Episode 40: Understanding the Death Penalty

Episode 40 July 23, 2025 00:30:08
Episode 40: Understanding the Death Penalty
The Lawmas Podcast
Episode 40: Understanding the Death Penalty

Jul 23 2025 | 00:30:08

/

Show Notes

This week, Lauren and Lacey explore why some murder cases result in death penalty charges while others end in plea deals, sparked by the controversial Brian Kohlberger plea agreement and a divisive Indiana case where victim families disagreed with prosecutors' decisions.

The hosts address a key misconception about victim trauma in the legal system. When cases involve child victims, prosecutors often accept plea deals to avoid forcing traumatized children to testify in open court and face cross-examination by defense attorneys. Parents frequently choose plea agreements over subjecting their children to additional trauma, even when it results in sentences that seem inadequate to the public.

The practical realities of death penalty cases explain why prosecutors negotiate plea deals. Capital cases require two separate trials, extensive jury selection, and automatic appeals lasting 20 to 40 years. South Carolina has 32 inmates on death row, with executions rarely occurring. The state faces shortages of death penalty certified attorneys, requiring expensive private counsel. 

While the Victims' Bill of Rights requires prosecutors to notify families about proceedings, ultimate charging decisions belong to the state to ensure objective justice rather than emotionally-driven outcomes. They criticize how the Kohlberger case was handled, arguing families deserved earlier notification about removing the death penalty from consideration.

The episode touches on systemic court challenges including judge shortages and the emotional toll on legal professionals handling capital cases. They conclude by discussing attorney Dick Harpootlian's involvement in a recent local murder case, highlighting how lawyers often switch between prosecution and defense roles throughout their careers.

The hosts emphasize that understanding these behind-the-scenes factors is crucial for forming informed opinions about seemingly lenient sentences, as prosecutors must balance evidence strength, victim trauma, resources, and the reality that death sentences often result in the same outcome as life imprisonment.

Contact The Lawmas at [email protected]

