Danny Savalos

What's the answer to that? They can't just do it again like that. Well, they could. If they went back now and did it right, they could get that evidence the proper way. In theory, there's nothing really to prevent obtaining the same evidence another way in a new trial. You mean if they got it by writing a different warrant?

Right. I mean, so much of this evidence came from the cell phone that it likely just couldn't be found anywhere else unless it's communications with other people who might have those records as well.

Exactly right. Or it could be searches, searches conducted on websites which are in theory given. to a third party. Almost everything that we do on our phones is us giving information to a third party. So while it may involve a lot more footwork by law enforcement, they often can get to that information through other means than the original cell phone if that cell phone isn't available.

The biggest barrier would now be time. It may be that companies or websites may not keep records that long to respond to a subpoena for that kind of information. But if they did, and if you can match up the IP address, which is a unique number assigned to everyone's internet browsing, then yes, you could potentially match that up.

But even then, if you match the IP address, you sometimes get into the thorny question of, well, who else might have been using the computer or the phone at the time?

Yes. As soon as you match up the IP address, there really isn't much else for a defendant to do other than argue that, hey, this device of mine, laptop or cell phone, was like Grand Central Station. Everybody was using it all the time.

Danny, thanks so much.

Hi, Andrea.

Yes, and there are actually some other pleas that are much more rare, and those are the Alford plea and the no contest or no lo contendere plea. So what is the difference between the two? In a no contest plea, you're basically not pleading guilty. You're not pleading anything, and you're sort of going limp and allowing the government or the court to find you guilty.

In an Alford plea, the defendant is pleading guilty, but but maintaining their innocence. And they enter an Alford plea because they believe in their heart of hearts they're innocent, but the evidence is just so overwhelming.

Yeah, for Peterson, he'd been convicted of murdering his wife, Kathleen, in 2003. He was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. In 2011, a new trial is ordered after a judge vacates his conviction. And then in 2017, he takes an Alford plea instead of going to face a second trial. So you can see the benefit. to the state is that they get their guilty verdict.

He's sentenced to time served. He's able to leave prison. And he can tell himself that the nature of my plea was that I am innocent, even though as far as the government and the paperwork and the courts are concerned, I am guilty.

Yeah, Pam Hopp had entered an Alford plea to avoid the death penalty.

Absolutely. There is a real world consequence of pleading no contest because you can later on dispute your liability if you're sued in civil court for the same conduct. That is not the case with an Alford plea. You're essentially foreclosed from even arguing against your guilt or liability in a later court proceeding.

But other than that, there really isn't a whole lot that differentiates either an Alford plea or a no contest plea from a straight up guilty plea.

Yes. For the most part, you'll go to sentencing. You will be sentenced. And in fact, you might get a worse sentence because you haven't accepted responsibility. And one of the key factors in sentencing at the state and federal level is whether or not the defendant is accepting responsibility after they pleaded guilty.

Yeah, you know, we've all sort of grown up with the idea of plea bargaining, but this is not something that courts are required to accept. And the federal rules, for example, expressly disfavor the idea of an Alford plea. Many judges, many courts, many states will not allow them. They are controversial judges.

Because for people like victims' families who come to court, they want to see someone take accountability for their actions. It's understandable that they're frustrated because the person is not taking responsibility, even though they may be, at least on paper, pleading guilty.

It's one of the most terrifying things for me. And I'm the attorney. I don't even have to make the choice. I have to deliver those options to a client, go to trial where the evidence is very strong, spend a lot of money. And then at the end, you roll the dice. And if you're convicted, you will get a much worse sentence than if you plead guilty and enter into a plea bargain.

Absolutely.

Thank you.

Many judges, many courts, many states will not allow Alford pleas. They are controversial.

Thank you.

They are the opposing attorney's way to try and argue against the admissibility of a question or an answer or evidence in general in real time. And if you don't get that objection in fast enough before the answer comes, the judge may not allow you to even make that objection. And if you don't make that objection on the record, you may not be able to raise it on appeals.

Well, a lot of times there are objections really to forms of questions. It could be leading. You hear that a lot. You have hearsay. You have relevance, which is always an objection. Even if the evidence is relevant, it might be really prejudicial, and that prejudice outweighs the relevance. You'll hear that objection a lot.

Yes, the way it works is you say objection, and depending on the judge's practice, ordinarily you will state the basis for your objection. But some judges don't want you to do that because they don't want you to sort of argue in front of the jury. But the attorney who objects should always be ready with the rule of evidence on which the objection is based.

Right. So sustained means you won. You won your objection. You were right. If it's overruled, it means your objection is no good and the questioning can continue.

