Tales from the Brown Desk - Episode 19 - Appealing a Criminal Sentence, Post Conviction Relief, & Florida Man

Weekly Criminal Law Podcast, Tales from the Brown Desk, brought to you by Rigney Law LLC. Tales from the Brown Desk is a free flowing conversation involving two foul-mouthed attorneys. It may include graphic descriptions of sexual activity, violence, and traffic law. It may not be suitable for children. Listener discretion advised. 

Episode 19 continues a series - A Walk Through the Criminal Justice System in Indiana. In this episode, Indianapolis criminal defense attorneys Jacob Rigney and Kassi Rigney will walk us laypeople through appealing a criminal sentence and post conviction relief. And of course, the latest Florida Man news.

Transcript

Podcast Transcript

Jacob Rigney - It's Friday afternoon. We've locked the door because I ate Waffle House hash browns this morning, and no one should be around me for at least four hours after I do that. And, also because it's time for another edition of our weekly podcast Tales from the Brown Desk. I'm Jake Rigney of Rigney Law LLC. With me as usual as my partner, wife, and the only reason I can ever find a mask to wear, Kassi Rigney. The poor soul tasked with wrangling our enormous egos is our host Teri Ulm. Friendly reminder, Tales from the Brown Desk is a free-flowing conversation involving two foul-mouthed attorneys. It may include graphic descriptions of sexual activity, violence, and digressions on top of digressions. It may not be suitable for children, parents, dentists, tooth fairies, Fancy Nancy, and especially Nancy Reagan. Listener discretion is advised. Here's Teri.

Teri Ulm - Hello, everyone. Hi, Jake. How are you today?

Jacob Rigney - I'm okay. I'm about as bad as I can be for somebody who just ate Waffle House hash browns, because that puts everyone in a great mood.

Teri Ulm - Hi Kassi. How are you today?

Kassi Rigney - Hi, Teri. I'm okay.

Teri Ulm - Good. Are you looking forward to a three-day weekend?

Kassi Rigney - I am.

How Appeals Work in Criminal Cases in Indiana

Teri Ulm - Me too. So, today we're going to continue our series: A Walk Through the Criminal Justice System in Indiana. Last week we talked about sentencing and touched on a little bit of modifying a sentence. And this week we're going to continue our adventure through the swamp and take the next step which I believe is the appeal process.

Jacob Rigney - Makes sense.

Teri Ulm - How long would a defendant have to appeal a verdict?

Jacob Rigney - Typically the notice of appeal has to be filed with the appellate court within 30 days of the final judgment. In a criminal case, that would be the sentencing hearing. So 30 days after the sentencing hearing, an attorney or a person, if they're going to do it themselves pro se, has to file a notice of appeal. A notice of appeal is about a two sometimes maybe three page document. You might even be able to squeeze it all into one page that basically says: "Hey. We're appealing, everybody." And the appeals court uses it to sort of start their own case which gets its own different cause number, and is sort of dealt with in motions practice until there are oral arguments, if there are oral arguments.

Teri Ulm - So when somebody appeals a verdict from a state court where does their appeal go?

Kassi Rigney - It goes to the Court of Appeals first, and then potentially up to the Supreme Court.

Teri Ulm - What all is involved in an appeal? So you file the notice. Then that starts the new case at the Court of Appeals.

Jacob Rigney - Right. Then typically after that the next thing is they give the appellant, the person appealing, a deadline for filing a brief. And the brief essentially will set out the grounds for your appeal. Along with the brief, you also have to create an appendix which is a very long set of references. You have to get a transcript of the trial, if there was a trial, or of any other hearing that's relevant. And that's actually sort of the first thing you have to do. You have to do that, and then from there you have 30 days once the court reporter completes that. And then you you create the appendix, write your brief, and file it all. The appendix has all the different things that you're pointing to proving that what you're saying is what happened. Then after that, the state will have 30 days to respond with their own brief. Then the appellant, that is the person appealing again, gets to file a reply brief if they want. Then the Court of Appeals rules on the issues.

Teri Ulm - How many judges are looking at these briefs when they're filed? Is it one judge like in the trial courts?

