Live at the Crossed Wires Festival 2026

25:27And I also believe in the opposite. The Menendez brothers would have been found not guilty if social media would have existed. That's how crazy the world of social media is, is it's affecting juries.

25:36Shaun Kent:Yeah, that's the impact of this. So what do you do though? How do you fix this? I think as a team we are thinking about that a lot we know this is the way for we know this is going to happen we're going to be covering the Russell Brand trial over here we think exactly the same thing is going to happen over here because these people want to make money and this this makes them money this content is good for business we were looking at the Blake Lively trial before that settled it was exactly the same every day 15 to 20 videos on Blake Lively we've been looking at the many trials that Kanye West is facing it's exactly the same so you kind of got to get down there, get down in the trenches and get out there with them.

26:12Shaun Kent:You've got to constantly restate the facts on TikTok, on Instagram, on Facebook, on live, on the podcast, on YouTube, on iPlayer. You need to be everywhere all the time, all at once. And I think if you're looking at the evolution from OJ to Diddy, it's, I mean, it's times a million. And that's the atmosphere that we're in right now. But we have been covering so many of these cases. We're now trying to predict which is the next one that's going to shift things that's going to change things and move it on a little bit that's going to be the next diddy the next oj and i think oh yeah we've had enough of diddy although we are going to be covering this two-pack case and guess who they're saying was behind two-pack's murder diddy i'll be nice to see you again how you been yeah hey diddy um yeah i'm you're looking a little worse for where hon um but you were him yo i'm just asking what the hell pronouns yo um so yeah we have not seen the last of him and i mean he's aware of it the head of his pr and communications team i said is he going to speak to what cnn nbc wants to talk to the bbc we were thinking about do we want to interview diddy how are we going to approach this and she was like he's going to do his own thing because he's going to create content because if he gives his interview away to one of you guys how can he monetize that so he knows damn well what the situation is at hand it's the world that we live in yeah and i mean you can say what you want about the man but he is a good businessman so he's assessed the field and he's saying i'm going to create content when i get out but this macron's case this woman is wild because i don't know put your hands up if you know what i'm talking about if i say the macron's case Do you know what I'm referring to?

27:54Shaun Kent:Okay, crazy, right? This is insane. Brigitte Macron is suing a podcaster, Candace Owens. She's not suing her in France. She's suing her in Delaware because for the past three years, Candace Owens has repeatedly alleged that Brigitte Macron was born a biological male and then transitioned into a female in her 30s. Now you might be thinking, okay, who cares? And Brigitte, what are you doing? Why are you filing this lawsuit? but Candace's platform is so big she has one of the most popular podcasts and when she was posting this content every single day about Brigitte Macron we're talking 14-15 million views a video now I did actually sit down with her lawyers and I put some of these questions to them but Brigitte Macron and Emmanuel Macron filed a lawsuit in Delaware this is a civil lawsuit so they're concerned with Candace's money this isn't about her freedom Sean can you just explain how invasive the civil lawsuit process is?

28:52The best way that I can say it is you almost can't. Because when you're taking a civil lawsuit, you're allowed to take a deposition from anybody. A deposition is a sworn statement. And during the sworn statement, lawyers are allowed to ask, and I mean anything about your personal life that they want to. Good lawyers have private investigators who have already dug into a lot of this information, and they know all of the background. They all know your name. They know who you have dated. They know your sex life. They know your history. They know your credit card numbers. And then they're going to ask you these questions because the whole goal is not to verify the information.

29:27It's to catch you in a lie and catch you in an uncomfortable situation. And so when you bring a lawsuit, anything whatsoever can be asked of you. And it's almost to dissuade people from bringing lawsuits. And it is such is so much more intrusive than anything you've ever seen in any criminal case. civil cases, we warn every client who comes in, are you sure you want to do this? And the Macron situation, I guarantee her lawyers are like, are you sure you want the civil lawsuit in America? Because you might win the battle and lose the war, meaning the stuff that you're worried about coming out, you might explain to the world that you were born a female, but there might be so much other information.

30:05Then you worry about selective secrets, things about being the head of state. I would have encouraged her not to bring the lawsuit, candidly, because there's so much personal information that I would worry about.

