Widow seeks speedy trial for husband’s alleged killer; Entrepreneur accused in fatal financial feud

What this episode is about

A widow is demanding a speedy trial for the man accused of assassinating her husband, Charlie Kirk, while a millionaire entrepreneur faces charges for the murders of his brother and his brother's family as tensions mount around a twisted BDSM murder plot. Legal analysts emphasize the influx of recent cases post-holidays, highlighting a busy start to the year in the court system.

Key takeaways

• Victims can now demand speedy justice, flipping the script on defense tactics and courtroom delays.
• January is trial season: courts flood post-holidays, illustrating the notorious collision of time and crime.
• A widow’s battle for swift justice reveals the nuanced rights of victims often overshadowed in legal discourse.
• BDSMs and family dramas in court—it's a reminder that crime can be as twisted as its motivation.
• In Utah, the love for speedy trials is tested; can victim rights truly balance the scales of justice?

Who speaks in this episode?

• Joshua Ritter (Host) · 20 min speaking
• Josh Schiffer (Guest) · 13 min speaking

What is discussed, and when

1. 0:00 – 5:00: Charlie Kirk, Tyler Robinson, Georgia, Joshua Ritter
2. 5:00 – 10:00: California, Georgia
3. 10:00 – 15:00: Paul Canero, Keith Canero, Monmouth County, Jennifer Canero
4. 15:00 – 20:00: Sophia Canero, Paul Canero, Jennifer Canero, Jesse Canero
5. 20:00 – 25:00: Juliana Maggali, Joseph Ryan, Brandon Banfield, Christine Banfield
6. 25:00 – 30:00: Juliana Maggali
7. 30:00 – 33:12: Joshua Ritter, Josh Schiffer, True Crime News

Notable quotes from "Widow seeks speedy trial for husband’s alleged killer; Entrepreneur accused in fatal financial feud"

• I'm a criminal defense lawyer based in Los Angeles and previously an LA County prosecutor for over a decade. We are recording this on Wednesday, January 21st, 2026. In this week's episode, a.

  about Joshua Ritter · at 0:20

• Have any h big vacations. There's no spring break. So you'll see a lot of judges in Georgia and elsewhere specifically schedule meaningful trial work for that first couple of months of the year. And we're certainly seeing that right now.

  about Georgia · at 1:43

• Wife, has invoked this right, noting that Robinson is entitled to a fair trial, but claims that Robinson's defense has engaged in tactics to delay the trial. Meanwhile…

  about Tyler Robinson · at 2:43

• A there's a test called the Wingo case that is applied pretty much nationally where it really balances those different factors and whether a client or defendants's right to a…

  about Wingo case · at 4:54

• Defendant's speedy trial rights? The consequences can be incredibly dire. It could be dismissal of the case. We have the same thing here in California that if it's statutory…

  about California · at 8:13

• Leave it there for now. Let's move to Monmouth County, New Jersey, where a millionaire entrepreneur is facing trial for murdering his brother and his brother's entire family…

  about Paul Canero · at 14:03

• Out of his home before shooting his brother in the head and back and continuing his rampage, shooting and stabbing Keith's wife, Jennifer, and finally stabbing Keith's children, 11-year-old Jesse and 8-year-old Sophia.

  about Jennifer Canero · at 15:05

• Claim Brandon Banfield orchestrated the slangs to get his wife Christine out of the picture and begin a new life with the family's living nanny, Juliana Maggali. Magalles took…

  about Juliana Maggali · at 24:11

Who and what is mentioned in this episode?

