Oct. 8, 2025
How a Podcast Could Spare the Life of a Convicted Death Row Inmate
Apple Podcasts 
Spotify 
Castro 
RSS Feed The state of Texas is set to execute 58-year-old Robert Roberson next week, but his attorneys have filed a last minute request for a new trial based on a recent Dateline podcast. Roberson would be the first person to ever be put to death for shaken baby syndrome, following the 2002 death of his 2 year old daughter Nikki. The science he was convicted on is no longer regarded and is considered “junk science.” That information alone brought lawmakers from both sides of the aisle to intervene last year, to stay his execution, but that stay is up and Roberson time is up. Now, baby Nikki’s maternal grandfather is speaking up, telling a story, if true, of egregious conduct by the judge in this case from the hospital where Nikki died, all the way to the courtroom he presided over in Roberson’s trial.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
00:00:02
Speaker 1: Hey there, folks. It is Wednesday, October the eighth. A man has been on death row for decades, but a podcast interview is going to be the thing that could get him off. Welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ. Rohades. This is probably going to be a good case study for why we should not be executing people. If somebody could be on death row for almost thirty years and one podcast interview is the thing that gets us to rethink the case. That's where we are in this case in Texas.
00:00:32
Speaker 2: Yeah, and this is a case that has so many people involved for a very long time. This is a case we have covered several times on our podcasts because you had an entire state legislator legislature actually coming together, Republicans and Democrats trying to get this guy's execution. State in what state? Texas?
00:00:53
Speaker 1: Texas? First of all, trying to save a death row inmate two bipartisan in Texas. Yeah, so that lets you know what the hell's going on.
00:01:01
Speaker 2: Yeah, and they manage to get this man, Robert Robertson, fifty eight years old, a stay of execution for just one year. Unfortunately, and I say unfortunately for people who do believe in his innocence. He is set to die next week.
00:01:17
Speaker 1: And look, there were enough questions, and there's a reason there are all these questions because if they do execute Robert robertson next week, fifty eight years old, if they do go for it with the execution, he will be the first person in the country ever executed based on being convicted for a shaken baby syndrome murder. Yes, he would be the first.
00:01:39
Speaker 2: We've done this story because the details are so, I say, fascinating, and I hate to say that when a man's life is at stake, but it begs the question about junk science.
00:01:49
Speaker 1: Okay, it is. I think it's fair medically fascinating. Forensically, this is fascinating.
00:01:54
Speaker 2: It is. It certainly is so. He was so by the way, I just want to say, his execution date is on October sixteenth, by lethal injection. We are absolutely going to be following this story up until that day. But he was convicted for the two thousand and two death of his two year old daughter, Nicki. He says that he fell asleep with Nicki. He says he woke up and she had fallen out of the bed. Her lips were blue, she was unconscious, and he took her to the hospital. There's a lot of details that follow after that that make this story not so black and white, not so cut and dry, and it's certainly been a big part of the arguments his lawyers have been making to dry not just to get his execution state, but to exonerate him completely.
00:02:36
Speaker 1: Because it's look, we know more about shaking baby syndrome today than we did twenty was this account there twenty.
00:02:44
Speaker 2: Whatever years twenty twenty three years ago?
00:02:47
Speaker 1: Right? We know more and some of the facts or the tests essentially, if you will forgive that crude way of putting it that they would use to figure out if it's shaken baby syndrome have been discredited, like we've thrown those out. Don't use use that anymore. That is what he was convicted of, using those old rules, those old methods, those old rules and methods that the medical community now has thrown out. You're asking, well, why should he not? Why are we going to kill a man over something we call junk science?
00:03:15
Speaker 2: Now? Yeah, and there are there were complex medical issues that this young girl had been dealing with, including she had been prescribed certain kinds of drugs, and we'll get into all that. But when you really look at the evidence, and if a jury today were to take a look at the same evidence we're looking at now, with the understanding we have about shaking baby syndrome, most people would suggest and including all those lawmakers, that he would never have been convicted today.
