0:08

Thanks for tuning in to Manage the Moment,

0:11

Conversations in performance psychology.

0:13

I'm Dr. Sari Shepphird. Welcome

0:17

back to part two of my conversation with Tom

0:19

Mesereau, one of the best known and most highly regarded

0:21

courtroom lawyers of our time. Despite

0:24

some technical difficulties, Tom and I

0:26

were able to finish our conversation and in

0:28

this second half we delve into Tom's unconventional

0:30

techniques in the courtroom.

0:32

There are tough things you just

0:34

can't overreact. You

0:36

know, I'm a criminal defense lawyer. I try

0:39

challenging cases. I try cases

0:41

of people warn me not to take. This is

0:43

who I am, take it or leave

0:45

it.

0:47

Tom often goes against the expected grain in

0:49

his craft as a courtroom attorney, but

0:51

in doing so, he makes himself the most

0:53

effective lawyer that he can be. You'll

0:56

hear Tom talk about things like how he manages

0:58

controversy and what he believes makes

1:00

not just a good but a great lawyer.

1:03

Things like taking risks and having confidence

1:05

in your own approach. We talk about managing

1:08

the tough days, the unexpected moments,

1:10

the tense courtroom exchanges, and

1:12

how Tom avoids the perils of fame

1:14

in his own celebrated life and career.

1:17

Here's part two of my conversation with Tom.

1:22

Well, Tom, thank you again for sitting down with me.

1:24

My pleasure. Thank you.

1:25

When we last spoke, we were discussing

1:27

the unexpected and then the unexpected

1:30

happened to my digital recorder. But

1:33

if we can start up again there, I know

1:36

that you prepare diligently

1:38

for the trials , um, that, that

1:40

you present and do a lot of reading even

1:42

when, when the day is over in the, in,

1:45

in the courtroom. And yet even as

1:47

prepared as you may be, the unexpected

1:49

often happens.

1:50

Well, the unexpected always happens in

1:52

trials and that's one of the

1:54

appeals of trials if you're built for this

1:56

type of thing. I think every

1:58

trial is unique. The chemistry

2:01

between the judge, the jury,

2:03

the prosecution, the defense, the jurors

2:06

is a type of

2:08

energy and a type of process that

2:11

has never happened before and will never happen since.

2:14

So every trial is a learning experience.

2:16

Every trial , uh, forces

2:19

you to step into the unknown and react

2:21

in any appropriate way. Um,

2:23

and that's sort of the attraction

2:26

of trials. Now, some people are completely turned

2:28

off by that pressure and that

2:30

type of unexpected , uh , process.

2:32

But I thrive on it. And I think

2:34

most trial lawyers are really like what they

2:36

do. They thrive on that as well.

2:38

And I imagine the pressure that you feel

2:40

doesn't just come in that form because you really

2:42

do hold someone's life in

2:45

your hands.

2:46

You do. Um, you know,

2:48

the way our system works in the civil

2:51

courts, we argue over property

2:53

and money in the criminal courts,

2:56

we argue over reputation

2:58

and freedom. And , uh

3:00

, many times you hold someone's life

3:02

in your hands and if you lose

3:04

in a certain way, they could spend the rest of

3:06

their life in prison or worse. And I've done

3:08

death penalty cases and

3:10

, uh , you really hold a life in your hand

3:13

in a death penalty case.

3:14

And you mentioned reputation too. So sometimes

3:16

you might have a defendant who

3:18

is acquitted, found to be not guilty

3:21

of the charges that they faced. And yet

3:23

reputation is still damaged.

3:24

That can be a very, very difficult

3:27

part of our system. But when I say

3:30

reputation's at stake, what I primarily mean is if

3:32

you have a criminal conviction, it can

3:34

follow you the rest of your days, whether

3:36

it's a felony or a misdemeanor. Now

3:38

there are ways that these convictions

3:40

can be, you know , expunged

3:42

, uh, or softened. Um,

3:45

but nevertheless , uh , to walk through the rest

3:47

of your life with a criminal conviction can

3:49

seriously affect your employment , um,

3:52

can seriously affect , uh, your ability

3:54

to be persuasive in certain situations.