People

• Joshua Ritter — Person · Host · 3 mentions · first at 0:18
  Host of the episode; frames each case, asks legal-strategy questions, and provides practitioner context as a criminal defense lawyer and former LA County prosecutor.
• Josh Schiffer — Person · Main guest (legal analyst) · 2 mentions · first at 0:55
  Guest attorney/legal analyst who explains speedy-trial doctrine, victim-rights enforceability, death-penalty defense incentives, and jury dynamics across the featured cases.
  Trial against the man accused of assassinating her husband. Today we are very happy to be joined by Josh Schiffer, an attorney and legal analyst you can catch on Court TV and…
• Juliana Maggali — Person · Key witness / alleged co-conspirator (referenced case subject) · 3 mentions · first at 24:19
  Family nanny and prosecution's star witness in the Banfield case; her plea/deal and credibility are discussed as pivotal to whether jurors accept the state's theory.
• Tyler Robinson — Person · Defendant (referenced case subject) · 2 mentions · first at 2:13
  Accused of assassinating Charlie Kirk; focal point of the first segment on Utah's victim speedy-trial right, defense delay tactics, disqualification motions, and death-penalty posture.
• Paul Canero — Person · Defendant (referenced case subject) · 2 mentions · first at 14:07
  Millionaire entrepreneur on trial in New Jersey for allegedly murdering his brother Keith and Keith's family; central to the second case discussion about motive, brutality, and physical evidence.
• Brandon Banfield — Person · Defendant (referenced case subject) · 1 mention · first at 24:11
  Accused in Fairfax County, Virginia of orchestrating a BDSM-themed plot leading to the deaths of his wife Christine and Joseph Ryan; discussed for credibility issues around a cooperating witness and whether he might testify.
  Maggali. Magalles took the stand through days of testimony claiming that Banfield cooked up the scheme, created a profile on a fetish dating app using his wife's information to…
• Charlie Kirk — Person · Victim (referenced case subject) · 3 mentions · first at 0:44
  Assassination victim in Utah; his death triggers the victim-rights speedy-trial motion by his widow and frames the segment's discussion of constitutional vs statutory speedy trial.
  Alleged twisted BDSM murder plot of a husband seeking a new life with the family nanny. But first, Charlie Kirk's widow invoking her right to a speedy trial against the man…
• Joseph Ryan — Person · Victim (referenced case subject) · 2 mentions · first at 24:01
  Alleged second victim in the Banfield case; described as lured to the home via a fetish app setup and then fatally shot, with defense attempting to implicate him in Christine's death.
  Cooked up the scheme, created a profile on a fetish dating app using his wife's information to stage an encounter between victims Christine and Joseph Ryan. According to…
• Keith Canero — Person · Victim (referenced case subject) · 1 mention · first at 14:16
  Paul Canero's brother and business partner; alleged primary murder victim whose life insurance and trust funds are presented as motive for the family annihilation.
  Drained money from business accounts and even dipped into Keith's trust, allegedly taking nearly $80,000 in money intended for the college funds for Keith's two young children.…
• Christine Banfield — Person · Victim (referenced case subject) · 1 mention · first at 24:44
  Brandon Banfield's wife and alleged murder victim in the Fairfax County case; her identity is central to the alleged staging via a fetish app profile and the prosecution narrative.
  Lured Ryan to the home to sexually assault his wife at knife point as part of a fantasy before Banfield fatally shot Ryan and stabbed Christine.
• Jennifer Canero — Person · Victim (referenced case subject) · 2 mentions · first at 14:53
  Keith Canero's wife and alleged murder victim in the New Jersey family-annihilation case; referenced as part of the prosecution's narrative of eliminating heirs/witnesses.
• Sophia Canero — Person · Victim (child; referenced case subject) · 2 mentions · first at 15:17
  Keith Canero's 8-year-old child and alleged murder victim; also tied to physical evidence (blood on clothing) discussed as a 'hook to hang the hat on' for jurors.
  Matches casings found at the crime scene where Keith's body was found along with a knife and clothes which tested positive for young Sophia's blood. Cano has plead not guilty…
• Jesse Canero — Person · Victim (child; referenced case subject) · 1 mention · first at 15:15
  Keith Canero's 11-year-old child and alleged murder victim; underscores brutality and aggravating factors discussed as shaping juror reaction and trial length.
  Even dipped into Keith's trust, allegedly taking nearly $80,000 in money intended for the college funds for Keith's two young children. When Keith confronted Cano about the…

Companies & orgs

• True Crime News — Company · Business focus · 2 mentions · first at 0:11
  The podcast is presented by True Crime News, indicating it's a central entity for the show's production.
  Hello and welcome to the sidebar presented by True Crime News, taking you inside the courtrooms of high-profile and notorious cases from across the country. I'm your host, Joshua Ritter.
• Court TV — Company · Affiliation · 1 mention · first at 0:59
  Josh Schiffer, a guest on the podcast, is a legal analyst appearing on Court TV.
  Very happy to be joined by Josh Schiffer, an attorney and legal analyst you can catch on Court TV and many other media outlets. Josh, welcome back, my friend. How are you?

Concepts & topics

• Wingo case — Concept · Key argument · 1 mention · first at 4:54
  Referenced as a legal test applied nationally to assess violations of the right to a speedy trial.

