>> Steve Palmer: All right, Lawyer Talk. They don't teach you that in Law School. I promise you. They don't teach you that in Law School. How do I know? Because I've got Troy right here, a law student, asking, uh, me questions about things that he has not been taught in Law School. So if you're in Law School or you're considering Law School, or you just like this kind of stuff, uh, I guess a lot of people do, as it turns out. Um, then tune in to this and all sorts of other great content that's coming out on Lawyer Talk podcast dot com. So you can go to lawyerTalkpodcast dot com and you can actually see where it's all broken down and you can pick the segment you like. We got quite questions and Answers. We got breakdowns, we got interviews. We got all sorts. There's even a great archive of some of the old days of Lawyer Talk. Uh, trust me, there's some great content if you go back and really are bored. Uh, but today we're going to. This is another segment of the. They don't teach you that in Law School. We just have Troy, Bella, uh, our normal. Who has also participated in this. She's not here today. It is the holiday break, so even law students get a break. Uh, but not you. You're here working.

>> Troy Henriksen: Yeah, no, I'm here full Time now.

>> Steve Palmer: Yeah, full Time. So. All right, so, uh, what are they not teaching you that you want to know about today?

>> Troy Henriksen: So we just talked about a little bit. Um, the Daniel Penney case. That's been all over the news.

>> Steve Palmer: So you already dropped it? We talked off The Record or off the air about this. Anyway, so. Yeah, the Daniel Penney case.

>> Troy Henriksen: Yeah. So the one thing that really stuck out to me in the whole case, uh, politics side on it, was when the jury received it. What I was reading online and understood was that the charges got dropped and, like, recharged worth lesser charges. That's how I was reading online.

>> Steve Palmer: And there's been. Yeah, there's a lot of, uh, questions about this and what really happened. And, you know, the defense was strenuously objecting to what happened, and even I raised my eyebrows. And I've tried lots and lots and lots of criminal cases, lots of murder cases, and it took me a minute to figure out exactly what was going on. Um, but it looks like Penny was charged and I actually printed. I've got the jury instruction here. We'll get to that. But Penney was with two different counts of homicide. One was a manslaughter, and I don't A manslaughter in the second degree, whatever that means in New York. And usually manslaughter is as a result of committing some other crime or you've got, um, some justification that didn't quite. Wasn't quite self defense, but maybe you were acting in hot blood or p***** off. Uh, that's a traditional manslaughter. And, uh, Penney was also charged with a negligent. I believe it was negligent homicide, criminally negligent homicide. And negligent homicide would be, um, a lapse of duty of care of some sort. That would be a lesser type of homicide. So maybe we'll put it in terms that people can understand. Um, take it with a car. If I'm driving negligently, like I just run a red light mistakenly, I'm not even on my phone. I just blew it. I screwed up. I made a mistake. Somebody died as a result. That would be a negligent homicide. If I am, um, uh, driving a million. If I'm driving, uh, fast, if I'm. Uh. The case in Ohio we just talked about recently, where a guy, uh, avoided a traffic control cop, disobeyed an order and went around the line of traffic, ran into a firefighter or a, uh, first responder of some sort and killed a guy. All right, now you're starting to get to more reckless or even, um, a, ah, manslaughter type charge. So it's more enhanced. So you can kill or you can commit homicide in different ways. And a lot of it has to do with what's up here in your head. And that's sort of the backdrop for the Penney problem. And the penny problem was this. Uh, in the indictment, uh, the people, the State of New York opted to charge Penny, uh, with two different charges. One would be the manslaughter, uh, charge for murder, and another would be the negligent charge for m murder. Now, there's different ways that prosecutors can go about this kind of problem. Um, I've represented, I've tried lots of murder cases where I've got a charge of aggravated murder here in Ohio, which means somebody acted on purpose or, uh, maybe there's some enhancing circumstances. And then I've got lesser charges of murder in the same indictment. Okay, In Ohio, uh, we go try that case and the jury can render a verdict on any one or all those, uh, charges. Now, there are times where we get what we call inconsistent verdicts, where logically it doesn't make Sense, where it's just so out of whack that it doesn't make any sense. Like there's no way you could acquit on one charge but convict on another. And you might see that if in depending on how it's charged, that's a rabbit hole we don't need to go down. But it's complicated. Um, in New York, apparently here it's a little bit different, so. Well, let me finish. In Ohio now, if the prosecutor charges my client, say, with straight, ah, murder, uh, and I go to trial in the heat of battle, I'm arguing self defense. We get to the point where the judge is going to instruct the jury on what the law is on the elements of the offense. And the prosecutor and the defense often would stand up and say, judge, I want. I am requesting that you instruct the jury, your honor, on something called a lesser included offense. A, uh, lesser included offense, generally speaking. Now I get it, you technicians out there are going to say there's a lot more to it because there is a lot more to it. But generally speaking, a lesser included offense means if you commit the bigger offense, the larger offense has all the same elements contained in it as the lesser, except it's missing one or two that make the bigger one. The bigger one makes Sense.

