May 20, 2026
Drama In The Courtroom; 2 Mistrial Motions, A 1st Grade Shooter, & Confused Jurors
Apple Podcasts 
Spotify 
Castro 
RSS Feed It was a wild day in court for the trial of former assistant principal Dr. Ebony Parker. Parker is being criminally charged after a 6-year-old student shot his teacher, hours after Parker was warned the student might have a loaded gun. Court began with juror questions, which ultimately led to both the defense and prosecution asking for a mistrial! The judge denied both motions, and testimony finally got underway, and it was compelling.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
00:00:02
Speaker 1: Hey, they're folks. It is a Wednesday, May twentieth, and if you are not, you need to be watching the Ebony Parker criminal trial. She is the assistant principal now on trial for the shooting at her school in which a six year old shot his teacher. The stuff going on in the courtroom, however, is almost must see and for the wrong reasons. And with that, welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ we We It's hard to laugh some of the stuff and the antics going on in the courtroom. What was the tomfoolery?
00:00:39
Speaker 2: Is the word rue?
00:00:39
Speaker 3: Foolery is a good third, It's just it. It seemed like every it was like a circus more than it was a circus.
00:00:47
Speaker 1: Is goods good?
00:00:48
Speaker 3: And the ringleader wasn't keeping things under control to the point where the jurors were confused, and that tells you what we've been watching. I actually felt validated by the beginning of trial today because the jurors were bringing up questions that we were wondering ourselves, like how can anyone keep anything straight?
00:01:10
Speaker 1: So we did an episode on this trial yesterday and remind her, this is Ebony Parker, who's assistant principle. This is rich Neck Elementary School. This is the Newport News in twenty twenty three, six year old kid brings a gun to school, shoots his teacher. Teacher survives, but again they're holding her now the assistant principal liable for not doing anything. They're trying to hold her criminally liable. Now ropes, what's happening in the courtroom? Now that catches us up. We talked what was it yesterday? We did a full episode.
00:01:40
Speaker 3: Day today we did that was not yes, babe. We did an episode at nine am this star today. We did it just before court started.
00:01:47
Speaker 1: Okay, so we do this episode and we were almost probably holding back a little bit because we were saying, we are so confused. We cannot keep up with what happening with all the starts and stops, and which answer is stricken and which one's not.
00:02:04
Speaker 3: Yes, the defense attorney has basically this is what we were talking about earlier.
00:02:08
Speaker 2: Today.
00:02:09
Speaker 3: He and you were wondering, is this strategy or is this just I'm not prepared as a defense attorney.
00:02:16
Speaker 2: It could have been either, it could be both. I don't know. But he continually interrupts.
00:02:23
Speaker 3: I'm talking every fifteen to twenty seconds even while someone is in mid sentence, he stands up and says objection, and then they're like, what are the grounds and he has to go, uh, let me confer with my co counselor, I mean, and then it just takes and then all of a sudden, wait, who was on the stand?
00:02:39
Speaker 2: What did they just ask? And then the judge.
00:02:42
Speaker 3: Sometimes even the attorney's were like, wait, did you just sustain that or overrule that? Because they weren't even clear what the judge decided. There was so much disruption it was impossible to keep thinking okay.
00:02:53
Speaker 1: So that is what we talked about in today's earlier episode, and that was before we watched all the testimony today and Robes who thought it could get better if you're into entertainment, or worse, if you're into watching good courtroom battles between lawyers, this is insanity. So to your point, Robes, our validation came this morning. We are watching the trial. It gets started this morning a little after nine. The jury, full jury doesn't come in four hours because why we got two jurors, Robes, that seemed to be what confused.
00:03:33
Speaker 3: So we had juror number thirty three and then dur number thirty nine asking questions like, what the hell happened? And I'm so confused, I'm not sure I know what's in, what's out?
00:03:50
Speaker 2: Can I ask some follow up questions?
00:03:52
Speaker 3: And because we had two different jurors asking questions, eventually both the defense and the prosecution ended up asking for a mistrial.
00:04:01
Speaker 1: So this is the we expected this. As this was going back and forth, what the judge had to do is the jury's not in the room, So she brought these jurors in one by one and asked them questions. One of them, the guy juror thirty three, brought him in, asked him questions, sent him back. Then they had to bring him back in for clarification. That is what was happening in the courtroom this morning. Stuff I'd never seen before. Also rogues I haven't seen. Watched a lot of trials, but maybe not all of them. I have never seen mid trial a judge accept questions from the jurors and get them answered. We've seen that during juris deliberations. Of course, this is not something it can't be common.
00:04:40
Speaker 3: I didn't know that it ever occurred, and in fact, that is initially why most likely the defense immediately asked for a mistrial, and it.
00:04:48
Speaker 2: Was interesting learning a lot of a lot about the law. And I don't know if.
00:04:52
Speaker 3: It's I don't think it's specific to Virginia, but they were referencing Commonwealth law. But the judge basically said, actually, jurors can ask questions. Yes, they can actually ask witnesses questions. We don't typically see it happen. That is true, but it is allowed under the law. And so because of that, there was no grounds for a mistrial because this is not inappropriate.
00:05:13
Speaker 1: Well inappropriate thing. It's it's appropriate to do. So she didn't have to answer them. She could have ripped them up if she wanted to, but no, she answered them. And this is where Robes had gotten too a nitty gritty, and I thought this might be this might actually be a mistrial, because the jurors were expressing to them saying that I am confused, but the issue was at least one of them said it to the rest of the group, said I'm confused. I need some clarification. Could anybody else use some And they kind of simm and kind of grunted to where they made the argument. Robes, even if they didn't give it an answer back, you kind of poison the place by putting it in everybody's minds that wait, is there something that needs to be clarified?