Places & events

• Utah Valley University — Place · Setting · 1 mention · first at 2:22
  Mentioned as the location where a right-wing activist was shot during a speaking engagement.
  Alleged killer. Tyler Robinson faces one count of aggravated murder along with other felonies after allegedly shooting the right-wing activist during a speaking engagement at…
• Monmouth County — Place · Setting · 1 mention · first at 14:03
  The setting for a trial involving a millionaire entrepreneur accused of murdering his brother and his brother's family.
  Watch and monitor it, but we're going to leave it there for now. Let's move to Monmouth County, New Jersey, where a millionaire entrepreneur is facing trial for murdering his…
• Fairfax County — Place · Setting · 1 mention · first at 23:54
  The location of a case involving a husband accused of killing his wife in a twisted BDSM murder plot.
  It. Now, let's move to another awful case out of Fairfax County, Virginia, where a husband accused of killing his wife in a random stranger in a twisted BDSM murder plot…
• Georgia — Place · Setting · 3 mentions · first at 1:48
  Mentioned in the context of legal proceedings and judicial scheduling practices.
• California — Place · Setting · 1 mention · first at 8:17
  Mentioned in the context of legal proceedings and statutory speedy trial rights.

Full transcript with timestamps

0:11 Hello and welcome to the sidebar presented by True Crime News, taking you inside the courtrooms of high-profile and notorious cases from across the country. I'm your host, Joshua Ritter. I'm a criminal defense lawyer based in Los Angeles and previously an LA County prosecutor for over a decade. We are recording this on Wednesday, January 21st, 2026. In this week's episode, a millionaire entrepreneur facing trial for the slayings of his brother and his brother's entire family. Plus, the alleged twisted BDSM murder plot of a husband seeking a new life with the family nanny. But first, Charlie Kirk's widow invoking her right to a speedy trial against the man accused of assassinating her husband. Today we are very happy to be joined by Josh Schiffer, an attorney and legal analyst you can catch on Court TV and many other media outlets. Josh, welcome back, my friend. How are you?

1:04 Hey Josh, thanks so much for having me. It's great to see you again. And what a crazy week in the world of true crime. Uh I know we've got a couple big stories, but there's so much going on. It's like a fire hose these days. It is. And I I say a lot of this is that uh beginning of the year effect where everybody wants to push everything past the holidays. Nobody wants to do any work between October and New Year's and then January and February just become jam-packed with action. Absolutely. We started off the year and it's just like you said that first couple of weeks every judge in the state was like all right holidays are over. Everybody can get a little bit of work done. We don't have any h big vacations. There's no spring break. So you'll see a lot of judges in Georgia and elsewhere specifically schedule meaningful trial work for that first couple of months of the year. And we're certainly seeing

1:57 that right now. Yeah, it's a whirlwind. Let's let's jump into them, though. This first one is out of ORM, Utah, where the widow left in the wake of Charlie Kirk's assassination is invoking her victim's rights to a speedy trial, seeking to expedite the proceedings against her husband's alleged killer. Tyler Robinson faces one count of aggravated murder along with other felonies after allegedly shooting the right-wing activist during a speaking engagement at Utah Valley University. While most listeners will be familiar with a defendant's right to a speedy trial granted in the Constitution, Utah law grants victims the right to a speedy trial in an effort to reduce quote unwarranted delays caused by or at the behest of the defendant. Erica Kirk, the victim's wife, has invoked this right, noting that Robinson is entitled to a fair trial, but claims that Robinson's defense has engaged in tactics to delay

2:52 the trial. Meanwhile, attorneys for Robinson are seeking to have the Utah County Prosecutor's Office removed from the case entirely, claiming there's a conflict of interest due to a staff member's daughter attending the rally when the shooting occurred. Though prosecutors have announced they intend to seek the death penalty, Robinson has yet to enter a plea and we will continue to update you as developments take place. Josh, um, jump in. First of all, what are your thoughts on this law, on this tactic? Tell us what you think. I, man, I I love this idea of speedy trial because it's something that almost nobody really understands. In the vast majority of states, you kind of have a twofold speedy trial analysis where uh and remember speedy trial, it's it's mentioned in the constitution, but there aren't details, right?

3:43 There aren't dates there. There isn't there isn't, hey, by the way, you have two fiscal quarters in order to A COURT. NO,

3:51 IT ISN'T speedy trial. You have a fortnight to get it to trial. Exactly. This is just speedy trial the oldfashioned way. So we have in say Georgia and most states a constitutional speedy and a statutory speedy. A statutory speedy is if your state has come back and actually put some of those very specific timelines on the books saying that if the state has not moved forward in these specific time frames, that's going to be a statutory violation of your right to a speedy public trial. Um, and most of the time you're going to find those as state laws because then we also have these federal con constitutional issues of what's a federal constitutional speedy trial.

