♪ ♪ >>> THIS IS "METROFOCUS" WITH RAFAEL PI ROMAN, JACK FORD, AND JENNA FLANAGAN.

>> "METROFOCUS" IS MADE POSSIBLE BY SUE AND EDGAR WACHENHEIM III, SYLVIA A.

AND SIMON B. POYTA PROGRAMING ENDOWMENT TO FIGHT ANTI-SEMITISM.

THE PETER G. PETERSON AND JOAN COOPY FUND.

BERNARD AND DENISE SCHWARTZ, BARBARA HOPE ZUCKERBERG, JUDY -- AND MY JODY AND JOHN ARNHOLD, JUDY AND JOSH WESTON, DR. ROBERT C. AND TINA SOHN FOUNDATION.

>>> GOOD EVENING.

WELCOME TO "METROFOCUS."

I'M JACK FORD.

DEREK CHAUVIN, THE FORMER MINNEAPOLIS POLICE OFFICER, CONVICTED IN THE MURDER OF GEORGE FLOYD, IS SCHEDULED TO BE SENTENCED THIS FRIDAY.

HE FACES DECADES IN PRISON FOR THE KILLING, RANGING AS MUCH AS 40 YEARS TO AS LITTLE AS PROBATION WITH TIME SERVED, WHICH IS WHAT HIS LAWYER IS REQUESTING OF THE COURT.

THE SENTENCING COMES AS SENATE NEGOTIATIONS OVER SWEEPING AND BIPARTISAN POLICE REFORM BILL REACH A CRITICAL JUNCTURE.

SO WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN INSIDE OF THAT COURTROOM?

HOW MIGHT THE JUDGE HANDLE THIS SENTENCING?

AS WELL AS WHAT DOES THE FUTURE OF POLICE REFORM AND THE AFTERMATH OF GEORGE FLOYD'S MURDER LOOK LIKE?

TO TALK ABOUT THAT, WE ARE DELIGHTED TO HAVE BLACK WITH US LORI BROWN MARSHAL, PROFESSOR OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT JOHN J.

COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE.

THANK YOU FOR JOINING US AGAIN.

>> THANK YOU.

>> SO I'M GOING TO ASK YOU TO TURN THIS CONVERSATION INTO YOUR CLASSROOM.

AS IF I WAS ONE OF YOUR STUDENTS AND I HAD SOME QUESTIONS FOR YOU.

THIS IS QUESTIONS THAT I SEE BY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC AS THE SENTENCING APPROACHES.

LET'S START WITH THE NOTION, THERE ARE MULTIPLE CONVICTIONS HERE.

SO THE JUDGE HAS TO DECIDE HOW TO HANDLE THAT AT SENTENCING.

AS YOU KNOW, THERE ARE BASICALLY TWO PATHS THE JUDGE CAN FOLLOW AND IMPOSE WHAT ARE KLED CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES WHICH MEANS YOU SERVE ONE, THEN YOU SERVE THE NEXT ONE, THEN THE NEXT ONE.

OR THE JUDGE CAN ORDER THAT THESE BE SERVED CONCURRENTLY, WHICH ESSENTIALLY MEANS YOU BLEND THEM INTO ONE SENTENCE.

GIVEN THE FACTS OF THIS CASE, HOW DO YOU ANTICIPATE THE JUDGE WILL HANDLE THIS ASPECT OF THE SENTENCING AND WHY?

>> USUALLY THE JUDGE WILL LOOK AT THIS CASE AND ONE JUDGE WILL LOOK AT ANY CRIMINAL CASE AND DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT THIS PERSON DESERVES TO BE IN PRISON FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIFE.

OR WHETHER OR NOT THERE COULD BE SOMETHING BENEFICIAL BY HAVING THEM SERVE THEIR TIME AND THEN BE RELEASED.

SO CONCURRENT SENTENCES ARE SENTENCES THAT HAPPEN ALL AT ONCE, BLENDED TOGETHER, AS YOU SAY, ARE USUALLY THE SENTENCE GIVEN BY A JUDGE WHEN THERE ARE MULTIPLE CONVICTIONS.

AND UNLESS THEY DON'T WANT THAT PERSON TO SEE THE LIGHT OF DAY, THE SENTENCING IS CONSECUTIVE WITH ONE SENTENCE AFTER THE OTHER, KNOWING THAT IT'S VERY UNLIKELY THAT A GROWN MAN, A GROWN PERSON WOULD EVER BE RELEASED OR WHEN THEY WERE TO DO ANY HARM TO THE COMMUNITY.

>> AND THERE IS A LITTLE BIT OF CONFUSION OVER THE NOTION OF THERE BEING CONVICTIONS ON THREE SEPARATE COUNTS.