>> Troy Henriksen: Yeah.

>> Steve Palmer: So, you know, if you've got a, uh, it's just there's more elements enhancing elements that need to be proved that the prosecutor has to prove, and those don't exist in the smaller one. So the jury in theory could say, look, we agree that there's a murder, we agree with all the other elements, but we don't think it was there were aggravating circumstances or he did it on purpose. Instead, we think he did it with some lesser mental element. But that lesser offense encompasses that. That would be a lesser included offense.

>> Troy Henriksen: Why don't prosecutors just always charge then the over offense and include the lesser offense?

>> Steve Palmer: Well, there's all sorts of strategy at play here. Um, and this, we did an episode on grand juries and that at one point. So if you've just got a basic grand jury that you're going to have your complete hands off, sometimes you'll get charges like that a grand jury will vote for. Isn't there manslaughter? Well, you can vote on manslaughter if you want, and you can get those plethora of offenses in a single indictment. But why would the prosecutor not seek an indictment on a bunch of lessers?

>> Troy Henriksen: Why do you think he needs as a negotiation tool?

>> Steve Palmer: Probably that's one reason, but probably not the primary reason.

>> Troy Henriksen: Well, if it's a prosecutor, the lessers might be misdemeanors and they don't have.

>> Steve Palmer: That's right. Yeah. They want the guy convicted of the more serious offense. And if they charge it in the indictment as a lesser, then they're running the risk of having a, having a jury, uh, acquit on the primary offense and convict on the lesser. Now, that doesn't automatically mean the defense at the trial can't ask for the lesser because the defense can ask for lesser included instructions as well. Um, but sometimes what will happen is on these murder cases, they aren't theoretical lesser included offenses. So, uh, the definition, as we said, was the greater offense sort of encompasses the lesser offense. Sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes there's not a lesser. So in Ohio, just as a matter of law, negligent homicide is not a lesser included offense of murder. Murder is a felony to the first degree, the highest level felony. Negligent homicide is a misdemeanor. And long ago the high supreme court said, look, even though I don't think they said it this way, but here I interpret it this way, even though clearly negligence is a lesser form of the mens rea, the purposeful murder, uh, we're going to say it's not a lesser included offense because they knew, the courts know that if you start instructing on negligent homicide, you're going to get murderers with convictions for misdemeanors. And nobody wanted that to happen.

>> Troy Henriksen: I wish the Ohio Supreme Court wrote all their decisions like that. A lot simpler now.

