This is the transcript of a podcast interview. You can listen to the full interview here. The transcript has been edited for clarity.
Katharine: Today, I’m talking to Glenn Kirschner. As you may know, Glenn brings analysis and insight to the legal issues of the day drawing on his 30 years as a federal prosecutor, including as a homicide prosecutor and an army JAG. Glenn is an NBC News and MSNBC legal analyst and teaches criminal law at George Washington University. Welcome, Glenn.
Glenn: Hey, Katharine, how are you?
Katharine: Great. It’s so good to talk to you.
Glenn: You as well.
Katharine: I’m going to start with just a few opening questions to help people get to know you a little bit better. So, first off, where did you grow up?
Glenn: So I was born in Brooklyn. I grew up in Jersey. I am a proudly self-proclaimed gutter kid from Jersey.
My pop was a high school football coach–coached, well, football and wrestling all over New Jersey, so we moved around. I ended up going to high school at Point Pleasant borough on the Jersey shore. And after that, I made my way [00:01:00] to Washington and Lee University in Lexington, Virginia, for my undergraduate degree in journalism. I was also an ROTC cadet while I was there.
So I always wanted to serve in the military, my dad had been in the military and I competed for an army ROTC scholarship. So my parents didn’t have much money and it was a real relief when the army accepted me into the scholarship program and paid for my undergraduate education, they paid for my books and they gave me a hundred dollars a month spending money.
So I thought I was rich. And as a result of my scholarship, I owed the army four years of active duty. And rather than going in as a Lieutenant, I had been branched military intelligence. I decided to take an educational deferment, put myself through law school, get my law degree and enter as a captain in the, well, actually as a First Lieutenant, soon to be promoted to Captain as an Army JAG.
So I spent three years in Alaska at the Sixth Infantry Division prosecuting court martial cases. And then my second assignment in the military, I was assigned to the Army’s US legal services agency and I was essentially a prosecutor in the various appellate military courts. So defending court martial convictions on appeal, I got to do some remarkable work, an espionage case out of Desert Storm. Then after about six and a half years of active duty, I decided to leave the army because I would be serving in exclusively supervisory assignments after that, and I really never wanted to leave the courtroom. So in June of 94, I transitioned to the US Attorney’s Office in Washington, DC, where I spent nearly a quarter of a century as a prosecutor, 22 of those years, I was a homicide prosecutor. So that is the Reader’s Digest version of who I am, where I’ve been.
Katharine: [00:02:58] What was your first job?
Glenn: [00:03:00] My first job was delivering newspapers truth, be told in fifth grade, getting up at 5:00 AM on my bicycle and delivering newspapers. And after that I washed dishes. I worked on a horse farm, not only cleaning the stalls, but painting miles and miles of wooden split rail fence with motor oil and creosote.
Anybody who knows horses will know what that’s about, and it’s not fun. I also worked on a commercial fishing boat in New Jersey. I mean, I did a lot of real work, but then my first true job was an Army JAG after I graduated law school and sat for and passed the New Jersey bar. When I entered active duty in January.
Katharine: [00:03:41] So I want to talk about your job now and I read your bio at the beginning, but I want to do something different. I want you to describe your job right now, but using only three verbs.
Glenn: [00:03:55] Rewarding public service. Is that a verb? And can I hyphenate that? So I get one more word. Yeah. Rewarding public service.
And let me think, I guess, educational. I don’t even know if those are proper verbs or not, but I’m at a disadvantage. I have like four jobs right now, so it’s kind of tough to sum it all up. I tell people when they ask me what I do, I say it was so much easier when I used to be able to say, I’m a federal prosecutor. Now I have to explain three or four jobs that I have decided to take on since retiring from the federal government.
Katharine: [00:04:37] But I love it’s the same type of thing you’re educating. You’re serving the public and you are getting the benefit of seeing the impact that you can make, you know, you’re teaching both through your classroom as well as through your public speaking and you’re educating people on the law.
Glenn: [00:04:57] I like to think so. And it’s funny because I used to teach at George Washington University School of Law. When I was at the US Attorney’s Office, this is in the early two thousands that I taught as adjunct faculty. I taught a third year criminal law, criminal practice seminar called anatomy of a homicide.
