The Trial Series: Ryan Duke’s Defense + Q&A
43:55 Share

This episode is brought to you by Progressive Insurance. Whether you love true crime or comedy, celebrity interviews or news, you call the shots on what's in your podcast queue. And guess what? Now you can call them on your auto insurance too, with the Name Your Price tool from Progressive. It works just the way it sounds. You tell Progressive how much you want to pay for car insurance, and they'll show you coverage options that fit your budget.

Get your quote today at Progressive.com to join the over 28 million drivers who trust Progressive. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and Affiliates. Price and coverage match limited by state law. Hey everyone, it's Meredith. I'm a producer here at Tenderfoot TV. Payne's out working on a new project, so I'll be helping to facilitate today's Q&A along with Maurice Godwin and Philip Holloway. Thanks for sending in so many great questions. We answered as many as we could.

Before we get into your questions, though, we have a surprise guest. Last week, we had the opportunity to sit down with Ryan's defense attorney, Ashley Merchant, to get her perspective. We wanted to play some of that interview for you now before the trial begins in April. Because this is an active case on the verge of going to court, there were a lot of things she couldn't comment on, but that's to be expected.

I can't talk about motions in the respect of trying to influence the outcome. I can't argue outside of court, "Well, we filed this motion and I think it should be granted." I can tell you that a lot of what we've done is try to level the playing field. I am Ashley Merchant, and I am a shareholder at The Merchant Law Firm, and I represent Ryan Alexander Duke.

I think that anytime you're going to take a case pro bono, you need to be morally invested in the case, if that makes sense. You need to believe in it because, you know, if someone goes to work, they're going to work because that's how they pay the bills. But so if you're going to work and you're not going to work to pay the bills, then you've got to have some reason to be going to work. And so we definitely felt strong about that and about the case and about the facts of the case.

We always anticipate the case is going to go to trial because we don't like to be caught, the phrase is, you know, we don't want to be caught with our pants down. And so we are preparing as though it's going to go forward on April 1st. We have no reason to believe it wouldn't. I believe that jury selection will take probably three weeks. But in an average case, you would get probably 48 jurors summoned. And here we have 600, I believe. So, you know, that's very different.

This case is very different in how high profile it is because people care a lot about all the facts of the case and they're very much invested in the characters. It's almost like it was a novel that they sort of got, you know, this character development and stuff where a lot of times they only know things from the news. So it's definitely unique in that the public has a different interest. What I find interesting is being able to see what the public

wants to know about. When we try cases, we don't get to find out what the jury wants to know. I can kind of glimpse in the public's mind by looking at the discussions and things that are going on, seeing, well, where are the questions? What is it that people are really getting hung up on? Because I'm jaded to a certain extent, because when I look at a case, I look at it as what can the government prove? And so I look at it as filling up a cup with evidence and have they filled the cup all the way? And I have to remind myself, juries convict innocent people all the

But it definitely adds a different layer of scrutiny. I practice with my husband, and I know a lot of folks have figured that out, or husband and wife firm. I'm lead counsel on all the criminal defense, because that's what I've always done, and that's my wheelhouse. He's lead counsel on the civil rights. But then we second-chair each other's cases. Which is one thing that's funny, you know, watching that dynamic, I think, if the

if the case is broadcast, which I assume it will be, people are going to know all about our dynamic because it comes out in court. You know, you can't help it that we may interact a little bit differently and it's because we're also married. I was surprised at the bond hearing. It was a little bit surprising for me. I've never had a bond hearing that lasted that long or included that much information at all.

So, you know, normally you hear about the person's record and you hear that, you know, the charges are so serious that they're at risk of fleeing and, you know, just because they're facing a life sentence, the risk of fleeing is great. And it's denied and you move on. It's 20 minutes. So I was a little bit surprised at all of that. We got into so much information that would never be admissible in a trial. Because one thing I can talk about is that the rules of evidence at a bond hearing are entirely different than at a trial.

hearsay is admissible at a bond hearing. And a lot of pretrial hearings hearsay is admissible where it would never come in front of a jury because it's just not reliable. I think we would have seen something similar to that had there been a probable cause hearing because probable cause hearings are another opportunity where you kind of get in the weeds. You know, it was a unique opportunity and it was a surprising opportunity for us to get a lot of information out and information that we did not anticipate would be out prior to trial.

