ALL OF THESE BAD FACTS, THE KOREAS GOT TO OVERCOME. >> I THINK SO. SHE'S GOT A REALLY GOOD DEFENSE TEAM. THEIR EXPERIENCE TRAVEL YEARS. I THINK IF THEY'RE COMFORTABLE WITH A 7 MONTH TIME PERIOD, I DON'T QUESTION WHETHER OR NOT THEY'RE GOING TO TO PUT A CASE TOGETHER OR >> WELL, I'VE SAID SOME BAD FACTS JUST IN THE LEAD-UP TO TO INTRODUCING YOU, BUT WHAT'S THE UPHILL BATTLE THAT THE PROSECUTORS HAVE? BECAUSE FROM AND OF THINGS THAT LOOKS LIKE IT'S A SLAM DUNK. >> RIGHT. I MEAN, EVERYTHING ALWAYS LOOKS REALLY BAD. YOU KNOW WHAT GETS PUT IN THE PAST, BUT GETS PUT OUT AT A PRELIMINARY HEARING. BUT COREY NUMBER STILL HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO TELL HER SIDE THAT WILL COME AT TRIAL. I THINK THE PROSECUTORS ARE GOING TO HAVE A REAL PROBLEM IN THIS CASE PROVING THAT SHE GOT THE BATON ALL AND AND HOW SHE ADMINISTERED IT TO SHE GOT IT TO ERICA. THEY DON'T THEY DON'T HAVE ANY, YOU KNOW, REAL FAIRY TO FALL BACK ON THAT. AND I THINK THAT'S GOING TO BE REALLY STRONG POINT HEARD EVENTS. AND I THINK THE SAME IS TRUE FOR THE ATTEMPTED MURDER CHARGE. YOU KNOW, A LOT OF THIS IS IS CIRCUMSTANTIAL. IT'S WHAT THE PROSECUTION MAY BE BELIEVES HAPPENED. BUT YOU KNOW THEIR THEORY AND THEY HAVE TO PROVE IT BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT OR 2 VERY DIFFERENT THINGS. >> SO YOU PEAKED MY INTEREST WHEN YOU SAID SHE HASN'T BEEN ABLE TO TELL HER STORY AT ARE WE GOING TO HEAR SOME SURPRISES AT TRIAL? >> YOU KNOW, THAT'S UP TO HER CURRENT DEFENSE COUNSEL AND WHAT THEY WANT TO PUT FOR THOSE AT THE DEFENSE CASE. SO I WANT TO SPECULATE, BUT I DO THAT THERE'S MORE TO TOLD TO THE IN FAVOR OF COURT. >> SO CAN I ASK AND I HAVE A FEELING I KNOW YOUR ANSWER, BUT CAN I ASK WHY TO WITHDRAW? >> I CAN'T SAY ANYTHING MORE THAN WHAT WAS CONTAINED IN THE PLEADINGS. YET THERE THERE WAS A CONFLICT THAT AROSE WITH THEM THAT THE CICIVIL THE ATE CASE, THAT CONFLICTED THE ENTIRE OEUVRE AND THEY TOLD US THEY WERE ALL OUT. >> OK, SO THEN WHAT ABOUT THE THE LETTER THAT BUSINESS? I THINK THEY CALL IT THE WALK, THE DOG LETTER BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT IT SAID AT THE TOP. BUT BUT YOU CONTEND THAT THAT LETTER WAS ADDRESSED TO YOU AND IF THAT'S THE IS YOUR POINT THAT THAT WOULD MAKE IT ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGE AND NO ONE SHOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO READ IT IF IT WAS IN HER CELL. >> THAT'S RIGHT. THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS ON THIS LETTER BEFORE I WITHDREW FROM THE CASE. >> AND THAT WE PREVIOUSLY LITIGATED THE CONTENTS OF THAT PACKET. AND AND COREY AND WHAT THE PROSECUTION'S ALLEGED AS THIS LETTER WITH. OF THOSE DOCUMENTS AND IN SOME SORT AND THOSE DOCUMENTS, THE JUDGE SAID WE'RE NOT ONLY PRIVILEGE BUT ALSO POTENTIALLY WORK PRODUCT. AND SO THE BASIS OF MY MOTION JUST ACROSS THE LATTER ESSENTIALLY WAS LOOKING FOR ITS PART OF IT. THEN THIS LETTER SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED TO THE SHOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO TAKE IT OUT, PUBLISH IT TO THE CRASS EXCEPT RIGHT NOW WHAT HER CURRENT EVENTS COUNCIL DECIDES TO DO WITH IS IT ULTIMATELY UP TO THEM. >> AND THEN REAL QUICKLY, IT WASN'T. THAT WASN'T THAT SHE CONTENDS THIS IS A MANUSCRIPT FOR A BOOK AND WASN'T AND INSTRUCTION TO GET HER MOM TO GET HER BROTHER TO LIE FOR I'M GONNA PUT FACTS OUT I'M NOT SURE >> WHEN THEY RENEW THE MOTION, WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO ARGUE. >> BUT >> THE JUDGE PREVIOUSLY RULED THAT THERE WAS NO WITNESS TAMPERING. HE DENIED THE STATE'S MOTION AS IT RELATES TO THAT. SO YOU KNOW THAT TO GO OUT AND SAY SHE WAS TRYING TO ENTICE PEOPLE TO LIVE. AND THERE'S BEEN A FINDING ALREADY THAT SHE WASN'T ATTEMPTING TO WITNESS AMBER, YOU KNOW, IS PROBLEMATIC FOR NEVER SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED IN THE FIRST PLACE? >> WELL, I SURE AM HAPPY THAT YOU DID JOINED US FOR THIS