Dec. 3, 2025
The Brian Walshe Trial: “A Hacksaw With Red Brown Stains”
Apple Podcasts 
Spotify 
Castro 
RSS Feed Prosecutors lined up the witnesses on day 3 of the Brian Walshe trial, establishing Ana Walshe’s final travel movements. They also produced photos and testimony surrounding the evidence police found in multiple trash bags from a dumpster near Brian’s mother’s home. It was eerie to see the hammer, wire snips, hatchet and hacksaw with red brown stains on it, all discovered along with some of Ana’s clothing and belongings.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
00:00:02
Speaker 1: Hey there, folks. It is Wednesday, December, third day three of the Brian Walsh trial. Frankly got a little graphic and with that, welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ.
00:00:15
Speaker 2: Robes.
00:00:17
Speaker 1: There were exhibits today that I guess gives a kind of a cave, kind of a graphic idea of a violent, potentially violent death. That's right, Yes, she had. And I think you said just a moment ago that that got youa Today.
00:00:35
Speaker 2: It did because in this case we don't have a body, they don't have an autopsy. Sometimes jurors are shown autopsy photos and certainly look at autopsy reports, so they have to take in a lot. In this case, there is none of that. So it was interesting to me the impact it had just seeing what the jurors saw. And they were just photos, photos of weapons that were recovered and normally they're considered tools, but tools that were turned into weapons that were wrapped up in trash bags found in those dumpsters near Brian Walsh's mom's home. And they just showed the hammer, the wire snips, the hatchet, the hack saw with red brown stains. If you were listening to this trial today, you kept hearing those three words with red brown stains. It almost became comical because that's how much they were repeating all of the items they found with this substance, which obviously you think is blood, but it's almost as if they were like etching it in the jurors minds.
00:01:43
Speaker 1: Well, yeah, that was repeated quite a bit today, and every time it was said, it was being shown graphic detail in some way on the screen. But the day a guy going today, and they had several witnesses, and frankly several of these the defense didn't even ask a single question of cross examination. It wasn't I mean, it was housekeeping for the most part, making sure they determined, okay, she did travel when and where and did she take an uber and she didn't. Right, they had a couple of Uber drivers and whatnot up there. This was all just to establish that she was out of town, that she didn't leave town, and whatnot her whereabouts. So that was a lot of housekeeping in that. But the first witness robes was the guy who was testifying yesterday, the state trooper who handled.
00:02:32
Speaker 2: All the Google certainty.
00:02:34
Speaker 1: Yeah, all that stuff. Now he started making some points today. The defense attorney that had me sit up had me perk up a little bit, and I couldn't believe he had some answers that maybe had the jurors thinking.
00:02:50
Speaker 2: Yes, because he wanted the state trooper to read some of the searches that were left out of testimony, and there were so many, you know, there are so many other searches. So he asked him to read some of the other searches that were found on Brian Walsh's computer, like body disposal options, cool ways to be buried above ground, burial options.
00:03:18
Speaker 1: Now, what does that say to you?
00:03:19
Speaker 2: So that says that if those were the only searches, then I would be more inclined to believe what Brian Walsh's attorneys are trying to sell that he panicked after his wife suddenly and inexplicably died. So yes, if those were the only searches that would back up his story for sure, Okay.
00:03:40
Speaker 1: So then what if the next part of that, and I know the part that bothers is he used the word murder in a search his attorney Today, the defense attorney is pointing out just how little he used it and when he used it as being a big deal. Now, I couldn't imagine that I would listen to that. But I gave that argument some thought, why did he do it so little and why did he do it so late?
00:04:10
Speaker 2: Yeah, so the first reference to murder was actually six hours into his searches. So he was using all sorts of other different ways to describe, like we just referenced body disposal options, cool ways to be varied, And it wasn't until six hours later that he did that first search that had murder.
00:04:31
Speaker 1: What do you make of that? What can we possibly make of that? If he was panicked, if he was all of these things, And as soon as he started searching, it was only about disposal, it was only about dismember what all that other stuff, And he didn't think to type in murder until six plus hours later. I think the defensive attorney was making an argument that it wasn't top of mind. He's making the point that he was trying to get different results through a bunch of searches. Man, the timeline could make somebody go oh okay.
00:05:11
Speaker 2: I would also say that the other side of that could be that perhaps he was in such a fog and trying to figure out how to deal with the issue at hand, which was a body, and then when it kind of everything sunk in. He was maybe almost owning it in his mind, almost acknowledging maybe something he wasn't really trying or wasn't thinking about, which is the fact that he just murdered his wife. And so maybe it became something he was almost owning or accepting over time. That could be another argument.