Jacob Rigney - No. It's three. So the process by which the three judges are assigned, I'll be honest. I don't know. But  there are three judges that are looking at your appeal and trying to decide whether it has merit or not. Then one of them will write an opinion when the case is over. And the other two will either join in the opinion, or concur in the opinion, or one of them potentially can dissent. But they basically take a vote.

Teri Ulm - Do you know what the purpose is of having three judges?

Kassi Rigney When you go higher up they're... I'm not aware of any trial court that operates with more than one judge, but as you go up, yeah. It's a law, and it's practicing, and it's not hard numbers, so they want three legal minds to evaluate the issues. This stuff is complicated.

Can New Evidence Be Submitted on Appeal?

Teri Ulm - Can you submit new evidence on appeal?

Jacob Rigney - No. You can point them to the evidence that exists, but you cannot create new evidence to present on appeal. There's a different process for that and I think we'll get to that, but for the appeal you are stuck with the record that was made at the trial court proceeding. And you're stuck making your arguments based on the things that happened. And in particular the things that were objected to. And that's one of the reasons why having a good trial attorney is important. Because if the trial attorney does not object to things that happen during the trial, you can't appeal on those grounds. Generally. You can't say: "Well, the state elicited hearsay evidence. They shouldn't have been able to elicit". If your attorney didn't object for hearsay, the Court of Appeals says: "Sorry. You didn't raise it in the trial court. We're not going to consider it now. You didn't give the trial court a chance to rule on this issue, so we're not going to hold it against them".

Kassi Rigney - It's potential that the failure to object or something like that could amount to ineffective assistance of council, and that challenge would be available on the appeal. However people have to keep in mind, the fact that you lost at trial doesn't make your attorney incompetent. And there are all different kinds of reasons why an attorney may or may not object to a particular piece of evidence. And there's not a bright line. It's not a hundred percent right or wrong in any given situation.

Jacob Rigney - Yeah. And ineffective assistance is actually not a claim you usually make on appeal. If anyone out there is listening and thinking: "Well I had an appeal, and they didn't raise ineffective assistance". That's great. The Rigney's say they should have. No that's not what we're saying. In fact, the appeals court very much prefers if you don't do that on direct appeal, and that you save that for post-conviction relief. And, there's a good reason for that. The reason is that in the post-conviction relief proceeding you can add evidence. You can create new evidence. So you can call that trial court lawyer to the stand and ask them questions about what they did and why they did it so that everyone has a better understanding of what was going through the lawyer's mind. If he had a strategic reason for not objecting. Then that's not ineffective assistance. They don't judge strategic decisions like that. Now, if he says: "I don't know. That was stupid. I should have objected." Well then maybe you do have ineffective assistance, but because on direct appeal you can't add new evidence, there's usually not a very good record for an ineffective assistance claim. So because of that they very much prefer if you wait and do that on pcr. And they'll punish you for doing it on appeal. They'll say" By the way. Since you raised this on appeal, you don't get to raise it in a pcr now. This is litigated. This is the rule of the case. So in order to raise it on direct appeal, you have to have something that's just blatant and obvious and just sort of goes beyond the pale where anyone would look at it and just say that's obviously ineffective assistance.

What Happens if the Court of Appeals Rules Against You?

Teri Ulm - So what happens if you appeal to the Court of Appeals and the judges don't rule in your favor? Is there another step you can take can your appeal even higher, or is your case dead?

Rigney - You can ask for the Supreme Court of the State of Indiana to look at it.

Teri Ulm - Do you have to ask the Court of Appeals or do they look at any appeal filed?

Jacob Rigney - No. In Indiana, in criminal cases, you have an absolute right to appeal your conviction. So every criminal case that results in a conviction at trial anyway can be appealed, and everyone has that right in Indiana But you don't have the right to go all the way to the supreme court with it. So if the Indiana Court of Appeals sides with the trial court and the state, and against you, you can ask the Indiana Supreme Court to look at it by filing a petition for transfer. And if they say no as well, then you're kind of done. Unless you have a federal issue and you can convince the US Supreme Court to look at it. But obviously that's very rare There are thousands of cases decided every day in the United States and the US Supreme Court takes like half a dozen criminal cases a year. Maybe even less. It's pretty rare for a person to find themselves all the way up in the U.S. Supreme Court. One of the cases I  prosecuted made it to the Indiana Supreme Court. And one of the cases that my boss prosecuted made it to the U.S. Supreme Court. But those are both pretty rare.