So there are a couple of fixes for this. You ask for a jury instruction and the judge may even admonish the jury. Hey, that was inappropriate. Disregard it. But attorneys take calculated risks like this all the time. They will ask a question if they really think they need to get a message across because they know once the jurors hear it, you really can't unring that bell.

So sometimes attorneys even ask questions that are close to the line, knowing they'll be objected to, knowing they'll be sustained. But the point is, they got it out in front of the jury.

Absolutely. Yeah, absolutely. I mean, there's a strategy in objecting. And by the way, sometimes the questions can be objectionable, but you make a choice to let them go. You have to pick and choose your battles because, number one, if you make a lot of them and you start losing, then you don't look good to the jury. But even if you make a lot of them and you win—

and it looks like you're trying to hide something, the jury is aware of that too.

Yeah, and sometimes you won't object because you like the direction that the other side is going and you want them to get all that in and you want the jury to see this witness for who they are. And by the way, you're likely going to be able to cross-examine or redirect at some point. You're going to have your chance to get up there and ask questions.

So you use your objections wisely because, like you said, it's all theater.

Thank you.

With the gold bars? Yes. Silver bars? Okay. Okay.

My name is Judson Welcher. Sir, what do you do for a profession? I'm an accident reconstructionist and biomechanical engineer.

Well, I originally submitted my presentation with my original report way back, I believe, in January.

Okay, your question wasn't clear.

When I'm trying to explain to somebody what I do, I say, hey, it's like a civil engineer who's designing a bridge. So many trucks and cars on the bridge. Are that gonna cause the beams in the bridge to fail? So a human body is governed by the same laws of physics just like the bridge. In a human body, my beams are bones. My cables are the muscles and ligaments.

Yes, based on the totality of the evidence, DNA, everything I've talked about, that is consistent with that happening. With a reasonable degree of scientific certainty, that is what happened.

If you don't get that objection in fast enough, the judge may not allow you to even make that objection.

Absolutely not. I'm an engineer. You're asking me about proof. And so proof is somebody looked at it. Somebody took an x-ray. Somebody found a comminuted fracture. So we're talking about proof.

Ask me about the opinion of a medical examiner. I'm not a medical examiner.

Hey.

Racketeering is having an enterprise with multiple people and conducting unlawful affairs through that enterprise. Combs is charged with racketeering conspiracy. And this is a really, in my opinion, very easy crime to prove. All you need to prove is that the defendant agreed to participate in this enterprise with the addition of two crimes that are enumerated in the racketeering statute.

Kidnapping, arson, violence, drug trafficking. You don't have to prove that he actually participated in them. You don't even have to prove that he was physically present when these crimes were committed. The mere agreement is enough for a conviction on racketeering conspiracy charges.

Right. All of this testimony about allegedly firebombing a car or drug use during the freak-offs or his former assistant claiming that she was kidnapped, those are critical to the elements of the case the prosecution must prove. But... importantly, they don't need to show that Combs kidnapped anyone. They don't need to show that he threw the Molotov cocktail.

They just need to show that he agreed to participate in some criminal enterprise and that these crimes were committed in furtherance of that enterprise.

Coercion is commonly understood under the statute to mean the threat of physical harm, not merely haranguing, harassing, bothering, or even threatening with loss of job or any kind of social pressure. That wouldn't be enough. But it certainly is helpful to the government to show this overall atmosphere.

of sort of threatening, harassing, hostile environment where these witnesses saw not only Combs be nasty to people, but physically violent as well. It's all part of the big picture and it helps the government.

Yeah, the mistrial request today, they preserved it for the record. But if Combs is convicted, I don't see this being a particularly appetizing appellate issue. It seemed to me that the prosecution was basically trying to ask questions that to confirm that that witness didn't lose the fingerprint cards. I understand the defense's argument, and they have to make that argument.

And in fact, I don't think even the defense expected that their mistrial motion would be granted. Virtually none of these motions are granted. But they got this benefit of having some of the testimony stricken. So it's the old theory of if you ask high, you might get what you want, even if that ends up being somewhere in the middle.

Thank you.

Donna's defense attorney withdrew from the case literally on the eve of the trial last September, citing a conflict of interest. He represented Donna's son, Charlie, who was convicted of Dan Markell's murder in 2023.

It took a while for Donna to find new attorneys, but a trial date was eventually set for next month, only for Donna's defense to ask the judge for another delay, in part because they said the state had opened a new investigation into the case, which was taking up a lot of their time. Wow. What did the judge say to that request?

The judge granted the defense's request to delay the trial, so it's now set for August with jury selection starting on the 19th. Okay, we'll see if that one sticks. You mentioned a new investigation. What do we know about that? We don't know too much. The defense did not give much away, but...

According to a petition they filed with an appellate court, we learned that investigators asked the judge in charge of Donna's case for a warrant to search the phone records of her husband, Harvey, and put a wiretap on his phone. Harvey has never been charged in connection with any crime.