00:03:40
Speaker 1: So that's where we are on the case. Look, there are plenty of people, and there were some in government there in Texas that now, this dude's a monster and the child that could explain had some blunt force trauma is what the those on that side keep pointing to. So this is now not a matter of we don't want to relitigate that case. But there are new facts now that have come up. And it's so interesting to think robes and what in congressional hearings and things we have been watching that people offering are talking about. Yes, he said in a podcast interview. Well you said in a podcast how much podcast have made an impact? And here we are today talking about the possibility of a podcast interview getting a guy off death row.
00:04:23
Speaker 2: Yes. So this there was a new filing on Monday from his lawyers and they are claiming there is new evidence of judicial misconduct, that new evidence came from an episode of Datelines podcast. This was Lester Holtz interview with the maternal grandfather of Nicki. So this isn't Robert Robertson's father saying this. This is his baby's mother, Nicky's mother's father. So there isn't a compelling reason why he would be saying any of this to try and save his former son in law. This is a man who actually has some really interesting facts about what led up to the arrest of Robertson that is certainly questionable.
00:05:09
Speaker 1: And the key here and let's explain what there's new evidence that they're pointing to. And we call it evidence, but they're saying that the grandfather here that's been interviewed by Dateline for a podcast. His name is Larry Bowman. Larry Bowman, Nicky's grandfather. Okay. So Bowman said in the interview that the judge Bascombe Bentley called the hospital after Nicky's injury and directed them to call the Bowmans, the grandparents, for permission to remove the baby from life support. Bowman said the judge actually told the hospital that the Bowmans, who are actually the grandparents, were the parents. Therefore, they assumed that the grandparents had the right to take the child off life support. Problem here, they did not have the right to make the call. Robertson was the legal guardian of the child. The roads That could be reason enough, But they even have more things they point to and saying, yeah, the judge that made the call to the hospital.
00:06:12
Speaker 2: Guess what, he's the one who also signed the arrest warrant for Robert Robertson and then presided over the trial. How is that?
00:06:24
Speaker 1: Okay, we should at least take a beat and not kill this guy next week on the sixteenth, if nothing else, look at but if this, if we're just finding this out, is this the first time that anybody, any prosecutor anybody ever heard of this fact? We got to take a beat.
00:06:39
Speaker 2: It gives me chills to be frank here, because this is this goes above and beyond all the other junk science evidence that we've been talking about that got lawmakers involved. This is a completely separate issue that is deeply concerning about justice in this country. The fact that one man, from start to finish was basically respond ncible for this guy being on death row. Truly, and you have to ask, did he have a vendetta did he have a reason behind it, Well, we can't ask him because he's gone. He's dead, so he isn't around to even talk or explain about how it happened, why it happened to any of that. But Robertson had been granted custody two months earlier of his daughter, and he certainly he was a single dad now at this point and taking care of his daughter, and he clearly for him to not have been the one to make the call about his own daughter being removed from life support. And also, you know, we haven't even gotten into this, but he was diagnosed, I believe a few years later, of being autistic, and that explained even the head detective who actually contributed to Robert Robertson being convicted in court said part of the reason why he thought he was guilty was because he seemed so emotionally removed from the situation when he was in the hospital and his daughter was you know, had grievous injuries or a grievous issues, he seemed emotional. Well, now that's been explained by his autism. And so that detective has been on a full campaign for the past several years trying to say this please, please, please. I believe this man is innocent, and I feel responsible because part of my testimony put him away.
00:08:14
Speaker 1: So even that, isn't that one of the things. I mean, we know more about autism, there's more awareness even I mean, the medical community knows more about autism, but we in the public are at least aware of it. Differently, every body, I think knows if you meet someone I know, someone who's autistic, you now know what that means, and you now aren't offended if they're not looking you in the eye or not responding a certain way. It's like we have just generally a better knowledge. If the detective back then had that same knowledge, maybe he would have looked at it differently. Maybe he would have been saying this same thing he's saying now back then. Who knows. But we know too much now, too much new information. We have learned a lot more about science, this case about death about too much to say those circums fans is then should apply now and we have got this. You can't make a mistake.