YOU HAD A SECOND DEGREE UNINTENTIONAL MURDER, A THIRD DEGREE MURDER AND A SECOND DEGREE MANSLAUGHTER.

WHEN THERE WAS JUST ESSENTIALLY ONE SET OF FACTS.

IS IT UNUSUAL TO SEE THREE SEPARATE COUNTS AND ONE SET OF FACTS AND THEN THE NOTION OF A CONCURRENT SENTENCE APPLYING TO THEM SP >> IT'S NOT UNUSUAL, BECAUSE WHAT THE PROSECUTION USUALLY DOES IS LOOK AT THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE EVIDENCE THAT THEY HAVE BEFORE THEM, AND DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO MEET THE CRITERIA FOR EACH COUNT.

AND IN THIS INSTANCE, THERE WAS ENOUGH EVIDENCE, AND THEREFORE THE CASE WAS MADE FOR ALL THREE.

AND THEN THAT, OF COURSE, IS PUT BEFORE THE JURY.

AND THEN THE JURY MUST DECIDE THAT THERE IS ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO MEET THESE, THE STANDARDS FOR EACH COUNT.

THE JUDGE EXPLAINS WHAT THE LAW IS, BUT IT'S THE JURY THAT DETERMINES WHETHER OR NOT THE EVIDENCE MEETS THAT STANDARD.

AND SO GUILT BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, OF COURSE, WE KNOW AS THE CRIMINAL STANDARD FOR EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THOSE COUNTS.

IT'S GOT TO BE DETERMINED BY THE JURY THAT THE EVIDENCE RISES TO THE LEVEL OF GUILT BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT FOR SECOND, THIRD DEGREE MURDER, AS WELL AS THE SECOND DEGREE MANSLAUGHTER.

AND IN THIS CASE, THE JURY DETERMINED THERE WOULD BE.

ONE OF THE THINGS I WOULD LIKE TO SAY, MANY PEOPLE THINK OF FIRST DEGREE MURDER WHAT THEY BELIEVE IN THE WORST CASES.

FIRST DEGREE MURDER IS SO DIFFICULT TO ACTUALLY PROVE AND HAVE A JURY FIND, THAT WHEN YOU HEAR A PROSECUTOR SAY THEY'RE GOING TO TRY TO CONVICT SOMEONE ON FIRST DEGREE MURDER, YOU SHOULD BE AWARE THAT IT'S ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE IN MOST CASES, EVEN IF THE BODY IS THERE, AND THERE HAVE BEEN INSTANCES WHICH THE BODY IS THERE, THE CAMERA SHOWS THE EVIDENCE, AND YET THE PREMEDICATED MURDER, WHICH IS WHAT FIRST DEGREE MURDER IS.

SO MANY PEOPLE BELIEVE THAT IF THERE IS SUCH A TERRIBLE CASE, OR TERRIBLE ACT, IT SHOULD BE A FIRST DEGREE MURDER CASE.

THEY BELIEVE IT'S NOT FAIR THAT YOU HAVE COUNTS LIKE SECOND AND THIRD DEGREE MURDER AN MANSLAUGHTER.

BUT IT'S WHAT THE EVIDENCE CAN RISE UP TO THE LEVEL AND PROVE AND A JURY IS ABLE TO BE PERSUADED OF GUILT BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT ON EACH COUNT.

SO IT'S THE EVIDENCE AND WHETHER OR NOT THE PROSECUTION CAN PERSUADE THE JURY THAT THE EVIDENCE MEETS THE STANDARDS.

>> THAT'S A VERY GOOD POINT.

I'VE PROSECUTED AND DEFENDED FIRST DEGREE MURDER CASES AND THEY ARE COMPLICATED.

WE KNOW THAT IN THE STATE OF MINNESOTA, THEY PROVIDE SENTENCING GUIDELINES FOR THEIR SENTENCING JUDGES.

EXPLAIN WHAT THAT MEANS GENERALLY, AND WHAT THE GUIDELINES TALK ABOUT IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE.

>> THERE WAS A TIME, ACTUALLY FOR MOST OF THIS COUNTRY'S HISTORY, WHERE JUDGES HAD FULL DISCRETION IN THEIR SENTENCING.

AND THAT WOULD BE STATE, AS WELL AS FEDERAL COURT JUDGES.

IT WAS RACIALLY BIASED, IT WAS ECONOMICALLY BIASED, IT WAS BIASED AGAINST IMMIGRANTS AND OTHER PEOPLE WHO WERE POOR AND COULDN'T AFFORD GREAT DEFENSE LAWYERS LIKE YOURSELF.

AND SO THE JUDGE COULD BE BIASED AGAINST THAT DEFENDANT BECAUSE OF THE CRIME THAT WAS COMMITTED, FOR ANY NUMBER OF FACTORS.