30:14Shaun Kent:With the Macron's case, they're suing Candace Owens, right? But they're suing her in Delaware, which feels a little bit random because Candace lives in the South. Can you explain why Delaware? Well, you choose Delaware. Delaware is the best place in the United States where there's business conducts all over the world. Like usually people, if they're trying to form corporations, they choose certain states. To file a lawsuit against anybody, you must either file it where the action occurred, where you did it, or where the person lives. And so businesses utilize a state like Delaware to incorporate because it's got the most lax business organizational rules.

30:48Shaun Kent:Now, we actually got a chance to interview Tom Clare, who is their lawyer. And we didn't know if this was going to happen because they hadn't spoken before. I had 12 questions and I put them directly to them. I think we've got a clip of that interview. And you say that these claims are provably false. What is that proof? We are the plaintiffs in the case, and we're going to have the burden of proving falsity. And we're going to have the testimony of the two plaintiffs, President and Mrs. Macron. There will be expert testimony that will come out that will be scientific in nature that will also demonstrate the falsity of the statements.

31:27And obviously it's incredibly intrusive for this family to have to go into open court and present this evidence. But that should just demonstrate how serious they are about it, how confident they are in their ability to prove it as false in a public forum and how they want to put this falsehood to rest once and for all.

31:46Shaun Kent:That's the first time we've heard about expert testimony. Is this going to be expert testimony, that scientific in nature, speaking generically, or is this going to be expert testimony from an expert who spent time with Brigitte Macron? I think it's, say, not ready to reveal all of our strategy as it relates to presenting expert testimony. But I would just say that it will, you know, we're prepared to demonstrate fully, both generically and specifically, that what she's saying about Brigitte Macron is false. We would not be here if we were not prepared to undertake that burden. I love that he says I'm not going to tell you and then tells me exactly what I'm going to do I'm pretty sure he just told you what he was going to say shout out to you Tom um that's insane you're going to put an expert on the stand who's examined Brigitte Macron to prove that she is a biological female absolutely not just that I said you know Candace is like where are the pictures of you pregnant I asked him he said we've got them they'll be submitted into evidence I said they can subpoena her medical records and they're happy to do that all of this is fair game and you're going now why on earth would they do this and I put those questions to Tom Clare and Daniel Nardello who came on as well and they said that she was going to events with other heads of state and people were coming up and trying to get a closer look at her to determine her gender that her children were being asked about it that her grandkids were being asked about it and it just became such a burden on her life that it was easier to essentially fight fire with fire and the crazy thing is that we've examined why did they speak to fame under fire obviously one of the best podcasts that there is naturally but why this one it's a youth facing podcast ain't nobody know who i am like i know hello oh brother you're supposed to hype me up um and it was very very clear when we got going because we are fighting in the places that candace's message is reverberating we do the tiktoks we do the instagram the youtube the iPlayer, we have that multi-platform reach.

33:49Shaun Kent:And the Macrons have recognized what Diddy had recognized. What we are recognizing is that these battles are being fought in different arenas. And if you want to fight Candice, you have to be prepared to kind of match what she's doing. And that was reflective. We did that interview was like 10 million views on TikTok. People were going, this is insane. But a lot of people were like, well, you know what? Good for them. Like, do it with all the evidence that you have. But the crazy thing is, is that when we were talking to them, there's an awareness that it's very difficult to prove defamation in the US.

34:26Shaun Kent:I was about to say, can you just explain that? I don't think they're going to have any problem whatsoever of proving that the statement is false. I think if what he's saying, his experts are going to come in and they're going to say she was born a woman. I don't think that's going to be the issue. In America, when you're dealing with a defamation lawsuit, the hardest thing to prove is actual malice. Our Supreme Court literally just, and everything comes back in, one of the lawyers from O.J. Simpson's team with a guy named Alan Dershowitz. Alan Dershowitz sued CNN just recently because he said there were certain statements that were made that were defamatory.

34:58CNN came back and said, you are a public official. Since you are a public figure, you must prove that this statement was made with actual malice. They said you could not prove it. It's such a high burden that they threw out the lawsuit. Same situation is going to happen here. Even though we have all these things that Candace has said, they're going to have to say that the statement that she made about her being a male was proven and stated with actual malice. It seems easy to say, but it is such a high standard. And so I do not believe the Macron's are bringing this lawsuit, even though they're going to say it's for money.