00:09:05
Speaker 2: And what's interesting to me is, you know, you had this huge campaign just based on the fact that, yes, you have this lead detective and the fact that this science that he was convicted by because of what they thought were Little Nikki's issues and what led to and caused her death. The fact that you had all these lawmakers trying to stay his execution, just punting at a year. I don't know what that got anyone, and where all of that stands now in terms of the legal wrangling and what's being done behind the scenes. If anything, did he stop this execution?
00:09:41
Speaker 1: He ever? Jack my memory, remember they had a hearing set and he was supposed to testify I think via conference, but they ended up canceling that. Yes, that's sound right, Yes, okay, there was a lot happening at that time. But again they managed to get a delay. And again we're talking about Texas. You know, Texas where the Democrats and Republicans don't get along so much that literally the Democrats went on the run and the Republicans sent law enforcement after them. Those Democrats and Republicans got together on this in a state that they have to be number one or number two in executions in this country historically speaking in an even close that group is trying to save this man's life.
00:10:26
Speaker 2: That is unreal. Yes, so I should say Robertson did file a separate plea this month so that he could file this new legal challenge claiming his imprisonment is illegal because of the overwhelming evidence that he was convicted using that junk science. So that appeal is still ongoing, so he still has that working for him, in addition to this new information that came out in the podcast. So we as a couple avenues, but time is running out. We're talking eight days from now, yes, a week and a day from now from today. Next Thursday is his scheduled execution at six pm.
00:11:03
Speaker 1: And I'm pretty sure first time around there was nothing about Governor Abbott that signaled he was in any mood to commute this sentence, and he was out of options at the time. Then look, there is something else we're talking So it's not necessarily even a guilt or innocence we're talking about. He's not even asking people to look at the case but the facts of the case. But look at the facts of how he even got to jail, and it's something wrong with a man that's just constitutionally, that is not how it's opposed to work. This judge was not just judge. He ended up being jury and looks like he's going to be executioner with what he did call the hospital. These are the parents who aren't the parents the child who I don't know medically how much was it. I guess if a child was on life support, I assume it was not going to go well. But the father didn't get a chance to make the decision about his own child.
00:11:55
Speaker 2: There's so many things going on here, and.
00:11:58
Speaker 1: His rights were violated, and you have to stop for a minute and take a beat on this guy's case.
00:12:03
Speaker 2: Yes, of course. And so when we come back, we're going to tell you what Robertson's lawyers are saying, what their plea to the court is, what their plea to the country is about why they believe their client should not only be allowed to live, but should be set free. And continuing now this episode of Amy and TJ, where we are talking about a case we've been talking about for more than a year now. Fifty eight year old Robert Robertson is scheduled to die by lethal injection next week in the state of Texas, even though his execution was put on hold for a year by a bipartisan group of Texas lawmakers who reviewed some of the evidence, who have been looking into this case. He would be, if he is executed, the first person in this country to die after a conviction for shaken baby syndrome. His two year old girl, Nikki, died in two thousand and two, and there are a lot of competing explanations as to why she died, how she could have died, but there certainly is now in today's understanding of what shaken baby syndrome is an explanation, a plausible explanation that Nikki died from a combination of an illness, some drugs that are now no longer allowed to be prescribed for children, and falling out of bed. They all could have contributed to where she ended up on life support, and it could not. It's possible, by today's medical standards that Robert Robertson had nothing to do at all with his child's death, which is what he has claimed from the beginning. But now there is new evidence from a podcast from Dayline that actually shows some pretty egregious misconduct, if true, in his actual arrest and certainly in the trial that ensued. And so we are now hearing from his lawyer who is asking and they filed a petition earlier this week to try and get a stay of execution. But we're going to read exactly what that language was that they filed with the court. Any objective member of the public, with knowledge of the new facts would reasonably believe that Judge Bentley had prejudiced mister Robertson's guilt and, animated by that presumption of guilt, improperly circumvented the law governing parental rights and the guarantees of due process, and thus should have recused himself from presiding over mister Robertson's criminal case to preserve the appearance of impartiality. Judge Bentley's failure to do so caused structural error and requires a new trial. So they are asking for a new trial.