And I loved it. But when I retired from the federal government and decided I wanted to try to get back into teaching, I really wanted to get into an undergraduate program where I could teach basic criminal justice. And I was really lucky to land a spot at George Washington University. And now I get largely, you know, sophomores juniors and some seniors, and I get to teach them the criminal justice system from arrest through appeal.
What I love about it is it’s before most of them have made up their minds about what they want to do and whether they want to become lawyers or not. I feel like there’s still a chance to provide them some, you know, real world information about the criminal justice system, not only how it works, but how we need to improve it, which I tell them every class is going to be their job and their mission moving forward. So teaching an undergraduate class of about 50 students per semester is very gratifying.
Katharine: [00:06:11] Absolutely. I’ve been teaching undergrad at American and I just love it. It’s fantastic for that same reason. They’re so open, you know? All right. This last one is just a fun one. So can you tell us about something that you’ve enjoyed lately, a new discovery, like a book, a TV show, an activity, movie, anything, any new discovery that’s made you happy lately.
Glenn: [00:06:33] Yeah. I’m reading a book called a tribe of mentors. The author is Tim Ferris and it’s really interesting because he poses like 10 questions. And they’re real world questions, but you can tell he’s trying to kind of get at what people’s philosophy of life is, and it’s like from people all across the spectrum, every profession imaginable, and I’m getting to see through the eyes of a thousand different professionals from all walks of life about what’s important to them. What’s worked well for them. What hasn’t worked well, how they strike the right balance in life.
It’s unlike any book I’ve read before. I’m a crime fiction junkie, quite frankly. So it’s kind of eye-opening to just have an insight into other people’s experiences and you definitely learn a thing or two about how other people approach life, approach, success, approach happiness.
Katharine: [00:07:29] Excellent. Thank you. I will check that out.
I’m like you, I also love crime fiction, but I also really enjoy those kinds of books. Those, you know, autobiographies biographies, business books, those kinds of things. So that is definitely right up my alley. Okay. So Glenn, you’ve become nationally known as a legal analyst and certainly we are encountering novel, really unforeseen legal issues every day. And you’re helping so many of us to make sense of them. But today I want to talk with you about something about your background that people probably don’t know quite as well. And that’s your incredible work with crime victims. So you are the head of Homicide Family Advocates.
You spent 30 years as a prosecutor, and I think you said 22 as a homicide prosecutor. So you have seen people in literally the worst moments of their lives when they’ve lost loved ones and they’re experiencing trauma grief, and you’re the stranger who comes in and you have to build rapport very quickly with these families.
How do you do that? What advice do you have on helping people in that moment learn that they can trust you?
Glenn: [00:08:42] You know, first of all, having dealt with homicide families for 22 years, and I dealt with hundreds and hundreds of them, they all will live forever in my heart and they are what sort of animates so much of what I still do, even though I’m no longer a prosecutor. So in my work is a supervisor at the US Attorney’s Office in the homicide practice, I would always tell my prosecutors that if you are ever experiencing a challenge, dealing with, you know, homicide families, people who have lost a loved one to violent crime, or if you just want somebody in there for the first meeting or for every meeting you have with the family, please, please, please invite me.
When people ask me, what’s the best thing about being a prosecutor? I say there are two best things. One is trying cases, but the other is working with homicide families. These are people who, when you lose a loved one to violent crime, your life is never the same. It is a wildly unexpected loss and your life and your family is thrown into unimaginable, chaos and turmoil, and then on top of that, you’re now injected into this crazy Byzantine world of police investigations and grand jury proceedings, prosecutions and sentencing hearings. And when I get to be the point person that deals with that family to try to help them maneuver through that world? I, I still get goosebumps thinking about what an honor it was for me to be able to be that person for that family.
And for me, it’s all about learning and understanding how to communicate with people and families who are in this kind of crisis. I went back to my computer, Katharine, when I knew we were going to talk and I pulled out a presentation, I gave to the National Organization for Victim Assistance, NOVA, a couple of years ago out in Phoenix.
And what I tried to talk about was serving homicide families and victims more broadly from the perspective of a prosecutor, because I can tell you having worked with and known thousands of prosecutors, and some of them are good friends of mine. We don’t always know how to talk to victims. And some of us have a little bit of an empathy deficit and–maybe not personally, but at least in our ability to listen the way we need to listen and communicate, some of us have a little bit of a superiority complex because, Hey, I’m the lead prosecutor on this case. Yes, your loved one is important because that’s a piece of evidence. I have to prove the homicide beyond a reasonable doubt. We’ll get there, you know, but we’re not all necessarily instantly or intuitively able to communicate with victims or their families the way we need to. So one of the things I did a lot, a la David Letterman, is I put together a top 10 list of things that are, let’s just call them problematic, for prosecutors to say to homicide families and I can run down the list very quickly and, you know, yes, it’s intended to be a little bit humorous, but it kind of hopefully drives home the point that there are a lot of don’ts when it comes to communicating with victims and families.
