belief that given the evidence and everything that we know from the probable cause arrest affidavit and things of that nature. Do you believe that the jury would ever believe something like that, given what we know? Have you seen situations like that ever play out? Well, yeah, I mean, I've seen I've seen situations played a lot with the insanity defense. In some cases, it's very successful. It's a very

small percentage of cases. But there are some where you don't even get very far because once the prosecutors, mental health experts evaluate your client, sometimes they agree. And we've had that happen in our case where in our state, in some of our cases where it was a murder charge, but the client was absolutely insane at the time of the murder. And they dropped the charges. They went to a mental health facility. They were committed to the state and they go through different procedures and go into prison. So it does happen in cases. I don't see it working in this case. I don't really see how it would fit together with what the defense is going to seem to

be that it wasn't him or you can't prove that it was him. Because once you get into an insanity defense type of situation, usually you're admitting that you committed the crime. Usually you're admitting the facts. And to me, that would be that would show that they're in Hail Mary formation to me as Koberger's defense team if they start going down the not insanity defense. And people love if I bring it up insanity at all in Idaho,

they're like, there's no insanity defense. I get it, but it can still be part of a defense. Well, I'm glad you cleared that up because I didn't even know that piece of it as well. So I'm sure anybody who does kind of come, coming in hot with the no insanity, that's really it as well. So I'm sure anybody who does kind of come coming in hot with the no insanity, that's really good to know. Which they're right. It's not the normal not guilty by reason of insanity, meaning, you know, it goes away like it does in Florida and

some other states like I think it was Colorado just had a trial with something like that. But there is an element of mental health that can come in as part of your defense. Okay. Okay. That's good to know. Now, if you had to guess whether or not the defense would go for a speedy trial or waive it, what would your prediction be and why? So this is tough because every criminal defense attorney looks at this differently. I would probably not waive it at this point. I would demand a speedy trial. I would push towards that because it kind of adds leverage and pressure to the prosecution to provide you documents. In Alec Murdoch's case, they demanded a speedy trial. So the prosecution

was jumping through all sorts of hoops to provide all the evidence, provide all the documents, all the statements to you as quickly as possible. And there's nothing stopping you as the criminal defendant after getting all that saying, okay, I waive my right to speedy trial. I want to continue the trial. So you still can do that. And every judge is going to grant that because they want to protect your right to a fair trial. And if your lawyer makes a good argument that we got this data dump and there's no way now that we have all the evidence that we can prepare for trial in six months or however many months are left when you get the documents, they're always going to grant that, especially if you waive your speedy trial. But at that point now it could last a while.

Okay. That's interesting. Well, and I would just wonder too though given i mean and we obviously don't know what full evidence was presented to the grand jury during the indictment but i would think that the defense once upon learning what that was would realize that the evidence was or i guess perhaps was not strong but most likely was pretty strong so then in my opinion i would just think it as a lay person like demanding the information hoping that like they have to produce it quickly like i would imagine they have sufficient enough evidence as it is so i don't know what i would do is that the right way of thinking about it or is that completely skewed because every case that gets to trial has gone through some sort of multiple people, law enforcement, state attorneys, judges, grand jury, whatever it is, looking at it saying there's probable cause to move forward against this defendant for this crime. And still lots of

a less than 50%, but lots of criminal defendants end up with a not guilty verdict at the end. So there are still good arguments. Sometimes there are still certain cases that the state can't prove to the literal highest burden in our criminal justice system or in our court system, I should say, whereas proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, that is a much different burden. So just because the state or a grand jury thinks that there is enough evidence to prove probable cause lots of criminal defense attorneys would look at cases and say, I still think I have a pretty good shot at winning this. jury thinks that there is enough evidence to prove probable cause, lots of criminal defense attorneys would look at cases and say, I still think I have a pretty good shot at winning this. Not saying they have that here, but just because this, I don't think this has changed the way the defense attorneys

has looked at the case at all. The fact that the grand jury indicted them, if they would have gotten it through a preliminary hearing, I don't think it would have changed the way they look at this case one bit. Okay. Okay. That's really good to know. Thank you. So can you tell us what you think and what you've heard of what's going on with the defense still saying that the prosecution has not given them evidence and that they are still waiting on things? Because it's a little bit confusing because you have these two sides of the things and you have the state filing these motions and saying, yes, we have given you this. And then them saying they haven't received it. So what's happening there? Changing a light bulb should be simple. Whoa, whoa, whoa. Oh, that's not supposed to happen. Quickly submitting and tracking a claim on the Bel Air Direct app actually is simple.

Bel Air Direct insurance simplified. This is why we need judges, right? One side says, hey, you haven't provided me what I asked for. The other side said, I gave you 10,000 documents. What do you mean it's in there? I think what this probably comes down to is the answer may be in the data dump that the state provided, but the defense is saying, show us where it is. We can't look through 51 terabytes of video. We asked a specific question and sometimes it can come down to how narrowly tailored your interrogatory questions are, your request for production. Are you asking for any and all documents? Because then you're going to get a data dump. Are you asking for a specific interview? Because if you ask for a specific interview, in my opinion, right, just one lawyer, and they give you 51 terabytes of videos