Well, in our bond motion, we listed that Ryan needed to get out because that way he had a job waiting for him. And so it was something where he could start helping to pay for experts because we had paid for experts. We had paid for investigation. And I can tell you in my practice, if my client's out on bond, I have them work. You know, I mean, I can't have them interview witnesses, but they can get me addresses and stuff and they can get certified copies of documents. And so if he was out, we...

The fact that we didn't have an investigator, we could have utilized him to get some of the information we needed. Plus, he could work. Also, I want to mention some recent breaking news. We got reports last week that Beau, not Ryan, would actually be heading to trial first to face his charge of lying to the GBI about Tara Grinstead's case. His first day in court is today, Monday, March 18th, in Wilcox County. This was a surprise to all of us here at Up and Vanished, and to Ashley.

So a little bit of a surprise, but Bo Dukes is actually on the trial calendar. And it sounds like his trial is going to be reached next week, which was that what that means is that he's actually going to have a trial next week down in Wilcox County. And he's got a couple charges there. He's got making a false statement. He's got two counts of that. He's got one count of hindering the apprehension or punishment of a criminal. And then he's got another count of concealing the death of another.

And I was looking at that indictment. It looks like the charges he's got in that case are all related to things he told Agent Sheldell during the course of this investigation. So he's actually going to be on trial for Ryan, which is surprising, not something that we expected.

I'm a little bit surprised that he is going to be going to trial at all. I figured he would resolve his case with a plea, resolve his case somehow, some type of a deal to testify, to offer evidence against Ryan. I think his new charges that he got around New Year's probably changed that somewhat. And I think some of the defense that's been coming out through public pleadings and through open courtroom arguments and questioning has possibly affected that as well, some of our defense that's come out.

I would assume just as a criminal defense attorney that they're probably offering him the max. That would be my assumption because, you know, if you're going to go to trial on a case, most of the time when you go to trial, it's for one of two reasons. You go because you're innocent or you go because the offer is what you would get if you lost a trial. And then it's just like gambling. You know, why would you not roll the dice? So, you know, as we say, so I would imagine when I mean, just like.

in general for criminal defense, we're going to trial because one, our client is innocent or two, because there's no risk in going to trial because they're offering the same thing that we would get if we lost a trial.

Everybody is sort of estimating that his trial will be over within a week. I'm shocked that they think they can get a jury that quick. You know, you can not ask questions and not find out about people and get jurors that may not be the right people for a case, but because you didn't ask the right questions, you don't know that. So jury selection can go really fast or it can go really slow. I have not seen a jury questionnaire with Bo's trial. I haven't heard anything about it. I haven't seen anything about it. So I assume we would know if that was happening. Jury questionnaires are not, I would,

say they're not the common place situation. They're not something that we usually have in cases. So absent extraordinary circumstances, you would not have a questionnaire. I would think in Beau's case, you would probably want one because he's facing the same challenges that we're facing in getting a jury. But, you know, if nobody asked for it, then the judge certainly doesn't have to give it. I mean, there has to be some strategy to it, you know, because it just, boom, all of a sudden popped up on a trial calendar, you know, and it's it's being

I don't want to say rushed because that makes it sound like it's purposeful, but it seems like it's being hurried to be heard prior to Ryan's. And I think it definitely affects the jury pool. I think that it's strategic. I mean, I can give you what I think is happening. I think that it's strategic because, and I've said this before on this podcast, whoever talks first usually gets the deal. And so the police, the public, jurors, when they hear a version of the truth or a version of a story first,

you're going to be working hard to disprove that because they tend to believe the first thing that you hear. I want to see what happens. I want to see and hear the witnesses because

You know, it's one thing to read a cold record and read a cold report and read a piece of paper. It's a different thing to see what happens and see how they actually do. It's just one of those things that's like reading a transcript versus listening to a podcast about a case. You know, it's just totally different when you hear it and see it than it is when you read it. And we could obviously get a transcript of it, but a cold transcript is just reading a piece of paper. And I want to see and hear the people and, you know, know what they're going to testify about.