00:05:52
Speaker 2: Correct?
00:05:52
Speaker 3: And so look, he kept using the word we, and that is what raised alarm bells.
00:05:58
Speaker 2: If a juror has a question and they.
00:06:00
Speaker 3: Can say, I was confused, I didn't hear, I didn't understand he was using the word we collectively. And I think anyone who follows trials is pretty clear. Jurors are instructed multiple times throughout each day of testimony that they are not allowed to discuss the case with anyone, including fellow jurors. They're told to talk about the weather, or their weekend plans, or anything other than the case until it is time to deliberate. So if there's any indication that they're deliberating or comparing notes, sharing notes, or giving any indication of which way they're leading, obviously that would be an immediate mistrial. But the judge decided that there was no prejudice involved in anything that was being said.
00:06:42
Speaker 1: Speaking to the notes, like you just said, as well exchanging notes. That it was even an issue of just to show you how much stuff has come up, there was even an issue of a juror having a second notebook, like you brought an outside notebook. What's in that notebook? How much have you written? They even had to get into that, but yes, Robes listening to the arguments on that. Wow, wow wow. And then as expected, the defense got up and asked for miss trial. When the prosecutor got up and asked as well, you and I looked at each other said, Wow, this thing's over. Let's go get the recording and button up this trial. I we probably knew pretty quickly it wasn't going to be a mistrial, because even when before she took a break, she kind of gave a heads up for the way she was leaning.
00:07:25
Speaker 2: Yeah, she said, I'm going to go study this.
00:07:26
Speaker 3: I'm going to go look and see any sort of prior case law that I can look to.
00:07:32
Speaker 2: But I'm already going to give you a heads up.
00:07:34
Speaker 3: I'm probably going to deny both of your motions for miss trial.
00:07:40
Speaker 1: I know, I've never seen the defense and the prosecution both get up and say we want a mistrial and.
00:07:45
Speaker 2: The jud says no, we're going to keep going.
00:07:48
Speaker 1: Look.
00:07:49
Speaker 3: I wonder how much this looks bad on her. I'm just curious because she didn't keep her attorneys in check, or she wasn't managing the courtroom well enough that the jurors were clear about what was admissible what wasn't admissible. And so maybe I'm just wondering if she's saving face a little bit, because especially dury number juror number thirty three, whose main complaint was I couldn't keep track of what was admissible and what wasn't, well, what was sustained and what was overruled, so I can't remember what to consider and what not to consider it.
00:08:23
Speaker 2: That would be kind of on her.
00:08:25
Speaker 1: It's impossible to keep that stuff straight. You just listened to a hole back and forth. The judge says, okay, that objection is sustained. Jurors, you're to disregard the last answer. Huh.
00:08:39
Speaker 3: And then if the defense journey the next ten seconds starts, does it objecting again?
00:08:43
Speaker 2: And then ten seconds later objects again, And sometimes she sustains it and sometimes she overrules it. You and I have leaned on each other, what did she just say?
00:08:51
Speaker 3: And sometimes we back it up because we've got up feed so we can hit rewind. And that's the only way we've been able to keep things straight. We've had to ask each other, did you hear what I heard?
00:09:00
Speaker 1: Rob Robes. They're doing it in the courtroom to each other. They've been witnessing, like what was your question? The defense attorney has done it a hundred times. I didn't catch her answer. The defense attorney at some point, Okay, we've got to get into this defense attorney.
00:09:13
Speaker 2: We're shuffling his papers. I don't know what I'm going to do.
00:09:16
Speaker 1: This is mister Curtis Rogers, who I should say, he is the lead right fair to say. But at the tag team that Curtis Rodgers and Stephen Tigue are representing Ebony Parker, and this is a dynamic duo if I've ever seen one. Love you, fellows man. But some of this could be brilliant lawyering. How I don't drinks?
00:09:36
Speaker 2: Have they taken?
00:09:37
Speaker 3: Just the defense team, like the attorney judge, I need a break so many.
00:09:41
Speaker 1: Times this is not a joke. I actually respond to Throbes at one point he's got it, well, you get older men. The bladder issues the protest. It ain't what it used to. He is taking breaks to step out of the courtroom, and I don't know why. Maybe it's bathroom. Maybe he's not feeling well, I don't know what he's doing.
00:09:58
Speaker 2: He's not he's not giving an explanation the justice and asking him to.
00:10:01
Speaker 1: She's allowing it.
00:10:02
Speaker 2: Yeah, but it's it's exacerbated.
00:10:03
Speaker 1: Okay, but this stuff robes the silliness and you throw in as many as you can remember as well. But some of the silliness, folks. There was even a point where the defense one of the defense lawyers was actually doing the cross examination and his buddy was sitting at the defence table, got up, stopped the cross examination and said, you're on a I hear kind of some background noise back here. And the guy his buddy doing the cross examination said, yeah, I kind of hear something too, and it's distracted. That just said, well, have the Bayliff keep an eye out for it. And that was what It's constant something that.
00:10:41
Speaker 2: The it's comical. It's what it is.
00:10:44
Speaker 3: And I have to say like, it's comical, but I kept imagining. I said to you at one point as a juror the defense attorney, I'm sorry, is annoying me. There's so many disruptions, there are so many breaks, there are so many objections that it actually get You're like, can I just listen to what the witness was about to.
00:11:06
Speaker 2: Say and then we can rule on whatever later.