00:14:50
Speaker 1: Look, we need to call a lawyer because I wonder is there's a good ground sport.
00:14:55
Speaker 2: It seems like it.
00:14:57
Speaker 1: His rights were violated and the judge in that judge, he did not get a chance to make the call about his child. His constitutional rights were violated. Period. The judge played a role in that. The judge who signed is a rest warrant, and the judge who presided over his trial, I don't know. And he's talking to a lawyer to see where that's not a.
00:15:18
Speaker 2: Problem as a as a non legal expert, but as a member of the human race, it just seems to me fairly obvious that that is absolutely a conflict of interest from start to finish, and that in and of itself would allow legally, it would seem, it would appear it would. I just think from anyone who's looking at it from a distance could say, yeah, that dude deserves a new trial, from the medical knowledge that we've gained over the past two decades, from this seemingly egregious conduct by a judge who seemed or could have possibly had an agenda for whatever reason, all those two things combined alone, and then you have lawmakers from a state that has zero problem for the most part, sending people to death row actually coming together in a rare instance, to try and keep this man alive. For those reasons, why wouldn't we give this man a new trial? I mean, I'd pose it from that perspective, I don't get it.
00:16:19
Speaker 1: But this has been an intriguing case for a long time, and hey, look, this is not any matter of guilt or Innocen's arguing anything. I will always argue, geez, we cannot make a mistake. So this is too many questions. There have been some folks that we've covered a lot of executions lately, and some of them go to that execution chamber say yep, I did it, and I'm sorry for what I did. This is just and you feel differently about those, even if you're against the death penalty. This is just one where we seem to be in a rush to execute a guy just when there's too many questions.
00:16:50
Speaker 2: And if this has you as interested as it does us, we would encourage you to read up on this story. I mean, I actually feel emotionally invested in this, like I am nervous for next week because I hate to think that this country that we live in, this country that we love, would make this call. It makes me feel actually physically ill with this case in particular. So we will continue to follow this and bring you any updates as they warrant, But we appreciate you listening to us. I made me roboch alongside TJ. Holmes, and we will talk to you very soon.
Speaker 1: Hey there, folks. It is Wednesday, October the eighth. A man has been on death row for decades, but a podcast interview is going to be the thing that could get him off. Welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ. Rohades. This is probably going to be a good case study for why we should not be executing people. If somebody could be on death row for almost thirty years and one podcast interview is the thing that gets us to rethink the case. That's where we are in this case in Texas.
00:00:32
Speaker 2: Yeah, and this is a case that has so many people involved for a very long time. This is a case we have covered several times on our podcasts because you had an entire state legislator legislature actually coming together, Republicans and Democrats trying to get this guy's execution. State in what state? Texas?
00:00:53
Speaker 1: Texas? First of all, trying to save a death row inmate two bipartisan in Texas. Yeah, so that lets you know what the hell's going on.
00:01:01
Speaker 2: Yeah, and they manage to get this man, Robert Robertson, fifty eight years old, a stay of execution for just one year. Unfortunately, and I say unfortunately for people who do believe in his innocence. He is set to die next week.
00:01:17
Speaker 1: And look, there were enough questions, and there's a reason there are all these questions because if they do execute Robert robertson next week, fifty eight years old, if they do go for it with the execution, he will be the first person in the country ever executed based on being convicted for a shaken baby syndrome murder. Yes, he would be the first.
00:01:39
Speaker 2: We've done this story because the details are so, I say, fascinating, and I hate to say that when a man's life is at stake, but it begs the question about junk science.
00:01:49
Speaker 1: Okay, it is. I think it's fair medically fascinating. Forensically, this is fascinating.