AND SO IT WAS THOUGHT OF BACK IN THE 1980s, WHEN IT WAS REALLY IMPLEMENTED, THAT THERE SHOULD BE SOME GUIDELINES, THAT THERE SHOULD BE SOME WAY IN WHICH THE JUDGE COULD BE REELED IN, IN THAT DISCRETION.

SO THERE ARE GUIDELINES THAT SAY THAT YOU CAN'T JUST SENTENCE SOMEONE WHO HAS STOLE AN LOLLIPOP FROM A CANDY STORE TO 100 YEARS TO PRISON.

SO THOSE GUIDELINES ARE WHAT THE JUDGES WORK WITHIN, AND SO LOOKING AT SECOND, THIRD DEGREE MURDER AND EVEN SECOND DEGREE MANSLAUGHTER, THE JUDGE DOESN'T HAVE FULL DISCRETION TO DECIDE THEY'RE GOING TO GIVE DEREK CHAUVIN 500 YEARS, 5 MONTHS OR LET HIM GO FREE.

SO THESE GUIDELINES SET UP THE PARAMETERS WHAT THE JUDGE CAN AND CAN'T DO.

AND THERE ARE INCREMENTS BETWEEN THAT, AND THOSE ARE THE DIFFERENT FACTORS THAT FIGURE INTO THE GUIDELINES.

>> SO LOOKING AT THIS CASE, WE'VE BEEN TOLD THAT THE GUIDELINES, TOP COUNT, THE SECOND DEGREE UNINTENTIONAL MURDER CARRIES A MAXIMUM OF 40 YEARS.

WE'RE TOLD THAT THE GUIDELINES SUGGEST FOR A FIRST OFFENDER, WHICH DEREK CHAUVIN IS, THE GUIDELINES SUGGEST CUTTING IT IN HALF TO 15 YEARS RANGE FOR THAT.

NOW, WE KNOW THE JUDGE HAS THE ABILITY TO GO, AS YOU MENTIONED, WITH SOME DISCRETION HERE, COME DOWN LOWER OR TO GO UP HIGHER.

AND WE KNOW THAT THE JUDGE HAS DETERMINED THERE ARE CERTAIN AGGRAVATING FACTORS THAT EXIST IN THIS CASE.

FOR INSTANCE, THE JUDGE SAID HE FOUND IT WAS EXTREMELY CRUEL, THE MANNER IN WHICH GEORGE FLOYD WAS MURDERED.

THE IDEA THAT DEREK CHAUVIN ABUSED HIS POSITION AS A POLICE OFFICER.

DOES THAT COME INTO PLAY HERE?

WHAT WOULD YOU ANTICIPATE THE POSSIBLE SENTENCE MIGHT BE THAT THE JUDGE WOULD IMPOSE?

>> I'VE BEEN ON THE CONSERVATIVE SIDE WITH THIS, ONLY BECAUSE THIS SAME JUDGE, JUDGE CAHILL, HAS SIGNALLED TO THE APPELLATE COURT THAT HE BELIEVED THERE ARE GROUNDS FOR APPEAL.

AND SO THIS CONCERNS ME, AND IT MIGHT BE THAT HE WANTS TO BE ON THE CONSERVATIVE SIDE, THINKING ABOUT THIS, THIS ISSUE OF APPEAL AND THINKING ABOUT THE OUTSIDE CIRCUMSTANCES.

SO I BELIEVE BETWEEN 12 1/2 TO 15-YEAR SENTENCE ALL TOGETHER.

BUT THERE IS THE OTHER CONCERN I HAVE IS, WE USUALLY SEE A DEFENDANT SHOW REMORSE, AND THAT IS SOMETHING THAT THE JUDGE TAKES INTO CONSIDERATION AT THE END OF THE SENTENCING TIME, THE DEFENDANT GIVES A STATEMENT, AND IN THAT STATEMENT, THEY GIVE THEIR FINAL WORDS.

BUT SINCE THIS ISSUE IS GOING UP ON APPEAL, I WONDER IF DEREK CHAUVIN IS GOING TO MAKE SUCH A STATEMENT, IF HE'S GOING TO SHOW REMORSE, BECAUSE HE MAY STILL BELIEVE IN HIS MIND THAT WHAT HE DID WAS CORRECT.

AND SO WHEN A CONVICTED PERSON AT SENTENCING SHOWS NO REMORSE, IT'S USUALLY THEN THAT THE JUDGE CHASTISES THAT PARTY AND GIVES A GREATER SENTENCE THAN EARLIER THOUGHT.

BUT AT THIS POINT, I SAY 12 1/2 TO 15 YEARS.