3:57

It can affect you in all kinds of ways.

3:59

So that's when you really have to be prepared for the

4:01

unexpected. You've said that you

4:04

don't get too excited or, or feel

4:06

too good after a good day in court and you don't

4:08

become too dejected after a

4:10

bad day.

4:10

I don't believe in overreacting because

4:12

it's a process and each part

4:15

interacts with every other part. And

4:17

you know, you can talk to experienced

4:19

trial . Trial lawyers will tell you some of the best work they did

4:22

where it was in trials they lost. And

4:24

you can see someone stumble around and not know

4:26

what they're doing at all. And when, because

4:29

it's not just a popularity contest among

4:31

attorneys. I mean, jurors are trying to do the

4:33

right thing. They're being hit from

4:35

all sides with different arguments

4:37

and interpretations. Um,

4:39

and um, it's, it's

4:42

not over till it's over. It's Yogi Berra, the old

4:44

baseball player used to say . So, you

4:46

know, I think one of the earliest painful

4:49

lessons to try a lawyer learns is when you

4:51

do a fantastic cross-examination when

4:53

you're young and you think you've won and then you lose.

4:55

So , uh , it's a very unpredictable,

4:58

uncertain process. But

5:00

good trial lawyers thrive on it and

5:02

see it as a challenge, gets their adrenaline

5:04

flowing. And that's one of the things

5:06

we do.

5:07

And part of your strategy is to be yourself in

5:09

the courtroom. Is that right?

5:11

I've firmly believe that , uh,

5:14

one of the greatest opportunities

5:17

in life for anybody is

5:19

to find out who they are and be comfortable

5:21

with who they are. It just so happens

5:23

to also be a benefit in the courtroom . If

5:26

you know who you are, if you're at peace with

5:28

who you are, if you're comfortable with who you are

5:30

and you're real, that can take you a long

5:32

way. And as I've said many times

5:35

in lectures to law students,

5:37

to practicing lawyers, I said,

5:39

you know, we've seen theatrical, dramatic

5:42

lawyers who are fake and very ineffective.

5:44

We've seen very deadpan, somewhat

5:47

boring, methodical lawyers who are very

5:49

effective because they come across as real.

5:51

They come across as honest and fighting for

5:54

something they believe in.

5:55

So that's, that's an integrity and a within

5:57

yourself. And get the jury,

5:59

you've mentioned, always assume

6:01

that you know the truth even if you don't. So

6:04

while you walk, so you walk into the courtroom

6:06

being true to yourself and

6:08

true to your role in the courtroom.

6:10

But no matter, no matter what you may or may

6:12

not know about the person you represent,

6:14

the jury always assumes you do.

6:16

In my opinion. Yes. And that's a generality.

6:19

That's a, that's a perception based upon

6:22

decades of trying cases. And I think

6:24

they think the lawyers really know what's going

6:26

on. They know that everything

6:28

is not coming into the trial. They've

6:30

seen enough TV shows and enough

6:32

, uh , you know, live

6:34

trials on TV through the years to know

6:36

that judges refuse to admit certain evidence.

6:39

Judges will suppress certain evidence.

6:42

Uh, there are certain rules of procedure and evidence

6:44

that means certain things can't be said or done

6:47

in a court room. They know that , uh

6:49

, but they assume the lawyers know everything

6:51

in my opinion.

6:52

And part of what you have to manage

6:55

then is your reaction to those

6:57

unexpected things that might come from

6:59

the bench. So I've read, for example,

7:01

there were many things that were unexpected

7:04

in , in the bill Cosby trial

7:06

for example.

7:07

Well, I tried the second bill

7:09

Cosby trial. The first trial ended up

7:11

in a hung jury , uh, between

7:13

the first trial and the second trial. The me too

7:15

movement took off.

7:17

Well that's interesting, it was between the two trials

7:19

and what the judge did in the retrial,

7:21

which I, where I defended bill Cosby

7:24

was basically in the first trial

7:26

he allowed one additional accuser

7:28

to testify under the theory

7:30

that this would show a propensity to act

7:33

a certain way or a pattern of acting a certain

7:35

way. Then we have the me too movement.