So. Lori Vallow-Daybell is expected to stand trial in an attempted murder case involving her niece's ex-husband. His name is Brandon Boudreau. And not long after divorcing Lori's niece, Boudreau was in his car when he says someone shot at him, shattering his window. He says the shooter was driving a Jeep with Texas plates.

And investigators say the car was connected to Lori Vallow-Daybell's brother, Alex Cox.

That's right. And the shooting happened just a few months before Boudreaux says he was targeted. Alex actually died in 2019, so he's never faced any charges. Lori?

Really, she was just claiming that her constitutional right to a speedy trial had been violated. Okay, we know Lori's been hitting the law books in prison. Did her argument work? The judge actually denied the motion to dismiss the charges. So the trial will be moving forward. OK.

Yes. Her name is Kaya Sokola, and she's a former model and aspiring actress, now a mom and a psychologist, who says she first met Weinstein when she was 16.

So she testified that Weinstein assaulted her shortly after they met, and again when she was 19. Her testimony has been extremely emotional. She said she wanted to come forward for the sake of her son. Wow, powerful.

They are really just going after her credibility. They have asked her why she stayed in touch with Weinstein for years after that first alleged assault. And she said she hoped he'd help her acting career.

Thank you for having me.

RICO is a pretty complicated law, but the concept is simple enough. What it does, essentially, is that it criminalizes corrupting an organization. It can be a company, but it doesn't have to be. It can be any enterprise, a loose association of people. You need to show that somebody directed the enterprise and then that they committed a pattern of racketeering activity.

That's a fancy phrase, but all it really means is is that you have to prove that they committed two or more crimes in furtherance of this enterprise.

It has. It was inspired by the problem of the mafia. And anyone who watches mob movies knows that there's often some guy who's at the head of the organization who doesn't actually commit any of the crimes. But as long as he is agreeing to be involved in the organization and has some awareness that these crimes are out there being committed, then he can be held responsible.

Right, exactly. The focus is on what's called the enterprise. And when you have a company like Bad Boy Entertainment, that makes it a little easier for prosecutors because you already have the established company. And now they have to show that Combs directed it and that he used it for his unlawful means.

You're absolutely right. R. Kelly charged with RICO, and you wouldn't think of R. Kelly as a traditional mafia boss at all. But that's what federal prosecutors are very good at, especially with RICO. They don't necessarily limit the use of the statute to specific traditional organized crime. They will look for any organization that they believe has been corrupted and and bring those charges.

And it is actually similar to what's being alleged against Combs. They alleged in Kelly's case that he had this criminal enterprise. But instead of what you might see in the mafia, which might be, I don't know, what you see in movies, they steal a bunch of trucks and sell a bunch of shoes.

The allegations against R. Kelly were more like he was using his organization to achieve the sexual exploitation of women.

Exactly right. And instead of just charging with a federal-based sex crime, the key to the RICO allegations against both Kelly and Sean Combs is that there's an organization involved.

You can absolutely expect that the government has gone to some of his former employees and made it very clear that it's in their best interest to come in and testify against their employer or their former employer.

Yeah, so there are really limited avenues for Combs in this case. It was no surprise in the opening statement that the defense gave that they took the approach of, you may think my client's a jerk, but even if he's a jerk, even if he's into some kind of sex that you think is deviant, as long as it's consensual, it is not a federal crime. What the prosecution calls...

A RICO enterprise for the purpose of sexual gratification. It's not that. He's charged with very specific federal crimes, and these facts do not meet the government's proof.

Thank you.

She was just claiming that her constitutional right to a speedy trial had been violated. Plus, racketeering 101.

Instead of just charging with a federal-based sex crime, the key to the RICO allegations is that there's an organization involved.

Hi, Andrea.

Hey, thanks for having me.

Expert witnesses serve a very specific function. If the subject of their testimony is going to be outside the knowledge of your ordinary juror, then you may be permitted to call an expert witness in that area.

Not only do they take money, they take a lot of money. If you have the world's foremost expert on fingerprints, DNA, any of these hyper-technical issues, this is somebody that's going to be expensive.

And the other important point is that the other side is not only permitted to usually discover that, but also you can bet they're going to raise that in their cross-examination just as a matter of course. It's something we always do. Isn't it true that you were paid over $100,000 for your testimony? And that's true, but it's often justified.

Yeah, you're talking about a phenomenon we call battle of the experts. You know, we think of something like science as immutable or unchallengeable. And yet it's not too hard to go out and find two experts who will take dramatically different positions on either side. Now, is that only because they're being paid? No, not necessarily. I mean, you can cherry pick your area of expertise.

to fit what you need in your trial. But yes, you're absolutely right. As you've seen all too often, you'll have experts take the stand and completely contradict each other and leave it for the jury to decide who they like the best.