>> Steve Palmer: Right. Look, I mean, you learn to read between the lines of what's really going on. And the policy behind that is obvious. They didn't want a bunch of murder cases resulting in acquittals on murder and convictions on negligent homicide because, you know, they're murders. Uh, so now if the prosecutor instead, and it looks like that may be what happened here in Penny, decided to include the lesser, even if it may not have been a complete technical lesser offense, or maybe under the nuances of New York law, it's just how they do it, uh, in the indictment. So the prosecutor charged both in the indictment, but the judge instructs the jury as if it were a lesser included offense. Here's what I mean. Um, the prosecutor or the lesser included instruction goes something like this. In a normal case, you, the jury, you should first take a peek and consider and look at the lead charge, murder or whatever it is. And if you find that the prosecutor has proven the charge of murder beyond a reasonable doubt, then you're done. You don't need to consider the lesser included offense, but if you find that the prosecutor has not proven beyond a reasonable doubt the charge of murder, then you should consider the lesser included offense of reckless homicide, involuntary manslaughter, whatever it is. And then it gets even more complicated, as it did in Penny, uh, when you add self defense into the mix. So the prosecutor. In that case in New York, the prosecutor had to disprove self defense beyond a reasonable doubt. So Penny clearly had a self defense claim. The prosecutor's job was not only to prove the elements of murder or manslaughter. Uh, they had to disprove that it was self defense. Now, look, I'll read this just because if you're on a jury, it sort of exemplifies how impossible this is to figure this out. Unless you have, like, a chart. But, uh, if you find the defendant guilty of count one, manslaughter in the second degree, then do not consider and do not render a verdict on count two, criminally negligent homicide. Simple enough. That's what we just talked about. But here's where it gets complicated. If you find the defendant not guilty of count one, manslaughter in the second degree, for the reason that the People have not failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant did not, that defendant was not justified, then you must not consider count two, criminally negligent homicide, and you must also find the defendant not guilty of that count. If you find the defendant not guilty of count one, manslaughter in the second degree, for some reason other than the lack of justification, then proceed to consider and render verdict on count two, criminally negligent homicide. I confess, I never. What they're trying to do here. I had to read this, like, three times to get it all figured out. It is kind of hard because they're using double negatives. Um, and that's just. Look, lawyers suck at explaining stuff in common terms. And one of my mottos, as I say all the Time Upstairs, Downstairs podcast in the real world, is I like to make things simple. Almost everything that can be made simple. And that's what we're going to do right here. What they're saying is if you find Penny guilty of manslaughter, you're done. You don't need to do anything else. All right, if you find defendant not guilty of manslaughter for any reason other than self defense, then you got to go to count two, the negligent homicide, and consider that one. If you find defendant Penny not guilty because of Self defense. Uh, you're done. Because the self defense claim would apply to both. Mhm. Right. That's sort of what's happening here now. Why the controversy?

>> Troy Henriksen: I think the controversy, at least from my perspective, maybe this is just like a law student view is during jury deliberation, you drop the more serious charge. It almost seems like what I would interpret as like an unethical play by the prosecutor to try and sway the jury into, hey, I took out the hard one. Give me the softball here. Like why not? That's how I viewed it initially.

>> Steve Palmer: Yeah, that's right. So you were asking initially why would the defense or why would the prosecutor not want lesser included offenses? So we're going to get to, I'm going to answer this, but let's sort of give some real world examples first. I had a murder case and uh, I had a client. He was surrounded by three people outside a bar on the west side of Columbus. The kind of bar where you certainly don't want your son, daughter, whoever hanging out at. Uh, I mean it was a roughneck bar. Um, and my client found himself surrounded by three people. Based on something that happened in the bar. I'm not going to go into detail. I uh, think two of them had tire irons and one of them had something else. Um, nobody had guns or knives other than my client who had in his pocket a knife. And one of those kind of has a little hole in it so you can flip it up with your thumb.

>> Troy Henriksen: Switchblade.

>> Steve Palmer: It wasn't a switchblade, but it had a hole on the, on the blade. It was a little 2 inch blade, had a hole in the, in the blade that gave his thumb enough friction where you could flip it open with just your thumb and have it. So he pulls out of his pocket, flips it open and you know, as he's sort of fending off these three people, stabs, two of them, um, one of them he got right there in the ribcage because he's holding the knife like that and that it's just a little short blade. But that resulted in the blade went right through the ribcage, pierced the pericardial sac of the poor sac or the poor victim's heart. And the heart filled the sac pericardial sac, which is his membrane that surrounds the heart that fills up with blood. And it's called, I think it's a condition, I'm not a doctor, but I think it's a condition called pericardial tympanade, which means it fills up the membrane, the Sac around your heart with blood, and your heart can't pump.

>> Troy Henriksen: For not being a doctor, I feel like you did pretty good there.

>> Steve Palmer: I've heard that testimony a few times because there's lots of homicide cases that happen that way.

>> Troy Henriksen: Okay?