35:32I think it is for what you have just said. they want the world to quit talking about it by bringing the lawsuit because I don't believe they're going to get to the actual malice standard. It is such a high standard that people need to understand that when we're saying something is said with actual malice, getting in somebody's mind is almost impossible. And Candace, who fashions herself a journalist commentator, can say this was not done with actual malice. This was done because I really believe it.

35:59Shaun Kent:Candace said, as she has said many times before, that she genuinely believes what she was saying, that she's willing to fight in court, that she would have run down to the courtroom and filed it herself if she could. And she has said that before. She has literally said, I believe this information. This is not malice. I believe this is true. This is me reporting on the news. And that might be her defense. I mean, that's crazy defamation. America. Yeah, yeah. In the land of the free, home of the brave. I think that it's one of the other things that baffles me is you can put it up to basically shoddy journalism.

36:34One hundred percent. And that's when I mean, that's what and it comes from that case, New York Times versus Sullivan that we've talked about. And as recently as last week, Donald Trump, Alan Dershowitz were trying to send these cases up to the Supreme Court because there's such a high standard to prove actual malice. such a high standard that they were trying to get it stricken down because they know that it is so hard for somebody who is considered a public figure to sue somebody it becomes almost impossible now let's say you had an incredibly good-looking chocolatey attorney who is representing Alec Murdoch's kid who sued Warner Brothers got a bunch of money but it's confidential that guy might have been able to pull it off but we can't discuss that but it's harder than you

37:11Shaun Kent:think it is America do you see what we're dealing with week in week out such a diva I wasn't even talking about me but thank you but no it is a it is so people understand like everyone thinks everyone gets their feelings hurt and what's going to happen is I love the social media comment because what is starting to happen with social media and I talked about this with you Anushka is everybody now who fashions themselves a social media expert or a TikTok influence are now becoming public figures. And so now that you are almost, everyone's a public figure, everybody's going to have the actual malice standard.

37:50The new world that's coming through is everybody is going to be a public figure and no one is going to be able to sue for defamations. And it's going to hurt our defamation case law.

38:00Shaun Kent:In the US. In the US. But over here, you can absolutely sue for defamation. I think you guys got like$130 once for a defamation case here. Y 'all can keep it. They're not huge amounts. And I think if that case actually happens, that's crazy. But that is the Macrons recognizing the world that we are living in. They're trying to change the public perception of them. They're trying to weaponize the judiciary system, which is what you have to do now with the advent of social media. You must weaponize it to your own benefit, because if you do not, then you're going to have other people taking advantage.

38:33Yeah.

38:35Shaun Kent:Well, this is a positive look at the world. Those three cases are each unique and each individual, but they each tell us something about the times that we're living in. And I think that I'm just extremely proud to work on this program where we do tackle this stuff head on. I think it's time for some questions. Does anybody have any questions? Yeah, we've got some microphones going around. Hello. Thank you so much for an absolutely fascinating conversation. I just happened to walk in off the street and I'm really glad I did. My question is around the idea that perhaps, do you think that the legal process is going to become highly subservient and the future will be a social media court, which is kind of what you've been hinting at, a kind of dystopia future vision?

39:22Shaun Kent:Can I talk about your case? Yes, please. We've spoken about the side of it that is the plaintiffs, The defendants absolutely spoken about the jury being influenced. But it's these guys now, right? How many followers you got? 400 ,000 followers. He's got a community of people that tune into his stuff every single day. They feel like they know Sean Kent. You are influencing a jury pool on a national scale, right? So the incentive then for lawyers in law school is to create content. Because if you can start developing a following, you have a better chance in the courtroom because the lawyers are now celebrities in their own right.

