Episode Transcript
[00:00:05] Speaker A: Hey everybody, it's Lacey back here again.
[00:00:08] Speaker B: And I'm Lauren.
[00:00:10] Speaker A: And welcome back to the Llamas podcast.
Lauren, do you want to tell everybody what we're talking about today?
[00:00:15] Speaker B: So today our follow up podcast is going to be on Susan Smith. As we know, she just had her parole hearing and we've seen questions all over Facebook about what does this mean in the long run for her, how does a true life sentence work, kind of those type things. So we're going to dig into that in just a minute, but first we're going to take a question that we've got from the audience this week.
[00:00:37] Speaker A: Yeah. So one question that was posed to us, Lauren, is what's the best way to go about protecting yourself as a business owner when it comes to making sure you get paid in collecting debts?
And it got me kind of thinking about as criminal defense attorneys, and maybe it's more than that, but we're often told not to push it too much and not to send anything to collections because it could give us bad Google reviews and social media reviews.
You know, people can say anything on that. So I've often been told when it comes to debts not to really fight it too much or push it because of that. So I'm curious as to your take on the best way to protect ourselves and if there's any anything me and my firm should be doing differently when it comes to debts and making sure that we are paid for our services.
[00:01:34] Speaker B: So, I mean, that is the hard thing with being a business owner. We, I mean, most of us, like we enjoy what we do, but we're not working out the goodness of our heart. We do need to earn money to support our families. One of the best things you can do as just a business owner is have a contract in place with somebody. And this probably isn't as much in just the attorneys. I mean, we need to have our retainer agreements as attorneys. But just as business owners have that contract in place, inside of that contract, have language that if you have to go to court to collect, you'll get your attorney's fees back, you'll get your court costs back, you can get interest back. Because without a contract in place that says that the courts a lot of times aren't going to award you those attorney's fees. So if you have a debt that's like $10,000, is it worth it to pursue that debt because of attorney's fees and those type of things? So having all that stuff in writing is really one of the best ways and also a lot of times what people can do is have different points where money is paid. So like a lot of times we see this in like the construction industry, you know, there's different points. You have draws so you're not waiting till the end to collect your money. So that way if they don't pay, you know, you can pull out of the project or you can do a mechanics lien if you're in the construction industry. But I think having various points, points for payment really helps. It's really hard in the legal world because especially probably in criminal, you know, people, it is hard to get your fees. So a lot of times for us what we do is we're going to get fees up front and put it in trust, which is a whole different ballgame with attorneys having a reckon cell trust. But there's been plenty of times I have lost money and I think it depends how much money it is, what the situation is and what I think that client is going to do. And sometimes I have lost money but it has been because I have let a client go and it has been the best thing for my mental health too. So we have to balance all of.
[00:03:27] Speaker A: That and we've had to do that as well a couple of times. Not a lot, you know, there are a couple times and you know, I've encountered where the family doesn't want to terminate it, but the client does.
And I've said before, I was like. Because I've noticed have said they're not in a good space mentally and I don't take it personally, you know, I've encountered that where a client just, just isn't in a good mental space to realize what I'm capable of doing in my job and what I'm not capable of. Because one thing me and you know, especially Lauren is not everything's within our control. We can file motions, but it doesn't mean it's going to get granted. You know, that's up to a judge and we can't get them scheduled. That's up to a clerk.
So yeah, I've all I have had to, like I said, not often terminate those relationships. And it's almost always because of things that are out of my control and just having a client that's just not in the best space which who could be charged with a crime but you know, just really not in a space to just fully, you know, understand that. And it's just easier to lash out at, you know, me because they barely know me as opposed to their family. And I don't take it personally and sometimes, like you said, it's just kind of worth taking the loss.
[00:04:47] Speaker B: Yeah, sometimes it's worth a hit for your mental health. Money isn't everything. But with that, we will turn to our topic today, which is probably going to be a lot more of Lacey giving us information because. So we all know Susan Smith didn't get granted parole. And I think I'll be honest and say in my office, my admin downstairs, Angie, she went to school, she graduated. Susan Smith was on the computer watching the whole hearing, the whole day at work because she could not pull away from it. I watched. A lot of us have been like that.
I watched the interview with, like, Craig Melvin with David on the Today Show. And if Craig Melvin ever watches our podcast, I'm gonna feel so special because I love him.
But kind of that is, we're all here. So I think the first question I've seen everybody ask is, when she going to be up for parole again? How does that part of it work?