Teri Ulm - What kind of issue was that one that made it to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Jacob Rigney - So my old boss, his name is Mark Hollingsworth. He prosecuted a guy and I think it was for murder, but I  don't remember for sure anymore. And, I don't think I'm prohibited from saying the guy had some mental  problems. So significant mental problems that when he attempted to represent himself and fire his attorney, the court had legitimate concern about whether it was appropriate to let somebody represent themselves who was so clearly not... I mean. I don't want to say competent, but who is so clearly acting not in his own best interest. So we've got a guy charged with a really serious crime, who knows nothing about the law, and is suffering from a mental  illness, and he's like: "No. I don't need a lawyer's help. I'm going to do all this by myself." It sounds like a terrible idea. Everyone in the courtroom except the defendant knew it was a terrible idea. And it was such a bad idea that I think the judge was kind of like: "I don't think I'm gonna let you do that". The trouble is the US Supreme Court has previously said that everyone has the right to represent themselves. Faretta v. California. If you want to fire your attorney and and represent yourself, and direct your own defense, you can do that. So they're up against these sort of competing interests where on the one hand the judge is like it is clearly not in the best interest of justice, or you for you to represent yourself. Even though you want to. But on the other hand, everyone has this right.

Teri Ulm - You have the right to be dumb and make dumb decisions.

Jacob Rigney - You do when it comes to your lawyer. Yeah. And, that's what the U.S. Supreme Court basically said in Faretta. It was like I don't think this is a good idea. I mean, they didn't actually say this in Faretta, but the subtext is: This is a terrible idea, but if you want to do terrible things that are terrible ideas, okay. So anyway, that went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. I think the guy's name was Robinson. I can't remember for sure though. I could be wrong about that. The irony is I don't even remember what the Supreme Court ruled. I think they said it was okay to make him take a lawyer. I think. Because they didn't send it back for a new trial. But I could be wrong about that too. It was so long ago. It seems like a lifetime ago that i was a prosecutor even though it's only been about five and a half years.

Teri Ulm - It's a different world now, Jake.

Jacob Rigney - Yeah. Yeah very different.

How Long Does the Appeal Process Take?

Teri Ulm - So how long does the appeal process usually take?

Kassi Rigney - Months. Potentially years depending on how far you go.

Jacob Rigney - Yeah. That case that went to the U.S. Supreme Court, that was probably more than five years to get there. Maybe even 10. It was a long time. The last appeal I did, I think it went on for six to eight months. Maybe even a little longer. They got the transcript done really fast, but I also had some family problems in there. I think my dad passed away right in the middle of me doing that appeal. So, it slowed me down a lot. And it slowed the process down a lot, unfortunately.

The Difference Between a Direct Appeal and Post Conviction Relief

Teri Ulm - Now what is the difference between an appeal that we've just talked about and post-conviction relief?

Kassi Rigney - We're talking about a direct appeal. A traditional appeal, what most people think of which is appealing to a higher court. Post-conviction relief is a type of appeal, essentially but you go back to the trial court. And there are special rules that cover this type of procedure. There's very limited scope of what you can challenge in a post-conviction.

Teri Ulm - And Jake. I think you mentioned this would be a vehicle to submit new evidence.

Jacob Rigney - Yes. So, two of the more popular avenues for people who seek post-conviction relief are ineffective assistance of counsel and newly discovered evidence. So, there are some occasions where if you discover new facts about your case, after the trial, that weren't available to you when the trial happened, you can present that evidence. Argue that it undermines the confidence in your conviction and that the court ought to overturn your conviction. It is not just simply enough to say: "Well. I have new evidence". The procedural hurdles are very high. It has to be newly discovered, not available to you, that your attorney did a diligent search for it and didn't find it. And there are several other hurdles you have to jump before you can make that argument. But those are the two of the more popular  arguments on post-conviction relief. That and prosecutorial misconduct is one that gets a little bit of publicity when that happens too.

