Stay updated with breaking news from Defense claim. Get real-time updates on events, politics, business, and more. Visit us for reliable news and exclusive interviews.
want. they have the freedom of speech to say, it's not that we got in trouble for what we did, it is that donald trump is being unfairly attacked, witch hunt, they have the freedom of speech to say that. what the judge is saying in court is, so far, that is a worthless, baseless, zero-type legal claim. which means it won't help them avoid trial, it won't be the kind of thing they'll likely be able to present to the jury, unless they find evidence of it. the judge rejecting the defense claim that the free speech rights are being challenged in court. he has all the free speech to talk out of court. the idea that free speech is a license to a coup or a conspiracy, that's never been true. it's not legally true. we've heard versions of that from trump's lawyers on air. >> what the position of the prosecutor is nonsensitive, ordinary evidence should not be disclosed to the press. that's shocking. not only do they want to violate president trump's first amendment rights, they want to violate freedom of the press. >> now, let's show you the
donald trump's favor, the justice department can appeal those decisions pretrial, but it's going to result in lengthy delays, which is something the justice department doesn't want and absolutely will be donald trump's bottom line game plan. >> neil, can we talk about something that barba just mentioned, the prosecutorial defense claim, right before this indictment was released, the trump defensively was talking a lot about comments made by -- investigator jay brought to the lawyer for walt nauta, robert goodman. can you talk about what you've heard in terms of that claim, and whether it's something for the doj to be worried about? whether it's something that judge cannon can viably give credence to? >> yeah. every bad criminal defendant tries to make that kind of arguments about prosecutorial misconduct. it's going nowhere, it's going nowhere fast. in order to show prosecutorial misconduct like this, you'd have to show some sort of actual malice on the part of the prosecutor, which just is not at all within the realm of
>> the defense claim michael oakes knew linda had been stopped by her ex husband that went to a state of mind when he acted in self-defense. so now, linda told the jury some story she had earlier told oaks. her claim, for example, that mark appeared in her bedroom one night. >> he had a pistol in his hand and laid it next to the head and was very disturbed. >> another time, she said, what you looked at her bathroom window. >> and mark was on the hillside behind my house. he was looking through the scope pointing the rifle at me. >> and long after she left them, after mark agreed to plead guilty to the stalking charge, she visited their amanda paradise, pecan island. and she said she was found in the cubbyhole in the master bedroom. a wedding candle that she had thrown away during the divorce. >> i found the wedding candle
edward as a liar, a scheme or, worst about, a cold blooded killer. but as his lawyer was about to assert, those were just words. where was the hard evidence of edwards killed in the murder of paul? >> what i had to issue the most is that, including it could not have done it. >> attorney walter began his -- where the defense claim that the detective was so meticulously went over every piece of evidence collected there, failed to come up with anything. not so much as a fingerprint or fiber to connect ed to the crime. >> you're going to see a lot of what i call, well, that is interesting, what about that? but now one of those makes up beyond a reasonable doubt. >> what did you think, he, has been an eye witness would have remembered a strange, 300 pound man lumbering away in broad daylight? but the attorney did point out something a young neighbor had
scientific argument, sometimes pathologists simply cannot see why it person dies. the doctor who specializes in emergency medicine testified and unexplained deaths occur far more often that many of us would guess. >> nationwide, there are approximately 300,000 episodes of sudden death per year. and of those episodes of sudden death, one to 2% occur in young people. but one third of those in young people that die have normal autopsies. >> in other words, people sometimes just die. their autopsies may never reveal the cause. but the issue that might decide the case was the observation by the arriving officers and emts of dam here, and dry body. what looks suspicious was easily explainable said the defense. here simply stays wet longer. >> if they get out of the swimming food or bathtub, your skin dries before. >> yes. >> the defense told a court you have to look at the elapsed time of the incident. the defense claim that sarah's body dried off in the time between ryan for speaking to the 9-1-1 dispatcher and when
life. >> she had a sore throat. her stomach had been bothering her during the day. >> she was still feeling crummy later that evening when she spoke to a friend. >> she had a headache and the back of her neck was hurting. she sounded tired and she did it sound like she felt very good. >> sarah turning off the day a retreating to her bathtub. that sounded just like the sarah they knew. >> she would always leave our house and say she had to get home because she had to take her bat. >> and sarah dozing off in the tub was a -- as a friend from childhood days was very familiar days. >> she had fallen asleep in the back to before. we had talked about that because i had fallen asleep in the bathtub before, to. >> the sleeping habits. the headaches. the defense claim they could very well have been the symptoms of an underlying and potentially fatal condition that went undetected. something and otherwise healthy young woman wouldn't take all that serious. and even with all their
courthouse in walter borough, south carolina. what can you tell us about the prosecution's strategy today? >> reporter: well, wolf, the strategy was certainly to try and dispute some of the defense testimony that we heard over the last week or so. and they brought in a couple of rebuttal witnesses, about a handful of rebuttal witnesses to really do so, but two key witnesses. one was a pathologist, and she testified today dispute a defense witness' claim that paul m murdaugh's fatal shot was a down facing contact wound which means the barrel would have been up against his head. and she said that would have been impossible because his eyes were still in place, his face was still in place. they also brought in dr. kenneth kingsy an expert in crime scene re-creation. and he also refuted a defense claim. alex murdaugh is about 6'4" or
mentioned the governor firstcaug in the informants. the defense said it's the informants that egged them on and pushed them into specific acts that the men would never have been able to do on their own. and apparently it's the defense claim that the jurors agreed with. >> pete, stand by for a second because danny, these are strong words from the governor's office. right? the normalization of political violence. pete has laid out sort of how we got here. what are the options moving forward? like where does this go next? >> for the ones who were acquitted the options were zero for the government. the defendants walk. they walk out of the courthouse and move on with their lives. there are no comebacks from an acquittal. but at least as to the mistrial, to the ones that were deadlocked, the government has the option of bringing these charges again. and that decision is ultimately a political one. they have to decide whether or not they're going to use the resources of the federal government in another high-profile case after they've been handed a stunning defeat. i expect they might approach the defendants and say hey, we can
>> do you remember that message? >> the numbers not on one. >> simply, she suggested, scotts ways to suggested that she was under duress. the phone call at 10 am, seen on the surveillance video, was henderson said, more of the same. just checking in on each other. >> did scott ever indicate to you that he was responsible for lisa's death? >> no. >> as for the divorce, maybe it was -- just as the scot until the cops. a retainer fee for leases attorney, had been returned to her bank account. and about scott being taking offer insurance policy, the defense claim, scott knew nothing of that, until his son, dylan, told him hours after lisa had died. he wasn't being husband of the year with any evidence, but not that he was? killer >> not to his killer. >> if you're the defense, would you do about the weight bench? the defense team maintain that
were falsely imprisoned during those police interviews. a federal court said that -- in regard of emotional defense claim, but allow the case to move forward on all other counts. the lovelace family has moved out of quincy, and curtis has opened a new law office in champagne, illinois. >> i would request we go ahead and -- >> he and christine started an exoneration organization. they said they wanted to help others, wrongfully accused, or convicted. >> christine, what happened you guys in this whole thing. >> i don't know what happened to us, dennis. we're still figure not oust. these kinds of things happen across our country every day. and now, i think, we have an obligation to stare the story, and to help other people. >> your goal was to leave that house an innocent man. >> i believe, looking in the eyes that jury, seeing the tears from some of them, how quickly they came back, but they were declaring to me and