[00:05:44] Speaker A: Yeah, so she can reapply every two years, so she can apply again in two years. And the reason she gets to apply for parole is because before 1996, I believe, was the year that it changed. Lauren, you touched on this earlier. The law had changed. Do you want to go over that again as to why she can ask for a parole with a murder conviction?
[00:06:07] Speaker B: So we did not have a true life sentence in South Carolina before that. There was always life with the possibility of parole, and that was 30 years and then possibility of parole. But in today's time, we do have a true life sentence. One question I did have on that is, we know she killed her two sons. Was she not given two life sentences? How did that part. That's one part I did not know or understand.
[00:06:35] Speaker A: Yeah, she was. So when she will, when she asked for parole, it's on two convictions for murder.
But at the time, like you said, the parole, you were eligible for parole with a murder conviction.
So she was a grant for parole.
They would grant it for her whole case, essentially.
[00:06:59] Speaker B: Okay, so, like, little off topic here, but like, so back in the day, I guess like serial killers, like we had in South Carolina, Peewee Gaskin, who killed, like he says, 100 plus people. Would there ever have been that possibility he would have got parole?
[00:07:19] Speaker A: I'm not sure. We'd have to look it up whether or not he could apply and whether or not he did and what the laws were at that point. You know, and the thing is, is what the law was when Susan Smith was going through this might not have been that same law, for example, expungement law, it changed, like, two or three times over 10 years. So, like, something was expungeable, something wasn't expungeable. Something was expungeable. And so now if it's around that 2010 time frame, I have to go to pinpoint exactly what convictions I'm looking at. So we would have to. I'd have to look that up to see what the laws were with that.
But going forward. Yeah, yeah. Another question I was gonna say.
[00:08:02] Speaker B: So realistically, though, now with her case, every two years, she can ask.
[00:08:07] Speaker A: Yeah, that was my understanding and looking at everything.
And just to kind of brief everybody if they didn't watch the parole hearing, just to kind of give a synopsis.
Several people spoke against her. I didn't. She really didn't have too many supporters. So just to. Let's. Let's dig into this. So the first thing that I want to talk about is the attorney she had did a great presentation.
I thought he did a good job.
My issue is not with him personally as a lawyer. I think if you are a woman convicted of killing her two children, her two babies, if you want to convince somebody that you deserve to be free, I feel like you have to have a female attorney that has children. You know, I. If. If she has an attorney that is a mom. If I could see a mom come forward at her parole hearing and tell me that she should be released. And here's why you're gonna have my attention.
I do think a lot of times, you know, we just think differently. And I'm sorry, I just.
I can. I can't fathom her ever getting parole, to be honest. But if I'm gonna listen to how remorseful she is and listen to reasons why it's gonna come from a mom.
And I'm not trying to be sexist or anything, as some people may take it that way, but that was my first issue, is, you know, you hired a male attorney when you were a mother convicted of killing her children.
I mean, do you disagree, Agree. Do you kind of understand where I'm coming from?
[00:09:52] Speaker B: I think, like, I definitely can understand, like, I guess if a woman feels more compelled to, like, be her attorney and, you know, you never know. She may have interviewed some women, and, I mean, I don't do this type well, but, like, that would be one I couldn't stomach to deal with.
[00:10:12] Speaker A: Right.
And, you know, I don't. I don't either. And then I. You know, with us being in private practice, we get to Say what cases we take and don't take. And there are probably several people who could, if they could see my cases, see someone say, oh, my gosh, I could never, you know, handle those cases, and I'm okay with it. I think we're all just so different, you know? But that was just the first thing I just. That I don't say bothered me because I think that sounds like I'm criticizing her lawyer. And it has nothing to do with his presentation, but it's just like, it didn't grab my attention. And that's what you want to do right off the bat, is grab my attention as to why should I believe everything you're saying about her remorse? Because that's a big part of pardons or in parole, right? Showing remorse for what you done, you. You've done in the past and that you're not going to do it again. And you want an attorney that you're going to look at and believe. And I just don't know that I can believe that unless it is a woman who has children speaking it to me.