Is There a Time Limit to File a Post Conviction Relief Petition in Indiana?

Teri Ulm - So from my understanding, the post-conviction relief option is at the trial court level. The same court that you appeared before the judge and/or accepted a plea deal, or went to trial in. Is there like a time limit for the post-conviction relief petitions?

Kassi Rigney - No. I think you just have to be still serving the sentence. You can only file once, and you couldn't have waived whatever grounds through your direct appeal. But there's not a hard time limit like on a direct appeal.

Jacob Rigney - Yeah. There's not a hard time limit. There is some case law out there regarding what's known as the doctrine of latches. Which is a cool latin term that means something. I don't know what the hell it means. I'm gonna be honest with you. Where the state can argue that you've waited too long to raise your pcr request. I think it has to do with sort of how long anyone would reasonably be expected to keep a file around. So I don't think, for example, you can come back like 30 or 40 years into your life sentence and say: "Well. Now something was messed up. You guys need to undo all this. At that point, I think, the court is gonna say: "Well. Look. You waited too long to do this. We don't have your file anymore, man. We don't remember what was going on with your case. We're not going to look at it". But I don't know what the specifics are on latches, because I haven't dealt with that issue in a long time, but I think it is out there.

Teri Ulm - So there's these stories every now and then about someone that was incarcerated for years, maybe even dozens of years, and new evidence came forward proving their innocence. How do they get there? Is that through post-conviction relief, an appeal? How do they get there?

Jacob Rigney - Well it depends on where they were convicted. Typically criminal cases, for the defendant, they end in sort of the same place. If you go to trial, you lose, you get prison. You go to prison, but how it gets there is very different depending on the jurisdiction and depending on the rules of that jurisdiction. In Indiana, typically when convictions get overturned like that, after years and years, it's usually because of DNA. Advances in DNA evidence continue to happen. It continues to create situations where if the old samples are still around, people can be  exonerated based on those samples. And in that case, usually the state agrees to let them go, and doesn't contest a pcr or whatever you want to call it. But it just depends on the jurisdiction and what court you were convicted in how it gets there. There are several not-for-profit agencies that sort of do that sort of DNA review. And, I think they're relatively easy to get a hold of. So if you have one of those situations, you just figure it out, and write them a letter probably, and then they go from there.

How Many Times Can You File For Post Conviction Relief in Indiana?

Teri Ulm - And Kassi, did you say that you can only file for post-conviction relief once?

Kassi Rigney - Yeah. You can't file, they call them, successive motions without special permission from the Court of Appeals. Yeah. You can only file once, so you better get it right the first time.

Jacob Rigney - Yeah the permission actually comes from the Indiana Supreme Court. You have to go to the Indiana Supreme Court and ask them for permission. And it happens every now and then but it's another procedural hurdle you have to jump through. And you're a lot better off if you avoid having to try that. Well this is where the attorney, it's important having a good attorney. As Jake previously mentioned, at the trial level. If your trial attorney doesn't object appropriately, you could waive issues for appeal. But then if you're trying to do your appeal, you're stuck with what you do. And a lot of times when people are calling inquiring about appeals, they're challenging maybe the aggressiveness of a cross-examination of an attorney, or content of closing argument, or as Jake mentioned before, did they look for certain evidence. And as a lay person, you don't understand relevance. You don't. And the fact that a different attorney would have cross-examined the key witness in your case differently doesn't make your attorney ineffective. Well if you go on your own with the wrong challenges, maybe an attorney looked there and is like: "Well. There were some problems, but you waived all those because you went with your unknowledgeable challenges, and now it's all gone".