39:57Shaun Kent:Like, Sean just did a case that blew up on social media, right? And he was getting a lot of backlash because a lot of people didn't like the fact that he'd taken the case. Backlash, death threats. Okay, however you want to go. Yeah, they were threatening to burn down his law firm. And I was like, don't do that, guys. We need him for the podcast, please. Thank you for your concern. Yes, I did. I did call him every day and I was like, are you okay? And Sean had to kind of defend his position as a criminal defense attorney and defend why he works in that job and why he doesn't turn down cases. and then there was this new wave of people online who were like sean kent because he won this basically unwinnable i'm being real nice about you right now he won this unwinnable that's what you called it okay but then everybody was like he doesn't lose and then now sean kent having sean kent on your team means something there's a very similar thing that happened with your friend brian steel another lawyer who's kind of become a cultural figure drake made a song about him he He represented young thug in an unwinnable case and then won it.

40:56Shaun Kent:He very famously said that thug means truly humbled under God, Your Honor. What do you call that? Creative, creative lawring? Creative liberties. That's what I call that. So now you've got Brian Steele on your case. You've got Brian Steele on your case. So there is, I think, an incentive for the lawyers to become celebrities in their own right. And then we spoke about this doing jury questionnaires. You have to check. Do you follow the lawyer on TikTok? Do you know who Diddy is? Do you follow the prosecution on TikTok? I don't know. Yes, we're setting into a world that exists in the digital realm and inside the courtroom.

41:32I agree 100%. Like we, one of the reasons that we do create the social media that we do is we don't monetize it, but one, it lets me see who potential jurors are. Even so you get the comments on social media and they may not be the things that you like, but you're able to see what the jury pool is actually thinking about your case. to it gets your image, your name, image, likeness out there to potential jury panels. You can see what they like, what they don't like. Believe it or not, I see what suits work and what don't work. They're like, I hate that scene. I'm like, well, we're that one. And you find out a lot more, and you would be shocked when we're picking juries.

42:05We hear that a lot. We see that a lot. And so it is the world that I encourage when I go and teach. I encourage all lawyers to get on social media. It helps you with your public speaking. It helps you speaking. It helps you really learn the world because a lot of lawyers get caught in this little vacuum and they don't realize what the public is actually thinking about their cases.

42:26Shaun Kent:I'm not trying to be negative with every answer. There's positives to it. It's been good for us. I mean, I'm social media has helped us win our last three cases. I'm not going to lie to you. Social media has been a boom. I do not believe we win the Rick Child case without social media. I don't believe we win that massive verdict in Florence County without social media. Because as lawyers, what ends up happening is you get caught up with what you just think what the law is. And it's not necessarily what the law is. It's what the jury and what the world think it is. And it's our job to explain to them the difference.

42:59One of the phrases I said in our last trial was we don't take the law as the way that we want it. We take the law as the way that it is. What happens a lot of times with social media is as the people came out of the ditty courtroom is they were telling the world what the law should be. And you don't take the law as what it should be. You take it what it is. And that's the battle that we have. And social media has helped us to mystify that.

43:18Shaun Kent:Do we have another question? I saw some other hands. Oh, questions. Yeah, I like questions. That's a great question. That's Sean's catchphrase. Can I firstly say the suit didn't disappoint? Thank you. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. My mic could be a little louder for the people up front. Thank you. um my question was about celebrity and you've now covered a number of cases and has your view of celebrities changed through that process and do you now start to see look for the dark side of celebrities when you meet them i think that it's dangerous because of how much power they have and i don't think i'd really conceptualize how much power these people have right um we all know about celebrity we know about influence during the diddy trial there were three separate people who referred to him as a god and that wasn't satire they said he was a god amongst men that's a direct quote right and I sat in that courtroom and I just thought that's that's an insane thing to think and so that was crazy to me that that was what was going on inside of that courtroom and that was what people thought and felt and they were being really vulnerable and honest and opening up and that that's how they saw him but I was like it is in a way for a lot of people like a religious experience.

44:35Shaun Kent:You really buy into these individuals. And I've seen people be asked to do things and they reflect on it 10 years later going, I don't know why I did that. But at that time, that person was the most important person to me. And these people, they're LLCs, they own companies, they own industries, they control people's jobs, they control markets, some of them. So I'm like, I'm glad we're here scrutinizing them to the same level. But I didn't realize, I didn't realize just how deep it goes I guess for a lot of people until you watch three grown men refer to Diddy who's there looking at them as a god amongst men that that was crazy to me it is all really deep after I finish I'm like that was really deep hi thank you so much this was a really eye-opening and interesting talk um my question was um about juries again actually and how if the juries are already known to be quite swayed depending on who you get in the jury and if they're more commonly being influenced by social media do you think the role of the jury is or possibly should change and maybe jurors should be specifically trained for the position instead of being picked from members of the public or more well controlled as to who you have on the jury in age range gender sex political views and picked more specifically for that given the change in social media?