So that was just the first thing that just kind of popped out of my head. You know, I've said the same thing with Murdoch. You know, he had mostly male attorneys. Like, you're accused of killing your baby and killing your wife. Why would you not have a female attorney to show that dynamic to the jury? Right. You know, and looking at it. So, you know, one thing you look at in criminal practice is, you know, what. How does this present to a jury or a panel of judges? And I think these are things you have to think of, you know, when I am in court, you can see me put my arm around my client because I don't want him to or her to look scary or like a monster. And sometimes that perception is in a judge's mind, and not as much judge, but you can see it from a jury when. When a charge is announced, the disgust sometimes of what they could be charged with, you know, And I want that jury, like, listen, you don't know this person, but I do. I've represented them for this long, and I will put my arm around them and, you know, make sure that I am showing that we have a relationship, and that's why you should find me credible. And so I just think that's something that would have been important for her to have to make a strong argument to the parole board, you know, an attorney that's like, you know, I have children, I have my babies, but I'm here to say she deserves to be free. And here's why that's powerful, that's moving, that could be convincing. And so that's what I noticed right off the bat is I just think that that would have been helpful to have. And like you said, she might have tried to get a female attorney and it not work. We don't know. But that was just one thing that I think could have strengthened her argument. Because one thing I want to do in this episode is educate. Right. So things I could have, I would have done differently or I think could have helped her argument. When I say these things also know my personal feelings are I am glad that she is denied. I just am wanting people to know things that I'm looking at because this is what the board's looking at. And that might, you know, if anybody's going through a criminal case or have a family member, they might understand some of these things. So the other thing that stuck out to me and it didn't hit me until I was watching. So Lori Murray is a friend of mine. She has a great tick tock. Check her out. Lawyer Lori. She put on her tick tock. None of her family spoke.
I don't know. I mean, I. I'm not sure if they're still alive or not. Her mom, do you know if she's still alive?
[00:13:59] Speaker B: I am not sure. I mean, let me. Her mom would probably be in her, I guess, 70s to 80. I'm gonna Google this real quick.
[00:14:09] Speaker A: Yeah, Google it.
[00:14:10] Speaker B: Is Susan Smith's mom alive?
Okay, you Google it and you get every other result there. Mom, I can't find anything real quick, but. No, but I do think she. I believe she had still. I could be wrong, so don't hold it. But I believe she had siblings.
[00:14:28] Speaker A: I thought she did too.
No, the Pete. There were two elderly people, an elderly male and female. One was a pastor and one was like a friend of hers and the families for many, many years. And they spoke on her behalf. And that was another thing. I think that hurt her. If we're saying she should be forgiven by our state and that she can be trusted to be released, I need to hear from her family that they have forgiven her for what they lost.
So I think that's what strengthened the case to deny parole as well is how much family David had and how much family that were Michael and Alex's family come forward to deny this parole because she didn't have that.
And before I switched to who spoke on, on that side. So that was the second thing. And like I said, I just didn't even pick up on it in the moment that that happened. But I was watching Lori's Tick Tock and she mentioned that she spoke as well, which that's one of the main reasons I wanted to watch, is to see what she said. And this was one thing I did notice. Lori pointed out as well, too, she has had several infractions while being in jail.
We have both heard about a baby in jail. I don't know if that was true or not. That was not brought up. But they did bring up drugs. And about a month ago, she had an infraction for talking to a reporter, because you cannot talk to reporters while you're incarcerated. There are certain shows and stuff. I think you can get special permissions, but without permission from the jail, you can't do it. So she got caught doing that. So they asked her about that. If you can't follow the laws or the rules in prison, why, how can we trust you to do this? And she said, you know, I was. She blamed it to stupidity. I was stupid. I was stupid. And that was just kind of like the theme I got. And it's like, okay, well, that doesn't show that you're. You've changed, right? If you're saying I was not in a good headspace and I was not in a good mental health position and I just made a stupid decision when I killed my children. And you use that same excuse for the drugs and that same excuse for talking to the reporters. Oh, I was stupid. And I believe them that they were doing a documentary on mental health. Well, guess what? If they were doing a documentary on mental health, there's still a rule. You can't talk to reporters. It doesn't matter what they're doing. It might be for a great cause, but that's the rule, you know, So I think that hurt her tremendously because she didn't take accountability. One thing they want when you're getting a pardon or trying to ask for a parole, both of those is they do not want to hear excuses. They want to hear that you're taking accountability for your actions. And I mean, she did say she was remorseful. Some people said the tears weren't real. I don't know. Honestly, in watching, I can't tell that or not, but I didn't like. I didn't like her answers. And her answers might have been true. You know, her answer to that might have been true. That really, those. That's just what it was. She was just stupid. But that's not good enough to get parole, you know, I was kind of.