Jacob Rigney - Yeah. And, just so you understand, you may be sitting there thinking right now: "What do you mean I don't understand relevance? I know what that word means. It means what's important, and this is what's important. But legally, and I think I talked about this maybe a couple of episodes ago about the terms of art. This is a common legal term. Terms of art. Relevance is a term of art unlike plea agreements. It was plea agreements that we were  talking about where I was like: "You think that's a term of art, but it's not. It's just an agreement, and you're gonna plead. But relevance does not mean the same thing within a criminal case that it does to a random person walking down the street when you ask him what that word means. The normal Webster's Dictionary definition means: it's important. It matters to the thing. But legal relevance, in a criminal case, very different. All sorts of things that you might think are important, will never be relevant in a criminal case. For example, the defendant's criminal history. A lot of people think: "Well. You know he's got six prior convictions, and the jury's going to know about that. So I'm sure they'll convict him of this one too. No. The jury won't hear about his six prior felony convictions. The state is not allowed to present that because it's not relevant to whether he did or did not commit the crime. So even though you might think it's relevant because it says he's a good guy or a bad guy, and what the trial is about is deciding whether he's a good guy or a bad guy. That's not what the trial is actually about, and things like that aren't relevant. And it is an extremely nuanced rule with weird zigzagging lines where sometimes a couple of things are relevant but  sometimes they aren't. For example, what I just said. The defendant's criminal history isn't relevant. That's true unless the defendant testifies, and if the convictions are crimes of dishonesty or moral turpitude. Then some of them do get to come in which matters when you're trying to decide whether to let your client testify or not. But, it's very complicated, and no one without a lot of study is going to be able to tell you whether certain things are admissible or inadmissible or relevant or irrelevant. Even then the lawyers argue about it sometimes in the middle of the trial. Even lawyers with a lot of experience don't agree on what these things mean sometimes. And just so you know,  sometimes the Court of Appeals doesn't agree either. We've covered a couple of opinions where one of them  dissented about one thing or another that happens too. Even the lawyers don't agree. Even the judges don't always agree on what relevance. Is that's one of those terms of art that's very complicated, and that's why it's important that you have a really good lawyer. Somebody who can suss out those differences and know exactly where those lines are supposed to be drawn. They know what they can present, they know what the state isn't supposed to present, and they know when and how to object, and how to argue it.

Kassi Rigney - That's one of those where I often tell people that this is a lot more than reading comprehension. People spent time in the library. They read. And you should not spend time in the library and pony up to a lawyer to talk about these detailed issues any more than you would read a surgical textbook over a weekend and pony up to your surgeon. But people seem to think that they can they can read some stuff. I got it. I understand English. And that's not reality.

The Latest Florida Man News

Teri Ulm - Now we are going to cut to a short commercial break and when we come back we will bring you the latest Florida Man news.

Jacob Rigney - The update on Florida Man is brought to you by Waffle House. There are over 300,000 different combinations of hash browns in at least three different sizes at Waffle House. Please do bring a second pair of pants though. Need to study all night? Try buying a one dollar cup of bottomless coffee and read for the next eight hours. They don't care. They're fine. They just want some company there.

Kassi Rigney - Oh my. Dear Waffle House, The vegan options are massive. You can get milk. Oh wait. No. You can get... um crap. If you're a vegan, don't eat there I guess.

Jacob Rigney - Well. I mean we are talking about Waffle House, Kassi. If you eat there, we tend to assume you don't care about your own survival never mind other animals. Man. I was hoping Waffle House would give us some gift certificates for this glowing review, but it doesn't seem to be going very well. This message not actually brought to you by Waffle House.

Florida Man Travels to Louisiana to Slay Hurricane Laura

Teri Ulm - Now Florida Man was so dark last week and I think for good reason. News Break reports that shirtless Florida Man traveled to Louisiana.

Jacob Rigney - He took the week off!

Teri Ulm - He did. To head-bang Slayer's Reigning Blood to slay Hurricane Laura.

Jacob Rigney - Wait. He tried to defeat a hurricane with hard rock? Yeah. He did. Dave Mustaine would be so proud.

Teri Ulm - And this is not the first hurricane he has tried to do this to. He does this every time a hurricane comes. Shirtless Florida Man goes out and head-bangs to Slayer.

Jacob Rigney - Okay. So I was picturing a John Cusack standing in the rain holding the boom box over his head like: "I'll get you". But okay. So, he's just head-banging through the storm.