00:11:09
Speaker 3: But he kept interrupting, and he's this is day two and I'm already like, my god, I just I wonder if that hurts doctor Parker's case at all, because the jurors could be genuinely annoyed at the defense team.
00:11:22
Speaker 1: You know, this is a it's like the end of a game, end of a basketball game, but the team just keeps fouling and fouling and fouling and putting the other team on the freezerro line.
00:11:32
Speaker 2: It's not fun to watch.
00:11:33
Speaker 1: It's not fun to watch, and there's no flow, there's no rhythm, and there's not really an understanding when it comes to this legal back and forth. A woman's life on the line. She could spend forty up to forty years in prison. They should get this right. But so far, if this is only the second full day of testimony and the jury already has questions just for simple understanding, you cannot keep up. It's look, I know, but Rhodes, we have watched just as much testimony at this point as the jurors, and we have more time to take it in and feel it out and try to understand even bounce off each other. You cannot keep up.
00:12:18
Speaker 3: No, and every single time, and the prosecution hasn't even gotten that many witnesses on because it's taking forever because of all the objections.
00:12:26
Speaker 2: But just to get.
00:12:27
Speaker 3: An interview that the human resources director conducted with doctor Parker, just to get portions of an interview, how long did that take?
00:12:40
Speaker 2: I mean, just everything is painstaking.
00:12:44
Speaker 1: The video was that whole back and forth with absurd and they barely was it? Certainly eleven? But how close to noon was it before the jury actually came in and started hearing testimony today?
00:12:54
Speaker 3: Oh, it was well, and we're on a thirty minute delay because of the concern of any miners' names being accidentally said in court.
00:13:02
Speaker 2: They have a thirty minute delay.
00:13:03
Speaker 3: But I do believe they didn't get into that courtroom until.
00:13:08
Speaker 2: Eleven, and they ended up having to break.
00:13:10
Speaker 3: For lunch at twelve twenty. Yes, it was a very unproductive morning.
00:13:16
Speaker 1: The judge even apologized at the jury at one point with all the back and forth with the attorney she's she said, please don't take it out on them if I seem to scold them or whatever.
00:13:26
Speaker 3: If she said, if I seem grumpy, yeah, oh yeah, she said, if I.
00:13:29
Speaker 2: Appear grumpy, don't take it out on the attorneys. They're doing their jobs. It's basically, she's basically like, it's.
00:13:37
Speaker 1: A lot better, you know what, a lot After all this, we're saying, road, we're missing our favorite moment, our favorite moment, then miss the good old Curtis, the defense attorney, the lead defense attorney for Epony Parker, was up there doing a cross examination and he was trying to get something out of this this witness, and the defense attorney of the prosecutor got up and objected, sat back down. The Curtis Rogers kept at it, kept trying to squeeze something out of this attorney, out of this witness, and the prosecutor got up again. Didn't have to say a word. Yes.
00:14:19
Speaker 3: All of a sudden, the judges had sustained because she was so irritated by the military attorney constantly, constantly objecting, and she knew that yes it was you were you were like that was my favorite moment of the whole trial. The prosecutor only had to partially stand up yeah to object, and she said sustained.
00:14:38
Speaker 1: It's that kind of a trial, and I am fascinated by it. It is frustrating, certainly at times, but it is jaw dropping every single moment. You cannot believe what you're hearing, what you're seeing, what they're doing. And you know what we to give you if you haven't watched, which we do recommend. It is making a difference somewhat in how we're watching this when we don't have multiple camera angles and whatnot like we're used to seeing in some of the trials. It's kind of one camera. It's not the best shot at that.
00:15:06
Speaker 2: No, it's not the best shot, and it's not the best audio.
00:15:08
Speaker 3: But in a way it makes you lean in and pay attention even more because you're kind of hanging on every word because the next one, the next moment, seems more ridiculous than the one before it. And that's basically how this trial has gone so far.
00:15:22
Speaker 1: And we are seeing all the back of the head of the attorneys every time they're doing doing questions.
00:15:29
Speaker 3: Love to see the front of their face, Oh my god, I would love to because oh my goodness, you know what, I'd love to see the prosecutor's face and what's the prosecutor's name Josh Jenkins.
00:15:39
Speaker 1: Josh Jenkins, have that right, Josh Josh Jenkins, Curtis Rogers, and Steven T.
00:15:43
Speaker 3: I can almost see his eyes rolling from the back of his head when this is all going on. Like he's kept as cool, but you can see he's getting frustrated, and it's understandable.
00:15:54
Speaker 1: Were you telling me you could just see his shoulders go up and down, or you could hear his exale.
00:16:00
Speaker 3: I could see his shoulders, I could see his body tensing.
00:16:02
Speaker 2: I'm like, he is so irritated right now. He did keep his cool.
00:16:06
Speaker 1: He's playing it really cool.
00:16:07
Speaker 2: He kept it really cool.
00:16:09
Speaker 3: And in fact, it was funny when the defense attorney when Curtis was getting some of the same treatment a lot of objections.
00:16:16
Speaker 2: He started to lose his school, so it was quite funny.
00:16:18
Speaker 3: I thought, Wow, you're getting You're just getting a small taste of your own medicine and you can't stand it. It was very honestly, I wish I was a sociology major or a psychology major. This is so interesting to watch the dynamics. I've never quite seen anything like this.
00:16:35
Speaker 1: Oh of folks. We did get around to some testimony today, and it was significant testimony. Had at least one parent up there who had a child at the school, and also a retired teacher who also taught the kid who shot his teacher way too you hear what he did to her. All right, folks, welcome back to Amy and TJ. You want to wrap up here with a couple of witnesses roads. We did get to some testimony kind of it didn't really flow either, but they did call up a parent who had a kid in the school. I guess what were they trying to establish here? What does it wanting? Endangerment?