[00:17:51] Speaker B: Thinking with that I was gonna say thank you at that point. Like the whole talking to a reporter, I think this is kind of how a lot of people feel With Susan Smith, I believe it was the prosecutor on the case back when he gave another interview, said, you know, David looked like he just lost his child while she looked like she was happy to be on tv. So I think that same thought process probably was coming through in the parole board's head. Like she's about to get out on parole where she could talk. If she was out of parole here and she got out, she could talk to anybody.
But she in jail knowingly broke the rules because she wanted some more clout. Pretty much, yeah.
[00:18:32] Speaker A: And you know that one of the infractions was relations with guards.
But yeah. So I just, I mean, maybe that's a truthful answer and if so, that's just the truth. But I think the parole board would have understood if she had said how young she was and that she did commit these infractions because she couldn't deal with the loss of what she had done. You know, and so when there were drugs and stuff, proposed to her in prison, she did it because she just wanted to numb all the pain that she was going through.
That would have been a lot better of an answer. I mean, it might. It sounds like it's not true for her, but, you know, that's what I think we could have been empathetic to in breaking those rules. Right. So I don't think her responses, they might have been truthful, but that's not going to get you parole and it shouldn't. You know, you're not taking accountability and you know, there's just. No, you're not going to get our empathy. And when I say our, I almost feel like I'm speaking to our community from our community. Lauren Union. We know how passionately they feel against this. You're not going to feel our empathy. You're not going to get our empathy with those types of answers. And that's what you have to have.
[00:19:52] Speaker B: To give one, one question that kind of takes this back. Who is the. This is something a lot of us in the non criminal world do not know. Who makes up the parole board? Like, what is that?
[00:20:06] Speaker A: I've been in front of them.
I can't tell you their names. It's the same people that do pardons though. So that's where I've been in front of them. The, the woman that led the questions, I've been in front of her for the Pardons as well. There's an older as well. I'm not sure. I definitely should get that information, have that next time. How they get put on the board.
It's really hard to get pardons and parole. So I know statistically in our state, we are a lot lower than a lot of other states. And sometimes I disagree with the board. You know, there's some cases that I think should absolutely be paroled. Low level drug crimes.
I wish more of those were paroled, to be honest.
And that's. I'll expand on that another day, another time. But. But, yeah, I have been in front of them. I don't know how they get appointed. I don't know if the governor appoints them. That would be my guess. But I'll definitely get that information and bring it to everybody listening next time. That'll be a good question to answer.
Switching.
[00:21:13] Speaker B: Switching gears. What do you think his side did? Good or. I guess. I don't know. Is it his side? Is it the prosecution? Like, who's on the other side kind of thing?
[00:21:22] Speaker A: Yeah. So there's the victims bill of rights. So I guess you would say his side because he would be the notified victim. And anytime there's a pardon or parole hearing, you have to notify the victim. And so he would be that. So I think you would say the victim side, which would be David Smith.
I thought they did a phenomenal job of one, keeping it on topic. So, you know, one thing they were saying when one of her witnesses was says, we're not here to retry the case. She's already been tried and convicted. Right. We're here to determine whether she should re. Enter society, you know, and I thought they did a great job of staying on topic with that.
Tommy Pope spoke. I thought he did a great presentation. What stood out to me was David's daughter.
She spoke, and she came after Michael in Alex's murder.
So she never met her brothers. And I don't think it was planned for her to speak. They had said, does anybody else want to talk? And she did.
And her bravery was just. I'm gonna cry. It was just really inspiring. Like, she was talking about her brothers that she never met because of this act. And what was so hard as well, is her perception as a child and seeing her dad's pain of having this loss, you know, growing up with her dad, navigating this trauma her whole life.
And, you know, so she was just very moving. I thought she was very brave to speak up. And the things that she said were very touching.
After I mean, I knew she was going to get denied, but when she applied, you know, just statistically speaking and what she's done, but that right there was definitely, if there needed to be a nail in it, that was it. I thought she was just so moving in what she gave and what her family had been through, because she has such a different perspective, because she did come after their murder. So she saw how everybody was navigating it. David's wife spoke as well. I thought she did a great job, but.