>> WHAT DO YOU THINK THE MAXIMUM REALISTIC SEPTEMBER TENSE MIGHT BE THAT THE -- WE TALKED ABOUT 40 YEARS, AND I DON'T THINK ANYBODY BELIEVES THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN.

WHAT DO YOU THINK THE MAXIMUM MIGHT BE, IF THE JUDGE SAYS NO EXPRESSION OF REMORSE, I FOUND THESE AGGRAVATING FACTORS AND I'M GOING TO COME DOWN HEAVIER.

WHAT KIND OF RANGE WOULD YOU SAY THEN SP >> THEN I WOULD SAY 20.

AND THE REASON WHY IS, BECAUSE IN MINNESOTA, THERE IS A PRECEDENT IN THAT THERE WAS AN EARLIER CASE IN WHICH AN AFRICAN-AMERICAN POLICE OFFICER ACCIDENTLY SHOT AND KILLED A WHITE WOMAN.

AND IN THAT PARTICULAR INSTANCE, HE WAS GIVEN 10 TO 12.

SO WHEN I'M LOOKING AT THIS, AND I'M THINKING OKAY, THIS WAS AN ACCIDENT, AND YET HE WAS FOUND GUILTY AND SENTENCED, THERE WAS NOT THE CRUELTY, THERE WAS NO AGGRAVATING ISSUES TO THE EXTENT THAT WE HAVE WITH DEREK CHAUVIN.

AND SO THAT'S WHY I'M LOOKING AT THIS RANGE BETWEEN 10 AND 20 FOR DEREK CHAUVIN, AND FALLING IN THE MIDST OF 12 1/2 TO 15.

>> LAST QUESTION FOR YOU.

WE COULD TALK FOREVER, I LOVE OUR CONVERSATIONS.

LAST QUESTION FOR YOU.

YOU HAD SAID WHEN WE HAD SPOKEN PREVIOUSLY THAT YOU HOPE THAT THIS TRIAL MAY WELL HAVE AN IMPACT ON POLICE MISCONDUCT MOVING FORWARD.

AND EVEN THE POSSIBILITY THAT IT MIGHT HAVE AN IMPACT ABOUT THE PASSAGE OF A NATIONAL POLICE REFORM BILL.

NOW THAT THE TRIAL HAS TAKEN PLACE, WHAT IS YOUR VIEW ON THAT?

>> I'M LESS OPTIMISTIC.

AND ONE OF THE REASON WHY IS I'M LESS OPTIMISTIC IS BECAUSE PROSECUTORS SHOULD HAVE LEARNED FROM THIS CASE.

BUT I DON'T SEE THEM LEARNING.

THERE WERE POLICE WHO KILLED CIVILIANS BEFORE THE TRIAL, DURING THE TRIAL, AFTER THE TRIAL, AND CONTINUE TO KILL CIVILIANS WITH IMPUNITY FOR THE MOST PART, BECAUSE EVEN THOSE CASES THAT WERE PENDING DURING THE TIME PERIOD, IT WAS ALMOST AS IF THERE WAS A ONE OFF, THE BACKLASH FROM THE PROSECUTORS IS, I'M GOING TO SIDE WITH POLICE OFFICERS.

YOU HAD MANY POLICE OFFICERS LEAVING THE FORCE, SAYING THEIR HANDS ARE TIED, THEY DON'T FEEL SUPPORTED.

THEY'RE ALMOST SUPPOSED TO BE ALLOWED TO USE EVERYTHING THEY HAVE.

AND I CONSIDER THE FACT THAT THEY HAVE THE GUN, THEY HAVE A NIGHT STICK, A TASER.

THEY HAVE ALL OF THESE WEAPONS AND THE TRAINING, AND YET THEY FEEL THEY'RE IN THE VULNERABLE POSITION.

THEY STILL FEEL THEMSELVES AS VICTIMS.

AND UNTIL THE PROSECUTORS ACTUALLY ARE GOING TO CHANGE THEIR MINDSET ABOUT WHOM THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BE REPRESENTING IN THE COURTROOM.

THEY'RE NOT THERE TO PROTECT POLICE OFFICERS, THEY'RE THERE ON BEHALF OF THE PUBLIC.

AND I DON'T SEE THE WAVE ENOUGH.

WE HAVE 18,000 POLICE JURISDICTIONS.

SO WE HAVE PROSECUTORIAL OFFICES CONNECTED TO ALL OF THOSE.

WITHOUT SOME NATIONAL REFORM, WHICH IS FAILING AT THIS POINT, THIS PIECEMEAL APPROACH OF SOME PROSECUTORS WILL NOT BE ENOUGH TO TURN THE TIDE FOR SOMETHING THAT'S EMBEDDED IN THIS NATION'S HI TRY AND THIS COUNTRY HAS CONTINUED TO ALLOW POLICE OFFICERS TO ACT IN WAYS THAT THEY'RE MORE CELEBRITIES THAN PUBLIC SERVANTS.

