09x03 - Wrongful convictions

[bunniefuu]

LAST WEEK TONIGHT
JOHN OLIVER

Welcome to "Last Week Tonight"!

I'm John Oliver.
Thank you so much for joining us.

And let's dive straight in tonight
with Ukraine,

where it has been
a truly grim week.

And yet, Ukrainian citizens
have continued to show

incredible signs of resistance,
proving that they truly are

the "f*ck around and find out"
country of eastern Europe.

Smatko is a grandmother
and a retired economist.

These are the only weapons she has,
but she says she's ready to fight.

"Let those Russian shits come here",
she says. "We are ready to greet them".

Do you have a message
for President Putin?

Putin...

It's a popular sentiment on the street.
This sign is too vulgar to translate.

Is it? We might actually be able
to help you there,

'cause this is the network that airs
shows about high schoolers

doing heroin
and hosting orgies before homeroom,

so we have no such problems.

So, I can tell you that that sign
translates to "Putin is a dickhead",

which he clearly very much is.

Also, it is notable that "dickhead"
was too vulgar for CNN,

but Molotov grandma got to say,
"Let those Russian shits come",

with no problem.

It seems that she is above the law,
as she should be.

Ukrainians' defiance
and sense of humor

in the midst of such a brutal,
outmatched fight

has understandably
captured the world's imagination,

although what some have chosen
to do with that imagination

has left a little to be desired.

To me, Zelensky is a cross between
Churchill and Arnold Schwarzenegger.

I mean, he's just incredible.

Just such a great story,
slash maybe one day a movie.

And people were quick
to cast the film on Twitter,

saying Jeremy Renner
would make the perfect Zelensky.

However... The backlash to that
was way too early.

We're in the middle
of a freaking w*r here.

A little insensitive, but whenever
it does get made, it's gonna be epic.

Hold on. Maybe wait for the w*r to end
before we start casting the movie.

To be fair, "Yeah, a little insensitive
but we're gonna run with it anyway",

is the official motto of TMZ.

And spare a thought there
for Volodymyr Zelensky.

He's got enough going on
right now

without being described
as a "Jeremy Renner type".

That's not a nice thing to say
about someone.

Now, as for Russia, they've responded
to worldwide criticism

by clamping down hard
on dissent at home.

Putin just signed a law effectively
criminalizing any public opposition

to, or independent
news reporting about, this w*r,

and authorities have
blocked Twitter and Facebook,

and are threatening
to block Wikipedia.

Which is an outright att*ck on anyone
who has something due tomorrow.

The education ministry there

even produced a nationwide
online lesson for children,

featuring a girl asking questions
about what was going on there,

and getting
some spectacular answers.

I have a question.
Special operation, what does it mean?

It's when goals lead to peace.
We do not att*ck residential buildings.

We do not hit the civilians. We do not
destroy the social infrastructure:

kindergartens, schools,
water utilities, substations.

Except you've literally
just done almost all those things.

Russian strikes have destroyed
"hospitals, schools and homes".

Also, I really don't want to be
giving notes to state propaganda.

But if you're going to lie
to a child's face,

maybe cast a less creepy man
to do that.

May I suggest
film actor Jeremy Renner?

People seem to want him
involved in this somehow.

And yet, despite Russia's efforts
to control this narrative,

we continue to see public protests,
and some Russian celebrities,

politicians, and even a few oligarchs
have started cautiously speaking out.

Which is understandable, not only
is this w*r morally indefensible,

but the impacts of global sanctions

are now being felt
at every level of Russian society.

The economy there
is in complete free fall,

and watch the level of despair

in this exchange
on a Russian financial network.

Hello, Alexander.

- Hello, I won't say, "Good day".
- Yeah, no one does these days.

Jokes aside, let's do this quick, I'm
sending regards to Sergei Usichenko,

who 12-13 years ago drank
to the death of the stock market.

Today, I'm drinking seltzer.

Dear stock market, you were close
to us, you were interesting to us.

Rest in peace, dear comrade.

That guy toasted the death
of the Russian stock market,

saying, "You were close to us,
you were interesting to us",

and then chugged some seltzer.

Which is striking,

but also sounds less like how
you'd mourn a financial system

and more like
how you'd give a eulogy

for a clown you don't know
all that well personally.

"You were close to us,
you were interesting to us".