00:01:54
Speaker 2: It is. It certainly is so. He was so by the way, I just want to say, his execution date is on October sixteenth, by lethal injection. We are absolutely going to be following this story up until that day. But he was convicted for the two thousand and two death of his two year old daughter, Nicki. He says that he fell asleep with Nicki. He says he woke up and she had fallen out of the bed. Her lips were blue, she was unconscious, and he took her to the hospital. There's a lot of details that follow after that that make this story not so black and white, not so cut and dry, and it's certainly been a big part of the arguments his lawyers have been making to dry not just to get his execution state, but to exonerate him completely.
00:02:36
Speaker 1: Because it's look, we know more about shaking baby syndrome today than we did twenty was this account there twenty.
00:02:44
Speaker 2: Whatever years twenty twenty three years ago?
00:02:47
Speaker 1: Right? We know more and some of the facts or the tests essentially, if you will forgive that crude way of putting it that they would use to figure out if it's shaken baby syndrome have been discredited, like we've thrown those out. Don't use use that anymore. That is what he was convicted of, using those old rules, those old methods, those old rules and methods that the medical community now has thrown out. You're asking, well, why should he not? Why are we going to kill a man over something we call junk science?
00:03:15
Speaker 2: Now? Yeah, and there are there were complex medical issues that this young girl had been dealing with, including she had been prescribed certain kinds of drugs, and we'll get into all that. But when you really look at the evidence, and if a jury today were to take a look at the same evidence we're looking at now, with the understanding we have about shaking baby syndrome, most people would suggest and including all those lawmakers, that he would never have been convicted today.
00:03:40
Speaker 1: So that's where we are on the case. Look, there are plenty of people, and there were some in government there in Texas that now, this dude's a monster and the child that could explain had some blunt force trauma is what the those on that side keep pointing to. So this is now not a matter of we don't want to relitigate that case. But there are new facts now that have come up. And it's so interesting to think robes and what in congressional hearings and things we have been watching that people offering are talking about. Yes, he said in a podcast interview. Well you said in a podcast how much podcast have made an impact? And here we are today talking about the possibility of a podcast interview getting a guy off death row.
00:04:23
Speaker 2: Yes. So this there was a new filing on Monday from his lawyers and they are claiming there is new evidence of judicial misconduct, that new evidence came from an episode of Datelines podcast. This was Lester Holtz interview with the maternal grandfather of Nicki. So this isn't Robert Robertson's father saying this. This is his baby's mother, Nicky's mother's father. So there isn't a compelling reason why he would be saying any of this to try and save his former son in law. This is a man who actually has some really interesting facts about what led up to the arrest of Robertson that is certainly questionable.
00:05:09
Speaker 1: And the key here and let's explain what there's new evidence that they're pointing to. And we call it evidence, but they're saying that the grandfather here that's been interviewed by Dateline for a podcast. His name is Larry Bowman. Larry Bowman, Nicky's grandfather. Okay. So Bowman said in the interview that the judge Bascombe Bentley called the hospital after Nicky's injury and directed them to call the Bowmans, the grandparents, for permission to remove the baby from life support. Bowman said the judge actually told the hospital that the Bowmans, who are actually the grandparents, were the parents. Therefore, they assumed that the grandparents had the right to take the child off life support. Problem here, they did not have the right to make the call. Robertson was the legal guardian of the child. The roads That could be reason enough, But they even have more things they point to and saying, yeah, the judge that made the call to the hospital.
00:06:12
Speaker 2: Guess what, he's the one who also signed the arrest warrant for Robert Robertson and then presided over the trial. How is that?
00:06:24
Speaker 1: Okay, we should at least take a beat and not kill this guy next week on the sixteenth, if nothing else, look at but if this, if we're just finding this out, is this the first time that anybody, any prosecutor anybody ever heard of this fact? We got to take a beat.