You're exactly right. So there are limitations on expert testimony. I mean, you can't just make up an area of science that serves your purpose and then say you're entitled to call an expert to testify about that area. So the judge acts as a gatekeeper before the jury ever hears that testimony.

to determine that this is a legitimate area, whether it be scientific, technical, whatever the case may be. It's got to meet at least a minimum standard before a judge allows any old expert to come in and start testifying to a jury.

This is a very is that the defense team said to the court and to the prosecution, we have had limited access to these guys. We're basically taking them as we find them. We're barely talking to them. We haven't paid them anything.

Well, now it seems that the defense may have possibly violated their obligation to disclose information about the level of, let's say, coziness that the defense had with these experts. Prosecutors allege that there were emails between the defense team and these experts, and in addition, an alleged payment of about $24,000. If true, and this wasn't disclosed, that's a huge problem for the defense.

That may be a lot of what we call lawyerly backpedaling at this point. But here's the thing. You've got to disclose information about your expert. You've got to give the other side the opportunity to cross-examine them as completely as they can.

Thanks for having me.

He thinks the family of the missing woman feels something happened to her, but they have no evidence of that yet.

Not only do they take money, they take a lot of money.

Hey, thanks for having me.

The pro se defendant is both the bane and the glory of the criminal justice system. And I say the glory because there is a constitutional right to represent yourself in the Sixth Amendment. But even that right is qualified. It's not absolute. It means a judge can take it away. A couple examples are is if a defendant is disruptive. If they're just making a lot of nonsensical objections.

Another example is if the defendant simply isn't competent, they suffer from some mental illness. A judge will not automatically allow that person to represent themselves if they're not competent to do so.

Oh, absolutely. I mean, commonly in traffic court, people represent themselves all the time because simply the cost of paying a ticket isn't worth hiring an attorney. Sometimes people represent themselves in civil cases, divorces, all kinds of cases. But I stand by this one. It is never a good idea to go it alone.

Yes, they know their facts better than I will ever know their facts. But you lose objectivity when you're a defendant. That's why even someone like me, if I needed a lawyer, I would hire a lawyer rather than represent myself.

Absolutely. He just had a rambling defense, made no sense. And by the way, Ted Bundy was a pretty educated person, but it simply doesn't matter. Pro se defendants are warned. You will be held to the same standards as an attorney. You'll need to know all the rules of procedure.

This is why they're destined to fail, because they simply don't have access to the same information, the rules, the law, especially when they're in custody as a lawyer.

It's possible. But here's the thing. Juries, I think, are very sensitive to how self-interested a pro se defendant is. And, you know, you mentioned the monologue and different courts do different things. Sometimes the court will appoint a standby counsel and they can do that over the defendant's objection.

Sometimes they'll require that lawyer to ask questions on direct examination instead of that monologue style. And the monologue style, in my view, is a bad idea because an untrained defendant is going to veer into areas that that are either inadmissible, irrelevant, or open the door. Maybe if they make a comment about, I'm not the kind of person that does this.

Uh-oh, you've just opened the door to character evidence. You've absolutely torpedoed your own case.

Exactly right. If you're a criminal defendant, you are privileged to sit there and say nothing. But instead, if you take take on your own defense, now you have the uncomfortable position of questioning witnesses, including family members like this. And you have to ask questions like, did I do this? Do you remember when I did this?

And jurors see that as really the defendant arguing with the witness because that's what it is. I mean, you can't detach what's happening and just think of this as another lawyer questioning a witness.

Not a good idea. I think I said that a few times.

There's an old saying, he who represents himself has a fool for a client.

Hi, Andrea.

Yes, and there are actually some other pleas that are much more rare, and those are the Alford plea and the no contest or no lo contendere plea. So what is the difference between the two? In a no contest plea, you're basically not pleading guilty. You're not pleading anything, and you're sort of going limp and allowing the government or the court to find you guilty.

In an Alford plea, the defendant is pleading guilty, but but maintaining their innocence. And they enter an Alford plea because they believe in their heart of hearts they're innocent, but the evidence is just so overwhelming.

Yeah, for Peterson, he'd been convicted of murdering his wife, Kathleen, in 2003. He was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. In 2011, a new trial is ordered after a judge vacates his conviction. And then in 2017, he takes an Alford plea instead of going to face a second trial. So you can see the benefit. to the state is that they get their guilty verdict.

He's sentenced to time served. He's able to leave prison. And he can tell himself that the nature of my plea was that I am innocent, even though as far as the government and the paperwork and the courts are concerned, I am guilty.

Yeah, Pam Hopp had entered an Alford plea to avoid the death penalty.