#deathpenalty #thelawmaspodcast #legalmoms #lawmoms #BrianKohlberger

View Full Transcript

Episode Transcript

[00:00:00] Speaker A: Foreign. And I'm Lauren, and welcome to another episode of the Llamas podcast. [00:00:12] Speaker B: And today, I know we've been talking about doing our Women series, and we are getting there, but we've just found some things that have came up that we want to talk about. So today we're going to talk about the death penalty because it is a big topic and I guess not so much like opinion wise on it, but right there, strong opinions, but more about what it is when it gets charged, like when you can bring it, how it works, and also, like, why or why not the prosecution may put it on the table and then why it's taken off. And I think one of the big reasons we did this is the Indiana case recently. The family is quite mad that. Well, it seems the families are split. Some of the families are happy they're not having to go to trial and he's going to be in jail. And other parts of the families are. Are mad because they wanted the death penalty. So we just wanted to kind of talk about it a little bit and give you more information on it. [00:01:04] Speaker A: Yeah. And, you know, it kind of came up this with Brian Kohlberger. Yes, it. It came up. But then also, I just think people don't understand, like, how trials work, and I think that's such a big part in whether or not you support a sentence. Like, I was coming back from Florida with my mom, and my mom said that she felt that people convicted like that pled to crimes involving children. And you can insert. Which comes. I'm talking about, are. Are often very lenient, and I understand why she feels that way. And Lauren, do. Do you even keep up with those sentences or anything? Did you feel they're lenient? [00:01:46] Speaker B: I will say there is a person that we graduated high school with that is a convicted pedophile. I know you're talking about he molested children at his mom's daycare. He is now out and he is working at a company in our hometown. And I think if you molest children, I think his sentence was way too short. I feel like that is some of the worst things you can do. I'm one of those people. You know, if one of those parents had killed him after that, I probably would not have had. Had any ill will to those parents and supported them 100%. I guess raping a child, I think, is one of the worst things you can do. So I do think sometimes their sentences are too lenient because it's not just about what they did. But you do this to a child that Child may never recover and you've ruined their life too. I do agree with your mom. Sometimes they're too lenient on those. [00:02:39] Speaker A: Yeah. And I don't disagree with my mom, but I told her the, the, the reason it oftentimes work out to this, and this is a common theory when you're talking about death penalty cases is what goes on in a trial. So defense lawyers know that in order to make a case more than likely, almost always that child is going to have to take the stand to make their case. So a child that's been through the most traumatic thing they could probably have ever endured. Right. That's one of the most traumatic things a kid could ever be put through would also be put on the stand in a trial if you don't reach a plea negotiation. And solicitors know that too. And they don't want to do that. The defense attorneys don't want to do that. Right. If we get. So they do what's called a forensic interview, we get that evidence if it is credible, if this goes to trial, that means this child is going to be put on a stand in front of 12 jurors that they don't know, a judge they don't know, lawyers they don't know, cross examined by a lawyer they don't know in a courtroom full of people they don't know with their accuser right there. Because that accuser still has constitutional rights. Right? So, so think of the layers of trauma involved in trying a case. Right? So oftentimes you're going to see lean, more lenient sentences that you're comfortable with and probably the lawyers are comfortable with either because it's going to prevent putting the kid through more trauma. And that is. [00:04:07] Speaker B: Yeah, can I make it. I understand that. But then what's going to be more traumatic when you were molested at five and ten years later you're 15 and he's out. I mean, I guess, like I get it for the sake of a child, but like at the same point, like if it's gonna make his sentence be so short that because this guy whom I went to high school with went to jail for less than 10 years and Melissa, I think five to 10 kids ages from three to 14. So if they come out and they know he's out and about, what's more traumatic? What do you live with more fear with? I guess I know, like, I know I'm not a child psychologist and they definitely need to be involved in those decisions. But what's worse. [00:04:47] Speaker A: Yeah, but I think parents, a lot of Times are making these decisions. I think parents are saying, you know, if they, yeah, no, I want this, and if that will be there, I'll bring them. We'll go through a trial. But if they're seeing their kid go through a horrible time and they're in therapy and they're so traumatized, I can understand a parent looking at a prosecutor and saying, I'm not putting my kid through this. And I. And I could not never fault a parent through that, because they are dealing with the kid at that time in that moment, and I don't think we can fault them if they say, I can't put my kid through this, because most likely those parents also have guilt that it even happened to begin with, even though there's probably nothing they could have done, you know, differently. So to tie that in, I just want to stress the importance of trauma in a trial and. Yeah, go ahead. [00:05:42] Speaker B: I will say I had a case, and mine was civil. And we had. One of our plaintiffs is a plaintiff in the case. She was, I think, only 19, 20. And I will say we. We had a very, very strong case. I felt very confident if we had had to go to trial on it, but we ended up settling that case for a decent amount of money. But I think if