>> Steve Palmer: Um, and, uh, the guy died. All right? So now my client's accused of murder, straight aggravated murder or straight murder. So acted purposely, tried to kill the whole nine yards. And that was back in the day in Ohio where I actually had to prove self defense. The prosecutor didn't have to disprove it. I had to prove it. Uh, so fast forward, we get to the point where we're talking about these kind of jury instructions and my client in the indictment, the prosecutor did not charge any of these lesser offenses. And we. I had to look my client and say, listen, do you want me to ask for a lesser included offense of manslaughter, of involuntary manslaughter? Um, and he just kept asking me the same question. You think it's more likely I'd be convicted of involuntary manslaughter? And I kept saying yes. And he goes, then, no. And I was like, I don't think you understand my question. But he did understand. And what he was saying is, I want to walk away free. Um, I don't want to risk. I think it's more likely that the jury will say, not guilty of murder and just land on manslaughter because they want to convict me of something. And it's sort of what you were saying. They're going to convict me of something. So, uh, we'll give him something other than the bait. We'll give them different. We'll give them a little, uh, something less to bite on, uh, so they don't have to feel like they're really, really smacking, uh, the guy. So my client says, no chance. He had balls of brass staring at 15 to life in Ohio versus something less than 10 years if he's convicted of the lesser charge. Fortunately, um, for him, it worked out after the same kind of thing, after like, five, six days of jury deliberation. Uh, the jury comes back with an acquittal, and my guy is found not guilty. Um, here's what happened in Penny.

>> Troy Henriksen: Well, let's circle back to your case here. What if the prosecutor wanted to jump in and add lesser offenses? Then maybe the prosecutor was scared. They're delivering for five days.

>> Steve Palmer: But he wanted the whole shooting match. Okay, so the prosecutor, in theory, could ask for lesser included offenses, but he wanted the whole shooting match, too. So it was like, here we are Fight for the death. It's all or nothing. And, uh, these kind of strategy calls, they certainly don't teach you that crap in Law School. And I can attest, uh, I was a young. That was back in the 90s. That was one of my first murder cases. And I can attest, um, what that did for my level of anxiety, my ability to sleep. You, uh, know, these are hard, hard, hard strategic decisions that you. That we, as lawyers, particularly criminal defense lawyers, trial lawyers, we just learn to live with. I mean, we all the Time, we're making these huge, huge, uh, decisions that. And as you probably heard me say upstairs, there's no right answer. There's only crappy and crappier. And that's how I look at it. That is honestly how I assess decisions like this. Like, look, client, there's no, there's no good answer here because good implies that there's a good answer. Like there's a great, uh, like there is a path through it, no matter what. Um, in situations like that, there's no good answer. There's only the best answer. And at best doesn't even describe it. There's only crappy, and then there's levels of crappy. So let's choose the least crappy answer, and that way we're not calling it something other than what it is, a really crappy situation. Right. Because I think it's a misnomer to have any sort of credibility with your client if you act like something is good. And I get it, these are semantics. But it matters, I think, uh, if I'm sitting in my client's shoes, I don't want to hear that there's a good answer because there's no good answer, only a crappy one. But I want the least crappy. I'll choose that every time if my only options are crappy. So, anyway, that's a little aside. Um, back to Penny, or do you have more on that?

>> Troy Henriksen: No. No, no.

>> Steve Palmer: Okay. So back to Penny. Um, what the jury instructions are doing here is basically mimicking the scenario I talked about, where the judge in the middle or at the end of the trial offers a lesser included offense. Except the prosecutor has included that included the lesser in the indictment, and the judge has instructed the jury, you don't even get to the lesser included offense until you've decided the primary offense one way or another. But there's a problem. The jury couldn't decide the primary offense they hung. They couldn't. They couldn't reach a verdict after a week of deliberation, give or Take. They come back, the jury comes back and says, judge, we can't decide. We got a hung jury there. And I think looking, I think later on we found there was like a single holdout. I'm not sure.

>> Troy Henriksen: Mhm.