7:37

Then we show up for the retrial and

7:39

he ups the one to five. So not

7:41

only did we have the primary accuser in

7:43

the case, the judge allowed five other women

7:46

to testify that they were assaulted by

7:48

Mr. Cosby, which is going to be a

7:50

major issue on appeal as to whether, first

7:53

of all, there was much similarity between

7:55

the , uh, the accusers and second

7:58

of all , uh, whether it was too prejudicial.

8:00

So unexpected things that come from

8:03

the bench, unexpected things that come from

8:05

witnesses. Because I know for example, in the Jackson

8:07

case, you had witnesses both

8:09

that well, I guess multiple times

8:11

witnesses that went in your favor in ways that

8:13

you didn't expect. One witness who you thought

8:16

might be very antagonistic, who turned out

8:18

not to be. And , and then another

8:20

witness, which perhaps you can , um

8:22

, just refer to where your line of questioning

8:24

led to something that opened up basically

8:27

the , the whole trial for you.

8:29

I cross examined the main accuser

8:31

who was a young person, 13

8:34

years of age. And

8:36

the general rule of thumb in,

8:38

in criminal defense practice is

8:41

be very gentle with children. You

8:43

can easily look like a bully. You

8:45

can easily look manipulative and you could turn

8:47

off the jury and even send the jury into

8:50

the camp of the accuser

8:52

, uh , more than they may have started

8:54

off as , um, I

8:57

had never examined this witness before.

9:00

I had had a tremendous amount of material in

9:02

his background. His school records, his medical

9:04

records , uh, statements he'd allegedly

9:07

made. Uh, I had , uh , volumes

9:09

of material on, on him and,

9:11

but I had to feel my way to decide

9:14

how best to attack him. Uh,

9:16

and I decided after watching him on

9:19

direct examination, when the prosecutor asked

9:21

his questions, I decided to

9:23

go right at him and

9:25

hopefully change his demeanor right

9:27

away and show there's another side of this person

9:30

that maybe isn't the nicest. That

9:32

was my strategy. It was unusual. Um,

9:35

and it proved to be effective. In

9:37

fact, I got offers to speak

9:40

to lawyers groups around the country after

9:42

the trial about my unconventional

9:44

way of handling child witnesses because

9:46

they were all shocked that somebody would

9:48

do this and it would be effective. But

9:51

I think what you're talking about is a cross

9:53

examination question that I asked that

9:55

proved to be very effective. In fact, professor

9:58

Laurie 11 scented Layla law school, who

10:00

teaches criminal procedure and is called

10:02

upon by the media quite a bit to opine

10:04

on, on, you know, current cases

10:06

in the media, in the news. She

10:09

says, my one particular cross-examination

10:11

question won the case. And

10:14

before I tell you what it was, let me

10:16

also mention that lawyers

10:18

are taught that when they cross examine,

10:21

you know, control the witness, keep

10:23

them on a tight leash, ask

10:26

leading questions. Uh , factually

10:29

driven, factually contained questions

10:31

that suggest the answer and keep

10:33

them in, in a narrow bind.

10:36

Don't let them just go wild and say whatever

10:38

they want. And as part

10:40

of that instruction and we're taught, don't ask a hell

10:42

question and don't ask a why question

10:45

because those questions, we'll let them just

10:47

bring out the kitchen sink and it probably won't

10:49

be favorable. When I was examining

10:52

this young accuser and based

10:54

upon my research into he and his family,

10:57

I came to the conclusion that they had developed

10:59

some anger towards Michael Jackson. And

11:01

I've concluded that they got angry when

11:04

they thought Michael Jackson was drawing away from

11:06

them and they weren't going to be part of his family forever.

11:09

So I asked this young accuser

11:12

, um, about certain

11:15

events that went on, it never land

11:17

where they used to stay that

11:19

I knew would bring up some anger.