I would imagine there's going to be a lot of overlap. I would imagine because the cases are somehow related, you know, a lot of the players are related and the topics are related. So I want to be able to see what they're going to be talking about. And I mean, his charges reference Ryan. So, you know, there's definitely some reference there. And I think that will come up and I want to see what we can expect in our case. You know, there's so many what ifs and how it could go. And I

I hate this, but you never know until you're in court. And I tell clients that all the time. You never know until the witness takes the stand what they're going to say. And, you know, it's always sort of a gamble as to what's going to come out or what people are going to say when they're actually on the stand under oath. People tell you a lot of things out of court, and then they get on the stand, and they're sworn to tell the truth, and some different stuff comes out. So I just don't know how it's going to affect it. But that's one of the reasons I want to be there, so that we can gauge that.

It's just ironic that he is a witness in this case and he's being charged with lying. I mean, if you look at his indictment, the first and the second count, they're saying...

What it looks like they're going to try and prove is that he made a false statement to Agent Sheldell. He made two statements, and they're arguing that the first statement was the false one and the second one was true. And the reason is because he didn't talk about Ryan, and he didn't talk about a friend named John McCullough in the first interview, and then he talked about him in the second one, so they're going with the assumption that the second one must be the correct one, and so he must have been lying in the first one.

John McCullough, I'm sure, will come and testify. He was a guy that Beau, I believe, was in the army with and that Beau had talked to about the case. It's like they're picking which interview they think Beau told the truth in, and they're picking the second one, and so they have to prove that the first one was a lie. It's very confusing. It's very confusing. And so they're going to have to really break it down to a jury, and that's why I'm looking forward to hearing how they break it down to the jury and seeing exactly what happens.

how they determined that Beau was telling the truth the second time and not the first time. The prosecutor's name is Brad Rigby. He is the elected DA for Cordial Judicial Circuit. He used to work in the TIF judicial circuit, which is who's prosecuting Ryan.

So he was involved in the Tara Grinstead case early on when he was an assistant in the Tifton office. He has since been appointed to be the head DA in this other circuit. So he's actually prosecuting Beau, but he's also helping on Ryan's case. So the prosecutors in Ryan's case are helping on Beau's case and vice versa, even though they're in different offices in different jurisdictions.

The problem with Beau is he's got so many different things going on that we kind of have to take it day by day. Like what's going to happen with his case next week? What's his defense going to be? He could surprise everybody next week and come out with some defense that nobody expects, which could completely change our strategy. So it's one of those things that we kind of have to deal with day by day because we don't have access to him and we can't figure out what he's saying or what he's going to end up saying. And we can't count on that. So we have to work around that.

As much as Ashley could tell us, there was one big part of Ryan's case that she couldn't comment on. Something that will most likely come into play, in a big way, during the trial. I can't really talk about Ryan's confession, unfortunately. That's going to be something that will be heavily litigated in court. Well, we got a minute. I'm going to buy that truck I've been wanting.

Wait, don't you need, like, weeks to shop for a car? I don't. Carvana makes it super convenient to find exactly what I want. Hold up. You're buying a car on your phone? Isn't that more of a laptop thing? You can shop wherever you want. I like to do my research, read reviews, compare models. Plus, Carvana has thousands of options.

How'd you decide on that truck? Because I like it. Oh, that is a great reason. Go to Carvana.com to sell your car the convenient way. Ready to start talking to your kids about financial literacy? Meet Greenlight, the debit card and money app that teaches kids and teens how to earn, save, spend wisely, and invest with your guardrails in place. Parents can send instant money transfers, automate allowance, and more. Plus,

Plus, keep an eye on spending with real-time notifications. Join more than 6 million families building healthy financial habits together on Greenlight. Get your first month free at greenlight.com slash odyssey. That's greenlight.com slash odyssey.

So now let's answer some of your questions. I'll pass that along to our legal expert, Phillip Holloway, and to our favorite forensic consultant, Dr. Maurice Godwin. Hi, Payne. Hi, Maurice. This is Candace. I'm a resident in Sylvester. I've been following the podcast and listening to the confession, even if it is true to be false. They did say that, you know, they cremated the body over several days. And it just, it...