Yet, for all the Ukrainian resistance
and Russian discontent,

the fact is,
Russia is continuing to advance,

and committing human rights abuses
along the way.

And it looks like casualties
are only going to rise,

especially given,
after a call with Putin on Thursday,

French President Emmanuel Macron
was reportedly convinced

that Putin wants to seize
the whole of Ukraine

and that "the worst is to come".

So, sadly, we have no idea

what's going to happen next
or just how bad things could get.

And what determines
the outcome here

may not be Ukrainian resistance
or Russian propaganda,

so much, unfortunately,
as one man's determination to be,

if I may quote one of the most
applicable phrases in any language,

a total f*cking dickhead.

And now, this.

And Now: The Line Every Bachelor
And Bachelorette Is Forced To Say.

Clear waters, blue skies, sunshine.

It's magical. Seriously, it's like
the perfect place to fall in love.

Tahiti is the perfect place
to fall in love.

Chiang Mai is the perfect place
to fall in love.

Saint Thomas is the perfect place
to fall in love.

Croatia is the perfect place
to fall in love.

Bimini is the perfect place
to fall in love.

Iowa is the perfect place
to fall in love.

Wisconsin is the perfect place
to fall in love.

Fort Lauderdale is a beautiful place
to fall in love.

- This is the perfect place.
- Perfect place.

- It's like the perfect place.
- Perfect place to fall in love.

Fall in love.

I'm in Deadwood, South Dakota.

This is the perfect place to either
fall in love or get sh*t in the back.

Moving on. Our main story tonight
concerns justice.

It's the thing
best served by Steve Harvey.

This court is going to award you
a VIP moment.

You and your girls

finna give you
an additional $5000

from me and my court

and you take your girl to Vegas

and party like it's 1999.

That's my verdict
and that's how I see it.

Incredible, right?
Just top to bottom great.

From awarding a woman a VIP moment
as if that phrase means anything,

to the entire gallery clapping
for the plaintiff,

including the defendant,
by the way,

to demanding she organize a vacation
with all of her friends,

every Google Calendar's nightmare.

And that is saying nothing
of the MVP of that clip:

Steve Harvey's
little golden gavel,

which he is making
a full five-course meal out of.

Honestly, I wish I had one of those,
except hold on, I actually do.

Clomp, clomp, clomp,
clomp, clomp, order in the court.

Clomp, clomp!
Big man, tiny hammer alert.

Clompity, clompity, clomp!
I'm a gavel guy now. Get used to it.

Sadly, not all courts
are as infallible as Steve Harvey's.

As we've discussed many times,
trials can go awry for reasons like:

prosecutorial misconduct, underfunded
and overworked public defenders,

flawed jury selection,
how we elect judges,

to problems with mandatory minimums,
all the way to flimsy jizz analysis.

Luckily, though, as pop culture
has repeatedly taught us,

there is a remedy for wrongful
convictions built into the system.

We'll fight this on appeal.
It isn't over.

I'll get the conviction
overturned on appeal.

I'll be appealing.

I'll appeal this all the way
to the Supreme Court.

We will appeal this.

Don't say a thing.
We'll appeal.

Okay, hold on. 'Cause let's acknowledge
Julianna Margulies there,

because she is capital A
acting in that moment,

doing absolutely everything
with absolutely nothing.

Julianna Margulies is doing more
in this three second clip

than The Rock has done
in his entire movie career.

You heard me. I said what I said.
Clomp, clomp, clomp.

The Rock's been officially clomped.

But the idea that you can simply
fight a wrongful conviction

and get exonerated runs deep.

But the truth is, it is far more
difficult than you might expect,

even if there's compelling evidence
that you are innocent.

Take Lamar Johnson,
who was convicted in 1995 of m*rder.

But between his conviction
and his sentencing,

one of the real K*llers
wrote him a letter

that you would think would've
changed everything for him.

The letter opens by saying
it's pretty much messed up

Johnson was convicted
when he didn't do anything,

then explains who did it
and what happened.

Believe it or not,
even with the letter,

this is still a fight,
and the justice system

is trying to figure out
how to free an innocent man.

I never expected that this case
would go the way that it did,

that I would end up charged with it,
and much less convicted for it,

and would have to be here
for the last 20-some years

trying to prove that I didn't do it.

Okay, so there's clearly
a lot to unpack there.

