This episode contains subject matter that may be disturbing to some listeners.

Lysner discretion is advised.

Following his first degree murder conviction, Paul Flora's as sentencing was delayed, from December to March, to give defense attorney Robert Sanger extra time to file a motion for a new trial.

But by the February 9th status hearing, more than three and a half months after the guilty verdict, Sanger still hadn't filed his motion.

When the hearing began at 1.30 pm, Sanger was not present.

Instead, an attorney named Frank Ochoa explained to the court that he was sitting in for Sanger, who was working on another trial in Los Angeles, and unable to make it, even by Zoom.

Ochoa indicated that Sanger still intended to file a motion for a new trial.

But even with the extra 60 days, he'd been unable to secure funds for the trial transcripts.

Poverl argued that Sanger had known about this hearing for two months and should have scheduled his new trial dates accordingly.

Judge O'Keefe reaffirmed her earlier decision to not delay the sentencing any further than March 10th.

On Friday, February 24th, at 4.54 pm, six minutes before the end of the work week, defense attorney Robert Sanger finally filed his motion for a new trial, as well as another motion for acquittal, arguing that the jury's verdict should be overturned, and Paul Flores should get a new trial or be fully acquitted.

Remember in December, when the court reporter said it would take her longer to finish the trial transcript, if Sanger also needed transcripts of the jury selection process?

Sanger said he did, with regard to a couple of particular individuals.

But in his 55 pages of motions, Sanger made no claims of misconduct against any juror.

Instead, the motions were mostly a rehashing of his previous nine attempts for mistrial.

He argued that deputy district attorney Christopher Poverl misled the jury during his closing rebuttal by suggesting that the jurors had only two options to believe that the entire case was a conspiracy against Paul, or to believe that Paul was guilty.

Sanger also said that the defense never suggested there was an actual conspiracy against Paul, only that the prosecution's argument was equivalent to a conspiracy theory.

But in his closing argument on October 3rd, he told the jury, after hearing Mr. Poverl, I have to respond to what he said.

Basically, a bunch of conspiracy theories.

Conspiracy theories can be fun.

We love to hear them. We like to watch shows and you think, I bet I know what happened.

But you're here as jurors. You took an oath that you would follow the rule of law.

...