Doesn't make sense to me how if they get truckloads of wood, how no one had observed the

the smoke coming from it because if you create a big bonfire you would imagine there would be a lot of smoke and for no attention to be drawn to that it was just confusing so any insight on that would be helpful thanks bye the location exactly where um they burnt the body although it was near the beacon orchard it wasn't in exactly the beacon orchard it was behind a big long row of pine trees

and they dug a hole, a pit, and put her down in a pit. And plus, it's hard to see smoke, black smoke, blue smoke, or any kind of smoke when it's pitch dark outside. It's a considerable distance from the main road, so nobody would have seen any of that, especially because the pine trees from the road to the area is probably four or five football fields long.

Hi, Payne and the Up and Vanish crew. This is Steve calling from West Palm Beach, Florida. My question is for Mr. Hollowell. Does he have the opinion that a confession from Ryan is enough for a conviction? Do they need more information or more evidence other than that?

to get a conviction and do you think the prosecution is overstepping itself trying to get a murder conviction on such little evidence thanks very much and keep up the good work

Hi, Steve. Great question. For purposes of your question, let's say that Ryan's statement amounted to a confession and that there's no issues of that confession being possibly false. Under Georgia law, someone cannot be convicted on an uncorroborated confession. That means that there must be at least

some independent evidence to substantiate a confession. The reason for the corroboration requirement is that the law recognizes that false confessions are real. It does happen, and according to the Innocence Project, approximately 25% of convicted criminals who are ultimately exonerated had, in fact, confessed to the crime. So the law disfavors uncorroborated confessions.

But just how much corroboration is needed? Well, not much. Mere slight corroboration is enough. In the context of this case, for example, a glove that puts Ryan at least in Tara's yard through maybe DNA near the relevant time, that would be enough corroboration, even though the glove is, as the defense would say, consistent with their theory as well, which is that Ryan was only there to help Bo cover up her murder.

Hey squad, this is Matt from Charlotte. I just have a quick question, probably for Phillip, and that is the defense for Ryan Duke right now, it seems that they are going about the manner that the confession he said is going to be faulty or they're trying to get it thrown out or what have you. So my question is, Phillip, in your perspective, in your eyes, what do you think the defense is saying? Are they saying that it's

completely false or are they saying that he was on drugs so only part of it is going to count towards the thing or are they just trying to get the whole thing thrown out? So I guess that's my question. What do you think the defense is taking for Ryan Duke right now? So thanks for everything you guys are doing. I love listening. Keep listening. Take care. Good call, Matt. The defense is essentially saying that the roles are reversed.

They're saying that Bo was the killer and that Ryan was the helper after the fact. In that sense, they are saying that Ryan's statement is basically partially false, not completely false. For example, they're not going to dispute the part of his statement, I would imagine, where he says that, you know, I was involved.

The defense has not completely tipped their hand, though, on exactly how they're going to try to prove the false confession theory. We suspect that they're going to point out that Ryan took opioid medication. So that's just one piece of it. They also may say that the statement doesn't match the physical evidence. I do think that will be something that they argue.

The defense will have to bring that out at trial. They're going to have to educate the jury, though, because most people think that it's counterintuitive for someone to confess to something that they did not do. As the late Justice William Brennan said in 1986, our distrust for reliance on confessions is due in part to their decisive impact on trials.

Juries place so much weight on confessions that the introduction of a confession means that the real trial, for all practical purposes, occurs when the confession is obtained. No other class of evidence is so profoundly prejudicial, so the defense has their work cut out for them to educate this jury on the issue of false confessions if they want their theory to succeed.

This is why the defense has been trying so hard to get the funds to hire the necessary expert witnesses. Hi, my name is Regina McClain. I'm calling from Lexington, Kentucky. Love the show. I have a question regarding Bo. If the trial for Ryan sheds light on anything that could happen,

indict Bo or make Bo look guilty, could that be used in a trial later for Bo? Could Bo be charged with murder basically based on things that come out from Ryan's trial? That's my question and keep up the good work. Thanks.

Hi, Regina from Lexington, and thanks for the call. There's no statute of limitations on murder, so if another person were to be proven to be the real killer, that would not stop someone else from being charged. Double jeopardy might, however, be a problem depending on how it plays out. But there is zero chance, in my view, that the state is ever going to consider charging Bo with murder. Their theory all along has been that Bo was merely a helper after the fact.

The defense will, of course, portray Bo as the real killer in Ryan's trial, but I can't conceive of any way they could possibly prove such a thing with strong enough evidence to cause the state to reverse course and to change their theory of the case. The best the defense can hope for is to use circumstantial and other evidence to inject reasonable doubt into the minds of the jurors.