11:22

And for example, you know, didn't

11:24

Michael Jackson tell you he wasn't going

11:26

to be there in a certain day and you walked out

11:28

of your cabin and you looked

11:30

in the distance and you could see him ? Did that happen?

11:32

And he said yes, and or

11:34

words to that effect. And I

11:36

mentioned other instances where I thought

11:39

he would be somewhat angry.

11:41

And then I finally looked at him and said, you are really angry

11:43

at Michael Jackson, weren't you when he said yes, and

11:45

I said, why? And

11:48

you could have heard a pin drop in the courtroom. And

11:50

he gave this long list of things that angered

11:52

him about Michael Jackson, but never mentioned that

11:54

he was molested. And

11:57

that was a big gamble on my part. Could

12:00

have ruined, you know, the

12:02

case for Michael Jackson could have ruined my career

12:05

frankly. Um, but I just

12:07

decided to go for it when I thought it

12:09

would be effective and I was correct. Big

12:12

moment in the trial and big moment in my career,

12:14

certainly. And of course,

12:16

again, that just speaks to how

12:18

you manage your own emotions in the courtroom

12:21

because you can be as prepared as any

12:23

person could be. And I know that

12:25

you, you do prepare extensively. You have binders

12:27

on all of your witnesses and all of all of

12:29

this?

12:30

Well I like to have for each witness,

12:32

I like every document

12:35

that mentions that witness and

12:37

I'd like them all in chronological order. And

12:39

the documents can be police reports, they

12:41

can be transcripts of testimony,

12:43

transcripts of interviews, handwritten notes

12:46

of interviews, newspaper articles.

12:48

I don't care what it is, I like to have them in

12:50

contour in , in , in , in, you know,

12:53

in order , uh, dated

12:55

order, chronological order. And I

12:57

like to go through them and through them and through them.

12:59

And I start to see patterns where, where maybe

13:02

statements change or maybe statements

13:04

are embellished because of certain intervening

13:06

events. Um, and

13:08

I develop a, a profile in my mind

13:11

of how I'm going to attack the witness.

13:13

It's fascinating. You have more than just one

13:15

job. I mean, we think of a trial

13:18

attorney as the person who presents

13:20

information to the jury, but you,

13:22

you're a detective of sorts

13:24

and you certainly have to be

13:27

, uh , an accomplished presenter just

13:29

to be able to phrase things in such

13:31

a way that you connect to the jury.

13:33

Well, you know, early in your career,

13:35

you know, you write out all your questions

13:37

and you, you, you almost appear

13:39

a slave to your, your notes and

13:41

a slave to your questions. Cause you

13:43

know, not only have you put a lot of time into

13:46

this but you're not as confident in,

13:48

in , in being spontaneous. You're

13:50

not in con as confident in reacting

13:53

to a certain statement and going in a certain

13:56

direction and then coming back to where you were.

13:59

Um, it's a skill that not everybody has,

14:02

but I think reaction is very

14:04

important, but don't lose track

14:06

of where you want to go at the same time. So

14:09

a witness will say something you never expected

14:11

and you'll see an opportunity to

14:15

go in another direction, ask

14:17

questions in that direction, benefit

14:19

from it. But you don't want to forget where

14:21

you were because you were in that place

14:23

for particular reasons . So a

14:25

lot of it's in my head. Um,

14:28

I go through

14:31

documents repeatedly. I go through the

14:33

evidence. I think of the story I'm telling.

14:36

Um, I was very flattered in December. Uh

14:39

, I had dinner with the , uh,

14:41

public defender of San Francisco, a

14:44

great criminal lawyer who unfortunately passed

14:46

away not long after we had dinner. It

14:48

was a real tragedy. Jeff , a DACI one of the

14:50

great criminal in America. [inaudible]

14:52

and he, he had invited me to speak a couple of

14:54

times at the San Francisco public defenders

14:57

. And one thing he said, you said

14:59

to us, that changed our, really affected

15:01

our office and changed the way we approached

15:03

trials. You told us

15:05

that there were four opportunities to tell your story

15:08

in your opening statement, in your cross

15:10

examination of prosecution witnesses

15:13

in your direct examination of your

15:15

witnesses and in your closing argument.