#10 would be when you’re talking to the family, “You probably don’t want to look at the homicide photos.” Okay. Probably not something you should say.
#9 “My name is Glenn Kirschner. I’m the homicide prosecutor assigned to your son’s case. When did you last see your son alive?” That’s not the way you want to begin the relationship.
#8 “This is going to be a really hard case to prove,” or “This is going to be really strong case.” You don’t want to say either of those two things.
#7 “Oh, this guy’s not going to plead guilty,” or, “Oh, this guy’s definitely going to plead guilty.” Okay, those are things you don’t say to a homicide family.
#6 “I’ve never lost a case. I had a case just like this one before, and you know what?” “I have a lot of cases in my caseload and I’m kind of overworked.” You don’t want to say any of those things, even if they happen to be true, mind you.
#5 “The judge assigned to your daughter’s case is really pro defendant.” Now that may be true. But you don’t say it.
#4 “So the Gerstein made out probable cause and the judge determined by clear and convincing evidence that no combination of pre-trial release conditions would guarantee that the defendant would return to court if released or would sufficiently protect the community from the defendant. And the judge set the preliminary hearing for 10 days from now in a courtroom and before a judge that will be determined in the future. Any questions?” I mean, that’s not what you do to families, particularly families who are in crisis. You don’t inundate them with legal gobbledygook.
#3 “We’re going to help you get closure.” That’s not something you say because that’s not something you can do. I don’t care how good you are.
#2 “I promise things will get better.” Can’t promise that. You want to promise that, and you want to do that for the families every minute of every day, but you don’t say that.
And #1. When I was giving this presentation, I said, “Does anybody want to guess what number one is?” And mind you, these are people, as you well know in the organization, NOVA, that are actual victim advocates. Some of them had been doing it their entire lives. And I said, “Does anybody want to guess?” And they all basically all said it in unison. Do you have any idea? What number one is?
Katharine: [00:14:26] I know how you feel.
Glenn: [00:14:28] Verbatim on my list. I could send you a text with a picture of it. “I know how you’re feeling.” That’s number one. So I know that was my long-winded and not as funny as David Letterman, top 10 list, but this is what I’ve learned from my decades working with victims and homicide families. And I have lots of things that I learned from my experience through trial and error, as much as anything else that makes for an effective relationship with victims and their families.
Katharine: [00:14:58] Those are fantastic. The themes that I’m hearing through that list are never over promise. Don’t set expectations one way or the other, cause you don’t know what’s going to happen. Share information in a clear, concise way that people can understand what you’re saying. Don’t hide behind your expertise or your legal jargon and seek to actually communicate with the person in front of you.
Glenn: [00:15:26] Yeah. And listen, listen, listen. You know, one of the very last cases I tried not long before I retired in June of 2018, involved two homicides that at least initially seemed entirely unconnected or disconnected from one another. One was the murder of an off-duty secret service officer and the other was a murder that occurred four months later on the Deanwood Metro platform in broad daylight on surveillance video, of a 15 year old young man who was waiting for a train with his mother and his two little sisters on their way to go to a barbershop so the young man could get his hair cut for Easter, which was the next day. And both of these murders were committed with a handgun and it was a heck of an investigation, but one thing led to another. We realized that through ballistics testing, that it was the same handgun and we ultimately were able to prove that it was the same defendant who committed both of these murders for very different reasons.
And the Secret Service officer’s father was a retired police officer himself, Mr. Baldwin. And Mr. Baldwin needed to talk with me at least once a week for at least an hour at a time in the many, many, many, many months I was handling the case. So that’s what I did. And it was not an imposition. That’s what he needed. That’s what that family needed. And so, you know, every victim is different, but you have to gauge their needs and you have to adjust accordingly and you have to listen to what they need and what they want. And then you have to adjust to help them as best you can.