45:56That question scares me so much. Because that's literally what we wanted to get away from. Certain country has this little thing called the Magna Carta that used to have professional jurors. And we wanted to get away from professional jurors to do exactly what you're saying. And so that is such a great question.

46:12Shaun Kent:I told you this is gosh phrase. Because it is it is the fear that that's what the world could be going back to. And that's why to be really good. I would rather have a great jury than a great lawyer. And so when we picked, and I know a lot of you don't know, we had this case, Rick Chow. And when I'm telling you, the entire world hated this human being, and I mean hated him. And so when we had the jury pool, there were 400 people inside of that jury pool, and we had to meticulously take time. Our team spent 40, 50 hours going through the jury questionnaires, the background, their social medias, all of this little stuff to try to find 12 impartial jurors.

46:48You know, you're not supposed to get, like, people get confused that you're supposed to get 12 fair jurors. You're not entitled to 12 fair jurors on the Constitution. You get 12 impartial jurors. You don't get 12 jurors who look like you, walk like you, talk like you. You just get 12 jurors who are supposedly impartial. And so what it is, is finding 12 people who know nothing about the case. And when you put your ego aside and you realize, not everybody gives a damn about us. And so it's easier to get 12 people like, I don't follow this on social media. I don't care about your case. It's much easier than you think to get 12 neutral people.

47:21The reason is if we get ourselves caught up in social media and so forth, we think that's the way the world is. If you were on TikTok, Instagram, anything, if you ask that question, one of my first questions I asked a jury, do you have a TikTok page? Yes, I do. Get rid of them.

47:36Shaun Kent:Which I love, by the way, because it's all the like crime creators desperate to be on juries. And so I do love the question, but I don't, I am fearful and a lot of lawyers are feel for that we're going to try to go to professional jurors. But if they understand their history, July 4th, 1776, if you understand your history, we don't want to go backwards and get back to where we were because that's exactly what we are trying to get away from. Because you don't want professional jurors because what do professional jurors do? They look their eyes down at the common person. They look down at them and they stand in judgment.

48:08And that's why we wanted to get rid of those people. So I hope not.

48:12Shaun Kent:That was a great question. We got time for one more Thank you so much. I agree with the lady at the back. You haven't disappointed at all, Sean, today. Definite fashion. I'm sorry, Anushka, I'm sorry. I feel like I've listened to you from day one, and I've loved every minute of it. So I've prepared my question, if I may. I too have listened to all of the podcasts, every one of them. Okay, Sean, what's your one rule of thumb that you'd give to us listeners for separating legal facts from online speculation during a high-profile celebrity case? I'm not allowed to say that's a great question, but it really is, and I love it.

48:51I'm not allowed to say it, but I do love that. And the best thing that I can say is, if someone is paying attention, listen to the full, because what ends up happening is, it's sort of like she said with the Diddy case, that young lady who went out, they hear the buzz phrase they want to hear, and they run out to court because everybody wants to report first. Everybody wants to be first, and we used to have journalists who wanted accuracy, And now it's speed. In the Diddy case, Anushka and I were talking and I was so appreciative of her and their team because there was a legal issue about a certain count on the Diddy case being thrown out.

49:23And Anushka called me up and she's like, is this really thrown out? I'm like, no, it's not. But what would end up happening is everybody wanted to be first and they didn't want to pay complete attention. And when I tell you, they were all completely wrong and it wasn't close. And rather than the next day saying we're wrong, they just ignored it. So the biggest thing that I would say to anybody, any true crime, anyone who's interested, listen to the entire event of what's happening. Listen to the entire podcast like I do because I listen to them. Anyway, listen to the entire bevy of what people are talking about and not just focus on the headlines.

