EP. 49 - Q&A MAILBAG - ASK THE EXPERTS!

Hello. Hello. Hello, come one. Come all.

Welcome to another episode of, is this legal? My name is Russell Hebets. I'm here with my partner, Collin McCallins. And we are here with an episode of mailbag, Q and a ask the experts. That's right.

I mean, we get so many questions from our loyal listeners, so we just, we just have to put them in a huge mail bag. Aaron bringing this thing up to the table,

Man, look at this thing. I mean, you're going to have to hit the chiropractor after that. I mean, and it's weird. All of our listeners use mail, snail mail. We don't read anything electronically. It's like, what are we seeing in the North pole? We got a bunch of OGs out there listening to our podcast. That's right. But so if you made it, you know, congratulations, and this is your time to get honored and recognized. And so we're going to jump right in. Yeah.

And for those of you who submitted these questions like six months ago, this is just proof that we didn't forget about.

Yeah. You made the cut. Yeah. It, especially you Betsy from Denver.

Well, should we start with Betsy from Denver?

I mean, let's, let's save the best for first. I think one of our favorite, one of our favorites,

Long time listeners, if I'm not mistaken. Betsy writes a great question. I'm just going to read it to you. If I go into an emergency room with a medical condition and it turns out that I have an illegal drug in my system, will the doctor or other ER, staff report me to the police or is that considered Dr. Client privilege? Uh, and she, she goes on, the question came up when a Denver friend had to go to a Missouri emergency room for a severe allergic reaction while on edibles.

All right. So I have a question before we start, like, if you're from Denver where edibles are legal, right? Why are you going to Missouri to take out a bowls before finding out that you're allergic to them? Why don't you experiment in the state where it's legal?

I'm also kind of curious about the allergic reaction. I mean, was it that, uh, the person just kind of felt like they wanted to sit down and watch a movie and was really hungry or,

I mean, you want to, but anyway, it really you'd hope it's something more serious than that. It's a great question, Russ, what do you think about that question? So that, that is a great question. So in that circumstance, you're, you're fine. You know, the

Patient, that's the, of course we're

Not talking about Betsy's, we're not making any judgements either way on Betsy. No, you're, you're good on that. You know, society doesn't want to have interests incentives to keep people away from getting medical attention in situations like drug overdoses. Right. But, but there are some situations where doctors will disclose information.

Well, before, before we get to those just on the drug thing, um, I mean, you could go in and you could say, I took cocaine two hours ago, doctor, um, you know, you could make a blatant, you, you could have a cocaine while on you, the doctors will not turn that over to law enforcement. Are you sure about the cocaine violent?

I guess I threw that in there. Maybe. I didn't think that sort of cocaine, violin officer. Yeah. I think forget about the cocaine. Mark.

Let's assume that it's just ingested in your body. Right? Um, they, um, really the only way that law enforcement can gain a sample of someone's blood in order to test it for criminal activity is in the context of a DUI investigation or, or a vehicular homicide slash vehicular assault type investigation. Right?

Probable cause to conduct that invasive blood drawn there in fact was a Supreme court case within the last couple of years that held that. And you know, in the context of DUI, they held a breath test was not invasive,

What a blood was. Right. Exactly. So that's really the only situation. So for simple possession cases, they're not going to say, okay, we're going to test your blood and see what you got in your bloodstream there. And we're going to charge you for anything we find, right.

If they do, they probably will test you because they need to know those levels for medical treatment. But so now they have this test that is positive for cocaine, positive for amphetamines. Can the cops just, okay, the doctor can tell him, but can the cops just go get that resolved

That is still protected right by the patient. So the patient has the privilege there. It's HIPAA. Exactly. So yeah, law enforcement can't do anything with that. Now, now where you are going to go, Russ, this is interesting because yeah, let's go there. This is not to say that the police can't get involved with someone who takes a trip to an emergency room for medical reasons. So here's an easy one gunshot victim. Um, if there is a person who is shot and they go to an emergency room, there will be a police investigation. Police will be,

I called immediately while the person is being worked on. So even if you go in and you say, don't call the police, this was an accident. This has nothing to do with yourself in the leg.