Absolutely. There is a real world consequence of pleading no contest because you can later on dispute your liability if you're sued in civil court for the same conduct. That is not the case with an Alford plea. You're essentially foreclosed from even arguing against your guilt or liability in a later court proceeding.

But other than that, there really isn't a whole lot that differentiates either an Alford plea or a no contest plea from a straight up guilty plea.

Yes. For the most part, you'll go to sentencing. You will be sentenced. And in fact, you might get a worse sentence because you haven't accepted responsibility. And one of the key factors in sentencing at the state and federal level is whether or not the defendant is accepting responsibility after they pleaded guilty.

Yeah, you know, we've all sort of grown up with the idea of plea bargaining, but this is not something that courts are required to accept. And the federal rules, for example, expressly disfavor the idea of an Alford plea. Many judges, many courts, many states will not allow them. They are controversial judges.

Because for people like victims' families who come to court, they want to see someone take accountability for their actions. It's understandable that they're frustrated because the person is not taking responsibility, even though they may be, at least on paper, pleading guilty.

It's one of the most terrifying things for me. And I'm the attorney. I don't even have to make the choice. I have to deliver those options to a client, go to trial where the evidence is very strong, spend a lot of money. And then at the end, you roll the dice. And if you're convicted, you will get a much worse sentence than if you plead guilty and enter into a plea bargain.

Absolutely.

Thank you.

Many judges, many courts, many states will not allow Alford pleas. They are controversial.

Thank you.

They are the opposing attorney's way to try and argue against the admissibility of a question or an answer or evidence in general in real time. And if you don't get that objection in fast enough before the answer comes, the judge may not allow you to even make that objection. And if you don't make that objection on the record, you may not be able to raise it on appeals.

Well, a lot of times there are objections really to forms of questions. It could be leading. You hear that a lot. You have hearsay. You have relevance, which is always an objection. Even if the evidence is relevant, it might be really prejudicial, and that prejudice outweighs the relevance. You'll hear that objection a lot.

Yes, the way it works is you say objection, and depending on the judge's practice, ordinarily you will state the basis for your objection. But some judges don't want you to do that because they don't want you to sort of argue in front of the jury. But the attorney who objects should always be ready with the rule of evidence on which the objection is based.

Right. So sustained means you won. You won your objection. You were right. If it's overruled, it means your objection is no good and the questioning can continue.

So there are a couple of fixes for this. You ask for a jury instruction and the judge may even admonish the jury. Hey, that was inappropriate. Disregard it. But attorneys take calculated risks like this all the time. They will ask a question if they really think they need to get a message across because they know once the jurors hear it, you really can't unring that bell.

So sometimes attorneys even ask questions that are close to the line, knowing they'll be objected to, knowing they'll be sustained. But the point is, they got it out in front of the jury.

Absolutely. Yeah, absolutely. I mean, there's a strategy in objecting. And by the way, sometimes the questions can be objectionable, but you make a choice to let them go. You have to pick and choose your battles because, number one, if you make a lot of them and you start losing, then you don't look good to the jury. But even if you make a lot of them and you win—

and it looks like you're trying to hide something, the jury is aware of that too.

Yeah, and sometimes you won't object because you like the direction that the other side is going and you want them to get all that in and you want the jury to see this witness for who they are. And by the way, you're likely going to be able to cross-examine or redirect at some point. You're going to have your chance to get up there and ask questions.

So you use your objections wisely because, like you said, it's all theater.

Thank you.

If you don't get that objection in fast enough, the judge may not allow you to even make that objection.

Hey.

Racketeering is having an enterprise with multiple people and conducting unlawful affairs through that enterprise. Combs is charged with racketeering conspiracy. And this is a really, in my opinion, very easy crime to prove. All you need to prove is that the defendant agreed to participate in this enterprise with the addition of two crimes that are enumerated in the racketeering statute.

Kidnapping, arson, violence, drug trafficking. You don't have to prove that he actually participated in them. You don't even have to prove that he was physically present when these crimes were committed. The mere agreement is enough for a conviction on racketeering conspiracy charges.

Right. All of this testimony about allegedly firebombing a car or drug use during the freak-offs or his former assistant claiming that she was kidnapped, those are critical to the elements of the case the prosecution must prove. But... importantly, they don't need to show that Combs kidnapped anyone. They don't need to show that he threw the Molotov cocktail.

They just need to show that he agreed to participate in some criminal enterprise and that these crimes were committed in furtherance of that enterprise.

Coercion is commonly understood under the statute to mean the threat of physical harm, not merely haranguing, harassing, bothering, or even threatening with loss of job or any kind of social pressure. That wouldn't be enough. But it certainly is helpful to the government to show this overall atmosphere.

of sort of threatening, harassing, hostile environment where these witnesses saw not only Combs be nasty to people, but physically violent as well. It's all part of the big picture and it helps the government.