15:18

So Jeff told me that they were now

15:20

teaching this , uh , in their

15:22

courses at the San Francisco public defender's

15:24

office, which was a great compliment to me

15:26

and I really appreciated it and was glad I

15:28

, uh, I had an impact on

15:30

, uh, on that great office. It's one of the best

15:32

public defender's offices in America. Um,

15:36

these things are , are not always taught

15:39

in law school. You have to, if you care

15:41

about what you're doing and you realize it's a craft

15:43

and an art, not a science, and

15:45

that psychology is a complex thing

15:48

that you're always learning about, you try to figure

15:51

out what's effective, what's persuasive,

15:53

what makes an impact. And I

15:56

remember one witness in the, in the Michael

15:58

Jackson case, I had 20 binders of documents

16:01

that I had been there all in chronological order.

16:04

Uh , it was Michael Jackson's ex wife

16:06

who everyone thought was going to help the prosecution.

16:09

In fact , um, when

16:11

I woke up that morning and was getting dressed

16:13

and watching the morning shows, you know, they were talking

16:15

about what a big day they expected for the prosecution

16:18

and she blew up in their face. She just

16:20

turned out to be one of our best witnesses.

16:23

And I didn't use one document in

16:25

those 20 volumes. I just realized

16:27

where she was going. I realized she

16:29

was in a very delicate state and

16:31

I just very carefully and gently

16:33

took her a few directions I wanted to take

16:35

her. And it was a great day for us. And

16:38

I remember the next morning getting

16:40

ready for trial. And the, the news stories,

16:43

you know, good morning America and the today show,

16:45

we're all saying the lead story

16:47

was words to the effect. Did

16:49

a , did a main prosecution witness blow

16:51

up in their face. You know, that was the big story the

16:54

next day. Um, but you have to

16:56

be prepared for, for things like that because

16:58

it's just a very unpredictable process.

17:01

And that's partly what's fascinating to me is the

17:03

strategy that you have to maintain.

17:05

And really it's, it's largely

17:08

on you to do this

17:10

just singularly for your , for yourself and for

17:12

your client. Obviously you have co-counsel

17:14

that might support what you're doing, but, but as you

17:16

say, really a lot of this is just taking place

17:18

in your own mind.

17:19

Well, I have to have help organizing.

17:21

You know, I always have co-counsel who

17:23

helps me organize and helps me put

17:26

these books together. And you know

17:28

, uh , I try to pick

17:30

people to work with who will compliment me.

17:32

I can be a little bit of a mad scientist

17:35

is I'm preparing and I, I often prepare

17:37

standing up, you know, in my office and walking

17:39

around. Um, so

17:42

trying in my mind to

17:44

get my cross-examinations ready cause

17:46

a lot of what I do is quick and spontaneous.

17:49

I'm not just looking at questions, see

17:52

another problem with lawyers who prepare

17:54

in a conventional way. As I

17:57

just mentioned, that I had 20 buy in volumes

17:59

of documents prepared for a witness and didn't use

18:01

one of them because things just turned

18:03

out to be so different. The problem

18:05

with a lot of lawyers is when

18:07

they're preparing for trial is that they invest time

18:10

and preparation. They want to use

18:12

that preparation. You know,

18:14

it becomes almost a narcissistic

18:17

problem. You know, I did all this,

18:19

I'm not going to scuttle it, throw it away. And

18:22

they lose track of where the importance

18:24

is. Um, the importance is

18:26

trying to win the day for your client. And

18:29

um, you know, if you see that you

18:31

don't need your preparation or it might be counterproductive

18:34

, just go forward, be spontaneous,

18:37

react. Don't just pedantically

18:39

read something because

18:41

you spent so much time preparing it.