00:06:39
Speaker 2: It gives me chills to be frank here, because this is this goes above and beyond all the other junk science evidence that we've been talking about that got lawmakers involved. This is a completely separate issue that is deeply concerning about justice in this country. The fact that one man, from start to finish was basically respond ncible for this guy being on death row. Truly, and you have to ask, did he have a vendetta did he have a reason behind it, Well, we can't ask him because he's gone. He's dead, so he isn't around to even talk or explain about how it happened, why it happened to any of that. But Robertson had been granted custody two months earlier of his daughter, and he certainly he was a single dad now at this point and taking care of his daughter, and he clearly for him to not have been the one to make the call about his own daughter being removed from life support. And also, you know, we haven't even gotten into this, but he was diagnosed, I believe a few years later, of being autistic, and that explained even the head detective who actually contributed to Robert Robertson being convicted in court said part of the reason why he thought he was guilty was because he seemed so emotionally removed from the situation when he was in the hospital and his daughter was you know, had grievous injuries or a grievous issues, he seemed emotional. Well, now that's been explained by his autism. And so that detective has been on a full campaign for the past several years trying to say this please, please, please. I believe this man is innocent, and I feel responsible because part of my testimony put him away.
00:08:14
Speaker 1: So even that, isn't that one of the things. I mean, we know more about autism, there's more awareness even I mean, the medical community knows more about autism, but we in the public are at least aware of it. Differently, every body, I think knows if you meet someone I know, someone who's autistic, you now know what that means, and you now aren't offended if they're not looking you in the eye or not responding a certain way. It's like we have just generally a better knowledge. If the detective back then had that same knowledge, maybe he would have looked at it differently. Maybe he would have been saying this same thing he's saying now back then. Who knows. But we know too much now, too much new information. We have learned a lot more about science, this case about death about too much to say those circums fans is then should apply now and we have got this. You can't make a mistake.
00:09:05
Speaker 2: And what's interesting to me is, you know, you had this huge campaign just based on the fact that, yes, you have this lead detective and the fact that this science that he was convicted by because of what they thought were Little Nikki's issues and what led to and caused her death. The fact that you had all these lawmakers trying to stay his execution, just punting at a year. I don't know what that got anyone, and where all of that stands now in terms of the legal wrangling and what's being done behind the scenes. If anything, did he stop this execution?
00:09:41
Speaker 1: He ever? Jack my memory, remember they had a hearing set and he was supposed to testify I think via conference, but they ended up canceling that. Yes, that's sound right, Yes, okay, there was a lot happening at that time. But again they managed to get a delay. And again we're talking about Texas. You know, Texas where the Democrats and Republicans don't get along so much that literally the Democrats went on the run and the Republicans sent law enforcement after them. Those Democrats and Republicans got together on this in a state that they have to be number one or number two in executions in this country historically speaking in an even close that group is trying to save this man's life.
00:10:26
Speaker 2: That is unreal. Yes, so I should say Robertson did file a separate plea this month so that he could file this new legal challenge claiming his imprisonment is illegal because of the overwhelming evidence that he was convicted using that junk science. So that appeal is still ongoing, so he still has that working for him, in addition to this new information that came out in the podcast. So we as a couple avenues, but time is running out. We're talking eight days from now, yes, a week and a day from now from today. Next Thursday is his scheduled execution at six pm.
00:11:03
Speaker 1: And I'm pretty sure first time around there was nothing about Governor Abbott that signaled he was in any mood to commute this sentence, and he was out of options at the time. Then look, there is something else we're talking So it's not necessarily even a guilt or innocence we're talking about. He's not even asking people to look at the case but the facts of the case. But look at the facts of how he even got to jail, and it's something wrong with a man that's just constitutionally, that is not how it's opposed to work. This judge was not just judge. He ended up being jury and looks like he's going to be executioner with what he did call the hospital. These are the parents who aren't the parents the child who I don't know medically how much was it. I guess if a child was on life support, I assume it was not going to go well. But the father didn't get a chance to make the decision about his own child.
00:11:55
Speaker 2: There's so many things going on here, and.
00:11:58
Speaker 1: His rights were violated, and you have to stop for a minute and take a beat on this guy's case.
