Some cases don’t challenge what happened.

They challenge how we understand it.

When Andrea Yates drowned her five children in their home in Texas, there was no question about who was responsible for the act. But almost immediately, a different question emerged—one that would define the case moving forward: what was her mental state at the time, and how should the law respond to it?

Diagnosed with severe mental illness and experiencing postpartum psychosis, Yates’ case would move through conviction, reversal, and ultimately a verdict that shifted the focus from punishment to treatment.

In this episode of Degrees of Guilt, we examine a case where the line between guilt and illness becomes difficult to define—forcing a deeper look at how the legal system determines responsibility when reality itself may be distorted.

Because when someone cannot fully understand their actions… what does guilt really mean?

What happens when someone fires a warning shot—and it costs them their freedom?

In this episode of Degrees of Guilt, we examine the case of Marissa Alexander, a Florida woman who fired a single shot to keep her estranged husband away—and was sentenced to 20 years in prison under the state’s mandatory minimum laws.

No one was injured. No one was killed. And yet, the system responded with one of the harshest penalties available.

This case forces a deeper question: when someone believes they are protecting themselves, where does self-defense end—and criminal liability begin?

We explore how Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law intersected with domestic violence, prosecutorial discretion, and public perception. Why was the same defense that protected others denied here? What role did timing, location, and narrative framing play in the outcome?

And more importantly—what does guilt look like when intent, fear, and law collide?

Because in cases like this, the issue isn’t always what happened— it’s how the story is told, who is believed, and who is held accountable.

Most crimes are committed by individuals.

This one wasn’t.

When Christopher Regan disappeared in Michigan, the investigation eventually led back to a married couple—and a relationship that appeared to blur the lines between influence, agreement, and responsibility. What began as a missing person case would unfold into something far more complex, involving conflicting statements, evolving timelines, and questions about what was known… and by whom.

At the center of it all was Kelley Cochran.

In this episode of Degrees of Guilt, we examine a case shaped not just by actions, but by the dynamics of a relationship—where responsibility may not rest with one person alone, but instead exists in a shared space that is far more difficult to define.

Because when two people are involved… does guilt divide… or does it multiply?