It make something up. They're still going to call the police. They're going to do an investigation. It'll be in an evolve investigation by the way. And every single bottom of what happened. Um, and there's domestic violence is another one. Of course,

That's, that's a big one. That's a big one. So yeah, you come in and you have a black eye and cut lip and you come in and you say, I tripped. Right. And it's very clear, your injuries do not match that. You know, they're probably going to call the police to see if you're being abused. Most likely here's, here's another one child abuse. Exactly. Right. So you have the same. And actually I have a story about this. One of my sisters had, when she was a kid, she basically had, um, I don't know if it was a disease, but a bone issue where she was very prone to breaking her bones. It has, it has a very, it has a medical name, which I didn't look up and someone out there can tell Mr. Glass from unbreakable. Now we're talking. Yeah. So she would have superpowers.

She does, unfortunately, it didn't come with superpowers, man. But you know, she would break a bone often. Like she had broken bones continually. And you know, the medical staff knew about this. You know, our doctor knew that she had this problem. And so nothing happened, but you know, had they not known about her history, they would have started a child abuse investigation on that because you have the same kid coming in. And then again, with injuries like the police will be called there. Now there's, you know, we started off talking about drugs and alcohol. Let's, let's talk very briefly about DUI. If in Colorado we have, what's called a safe Harbor rule. So if, if Cornelius is 20 years old and Jebidiah is 19 and Jebidiah gets so drunk, he has alcohol poisoning. Cornelius can take him in, can call nine one. One can take him to get medical attention and not be charged with minor in possession, as long as he's the first one to call and he's doing it for medical attention. And that goes back to incentives. Right?

And you see the, uh, the issues that, that one question, uh, let us into that

Was a really good one. Betsy, what a rabbit hole. You let

Us down. What's the next question we have for us.

So next we have a question from John, from Gary, Indiana. Gary dare. What a hole, John? Sorry, John. How's that yellow water out there? Wait, wait, wait. No, that that's South bend. Not Gary. I'm sorry. I'm sorry.

We got a Michigan fan in the house in case anybody needed to know that for free.

Anyone who lives in Gary, Indiana. I apologize. It's probably a lovely place. I, I should give it a chance. Um, but he did John writes update on COVID while in the court system, because we did all, he's looking for an update. I'm just looking for an update. He's looking for an update. Um, so cause we did a, we did a podcast a while ago, right? When COVID hit about how COVID is affecting the criminal legal system.

Right. You know, it's, it's different everywhere. And that was actually something that we made a big deal about when we did our COVID podcast. Last time is, I mean, first of all, every state is handling this differently. Uh, every County within States are handling it differently within that

Even some municipalities are handling it different

Here's right now in, uh, Denver, Colorado. Um, there are no jury trials that are scheduled, uh, to be had in Denver until may or pardon me, April 5th. Um, you go to Adams County though, which is just a, about 15 miles East of Denver. And they are going to have jury trials starting next week. So, you know, it depends on the jury system. There's a huge backlog of cases though, because everywhere there have been delays in and, um, postponements due to COVID and you know, these cases are just piling up. I mean, people are committing more and more crime, right? It's delay after delay. There was

No window in the summer where, um, some counties started holding trials and actually you and I

Window, which is amazing actually, because we had like a month and a half window or they were back open and we, we both squeezed one in there. Right. But so those,

Those cases are stacking up, like you said, and it's getting to the point where some counties are talking about in these are decisions made by the chief judge of that County. Some are saying, there's not going to be anything done civilly where we're talking about really, basically money at stake and all the civil judgers are going to be trying criminal cases to try to relieve this backlog. Right. You and I are starting to get better offers from da.

We are. I mean, the DA's are the ones who are really getting squeezed here because they, they are having all of these cases Mount up where they really have to prioritize more than ever. Okay. where are we going to focus our efforts in prosecuting these cases? Are we, are we going to let this little case that we would have normally gone after slide because we have a murder case that has to get to trial, you know, and generally the answer is yes,

Yes. On that. If they have to. Now, one thing that the courts have done, um, is they have built in rules to allow mistrials

That's right. So you may remember from a previous discussion in our podcasts that we had on speedy trial, a person has a constitutional right to be brought to trial within a certain amount of time after they plead, plead not guilty. Right. Um, in most jurisdictions that six months speedy trial statutes. So you're talking about the situation where, you know, someone pled not guilty back in June of 2020, December of 2020 rolls around, and the courts still aren't open. That case gets dismissed, right? Yeah. Wrong COVID world would have violated yeah. The constitutional right to a speedy trial, but what the Colorado Supreme court did. Um, and, you know, honestly, realistically, it's hard to argue, uh, with this and unless you're a defense attorney, but we understand it, but they're basically saying we're not going to start dismissing cases because of COVID, we're going to save all these cases. We're going to postpone them. We're not going to basically harm the side of the district attorney and penalize them for something they have no control. Yeah.