Hi, I'm wondering what to make of the new evidence that Heath Dykes was a DNA match for Semen in Tara's bedroom. That, combined with the nearly two dozen voicemails he left Tara the same weekend that she disappeared, seems really bizarre to me. If he had a romantic relationship with her, wouldn't it have been beneficial to him to declare that and be truthful in the beginning when he was being questioned anyways? It seems suspicious to me that he kept that all a secret. Thanks.

Well, I for a long time felt like he was suspicious, but he had nothing to do with this case or her being disappeared. He's totally innocent. They had an affair and that was all there was to it. Even though he went there and left his business card on the front door and he was seeing her and she was seeing him, that was all there was to it. And he's been cleared, totally cleared, and that should be the end of that.

Hi, Payne. This is Allison from Warren, Ohio. Huge fan of the podcast. Think you're doing a great job. My question was, in

In the bond hearing, when the defense stated that Keith Dyke's semen was found on Tara's sheets, they were also suggesting that it was mixed with blood. Are they trying to put out there that she was potentially raped, or do we have any other information as to where they may be getting at with that evidence? Thanks so much. Take care.

Thanks, Allison. We did learn that this DNA was found in the bedding. We don't know all there is to know about it, but I learned from a source a long time ago that this may be the case. If Tara's blood was also in that bedding, and it appears that it was...

That could be significant, at least from an investigative perspective. At a bare minimum, it would be something that investigators should have followed up on. They should have moved mountains, in my opinion, to try to explain how it got there, why it got there, when it got there, just under what circumstances did it come to exist there, and what does it mean? I'm not sure the defense will be able to answer all those questions because it depends

It depends on what the GBI did or perhaps did not do when investigating that issue. It is the investigator's job to answer those questions, and if it comes out at trial that they did not do so, that they did not answer those questions, or to at least understand

try to answer those questions, then that could amount to reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused. In other words, it could just be another doubt in the mind of a juror to which a reason could be attached. I don't think we know yet enough about this, but I'm going to be watching and I know you will too.

Hi, this is Ramona from North Georgia, and I just found the podcast two weeks ago and been listening to it. My question is, now that all this has been put out there in the bond hearing, we would normally not make it into a trial hearing. Because it is now on record, can it be used in the trial itself as evidence? Thanks. I'm enjoying it. Keep it up.

Thanks for the question, Ramona. That bond hearing was something else, and all sorts of things came out that most likely will not be admissible at trial. Keep in mind, the rules of evidence at a trial are more restrictive, so all of that hearsay, the rumor, the innuendo, and the speculation, none of that should come up in trial unless something happens that makes it relevant and, as we say, opens the door for it all to come in. But,

lots of things from the bond hearing will come up in the trial. Lots of things that were discussed at the bond hearing, ironically, were not relevant for the bond hearing, but are relevant to the issues at trial. The big advantage the defense got from that wide-ranging testimony from the bond hearing is that they have locked that witness, Agent Shadel, down to a specific version of his testimony under oath.

And if his trial testimony strays at all from his prior testimony under oath, the defense can just whip out the transcript of that testimony and figuratively beat the hell out of him on cross-examination with it. We call that impeaching a witness with a prior inconsistent statement. And when the prior inconsistent statement was made under oath, it can make quite a splash. That's why I've said that it was unwise for the state to call Agent Shadel as a witness at that bond hearing.

They just handed the defense a potentially devastating weapon to use at trial.

Hey guys, this is Sam from Cincinnati, Ohio. Love the podcast. Keep up the good work. My question is, so Ryan is saying that he did not do this and that confession was false. I was curious, has he said anything about what did happen? Like what is his theory? Because clearly he knows something and clearly he was involved in some kind of way, you know, maybe not as the actual killer, but I'm curious if

you know, what his, what his story is of what actually did happen. If, you know, if it didn't, because, you know, I'd be, it'd be hard for me to believe that he didn't do anything or didn't know anything about what actually happened. So, yep. That's my question. Thanks guys. And again, keep up the good work. Bye. Well,

Well, Sam, the short answer is we just don't know yet. Ryan's lawyers have publicly conceded that he was involved, but only that he was involved in the cover-up. Now, that's bad enough, and it could send him to prison for a very long time. Through his recent written notice of alibi, we know that he also claims that he was at home asleep in the nearby town of Fitzgerald along with his brother Stephen during the relevant trial.