4:35 There aren't the specific dates, but there is a lot of uh litigation that's occurred over the last couple hundred years about what makes up a speedy and public trial. and judges have those prior decisions to say, "Hey, the state either did or did not exceed what is appropriate for a speedy trial." There's a there's a test called the Wingo case that is applied uh pretty much nationally where it really balances those different factors and whether a client or defendants's right to a speedy tri public trial has been violated. Now, on top of that, let's get over to the victim side because all that speedy trial, that's just for defendants.

5:15 Victims, what kind of rights do they have? They're not really talked about in the Constitution, but most states have at some point uh dedicate a little bit of words and language to the rights of the victim. How those impact the case, big difference state-tostate. Here in Georgia, we have something called the victim's bill of rights, and it sounds magnificent. It's going to go forward and talk about how the victims are so important to prosecutions, how they shouldn't be forgotten, how they actually need to be included in the calculus of when cases are prosecuted, what the state's aspirational obligations are when it comes to handling criminal prosecutions on behalf and from the perspective of the victim.

6:02 But there's not really much action bes behind that. There's not a specific cause of action where you can sue the state and say, "Hey, you violated my rights under the victim's bill of rights because really it's political theater." Um, it's it's a good thing that we get to pound on when we're appearing on behalf of victims and we can use it as leverage when you're trying to move things, but there's not a lot of actual heft behind it. There's not a lot of actionability. That's unlike what they've done in Utah. Utah has actually codified their def or their victim's right to a speedy trial, but we still end up into that uh enforcability problem. And while it is codified, it is an actual law that they have a right to a speedy public trial. There's not a lot of litigation or binding precedent telling the court, "This is what you have to do. this is what the consequences are if you don't hold up

7:03 the victim's right to a speedy trial. So Erica is definitely making good statements. She's she's got some backing behind her. I know she's clearly frustrated by a a slow and contemplative criminal justice process, but I don't see her actual right, if it's violated or not, really coming into play more as the due process requirements of this prosecution are going to be extensively discussed. And that's really where the heart of the problem is. What is the state of Utah doing in this prosecution that's the right pathway? What are some problems that are going to happen during this prosecution? And are they respecting the rights of the defendant by trying to uh assess the death penalty through this local prosecutor's office rather than sending it off to a more disengaged office for prosecution.

7:58 Uh you make an excellent point that I don't want people to miss too about the consequences. Even though the law is on the books, you got to look at okay, well, what if there is a what if the judge finds there to be some sort of violation of that? What can the judge actually do when it comes to the defendant's speedy trial rights? The the consequences can be incredibly dire. It could be dismissal of the case. We have the same thing here in California that if it's statutory, they have time. These are these are in stone timelines. If you do not have somebody arraigned by 48 hours, prelim by 10 days, trial by 60, and if they don't wave all of those things, the case gets booted. So, it's very important for the prosecution to meet those deadlines. But here in Utah, they put that same similar language into the right of the defendant. But what would be the consequence? They can't they can't say, "Well, then it's an

8:50 automatic conviction." I mean, it doesn't work the other way. So, it's interesting because I think more than anything, to your point, it's putting pressure on the judge and letting him know that, hey, we're not just sitting by here uh on our hands. We're we want this moving along. Which brings me to my next question. It does seem as though there the the defense is kind of dragging their feet, bringing a lot of uh of uh litigation. Listen, you're a defense attorney. I'm a defense attorney. I applaud the work of defense attorneys, and if they feel that they need to bring a motion, then bring the motion. But this whole thing with disqualifying the entire office based upon this really attenuated connection, then they say, "You can't even argue it.

9:35 We want the AG appointed to even make these arguments. I mean, it goes on and on. They don't want cameras in the courtroom. The cameras are reading his lips. Aren't they kind of taking over the courtroom a little bit? And maybe, aren't they being a little um delay? Isn't there delay tactics playing a role in all of this? What do you think?