That letter didn't say it was "messed
up", it said it was "f*cked up".

To the fact it opened
with "What's up dude?"

Which is a weird way

to greet a person who's in prison
for something that you did.

How do you expect Johnson
to respond to that? "Not much, you?"

But it is not just that letter...

both the real K*llers
have now signed multiple affidavits,

swearing that they committed the crime,
and that Johnson was not involved.

And if life were a game of Monopoly,
you'd assume that's it.

That's an a*t*matic get of jail free card.

Unfortunately, though,
life is not a game of Monopoly.

For one thing, no one these days
can afford to buy property

and top hats are only worn by Amy
Sherman Palladino and the Babadook.

So, as of now,
Johnson is still in prison,

and it's very much up in the air
whether he'll get out.

And if you're wondering
how the f*ck that can be the case,

that is what our story tonight
is about.

It concerns all the reasons why,
if you're wrongfully convicted,

even if there is compelling evidence
of your innocence,

it's really hard to be exonerated.

Let's start with the fact
that the Constitution

guarantees the writ
of habeas corpus,

which is to protect
against unlawful imprisonment.

Basically, you have a right
to challenge your incarceration.

And you can do that
in both state and federal court.

But as this defense attorney explains,
it is major limitation on that right.

It's not just enough to be innocent.
That doesn't get you anywhere.

You have to have something else
to be able to get back in court on.

Yeah, that's true.

In general, innocence itself
is not an appealable issue.

A fact already so shocking, it might
prompt you to go the full Margulies.

She was in the background of that scene
giving it that kind of commitment!

Now, what you can appeal on
is any shocking new evidence

that wasn't available
during your original trial,

or a claim that your constitutional
rights were violated during it.

But that's already a long sh*t.
Especially because,

while you have a right
to an attorney at your original trial,

you are not guaranteed
one after your conviction.

Most states do provide
one in death penalty cases,

but even then, there is no guarantee
that they be competent.

And attorneys can be incompetent.

Take Geddes Anderson.

He represented Edward Lee Elmore
in a m*rder case, and he lost it.

Elmore was sentenced to death,
and while on death row,

appealed his conviction,
he petitioned for a different lawyer,

but was told that he had
to stick with Anderson,

who'd only spent eight days
preparing for his original trial,

and who can only be described as the
most Tennessee Williams of characters.

In retrospect, perhaps I should
have asked for more time.

I never have proclaimed to be

the best lawyer
that ever graced the courtroom.

Yeah, that's not great, is it? The only
thing worse than being a bad lawyer

is being a bad lawyer
with low self-esteem.

In the words of RuPaul,
"If you can't defend yourself,

how in the hell are you going
to defend somebody else?"

And you do need an exceptionally
good attorney for an appeal.

Post-conviction law
is incredibly difficult to understand,

even for a seasoned attorney,
and you want to get it right

because any technical error can result
in your appeal being dismissed.

So many wrongful conviction cases
are won or lost on technicalities,

even ones that are pretty compelling.

Take Ricky Kidd, a man wrongfully
convicted of m*rder in 1997,

despite the fact "no physical
evidence linked him to the murders".

The case against him
was littered with police incompetence

and prosecutorial misconduct,

and his own lawyer failed
to chase down exonerating evidence,

such as the fact that, around the time
that the m*rder took place,

Kidd was in a sheriff's office,
applying for a g*n permit.

Which is a pretty
f*cking solid alibi.

Kidd's best grounds to appeal

were that he had ineffective counsel
at his first trial.

But unfortunately,
when his new lawyers filed that appeal,

they failed
to include that argument.

So, the state fought
to keep him locked up.

Which is both outrageous, and
something that the assistant state AG

was comically unwilling to discuss.

You don't have any concern
that a police commissioner

and former prosecutor
say he's innocent?

According to... Your name
is here right in the court document,

and you're not even arguing
that he's guilty.

Just technicalities that he missed
his chance to properly appeal.

You don't seem concerned about this.

Do you even think he's guilty?

No answer?

I mean, you're spending taxpayer
money to fight this case,

you're keeping him
locked up in prison.

- It's the best use of taxpayer money?
- Y'all have a good day, sir.

Honestly, I'm conflicted there.
That man is a heartless monster,

smirking like a wax statue
of Paul Giamatti

when a man's life is at stake.

