Attorney Josh Kolsrud and former law enforcement officer Claudia King examine the Lindsay Clancy case as the jury considers whether she should be held criminally responsible for the deaths of her three children.

Josh and Claudia review the evidence presented by the prosecution and defense, the strongest moments through the trial, and the questions facing jurors after more than 10 hours of deliberations across the first two days.

They explain the legal definition of Not Criminally Responsible in Massachusetts and why the state’s standard differs from the insanity defense used in many other jurisdictions. They also discuss Lindsay Clancy’s role in managing her treatment, including the difficult question of personal responsibility when mental illness and medication are central to the defense.

The conversation also examines notable juror behavior, including a juror who cried during the prosecution’s closing argument and another who reportedly took no notes throughout the trial. Finally, Josh and Claudia consider how long deliberations could continue and when the possibility of a hung jury and mistrial may become a serious concern.

No Contest provides legal analysis and former law enforcement insight into one of the most difficult and closely watched criminal cases in Massachusetts.

Josh and Claudia can be seen regularly on Court TV, Nancy Grace, and local News programs. No Contest features the true crime cases currently in the public spotlight. No Contest provides legal and social commentary. All opinions are those of the hosts.

Your No Contest Hosts:

Claudia King, Law/Crime TV Analyst, Domestic Violence Expert @realclaudiaking youarestrongenough.com

Joshua Kolsrud, Criminal Defense and Personal Injury Attorney @joshua_kolsrud kolsrudlawoffices.com

Two cases dominating headlines. Two important reminders that criminal investigations and courtroom decisions are often far more complicated than they appear online.

In this episode of No Contest: The Kolsrud and King Report, former federal prosecutor Josh Kolsrud and former law enforcement officer and legal analyst Claudia King break down the latest developments in the Shiloh Hendrix case and the investigation into the death of Nolan Wells.

First, Claudia and Josh examine why Minnesota prosecutors charged Shiloh Hendrix with disorderly conduct following the viral confrontation at a Rochester playground. Josh explains why the prosecution focused on Hendrix’s conduct as a whole and whether it disturbed the peace, rather than attempting to criminalize one specific racially charged word.

They also discuss:

• Why Hendrix was not charged with a hate crime and how the First Amendment protects even deeply offensive speech
• The difference between protected speech and conduct that may constitute disorderly conduct
• Why the jury may have found Hendrix guilty of the count involving the child’s father but not guilty of the count involving the child
• What the split verdict may reveal about how jurors evaluated each individual interaction

Claudia and Josh then turn to the ongoing investigation into the death of 18-year-old Nolan Wells, whose body was discovered after a Fourth of July trip to Horn Island, Mississippi.

They examine the early law enforcement missteps that fueled suspicion and concern, while also discussing why mistakes or poor communication do not automatically prove corruption, a cover-up, or criminal intent.

The conversation also covers:

• What the two autopsies have revealed and why no final cause or manner of death has been determined
• Why toxicology and additional forensic testing could be critical
• Questions surrounding the friends who were with Nolan before his disappearance
• The danger of forming emotional conclusions before investigators have collected all the evidence
• Why retaining an attorney early is a smart protective decision and should never be treated as proof of guilt

This episode separates legal analysis from social media speculation and explains why waiting for evidence is not the same as ignoring legitimate questions.

Listen now for a thoughtful, fact-based breakdown of the Shiloh Hendrix verdict and the continuing search for answers in the Nolan Wells case.

Keywords: Shiloh Hendrix trial, Shiloh Hendrix verdict, Shiloh Hendrix guilty, Minnesota disorderly conduct, Rochester racial slur case, First Amendment law, hate crime charges, protected speech, Nolan Wells case, Nolan Xavier Wells, Nolan Wells autopsy, Nolan Wells toxicology, Horn Island death investigation, Mississippi investigation, Ben Crump, criminal investigation, legal analysis, true crime news, Claudia King, Josh Kolsrud, No Contest Podcast

Josh and Claudia can be seen regularly on Court TV, Nancy Grace, and local News programs. No Contest features the true crime cases currently in the public spotlight. No Contest provides legal and social commentary. All opinions are those of the hosts.

Your No Contest Hosts:

Claudia King, Law/Crime TV Analyst, Domestic Violence Expert @realclaudiaking youarestrongenough.com

Joshua Kolsrud, Criminal Defense and Personal Injury Attorney @joshua_kolsrud kolsrudlawoffices.com

A jury has spoken, but the legal battle over the Karmelo Anthony case is far from over.

In this episode of No Contest: The Kolsrud and King Report, attorney Josh Kolsrud and former law enforcement officer and legal analyst Claudia King break down Anthony’s murder conviction and 35-year prison sentence for the fatal stabbing of 17-year-old Austin Metcalf at a Texas high school track meet.

Josh and Claudia examine one of the trial’s most controversial decisions: keeping cameras out of the courtroom. Would greater public access have helped combat misinformation and allowed people to evaluate the evidence for themselves, or was limiting courtroom coverage necessary to protect the integrity of the proceedings?

They also explain what is legally required for a viable self-defense claim, including the importance of reasonable belief, proportional force, provocation, and whether someone can initiate or escalate a confrontation and later justify deadly force as self-defense. Did the evidence support Anthony’s claim that he feared for his life, or did his own words and actions undermine his defense?

Editor’s Update: This episode was recorded before Karmelo Anthony formally appealed his conviction. His legal team has filed a notice of appeal, officially beginning the appellate process.

Listen for a detailed, evidence-based discussion of the Karmelo Anthony verdict, the Austin Metcalf case, Texas self-defense law, courtroom transparency, criminal appeals, and what may happen next.

Keywords: Karmelo Anthony, Karmelo Anthony appeal, Karmelo Anthony conviction, Austin Metcalf, Austin Metcalf murder case, Karmelo Anthony trial, Karmelo Anthony verdict, Karmelo Anthony sentence, self-defense law, Texas self-defense law, murder conviction appeal, notice of appeal, courtroom cameras, criminal trial analysis, legal analysis, true crime podcast, No Contest Podcast, Kolsrud and King Report, Josh Kolsrud, Claudia King

Josh and Claudia can be seen regularly on Court TV, Nancy Grace, and local News programs. No Contest features the true crime cases currently in the public spotlight. No Contest provides legal and social commentary. All opinions are those of the hosts.

Your No Contest Hosts:

Claudia King, Law/Crime TV Analyst, Domestic Violence Expert @realclaudiaking youarestrongenough.com

Joshua Kolsrud, Criminal Defense and Personal Injury Attorney @joshua_kolsrud kolsrudlawoffices.com