9:53 Yeah, I agree with you in applauding the defense for being zealous. And really, you've got to go to the ends of the earth for your client. uh especially now that this case is still being considered as death penalty. And I think that the treatment of this case changes dramatically if the death penalty is taken off the table because when you're fighting a death penalty case, it's not like anything else. A death penalty win doesn't involve walking out of prison. No, no, no, no, no, no. Death penalty win is I stopped the state from executing my client. That creates a very different calculus than I'm trying to mitigate a case, win a case, get charges dismissed. No, it's different mathematics within the brain. And so I I give the defense their little bit of leeway in what is clearly meant to delay. These tactics are designed to delay because that's part of your job as a criminal defense lawyer when you're

10:52 facing a potential death penalty case. You got to chase down everything once it's gone. Once it's been lost with the decades of future litigation involved in any death penalty case, those mistakes can't be fixed. Uh, in retrospect, you can't go back and start making new arguments out of nowhere during a death penalty case or it slows down the whole process yet again. And sometimes, unfortunately, the job of those defense attorneys isn't to play nice and make sure due process works. It can be a very legitimate cause of your client to basically break the process. If you are a diehard anti-death penalty, the state should not have that right kind of person. Your job doesn't involve supporting eventually the state executing your client properly. No, you're going out there trying to stop what you consider as a state sponsored murder. And that is going to allow you to take some more extreme positions than

11:50 other normally reasonably uh situated defense attorneys would. Um I think that the attenuated distance between this conflict and the office is interesting. I think that in reality there's no thorough conflict. I don't believe that the impact of the conflict really is changing the position of the prosecuting agency. I don't think that that person has any impact on the prosecution because they're going to go with both barrels no matter what. But I find it very interesting that the state isn't stepping back and taking almost a higherhanded approach of, okay, let's bulletproof this prosecution. And if you care about a prosecution more than your ego, you would send that case potentially to another similly situated agency who would have that independence without any question to go forward and prosecute it, make the death penalty determination or not, without any question of somebody being involved

12:54 with your office that may or may not have been present. So, it it's an interesting angle. I don't think it really means that the the conflict is going to impact the prosecution as much as it's a sign that the state might want to consider taking different pathways to ensure it's a clean prosecution because as I understand it, there's a pretty straightforward death penalty case here. There's not a doubt as to who did what to who the victim is. There's going to be a lot of mitigation. There's going to be a lot of exploration into the roles of the individuals. It's going to be a big long case. And the real question is, is this the efficient way for the state of Utah to prosecute it? Or should they just realize, hey, this is a hiccup. We need to move to the side, rearrange, put this with another agency so that it's more bulletproof than ever before.

13:46 Yeah, you you said it uh best. It's going to be a big long case. I imagine we're going to be talking about this one for a very long time. Buckle up, everybody. I don't think we're getting to the see the inside of a courtroom for trial uh even in this calendar year. We will see what happens. We'll continue to watch and monitor it, but we're going to leave it there for now. Let's move to Monmouth County, New Jersey, where a millionaire entrepreneur is facing trial for murdering his brother and his brother's entire family after a financial feud turned fatal. Paul Canero owned and operated two businesses with his brother and partner Keith Canro, including a tech company and a pest control operation. While the brother's empire enriched both men beyond belief, Cano reportedly began living beyond his means, obtaining multiple luxury vehicles and showering his mistress with the lavish gifts. Cano reportedly

14:36 drained money from business accounts and even dipped into Keith's trust, allegedly taking nearly $80,000 in money intended for the college funds for Keith's two young children. When Keith confronted Cano about the withdrawals, prosecutors say Cano enacted the plan to not only eliminate Keith, but to take out all of Keith's heirs, which stood between Cano and a multi-million dollar life insurance policy in Keith's name. Authorities say the Canaro lured Keith out of his home before shooting his brother in the head and back and continuing his rampage, shooting and stabbing Keith's wife, Jennifer, and finally stabbing Keith's children, 11-year-old Jesse and 8-year-old Sophia.

15:20 After the murders, prosecutors claimed that Cano set fire to Keith's home and later his own, in order to destroy evidence and make the slayings look like a targeted attack. However, investigators claimed that they recovered a gun in Cano's safe that matches casings found at the crime scene where Keith's body was found along with a knife and clothes which tested positive for young Sophia's blood. Cano has plead not guilty to all accounts and we will have to wait to see what his defense presents to counter the state's case as this trial continues. Um, what do you think in these types of cases?