00:17:18
Speaker 3: Yes, they're trying to do the child abuse charges and they're the felony child abuse charges, and they were trying to show the harm that students at the school incurred because of what they say was doctor Parker's in action and her in action led to what amounts to child abuse or harm to children based on the aftermath and what they experienced. And what was interesting is the parent who got up there, Mark Garcia is his name. He was the parent of a second grader, so his child wasn't even in the classroom that the shooting occurred, which I thought was interesting, But he said his son is in therapy, still scared of the dark because of the safe room they were all huddled in. I mean, look, this does make sense, a little seven year old being rushed into a room, not knowing what's going on, hearing gunshots. And so he said, to this day he's in therapy, to this day, he's not comfortable in situations he was comfortable in before.
00:18:12
Speaker 2: But the defense did make some headway with their cross examination.
00:18:15
Speaker 1: You said, this was one of the winds one of the wins had and now you know what, They did have a few here and there, but this was I don't know why this ended up being so effective.
00:18:25
Speaker 3: Yes, So the defense was able to in cross examination, have Mark Garcia, the parent, acknowledge that he in fact has filed a civil suit and doctor Ebany Parker is a name defendant and so if she is criminally convicted in this trial, that will help his civil case. He had to acknowledge that, and so that then led for him to have to answer yes, saying you have a financial interest in seeing doctor Parker.
00:18:51
Speaker 1: Convicted and something about that was effective.
00:18:53
Speaker 2: Yes, And he had to say yes, but we.
00:18:56
Speaker 1: Could all understand it. It was plain. It was a direct question, and you know, what. He didn't fumble around with it too much. He was kind of a direct answer, we need more of that in the mission.
00:19:05
Speaker 2: Just a wind.
00:19:06
Speaker 3: But that was one of the few that I've seen as a vent because I will We didn't really talk at all about Nina Parris, the HR director, because I thought when she had to read what the responsibility of administrators was, that was.
00:19:18
Speaker 2: Damning as hell to doctor Parker.
00:19:20
Speaker 3: And the fact that her conclusions basically blamed Parker for not ever leaving her office, for never once searching the bag, for not allowing the student's person to.
00:19:34
Speaker 2: Be searched, his jacket to be searched.
00:19:37
Speaker 1: That was glaring, you know it's and I bet she did Robes get caught up. She had some testing that was going on that she had to be close to the computer for and it was something about the integrity of that testing that didn't allow her to move around. It was something that kept her kind of in that office that this to her didn't rise to the level. Maybe she didn't think it was a big She even said it was a concern, but she knew the kid's mom was coming soon enough, so we'll mention it to her. They talked about previous incidents, robes where they had kids there with weapons, or thought of a reapon where they separated the kids and they behaved differently, or the administration did robes. There was so much stuff, and when she had to reach the part of the manual that laid out the signs of the lead up to a possible violent event.
00:20:30
Speaker 2: It checked every box, every to the tea.
00:20:33
Speaker 3: This was a known This was a student known for violent tendencies, massive disciplinary action, incredible, just violent rhetoric. So he had a lot at six years old, first grader, He had a long, long list that was leading up to that moment. Now you hear that kid is telling people he has a loaded gun in his backpack.
00:21:00
Speaker 2: Why she didn't take it seriously.
00:21:03
Speaker 1: Question, I didn't apply that part of it. She knew who the kid was, she knew the history. Oh yeah, this was This was a nine to one one. If you hear this kid has good exactly.
00:21:12
Speaker 3: And I think the last witness we watched, the retired teacher, brought it home for the prosecution because she is now a retired teacher, but she was this young kid's kindergarten teacher, so she had him the year before this shooting. And what she says, she directly told doctor Parker what happened. But she describes this then five year old, this kindergartener refusing to take direction, kicking a chair, but then getting around behind her as she was sitting and talking to students and got her in a violent.
00:21:48
Speaker 2: Choke hold that she could not get out of. She had to have the teacher's assistant remove him physically.
00:21:56
Speaker 3: She said she could not breathe and she didn't know what was have happened had she not had the teacher's assistant there.
00:22:03
Speaker 1: Five five So this kid had in terms of elementary school students, a rap sheet, Yes there is. He should have been on everybody's radar. Just don't understand ropes and you almost like you just said that it checked every box of I didn't realize this. But they give the administrators and they say, hey, these are the signs of violence coming or being imminent. Yeah, that it leads to yes, if they do this, if they do this, and they do this, if they do this, and every single one of them this kid did up to even the day they said he had even more violent behavior or he was more radical. However, they explained that's like here.
00:22:47
Speaker 2: It comes he broke the same teacher's phone the day before.
00:22:50
Speaker 1: Here it comes, Yeah, all of the stuff checked out ropes and it had stuff.
00:22:54
Speaker 2: In there destroying property everything.
00:22:57
Speaker 1: And if there is a suggestion that this person has a weapon or what you need to take immediate action.
00:23:04
Speaker 3: They said, immediate action. You don't wait till the mom comes and picks them up at the end of the day. You don't wait until you can call her later when your testing is done. Why wouldn't you get up immediately search the backpack and then bring the kid into your office search him. And they talked about how that is well within the right of a school that every student, when you walk into a public school, you are basically acknowledging that you have You don't have a.