I do also respect his ice-cold attempt
at ignoring small talk at an elevator.

Elevators are flying coffins

that demand total silence
from each of their pallbearers.

We have to reach agreement on this.

And while it's not important,

quick shout-out to the guy waving
at the camera in the background there.

Hey, buddy!
Bet you had no idea that your wave

was underscoring a grotesque failure
of our entire judicial system!

But it was! Bye!

But that brings us to a key point.

When the whole criminal justice system
is geared toward getting a conviction,

it has very little interest
in seeing its work undone.

I mentioned earlier that one of the few
ways to get a post-conviction appeal

is to argue that you have
new evidence to introduce.

But you still have to be able

to show that it would have changed
the outcome at your trial.

And prosecutors
will fight that notion, hard.

When one of the West Memphis Three
tried to get a new trial,

based on new evidence,
including DNA,

an assistant AG appeared
before the state's supreme court

to try and talk them
out of considering it,

citing the harm that could do.

What harm is there to in allowing him
to present all evidence?

The harm is in the finality
of the criminal judgment

that is not demonstrated to have any
constitutional or procedural defect,

and just to try it again.

You're suggesting,
it sounds to me, Justice Priebe,

as though
every 15 or 17 years or so,

we really ought to try cases again
to reestablish guilt.

So, the harm is to the criminal justice
system's interest in finality.

The harm is to the finality?
If the final decision could be wrong,

you should want to make
sure that you get it right.

There's a reason that "La La Land"
didn't just keep the Oscar

after Faye Dunaway
and Warren Beatty

skin-smiled their way
through that mistake.

But while, thankfully,
those judges were skeptical,

many defer to prosecutors.

That was the case
with Edward Lee Elmore, remember?

The guy whose initial lawyer
was insecure Foghorn Leghorn.

The key evidence against him
were hairs at a m*rder scene

that police claimed
were of African American descent.

But there were no photos
of those hairs at the scene,

which is already suspicious,

and the state later
found a box of evidence,

previously claimed
to be missing by police,

that contained Caucasian hair recovered
from the victim's body.

But when the judge was presented
with this important new information,

he simply wasn't interested.

This is a completely different case
than what the jury heard.

If this is not enough
to grant somebody a new trial,

then when is post-conviction
relief ever appropriate?

Unexpectedly, rather than adjourn
and read the filings before ruling,

Judge Kinard
issued his decision on the spot.

All motions are denied.

It gets even worse,
because that judge went on to say

that the evidence should
have been disclosed to counsel,

but as far as impacting
the original verdict,

I don't think it would have,
and in closing, he said,

"Good luck to everybody,
I'm out of here."

Which is a terrible way to wrap up
a court proceeding.

The best, of course, being this.

That's my verdict,
and that's how I see it.

Absolutely unimpeachable.

But the thing is, a quick ruling
like that is not remotely unusual.

Many times, appeals judges will sign
the state prosecutor's documents

without even changing the heading.

One study looked at post-conviction
appeals in the largest county in Texas

and found judges adopted
the prosecutors' findings verbatim

in 96 percent of their rulings.

And if it seems like our whole system
is set up to preserve its process,

even at the cost of human life,

during one death row appeal
before the Missouri Supreme Court,

for this man, Joe Amrine, one assistant
AG basically admitted as much.

You're suggesting if we don't find
there's a constitutional violation,

that even if we find that Mr. Amrine
is actually innocent,

he should be ex*cuted?

I'm asking if that's what
you are arguing this day.

That's correct, your honor.

Holy sh*t!

You know you're on the wrong side
of an argument when you're asked,

"Should innocent people
be ex*cuted?"

and you say,
"That's correct, your honor".

That's the kind of question
that only has one right answer,

like "Is the Queen dead?"

The obvious answer to that being,
yes, she's been dead since 2007.

And it's a good thing.
It's a good thing. It's a good thing.

Order in the court!

And so far, everything we've discussed
has been at the state level.

But what about if you appeal
up to the federal court?

In some cases, they do step in
to overturn egregious convictions.

As this defense attorney will tell you,
that's very much the exception.

We all understand that the role
of an appeals court is to get it right.

And if it gets it wrong,

then it will be fixed
down the road in the system.

That's the belief
that we all have in the system.

If some court gets it wrong,

another court is going to come along
and set it right.