time period, that being Saturday, October 22nd, into the early morning hours of October 23rd, 2005. Other than that, we'll have to wait to see what additional evidence, if any, the defense puts up at trial. They're playing these cards very close to the vest, as would be expected. I

Hi, this is Logan. I'm calling from Atlanta. One of my questions was, Ryan said in his confession that it was easy. He just popped the lock on Tara's house. But if I'm remembering correctly, there were no signs of forced entry. Wouldn't a pop lock be considered forced entry? But that is just my question. Love the podcast. Love you guys. Thanks for what you're doing. Have a great day.

It's my understanding that he supposedly used some form of a plastic card, like a credit card. Legally, yes, that would be considered forced entry, but I'm not so sure he entered that way. According to him, now with his new alibi, he was asleep on the couch, and he wasn't even at the terrorist's house, according to what he's saying now. So he didn't use any card or anything according to his new alibi.

But to answer your question, if you use the credit card to go into the house, that would be included as forced entry. Thank you for the question. Hey, guys. This is Sam from Cincinnati, Ohio. My question is, if the trial actually does start next month, like you mentioned, is Bo going to be a part of that trial at all as, you know, a witness? Or is he going to be any part of that? I know I...

you know, he's in some other trouble right now too, but I'm curious if he's supposed to be a part of that at all, if that's the expectation for Ryan's trial, if he's going to be a part of that in any way. So just curious about that. Love the podcast. Keep up the good work. Thank you guys for everything that you're doing for Tara's family and for Osceola. Take care.

Good question, Sam. There's no doubt at all that Bo will be a huge part of Ryan's trial. The real question is whether or not a jury will hear from him live and in person as a witness. The GBI has conceded that other than the statements made by these two, there is no evidence to show that Ryan is in fact the killer. And there are problems with the statements made by each. The defense, of course, is going to claim that Ryan's statement qualifies as a false confession.

Bo's statements are inadmissible as hearsay. Now, it's true that Bo's statements to the GBI did cause the investigation to focus on Ryan, but in order to get that version of the events into this trial, Bo would have to be live, in person, in court to get that out before the jury. And let's not forget, Bo has major credibility problems. He's a convicted thief, and according to prosecutors, he's a liar of felonious magnitude.

Not to mention that Bo's version of the events doesn't exactly match Ryan's. So if I were the DA, I would do my best to try this case without calling Bo as a state's witness. And if I had to guess, that's exactly how it's going to go down. Now, that being said, I do think we will see Bo in court because I think he's going to be a defense witness case.

That's right. This is the other dude did it defense. And think about it. What better way to present that defense to a jury than to parade Bo possibly shackled and handcuffed as a prisoner out in front of the jury? They're going to try to point out inconsistencies in his prior versions of what happened. They're going to show the jury, if they can, that Bo leaked the summary of Ryan's statements to the media and online. And of course, we can't forget about Bo's

rape and kidnapping charges that are now pending from January 1st of 2019. The defense, I'm sure, would love to get into all that in front of the jury to show that Bo is just the sort of guy who's violent enough to women and therefore capable of anything, including murder.

Now, all that's easier said than done, and there are some hurdles for the defense to overcome. For example, Bo may take the fifth if he's called as a witness, and the DA might try to get the judge to exclude evidence of the rape charges on the grounds that they're irrelevant.

So I do think Bo may make an appearance in Ryan's trial, but it remains to be seen just how it unfolds before a jury. Hey y'all, this is Valerie. I'm calling from Savannah. I just finished listening to the most recent episode and I was just curious if all that was going on that sounded a little grim is

Is there any way to undo the venue and the indigent defense? Can they go back and change their mind and change the venue and give him the money that he's requested, or is this kind of a done deal at this point? Thanks. I love this show. I am sure that this is about to get a whole lot crazier. Thanks.

Hello, Valerie. I think you're right. This mess may well be on the cusp of getting a whole lot crazier. I think it's a mistake for venue not to be changed. I've said that all along. In the event of a conviction, that issue alone may be reversible error on appeal. It's really expensive to change venue, especially in a case like this.