00:23:30
Speaker 1: Right to bind me. They can frisk you from top to bottom on a school camp. It's peerio, point blank. You don't have pride and then go in your locked locker. Yes, if they want to woo folks, check this one out. We will continue to follow this one. Hope it gets better, but for now we appreciate you to spend some time with us. I'm tj on behalf of my damny robot. We'll talk to you also it Brooks named Tam
Speaker 1: Hey, they're folks. It is a Wednesday, May twentieth, and if you are not, you need to be watching the Ebony Parker criminal trial. She is the assistant principal now on trial for the shooting at her school in which a six year old shot his teacher. The stuff going on in the courtroom, however, is almost must see and for the wrong reasons. And with that, welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ we We It's hard to laugh some of the stuff and the antics going on in the courtroom. What was the tomfoolery?
00:00:39
Speaker 2: Is the word rue?
00:00:39
Speaker 3: Foolery is a good third, It's just it. It seemed like every it was like a circus more than it was a circus.
00:00:47
Speaker 1: Is goods good?
00:00:48
Speaker 3: And the ringleader wasn't keeping things under control to the point where the jurors were confused, and that tells you what we've been watching. I actually felt validated by the beginning of trial today because the jurors were bringing up questions that we were wondering ourselves, like how can anyone keep anything straight?
00:01:10
Speaker 1: So we did an episode on this trial yesterday and remind her, this is Ebony Parker, who's assistant principle. This is rich Neck Elementary School. This is the Newport News in twenty twenty three, six year old kid brings a gun to school, shoots his teacher. Teacher survives, but again they're holding her now the assistant principal liable for not doing anything. They're trying to hold her criminally liable. Now ropes, what's happening in the courtroom? Now that catches us up. We talked what was it yesterday? We did a full episode.
00:01:40
Speaker 3: Day today we did that was not yes, babe. We did an episode at nine am this star today. We did it just before court started.
00:01:47
Speaker 1: Okay, so we do this episode and we were almost probably holding back a little bit because we were saying, we are so confused. We cannot keep up with what happening with all the starts and stops, and which answer is stricken and which one's not.
00:02:04
Speaker 3: Yes, the defense attorney has basically this is what we were talking about earlier.
00:02:08
Speaker 2: Today.
00:02:09
Speaker 3: He and you were wondering, is this strategy or is this just I'm not prepared as a defense attorney.
00:02:16
Speaker 2: It could have been either, it could be both. I don't know. But he continually interrupts.
00:02:23
Speaker 3: I'm talking every fifteen to twenty seconds even while someone is in mid sentence, he stands up and says objection, and then they're like, what are the grounds and he has to go, uh, let me confer with my co counselor, I mean, and then it just takes and then all of a sudden, wait, who was on the stand?
00:02:39
Speaker 2: What did they just ask? And then the judge.
00:02:42
Speaker 3: Sometimes even the attorney's were like, wait, did you just sustain that or overrule that? Because they weren't even clear what the judge decided. There was so much disruption it was impossible to keep thinking okay.
00:02:53
Speaker 1: So that is what we talked about in today's earlier episode, and that was before we watched all the testimony today and Robes who thought it could get better if you're into entertainment, or worse, if you're into watching good courtroom battles between lawyers, this is insanity. So to your point, Robes, our validation came this morning. We are watching the trial. It gets started this morning a little after nine. The jury, full jury doesn't come in four hours because why we got two jurors, Robes, that seemed to be what confused.
00:03:33
Speaker 3: So we had juror number thirty three and then dur number thirty nine asking questions like, what the hell happened? And I'm so confused, I'm not sure I know what's in, what's out?
00:03:50
Speaker 2: Can I ask some follow up questions?
00:03:52
Speaker 3: And because we had two different jurors asking questions, eventually both the defense and the prosecution ended up asking for a mistrial.
00:04:01
Speaker 1: So this is the we expected this. As this was going back and forth, what the judge had to do is the jury's not in the room, So she brought these jurors in one by one and asked them questions. One of them, the guy juror thirty three, brought him in, asked him questions, sent him back. Then they had to bring him back in for clarification. That is what was happening in the courtroom this morning. Stuff I'd never seen before. Also rogues I haven't seen. Watched a lot of trials, but maybe not all of them. I have never seen mid trial a judge accept questions from the jurors and get them answered. We've seen that during juris deliberations. Of course, this is not something it can't be common.
00:04:40
Speaker 3: I didn't know that it ever occurred, and in fact, that is initially why most likely the defense immediately asked for a mistrial, and it.
00:04:48
Speaker 2: Was interesting learning a lot of a lot about the law. And I don't know if.
00:04:52
Speaker 3: It's I don't think it's specific to Virginia, but they were referencing Commonwealth law. But the judge basically said, actually, jurors can ask questions. Yes, they can actually ask witnesses questions. We don't typically see it happen. That is true, but it is allowed under the law. And so because of that, there was no grounds for a mistrial because this is not inappropriate.
00:05:13
Speaker 1: Well inappropriate thing. It's it's appropriate to do. So she didn't have to answer them. She could have ripped them up if she wanted to, but no, she answered them. And this is where Robes had gotten too a nitty gritty, and I thought this might be this might actually be a mistrial, because the jurors were expressing to them saying that I am confused, but the issue was at least one of them said it to the rest of the group, said I'm confused. I need some clarification. Could anybody else use some And they kind of simm and kind of grunted to where they made the argument. Robes, even if they didn't give it an answer back, you kind of poison the place by putting it in everybody's minds that wait, is there something that needs to be clarified?
00:05:52
Speaker 2: Correct?
00:05:52
Speaker 3: And so look, he kept using the word we, and that is what raised alarm bells.