00:05:41
Speaker 1: Okay, there is an argument. So if that is a possibility, is it also a possibility that he did not kill her? Right? If we want to be open to the possibility you just gave what's more likely? I don't know, but in that we talked to the attorney the other day and she leaned into the camera talking to us and said, she put her finger out one. I just need one on that jury.
00:06:09
Speaker 2: M Well, I wouldn't be the one. That's what I can tell you about that. And I agree, I totally get it. You just have to somehow put a little bit of doubt, enough doubt in one juror and you've got you're not guilty verdict.
00:06:25
Speaker 1: Well, I'm saying when I first heard the search, how do you dispose of a body after a murder?
00:06:29
Speaker 2: Oh?
00:06:29
Speaker 1: Like he's done? This is what what can you what can you argue? With that, and they found an argument that's not out of this world.
00:06:39
Speaker 2: It was creative, I'll give them that. The other thing that was really interesting to me was in cross examination, the defense attorney also had this date trooper acknowledge because they had testified. He had testified earlier to the fact that Brian Walsh had been on divorce websites and had spent time searching for divorce related searches, but on that very same day they also he testified that Brian Walsh went to his bank several times to check basically who knows what, but checking accounts, then went to go look at some Porsches for sale, okay, but then also went to a diamond website where you go to Blue Nile dot com. So, if this is someone who's trying to divorce his wife or is considering divorce, why would he be shopping for diamond rings. Why would if he was worried about, you know, the future, why would he be looking at a Porsche. So that was a little interesting to me, the diamond the diamond website thing, because he's not been accused of having someone on the side. He's not accused of having a girlfriend the way shape of course, it would have you make. I thought that was the one thing that that piqud my interest today.
00:08:05
Speaker 1: So what the point they're trying to make is is take away the idea of a motive that he was trying to end his marriage or wanted his to get his wife out of the way. He was planning for the future, and this was at a time when he didn't know anybody was going to see his Internet searches. What do you make of that?
00:08:24
Speaker 2: I think it's interesting. I think there's something there.
00:08:27
Speaker 1: There's something there divorce. Now we've been hearing that was the other thing. I think the prosecution was pointing out searches that included divorce. They made it sound like this dude was looking for the best states of divorce, right, that was one of the searches es terms out divorce searches took up in the fifteen days of data that they reviewed fifteen days, twenty one minutes, only a twenty one minute span did anything related to divorce come up. That mean he wasn't obsessing over it, He wasn't doing a whole lot. Whatever it came up.
00:09:04
Speaker 2: And whatever was a celebrity divorce too, rite Kati Katie Holmes. It was something about Katie Holmes divorce. So that also made the point like, Okay, he wasn't actually looking up how to get divorced or you know when's a good time to get divorced, or how expensive is divorce? Part of that was looking up a celebrities divorce. So that also was good defense work, right.
00:09:27
Speaker 1: It just made you think, it's so interesting when these guys when you think that really after day two, After day two, you and I both sat in guilty.
00:09:37
Speaker 2: Why are we even watching this trial? You did?
00:09:41
Speaker 1: And now here we are now the I guess the point rose when he got I said graphic at the top that was in the crime lab specialist. He was the one that handled the bags that were recovered from the dumpster. I didn't realize it was as many bags that they had recovered, but ten or so. And they show a picture the bags, pictures of the contents and I guess a lot of it robes, And they kept using the same phrase to describe it had particular stains on it that they kept pointing out, Oh.
00:10:11
Speaker 2: That's right, And so it was difficult to hear that back and forth. But we're talking robes, towels, and as we mentioned, some of the equipment that they believe was used in either dismembering her or in murdering her. But I do think once again, the Brian Walsh's attorney made a pretty decent as much as you could point when he cross examined the crime lab specialist after he talked, because they kept saying red brown stains, red brown stains. You're seeing picture pictures and images of clearly blood soaked materials that were all in these bags that we now know were dumped there by Brian Walsh. But his attorney said, can you tell me that all of these items? Could they not have been stained after they were thrown out, after they were already in this dumpster? The condition of the bags that were ripped in all of this, And the crime lab specialist said, I cannot, I cannot tell you that those stains were there before they were disposed of. So I thought that was pretty good lawyering right there.