18:43

So that speaks to the flexibility that you have to have

18:45

in your mindset. You need to narrow your attention

18:47

to what's essential for that day in

18:49

your preparation. And yet you have to maintain

18:52

a flexibility. Um,

18:54

and, and I suppose , uh , a confidence

18:57

within yourself to , to be able to,

18:59

to abandon that preparation if , if it's called

19:02

for

19:02

and it takes time to develop that. Not everybody

19:05

has the ability to do it. They're not particularly

19:07

facile on their feet. They're not particularly

19:10

intuitive. They're not particularly

19:12

instinctive the way I'm describing things.

19:15

It's not for everybody, but

19:17

a , it's certainly where I belong.

19:19

Do you find that at times

19:21

it's your conviction and

19:24

only yours that you have

19:26

to rely on in order to move forward

19:28

in a particular line of questioning or decision

19:31

making? For example, if you, if

19:33

your co-counsel might even disagree with you

19:35

and you're the, you're the one person who still

19:37

has to maintain that, that track.

19:39

Well as I suggested before,

19:42

if your cross examination of course you may

19:44

have your cross-examining a main prosecution

19:46

witness. Um, the

19:49

Jim one general rule of thumb is don't let

19:51

them just keep talking and talking object,

19:54

you know, object. If somebody just goes off

19:56

on tangents and gives speeches because they're

19:58

probably not going to help you. In

20:00

the Michael Jackson case, I had examined

20:03

the mother of the accuser

20:06

in a pretrial hearing. It

20:08

was a pretrial hearing where I didn't expect

20:10

to win the issue that I was presenting

20:13

to the court, but I really want to take a look

20:15

at her and she was a relevant

20:17

witness in this evidentiary hearing and

20:19

I said to myself, you know, she's a loose cannon,

20:22

she's going to go off

20:24

and all sorts of different directions and

20:26

I think it's going to hurt the prosecution. So

20:30

when she was called to the stand by

20:32

the prosecutor put on direct examination,

20:35

she started just giving these speeches

20:37

and talks and he was looking at

20:39

me waiting for me to object and I wouldn't

20:41

object. I just said the more she

20:43

talks, the more she's going to vary them. And

20:46

he kept looking at me and finally he started

20:48

objecting to his own witness, which looked terrible.

20:51

So instead of me saying, objection,

20:53

your honor, non-responsive, move to strike

20:55

or answer, he was doing it and

20:57

it just compounded their problems. And may

21:00

that made their case look awful. Now

21:02

that was not something you normally do. There was

21:04

a lawyer sitting with the defense,

21:06

a very good lawyer who kept looking at me,

21:08

why are you letting this go on? And he didn't quite get

21:11

what I was doing. Later on,

21:13

when the jurors request you and they said she buried

21:15

them, she buried them with her behavior,

21:17

whether her statements, I

21:20

mean, I did know what I was doing, but it was certainly

21:22

not normal.

21:23

And so sometimes the, the reinforcement,

21:26

sometimes that support might not be where

21:28

you would wish it to be.

21:29

Well, that's true. That's true. Um

21:31

, but let me to say something else. I'm

21:33

a little bit more of a risk taker than most.

21:35

I think there were trials I've one that I never would

21:38

have won if I hadn't taken the risks that I took. But if

21:40

you're a risk taker, you get burned sometimes too.

21:43

Um, but I just decided at one point in

21:45

my career that , uh, the best trial

21:48

lawyers, the ones who win the most

21:50

cases tend to be risk takers.

21:52

Did that come from some sort of a confidence

21:54

that you had in your own skill and ability to take

21:56

those risks?

21:57

Well, not early in my career. I think I had to learn

21:59

who I was and learned who I, who I was

22:01

, uh , in the courtroom , you know, and

22:03

I think, I

22:05

mean, I think we're always learning who we are if we're

22:07

lucky. We're always evolving and hopefully changing

22:10

and growing. Um, but I think

22:12

that that applies to the court room as well. So

22:14

early in my career I was trying to do what I

22:16

was taught to do and I was

22:18

trying to use the fundamentals

22:20

of trial practice that I was taught in school

22:23

that you , that you , you have in books about how

22:25

to try a case. And it was

22:27

as I learned that I'd said to myself at

22:29

one point, what makes certain

22:32

trial lawyers particularly great as

22:35

opposed to good? What

22:37

do these people have that the others don't

22:39

seem to? And in the process

22:41

of trying to figure that out through a lot of reading,

22:44

a lot of watching, a lot of observation.