00:05:58
Speaker 2: If a juror has a question and they.
00:06:00
Speaker 3: Can say, I was confused, I didn't hear, I didn't understand he was using the word we collectively. And I think anyone who follows trials is pretty clear. Jurors are instructed multiple times throughout each day of testimony that they are not allowed to discuss the case with anyone, including fellow jurors. They're told to talk about the weather, or their weekend plans, or anything other than the case until it is time to deliberate. So if there's any indication that they're deliberating or comparing notes, sharing notes, or giving any indication of which way they're leading, obviously that would be an immediate mistrial. But the judge decided that there was no prejudice involved in anything that was being said.
00:06:42
Speaker 1: Speaking to the notes, like you just said, as well exchanging notes. That it was even an issue of just to show you how much stuff has come up, there was even an issue of a juror having a second notebook, like you brought an outside notebook. What's in that notebook? How much have you written? They even had to get into that, but yes, Robes listening to the arguments on that. Wow, wow wow. And then as expected, the defense got up and asked for miss trial. When the prosecutor got up and asked as well, you and I looked at each other said, Wow, this thing's over. Let's go get the recording and button up this trial. I we probably knew pretty quickly it wasn't going to be a mistrial, because even when before she took a break, she kind of gave a heads up for the way she was leaning.
00:07:25
Speaker 2: Yeah, she said, I'm going to go study this.
00:07:26
Speaker 3: I'm going to go look and see any sort of prior case law that I can look to.
00:07:32
Speaker 2: But I'm already going to give you a heads up.
00:07:34
Speaker 3: I'm probably going to deny both of your motions for miss trial.
00:07:40
Speaker 1: I know, I've never seen the defense and the prosecution both get up and say we want a mistrial and.
00:07:45
Speaker 2: The jud says no, we're going to keep going.
00:07:48
Speaker 1: Look.
00:07:49
Speaker 3: I wonder how much this looks bad on her. I'm just curious because she didn't keep her attorneys in check, or she wasn't managing the courtroom well enough that the jurors were clear about what was admissible what wasn't admissible. And so maybe I'm just wondering if she's saving face a little bit, because especially dury number juror number thirty three, whose main complaint was I couldn't keep track of what was admissible and what wasn't, well, what was sustained and what was overruled, so I can't remember what to consider and what not to consider it.
00:08:23
Speaker 2: That would be kind of on her.
00:08:25
Speaker 1: It's impossible to keep that stuff straight. You just listened to a hole back and forth. The judge says, okay, that objection is sustained. Jurors, you're to disregard the last answer. Huh.
00:08:39
Speaker 3: And then if the defense journey the next ten seconds starts, does it objecting again?
00:08:43
Speaker 2: And then ten seconds later objects again, And sometimes she sustains it and sometimes she overrules it. You and I have leaned on each other, what did she just say?
00:08:51
Speaker 3: And sometimes we back it up because we've got up feed so we can hit rewind. And that's the only way we've been able to keep things straight. We've had to ask each other, did you hear what I heard?
00:09:00
Speaker 1: Rob Robes. They're doing it in the courtroom to each other. They've been witnessing, like what was your question? The defense attorney has done it a hundred times. I didn't catch her answer. The defense attorney at some point, Okay, we've got to get into this defense attorney.
00:09:13
Speaker 2: We're shuffling his papers. I don't know what I'm going to do.
00:09:16
Speaker 1: This is mister Curtis Rogers, who I should say, he is the lead right fair to say. But at the tag team that Curtis Rodgers and Stephen Tigue are representing Ebony Parker, and this is a dynamic duo if I've ever seen one. Love you, fellows man. But some of this could be brilliant lawyering. How I don't drinks?
00:09:36
Speaker 2: Have they taken?
00:09:37
Speaker 3: Just the defense team, like the attorney judge, I need a break so many.
00:09:41
Speaker 1: Times this is not a joke. I actually respond to Throbes at one point he's got it, well, you get older men. The bladder issues the protest. It ain't what it used to. He is taking breaks to step out of the courtroom, and I don't know why. Maybe it's bathroom. Maybe he's not feeling well, I don't know what he's doing.
00:09:58
Speaker 2: He's not he's not giving an explanation the justice and asking him to.
00:10:01
Speaker 1: She's allowing it.
00:10:02
Speaker 2: Yeah, but it's it's exacerbated.
00:10:03
Speaker 1: Okay, but this stuff robes the silliness and you throw in as many as you can remember as well. But some of the silliness, folks. There was even a point where the defense one of the defense lawyers was actually doing the cross examination and his buddy was sitting at the defence table, got up, stopped the cross examination and said, you're on a I hear kind of some background noise back here. And the guy his buddy doing the cross examination said, yeah, I kind of hear something too, and it's distracted. That just said, well, have the Bayliff keep an eye out for it. And that was what It's constant something that.
00:10:41
Speaker 2: The it's comical. It's what it is.
00:10:44
Speaker 3: And I have to say like, it's comical, but I kept imagining. I said to you at one point as a juror the defense attorney, I'm sorry, is annoying me. There's so many disruptions, there are so many breaks, there are so many objections that it actually get You're like, can I just listen to what the witness was about to.
00:11:06
Speaker 2: Say and then we can rule on whatever later.
00:11:09
Speaker 3: But he kept interrupting, and he's this is day two and I'm already like, my god, I just I wonder if that hurts doctor Parker's case at all, because the jurors could be genuinely annoyed at the defense team.
00:11:22
Speaker 1: You know, this is a it's like the end of a game, end of a basketball game, but the team just keeps fouling and fouling and fouling and putting the other team on the freezerro line.