00:11:22
Speaker 1: It wasn't quite a very amazing moment, no, but it was to hear someone admit, I can just tell you what's on it. I got no idea where it came from.
00:11:36
Speaker 2: And when it got there and how it got there. I mean, he's just he's doing the best he can with what he has. He's working with what he has.
00:11:45
Speaker 1: With what he has. But we had a little surprise ending to the day. The judge let the jury go home early, about a half hour early, and they had a very important issue to take up with the jury out of the room, an issue that could help decide the case.
00:12:06
Speaker 2: We'll explain.
00:12:07
Speaker 1: Stay here, all right, Welcome back, We continue day three of the Brian Walsh trial. Is in the books, just mentioned a moment ago that the jury got to go home a little early. This the judge has kept things really really on time so far, trying to make the best use of the time, but she let them go a little surprised. We didn't know what was going on. There were did you know there were a bunch of sidebars.
00:12:38
Speaker 2: Yes, yes, all of a sudden because we're watching it, we're kind of doing other things, mostly listening to it, and all of a sudden it would go completely silent and then either they either have the back of Brian Walsh's head or the ceiling fan. But yes, there were many, many moments where they were having sidebars.
00:12:53
Speaker 1: So with the sidebars, maybe this was part of the issue. But this is a big one. As folks know, he is on trial right now for murder, for murdering his wife. He was also charged with two other things for dismembering the body.
00:13:12
Speaker 2: Disposing of it and misleading misleading police.
00:13:14
Speaker 1: All right, he said he copped to that, said guilty. He did that right when this trial was starting. The question now for the judge to decide is if she's going to let this jury hear that he pled guilty to those charges. It sounds like she didn't know what she's going to do.
00:13:35
Speaker 2: No, And I think it's interesting too, because here's the deal. The jury is hearing all about the implication of dismemberment, and they also already heard Brian Walsh's attorneys say he misled authorities, he lied to police. So I wonder I would think the defense would want the guilty police in because you would think the jury could infer Well wow, he admitted that, and he's now not admitting the murder. Well that's interesting.
00:14:07
Speaker 1: So wow.
00:14:09
Speaker 2: But I'm not sure who is fighting what, because I know probably the most important thing for the judge right now is to make sure whatever she decides doesn't end up being used as an excuse for a mistrial. So it's confusing. I had never heard of someone pleading guilty to something fairly significant, but not pleading guilty to something that would kind of go along with.
00:14:34
Speaker 1: The crime to go together. Right, he's saying they don't. And to your point, I didn't think about that as a strategy. I'm thinking about that as a juror. Why would anybody do that? Why would someone admit to that? And why not just try to get off from all of it if.
00:14:52
Speaker 2: That's the case, because you so obviously linked to it when you look at the searches, when you look at the surveillance video.
00:14:59
Speaker 1: Yeah, you couldn't get around.
00:15:00
Speaker 2: Nothing else he can do. If he could have, he would have tried. I'm sure. So at least hearing him admit that, I feel like works in his favor. But I don't know. Again, no legal expert here.
00:15:10
Speaker 1: When the judge was saying it to them, So yeah, it must be the prosecution that wants it end because she was saying to them, you have to show me what the relevance is to your case. Why this wouldn't be prejudicial because she says, this jury absolutely is prohibited from considering those guilty, please and determining this verdict. So she says, if I let them hear about it, I'm the one inviting them to be.
00:15:39
Speaker 2: Prejudicial, right, because yes, you can say, well, just this is obviously why we see lawyers say things or ask things that they know are going to be objected to and perhaps sustained. But it doesn't matter because the jury heard it anyway. So once a jury hears something, you can instruct them not to consider it. Obviously, they can't unhear it. And so this is something that we see happen all the time in courtrooms. They know what's going to get thrown out, they know it's going to be sustained, and they do it anyway because they want the jury to hear it.
00:16:13
Speaker 1: And they don't mind being scolded by the judge a little bit in that one moment for the sake of saying whatever.
00:16:19
Speaker 2: Exactly. So you know, if that is the case that a jury cannot consider punishment when considering this verdict, then I couldn't see why the judge would allow those guilty pleas to be known to the jurors. That wouldn't make any sense.
00:16:34
Speaker 1: That was the big debate as they were wrapping up today day three. I believe she said the schedule. They will continue as normal tomorrow, but the day five, if I guess it would be on Friday. She's anticipating the jury's going to have a shorter day be done at one o'clock. Can't remember what she.