Katharine: [00:17:06] I love that Glenn. And I hear what you’re saying that, you know, it’s not an imposition, it’s a privilege to be able to help people in that moment.
Talk a little bit, if you would, about some of the work that you’ve done since you left DOJ with Homicide Family Advocates.
Glenn: [00:17:21] Yeah. So when I retired, I just took on a whole bunch of other opportunities at once. I knew I had to find a way to continue in public service because it’s what I enjoy. But after a little, over 30 years with the federal government, I was retirement eligible, and I thought to myself, do I want to spend another five years working murder cases of which would have left me professionally sort of satisfied and fulfilled or do I want to explore having a professional chapter 2 and try to serve in another way. So in the weeks before my retirement date came up, I had my Jerry Maguire moment.
I sat at my kitchen table for 48 hours and I scratched out what would become Homicide Family Advocates. And my vision continues to this day because yes, we’ve got our nonprofit status. Yes. We have been trying to put things in place, but who knew it would be so hard to build a nonprofit from scratch. So I’m still working on that every day while serving lots of homicide families myself as an advocate for my organization.
My vision was to try to do something for the homicide families, ultimately nationwide is my goal, that have maybe, maybe they don’t have available to them a really strong victim advocate in the prosecutor’s office where their loved one’s case is being handled. Maybe they’re not getting the time and attention from the prosecutor that they need to survive this difficult process of investigations and prosecutions, or maybe their loved one’s case has never been solved, so they just are every day, you know, sitting by the phone, literally some families, waiting for the police to call a year after their loved one has been killed five years, 10 years wondering will the police ever solve my loved ones murder? So sort of, there are a lot of different categories of families who have suffered a loss and their loved one’s case is in all sorts of different stages in the process.
So I wanted to try to build a core of former prosecutors to start and maybe former homicide detectives and former social workers and former victims’ advocates–I would like to grow this to be a really robust nationwide organization–that could serve as the point person as an advocate for the family and could serve as a conduit for the family, maybe interacting with the police and interacting with the prosecutors and interacting with the courts in the way that we’re not trying to interfere. I actually see it as a win-win because if we can help the family, we can also maybe ease the burden on the police, on the prosecutors, on the courts. If you know, you have a family that needs to talk weekly, well, maybe the advocate can help answer some of the basic questions that as former prosecutors, we’re going to be able to answer probably 75% of the time. Like why won’t the police release my loved one’s car? Which might’ve been part of the crime scene, or wallet because it was in his back pocket at the time he was killed, or his jewelry or his cell phone. There are so many sort of institutional questions, procedural questions that former prosecutors can explain an answer to a family’s satisfaction.
I thought it was a good place to start to try to develop a core of advocates that could serve these homicide families free of charge. So that was the goal and we have worked mightily to try to make it a reality.
Katharine: [00:20:58] Yeah. It’s such a tremendous idea, Glenn. And I love the idea of people who are systems based, you know, lawyers or victim advocates or agents who really understand the criminal justice system and can work hand in glove with the prosecutors and agents who are working the case.
I also know that you have had a really great idea on a legislative change. Can you talk a little bit about that?
Glenn: [00:21:25] Yeah. And I’ve put a lot of efforts into that and you have been instrumental in helping as well because you and I together met with some of the legislative directors of some of our congressmen and women.
I have a lot of harebrained schemes and this one actually came to fruition. You know, when you were one of the point people, and I’m going to say one of the heroes in the Crime Victim’s Rights Act arena, the CVRA, when it was adopted in 2004. I know you were one of the heroes, because I was Chief of Homicide at the time it was adopted and we had to struggle with what it means and how do we implement it? What are our responsibilities as prosecutors and as the US Attorney’s Office as a whole, given this new legislation, the Crime Victims Rights Act, and, you know, you were the point person for the Department of Justice who helped us all through that. So I think I turned to you when I knew I was going to sit down with some congressional types and talk about my harebrained scheme legislation that I had been cooking up. And so what I envisioned and frankly it was born from the Crime Victims Rights Act, and then the follow-on legislation of the Sexual Assault Survivors Rights Act, which gave some added statutory protections to sexual assault survivors, especially with respect to what happens to some of the evidence than their case.