22:46

I do society , they tend to be risk

22:48

takers. They tended to take creative approaches

22:51

to individual trials. They're

22:53

not always successful. Sometimes it blows up

22:55

in their face, but more often

22:57

than not, I think they have prevail in

22:59

cases where others would not prevail. And

23:02

look, I mean, I've always

23:04

said if you follow the fundamentals, you'll

23:06

never embarrass yourself, but you also

23:08

won't win a lot of cases you possibly

23:10

could win if you took some risks. The

23:13

careful lawyer who will won't take risks

23:15

and and routinely applies

23:18

the fundamentals. If you read a transcript

23:20

of what they do, they look perfect.

23:24

A lot of the transcripts, if you read them

23:26

cold, you know, without being in the court room

23:28

and watching the person, some

23:30

of them don't read too well, but some of these great

23:32

lawyers, I mean they make more a better impression

23:35

in front of the jury with the way they speak

23:37

spontaneously and off the cuff than

23:40

they do in a transcript. They don't

23:42

look perfect. They might look disjointed,

23:44

they might be stream of consciousness coming

23:46

out periodically. There might be all

23:48

sorts of ways that they impressed

23:51

juries with their case that don't come

23:53

across so well in print. So

23:55

some of the best lawyers don't look that great

23:57

in a transcript and some of the mediocre lawyers

23:59

look perfect.

24:05

[inaudible]

24:08

speaking of transcripts and impressions

24:11

, um, I know many of Michael Jackson fans

24:13

talk about the difference between

24:15

the way Jackson is portrayed in the media

24:17

even currently and the way he

24:19

was portrayed after the trial, after his not

24:21

guilty verdicts and

24:23

what the trial transcripts actually reveal

24:26

in 0.2 . I recall watching the

24:28

verdicts come in and, and um, and

24:30

as anyone was in , in, in the country.

24:33

And it actually crossed the globe really being

24:35

interested in what was happening in this very high profile

24:37

case. But we would hear snippets

24:39

from the media , um, on,

24:41

on the news. Everyone watched the news in those

24:44

days. We didn't have the social media that we do now. Um,

24:46

but so we would hear a little snips of snippets about that

24:48

and get an impression about what was happening in the courtroom. And

24:51

it turns out it was often not really what was happening

24:53

in the courtroom.

24:54

Well, first of all , um, my

24:57

experience with the media in that case

24:59

for the most part was dreadful. Um,

25:02

there were some very seasoned and very

25:04

ethical professional journalists who

25:07

covered the case, but very few of them in my opinion,

25:09

there was Linda Deutsch from associated press,

25:11

a total pro. There was Mike

25:14

Thai AB from NBC complete professional

25:16

ethical. There was Don Hobbs in the sand,

25:19

Santa Barbara news press. She was just

25:21

the perfect professional. Those

25:23

three names come to mind and I want to make

25:26

sure I don't lump them into the rest of the

25:28

group. But by and large, the media

25:30

was atrocious. The media was

25:32

arrogant. They were self serving. You

25:35

know, they wanted to see this, the most

25:37

famous man in the world who

25:39

took everything to great Heights, dance,

25:42

music, choreography , uh

25:44

, they wanted to see him splatter because it

25:46

made a good story for them. It would bring revenue

25:48

and ratings to them. And

25:50

you know, I had always been a court

25:53

TV fan. Court TV was on TV

25:55

in those days. It's now back. Um,

25:57

but I was always a court TV fan. I love

26:00

to turn on it . It was 24 hours

26:02

throughout the 90s, you know, and that you could watch,

26:05

we wake up at two in the morning and if I felt like

26:07

watching what a lawyer was doing and I could turn

26:09

it on and there was a lot of commentary

26:12

and uh, it , it really was

26:14

to me, a great resource. But the

26:17

turning point was the Michael Jackson case

26:19

where they appointed someone who was anti Michael

26:22

Jackson who had a history of being sued by

26:24

him and she claimed she had

26:26

revealed, she was the first journalist

26:29

revealed that he was a pedophile when she worked for a TV

26:31

show. They assigned her

26:33

to cover the case, which I thought was atrocious.