Yeah, the mistrial request today, they preserved it for the record. But if Combs is convicted, I don't see this being a particularly appetizing appellate issue. It seemed to me that the prosecution was basically trying to ask questions that to confirm that that witness didn't lose the fingerprint cards. I understand the defense's argument, and they have to make that argument.

And in fact, I don't think even the defense expected that their mistrial motion would be granted. Virtually none of these motions are granted. But they got this benefit of having some of the testimony stricken. So it's the old theory of if you ask high, you might get what you want, even if that ends up being somewhere in the middle.

Thank you.

Thanks for having me.

You are absolutely right. Combs is not on trial for abuse, for assault, or even rape. But those acts are evidence that will help the government prove their case in chief. And one of the elements... of the crime of sex trafficking is that someone was forced into service commercial sex acts by means of force, fraud, or coercion.

So the domestic violence really becomes part of the government's proof of that coercion, of that force. And by the way, coercion has to be something that creates a fear of physical harm. It can't just be social pressure or being yelled at.

Yeah, character is technically never supposed to be part of a case. In fact, it's forbidden. But the reality is this. Prosecutors are very good at finding ways of bringing character into the case. And so, for example, if part of their case is that forced fraud or coercion is shown through things like that, video of Combs beating Cassie Ventura in the hotel that we've all seen now.

That's the kind of thing the government knows is really effective at not only proving their case, but making Combs look like a horrible person. And even the defense acknowledged in their opening, you may think my client's a jerk. That doesn't mean he committed these federal crimes.

It might look to the jury that it's not the government that has the infinite resources, but the defense. So that might be a minor issue. You don't necessarily want to look like you're as well-heeled as Combs is. And look, it's always a good thing to have more minds, more criminal defense minds on the case than less. The one thing I'll say is this. Criminal defense attorneys... often have egos.

They often have an idea about how a case should go. So the more attorneys you add, you might have a lot of disagreement behind closed doors in their strategy sessions. That can be a challenge. But a benefit is obviously that you can divide up tasks like cross-examining particular witnesses and give each attorney a set of witnesses to handle that's suited to their expertise.

So that is certainly a benefit.

You're absolutely right about the optics. If there are more attorneys on the defense side than the government side, then it looks like who's really the underdog here. Because make no mistake about it, the defense is always the underdog in a federal criminal case where the conviction rate is well above 90%. But I have to say that in a federal criminal case, and I've handled quite a few of these,

And the modern criminal case involves so much digital evidence that it just feels like you're awash in evidence and exhibits. So in my mind, even if there might be some issues with optics, with having a large defense team, it's such a luxury to be able to hand out different tasks and split everything up among a lot of these brilliant legal minds.

So I think the benefits outweigh the risks here for Combs.

Oh, my gosh, yes. Absolutely. He's got Tenny Garagos. He's got Steele. He's got a number of really, really skilled attorneys on his team.

I'll tell you this, and I'm gonna be really candid, it might get me in trouble, Andrea, but in my experience, it is rare that even sophisticated clients, it's rare that those notes that they hand during trial or when they start tugging on your sleeve rarely do they have something that is absolutely essential for the attorney to hear. Sometimes they do, and maybe Combs is different.

Maybe he's an essential part of the defense team. But more often than not, when you're an attorney and you're focusing on direct examination and when you should object, usually the client handing you notes is not very helpful. I think most defense attorneys would tell you that most of the time when the client passes them a note, it's some version of, they're lying. Yes.

And, you know, to that, I have to say, OK, great. What do you want me to do? I'll bring that up on cross-examination. Thank you.

Yeah. You know, you bring up a very good point. It is a good thing. for the jurors to think that the defendant is actively involved in his case. You know, I often tell clients, just sit there and look not guilty, which is kind of a glib remark. It's kind of a joke, because how do you do that? But it's true. The only person the jurors are constantly watching is the defendant.

So there is a bit of theater involved, and it does help. If the jurors think, hey, this is somebody that's diligent, he cares about his case, the optics of him handing over notes may be much better than the actual substance of the notes that he's handing over.

Here's what didn't happen. I can virtually guarantee it. What didn't happen is that the lawyer, Bach, was retained last night and looked at the file for the first time last night. That's impossible. Probably more likely, this was a strategic choice. I'm sure the attorney was prepping for weeks, if not months.

and just entered his appearance last night or whenever it was, maybe that was even part of the strategy to keep him under the radar. But more likely than not, this is an attorney with extensive experience cross-examining witnesses like this. And, you know, Andrea, I've used memory witnesses, experts in psychology. This is a particularly complicated area of expertise.