And so I had the idea that, well, homicide families could really use some statutory protections and provisions as well. And specifically what I was thinking of is we have more than a quarter of a million unsolved murders in the United States and having worked murder cases. I know that the reality is once a murder case grows cold, the cases, the police files, tend to sit in file cabinets and storage rooms. And some of them will never get a second look. They’ll never dust them off and try to reinvestigate them. But what I also knew from my years of work as a homicide prosecutor is that every single cold case, every one can be productively worked after a period of five years or 10 years has expired.
Why do I say that? Because we may interview 10 witnesses in a murder case today and some of those witnesses may not be interested in talking with us. Some of them may be in the criminal life themselves. Some of them may be scared of the police. Some of them may be loyal to the suspect in the case. Every single cold case can be productively reinvestigated, but none of them virtually, none of them get reinvestigated.
And that, I don’t know that that is like the hidden shame of our country’s law enforcement organizations. It’s a reality because police departments nationwide don’t have unlimited resources to take out of the storage room, you know, 500 cold case homicides and reinvestigate them, but that’s no excuse for families who are still sitting by the phone every day, 10 years later, waiting for a call that their loved one’s case has been solved.
With this kind of experience, it’s like, okay, we have to do something for those families to give them some realistic opportunity to request that their loved one’s case gets a second look. And that is where the Homicide Family Victims Rights Act was born. And, you know, we met with Members of Congress, congressmen, and it’s being introduced today actually as a proposed bill.
And it gives families an opportunity to request of police departments, federally, that their loved one’s case be given a re-look and if appropriate a full re-investigation. That will give hundreds of thousands of families, ultimately, hopefully some possibility that their loved one’s case will get a second look.
Now here’s why I went down this road to begin with when I saw how the Sexual Assault Survivors Act started out as a federal law, but it was picked up as a model by the states because you know, the number of federal sexual assault cases, like the number of federal homicide cases is very, very, very low because generally we don’t have jurisdiction to handle sexual assault crimes or homicide, unless there’s a federal hook, but in the local jurisdictions state, county, local jurisdictions, there are countless sexual assault offenses and countless homicides. So what I’m hoping is just as happened with the federal legislation for sexual assault survivors, the Homicide Victim’s Family Rights Act will become a model for the state, local, county jurisdictions, and we can kind of spur them into action to adopt similar laws so that all of the hundreds of thousands of families will have available some statutory protection that would give them the opportunity to request a re-investigation of their loved one’s case.
Katharine: [00:26:59] And the thinking is, there’ve been no leads and no new developments for a certain period of time, and then a family member can go back to that same police department that did the initial investigation and say, can somebody else take a look at this with fresh eyes, right?
Glenn: [00:27:17] Exactly.
Katharine: [00:27:18] Exactly. You anticipate that there will be pushback from some of these law enforcement agencies that they’re going to say, “Well, we don’t have the resources to investigate the cases that we have now.”
Glenn: [00:27:28] Yes. I appreciate that the federal government has its role and the state governments have their role and the 10th amendment actually sets that out. But there are so many areas where the federal government funds state operations, whether it’s education or law enforcement, but if there is state legislation or if the feds want to encourage state legislation tor homicide victims, families, then they can discuss with the states, “Listen, you need to provide these services.”
Now Katharine, not that the states are trying to do the wrong thing, but as you say, resources are tight, everywhere, but tight resources really don’t adequately explain or excuse law enforcement not trying to tackle, including giving a case of relook, tackle the violent crime resulting in death of a citizen.
Death is different. I’m not trying to compare it to other crime, whether it’s, you know, robbery or burglary or auto theft or a drug offense, death is different. And we can never say we don’t have enough resources to give a second look, five or 10 years later to a murder of one of our citizens or one of our family.
Katharine: [00:28:47] Absolutely. And you know what you talk about with the funding, with the Survivor’s Bill of Rights Act, there has been legislation introduced to allow states to apply for money under the Byrne grants, if they need additional funding to be able to fulfill their own version of the Survivor’s Bill of Rights Act, so I think that’s not a sort of outlandish suggestion. I think it might be incredibly appropriate for DOJ to help fund that if they are serious about it, pushing that. And, and I, as you know, am completely on board with this, I think it’s especially important–one of the touchstones for me in working with crime victims is that it’s important that we not just drop them, you know, like, Oh, we did this investigation, didn’t work out and we’re just gonna close that file, put it in a drawer and never look at it again. That’s, you know, the case grows cold, but that experience, that grief, that family is experiencing, that’s still white hot. They are still carrying that with them every day and we owe it to them to do what we can to show them that we continue to care, this matters, and even if years have passed, we are willing to open it up and take another look and see if there’s anything more we can do. It may be that there’s not, I mean, maybe there’s, there’s nothing more that can be done, but at least let somebody to take a look.