And what, what the chief justice did is basically issued a new criminal rule that said, I can, any judge can issue a mistrial if we can't see the jury due to a pandemic. And by the way, federally, there was already a catch, uh, a clause in the federal statute that allowed those mistrials. So all of these cases are getting pushed, which solves it short-term, but it doesn't solve the backlog. That's going to be sitting there once trials start again. So, so John that's, that's the update on what's going on right now? We're largely, still not having trials

The way most court is being done virtually. Um, so I had a court appearance this morning. I did it from my office computer, and it was basically like a FaceTime call or a zoom call.

It's been rocking business on top a party down below.

I have not been Russ or those judges listening. I'm wearing a full suit and tie, and I'm definitely not hung over and polished penny loafers. So that's the COVID update. All right. What do we got next Russ? So it looks like, I think it's my turn, Steve from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. I see, um, we really appreciate the national, uh, uh, attention. Our pocket is getting a national footprint. Yeah. So if Steve writes, if you seal an arrest warrant, could a future employer or anyone else running a background, check on you tell that you sealed something or is the fact that the seal exists totally invisible to anyone who runs a background check on you. All right. So a little context about this. I think what we're talking about here is let's assume that a person gets charged with a crime and either the prosecutor ALEKS, to not file that charge, or they dismiss the charge, or the person is found not guilty at trial. So the results of all of those things is going to be that the case gets dismissed. And that means it's eligible for sealing slash expungement, whatever term your jurisdiction uses. That means that means that the, uh, the, the, the litigant has the opportunity to erase all record of this case.

And by the way, check your local statutes, because this varies widely from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. So some places might not even allow you to expunge or seal a dismissed case, but most places do most places have been moving in that direction, Colorado included. So on a case like that, Steve, once you get it sealed, so you go through and get a court order, sealing the record that court order gets sent out to any agencies that hold criminal records. So in Colorado, the main agency is Colorado Bureau of investigations. Then they are ordered to not disclose that information. So basically they're, they're ordered to say no such case exists,

Right? So we, we tell people, look, if you successfully seal your case, if you're applying for a job and they ask you that, that catchy, that tricky question where it says, okay, have you ever been charged, cited, arrested, pled, guilty, guilty to any crime you are in a position where you can truthfully say, no, I have not. After a sealed case

As if it never existed. Now, here's, here's a caveat. The government can always see it. Law enforcement in particular. Yes. So like the police who pull you over for a DUI when you had a previous DUI sealed, they're going to be able to see that. And frankly, they may proceed with their investigation differently, even though they're not supposed to.

That's correct. And they're probably not going to have access to like a lot of details of the case. They might even only be able to see that the person once had a case that was sealed. Right. So, um, even law enforcement is limited. So yeah, if you get it sealed, man, basically that means you have no criminal history.

You're in good, good shape, Steve and Steve, we know you were asking for someone else, right. So don't worry. We know it's not you

That's. No, that's why we're not using your last name of one grin. So just keep his name out long. Um, okay.

Next. So next we have a, um, we have a question from Jason, from Livingston Montana

Bankston. I assume that's named after the good Dr. Livingston, the good die. I think he is probably still practicing up there. Well, it's Dr. Livingston from he's the adventurer

Who were sold and now

He wasn't Tarzan. That's a baked dessert.

Didn't he see tar? He met Tarzan. He discovered Tarzan. Yeah.

There is no Tarzan in real life. And you know what? I'm just going to say. There's no Dr. Livingston in real life, everything you read in the history books, it's just a that's fiction. So a false narrative where you fake news, he must've been native Livingston, Montana. It must be named after the novel that he was created on. So, uh, what percentage, what, what's the question? Do we get to the question? Yeah,

No, the question is what percentage of cases go to trial?

Um, pretty easy question. Pretty easy answer. Um, most of them do not, um, low percentage go to trouble the less than 5%, I would say

That's part of it. It does depend on how aggressive of an attorney you have. Right? So Colin and I probably go to trial well over the average, but the vast majority of cases are plea bargains they're pled out. And really they have to be because there's so many cases,

The DA's can't bring all of the cases that they have on their docket to trial. So what do they do to get rid of some, they offer deals, they offer plea bargains. We were just talking about that. And, um, so you know, our, we have the option of pleading, not guilty and taken all the way to trial where we can investigate a plea bargain. But yes, the answer to that question is most cases do not.