00:16:49
Speaker 2: Said, Well, it's Friday. I don't think that was it.
00:16:52
Speaker 1: It was something else going on, but that's the schedule. We will keep a very close eye, folks. We always appreciate you spending some time with us. Signed t J. Holmes on behalf of my dear Amy Robak will talk to Austin
Speaker 1: Hey there, folks. It is Wednesday, December, third day three of the Brian Walsh trial. Frankly got a little graphic and with that, welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ.
00:00:15
Speaker 2: Robes.
00:00:17
Speaker 1: There were exhibits today that I guess gives a kind of a cave, kind of a graphic idea of a violent, potentially violent death. That's right, Yes, she had. And I think you said just a moment ago that that got youa Today.
00:00:35
Speaker 2: It did because in this case we don't have a body, they don't have an autopsy. Sometimes jurors are shown autopsy photos and certainly look at autopsy reports, so they have to take in a lot. In this case, there is none of that. So it was interesting to me the impact it had just seeing what the jurors saw. And they were just photos, photos of weapons that were recovered and normally they're considered tools, but tools that were turned into weapons that were wrapped up in trash bags found in those dumpsters near Brian Walsh's mom's home. And they just showed the hammer, the wire snips, the hatchet, the hack saw with red brown stains. If you were listening to this trial today, you kept hearing those three words with red brown stains. It almost became comical because that's how much they were repeating all of the items they found with this substance, which obviously you think is blood, but it's almost as if they were like etching it in the jurors minds.
00:01:43
Speaker 1: Well, yeah, that was repeated quite a bit today, and every time it was said, it was being shown graphic detail in some way on the screen. But the day a guy going today, and they had several witnesses, and frankly several of these the defense didn't even ask a single question of cross examination. It wasn't I mean, it was housekeeping for the most part, making sure they determined, okay, she did travel when and where and did she take an uber and she didn't. Right, they had a couple of Uber drivers and whatnot up there. This was all just to establish that she was out of town, that she didn't leave town, and whatnot her whereabouts. So that was a lot of housekeeping in that. But the first witness robes was the guy who was testifying yesterday, the state trooper who handled.
00:02:32
Speaker 2: All the Google certainty.
00:02:34
Speaker 1: Yeah, all that stuff. Now he started making some points today. The defense attorney that had me sit up had me perk up a little bit, and I couldn't believe he had some answers that maybe had the jurors thinking.
00:02:50
Speaker 2: Yes, because he wanted the state trooper to read some of the searches that were left out of testimony, and there were so many, you know, there are so many other searches. So he asked him to read some of the other searches that were found on Brian Walsh's computer, like body disposal options, cool ways to be buried above ground, burial options.
00:03:18
Speaker 1: Now, what does that say to you?
00:03:19
Speaker 2: So that says that if those were the only searches, then I would be more inclined to believe what Brian Walsh's attorneys are trying to sell that he panicked after his wife suddenly and inexplicably died. So yes, if those were the only searches that would back up his story for sure, Okay.
00:03:40
Speaker 1: So then what if the next part of that, and I know the part that bothers is he used the word murder in a search his attorney Today, the defense attorney is pointing out just how little he used it and when he used it as being a big deal. Now, I couldn't imagine that I would listen to that. But I gave that argument some thought, why did he do it so little and why did he do it so late?
00:04:10
Speaker 2: Yeah, so the first reference to murder was actually six hours into his searches. So he was using all sorts of other different ways to describe, like we just referenced body disposal options, cool ways to be varied, And it wasn't until six hours later that he did that first search that had murder.
00:04:31
Speaker 1: What do you make of that? What can we possibly make of that? If he was panicked, if he was all of these things, And as soon as he started searching, it was only about disposal, it was only about dismember what all that other stuff, And he didn't think to type in murder until six plus hours later. I think the defensive attorney was making an argument that it wasn't top of mind. He's making the point that he was trying to get different results through a bunch of searches. Man, the timeline could make somebody go oh okay.
00:05:11
Speaker 2: I would also say that the other side of that could be that perhaps he was in such a fog and trying to figure out how to deal with the issue at hand, which was a body, and then when it kind of everything sunk in. He was maybe almost owning it in his mind, almost acknowledging maybe something he wasn't really trying or wasn't thinking about, which is the fact that he just murdered his wife. And so maybe it became something he was almost owning or accepting over time. That could be another argument.
