Welcome back. This week we are talking about a case that you might not have heard of but might be hearing a lot about this week and that is the case of Wisconsin versus Taylor Shea business.

This is a criminal homicide trial that is going on right now in Wisconsin as I'm recording this on Monday opening arguments in the first witnesses took place.

The reason that we are talking about this today is because this is going to be a two part trial because Taylor Shea business has pled not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity, which is kind of an older phrase for it, but the NGI please still called an NGI plea, even though it's not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect.

Because it is two phases of a trial, we are going to talk about legally what happens and what that means. We will be talking a little bit about the facts of this case. The facts of this case are graphic. I am going to do my best to neutralize the case. It is a dismemberment case and some of that conversation will come up.

But I've seen a lot of questions about if she told police that she did it and if she told police how she did it, why is this going to trial and what are the two phases of the trial and what kind of comes up in a trial like this where you have to do it in two parts.

And so we're going to talk about all of that today. So if you have not heard about this case, it's a lot. I think I gave fair warning. The defendants statements that we are going to talk about are rough and we are going to do our best to just walk through this case.

It's going to be a fairly quick, I think penalty phase trial, but then when we get into the NGI part of the trial, I think we're going to see a lot more information about this case and I'll be covering that more on YouTube as we get past the guilt phase of the case. So let's talk about the she business case.

Welcome to the Emily show. I'm Emily Debaker, the internet's go to legal analyst and big fan of the Cursey words. I've been a licensed attorney for over 17 years. I'm a former prosecutor and I break down the legal side of pop culture and entertainment stories. We can't stop talking about we should just get into it. Let's go.

Before we get into a difficult case today, a huge thank you to our sponsor thrive cosmetics for making episodes like this possible.

Today, I am wearing the brilliant eye brightener because I need to look awake despite it being all of an entire day. What I love is that it's a really easy stick application that goes on easy. You can blur a little bit with your fingertips.

And it is basically foolproof. I make up with over 13 different shades and more than 10,000 five star reviews you can find out for yourself why it's fantastic and feel good about doing it with clean skin loving ingredients, but it is also cruelty free and 100% vegan and not only are you doing something good for your skin and for your beauty routine, but you're also giving back cause is in the name for a reason.

As part of their mission, every purchase supports organizations that help communities thrive. So if you are ready to get the things I love for yourself, you have to give thrive cosmetics a try and get 20% off your first order when you visit thrive cosmetics.com slash laundered. That's 20% off your first order at thrive cosmetics, see a USC TICS.com slash laundered. All right.

Buckle up. Let's get back to today's episode.

So in this case that is currently undergoing a streamed kind of high publicity case, Taylor, she business, the defendant in this case is facing three counts first degree intentional homicide mutilating a corpse and third degree sexual assault.

I will not be getting into the details of the sexual assault really at all. Those are alleged to have occurred after death based on the defendant's own statements.

The defense has made a lot of motions regarding whether or not those are proper charges, whether those can go forward based on the language of the laws in Wisconsin.

And I'm not going to really dive deep into that today because we're going to be talking mostly about the intentional homicide, the defendant's own statements, the mutilating a corpse is related to the dismemberment of the case that will come up as we talk about the defendant's own statements and what happened in this case.

Again, I think the reason that I wanted to talk about this case is because the behavior can seem completely outside of behavior that you would expect and that doesn't necessarily mean that competency or an NGI plea are going to be viable in this case.

And we're going to talk about how many times the defendant has gone up for competency proceedings and the fact that those competency proceedings have all come back with her being competent to stand trial as soon as Friday.

And we're going to talk about that too. But when you look at the facts of this case, you're like, how do people do this? Right. Right.

But it does not mean that they can't perceive right from wrong. It does not mean that they're not able to participate in the prosecution.

And that is part of why we're talking about this because even though the behavior is so far outside the boundaries of civilized society and behavior in a civilized society, it does not mean that somebody cannot be brought to trial for it.

...