and audio, I'm going to say, no, you're not answering my question. You got to give me the interview. If it's, you know, bait stamp number one, two, three, four, fine. Then at least I can find it. We've had cases that have been incredibly voluminous. Judges have made us ban state bait stamp things, and then reference bait stamp numbers in answering our interrogatories and requests for production. So it can be something as simple as that, where they're asking for something specific and they're getting big data dumps, or there could be certain documents that the state has not turned over. And in the state's response, saying that you gave me 10,000 documents doesn't mean you gave me the actual document I'm asking for. So I did think some of their answers were a little vague like that. But at the end of the day, the judge is going to have

to make a call whether or not the state provided these documents and whether or not they provided them specifically enough to answer the defendant's questions in these different scenarios. Okay. So given your knowledge, your experience, your expertise, what can we expect moving forward from this? Monday is going to come very quickly. So what can we expect from both the prosecution and the defense? So I expect a plea of not guilty. All the clocks will start ticking. I would expect them to provide notice of intent to seek the death penalty. I would think Koberger at this point would not waive his right to speedy trial to try to push this discovery. I expect more discovery fights. Hey, you're not giving us this. Hey, we need that. And what's also interesting about some of the verbiage in their motions is the, the state has failed to provide exculpatory

evidence. And then the state, when they mentioned exculpatory evidence, they put it in quotation marks, exculpatory evidence in a case where there's a gag order and nobody wants any leaks. It almost feels like they're using language that the media or the public would read and say, oh, there must be exculpatory evidence because that does not affect the judge. You know, they don't want the state withholding anything that is, that should be discoverable legally. They don't want them withholding it, whether it's exculpatory or whether it's not. Um, so to put that language in there is also, is always funny to me is how they know the media is watching and the public is reading this, um, everything that comes out in this case. But I expect more discovery fights. I expect more

hearings. Um, I expect this case to be fought in the court. But I would hope at this point they wouldn't waive speedy trial to try to keep the pressure on and keep the case moving. So it doesn't just sit here for years and years like we see happen to so many cases. Absolutely. And I'm sure it's safe to assume you'll be covering the trial, everything as we go. So can you let everybody know kind of who's listening to the podcast, watching this on YouTube, wherever they're listening in, what platforms you're on, what you're going to be covering, where they can go and how they can find you? Yes. So we are, our channel is the lawyer, you know, on YouTube, TikTok and podcasts, everywhere podcasts are produced or listened to. And then Tragos Law, which is my last name and my law firm, Tragos Law on Twitter and

Instagram. Yeah, we're covering this case. We're sticking with, you know, Vallow and Daybell. More stuff's happening there. Murdoch stuff is happening. And then a couple of cases in Florida, the Sarah Boone case. I don't know if you've heard anything about that. It's wild.

Yep. And then the Courtney Clunney clenny the only fans uh murder self-defense trial that's also happening here in my home state where so much crazy stuff happens oh my gosh we need so guys first of all you gotta go check out everywhere peter is but if you're not familiar with the sarah boone trial and what's going on there she's the one who like zipped her i think he was only a boyfriend not a husband right zipped him in the suitcase he ended up suffocating killed him they were drinking or something it was all caught on video i mean bizarre bizarre bizarre bizarre and then it went bad you know yeah exactly hide and seek gone wrong and then of course courtney clunny the only fans

case we've been covering that a lot over here as well which i'm gonna have to pick your brain offline about that too because i have some thoughts about that but that case has captivated so many people so guys if you're not caught up go check out Peter's stuff and check it out um well thank you so much for joining me today I know it was super quick you were so awesome to just jump on here and answer all these questions so I am very very grateful for that thank you so much happy to thanks for having me all right well we will talk again very soon and Peter's probably these questions. So I am very, very grateful for that. Thank you so much. Happy to. Thanks for having me. All right. Well, we will talk again very soon. And Peter is probably going to come on and do a more formal episode with us, too. So, guys, anything that you want him to touch on with

his expertise, his way of explaining the facts, let us know in the comments below so we can work something out there, hopefully. And yeah, thank you again so much. All right, guys, thanks so much for tuning in to this bonus episode of Serialist thank you again so much. All right, guys, thanks so much for tuning in to this bonus episode of Serialistly. I hope you found it informative, educational, and you were able to get some of your questions answered. If you have additional questions for myself or for Peter, please make sure to leave them in the comment section below

if you're watching this over on YouTube. But I'm gonna be bringing you guys more of these off-the-cuff bonus episodes as updates emerge in a lot of these cases that we've been following. So if you're not following the podcast yet, I know some of you love video, but the podcast is where I'm able to get these updates out to you even faster. So you can get it wherever you get your podcasts. It is called Serialistly, S-E-R-I-A-L-O-U-S-L-Y. I will also leave it in the comments below pinned. But we're on Apple Podcasts.

We're on Spotify. Anywhere you get your podcasts. But I highly encourage you to follow along there so that as soon as we drop these bonus episodes, when these breaking news updates happen, you're able to listen right away and you don't have to wait for the video version to be uploaded on YouTube days and days later. All right, guys. So thanks so much. And again, if you enjoy the podcast, enjoy the episode,

please, if you feel so inclined, do me a solid, give it a quick rating, leave a review, and of course, hit that little check mark so you're following along on your podcast app as well. All right, I will see you bright and early next Monday for an all-new episode of Serialistly. And guys, you are not going to want to miss Monday's episode because it is about a murder that went down in texas that is just beyond brutal has a lot of people divided

has a lot of people questioning who really did it was it self-defense all the questions all the things we're gonna break it all down for you so i will see you on monday this is your true crime bestie annie elise signing off Have a great rest of your week.