Glenn: [00:29:57] If they know that the government, the police have done everything they can, that goes a long way to at least giving them a little bit of peace of mind. I mean, wounds remain open and some begin to bind up and others don’t, but the wounds will never begin to bind up if they feel like their government, their law enforcement agency (and their tax dollars pay those salaries), they didn’t do the job because they either didn’t have the resources or often the way it’s interpreted by the family is, because they didn’t care about my loved one. That’s not acceptable.
Katharine: [00:30:32] Absolutely. I think what you’re saying is even if we can’t give them the justice that we would want, you know, you talked earlier about never saying I’m going to get you justice because you don’t know what’s going to happen. But the fact that you are willing to try can make a huge difference in somebody’s healing. They feel like you, as a member of the government, care about what happened to them, that can make a tremendous difference.
Glenn: [00:30:55] It makes all the difference and, and that’s why it goes back to where we started, which is the relationship that you build with the victims or the surviving family members in a murder case.
And I’ve used as an example before. I mean, I took very seriously the relationship I built with my homicide families, and sometimes sadly I would lose the trial and I would feel horrible because I feel like I let the family down. You have to be careful. You can’t get so emotionally invested in trials that you’re willing to bend the rules to try to get somebody convicted.
That’s not what it’s about, but I would sit down with the family afterwards. I would cry with them, but even when you lost, even when I lost cases, my experience was the family was so appreciative of the efforts we took and the relationship we built, that they felt like we left it all on the playing field, and that was almost as important as the outcome. The flip side of that is when I was supervising homicide prosecutors, not all of them took the time to try to build a relationship with the family. Many of them frankly said, “That’s the work of the victim advocate. I’m going to let them do that.” And even in cases that resulted in convictions, the families were not satisfied. They felt hollow. I have always said, yes, the outcome is important, but it’s never about the outcome. It’s about the process. Have they been included? Have they been respected? Because that’s the only way at the end of the day, they will feel, I don’t want to say satisfied, but feel like we left it all on the playing field for their loved one.
Katharine: [00:32:31] Isn’t that amazing that it’s the relationship and the trust that can have a bigger impact than even the outcome.
Glenn: [00:32:38] Yeah, that’s my experience.
Katharine: [00:32:41] Wow. Well, Glenn, this has been such a great conversation. Thank you. Thank you for sharing your thoughts. Thank you for everything that you’re doing for victims and for all of us, helping us to make sense of what’s happening out in the world today.
Where can people find you?
Glenn: [00:32:57] They can find me on my YouTube channel. I post a video every day and will continue to do that between now and the election. And then I’m going to take a day off and I try to tackle whatever the crime a day is in our federal government or the abuse of rule of law du jour by our Attorney General.
And I don’t even like talking about that, but that’s where we are. So find me on my YouTube channel, which is just under my name, Glenn Kirschner. I think there might be a 2, Glenn Kirschner 2. On Twitter, I’m also GlennKirschner2. And then if people really want to support what we’re doing, because what we do is, is not paid for, it’s all volunteer, they can go to Patreon.com and become a patron. And a lot of people have generously done that. There are different levels that you can sign up for and you get different additional content. I have weekly zoom chats that lasts hours with people from all over the world. And I try to answer their legal questions and give the benefit of my experience from inside the federal government for 30 years.
That’s another highlight of my life, quite frankly. And it’s funny because that has led me to become a homicide family advocate for a number of people who signed up for Patreon. So, you know, it’s just been an amazing experience all around and that’s the various places where people can find me.
Katharine: [00:34:16] That’s great. And we’ll include links to all that in the show notes. Thank you so much for your time today, sir. I look forward to talking again soon.
Glenn: [00:34:24] Thank you, Katharine. And I look forward to reading The Empathetic Workplace and hopefully we can maybe do some work together in the future.
Katharine: [00:34:32] Again, this is Katharine Manning. If you want to explore these topics further, don’t forget to pre-order a copy of my book, The Empathetic Workplace: Five Steps to a Compassionate, Calm, and Confident Response to Trauma on the Job. Special thanks to Celina Porcaro for her help with today’s episode.