But as expensive as it may be now, it's going to look like a bargain price tag compared to the cost of doing the trial all over again if it's reversed on appeal. As much as the DA or the judge may want this trial to be over with, I'm certain that nobody wants to have to try it twice.

The same holds true for the issue of funding. On appeal, it's just one more thing that could lead to a reversal. The rulings on these issues are not, however, carved in stone. Venue, for example, could still be changed if, after making a go of it with Irwin County residents, it appears that they just can't find a fair and impartial jury there. In that event, the judge would have no choice but to declare a mistrial and start over somewhere else.

The denial of funds may not be final either, and I'm watching out for any 11th hour attempts to address that issue on appeal. Okay, you can do this. I know, I know. Carvana makes it so convenient to sell your car. It's just hard to let go. My car and I have been through so much together. But look, you already have a great offer from Carvana. That was fast. Well, I know my license plate didn't fit my heart, and those questions were easy. You're almost there. Now to just accept the offer and schedule a pickup or drop.

Well, I already made up my mind and Carvana's so easy. Yeah, true.

And sold! Go to Carvana.com to sell your car the convenient way. This season, Instacart has your back-to-school. As in, they've got your back-to-school lunch favorites like snack packs and fresh fruit. And they've got your back-to-school supplies like backpacks, binders, and pencils. And they've got your back when your kid casually tells you they have a huge school project due tomorrow. Let's face it, we were all that kid.

So first, call your parents to say, I'm sorry. And then download the Instacart app to get delivery in as fast as 30 minutes all school year long. Get a $0 delivery fee for your first three orders while supplies last. Minimum $10 per order. Additional terms apply. Save on Cox Internet when you add Cox Mobile. And get fiber-powered internet at home and unbeatable 5G reliability on the go. So whether you're playing a game at home... Yes, cool! ...or attending one live...

You can do more without spending more. Learn how to save at Cox.com slash internet. Cox Internet is connected to the premises via coaxial cable. Cox Mobile runs on the network with unbeatable 5G reliability as measured by UCLA LLC in the U.S. to age 2023. Results may vary, not an endorsement of the restrictions apply.

Hey, my name is Jaqen and I live in South Georgia and I've been following this case since 2005. But my question is kind of just a lawyer question. But with all the cases pending again or all of the charges pending against Bo, is there some that would trump the others? Like which one, if he were convicted...

of everything that he's been alleged to have done, where would he actually do time and which charges, like I said, would take precedent over all the rest? I hope you get to answer my question, and I look forward to the answer. Thanks.

I could talk a long, long time about Bo Dukes and his alleged one-man multi-jurisdictional crime spree. As you know, he has federal charges. He has Ben Hill County felony charges. He has Wilcox County felony charges. The federal case is the least of his problems because he really doesn't have that much time left on his sentence anyway, and they can only revoke whatever probation he has left. Ben Hill County and Wilcox County

Both have to do with covering up Tara's death in one way or another, and he faces serious prison time in each of those cases potentially for sure.

But by far, his biggest legal problem is the allegation of rape and kidnapping from January 1st, 2019. On those charges, he's facing a life sentence plus a lot more. Where he would do such a prison sentence, if convicted of any of these charges, would be up to the Georgia Department of Corrections. But it's fair to say that it would be a maximum security prison.

Hi, Up and Vanished team. This is Stacey from Albuquerque. And my question may be for Phillip Holloway. In regards to the questionnaire, it seems like there is no way that anybody will be able to

be selected for the jury poll because of these questions based on just the knowledge that the public, even Osceola, the state of Georgia that everybody has. What is the likelihood of somebody lying just to get to be

a juror in this trial? Like, is that common? Would that be considered something serious if you, like, if you were to lie under oath? Anyway, that's my question. I hope I explained it good enough. I love what you guys are doing and keep up the good work.

I agree, Stacey. The questionnaires do suggest that it may be impossible to get a jury from Irwin County. After all, when you have to ask the potential jurors themselves if a fair jury can be selected in Irwin County, that should be a sign that you really need to just go ahead and move it. It just makes no sense in my mind to not just move it now.