>> Steve Palmer: So it's like 11 to 1, 1, uh, way or another. And we don't have, we can't get a consensus in. At least in New York, in Ohio, uh, there's got to be a unanimous verdict on criminal offenses, right? So, uh, you got to get 12 to 0 one way or another. Anything short of that, you got a hung jury. Now that has all sorts of ramifications of its own. If I'm on the defense, I'm thinking, all right, well, I get to at least live to fight another day if I've got a hung jury. Um, and then later on we'll interview the jurors, if they'll talk to us and figure out what the split is. Uh, sometimes the judge will ask, even on The Record. Uh, but yeah, we got a hung jury. Now there's another thing. They probably. I don't know if they will teach you this in Law School, but there is a, we call it a dynamite charge. Um, in Ohio. It's a State. It's a case called Howard. I can't remember what the US Case is off the top of my head. Um, but the judge will say, look, your job is to reach a verdict. So here's how it works. Jury comes back and says, judge, we just can't decide. We're deadlocked. We don't think with even the most, uh, intense deliberations we're ever going to get a decision. Typically, the judge will give them the dynamite charge, which you can look it up, but it basically says, your job is to decide this. You should decide this. You should not think that any other juror is going to be in a better situation to decide this. It's on you. Do your d*** job, shut up, go back, deliberate, and come back here and give us a d*** decision. Or else. It's sort of like that. Um, some, some lawyers love him, some lawyers hate him. I've gone, I'm hot and cold on it. I've been. Maybe it just depends on how I feel about the case at the Time. Um, but here they as presumably the judge gave that instruction and the jury still comes back and says, sorry, we can't come up with a decision on this one. Uh, now what to do? Here's where your comment comes in, because the judge has just told them, just told the jury. You don't get to look at count two until you render a verdict on count one. And now the prosecutor says, well, we're just gonna do an end around that problem and we're gonna dismiss count one. Judge, we ask you to dismiss count one. In other words, we don't even want the jury to consider count one. We're gonna change the rules in the middle of the game. And now we just want the jury to consider count two. Um, and you can obviously understand why, because the prosecutor, well, you tell me. We'll play it Socratically.

>> Troy Henriksen: So the prosecutor wants to get something. So count two, the only way you can get to it is by tossing out count one.

>> Steve Palmer: Right?

>> Troy Henriksen: And it, I mean, I just think it. Look, it looks a little bad, but honestly, the jury instructions, I think are bad.

>> Steve Palmer: Well, the jury instructions at least, look, they aren't the most artfully written pros, but at least makes Sense. I would have explained it. If I were arguing the case in front of the jury, I would have said it this way. All right, folks, this is a bunch of mumbo jumbo. Here's what's really going on. You got to look first at count one. This is the manslaughter. And if they don't prove manslaughter, just on the face of it, the verdict's not guilty. And only then can you go to count two, the negligent homicide. But if you find that they prove the case and the defendant, my guy, Mr. Penny here, acted in self defense, which by the way, he did, then you're done too. So the self defense applies to both. Um, if he's acting in self defense on count one, it's a foregone conclusion he's acting in self defense on count two. Now, if you just think he didn't commit count one for some reason, only then do you get to go to count two. Now look, we don't carry the way because he acted in self defense either way. Now the prosecutor's thinking, as you said, well, look, it's like my client, he's more likely to get convicted of count two because it sounds better, it's less, it's a lesser charge, and jury's going to know that. So they're going to throw us a bone. And you know, and then he's also thinking, I think they knew. Sometimes the judge will ask, what's the split back there, you guys? 6 to 6, 10 to 1, 10 to 2, 11 to 1, whatever it is. Um, so the prosecutor is thinking, well, I'll probably get at this point, a verdict of Guilty on count two. And I agreed. When I saw that going down, I was like, ballistic. I'm thinking, man, I would be having a tantrum in the courtroom if a judge did this. This is, uh, the prosecutor and the judge basically changed the rules in the middle of the game.

>> Troy Henriksen: Mhm.

>> Steve Palmer: Um, everything defense did object to it, they objected. Yeah. And I've never had this happen. Never had this happen. And mostly because generally in Ohio, where I try murder cases, this wouldn't line up this way. Right. We would just get the, it just wouldn't happen now. And if it did happen, if the prosecutor did elect to dismiss on the hung count, then the jury was not permitted on under State law to get to the second account until they considered the first. I'd be like, look, this, this is paramount or tantamount. So paramount and tamount. You ever looked those words up?

>> Troy Henriksen: No.

>> Steve Palmer: All right, so paramount means Paramount.

>> Troy Henriksen: I see on the screen more, uh.

>> Steve Palmer: Tantamount means the same. So this is the same as a hung jury on both. If you, if the. Logically speaking, if the jury can't consider count two until they get a decision on count one, then a hung, uh, jury on count one by definition means they don't have a decision on count one and they never get to count two. This is a mistrial for a hung jury. Judge says, wow, I'm going to let it happen. See what happens. I'm going to do it.

>> Troy Henriksen: The reason I thought it was kind of unethical was in my head. A prosecutor will only prosecute a case if they believe beyond a reasonable doubt that they can convict this guy based on all the evidence that they have. And if you want to dismiss it, that means you're like, uh, nevermind, I don't like, I do have some doubts as the prosecutor, which means the juror should. So in my head, the minute they finished their case, you know, if the State really wanted to dismiss it, the minute they finished presenting their case and they had doubts, they're like, wow, we should dismiss it now. We should have done it from the beginning. Instead you wait till the jury has it, till in theory, the defense presents their case, which is self defense. Um, I didn't really pay attention too much to this trial. I don't know if Penny took the stand or not or anything like that.