15:56 I'm curious, how much do you think it's an obstacle for jurors when you have a person who before this has no criminal record, is a respected member of society of the community to do something this heinous. I mean, we're not talking about, hey, I cheated on my taxes. We're talking about going from somebody who's got no criminal record to all of a sudden you annihilate your brother's entire family. Is that going to be an obstacle for prosecutors or do you think no? I I don't think it's much of an obstacle given the extraordinary brutality like you're talking about, Josh. This wasn't a murder case. This is a case where basically every action alleged qualifies you in lots of STATES FOR THE DEATH PENALTY. We've got a murder of a brother for financial reasons. Uh you know, that's the state's gut theory is, hey, this is a killing over money. Not only is there a killing, then there's witness mi manipulation

16:56 through murdering the wife and stabbing to death the two little kids. This wasn't murdering the kids through quiet gunshots at No, this is stabbing children to death followed by, let's not forget the arson not just of his brother's house but also his own house because he was trying to allegedly mislead law enforcement uh during the investigation. And now we're actually seeing Mr. Cano use his third brother um in what is just a what what I find a legitimate but difficult defense. The defense is relying on the other brother, the unnamed or not unnamed but the third of the three of them and saying, "Hey, we were all going to benefit from this trust, from this money. It wasn't just me. It was my brother as well. Let's point at this empty chair. It's not a a theor. It's not a clear and convincing I didn't have anything to do with this. It wasn't. No, it's very much a defense of, hey, you've got this rush to judgement

18:04 by the state, which is easy for jurors to understand. Jurors like the rush to judgment concept. And they haven't really thoroughly considered the person not in the room, which is my brother. That's really the guy that had a reason to do this. and an opportunity and he did it and you're not going to hear enough because you're too busy jury listening to the woman that I'm having an affair with even though technically not a not a mistress. That was one of the rulings. Um but it it it is a tough def slog for the defense to see all of this abhorrent violence and claim to have nothing to do with it. Uh this is also not going to be a short trial because of how and why uh they they try case up there. We're talking about a two and a half month trial. This is long.

18:52 This is slow. This is going to be gruesome when they get to some of the really uh aggravated images and allegations. That jury is never going to be the same again. And I think that the state's probably going to prevail unless they really have a defense smoking gun where the brother can be shown to have taken some sort of step, been involved somehow. And and so far they don't have any of that.

19:19 No. Let's turn to some of the physical evidence in this case. And my first question is, why do these guys never ditch the gun? Why do they keep the gun? Why do they keep the knife? It just blows my mind. Is this is that enough though? I mean, does that you know, they was found in his safe. Is that enough to just tie this all up for a bow with a bow for the prosecution?

19:41 Yeah, it it it is. As my old judge Al Thomas would say, that's the hook to hang the hat on.

19:45 Yeah. You know, when you are completely lacking in physical evidence and just going forward with circumstantial specul, man, that's something. And the defense can really draw that line clearly and and talk about how your rights to be convicted having been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and how physical evidence is a part of that and necess man that that argument is good with jurors here that they're the gun. Come on.

20:17 Yeah. The gun. You get the right detective and you've seen these great presentations. Just because you're a witness doesn't mean you're good at being a witness. A good witness, a good firearms ballistic technician comes out there with a beautiful presentation of, well, this is definitely the bullet that caused the killings and this is definitely the gun that fired that bullet and it was definitely found inside the safe of the defendant where he was really the only one that had access to it. And that's all that I need to know, man. That's what pushes people by. That's what gets people back in that jury room to really, you know, clear the silence, clear the arguments, clear the decks, and say, "Hey, let's let's stop talking about these possibilities and talk about what really happened." Dude had the gun in his safe at home.

21:08 There's no other question for me. There is how a lot of jurors are going to find safety in that. Jurors that are worried, there are those two fears that every juror has, wrongful conviction, wrongful acquitt. and they and they balance and and traditionally in the United States we'll let pretty guilty people go free because we're afraid of a wrongful conviction but wrongful acquitt sits up there and if you're battling between those and you have that physical irrefutable I can see the grooves I looked at the picture as the forensic tech was talking about these are the grooves from the barrel that are unique to this firearm man there's is my conviction.

21:52 Yeah, you're right. That's a that's a jury that can sleep pretty easy when they see that kind of um uh physical scientific evidence that that like you said they can hang their hat on. And the the advancements in that that line of uh evidence too, that science is pretty incredible. I mean, it used to be years ago there was a little bit of room for argument for defense attorneys, but nowadays it's

22:15 it's nearly up there with DNA how they can match this stuff. And the beauty about a really good witness technician who knows what they're doing is they're going to walk that jury through the science to a degree where the jury literally understands the mechanics

22:30 and they've got the illustrations. They've got the high-res photography. They've fired so many guns. This has been studied with an inch of its life. They're going to be able to teach a jury how the science works. give them the data and have the jury make their own independent conclusion that just happens to exactly match the state's theory. And that is this firearm fired this bullet which was taken out of this body

22:57 and that gun was found in this man's safe that no ONE ELSE HAD ACCESS TO. YEAH,

23:02 pretty strong stuff. Yeah. H how did you drop your driver's license while doing the bank robbery? And you you you can't believe it until you've seen it enough times that it's almost this uh psychological unconscious need to get caught

23:18 because anybody sitting back and designing a crime would would clearly not want to leave or retain 100% identifying material connecting you to the crime. No. Get get rid of that, man. Drive to Alabama, throw it in the woods.