we went to trial, there possibly could have been more money on the table. But granted, attorney's fees would have significantly increased, but she couldn't handle going through a trial. And there was. This was nothing. This was not anything super emotional. This was money we were arguing about, but she just did not want to be put on the standard. So, I mean, there are people, even adults, that just don't want to testify because they just don't want to be put on. She was very smart, very intelligent girl, but she just. That freaked her out so much. [00:06:38] Speaker A: Yeah. So in what we view as leniency. Right. There may be cases that plead out, like Brian Kohlberger, where you feel that that is too lenient of a punishment. He deserved death. Look at how many people he murdered and. And now convicted of those. And I don't know the whole case, and the extent I. I think I overheard, like a podcast or something, talk about, I guess his cell phone pinged or something like in the area. I think the argument there would have been premeditation. So, you know, when you have four lives lost and this is an adult that caused it, if they did have evidence of premeditation, you know, for somebody that does believe in the death penalty, why would the prosecutor not do that? And thinking about what these Victims would have to endure. I mean, think of the photos that would have been shown in trial when they're going through this case. Right. And from what I've heard, the state's case was pretty strong. And I mean, he did plead guilty, so I'd imagine it was a pretty strong case for him to plead guilty to all those with the life sentence. But all those families would have had to endure that. And this is a trial that probably would have taken a few weeks. So, you know, if you plan on attending that trial as a family member of these victims, and I think these family members are victims too, of his crimes, I mean, think it's gonna add more trauma as well as there's gonna be appeals, most likely, because with a trial, they're gonna comb through it that's going to last years. Appeals last years also after an appeal is post conviction relief that deals with any. Anything that the attorneys did wrong, ineffective assistance of counsel. So a plea to life is going to give more closure than a full trial, in my opinion. And I'm not saying I don't. Let me take that back. Not full closure. I don't know that they'll ever get full closure. Right. I think there's still some answers like why did he do it? We'll never know and all the details of it. But there's a finality to the legal process. I guess that's what I meant. Not necessarily that there's closure and how these families feel, but there's a finality to the legal process at least to, to move forward as much as they can in this current life, that they live without a loved one. But prosecutors do think about that stuff. They've been through trials. Us defense lawyers have been through trials. And I get nervous still going to trial. I, you know, once I get rolling, I get really excited. But this is what I do for a living. And I still, if I'm in trial, I'm not sleep, I'm not resting. I am waking up in the middle of night. What did I do today? Should I have done this differently? Should I have done this? Like. I mean, and I would imagine every lawyer is doing that. And this is what we do for a living. So I can't imagine to be in a trial where it's all out of your control, these horrible images and details. I mean, can you think of the details that would have been testified? I mean, there were, I'm sure they would have called, were like one or two survivors, I think, in the house. Do you remember? [00:09:46] Speaker B: There were two. There were two Girls that were different floor that survived. But they did hear him go past, I believe, and saw he had on like, his shoes. And in this case, I would like to point out, I think it is at least one, if not two of the families did want. They were not happy with the police. So the prosecution doesn't always have to do what the victim wants in these situations. Like, because it's not just about. It is about the victim, but it's not about the victim as well. Like, it is a legal decision. It is a strategy. And ultimately, this is the state bringing the case, not the victim. The victim could bring a separate case for, you know, damages. Now, this man probably has no money, so there's nothing probably they could get. But like in Todd Kohlhep here, he did have money. And so the victim has brought a civil action where I think they've like, liquidated ass for her to get money back. So the. The criminal case is, yes, we want to have the victims, you know, this person stand trial for what they've done, but it is not the victim's case. It is the state's case. And I know, like, we don't like to think about this part of it, but I think there's also financial reasons for not having a death penalty case as well, because death penalty cases are automatically going to be appealed. It is a right to have it appealed. There's going to be, like Lacey said, so many different appeals that are automatic. This is not. And they have to be given counsel. And a lot. There's not a lot of attorneys in the state that are death penalty certified, and there are not many that work for the state's payroll. So these are going to be private attorneys that are going to have to be paid somehow for these funds. And also, at the end of the day, you may not while you get the death penalty because of all these different things, there's all this money involved. But also, as far as the prison calls, right Now I have 32 inmates, I believe, sitting on death row. They execution rarely happens. So a life in prison versus execution is probably the same amount of time in jail a lot of times. Because a lot of times these people die naturally before they're ever executed. So it's not. Well, if you have the death penalty, it'd save money. We'd just kill them. They're not gonna be executed most the time. The stay is anywhere from 20 to 40 years before someone is executed. I had a case when I cleared for Judge Cole, and it's 2007. He. It was A man who