Drunk Florida Man Crashed into A Drive Sober or Get Pulled Over Sign

Teri Ulm - Yes. But, Florida Man made his way back to Florida this week and he's making headlines. NBC2 in Florida reports that drunk Florida Man crashed into a drive sober or get pulled over sign.

Jacob Rigney - But here's the thing. They were wrong. Weren't they?

Teri Ulm - They were wrong.

Jacob Rigney - He did not drive sober, and he did not get pulled over.

Teri Ulm - No.

Jacob Rigney - He crashed, and then they just arrested him.

Teri Ulm - They did. Florida Man was arrested after the deputies found him near the turnover sign. And Florida Man told the deputies he was on a phone with a friend and he hit something, but he was unsure what he hit.

Jacob Rigney - Well, it wasn't a baby stroller. So that's good news.

Teri Ulm - Yep. He failed his field sobriety test. Blew over twice the legal limit, and now he's facing DUI and property damage charges.

Jacob Rigney - He'll have to pay restitution for the state to fix the sign. It's ridiculous how much those signs cost, by the way. It's probably thousands of dollars.

Wild Florida Man Fatally Shot After Going on a Neighborhood Rampage

Teri Ulm - Good god. Now Breaking 911 reports wild Florida Man went on a rampage through a neighborhood and was fatally shot by a resident during a home invasion. The Polk County sheriff's office was notified of an occupied burglary and home invasion as it was occurring at 6:12 in the morning. When deputies arrived they found Florida Man incapacitated and bleeding.

Jacob Rigney - Yeah.

Teri Ulm - Yeah. They began the life-saving measures, transported him to a hospital where he was pronounced  deceased. No one else was injured. At this point in the investigation all the evidence indicates that the resident acted in self-defense. And according to the preliminary investigation, Florida Man has been in the area to purchase and use illegal drugs. He was driving a car accompanied by Florida Woman, I don't know what happened to Florida Woman after Florida Man began swerving across the road and crashing into a chain-link fence. He jumped out of his car. Left Florida Woman. Ran to a school bus that had just picked up a child and attempted to get in the school bus.

Jacob Rigney - At five or six in the morning?

Teri Ulm - Yeah.

Jacob Rigney - I'm already suspect of this entire police account. That doesn't make any sense.

Teri Ulm - Yeah. But the bus driver...

Jacob Rigney - Not guilty. Not guilty.

Teri Ulm - The bus driver refused to open the doors. She used a radio to call the dispatcher who alerted law enforcement. Florida Man then jumped onto a car that was driving through the area and rolled off. And that driver pulled over and called 911. Florida Man jumped on the hood of another passing car breaking that windshield and fled. And the driver of that car said he was growling.

Jacob Rigney - So this sounds like wake-n-meth to me.

Teri Ulm - That is exactly what they said; this sounds like meth.

Jacob Rigney - Yeah. It's not wake and bake, because when you do that you just sit down and watch Spongebob.

Kassi Rigney - Well and I guess we need a different term, because wake-n-meth it's definitely am meth. Or meth for the morning. How's that? Because if they're meth heads, they're they probably didn't sleep. They're probably up all night. It's just meth in the morning.

Jacob Rigney - Meth in the morning.

Kassi Rigney - Well the other thing, so I always put myself in here, and I'll tell you if crazy meth-man slid across the front of the hood of my car and didn't do any damage, I don't think I'd stop and call the police. I'd probably just go on with my day.

Teri Ulm - What if he stopped and growled?

Kassi Rigney - If he moved on, I probably again wouldn't stop. If I saw him going on to attack someone else or something, but if he just went on like a crazy person.