Your question is about, though, stealth jurors, people who want to get onto a jury. My wife and I both have jury duty coming up soon in the same week, and we really don't like it. We have other things we want to be doing. But sometimes people do like jury duty, and sometimes people actually want to get on trials. And we call these people stealth jurors. Stealth jurors are people who have some type of an agenda, and we usually see this, in fact,

I think we almost always see it in high-profile cases. People will actually lie under oath so that they can pursue some hidden agenda, whether it be to simply influence the outcome of a trial or maybe to write a book or otherwise seek some type of fame or notoriety. It is a very real concern, and it's said to have happened in some very high-profile cases, including the Scott Peterson murder trial out in Los Angeles.

and even the Martha Stewart trial. Best-selling author John Grisham wrote a book about it called The Runaway Jury. So this is a very real problem and one that all the lawyers, lawyers for both sides and the judge, need to be aware of and to look out for.

Hi, Up and Vanished team. This is Sarah from South Carolina. I had a quick question for you guys as well as Maurice about the role of social media in legal proceedings. Nowadays, I feel, especially, you know, listening to a variety of podcasts, a lot of the cases that are covered are a little bit

more dated and so social media isn't as big of a presence. However, in the last episode when they went through the paperwork that the jurors had to write about, there was a lot of inquiries about social media. Is it possible that someone could go into detail about how that might influence a case and juror selection and just the big changes that social media has brought into legal proceedings? Thank you. Y'all are doing such an awesome job and I look forward to hearing more episodes. Bye.

Social media such as Instagram or Facebook or Twitter plays a huge role in trials and the selection of jewelry. Just reading it, not just posting, but reading it because people could post the information and a potential jewelry could be influenced by what they read. But what they're reading could be completely false. It could be third and fourth and fifth hand information. It could be just rumor mill and they could

believe that it could be true and it not be true at all and influence the way they think about a case. So it's best that they be ordered by the judge to refrain from reading or looking at any social media during the time that they're on this trial or talking to anybody about what's posted. So yes, it's very important that a potential jury refrain from participating or reading any kind of social media.

Sarah, you make a great point, and it's one that I make all the time. So many people rely solely on social media now for information that there's no way that it could not impact criminal trials. This stuff spreads like wildfire on social media, particularly in this case.

Social media has certainly changed how lawyers pick juries and how they try cases altogether. There's no way to pick a jury in almost any case these days without asking at least something about social media influence. One thing that happens, though, that many people don't think about is the use of social media by the jurors themselves. Lawyers will try to learn as much as they can about the potential jurors through the voir dire or jury selection process, but sometimes this type of questioning isn't enough.

There's a lot of information about these jurors out there in the social media world, and the lawyers will look into it. They're going to look at their Twitter feeds. They're going to look at their Facebook accounts where they can. When someone has tweeted about something or posted about it on Facebook, this can sometimes give lawyers an insight into their personality, and it also can expose biases. And in any particular case, it can show that possibly they've prejudged the case.

Anyone who may be on this jury had better believe that their social media history will be under a microscope. Thanks so much for joining us on the trial series. This is our last weekly episode for now, but with Bo's trial currently underway and Ryan's just around the corner, we'll be back soon. Keep an eye out and thanks for listening.

Up and Vanished is an investigative podcast produced for Tenderfoot TV by Payne Lindsay, Mike Rooney, Christina Dana, and me, Meredith Stedman, with new episodes every Monday. Executive Producers: Payne Lindsay and Donald Albright. Additional Production by Resonate Recordings, as well as Mason Lindsay. Voice Over by Rob Ricotta. Our Intern is Hallie Badal. Original Score by Makeup and Vanity Set. Our Theme Song is Ophelia, performed by Ezra Rose. Our Cover Art is by Trevor Eiler.

Special thanks to the team at Cadence 13. Visit us on social media via at Up and Vanished, or you can visit our website, upandvanished.com, where you can join in on our discussion board. If you're enjoying Up and Vanished, please tell a friend, family member, or coworker about it. And don't forget to subscribe, rate, and review on Apple Podcasts. Thanks for listening.

I'm sending my brother money directly to his bank account in India because he's apparently too busy practicing his karaoke to go pick up cash. Thankfully, I can still send money his way. Yes, I know I'm sending to your bank account. Western Union, send it their way. Send money in-store directly to their bank account in India.

Services offered by Western Union Financial Services, Inc., NMLS number 906983, or Western Union International Services, LLC, NMLS number 906985, licensed as money transmitters by the New York State Department of Financial Services. See terms for details.