And oftentimes plea bargains are the right way to go, but I'll tell you, interestingly, probably once every five years, the defense community tries to band together and say, let's break the system, man. Let's have everyone set for trial and go to trial and they can't do it. Right. And

No, it always fail. It never happens because the client is typically like, Oh, wait a minute. I don't, I don't want to break. I just want my year of probation. You know? So there's always weak links. Yeah. You always have to deal with those clients. What's the next column Ben from California, uh, asked this question, do you typically get along with prosecutors?

Good question, Ben. Good question. Colin and I were both previous prosecutors and in, I think pretty much everyone can agree. Criminal law is much more civil than civil law.

I've never heard that no more, but it totally works. I absolutely agree with that. Yeah. I think what Russ is saying, like I know a family law attorney, um, who used to be a prosecutor and she used to do murder cases and she's, she, she was complaining to me. She's like Collin, man, just give me a nice juicy first degree murder case. I would rather much rather deal with that than my stupid family law client who is, you know, arguing with his wife over, who gets their toaster.

Right. And a lot of people have been there, but it's a situation of like, you know, a scorched earth on the, on the part of the attorneys because they hadn't, clients

Was very, uh, very seldom good for the clients. Right. You know, it's, it's usually more expensive. It's usually going to, you know, the more, the more litigation in case, the more expensive and the more likely that it's going to go on and on and on.

Yeah. But generally in criminal, in the criminal venues, you know, you're basically just trying to get to a trial and you both understand you have your own perspectives and it's generally, there's not a lot of animosity or acrimony.

Yeah. I mean, I think we pride ourselves on having a good relationship with DA's and I think it also helps that we were former DA's we, we know how DAS approach cases. I mean, don't get me wrong. There are those attorneys who, who March into court and they're screaming, right?

This is complete BS. We want this case dismissed. We're going to grieve you. We're going to file a complaint against your office again.

And that might have the effect momentarily of getting the DA's attention, but not in a good way. I mean, is, is that, is that defense attorney going to get, uh, any quarter from that da they're going to get any good deals from that.

And, and even if it works in that specific case, the whole office is going to give that guy no deals when there's, when it's on the fence next time. So yeah,

I mean, you, you, you definitely run into situations where you're dealing with a difficult prosecutor on the other side, and you, you may have really, um, strong disagreements about how they're handling the case. And that, that can be frustrating because the DA's are the ones who often hold the power in these cases. But as a, as a professional attorney, dealing with that person, you want to try and get along with them. You want to keep, uh, you want to, you want to keep up appearances. You want to make sure that you're respected because you're going to have a case with that person again.

And it makes it, and it just makes it so much more smooth because, you know, ultimately at the end of the day, you know, the ruling is going to be what the ruling is going to be. And you may as well not burn bridges. Right. All right. Next question is from, uh, Jenny from Alabama, Jenny asks, what are your thoughts on the three strike rule? So

Context on this first Russ to our listeners, please

Strike rule can vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. But generally what Jenny's talking about is if you have a criminal, someone who has been charged and convicted of a crime three times on the third time, a giant hammer over their head, a bag of potato

Beatles, second falls, right on the top, like a second data.

And, and ultimately we're talking about much, much higher criminal, um, prison sentences, or jail sentences, much more severe criminal for a third offense of a general sort. So, yeah. And so I'll tell you my general thoughts on this. And then I know, I think you have a personal story about this, right? Yeah. So generally I don't like that. I don't like it. It takes the discretion away from a judge. You're, you're tying a judge's hands and not looking at not being able to adapt to the specific facts of the case. You know, you could have someone who had, you know, two fairly minor offenses or serious offenses, and then they reformed and then they get one more offense, which because of like a perfect storm of circumstances, put them in this situation where normally a da would look and say, gosh, I understand what happened here. Um, I feel like you deserve a break. They can't give it right. And this person's going to prison for generally a lengthy period of time.

Here's a quick story, uh, on this very issue. Um, back about 15 years ago when I was still with the DA's office, wet behind the ears. Exactly. Um, you know, I, uh, we had a new elected district district attorney come into office and, you know, I was there for the change from the old one to the new one. And the, uh, the new da issued a directive saying that we are going to start going after habitual criminals. We, if, if it, and she gave us directive where if we had a client or a client, if we had a defendant, we were prosecuting, um, who had three or more felony convictions. We were instructed on every case to file habitual criminal counts. So here here's how that works. Um, let's say a person is facing, uh, two to eight years in prison. If they're charged with a habitual criminal charge that increases their sentencing range by three times three

Or four, depending. Yeah. So it can be six to 24

Or eight to 32 years. Um, and I had a gentleman who was charged with a felony shoplifting case. He was trying to steal a TV from a Walmart.

