Court TV Appearance: Josh Kolsrud on the Trinity Poague Verdict

Criminal defense attorney Josh Kolsrud joined Court TV to discuss the guilty verdict in the Trinity Poague case, where Poague—a former Georgia pageant winner—was convicted on five of six counts and sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole after 30 years for the death of her boyfriend’s 18‑month‑old son.

Below are the key insights and opinions Josh shared during the segment, focused on the meaning of the verdict, sentencing realities, and the human impact on the victim’s family.

Was Justice Served?

“Yes—at least as the court defines it.” According to Josh.  The prosecution secured the conviction they sought, and the sentence imposed is consistent with the court’s authority and the charges at issue.  He emphasized that “justice” in this context reflects the legal outcome, not emotional closure for the family.

Sentencing Realities That Shaped the Outcome

• According to Josh, the judge did not have the option to impose the death penalty or life without the possibility of parole based on the charges presented.
• Even had Poague been convicted on all counts, the judge still could have imposed the same sentence. In other words, the practical sentencing exposure did not materially change with a sixth conviction.

The Prosecution’s Objective Was Met

Josh noted the prosecution “got what they wanted”: a conviction on five of six counts and a resulting life sentence that aligns with their theory of the case and the evidence presented. Josh underscored the limits of the criminal justice system to heal loss: “Nobody is satisfied when they hear this verdict.” A conviction does not erase the brutality and senselessness of the crime.

“Nobody is satisfied when they hear this verdict.” A conviction does not erase the brutality and senselessness of the crime.

Still, he acknowledged the verdict provides “something”—a lawful resolution that may allow the family to begin rebuilding and find a semblance of justice.

What This Means Moving Forward

The case illustrates how charging decisions and statutory limits define sentencing outcomes—often more than the number of counts of conviction.

For victims’ families, the legal conclusion is a starting point, not an end to grief. As Josh put it, the hope is that the family can “begin to pick up where they left off before this trial” and move forward with some measure of justice.