23:33 SERIOUSLY, IT AIN'T THAT HARD, MAN. I KNOW. I imagine there's a lot of bodies of water around there that he could have easily dumped it into.

23:42 Anyhow, you go magnet fishing up there, man, you're going to probably get more than one gun.

23:48 It's a really horrific case. Uh like you said, it's going to be continuing on for some time, so we will continue to watch it. Now, let's move to another uh awful case out of Fairfax County, Virginia, where a husband accused of killing his wife in a random stranger in a twisted BDSM murder plot prepares to present his defense after prosecutors arrested their case earlier this week. Authorities claim Brandon Banfield orchestrated the slangs to get his wife Christine out of the picture and begin a new life with the family's living nanny, Juliana Maggali. Magalles took the stand through days of testimony claiming that Banfield cooked up the scheme, created a profile on a fetish dating app app using his wife's information to stage an encounter between victims Christine and Joseph Ryan. According to Magalles, Banfield lured Ryan to the home to sexually assault his wife at knife point as part of a fantasy before Banfield fatally

24:47 shot Ryan and stabbed Christine. Banfield's defense has attempted to poke holes in the testimony presented by Magalles whil also attempting to implicate Ryan in Christine's murder. However, we'll have to see what else they have in store after prosecutors rested their case and now focus turns to Banfield's version of events. This one is wild beyond belief. the the incredible I mean it really is not to overuse this cliche but it's it's hard to imagine this even being cooked up in Hollywood but it is the story that's been laid out and it's been laid out primarily by this OP pair she is the star witness no way around it for the prosecution now she's getting a deal she's also complicit in being a a conspirator in a double homicide how are jurors going to react to her and That's you've seen this so many times where the state can only make their case by basically employing criminals by rewarding them after they were caught

25:50 for admitting the horrible things that they've done. And it puts everybody on this very awkward standing because now you've got a defendant. Can can you trust what they're going to say? Can you trust what she's going to say when she's the heart of the state's case? Y'all got to understand state does not have this case as strong by any degree without her participation. She's already plead guilty. She's agreed that she's going to probably go to prison. And depending on what she says during the trial of her alleged lover, that's what's going to determine the rest of her life. Now, how do you judge that? How do you consider the veracity of her testimony? What selfserving issues are you going to be able to identify? Because we're not talking about a speeding ticket. We're not talking about, oh, it's a thousand dollar front. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. Two dead people, including a fairly random guy who had nothing to do

26:47 with this. And it was set up for the the the most purant reasons possible, uh, greed and sex. And when we get to the to the big sins, those those are really high up on the list. So, we're going to see the defense do some standard dancing around about, well, you can't trust this because it's self- serving and they're going to explore the deal and they're going to belabor the fact that the state could only make up this version of events because they've convinced this per and really there are some jurors and this is one of the the interesting uh hiccups in the jury system. There's some jurors that are going to find that deal objectionable.

27:28 Yeah. And if you can identify those jurors as a defense attorney and stop talking to all 12 and just talk to two, just talk to four, that's what we call cleaving a jury. You're separating a couple of sheep from the herd cuz the state needs unonymity. If you're getting purchase and pickup from a couple of jurors, you lean right on to them and hope that they're going to be the ones that give you a hung trial. they're the ones that are going to stand up and and, you know, split the baby, whatever it is. Um, very interesting how the defense embraces this victim slashcodefendant slash lover um and and juxtaposes them with the horrificness of this crime because remember her admissions make her criminal and and and that's a delicate needle to thread.

28:22 Do you think this is one of those cases where he might need to take the stand to explain some of this or do you think it's just keep him anywhere away from that because there's no there's no explaining the things he's already done.

28:35 If you'd asked me that 15 10 years ago, I'd say, well, this is one where that man, the standard adage applies. Keep your client away from it. There's a burden issue. I love burden issues because I feel people are demanding and cynical of a state where they need to make sure the state has done their job. Uh but it's changed here in the last decade. And Josh, you've watched this as a practitioner and as someone in the leading true crime universe, we see a lot more people taking the stand because they've realized the jury will never be able to free me until they hear from me.