>> THIS TRIAL CERTAINLY SHOWN A LIGHT ON ALL THE ISSUES.

WE'LL SEE WHAT THE SENTENCING WILL BE AND THE IMPACT ON POLICE REFORM AND POSSIBLE LEGISLATION.

PROFESSOR, IT IS ALWAYS A PLEASURE TO TALK WITH YOU.

THANK YOU FOR SPENDING SOME TIME WITH US.

WE LOOK FORWARD TO TALKING WITH YOU AGAIN SOON.

>> THANK YOU.

THOUGHT YOUR LEGS WERE GOING TO FALL OFF FROM THE AMOUNT OF PAIN RUNNING THROUGH THEM.

IMAGINE IF YOU STARTED BLACKING OUT AT VARIOUS POINTS.

>> THAT WAS THE DAUGHTER OF TOMMY HILFIGER, REVEALING THE PAIN SHE SUFFERED FOR YEARS WHILE BATTLING LYME DISEASE.

IT BEGAN AT THE AGE OF 7 WHEN SHE WAS BITTEN BY A TICK.

HER TEST WAS INCONCLUSIVE, SO WITH THE UNBEARABLE PAIN, YEARS OF MISDIAGNOSIS FOLLOWED.

AT FIRST, SHE WAS THOUGHT TO HAVE GROWING PAINS.

AT 11, IT WAS RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS, OR MAYBE MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS.

AT 19, HER FATHER CONVINCED THAT HER PROBLEMS STEMMED FROM A MARIJUANA HABIT, HAD HER COMMITTED TO A PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL.

IT WAS ONLY SHE LEFT THE HOSPITAL THAT SHE WAS CORRECTLY DIAGNOSED.

SHE'S TELLING THE STORY OF HER LONG AND PAINFUL STORY IN THE NEW BOOK "BITE ME, HOW LYME DISEASE STOLE MY CHILDHOOD AND ALMOST KILLED ME."

SHE JOINS ME NOW.

>> THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME.

>> THIS IS A WONDERFUL BOOK.

>> THANK YOU.

>> IT'S REALLY HARROWING AND ALSO FUNNY.

YOU HAVE A SENSE OF HUMOR IN BETWEEN ALL THE PAIN.

>> THANK YOU.

>> SO WHEN YOUR MOTHER FIRST SAW THAT LITTLE TICK ON YOUR BELLY ABOUT 7, SHE DID EVERYTHING SHE WAS SUPPOSED TO DO.

SHE PLUCKED IT OFF WITH STERILIZED TWEEZERS, PUT IT IN A TESTING.

BUT IT CAME BACK INCONCLUSIVE ON THE NEGATIVE SIDE OF THE SPECTRUM.

HOW COULD THAT BE SINCE YOU DID CONTRACT LYME DISEASE?

HOW COULD THEY HAVE MADE SUCH A MISTAKE?

>> UNFORTUNATELY, MY STORY IS NO DIFFERENT THAN MANY OTHERS.

IN THAT MANY PEOPLE'S BLOOD TESTS COME BACK INCONCLUSIVE OR WITH FALSE NEGATIVES.

SOMETIMES EVEN THE FALSE POSITIVES, HOWEVER, MOST OF THE CASES IS FALSE NEGATIVES.

THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT A BETTER WAY TO DIAGNOSE AND TEST.

>> GIVE US A SENSE OF HOW YOUR HEALTH BEGAN TO DETERIORATE.

WHAT HAPPENED TO YOU MEANTALLY, PHYSICALLY AND HOW DID IT AFFECT YOUR ENTIRE CHILDHOOD?

>> I STARTED OUT WITH PAIN IN MY LEGS AND JOINTS, KNEES AND MUSCLES, STREP THROAT AND HEADACHES.

YOU KNOW, IT WAS DIFFICULT, BECAUSE I THOUGHT THAT MAYBE OTHER PEOPLE HAD THIS PAIN.

WHEN I FOUND OUT THEY DIDN'T, I FELT DIFFERENT.

WHEN THEY COULDN'T FIGURE OUT WHAT IT WAS, I FELT LIKE I WAS A BABY.

THEN I HAD A MAJOR SNOWBOARDING ACCIDENT AT THE AGE OF 13, AND THE LYME DISEASE, OR WHAT WAS HAPPENING TO ME, SEEMED TO HAVE BEEN EXACERBATED.

AND IT WENT TO MY BRAIN, AND I STARTED HAVING FAINTING SPELLS.

A LOT OF COGNITIVE ISSUES.