49:56Because it's sort of like when you get into the full detail of the case, you'd be shocked. Like I and again, I keep going back to our Rick Chow case. Like so many people have come to me like, how could you represent this person? How could you represent this person? This happened. This happened. And I'm like, you know, 12 people said not guilty. They're like, so? I'm like, well, you might want to listen to the whole case before you decide that I'm such an awful human being. It's the same thing with people. Listen to the full case. And I just think here's the age range. People don't talk anymore.

50:23People text now. People tweet now. People don't actually have adult conversations. People don't talk to one another. So people text now. I mean, people don't just know what. They email. Well, I'm old enough to remember when you actually would do this weird thing to be like, Like, hello, Anushka, would you like to talk? Like, strange conversation. Yeah, Sean likes to talk for you. People used to talk, and we don't do that anymore. So that's a long-winded way to answer a question. So I guess I say, just be old and just talk to people and listen. And don't be Anushka. I would suggest that for anything.

50:52That would always be a go-to rule for me if you want to be.

50:54Shaun Kent:Okay, I'm being told one more quick question. One more? If anyone says anything about how this man looks in a positive light, I'm going to lose my mind. I can do it myself. How long do you want me to work chronologically or alphabetically? I'm going to take a group picture with everybody. Okay. I was just, Sean, wondering what your thoughts were off the back of the lady's question about juries. What are your thoughts about AI being a jury instead of people? Why would you say that? AI scares... I'm not allowed to curse. Scares the S word out of me. See what I did there? I didn't curse. AI scares me because there is that big thought.

51:34And believe it or not, there's a large push to America going towards that. And what's ended up happening is a lot of lawyers are getting in a bunch of trouble for using AI to create case sites, to create law and give it to judges. If any of you have fallen, one of the big cases that happened after Rick Chow was a guy called Carmelo Anthony. Carmelo Anthony was convicted. He was a young African-American child who was convicted of stabbing a young white kid in Texas. Well, he was convicted. He hired an appellate team. So the big world is talking about this appellate team he hired. The leader of his appellate team, the first lawyer, just got in trouble in February for using AI to file a bunch of legal briefs that were all just made up.

52:16And that's what's ending up happening in the world is I'm afraid that everybody's loving this AI, but it's taking away from the ability to be good lawyers and do your research and do your homework. And AI makes mistakes. And literally, there are 700 movies on why AI and robots are scary as hell. So no, I do not want AIs making decisions on how jury selections and things of that nature, because I still believe in the human condition. I still believe on what human can do. I still believe that a grown man can look at someone else and still decide if there's something suspicious or something fishy about him or if a cop is lying or somebody's mannerisms.

52:51That's stuff that AI will never be able to figure out. So I hate AI. It scares the hell out of me. It does. It scares me. I am petrified on what AI is doing to the world.

53:02Shaun Kent:I will say that was the wildest thing with the Dilley trial. AI generated the jury. So you could actually go and see based off the descriptions that were being given by the journalists that were in the courtroom. They were generating their racial profile, the age of them. And I was like, that's wild because these people are going to get targeted afterwards. And lo and behold, that is what happened. So that's what happened. We got rid of DVDs. People had DVDs. They could watch the movies and see it was scary. Yeah. I mean, Sean would fax me if he could. But yes, I would. That is all we have time for today.

53:33Shaun Kent:I hope you guys enjoyed this. We'll be around for a little bit before I have to take him back to London, which Sheffield is not in London. It's not. Did you know that? Did y 'all know that? Because he went online and said, join me in Sheffield, London. It's not in London. I've been trying to explain the North-South divide. He doesn't believe in it. Who knew? I mean, it's been... I'm tired, y 'all. But thank you so much. Thank you so much for having us.

54:15Shaun Kent:He's widely recognised as one of the greatest footballers in history. He's won the prestigious Ballon d 'Or award five times. He's the all-time leading goal scorer in professional football. And according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index, he's the first active footballer in history to achieve billionaire status. Guess who we're talking about yet? That's right. Good, bad billionaire is exploring the life and fortune of football icon Cristiano Ronaldo. That's Good Bad Billionaire from the BBC World Service. Listen now wherever you get your BBC podcasts.