And, you know, David has talked as well, so, yeah, I think they were great. They stuck to the topic, laid out all the reasons she should, you know, be denied parole. You know, they did say she has never said she was sorry to him and never says she was sorry. And I will have to say she did say that at the parole hearing, and I've had that thrown at my clients, too. Well, they've never said that they were sorry. They've never said they're remorseful. But in a lot of cases, there's no contact orders. Right. I would assume that she is not legally allowed to contact him. So when they say she's never apologized to him or said she was sorry, you know, that's something to take into account. Maybe if she was allowed to, she would have. I would surely hope she would have. Honestly, if he wants to hear it, though, there may be a part of him that may not want to hear her apology, and that's okay, too.
But that's one thing that I didn't really hold against her. And what they were saying is her not saying she was sorry and remorseful. She did say it several, several times at the parole hearing. And whether it's believable or not is up to, you know, each person that listened. But it was stated by her, at least, that it was. And that could be one reason why he hasn't gotten an apology directly to him from her.
[00:25:04] Speaker B: So when I will say watching his interview outside, this was not part of the parole, but just watching his interview, he did say he had forgiven her, because if he had not, he couldn't, like, continue to live. He couldn't live his life. It would eat away at him. So I do think there's probably been forgiveness on his side, even though there's still the pain. But. So maybe he doesn't even honestly need the apology. I mean, like, I know they said that, but in all reality, if you've moved on, maybe he doesn't really need it. But I think that takes us for our podcast today, and I know this one was a little heavy and intense. But I know we all had these questions and I know nothing, even though I'm an attorney, I know nothing about parole and all this stuff. So we hope this was educational for everybody to learn more about this hearing and, you know, maybe in two years we'll be talking about it again.
[00:25:56] Speaker A: And can I say before we end, I hope we're not. I think if she applies every two years and forces the family, and I'm almost thinking it's, you know, her side of this family as well, because they weren't there, maybe I'm wrong, but to put everybody through this in two years.
Listen, the, the one thing also when another thing you need for parole is the willingness of your community to accept you back after your convictions. Right.
And so one way we show that is they have a job, they have a place to stay. And they did say that they said she could stay with her brother. She does. That was one thing. They said she had a brother, she.
[00:26:38] Speaker B: Was brother, he wasn't there.
[00:26:41] Speaker A: But that, that's one thing. And so me and Lauren are part of that community. You know, we might have moved away, but we are. And so, you know, you are going to anger our community even more and you're going to not have that willingness to accept you back even more if you continue. And this is the Susan, I'm saying you because it's Susan, but hopefully she will listen to this because it's a rule breaker. But anyways. But if she does like, she is just going to anger this community even more if she applies every two years is going to hurt her further. I think someone asked me this week, well, when do you think would be an acceptable amount of time? And I said five years. I think a minimum of five years needs to pass before she tries again. And you know, she did preach a little bit about mental health, but that was another thing. I would be curious to see if she was evaluated what her diagnosis were. Is there anything that would, you know, further explain, you know, what happened that night to truly connect it to mental health a little more for me, because I'm not firmly convinced that it's that, you know, that's one of the things her attorney said is she has this perception of being this manipulative monster.
And I think I'm still there.
So if I'm on this, and I'm probably one of the more convincible if I was on the parole board, right. Because I do criminal defense. But that's what I would want to see is how is it more tied to her diagnosis.
What kind of treatment plan is she following and why is that important? Like, does she have a plan when she comes out to follow that? They did ask her a little bit about that, but I think it's important to go public with that information. And maybe it was in her packet. But if you want your community to accept you back and take you and forgive you and move forward, I think we have to know those things. I think you have to come, you know, public with it and really explain those things. Because another thing her attorney said was that it had nothing to do with that guy and she was not doing it to get with him and that that was just false information that was spread. So, you know, I think if you're going to go the mental health route, you have to divulge more information than what was divulged.
And this thing, everything in this hearing could have been true. And if so, the truth is not going to get you parole. If everything that was said is the truth on. On her part, it's not going to get you parole.
So that's my.
That's my two cents. No, if all, everything she said is the truth, I do not think it's going to set her free. So let me know Yalls thoughts when you see this podcast shared on Facebook or Instagram. Please feel free to comment. I'd love to hear other people's opinions about whether or not y'all thought she it would have helped her to have a female lawyer or not. And her tears, were they real, were they not? What do you feel about her remorse? If you got questions about pardons, paroles. And I'll look up that information for another segment, Lauren, about how we got our parole board.
[00:30:02] Speaker B: And definitely email us comment DM us, let us know what you want to hear about because we'd love to answer your questions and we'd love to have podcasts based on what you want to hear. So thanks for joining us.
[00:30:13] Speaker A: All right, I'll see you later.
Thank you.