Well, we thought he might today and then that got pushed off. But that is not unusual in trials. By the way, it could be that it wasn't Kid Cudi's schedule. It might have been one of the witnesses from today. We really don't know. This kind of thing happens all the time.

Donna's defense attorney withdrew from the case literally on the eve of the trial last September, citing a conflict of interest. He represented Donna's son, Charlie, who was convicted of Dan Markell's murder in 2023.

It took a while for Donna to find new attorneys, but a trial date was eventually set for next month, only for Donna's defense to ask the judge for another delay, in part because they said the state had opened a new investigation into the case, which was taking up a lot of their time. Wow. What did the judge say to that request?

The judge granted the defense's request to delay the trial, so it's now set for August with jury selection starting on the 19th. Okay, we'll see if that one sticks. You mentioned a new investigation. What do we know about that? We don't know too much. The defense did not give much away, but...

According to a petition they filed with an appellate court, we learned that investigators asked the judge in charge of Donna's case for a warrant to search the phone records of her husband, Harvey, and put a wiretap on his phone. Harvey has never been charged in connection with any crime.

So. Lori Vallow-Daybell is expected to stand trial in an attempted murder case involving her niece's ex-husband. His name is Brandon Boudreau. And not long after divorcing Lori's niece, Boudreau was in his car when he says someone shot at him, shattering his window. He says the shooter was driving a Jeep with Texas plates.

And investigators say the car was connected to Lori Vallow-Daybell's brother, Alex Cox.

That's right. And the shooting happened just a few months before Boudreaux says he was targeted. Alex actually died in 2019, so he's never faced any charges. Lori?

Really, she was just claiming that her constitutional right to a speedy trial had been violated. Okay, we know Lori's been hitting the law books in prison. Did her argument work? The judge actually denied the motion to dismiss the charges. So the trial will be moving forward. OK.

Yes. Her name is Kaya Sokola, and she's a former model and aspiring actress, now a mom and a psychologist, who says she first met Weinstein when she was 16.

So she testified that Weinstein assaulted her shortly after they met, and again when she was 19. Her testimony has been extremely emotional. She said she wanted to come forward for the sake of her son. Wow, powerful.

They are really just going after her credibility. They have asked her why she stayed in touch with Weinstein for years after that first alleged assault. And she said she hoped he'd help her acting career.

Thank you for having me.

RICO is a pretty complicated law, but the concept is simple enough. What it does, essentially, is that it criminalizes corrupting an organization. It can be a company, but it doesn't have to be. It can be any enterprise, a loose association of people. You need to show that somebody directed the enterprise and then that they committed a pattern of racketeering activity.

That's a fancy phrase, but all it really means is is that you have to prove that they committed two or more crimes in furtherance of this enterprise.

It has. It was inspired by the problem of the mafia. And anyone who watches mob movies knows that there's often some guy who's at the head of the organization who doesn't actually commit any of the crimes. But as long as he is agreeing to be involved in the organization and has some awareness that these crimes are out there being committed, then he can be held responsible.

Right, exactly. The focus is on what's called the enterprise. And when you have a company like Bad Boy Entertainment, that makes it a little easier for prosecutors because you already have the established company. And now they have to show that Combs directed it and that he used it for his unlawful means.

You're absolutely right. R. Kelly charged with RICO, and you wouldn't think of R. Kelly as a traditional mafia boss at all. But that's what federal prosecutors are very good at, especially with RICO. They don't necessarily limit the use of the statute to specific traditional organized crime. They will look for any organization that they believe has been corrupted and and bring those charges.

And it is actually similar to what's being alleged against Combs. They alleged in Kelly's case that he had this criminal enterprise. But instead of what you might see in the mafia, which might be, I don't know, what you see in movies, they steal a bunch of trucks and sell a bunch of shoes.

The allegations against R. Kelly were more like he was using his organization to achieve the sexual exploitation of women.

Exactly right. And instead of just charging with a federal-based sex crime, the key to the RICO allegations against both Kelly and Sean Combs is that there's an organization involved.

You can absolutely expect that the government has gone to some of his former employees and made it very clear that it's in their best interest to come in and testify against their employer or their former employer.

Yeah, so there are really limited avenues for Combs in this case. It was no surprise in the opening statement that the defense gave that they took the approach of, you may think my client's a jerk, but even if he's a jerk, even if he's into some kind of sex that you think is deviant, as long as it's consensual, it is not a federal crime. What the prosecution calls...

A RICO enterprise for the purpose of sexual gratification. It's not that. He's charged with very specific federal crimes, and these facts do not meet the government's proof.

Thank you.

She was just claiming that her constitutional right to a speedy trial had been violated. Plus, racketeering 101.