Federal courts
can only grant relief

if a state court
was unreasonably wrong,

was so wrong that no other judge,
no other fair-minded judge,

could possibly agree
with a state court.

That's an incredibly high bar.

Yeah. It really is.

Because "no fair-minded
judge could possibly agree"

is a hugely high bar to clear.

Reasonable people disagree
all the time,

on issues like which way
the toilet paper roll should go,

or how a tortoise
would wear clothes.

Is it over the shell?
Or under the shell?

There's a vibrant discussion here.
There will be dissenting voices.

The truth is, federal courts' hands
are tied pretty tightly,

by something called AEDPA.

It stands for the Antiterrorism
and Effective Death Penalty Act.

It was passed in the 1990s in the wake
of the Oklahoma City bombing

and at the time,
the justification for it was,

we cannot let t*rrorists
like Timothy McVeigh,

or any prisoners on death row,
appeal their cases endlessly.

Here is the argument
back then in a nutshell.

What about the fact that many of them
sit on death row for years and years

with access to libraries
and computers

and everything
they could possibly need

so they continue to drag out
this process?

There's got to be an end to it.

Okay, that's actually
an even worse argument than it seems.

Because remember, this was 1995.

The only things computers
were good for back then

were Minesweeper
and still images of Cal Ripken Jr.

I'm guessing that in 1995,

if you typed "post conviction habeas
corpus appeal" into Lycos-dot-com,

your hard drive would spark
into a full blown house fire.

So, prisoners sometimes
having access to computers

wasn't the real problem here.

Although AEDPA sounds like it applied
to t*rrorists and death row inmates,

it applies to everyone.

In addition to that high bar that gutted
federal review of state convictions,

it also imposed
a strict one-year deadline

to file a federal appeal
once your conviction is finalized.

Which I know might sound like a lot
of time to you, but it really isn't.

A federal appeal
is a massive undertaking,

often involving
doing new research,

speaking to experts, witnesses,
previous attorneys, and investigators.

One year cannot be enough,
as proven by the fact that, post-AEDPA,

the deadline had been missed at least


went to the trouble of filing an appeal,

only to be told,
"Sorry, too late, it doesn't count".

And even when filings
do come in on time,

that high bar means that they're
less likely to be successful,

to the point that while, before AEDPA,


succeeded in getting their verdict or
sentence overturned in federal court,

a decade after it, that rate
had dropped to just 10 percent.

And there was one senator

who saw all of these problems with
AEDPA pretty clearly at the time,

and he warned
against what might happen.

This just doesn't make sense
in my view, Mr. President,

as a practical matter,
or as a matter of principle.

We should not,
in our haste to hurry up executions,

lose sight of our commitment
to constitutional values.

We should not endorse proposals
that increase the chance

that, where execution is imminent,
that an innocent person be ex*cuted.

We should not sacrifice
certainty in the name of speed,

or fairness
in the name of vengeance.

Yeah! Pretty good, right?
Pretty good.

It is weird to see Joe Biden on the
right side of a criminal justice issue

in the '90s.

It's like watching home movies and
seeing your bitterly divorced parents

passionately Frenching each other.

It's just hard to imagine
a world where that ever happened.

So, enjoy that feeling!

Are you enjoying it?
I really hope you are.

I have to tell you that Biden
actually voted for the bill in the end.

You don't get to be surprised by that.
The guy is who he is.

And all of that brings us to today,

where many wrongfully convicted people
are still locked up,

with a racially
disproportionate impact.

Innocent Black people are about 7 times
more likely to be convicted of m*rder

than innocent white people.

And those who committed the crimes
are still at large,

as the Philly DA points out.

Justice means that you try
to do things that are proportional,

and you try to do things
that are accurate.

If you're trying to do things
that are accurate,

that means you do not want
the guilty person who got away

to continue to get away,

and you also don't want the innocent
person to stay in jail.

Because that ain't right.
I mean, duh.

Yeah, he's right. f*cking duh!

You've probably already been screaming
that at your TV for the last 15 minutes

along with "talk a bit slower!"
and "this guy's a furry, right?"

And that's my business. But I will
say this, the clues are all there.

But again, he is right.

We know prosecutors are fallible,
even when the stakes are very high.

And if you want to see this whole,
maddening system in one story,

consider the case of Melissa Lucio.