So it was a felony because of the, the dollar amount, right? Yeah.

His criminal history. He had two drug cases, uh, that were about a decade old. Okay. So this was his third, uh, felony conviction. He was facing normally again, he was facing today eight years. Um, I was ordered by my boss to file habitual criminal counts on this guy, which meant that he, uh, could be exposed to a jail sentence of six to 24 years for the shoplifting case. And the offer we were instructed to give him was 12 years. So 12 years for attempting to steal a TV. Now, some of you out there maybe hearing this and saying, you know what, I have absolutely no problem with that. If a person committed crime over and over again and got to number three, then you know what you do the crime you do at the time. I do have an issue with this though. And it's, it's exactly what you were talking about, Russ, it's, it, it, it, there's when we're talking about mandatory sentencing, you know, it does handcuff the parties in terms of what they can do and what they can't do.

It, it, it does not allow the parties to look at the conduct to look at this person's life and say, is this really what we want to do? I had to go seek a dispensation in that case to try and go against the grain. We ended up working out a four year deal where the guy had to go to prison for four years. But, you know, I was really happy about that because it did not sit well with me. And it we're going to be pushing a guy with no violent criminal history at all. His stuff was just drug possession and theft. Why are we going to warehouse him for over 10 years? That just seemed wrong.

Right? Does, does that do what it's supposed to do for society? And, and it's, I mean, you had to go get a special dispensation. You, you had to get supervisor brightful that.

Yeah. And that was frustrating. I, I w I would've loved to have just won it. You made that decision in the courtroom, but, uh,

And that's what we think about the three strike rule. Um, Colin. Yeah.

Yep. Another quick question from a, this is from Andy do frame in Overland park. Andy do Fran. I thought he was in Zihuatanejo Mexico with his buddy red, but mean, maybe this is a fake name anyway, uh, Andy in his spare time, uh, fleeing from the feds, um, is asked. What's the difference between the word indictment and arraignments? Um, yeah, this'll take just a quick second. There's a lot of these words that we hear in our, uh, uh, in the criminal justice lexicon, these are two of them. So if you're facing an indictment in indictment is a fancy word for a criminal charge. Um, it it's the same thing. It's really synonymous with saying a person has been charged with a crime versus a person has been indicted for a crime. They're sending them, it's an accusation. Um, it's, it still has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt and arraignment. What's an arraignment Russ

Ramon's, uh, essentially the first time you appear to court, you get advised of your charges. You oftentimes get advised of the rights that you have as a criminal defendant. So an arraignment is not a charge in the case. Arraignment is a stage of the proceeding,

Right? It's typically also where you enter your plea of guilty or not guilty. You'll say, Hey, judge, we've taken, we're taking a plea deal. I plead guilty. Or judge, we're going to fight this. We plead not guilty. And then the case would get, sit down for trial. So yeah, those are some common words that we use all the time and, uh, I've never defined them. So thanks, Andy.

All right. So, uh, this is the last question we have, and then don't, don't hit stop when we're done, because we forgot to tell you at the beginning of this time, let's just surprise them. Well, we have a surprise, right? Let's say that all cause the cat's already out of the bag. Thanks. Got it.

I think things are the circus is coming to town. Maybe we can give a little tease like that.

So last, last question is from Ross, from Utah. Hi, Ross. Ross is asking can a criminal case affect your second amendment rights? If so, when and how right questions. So Ross, yes. Uh, absolutely a criminal case can affect your second amendment, right? Your second amendment, right. As you can hear in our podcast on guns in America is an absolute, right? In fact, none of our constitutional rights are absolute rights. So for example, almost every place has a prohibition against felons carrying firearms. So if you take any felony conviction, if you plead guilty down to the lowest class felony, you get probation, uh, six months and then they closed the case and you're done for, let's say shoplifting a TV. Right. Um, and then you're done. You paid back, you paid your debt to society. Sorry, buddy. No guns right.