00:11:32
Speaker 2: It's not fun to watch.
00:11:33
Speaker 1: It's not fun to watch, and there's no flow, there's no rhythm, and there's not really an understanding when it comes to this legal back and forth. A woman's life on the line. She could spend forty up to forty years in prison. They should get this right. But so far, if this is only the second full day of testimony and the jury already has questions just for simple understanding, you cannot keep up. It's look, I know, but Rhodes, we have watched just as much testimony at this point as the jurors, and we have more time to take it in and feel it out and try to understand even bounce off each other. You cannot keep up.
00:12:18
Speaker 3: No, and every single time, and the prosecution hasn't even gotten that many witnesses on because it's taking forever because of all the objections.
00:12:26
Speaker 2: But just to get.
00:12:27
Speaker 3: An interview that the human resources director conducted with doctor Parker, just to get portions of an interview, how long did that take?
00:12:40
Speaker 2: I mean, just everything is painstaking.
00:12:44
Speaker 1: The video was that whole back and forth with absurd and they barely was it? Certainly eleven? But how close to noon was it before the jury actually came in and started hearing testimony today?
00:12:54
Speaker 3: Oh, it was well, and we're on a thirty minute delay because of the concern of any miners' names being accidentally said in court.
00:13:02
Speaker 2: They have a thirty minute delay.
00:13:03
Speaker 3: But I do believe they didn't get into that courtroom until.
00:13:08
Speaker 2: Eleven, and they ended up having to break.
00:13:10
Speaker 3: For lunch at twelve twenty. Yes, it was a very unproductive morning.
00:13:16
Speaker 1: The judge even apologized at the jury at one point with all the back and forth with the attorney she's she said, please don't take it out on them if I seem to scold them or whatever.
00:13:26
Speaker 3: If she said, if I seem grumpy, yeah, oh yeah, she said, if I.
00:13:29
Speaker 2: Appear grumpy, don't take it out on the attorneys. They're doing their jobs. It's basically, she's basically like, it's.
00:13:37
Speaker 1: A lot better, you know what, a lot After all this, we're saying, road, we're missing our favorite moment, our favorite moment, then miss the good old Curtis, the defense attorney, the lead defense attorney for Epony Parker, was up there doing a cross examination and he was trying to get something out of this this witness, and the defense attorney of the prosecutor got up and objected, sat back down. The Curtis Rogers kept at it, kept trying to squeeze something out of this attorney, out of this witness, and the prosecutor got up again. Didn't have to say a word. Yes.
00:14:19
Speaker 3: All of a sudden, the judges had sustained because she was so irritated by the military attorney constantly, constantly objecting, and she knew that yes it was you were you were like that was my favorite moment of the whole trial. The prosecutor only had to partially stand up yeah to object, and she said sustained.
00:14:38
Speaker 1: It's that kind of a trial, and I am fascinated by it. It is frustrating, certainly at times, but it is jaw dropping every single moment. You cannot believe what you're hearing, what you're seeing, what they're doing. And you know what we to give you if you haven't watched, which we do recommend. It is making a difference somewhat in how we're watching this when we don't have multiple camera angles and whatnot like we're used to seeing in some of the trials. It's kind of one camera. It's not the best shot at that.
00:15:06
Speaker 2: No, it's not the best shot, and it's not the best audio.
00:15:08
Speaker 3: But in a way it makes you lean in and pay attention even more because you're kind of hanging on every word because the next one, the next moment, seems more ridiculous than the one before it. And that's basically how this trial has gone so far.
00:15:22
Speaker 1: And we are seeing all the back of the head of the attorneys every time they're doing doing questions.
00:15:29
Speaker 3: Love to see the front of their face, Oh my god, I would love to because oh my goodness, you know what, I'd love to see the prosecutor's face and what's the prosecutor's name Josh Jenkins.
00:15:39
Speaker 1: Josh Jenkins, have that right, Josh Josh Jenkins, Curtis Rogers, and Steven T.
00:15:43
Speaker 3: I can almost see his eyes rolling from the back of his head when this is all going on. Like he's kept as cool, but you can see he's getting frustrated, and it's understandable.
00:15:54
Speaker 1: Were you telling me you could just see his shoulders go up and down, or you could hear his exale.
00:16:00
Speaker 3: I could see his shoulders, I could see his body tensing.
00:16:02
Speaker 2: I'm like, he is so irritated right now. He did keep his cool.
00:16:06
Speaker 1: He's playing it really cool.
00:16:07
Speaker 2: He kept it really cool.
00:16:09
Speaker 3: And in fact, it was funny when the defense attorney when Curtis was getting some of the same treatment a lot of objections.
00:16:16
Speaker 2: He started to lose his school, so it was quite funny.
00:16:18
Speaker 3: I thought, Wow, you're getting You're just getting a small taste of your own medicine and you can't stand it. It was very honestly, I wish I was a sociology major or a psychology major. This is so interesting to watch the dynamics. I've never quite seen anything like this.
00:16:35
Speaker 1: Oh of folks. We did get around to some testimony today, and it was significant testimony. Had at least one parent up there who had a child at the school, and also a retired teacher who also taught the kid who shot his teacher way too you hear what he did to her. All right, folks, welcome back to Amy and TJ. You want to wrap up here with a couple of witnesses roads. We did get to some testimony kind of it didn't really flow either, but they did call up a parent who had a kid in the school. I guess what were they trying to establish here? What does it wanting? Endangerment?