brutally murdered an elderly couple with a hammer. And I'm talking brutal, like it was disgusting. He got the death penalty, but he hasn't. He's nowhere close to being executed. [00:12:36] Speaker A: He. [00:12:37] Speaker B: And it's been 20 years. [00:12:38] Speaker A: And they are incompetent and still incompetent. [00:12:43] Speaker B: He's competent, but that's what they're trying to kill. [00:12:45] Speaker A: There's one that they can't kill because he still is not competent. [00:12:49] Speaker B: He had no. So he has a disease that is called Prater Willie syndrome. I'm an expert on that now after hearing the pcr, if you ever want to know about it. But. So that's like he keeps getting appeals because they are trying to say, but for this disease, he wouldn't have killed these people. And he brutally murdered these people. And I will say I sat in a courtroom with them and I wasn't terrified. But also there were, you know, a billion different people in there and he was a tiny little man. [00:13:22] Speaker A: Yeah. [00:13:23] Speaker B: But like he's still sitting there and it's been 20 years almost, and he's no closer to being executed than he was 10 years ago. So he's still there, still getting his three meals a day, all that stuff in the prison system. And he's also had some really high end attorneys have to come represent him through all this stuff that your taxpayer dollars paid for. So if it'd been life in prison, we wouldn't have paid all this other money for it. We just would be sitting in prison. [00:13:53] Speaker A: And. And like you pointed out, these are constitutional rights. This is the foundation of our country, this is the foundation of our justice system. And the reason it designed this way is to help people that are truly innocent. But if we don't offer it to everyone, including those who are guilty of the most heinous of crimes, how can we save anybody's life that was found guilty? And you know, we did a whole podcast series on Frame, so we all know it happens. We know people are convicted when they're innocent. And in that book we know people have been executed. So if we don't give these freedoms to everybody, we're not going to be able to help those who are innocent. So therefore they go to everybody, even though who's guilty. And circling back, a good point that you mentioned was you were talking about how it's the state's case and not the victim's case that falls under the victim's bill of rights. And this is where I do think the prosecutors messed up in the Brian Kohlberger case. If what I read is true. Right. I'm only having to go through news articles when the family said they only found out about the plea a few days before. So in South Carolina, we have what's called the victims Bill of Rights. And what that means is it is the state's job to notify the victims of case proceedings. If they desire to be notified, they are supposed to tell them about offers. But victims don't get to say, hey, this is what I want you to do with my case. Because like you said, it's the state's case, not the victim's case. There's a reason that we have laws prohibiting victims from prosecuting their own criminal matters. Because at the end of the day, what's supposed to be done is justice. And oftentimes in cases, victims are biased to what they've been through. Right. Where as a prosecutor is supposed to be unbiased and listen to this is what happens, the victim. But then I have a defendant maybe with no criminal history, and maybe they've done a lot of mitigation, they have a job, maybe they've gone to therapy, and it's like a misdemeanor crime or something like that. You know, all those things are supposed to take into account to seek what justice should be, what. And that would be hard for a victim to do, right? Hey, what do I want done in my case? And it would be hard for them to see the other side of the story. Right? So that is, that is why we have that. So in South Carolina, like I said, that's the victims bill of rights. And I think the prosecutors, if they have the same bill of rights that we do, should have sat down with the families way before this leaked, before it came out that there was a plea or if they did maybe a little bit sooner than that and answered any questions that they had. Right. Hey, this is why I came to this decision to take the death penalty off the. Off the table. And maybe the family still would have disagreed and that's fine. Right. They have their. The right to feel the way that they feel. But I do feel in reading that if that's true, that is where the prosecutors. I disagree with that with just springing it on them a couple days before the plea. I felt like the victim's families deserved to truly sit down with the prosecutor and hear. And I, I mean, I think they should have told the families before they even offered it, hey, I'm going to offer this. There's nothing you can do to change my mind. But I am going to make this offer to take the death penalty off. And here is why they. I think the victims should have heard, heard that. And I think that might be part of the issue of why they're upset. [00:17:18] Speaker B: It's hard too, though. Like, timelines are so hard in cases because he could have came up and said, look, the defense could have came to the prosecution and say, hey, can we talk a plea? And in that moment he decides to do it. And I know this sounds terrible, but people get scared and then want to back out. So maybe they wanted to strike while he was in the mood to plea and do it then. And maybe it wasn't that the prosecution had pondered over it for a long time. But then he came and he said, look, if you'll take death penalty off, I'm willing to just plea and be done with this. And in that moment, they wanted to move quicker in that because, you know, if you went to a judge and said, I need to get him on the plea docket, any judge is going to say, yeah, stick him on here. [00:18:07] Speaker A: Like, yeah, because think of the docket space that that case would have taken. I mean, you're talking about money as well. A death penalty case is two trials. It is the initial phase of guilt or not guilty. And