Instead of just charging with a federal-based sex crime, the key to the RICO allegations is that there's an organization involved.

Hi, Andrea.

Hey, thanks for having me.

Expert witnesses serve a very specific function. If the subject of their testimony is going to be outside the knowledge of your ordinary juror, then you may be permitted to call an expert witness in that area.

Not only do they take money, they take a lot of money. If you have the world's foremost expert on fingerprints, DNA, any of these hyper-technical issues, this is somebody that's going to be expensive.

And the other important point is that the other side is not only permitted to usually discover that, but also you can bet they're going to raise that in their cross-examination just as a matter of course. It's something we always do. Isn't it true that you were paid over $100,000 for your testimony? And that's true, but it's often justified.

Yeah, you're talking about a phenomenon we call battle of the experts. You know, we think of something like science as immutable or unchallengeable. And yet it's not too hard to go out and find two experts who will take dramatically different positions on either side. Now, is that only because they're being paid? No, not necessarily. I mean, you can cherry pick your area of expertise.

to fit what you need in your trial. But yes, you're absolutely right. As you've seen all too often, you'll have experts take the stand and completely contradict each other and leave it for the jury to decide who they like the best.

You're exactly right. So there are limitations on expert testimony. I mean, you can't just make up an area of science that serves your purpose and then say you're entitled to call an expert to testify about that area. So the judge acts as a gatekeeper before the jury ever hears that testimony.

to determine that this is a legitimate area, whether it be scientific, technical, whatever the case may be. It's got to meet at least a minimum standard before a judge allows any old expert to come in and start testifying to a jury.

This is a very is that the defense team said to the court and to the prosecution, we have had limited access to these guys. We're basically taking them as we find them. We're barely talking to them. We haven't paid them anything.

Well, now it seems that the defense may have possibly violated their obligation to disclose information about the level of, let's say, coziness that the defense had with these experts. Prosecutors allege that there were emails between the defense team and these experts, and in addition, an alleged payment of about $24,000. If true, and this wasn't disclosed, that's a huge problem for the defense.

That may be a lot of what we call lawyerly backpedaling at this point. But here's the thing. You've got to disclose information about your expert. You've got to give the other side the opportunity to cross-examine them as completely as they can.

Thanks for having me.

He thinks the family of the missing woman feels something happened to her, but they have no evidence of that yet.

Not only do they take money, they take a lot of money.

Hey, thanks for having me.

The pro se defendant is both the bane and the glory of the criminal justice system. And I say the glory because there is a constitutional right to represent yourself in the Sixth Amendment. But even that right is qualified. It's not absolute. It means a judge can take it away. A couple examples are is if a defendant is disruptive. If they're just making a lot of nonsensical objections.

Another example is if the defendant simply isn't competent, they suffer from some mental illness. A judge will not automatically allow that person to represent themselves if they're not competent to do so.

Oh, absolutely. I mean, commonly in traffic court, people represent themselves all the time because simply the cost of paying a ticket isn't worth hiring an attorney. Sometimes people represent themselves in civil cases, divorces, all kinds of cases. But I stand by this one. It is never a good idea to go it alone.

Yes, they know their facts better than I will ever know their facts. But you lose objectivity when you're a defendant. That's why even someone like me, if I needed a lawyer, I would hire a lawyer rather than represent myself.

Absolutely. He just had a rambling defense, made no sense. And by the way, Ted Bundy was a pretty educated person, but it simply doesn't matter. Pro se defendants are warned. You will be held to the same standards as an attorney. You'll need to know all the rules of procedure.

This is why they're destined to fail, because they simply don't have access to the same information, the rules, the law, especially when they're in custody as a lawyer.

It's possible. But here's the thing. Juries, I think, are very sensitive to how self-interested a pro se defendant is. And, you know, you mentioned the monologue and different courts do different things. Sometimes the court will appoint a standby counsel and they can do that over the defendant's objection.

Sometimes they'll require that lawyer to ask questions on direct examination instead of that monologue style. And the monologue style, in my view, is a bad idea because an untrained defendant is going to veer into areas that that are either inadmissible, irrelevant, or open the door. Maybe if they make a comment about, I'm not the kind of person that does this.

Uh-oh, you've just opened the door to character evidence. You've absolutely torpedoed your own case.

Exactly right. If you're a criminal defendant, you are privileged to sit there and say nothing. But instead, if you take take on your own defense, now you have the uncomfortable position of questioning witnesses, including family members like this. And you have to ask questions like, did I do this? Do you remember when I did this?

And jurors see that as really the defendant arguing with the witness because that's what it is. I mean, you can't detach what's happening and just think of this as another lawyer questioning a witness.

Not a good idea. I think I said that a few times.

There's an old saying, he who represents himself has a fool for a client.