00:17:18
Speaker 3: Yes, they're trying to do the child abuse charges and they're the felony child abuse charges, and they were trying to show the harm that students at the school incurred because of what they say was doctor Parker's in action and her in action led to what amounts to child abuse or harm to children based on the aftermath and what they experienced. And what was interesting is the parent who got up there, Mark Garcia is his name. He was the parent of a second grader, so his child wasn't even in the classroom that the shooting occurred, which I thought was interesting, But he said his son is in therapy, still scared of the dark because of the safe room they were all huddled in. I mean, look, this does make sense, a little seven year old being rushed into a room, not knowing what's going on, hearing gunshots. And so he said, to this day he's in therapy, to this day, he's not comfortable in situations he was comfortable in before.
00:18:12
Speaker 2: But the defense did make some headway with their cross examination.
00:18:15
Speaker 1: You said, this was one of the winds one of the wins had and now you know what, They did have a few here and there, but this was I don't know why this ended up being so effective.
00:18:25
Speaker 3: Yes, So the defense was able to in cross examination, have Mark Garcia, the parent, acknowledge that he in fact has filed a civil suit and doctor Ebany Parker is a name defendant and so if she is criminally convicted in this trial, that will help his civil case. He had to acknowledge that, and so that then led for him to have to answer yes, saying you have a financial interest in seeing doctor Parker.
00:18:51
Speaker 1: Convicted and something about that was effective.
00:18:53
Speaker 2: Yes, And he had to say yes, but we.
00:18:56
Speaker 1: Could all understand it. It was plain. It was a direct question, and you know, what. He didn't fumble around with it too much. He was kind of a direct answer, we need more of that in the mission.
00:19:05
Speaker 2: Just a wind.
00:19:06
Speaker 3: But that was one of the few that I've seen as a vent because I will We didn't really talk at all about Nina Parris, the HR director, because I thought when she had to read what the responsibility of administrators was, that was.
00:19:18
Speaker 2: Damning as hell to doctor Parker.
00:19:20
Speaker 3: And the fact that her conclusions basically blamed Parker for not ever leaving her office, for never once searching the bag, for not allowing the student's person to.
00:19:34
Speaker 2: Be searched, his jacket to be searched.
00:19:37
Speaker 1: That was glaring, you know it's and I bet she did Robes get caught up. She had some testing that was going on that she had to be close to the computer for and it was something about the integrity of that testing that didn't allow her to move around. It was something that kept her kind of in that office that this to her didn't rise to the level. Maybe she didn't think it was a big She even said it was a concern, but she knew the kid's mom was coming soon enough, so we'll mention it to her. They talked about previous incidents, robes where they had kids there with weapons, or thought of a reapon where they separated the kids and they behaved differently, or the administration did robes. There was so much stuff, and when she had to reach the part of the manual that laid out the signs of the lead up to a possible violent event.
00:20:30
Speaker 2: It checked every box, every to the tea.
00:20:33
Speaker 3: This was a known This was a student known for violent tendencies, massive disciplinary action, incredible, just violent rhetoric. So he had a lot at six years old, first grader, He had a long, long list that was leading up to that moment. Now you hear that kid is telling people he has a loaded gun in his backpack.
00:21:00
Speaker 2: Why she didn't take it seriously.
00:21:03
Speaker 1: Question, I didn't apply that part of it. She knew who the kid was, she knew the history. Oh yeah, this was This was a nine to one one. If you hear this kid has good exactly.
00:21:12
Speaker 3: And I think the last witness we watched, the retired teacher, brought it home for the prosecution because she is now a retired teacher, but she was this young kid's kindergarten teacher, so she had him the year before this shooting. And what she says, she directly told doctor Parker what happened. But she describes this then five year old, this kindergartener refusing to take direction, kicking a chair, but then getting around behind her as she was sitting and talking to students and got her in a violent.
00:21:48
Speaker 2: Choke hold that she could not get out of. She had to have the teacher's assistant remove him physically.
00:21:56
Speaker 3: She said she could not breathe and she didn't know what was have happened had she not had the teacher's assistant there.
00:22:03
Speaker 1: Five five So this kid had in terms of elementary school students, a rap sheet, Yes there is. He should have been on everybody's radar. Just don't understand ropes and you almost like you just said that it checked every box of I didn't realize this. But they give the administrators and they say, hey, these are the signs of violence coming or being imminent. Yeah, that it leads to yes, if they do this, if they do this, and they do this, if they do this, and every single one of them this kid did up to even the day they said he had even more violent behavior or he was more radical. However, they explained that's like here.
00:22:47
Speaker 2: It comes he broke the same teacher's phone the day before.
00:22:50
Speaker 1: Here it comes, Yeah, all of the stuff checked out ropes and it had stuff.
00:22:54
Speaker 2: In there destroying property everything.
00:22:57
Speaker 1: And if there is a suggestion that this person has a weapon or what you need to take immediate action.
00:23:04
Speaker 3: They said, immediate action. You don't wait till the mom comes and picks them up at the end of the day. You don't wait until you can call her later when your testing is done. Why wouldn't you get up immediately search the backpack and then bring the kid into your office search him. And they talked about how that is well within the right of a school that every student, when you walk into a public school, you are basically acknowledging that you have You don't have a.
00:23:30
Speaker 1: Right to bind me. They can frisk you from top to bottom on a school camp. It's peerio, point blank. You don't have pride and then go in your locked locker. Yes, if they want to woo folks, check this one out. We will continue to follow this one. Hope it gets better, but for now we appreciate you to spend some time with us. I'm tj on behalf of my damny robot. We'll talk to you also it Brooks named Tam