She went through
the most horrific thing imaginable,

the death of her two-year old daughter
after a fall down a flight of stairs.

But the police suspected foul play,
and in a marathon interrogation

the night of her daughter's death,
lasting until three in the morning,

they pushed her to confess to m*rder.

Basically, what they were doing
is they were trying to...

We already know what happened.

...make me admit that I was
the one responsible for her fall

and I kept telling them
that I hadn't hurt my daughter

and they were very vulgar,

very rough,

very persistent.

This is your chance
to set it straight

because right now it looks
like you're a cold-blooded k*ller.

- Are you a coldblooded k*ller?
- No, I'm not.

Or are you a frustrated mother
who just took it out on her?

We know somebody did it.
We're trying to find out who did it.

Melissa, look at me.
It happens, okay?

We all make mistakes.
We all get upset.

We already know
what happened.

I know that's upsetting to watch,
but it's really important to see

just how aggressive
and manipulative the system can be

in someone's most vulnerable moments
that lead to false confessions.

After all of that, she told those
officers what they wanted to hear,

that she had, in the past,
spanked her daughter.

The state then argued to the jury that
that counted as a m*rder confession.

And she was convicted in a trial
where not only did the prosecution

keep the jury from hearing
psychologist testimony

that could have spoken
to her mental state at the time,

but her own defense attorney

decided not to call her other children
to the stand,

who'd have testified that they never
witnessed any physical abuse from her.

And yet, when she tried to appeal
her conviction to state court,

the judge was in such a hurry,
he tried to rule for the prosecution

before the defense
had filed their response.

And once it got to federal court,
a split ruling denied her appeal,

but even the judges who ruled
against her admitted,

"There was expert testimony that,
if jurors had only heard it,

could have impacted the verdict,"
going on to acknowledge,

"We are all, though, working
within the constraints of AEDPA".

Melissa Lucio is now scheduled
to be ex*cuted on April 27th.

Next month!

And to hear her prosecutor tell it,
there's one person to blame for that.

She has nobody to blame
but herself.

She has nobody to blame but herself.

If people say,
"She shouldn't be there".

She put herself there.

Whose fault is it?
Whose fault is it that she's there?

If it's not hers?

I can take a cr*ck at that answer
if you want.

'Cause it starts with not hers,
and while it isn't a complete list,

it includes
the cops who badgered her,

the Texans who voted for a governor
who seems unwilling to intervene,

Ted Cruz,
I'm assuming, somehow,

the 91 senators
who voted for AEDPA in 1996,

Hammurabi for codifying
capital punishment in ancient Babylon,

and you for prosecuting based on
a confession that wasn't a confession,

you f*cking assh*le!

With a system so fundamentally f*cked,
what do we do?

Immediately we can get rid of AEDPA.
We should do that as soon as possible,

especially as the will
could actually be there,

considering how against it
Biden once briefly was.

In addition, we should continue
to address all of the many factors

that lead to wrongful convictions
in the first place.

And when they do happen,
we need to make sure

that we've elected prosecutors who'll
undertake conviction integrity reviews,

and governors who'll use their pardon
power to undo the state's mistakes.

We need to make this a priority,
because right now, we have a system

where people can be wrongly convicted
with bad defense attorneys

and left to fight in a convoluted
appeals system with little to no help.

At which point, it really feels
like our system is essentially guilty

until proven rich or lucky.

And that has to change,

because we cannot keep letting the most
vulnerable be casualties of a system

that cares more about quick and final
decisions than actually correct ones.

That is my verdict,
and that's how I see it.

Clomp, clomp, m*therf*ckers.

Clomp, clomp. And now this.

And now:

Great Moments In Steve Harvey's
Jurisprudence.

I'm about to hear a series
of unbelievable statements.

Are we in here arguing about ass
or are we arguing about this funeral?

- I'm sorry, this is not funny.
- No, it's not.

It's really not funny.

You way more stupid
than I thought you were.

'Cause let me tell you something.

You ain't gonna get nobody finer.
You must think this is real court.

You can't object
'cause you not a lawyer.

I ain't really
no damn judge either.

Is that a pair of handcuffs

with corn on the cob
with a condom on it?

I can't make you get married
but you finna have one hell of a party.

And that's the way I see it!

That's our show.
We'll see you next week, good night.