This is reasonable doubt with your host, Mark Garagas, and Gary Smith.

Well, hi, Gary. Welcome to the altar of Bard. We're soldering through Locke and Yada having no power at least where I am this morning. How are you?

So far, so good. We've still got power down here as Hurricane or tropical storm Hillary ravages Southern California, but I appreciate you making the time even without the power.

Yeah, I, um, it's interesting. I was, uh, I was just telling you, I think off air that Locke and Yada's got a third world field to it every time there's any kind of implement weather.

Then I was reading an op-ed this morning by Brian Williams, so I've known for many years that the XNBC anchor, but former city, uh, former city attorney now works for a foundation who had written an op-ed about his son.

The African American youth being hassled by some 60 some odd year old, the pickup driving pickup truck driving guy in Locke and Yada for sitting outside of their gated the house.

And I was going to call him this morning and tease him about when my son was that age and how he would get hassled in Locke and Yada, so I don't know that it necessarily is, um, race related as much as it's a teenager related, but, uh,

the minds can, reasonable minds can differ. Having said that quite a week this week for those who haven't noticed we, uh, or listen last week, Hunter Biden, which we talked about, uh, the last week is our lead, the, uh, the cases were dismissed this week.

And so some people were saying, well, you know, what does that mean? I'll tell you what it means. I think I'd mentioned to you, Gary. And see, I sometimes read the comments for those of you who were in the comments saying, uh, that this was going to be, uh, in Delaware, it was going to be in DC.

And I told you that I thought there was clearly going to be a California filing. It's not apparent that there's going to be a California filing. What they did is they dismissed the cases because they reached an impasse in the plea bargains, um, negotiation for those who aren't in the weeds. What happened is they had an I plea agreement under rule 11, they presented to the judge, the judge asked some questions in the colloquy that we're not exactly, um,

uh, beating them up, so to speak, but basically, you know, what is, what's the extent of what I can do and can't do, which were, uh, extremely reasonable because it was a rather unusual, uh, plea agreement in this sense that not only was there a diversion attached to it, but there was a, and the diversion was for the gun case.

Uh, but it's suggested that there, that it wrapped up everything is a global disposition, which, uh, the judge, uh, probably had not seen before and I can tell you practicing in the federal courts and the criminal defense for decades, that is highly unusual to have that suggestion.

So it's worth, what was your reaction to it this? Yeah, I mean, it was, it was certainly, the dismissal certainly indicated that it's going to be a larger, a larger situation and the fact that the, the diversion was attached to it and that they were trying to say that it was a global, uh, you know, cover that, that no more investigation into him was going to happen was very unusual.

And I've seen that I believe his lawyers have tried to force the diversion to go forward saying that that part of the agreement was, was in fact sound and therefore had to go forward, but it seems like this is going to be a larger thing going forward.

Well, I, and his lead lawyer, and I forget his name and I apologize, maybe Gary can find a little bit of a shout out, uh, resigned this last week also, and the reason he resigned and been there, done that myself is that he believes he's going to become a witness and, um, problem as to whether or not, um, the parameters of the plea bargain and more specifically the diversion should be specifically enforced.

That's a, it's an interesting concept and there's some kind of detrimental reliance based on that or some other theory by which they want to compel the diversion, a more power to if they can, if they can.

Somebody to do that, it's oftentimes very open, one of the reasons is, and you saw the judge talking about this in the colloquy with the prosecutors when they, when she first was back, she, she stated that she did not want to overstep her separation of powers, uh, kind of wall, if you will, or lane, she didn't want to get out of her judicial lane.

Judicial lane and become, uh, kind of a surrogate for the prosecution. Yeah, it was interesting to see a judge say that and to say, you know, outright, like I'm not sure if I'm allowed to do this and I'm not going to go ahead and rule until I have more time to figure out exactly, you know, what my, what my authority is here, uh, Chris Clark, Christopher J Clark is the lawyer that you were looking for there, sir.

Yeah, and by the way, I don't know him, but by, um, by observation, I will tell you extremely sharp. He's done some amazing work on this and got to the point where the, the body had apparently body had an agreement.

Then pushed back from the judge, then she basically the judge invited them to go and clarify the things that she had questions about.

And then I believe that happened was I was thinking before they couldn't get her a coverage and they didn't want to plead and leave that.

It also appears that maybe the suggestion was is that the prosecutor had backtrack from what they'd agreed to and that's why there's a impasse here and basically all bets are off.

...