00:05:41
Speaker 1: Okay, there is an argument. So if that is a possibility, is it also a possibility that he did not kill her? Right? If we want to be open to the possibility you just gave what's more likely? I don't know, but in that we talked to the attorney the other day and she leaned into the camera talking to us and said, she put her finger out one. I just need one on that jury.
00:06:09
Speaker 2: M Well, I wouldn't be the one. That's what I can tell you about that. And I agree, I totally get it. You just have to somehow put a little bit of doubt, enough doubt in one juror and you've got you're not guilty verdict.
00:06:25
Speaker 1: Well, I'm saying when I first heard the search, how do you dispose of a body after a murder?
00:06:29
Speaker 2: Oh?
00:06:29
Speaker 1: Like he's done? This is what what can you what can you argue? With that, and they found an argument that's not out of this world.
00:06:39
Speaker 2: It was creative, I'll give them that. The other thing that was really interesting to me was in cross examination, the defense attorney also had this date trooper acknowledge because they had testified. He had testified earlier to the fact that Brian Walsh had been on divorce websites and had spent time searching for divorce related searches, but on that very same day they also he testified that Brian Walsh went to his bank several times to check basically who knows what, but checking accounts, then went to go look at some Porsches for sale, okay, but then also went to a diamond website where you go to Blue Nile dot com. So, if this is someone who's trying to divorce his wife or is considering divorce, why would he be shopping for diamond rings. Why would if he was worried about, you know, the future, why would he be looking at a Porsche. So that was a little interesting to me, the diamond the diamond website thing, because he's not been accused of having someone on the side. He's not accused of having a girlfriend the way shape of course, it would have you make. I thought that was the one thing that that piqud my interest today.
00:08:05
Speaker 1: So what the point they're trying to make is is take away the idea of a motive that he was trying to end his marriage or wanted his to get his wife out of the way. He was planning for the future, and this was at a time when he didn't know anybody was going to see his Internet searches. What do you make of that?
00:08:24
Speaker 2: I think it's interesting. I think there's something there.
00:08:27
Speaker 1: There's something there divorce. Now we've been hearing that was the other thing. I think the prosecution was pointing out searches that included divorce. They made it sound like this dude was looking for the best states of divorce, right, that was one of the searches es terms out divorce searches took up in the fifteen days of data that they reviewed fifteen days, twenty one minutes, only a twenty one minute span did anything related to divorce come up. That mean he wasn't obsessing over it, He wasn't doing a whole lot. Whatever it came up.
00:09:04
Speaker 2: And whatever was a celebrity divorce too, rite Kati Katie Holmes. It was something about Katie Holmes divorce. So that also made the point like, Okay, he wasn't actually looking up how to get divorced or you know when's a good time to get divorced, or how expensive is divorce? Part of that was looking up a celebrities divorce. So that also was good defense work, right.
00:09:27
Speaker 1: It just made you think, it's so interesting when these guys when you think that really after day two, After day two, you and I both sat in guilty.
00:09:37
Speaker 2: Why are we even watching this trial? You did?
00:09:41
Speaker 1: And now here we are now the I guess the point rose when he got I said graphic at the top that was in the crime lab specialist. He was the one that handled the bags that were recovered from the dumpster. I didn't realize it was as many bags that they had recovered, but ten or so. And they show a picture the bags, pictures of the contents and I guess a lot of it robes, And they kept using the same phrase to describe it had particular stains on it that they kept pointing out, Oh.
00:10:11
Speaker 2: That's right, And so it was difficult to hear that back and forth. But we're talking robes, towels, and as we mentioned, some of the equipment that they believe was used in either dismembering her or in murdering her. But I do think once again, the Brian Walsh's attorney made a pretty decent as much as you could point when he cross examined the crime lab specialist after he talked, because they kept saying red brown stains, red brown stains. You're seeing picture pictures and images of clearly blood soaked materials that were all in these bags that we now know were dumped there by Brian Walsh. But his attorney said, can you tell me that all of these items? Could they not have been stained after they were thrown out, after they were already in this dumpster? The condition of the bags that were ripped in all of this, And the crime lab specialist said, I cannot, I cannot tell you that those stains were there before they were disposed of. So I thought that was pretty good lawyering right there.
00:11:22
Speaker 1: It wasn't quite a very amazing moment, no, but it was to hear someone admit, I can just tell you what's on it. I got no idea where it came from.
00:11:36
Speaker 2: And when it got there and how it got there. I mean, he's just he's doing the best he can with what he has. He's working with what he has.