then if found guilty, then they would move to a second portion of the case, which is essential, a new trial. You can call more witnesses on both sides until you reach a decision on, on the death penalty. So like we said, this case would have dragged on for a very long time. You also have vor deer, which is questioning the jury, to pick a jury. That would have taken a while. Sorry, my computer's about to die. And so all that goes into play for the prosecutors and the judges when, when navigating these plea negotiations because you. [00:19:02] Speaker B: Also have to think of your back. I mean, I know, like, everybody deserves their time and that type stuff, but at the same point, you have a long list of trials to get through. We don't, I don't know if this is every state, but here in South Carolina we have a short on judges, circuit court judges, we have open vacancies. People aren't wanting to do it. It is a high stress job. We also have the issue here in our state of judges that are on the bench handle both civil and criminal matters. And we are past the days of the general practitioner here, I think, and I think most states are moving towards this. We're more trying to just do certain areas of law. So we have less judges that probably less attorneys that feel qualified to Run for a judge right now. Not that they're not smart enough, but they've only done criminal or they've only done civil. So they're nervous about taking this on and not understanding how that world works. So just our whole judicial system is backlogged. And right now, if you're looking for a job, go become a court reporter because we definitely have a shortage of those. And that's another thing there's certain, like in civil cases, a lot of times we will waive having a court reporter will just record stuff. But in a criminal case, you really want to make sure you have somebody in person, especially this magnitude, taking this because what if your technology glitches? This is where you know, a human is a lot better than a robot pretty much in that situation. [00:20:37] Speaker A: And like you were saying, I bet it is so nerve wracking for a judge to think about taking on a death penalty case and being certified. I am not certified, but mine and Lauren's classmate Bobby bank, he, he is, he does death penalty defense. He's one of, I think two lawyers in the state. [00:20:56] Speaker B: And I did ask him to be on the podcast, but he said we would get him in trouble and I don't know what that meant. [00:21:02] Speaker A: We wouldn't. Bobby, please come join us. I'll try to talk him into it. I'm gonna see him, I think next month. He's helping me out with something else. But you know, he was telling me about some stuff he was working on and showing me like his, you know, voir deer stuff and just talking to me about some information about the death penalty. And I had no idea, you know, and he does now because he has to at this point. But I mean, I've been doing this for over 10 years and he had so much more information than I did that because I don't do death penalty stuffs and I don't, I don't think many defense lawyers do, you know, have that certification. [00:21:43] Speaker B: I feel like at a certain point like I know there's one here in the upstate and he switched and he does more civil because I think it just took. Doing death penalty cases has to take such an emotional toll on you because if you believe your client is innocent or you believe there was like intervening circumstances so he should not be put to death and you may have done nothing wrong, there's still going to be guilt on you that you caused this person to, even though you didn't in no way shape you have that feeling the attorney are going to have that guilt on you for the rest of your life. What? That's just how humans work. We'll feel bad about it. [00:22:24] Speaker A: I've had clients get sentences I totally agree disagree with and it break. I blame myself. And even if my client did it, I still like, what did I do wrong? And I, and I beat myself up for that. You know, what kind of, you know, it's hard for me to just say like, okay, my client did commit this crime. I, I put so much on myself because we get to know these people. A lot of times we get to know a version of these clients that the public judgment, those judging will, will never know. And it's, it's such a blessing but it, it can be such a curse too because you do carry that guilt no matter what your client did. Wrapping up. There's a newer case I think coming up that has kind of sparked this conversation too. So in May, Alexander Dickie was arrested for a murder here in Richland County. There's a woman from North Carolina, her name was Logan. She was down here staying with a friend. And the allegations are that Dicky broke into the home and killed her. I don't know the details of it. I don't know if it was just a home burglary and like maybe he got spooked and killed her or maybe he entered with, you know, gun already, like ready to fire. But apparently he committed a string of crimes, theft, car thefts and stuff like that. And so his, the, the family, Logan's family has an attorney, Dick Carpoolian. He said he was going to be sitting down with a solicitor's office. He was quoted in the news saying that he felt this was a death penalty case and he planned on sitting down with the solicitor's office to see if they would seek it. And if you know Dick Harpurian, he was the one that did seek the death penalty when he was a prosecutor, when he prosecuted Peewee Gaskins, which is a very well known serial killer here in South Carolina. [00:24:21] Speaker B: So I don't represented Alec Murdo and did not think he. [00:24:31] Speaker A: I, I've met Dick once who's very nice. I made him laugh because I am a side comedian. But anyways, he's very kind to me. But you know he, he does switch his hats, right? Murdoch's giving him money. I don't, there's, I don't want to do the death penalty. But he is a prosecutor. He assault the death penalty. Now he represents this family and he wants the death penalty but he didn't in that case. And so, you know, we got to make a Living