>> Steve Palmer: Well, uh, look, here's what you're getting at. The prosecutor's job in theory is to do justice, not win. It's to leave out their own. The prosecutors should leave out his or her personal emotional attachment to a case. Here's the problem. We're all human, and we all have personal, uh, attachments to almost everything, particularly in something like a criminal murder trial, where it is adversarial by its nature. So we have created a system where it's adversarial by its nature. It even says that we love it. And if you read U.S. supreme Court, like classic case law on this, they talk about the clashing of ideas, and only then can you reach the truth. And cross examination being the greatest legal engine ever discovered for, uh, or ever invented for the discovery of the truth. You know what? Like, we talk about that stuff as if it's a good thing. And then at the same time, we expect prosecutors to be, uh, to step higher above it and do justice. It's very difficult for prosecutors to do it. Look, I'm not giving you prosecutors a break, but I am empathizing. I guess on some level. It's like, look, we expect you to go fight in a courtroom, and at the same time you have to do things that hurt your case. The prosecutor's job is to give the defense the good stuff. So, you know, hey, here's evidence that helps you. I didn't have it before, but now I have it and sort of slip you the trump card under the table. The prosecutor's job is to do that. At the same time, it's to win. So it's like, you can see how these dilemmas happen. Add into the milkshake things like politics. Um, there's a lot of, um, racial, uh, debate. I'm not going to, I'm not going to go into whether I agree or disagree with it. But, like, add those things into it, um, and add into it, like, the prosecutor's voting constituency. Um, what does the prosecutor think his voters want? It's like, add all that stuff into it and it gets hard. So I agree with you. The prosecutor makes a decision here to say not what's just, but I want to win the d*** case. And I think it's more likely that I get this guy convicted of a lesser charge. Um, I think that this violated the law. I think this violated the law in the sense that it would have been a due process violation, an unfair trial for the judge to dismiss the lead account or the lead count the lead charge on the indictment only so the prosecutor could get a verdict on the second charge. When there's been this sort of. The rule of the case up to that Time was that the jury never considers the second charge until they actually decide the first. So the judge changed the Rules of play. If I had been arguing for the dents, I said, you change the rules on me, Judge, I tried this case with this in mind. Now you've changed the rules on me. If these folks wanted it, wanted to be a negligent homicide, they should have indicted it that way and that way alone, or they should have indicted it differently. I don't know the rules of New York on how that works. Um, but in this jury instruction, they never got to count two until count one was done. So I agree. Now, it turns out somehow the last guy, which. So think about this for a second. You've got somebody holding out on count one. And I think it was. I don't know if it was 11 to one or one way or another, but the same person on count two was willing to go along with the crowd. So I don't know what happened. Um, as my dad used to say, the holy Ghost descends upon the jury room once, uh, the case is over. Because juries tend to get it right. They tend to get it right. Now, again, this is contrary to the pulpit, uh, and the table pounding that's going on now on both sides of it, but I think the jury got it right. So the question here is, did the prosecutor disprove self defense beyond a reasonable doubt? Um, clearly not. Clearly not. Was justice done? Well, I'll let you guys figure that out.

>> Troy Henriksen: So 12 people heard it best.

>> Steve Palmer: 12 people, that's right. Uh, all right, well, this has been. They don't teach you that in Law School. And I can, trust me, they don't teach you this in Law School. I had to figure, like, this took some, this is sort of like 300 level stuff. And, uh, most people don't get to that in the realm of criminal defense and even the news, when I read the news commentary on this, most of the Time they don't understand the nuance of what's really going on. So these are great questions. Uh, if you've got your own question, by the way, it's easy. Just go to Lawyer Talk podcast.com if you've got a topic that they're not teaching you in Law School or even college or even in your own life, um, you can just submit the question there at LawyerTalk Podcast. Go to the socials. Troy's keeping us up on that. Leave, uh, a comment. There's a comment I'll get to, uh, on another thing we did. But at any rate, uh, check us out. Lawyer Talk podcast.com Off The Record, on the air with. They don't teach you that. In Law School, at least until now.