00:12:03
Speaker 2: Yes, of course. And so when we come back, we're going to tell you what Robertson's lawyers are saying, what their plea to the court is, what their plea to the country is about why they believe their client should not only be allowed to live, but should be set free. And continuing now this episode of Amy and TJ, where we are talking about a case we've been talking about for more than a year now. Fifty eight year old Robert Robertson is scheduled to die by lethal injection next week in the state of Texas, even though his execution was put on hold for a year by a bipartisan group of Texas lawmakers who reviewed some of the evidence, who have been looking into this case. He would be, if he is executed, the first person in this country to die after a conviction for shaken baby syndrome. His two year old girl, Nikki, died in two thousand and two, and there are a lot of competing explanations as to why she died, how she could have died, but there certainly is now in today's understanding of what shaken baby syndrome is an explanation, a plausible explanation that Nikki died from a combination of an illness, some drugs that are now no longer allowed to be prescribed for children, and falling out of bed. They all could have contributed to where she ended up on life support, and it could not. It's possible, by today's medical standards that Robert Robertson had nothing to do at all with his child's death, which is what he has claimed from the beginning. But now there is new evidence from a podcast from Dayline that actually shows some pretty egregious misconduct, if true, in his actual arrest and certainly in the trial that ensued. And so we are now hearing from his lawyer who is asking and they filed a petition earlier this week to try and get a stay of execution. But we're going to read exactly what that language was that they filed with the court. Any objective member of the public, with knowledge of the new facts would reasonably believe that Judge Bentley had prejudiced mister Robertson's guilt and, animated by that presumption of guilt, improperly circumvented the law governing parental rights and the guarantees of due process, and thus should have recused himself from presiding over mister Robertson's criminal case to preserve the appearance of impartiality. Judge Bentley's failure to do so caused structural error and requires a new trial. So they are asking for a new trial.
00:14:50
Speaker 1: Look, we need to call a lawyer because I wonder is there's a good ground sport.
00:14:55
Speaker 2: It seems like it.
00:14:57
Speaker 1: His rights were violated and the judge in that judge, he did not get a chance to make the call about his child. His constitutional rights were violated. Period. The judge played a role in that. The judge who signed is a rest warrant, and the judge who presided over his trial, I don't know. And he's talking to a lawyer to see where that's not a.
00:15:18
Speaker 2: Problem as a as a non legal expert, but as a member of the human race, it just seems to me fairly obvious that that is absolutely a conflict of interest from start to finish, and that in and of itself would allow legally, it would seem, it would appear it would. I just think from anyone who's looking at it from a distance could say, yeah, that dude deserves a new trial, from the medical knowledge that we've gained over the past two decades, from this seemingly egregious conduct by a judge who seemed or could have possibly had an agenda for whatever reason, all those two things combined alone, and then you have lawmakers from a state that has zero problem for the most part, sending people to death row actually coming together in a rare instance, to try and keep this man alive. For those reasons, why wouldn't we give this man a new trial? I mean, I'd pose it from that perspective, I don't get it.
00:16:19
Speaker 1: But this has been an intriguing case for a long time, and hey, look, this is not any matter of guilt or Innocen's arguing anything. I will always argue, geez, we cannot make a mistake. So this is too many questions. There have been some folks that we've covered a lot of executions lately, and some of them go to that execution chamber say yep, I did it, and I'm sorry for what I did. This is just and you feel differently about those, even if you're against the death penalty. This is just one where we seem to be in a rush to execute a guy just when there's too many questions.
00:16:50
Speaker 2: And if this has you as interested as it does us, we would encourage you to read up on this story. I mean, I actually feel emotionally invested in this, like I am nervous for next week because I hate to think that this country that we live in, this country that we love, would make this call. It makes me feel actually physically ill with this case in particular. So we will continue to follow this and bring you any updates as they warrant, But we appreciate you listening to us. I made me roboch alongside TJ. Holmes, and we will talk to you very soon.