Jacob Rigney - Yesterday, I was leaving work, and I was on North Delaware Street and it wasn't... It wasn't on Michigan, but it was somewhere near Delaware and Michigan. It was definitely on Delaware. In fact, I think it might have been Delaware and Michigan. Delaware and Michigan. I have the green light, but some guy is just walking through the crosswalk out in front of me on the far side right. So about 30 yards away through the intersection. He's walking through that and he's doing just an extremely profane looking dance. He's jumping up and down, and sort of humping the air, and making gestures with his hands that don't seem appropriate for civilized society. Fortunately he had all his clothes on so I didn't have to worry about any of that, but he was just grinding on the air. Like I imagine Elvis in the 50s with the hip thrust except exaggerated to the point that everyone had been like: "Dude. Settle down". I mean just as hard as he could possibly air hump. He's just thrusting as he dances, and he knows that I have the green light. He just stops in front of me, and just starts hump dancing. Just humping the air, in my direction, at my car, and laughing. Then he just does a 180 in the air, and does it in the other direction, and then keeps bouncing and dancing off onto the sidewalk. I'm like I live in the city. This is what I signed up for, I guess. And continued on with my day. So it happens. It happens. It's not just Florida.

Kassi Rigney - I just wouldn't call that a justification to call out emergency law enforcement.

Jacob Rigney - That's true.

Kassi Rigney - Your story does make me think of Frito from Idiocracy with the aggressive air humping.

Jacob Rigney - It was worse than Frito. It was. It was preposterous. I didn't know what to say. I just kind stared at him like what is happening to me?

Teri Ulm - Are you sure he wasn't making a TikTok, because there's this thing on TikTok right now where aggressive air humping is a trend.

Jacob Rigney - I didn't see anyone filming. Listen to me talking like a freaking 40 something year old. I didn't see anybody recording it on their phone. They don't use film, but it's possible. I don't know. He was very excited. But it wasn't a kid. That's like TikTok for like kids and people in their 30s. I guess. I don't know.

Teri Ulm - But then the pandemic happened, and a whole bunch of other people got on TikTok and chased away the kids.

Jacob Rigney - Oh. Okay. So TikTok is like Facebook from five years ago now?

Teri Ulm - Yeah.

Kassi Rigney - As soon as we, you and I, start thinking about downloading TikTok, it's dead. It means it's dead. So as soon as we figure out. Yeah. It's over. Exactly what we did to Facebook.

Jacob Rigney - Right. Because we are too old. To old to be cool. That's okay.

Teri Ulm - So back to growling Florida Man.

Jacob Rigney - Yeah. Yeah. What else did he do.

Teri Ulm - So after he broke the windshield on the car that he hopped on and was growling at the driver, he ran into a home that was occupied by a nine-year-old child, some adults, and grandparents Florida Man broke in through a long glass panel.

Jacob Rigney - Yeah.

Teri Ulm - In the house. His front door. The father of the home grabbed his firearm.

Jacob Rigney - Yeah. Time to die of lead poisoning.

Teri Ulm - He tried to get crazy Florida Man to leave, but instead Florida Man picked up a piece of glass from the panel and threw it which made the homeowner shoot him. Well, yeah. And fatally kill him.

Jacob Rigney - Yeah. Assuming all those facts are true, that the only crime committed, no charges are getting filed against anyone in this scenario.

Teri Ulm - And that's all the time we have for today.

Jacob Rigney - All right. Thanks, Teri, and thank you for listening to Tales from the Brown Desk. Dear listener, please remember while we may discuss legal issues and provide information regarding the law to our listeners, we do not intend to create an attorney-client relationship with any listener. Our advice may not be applicable to some legal issues. Please consult with an attorney you have hired to review your legal situation before you attempt to apply the things we have said to your case. Tales from the Brown Desk is produced by Rigney Law and edited by Teri Ulm. You can ask us questions. Just email Teri at teri@rigneylawindy.com, and entitle your email: "Podcast question", and we'll read it on our next podcast. Unless we start getting too many questions. But we never do. But if we did, we  would just read the good ones. Buzzsprount says we now have 25 listeners. Don't call it a comeback, baby. We've been here for weeks. Our one listener in France still loves us. Our newest fans are in Nicaragua. Nicaraguans are listening. I don't know why. And I said plural because our last five episodes have been downloaded more than five times in Nicaragua which means they must have got one of their friends to listen too. Hola. Thanks for listening. The attorneys at Rigney Law do not comment on their current pending cases. Nothing we've said in this podcast is a comment on a case we're currently working on even if your name is Chad or if you used to serve me coffee late at night in the Waffle House in Franklin, Indiana. Hasta luego.