Ever. That's right. And, uh, so what, what about the situation where maybe you're charged with a felony, but the prosecutor offers you a reduced charge, uh, where you plead to a misdemeanor. Okay. Uh, so that's a little bit different, uh, when you're charged with a felony though, any felony you will be while the case is pending prohibited from possessing firearms. Right.

Well, let's go broader than that because anytime you're on bond, even for a misdemeanor, that's true. Any condition of bond is going to be no firearms. So you're, you're charged with a misdemeanor. You have to bond out pretty much a hundred percent of the time a condition of bond is going to be no guns.

So, um, you know, while your case is pending, there is most likely going to be a prohibition against you from possessing firearms. Right. Um, but, uh, the, the other big one is if you are charged and convicted of a misdemeanor offense involving domestic violence, um, there's this thing called the Brady handgun bill, which basically says, okay, you are not allowed to possess weapons during the pendency of your case. And, uh, if you're convicted, you never get it's a lifetime ban.

Right. So, so let's say you're convicted, you're charged with harassment, telephone harassment. Yup. You call your ex-girlfriend 50 times in a two hour span after like a bad breakup after a bad breakup. You're not threatening her, but that would fall under Colorado's telephone harassment statute.

And that would be an of domestic violence. It involved your former.

Yes, exactly. And if you take a conviction for that, even though it doesn't sound like the biggest deal in the world, sorry, buddy. No guns for the rest of your life.

That's right. And by the way, I mean, we've, we may have talked about this before, but you know, that word, domestic violence, uh, it doesn't require either domestic or violence. Um, you know, I mean, it's real, it's really a misnomer in the phone harassment case. Russ just said, I mean, we're talking about a situation where the offender didn't even, wasn't even in the same room with the victim, but if you commit a crime against a former partner, that's going to make this a domestic violence case. Uh, so that's, that's why, and you know, the law says if you got a domestic violence conviction, no more firearms for you.

There you go. So thanks Ross. Good question.

Uh, I think we have something big in the works here. What what's going on.

I think it is time for our new to be recurring segment.

It's time

For DCOTW

Wait. What's what? Wait. Oh, I should tell him what it is. You should. That's good marketing, dumb criminal of the week. Yes, sir. And so every week we're going to be bringing you a new dumb criminal for your entertainment. Only

For this week, we have a case out of acing, New York, the Austin, New York police were called to a mini-mart where they found Blake leak, age, 23 years old, trying to break in. They chase leak through the streets until both cops took a tumble.

Like they ran into each other. Apparently

They both fell. I don't know how exactly it happened. We don't have video of this, but both cops fell down. So maybe, maybe that's something the Austin New York police department needs to work on. Maybe get some news.

No, no more clogs guys. So

Using the opportunity, leak, sought refuge on the grounds of a large building. It seems like a good idea. It seems good until he realized the building was this sing, sing maximum security prison, where he was promptly, nabbed by a guard. Uh, Blake, Blake, Blake, look at where you're hiding my man. Okay.

Okay. So let's, let's, let's talk about this. Let's let's rate. This maybe is a better way to say it. Let's uh, if, if, uh, if we are looking at a scale from one to five, one knuckleheads up to five knuckleheads, what score do we give Blake?

So Blake, I am giving Blake. I'm not given Blake the full five knuckleheads. Okay. Now it was a big knucklehead move to go hide on the grounds of a prison. Not smart, but he did.

Okay. But he was probably charged with evading. I mean, doesn't that,

But, but I, I tell ya, I mean, Blake, you ran, you did escape for a brief period. I'm going to give you four knuckles.

I'm going to give, I'm going to give three and a half knuckleheads. Um, yeah, I'm going to, I'm gonna, I'm going to assume that he was charged with evading and you know, so, uh, am I penalizing him for that or rewarding for that? We haven't figured it out yet. We don't know the ins and outs of your guys either way, three and a half knuckleheads. Blake, you got a, you got an average. Yeah.

3.75 knuckleheads. Hopefully this was your first offense and you are not now in sing sing.

That's a good one though. So yeah, we're going to start doing that every week at the tail end of each episode. So stick around for the DCOTW segment each, uh, is this legal episode. Thanks

Everyone for listening. If you have a question that you want to submit,

We may get to it in two years from now. I

Mean, I feel like we're on about once every six months. That's about right. Yeah. So, um, shoot up to another one of these Is This Legal Pod on Twitter,  HebetsMcCallin on Facebook, or just find us on HebetsMcCallin.com. Thank you everyone for listening. We will see you next time. Bye-bye

[inaudible].