MY READING SKILLS WENT DOWN THE DRAIN, AND MY MEMORY AND RESENSE SKILLS WENT OUT THE WINDOW.

>> YOU CARRIED A CAMERA AROUND SO THAT YOU COULD PHOTOGRAPH THINGS AND REMEMBER THEM.

>> YES.

>> UNBELIEVABLE.

AND THE WORST PART OF IT, WHAT WAS SO STRIKING TO ME AND SAD, THE WORST PART WAS NOT EVEN ALL THIS PAIN FOR YOU.

IT WAS THAT PEOPLE DIDN'T KNOW WHAT YOU HAD.

TELL US ABOUT THAT.

>> YOU KNOW, IT'S KIND OF LONELY, BECAUSE YOU FEEL A CERTAIN WAY AND YOU'RE TOLD IT'S THIS OR THAT, BUT THERE'S NOTHING WE CAN DO ABOUT IT.

YOU'RE PROBABLY GOING TO BE OKAY.

WHEN THE SYMPTOMS KEEP GETTING WORSE, I DON'T WANT TO SOUND LIKE A COMPLAINER TO MY PARENTS, WHO WERE DOING EVERYTHING THEY COULD, BRINGING ME TO ALL THE DOCTORS.

YOU KNOW, IT'S REALLY SCARY NOT HAVING ANSWERS.

AT ONE POINT, I JUST SHUT MY MOUTH.

>> SO YOU PUT UP WITH ALL THE SYMPTOMS.

IT WAS LIKE YOU WERE POISONED EVERY DAY.

YOU WERE SUFFERING FROM POISON BUT YOU HAD TO PUT UP WITH IT.

>> I THOUGHT EVERYONE WAS JUST AS TIRED AS I WAS.

IT'S BEYOND A FATIGUE YOU'LL NEVER UNDERSTAND.

IT CAME TO A HEAD WHERE THE SYMPTOMS WERE COMPLETELY UNBEARABLE AND UNIGNORABLE.

IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE TO IGNORE THAT SOMETHING SERIOUS WAS WRONG.

>> IT GOT TO A POINT WHERE THE THINGS YOU SAID WERE SO ODD, AND SOME OF THE THINGS THAT YOU DID WERE SO BIZARRE, THAT YOUR FATHER, AS I SAID, ASSUMED THAT YOU HAD A MARIJUANA HABIT BECAUSE YOU -- HE WENT TO YOU ONE TIME AND SAID WHAT CAN I DO FOR YOU?

YOU SAID THE ONLY THING YOU CAN DO IS GET ME MORE POT.

WHY IS THAT?

>> THE MARIJUANA HELPED THE NAUSEA, THE CHRONIC, DEBILITATING NAUSEA, AND JOINT PAIN.

AND I WAS TIRED ALREADY, SO IT DIDN'T MAKE A DIFFERENCE.

IT GOT ME THROUGH SOME REALLY PAINFUL TIMES.

>> SO HE DECIDED THAT THE ONLY THING HE COULD DO WAS COMMIT YOU TO A PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL.

>> YES, AND ON TOM OF THAT, I WAS SUFFERING FROM A NERVOUS BREAKDOWN AND NOT MAKING SENSE.

I WASN'T ABLE TO PUT SENTENCES TOGETHER.

I WAS BABBLING, I HAD GONE CRAZY.

PSYCHOTIC.

IT WAS PSYCHOTIC.

>> THAT WAS PART OF THE LYME DISEASE.

>> THAT'S CORRECT, THAT'S CORRECT.

A LOT OF PEOPLE WITH LYME DO HAVE PSYCHOTIC BREAKS AND SOMETIMES DON'T RETURN THERE THEM.

SO I'M VERY LUCKY THAT HE PUT ME IN A HOSPITAL, THANK GOD.

>> SOMETIMES YOU THINK ABOUT IT AND IT MAKES YOU MAD.

BUT THAT SAVED YOUR LIFE.

>> IT DID.

>> EXPLAIN HOW.

>> WHEN I WENT INTO THE HOSPITAL, I WAS VIR ANGRY.

I HAD NO IDEA WHY I WAS THERE WAKING UP IN A PSYCHIATRIC WARD IS NOBODY'S DREAM.

IT WAS QUITE THE OPPOSITE.

IT WAS A NIGHTMARE.

AND AS THE TIME WENT ON, A WONDERFUL DOCTOR THERE, WHO IS BASED OUT OF STANFORD, AND SHE REALLY LISTENED TO ME AND TOOK ME SERIOUSLY AS A PERSON.

ONCE I GOT OUT OF THERE, I SAT IN HER OFFICE AND I TRUSTED HER ENOUGH TO SAY LISTEN, WE'VE GONE TO MANY, MANY DOCTORS AND NOBODY HAS DONE ANYTHING, AND THERE'S NOTHING.