29:10 Yeah. And the risks giant. Uh uh I don't care how good your witness is, man. Anybody can have a bad cross- examination moment. They they the good a good crossexaminer. Holy cow. You see some of these lawyers who are at the top of their game. They'll have you admitting everything. They will put words in your mouth. They will have you dancing. They will have you defensive. They will have you look like a liar. They are magnificent questioners. You expose yourself to that the moment you get up and try to speak in your own defense. But at the same time, I feel jurors are more willing than ever to forgive some of the needless attacks that prosecutors uh have brought previously when given the opportunity to cross-examine a defendant. And I think that that relationship with jurors continues to change. and we'll see more defendants standing up saying their peace knowing that yeah, they're going to take some

30:05 slings and arrows, but that's the way they're going to actually win the case and that matters more. So, I won't be surprised in this type of he said, she said with limited physicals where there's this giant cooperation issue hanging out there. dude stands up and spins the right version, it's enough to separate a couple of jurors out and say, "I'm not going to let a conviction fly because I'm offended by how this took place, by the cooperation, by my un acknowledgement of of of some of the facts." That's probably his only realistic path of walking away from this. It's so funny. I agree with you.

30:45 And I don't know if it's just purely anecdotal uh that we feel like we watch more cases where they're more inclined to call them and if statistically that's in fact true. But it does seem like a lot of people are taking the stand nowadays and and that is really against what is usually the council of most attorneys. So we'll see in this one. We'll leave it there for now. Josh, thank you so much for coming on this week. It's always such a pleasure speaking with you. Where can people find out more about you? Well, first of all, thank you so much, Josh. It's an honor to appear. You know what a big fan I am of you and your audience. Um, and I'm happy to announce I partially retired at the beginning of this year.

31:27 Yeah. Um, I have decided I've gotten to this part of my practice and career where I'm going to be taking less and less cases from the general public and I'm going to concentrate on a bunch of other legal things out there. So, I'm going to be teaching. I've been asked to be a judge. I've been asked to do a bunch of politics. We're still reviewing some cases. My partner is going to remain active as a civil and criminal litigator. Uh but my personal role, I'm going to enjoy picking up some fun project cases and running with them. U being being a lawyer has been an amazing honor and privilege. It's something I love. And now that I'm at a position where I don't have to take cases, I'm going to take the cases that really move me. Um, but you can always find me on the socials, lawyers. You can just Google Joshua Schiffer. I'm the Schiffer, spelled just like Claudia, but I'm not related to Hurdle. That's how

32:22 you remember me. I will never forget that. There's a gorgeous supermodel from Germany named Claudia Schiffer. I'm not related to her at all.

32:32 Fair enough. Fair enough. Glad we cleared that up. I'm your host, Josh Ritter. You can find me on Instagram and Twitter at Joshua Ritter ESQ. And if you want to hear my thoughts and coverage on even more true crime cases, please check out my YouTube channel, Courtroom Confidential. And you can, of course, find all of our sidebar episodes wherever you get your podcast. And we would love to hear from you. If you've got questions or comments you'd like us to address, please tweet us your questions with the hasht sidebar. And thank you again for joining us at the True Crime News Sidebar.

Questions about this episode

Who speaks in "Widow seeks speedy trial for husband’s alleged killer; Entrepreneur accused in fatal financial feud"?

Joshua Ritter (Host), Josh Schiffer (Guest).

What is "Widow seeks speedy trial for husband’s alleged killer; Entrepreneur accused in fatal financial feud" about?

A widow is demanding a speedy trial for the man accused of assassinating her husband, Charlie Kirk, while a millionaire entrepreneur faces charges for the murders of his brother and his brother's family as tensions mount around a twisted BDSM murder plot. Legal analysts emphasize the influx of recent cases post-holidays, highlighting a busy start to the year in the court system.

What is mentioned in this True Crime News episode?

21 people, works and ideas are mentioned, including Joshua Ritter, Josh Schiffer, True Crime News, Juliana Maggali, Tyler Robinson, Paul Canero. Each one on this page links to its own page with every episode that mentions it.

How long is "Widow seeks speedy trial for husband’s alleged killer; Entrepreneur accused in fatal financial feud"?

The episode runs 33 min; the transcript is about 5,673 words in 50 timestamped sections.

More from True Crime News

• All analyzed episodes
• People mentioned on True Crime News