right. So I don't hate on him for it, but I do think it kind of makes you raise an eyebrow to, you know, should we really trust his opinion on it? You get what I'm saying? [00:25:07] Speaker B: It's like one of those. I will say here in South Carolina, a lot of young attorneys start in the solicitor's office a lot of times because it's a great way to get trial experience. And then they switch over to criminal defense because they want to make more money, want to be their own, not. [00:25:26] Speaker A: Make more money in defense than being a prosecutor. [00:25:30] Speaker B: They start out making like $35,000 a year. [00:25:33] Speaker A: Not anymore. The prosecutors almost always make more money than the public defenders. Maybe you don't really. [00:25:40] Speaker B: Up here, it is the opposite. [00:25:42] Speaker A: Like, yes, most places I have been it. The solicitors always make more than the defense. And they have had to fight tooth and nail to even try to make it close to even. [00:25:52] Speaker B: But you got it in private practice defense where you can charge. Once you built up a practice that is true. Harpoon probably had Alec Murdoch wire him a million dollars to even take his case to put in retainer. And I don't blame him one bit. But I think a lot of people, it's not as black and white. We do switch sides, like, and how you represent things. I guess it's kind of like. It makes me think of scandal. But like Olivia Pope, like, putting on her white hat, like depending on what side you are when you wear this different hat because we cross a lot. I don't. I never go into the criminal world at all. But I just know a lot of people go back and forth. I have seen, like, some older attorneys decide to go back to the prosecution because they want insurance. Because state retirement, state retirement, state insurance. So, like, I think on tv, they make it like both sides hate each other. And a lot of times it's not like that because they've been on both sides of the table right with it. [00:26:55] Speaker A: In South Carolina, I will say I definitely think it depends on the county as well. Horry county is such a tight knit bar. You will see prosecutors and defense lawyers having lunch in the middle of a trial. After a trial, there's. There's such a big in. There's a lot of empathy between the two parties. And I do think there's a lot of that in Richland as well. [00:27:21] Speaker B: I think in Charleston, they kill each other. Because in Lexington. [00:27:25] Speaker A: Not at all. I don't want to say not at all. There's some exceptions in Lexington, but I definitely don't feel like that Lexington has that empathy between the two parties where you can come together to. And I think, in my. This is my opinion, I think you see more justice in cases where you can meet in the middle when you can say, hey, I hear you this, I hear this. And truly seek out what justice is. And when you don't have that trust and you empathy for each side and can meet there, you're going to have cases that you don't feel like justice is met and you don't feel heard. Yeah, I don't know those counties you charge more as a defense lawyer one. [00:28:06] Speaker B: I don't think you have to be a jerk. Like, you see all these attorneys that think they have to be jerks. Everybody's just trying to advocate the best they can for their client. But that does not mean you have to be mean to one another. And it will. I know this is off topic and we're about to him, but it'll get on my nerves when I see people say, I need a real pit bull of an attorney that's gonna. I was like, scare tactics don't work. You need the your side. Now, granted, if you're in a car wreck, you may want a theatrical attorney who's good at, like, speaking in front of the jury. But, like, being a jerk does not mean they're a good attorney. [00:28:40] Speaker A: Right? Right. No. So, anyway, so that's kind of the ins and outs of things to take into consideration, and not just the death penalty, but in any case, you know, you're reading something online and want to know, like, why this played out or, you know, why it was a life sentence instead of a death penalty. I hope y' all kind of take into what me and Lauren have said in consideration when forming your opinion on that sentence. Hopefully we've kind of taught everybody, like, what goes on in trial, what the victim's Bill of Rights, you know, really are. Are about. And, you know, I. I think prosecutors get beat up sometimes for this stuff, and it's not fair to them because we don't know what they're dealing with when they made these offers. You know, even with victims, you know, in mind, maybe this is what they wanted. We don't know that. So, you know, take all these things into consideration. If y' all have any questions about the death penalty or things that might go on behind the scenes and plea negotiations with stuff like this, definitely drop us a message. Comment below and let us know. [00:29:46] Speaker B: And if Bobby Banks ever wants to be a guest star on this podcast or ever listen to it, we'd be happy to have him come talk about the actual life of being an attorney that does this, but we'll see y' all next time. [00:29:58] Speaker A: If you know Bobby, tell them to come on our podcast. All right. Bye, Lauren.

Other Episodes

Episode

March 21, 2025 00:25:48
Episode Cover

Episode 22: Miranda Wasn't Even There: Legal Myths & Gene Hackman Million-Dollar Estate Mistake

In this episode of The Lawmas Podcast, attorneys Lauren and Lacey discuss what happens before a trial and debunk common legal misconceptions. They begin...

Listen

Episode 12

January 09, 2025 00:28:12
Episode Cover

Episode 12: Inside the Alex Murdaugh Case

In this episode of The Lawmas Podcast, attorneys Lauren and Lacey dive into critical aspects of the Alex Murdaugh murder trial. Key Topics Discussed:...

Listen

Episode 30

May 15, 2025 00:32:14
Episode Cover

Episode 30: Tiny Judges & Open Bathroom Doors: Life as Millennial Moms

In this episode of The Lawmas Podcast, hosts Lacey and Lauren discuss what it means to be millennial moms compared to previous generations. They...

Listen