THESE ARE ALL OF THE SYMPTOMS AND I'M STILL IN PAIN.

THIS IS WHAT I WAS TRYING TO SAY BEFORE I ENTERED THE HOSPITAL BUT NOBODY HAS DONE ANYTHING ABOUT IT.

SHE SAID, I REALLY THINK YOU HAVE LYME DISEASE.

I SAID NO, I'VE BEEN TESTED FOR THAT.

SHE SAID, THE TESTS ARE HIGHLY INACCURATE.

I'M GOING TO SEND YOU TO A FEW MORE DOCTORS.

THE TESTS CAME BACK THROUGH THE ROOF LYME DISEASE.

>> SO AFTER YOU WERE DIAGNOSED, YOU GOT THE CORRECT TREATMENT AND YOU WERE AS GOOD AS NEW, RIGHT?

>> NOPE.

I WISH.

WHEN I FOUND OUT IT WAS LYME DISEASE, LIKE HARD CORE LYME DISEASE, I WAS LIKE, I FEEL LIKE I WON THE LOTTERY.

THEN YOU GO ON YOUR MERRY WAY TO THE PHARMACY AND GET THE ANTY BIOTICS.

UNFORTUNATELY -- LISTEN, THEY DID A LOT OF GOOD, THEY REALLY DID.

BUT AFTER A LONG COURSE OF ANTIBIOTICS AND FEELING WELL, I WOULD GO BACK TO WORK AND BACK TO LIFE AND RELAPSE AGAIN.

AND THEN I WOULD HAVE TO GO BACK ON ANTIBIOTICS, AND I TRIED EVERY TREATMENT, AND MIXED WITH THE CO-INFECTION, THE COUSIN TO MALARIA, IF YOU WILL, IT REALLY IS MORE COMPLICATED TO DEAL WITH.

AND, YOU KNOW, SO MANY TIMES I WAS LIKE, ANOTHER ONE?

I CAN'T DO THIS AGAIN.

I CAN'T DO THIS AGAIN.

SO WE TURNED TO HOMEOPATHY AND CLEAN LIVING AND DETOXING AND MEDITATION.

AND WE MOVED TO CALIFORNIA.

AND I THINK THAT MADE IT MORE MANAGEABLE.

>> SO HOW ARE YOU DOING NOW?

HOW ARE YOU FEELING?

>> I MANAGED TODAY.

I'M ALSO ABLE TO BE HONEST WITH MYSELF.

IF I'M STARTING TO FEEL UNWELL, I HAVE A TOOLBOX, AND I CAN DIVE INTO THAT TOOLBOX AND CALL DIFFERENT THERAPISTS OR HEALERS OR DOCTORS AND DO DIFFERENT MEDITATIONS, GO ON DIFFERENT DIETS.

GO AND SEE PEOPLE WHO MAKE ME FEEL BETTER.

GO TO A PLACE THAT MAKES ME FEEL WELL AND SAY LISTEN, I HAVE TO DO A LITTLE BIT LESS.

AND I'M KIND OF AN OX IN THE CHINESE ZODIAC AND A REAL WORKER AND I'M ALSO A NEW MOM.

SO MY ENERGY LEVEL CAN BE COMPROMISED SOMETIMES.

AND I HAVE TO BE HONEST HOW I FEEL AND HAVE TO SAY LISTEN, I NEED TO TAKE A LITTLE BIT OF A BREAK AND TAKE CARE OF MYSELF.

>> AND THIS LYME DISEASE ONLY CAME FROM A TICK.

CAN YOU PASS IT ON TO YOUR CHILD?

>> THAT'S NOT PROVEN RIGHT NOW.

RESEARCHERS ARE LOOKING INTO ALL OF THAT.

FORTUNATELY, WHEN I BECAME PREGNANT, I HAD A LOT OF DOCTORS TEST ME.

THEY SAID I WAS CLEAR OF ACTIVE LIME.

MY SYSTEM FLARES UP SOMETIMES BECAUSE IT WAS DAMAGED FOR SO MANY YEARS.

SO THERE'S NO PROOF YET, BUT I'M LOOKING TO ALL OF THAT.

MY BABY GIRL IS AS HEALTHY AND SMART AS CAN BE.

AND MAYBE OTHER INSECTS CAN PASS IT ON, I THINK.

>> THE THING THAT SURPRISED ME, ONE OF THE REASONS YOU WERE MISDIAGNOSED FOR 11 YEARS, AND I WAS SURPRISED TO READ THIS IN THE BOOK, BECAUSE DOCTORS HAVE A BIAS AGAINST DIAGNOSING FOR LYME DISEASE.