00:11:45
Speaker 1: With what he has. But we had a little surprise ending to the day. The judge let the jury go home early, about a half hour early, and they had a very important issue to take up with the jury out of the room, an issue that could help decide the case.
00:12:06
Speaker 2: We'll explain.
00:12:07
Speaker 1: Stay here, all right, Welcome back, We continue day three of the Brian Walsh trial. Is in the books, just mentioned a moment ago that the jury got to go home a little early. This the judge has kept things really really on time so far, trying to make the best use of the time, but she let them go a little surprised. We didn't know what was going on. There were did you know there were a bunch of sidebars.
00:12:38
Speaker 2: Yes, yes, all of a sudden because we're watching it, we're kind of doing other things, mostly listening to it, and all of a sudden it would go completely silent and then either they either have the back of Brian Walsh's head or the ceiling fan. But yes, there were many, many moments where they were having sidebars.
00:12:53
Speaker 1: So with the sidebars, maybe this was part of the issue. But this is a big one. As folks know, he is on trial right now for murder, for murdering his wife. He was also charged with two other things for dismembering the body.
00:13:12
Speaker 2: Disposing of it and misleading misleading police.
00:13:14
Speaker 1: All right, he said he copped to that, said guilty. He did that right when this trial was starting. The question now for the judge to decide is if she's going to let this jury hear that he pled guilty to those charges. It sounds like she didn't know what she's going to do.
00:13:35
Speaker 2: No, And I think it's interesting too, because here's the deal. The jury is hearing all about the implication of dismemberment, and they also already heard Brian Walsh's attorneys say he misled authorities, he lied to police. So I wonder I would think the defense would want the guilty police in because you would think the jury could infer Well wow, he admitted that, and he's now not admitting the murder. Well that's interesting.
00:14:07
Speaker 1: So wow.
00:14:09
Speaker 2: But I'm not sure who is fighting what, because I know probably the most important thing for the judge right now is to make sure whatever she decides doesn't end up being used as an excuse for a mistrial. So it's confusing. I had never heard of someone pleading guilty to something fairly significant, but not pleading guilty to something that would kind of go along with.
00:14:34
Speaker 1: The crime to go together. Right, he's saying they don't. And to your point, I didn't think about that as a strategy. I'm thinking about that as a juror. Why would anybody do that? Why would someone admit to that? And why not just try to get off from all of it if.
00:14:52
Speaker 2: That's the case, because you so obviously linked to it when you look at the searches, when you look at the surveillance video.
00:14:59
Speaker 1: Yeah, you couldn't get around.
00:15:00
Speaker 2: Nothing else he can do. If he could have, he would have tried. I'm sure. So at least hearing him admit that, I feel like works in his favor. But I don't know. Again, no legal expert here.
00:15:10
Speaker 1: When the judge was saying it to them, So yeah, it must be the prosecution that wants it end because she was saying to them, you have to show me what the relevance is to your case. Why this wouldn't be prejudicial because she says, this jury absolutely is prohibited from considering those guilty, please and determining this verdict. So she says, if I let them hear about it, I'm the one inviting them to be.
00:15:39
Speaker 2: Prejudicial, right, because yes, you can say, well, just this is obviously why we see lawyers say things or ask things that they know are going to be objected to and perhaps sustained. But it doesn't matter because the jury heard it anyway. So once a jury hears something, you can instruct them not to consider it. Obviously, they can't unhear it. And so this is something that we see happen all the time in courtrooms. They know what's going to get thrown out, they know it's going to be sustained, and they do it anyway because they want the jury to hear it.
00:16:13
Speaker 1: And they don't mind being scolded by the judge a little bit in that one moment for the sake of saying whatever.
00:16:19
Speaker 2: Exactly. So you know, if that is the case that a jury cannot consider punishment when considering this verdict, then I couldn't see why the judge would allow those guilty pleas to be known to the jurors. That wouldn't make any sense.
00:16:34
Speaker 1: That was the big debate as they were wrapping up today day three. I believe she said the schedule. They will continue as normal tomorrow, but the day five, if I guess it would be on Friday. She's anticipating the jury's going to have a shorter day be done at one o'clock. Can't remember what she.
00:16:49
Speaker 2: Said, Well, it's Friday. I don't think that was it.
00:16:52
Speaker 1: It was something else going on, but that's the schedule. We will keep a very close eye, folks. We always appreciate you spending some time with us. Signed t J. Holmes on behalf of my dear Amy Robak will talk to Austin