two? i don t think so. so under the constitution, the house is the prosecutor and the senate will be the jury. as a prosecutor you go with your best case. here it s about making it short and sweet. so abuse of power, the president is a bully. he tried to shake down ukraine. the obstruction of congress, the president is a cheat. he tried to subvert democracy by, again, once again, inviting foreign interference in our electoral process. nancy pelosi by the way is just thanking the members that are here for their work on the usmca. greg, we pulled up the comparison chart there on the way that other impeachment proceedings have gone. what is your take-away. well, my take-away at this point is that the house s intent on keeping this one very simple. as paul mentioned as a trial lawyer you want to simplify things. s typically you re dealing with a lay jury not capable of understanding a lot of complexity so you keep it
if it gets before a lay jury even with a battle of the experts, they must decide who they re going to believe and even though there may be an expert saying no way. these are nothing alike, a lay jury could conclude they are similar enough and draw whatever inference, negative probably, from that fact. it looks exactly alike to me as member of a potentially lay jury. would you ever let your client, durst, do this series and interviews? there s no upside to letting your client give a television interview because any reporter is a private actor. there is very small chance you ll be able to exclude any admission made. remember, the rule is any time you put your words in writing, you have to tell that same story exactly consistently or else at trial it will look like you have given a prior inconsistent statement. so many questions remaining.
they put on plenty of evidence of mental illness. mental illness alone will not get you the insanity defense and necessarily make it successful and ultimately science aside because a lay jury decides it, if you just casually look at the cases that deal with insanity, they re all over the place. it s just that. a lay jury makes that determination. thus the disparity. john, i want to bring up words that we heard from eddie ray routh himself in the police car after the incident where he refers to the idea of mental illness. let s listen. i m nervous about what s going to happen. don t worry that right now.
fore in these cases. the tale you should remember is the tale of the scott pa neti case. he s on death row in texas now. panetti tried his case represented himself in a purple cowboy suit subpoenaed jesus christ john f. kennedy and the pope. the jury in that case found him guilty in an hour in one day and sentenced him to death. so another texas jury. so it s a tough defense in tough texas. all the expert witnesses, they aren t created equal, but it s often contradictory. oh, very much so. and in fact that s why you see such a huge disparity in insanity cases. with sometimes even very similar scientific or psychiatric evidence. ultimately all that science has to be decided by a lay jury and that s why you get those inconsistent results. so we ve seen these arguments
back the verdict. all along we heard folks saying when you talk about a lay jury, it might be difficult for them to make the distinction between mental illness and the definition of legally insane. it seems that this jury did not have that problem. seems like with 2 1/2 hours of deliberations, they didn t have a lot of dispute among them. you re absolutely right. this is often a battle of experts. each side bring experts that reach opposite conclusions which is ironic because usually we deal with science, which isn t supposed to have so much variety. but like i said before, ultimately it has to be understood and processed by a lay jury. they decide whether to believe the science or dismiss it and which expert they like best. danny cevallos, john q. kelly, thank you for being with us. wisconsin governor scott walker found himself in the middle of a political firestorm following his comments when