IN FACT, THERE ARE SOME DOCTORS WHO DON'T BELIEVE LYME DISEASE EXISTS.

HOW IS THAT POSSIBLE?

>> I DON'T KNOW.

AND MAYBE THE ONLY EXPLANATION THAT I CAN COME UP WITH IS THAT IT'S SO COMPLICATED AND SO DIFFICULT TO PIN POINT, AND TO UNDERSTAND THAT THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND IT YET.

WHEN YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND SOMETHING, YOU DON'T WANT TO GET BLAMED.

SO THAT COULD BE IT.

IT'S BEYOND ME, AND SO SADDENING AND FRUSTRATING TO KNOW THERE ARE PEOPLE OUT THERE SO SICK AND THE DOCTOR IS LIKE NO, NOT GOING TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT.

>> HOPEFULLY SOME OF THOSE DOCTORS WILL READ YOUR BOOK.

HOW COMMON IS LYME DISEASE?

>> IT IS SPREADING AT A RAPID PACE.

IT'S A GROWING EPIDEMIC IN OUR COUNTRY.

IT IS ABOVE PROBABLY WHAT THE CDC SAYS.

IT'S HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF AMERICANS IN 50 STATES.

>> WHAT DO YOU SAY TO SOMEBODY WHO IS SUFFERING FROM THE SAME KIND OF DISPAIR AND THE PAIN THAT YOU WERE SUFFERING FROM JUST A FEW YEARS AGO, AND MAYBE LISTENING TO US NOW?

>> I WOULD SAY KEEP A GLIMMER OF LIGHT AND HOPE AT THE END OF THE TUNNEL, WHATEVER THAT GOAL MIGHT BE, MAYBE IT'S TO WRITE YOUR STORY DOWN, BE ALIVE FOR YOUR GRANDCHILDREN, AND TO KEEP YOUR EYE ON THAT, AND TO WATCH A LOT OF FUNNY MOVIES.

BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO HAVE A SENSE OF HUMOR AND LIFT YOUR SPIRITS.

THIS BOOK IS NOT ONLY FOR PEOPLE WITH LYME DISEASE.

IT'S GREAT AWARENESS, BUT MY STORY OFFERS A LOT OF HOPE, AND TO KEEP YOUR EYE ON THAT LIGHT.

MY FATHER TAUGHT ME THIS, TO KEEP YOUR EYE ON THAT GOAL, NO MATTER HOW DARK THAT TUM BECOMES, YOU KEEP YOUR EYE ON THE LIGHT.

>> SUMMER IS ALMOST UPON US.

MANY PEOPLE WILL GO TO WHERE TICKS CARRYING LYME DISEASE PREDOMINATE.

YOU SAY IT'S MORE COMMON -- >> IT'S IN CENTRAL PARK, IT'S IN KENTUCKY, MISSOURI.

IT'S EVERYWHERE.

>> WHAT SHOULD PEOPLE DO?

>> SPRAY YOURSELF DOWN WITH TICK SPRAY.

TICK SPRAY, TICK SPRAY, TICK SPRAY.

WEAR LIGHT CLOTHING, TALK YOUR PANTS INTO YOUR SOCKS.

AND JUST SPRAY YOURSELF DOWN AND CHECK FOR TICKS.

CHECK FOR TICKS.

THAT'S HOW MY MOTHER FOUND MY TICK.

>> SO "BITE ME, HOW LYME DISEASE STOLE MY CHILDHOOD, MADE ME CRAZY AND ALMOST KILLED ME," WHAT DO YOU HOPE TO ACCOMPLISH WITH THIS BOOK?

>> AWARENESS, MORE RESEARCH, MORE EDUCATION.

AND ULTIMATELY TO FIND A MORE ACCURATE WAY TO TEST NOR THE DISEASE.

SO MY DAUGHTER AND HER GENERATION NEVER HAVE TO GET BIT BY A TICK AND WHAT GO THROUGH WHAT I WENT THROUGH.

>> IT'S A HARROWING BOOK BUT HARD TO PUT DOWN.

IT'S REALLY WELL DONE.

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR WRITING IT.

AND THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE.

>> THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME.

>> FOR MORE INFORMATION ON LYME DISEASE, GO TO OUR WEBSITE AT METROFOCUS.ORG.

>>> "METROFOCUS" IS MADE POSSIBLE BY -- SUE AND EDGAR WACHENHEIM, III, SYLVIA A.

AND SIMON B. POYTA PROGRAMMING ENDOWMENT TO FIGHT ANTI-SEMITISM, BERNARD AND IRENE SCHWARTZ, ROSALIND P. WALTER, BARBARA HOPE ZUCKERBERG AND BY JUDY AND JOSH WESTON, DR. ROBERT C. AND TINA SOHN