26:36

They should've had a neutral objective experience

26:38

lawyer doing it, not someone with a history

26:41

with Michael Jackson. So , uh,

26:44

I didn't think much of her to begin with. And

26:47

I would come home from court and

26:50

we had a schedule where we'd start around eight o'clock

26:52

and be out by I think one 30 and

26:54

we wouldn't have a long lunch break. We would have 10

26:57

and 10 minute breaks and 15 minute breaks.

26:59

So I would get back mid-afternoon

27:02

to my condominium and I would

27:04

turn on the TV for a little while to see what people

27:06

were saying. And I would see the most

27:08

biased, you know, slanted

27:11

coverage. And what happened was the

27:13

prosecution would typically call a witness.

27:16

It would say something very scandalous and

27:19

I would get up to cross examine and

27:22

the media representative would run out of the

27:24

courtroom to report the direct examination

27:26

and not even watch the cross examination.

27:29

And I got to tell you, I was able to

27:31

demolish so many of their witnesses and cross-examination.

27:34

I remember every day I would come back

27:36

saying, God, they're just getting a drubbing in this case.

27:39

Um, but it wouldn't be reported or

27:41

it wouldn't be reported as much as the

27:44

salacious material on direct examination

27:46

was reported. So , um,

27:49

I developed a very, very negative view

27:51

of the media throughout that case. And then

27:54

the, during the week of jury deliberation, the

27:56

major networks were showing the jail cell they

27:58

expected him to go to and talking

28:01

about the routine he would have when he had to get

28:03

up, what he would be served for breakfast. Uh

28:05

, would he be on suicide watch? What

28:07

would it be? What would he be allowed to read?

28:09

How many visitors could he take? I mean, they were showing

28:12

this everyday of jury deliberation. Like

28:14

it was gospel. I mean, it was just irritating

28:17

and infuriating to see that

28:19

level of biased , uh, journalism

28:22

or if you want to even call it journalism. But

28:25

that was a very negative experience for me.

28:27

Do you find that it varies case

28:29

to case how the media might portray

28:31

a criminal defendant?

28:34

I think, I think it does. Um,

28:36

I haven't thought of that question before.

28:40

Um, I think unfortunately

28:42

there's something salacious about seeing

28:44

someone convicted and hold off the jail

28:47

and, and sent me away and , and

28:49

come back and jail house orange

28:51

or jailhouse yellow with chains around

28:54

them. There's something salacious

28:56

about that. Um, I

28:58

don't think the media, thanks

29:01

very much about showing innocent

29:03

people. People wrongfully charged, wrongfully

29:06

convicted. You'll see a few shows like that. You won't

29:08

see very many [inaudible] . I mean, let's

29:10

face it, the last

29:12

I checked, over 300 people had been

29:15

freed from life sentences, death

29:17

sentences, enormously long

29:19

sentences through DNA technology. I

29:21

mean, that's over 300 people whose lives

29:24

and his family lives were devastated by wrongful

29:26

convictions. Now think of the people

29:28

who haven't had DNA to test,

29:30

who were wrongfully convicted based on faulty

29:32

eye witness identification. Think

29:34

of the people where there was DNA, but it wasn't

29:36

tested for a variety of reasons. So

29:39

our system is the best system in the, but

29:41

it's far from perfect and law

29:43

. Innocent people are destroyed and the people

29:45

around them are destroyed through wrongful

29:48

conviction . So if the media does

29:50

cover some of this , um

29:52

, but I think in general, my

29:55

perception is the media would rather just

29:57

cover people convicted and

30:00

sent to prison and uh, look

30:02

like they're on the side of , uh , of,

30:04

you know, crime prevention, that kind of thing.

30:07

We find ourselves in a new situation as

30:09

well in contemporary times

30:11

where things can be said about a person

30:13

who is deceased and there's,

30:15

at least in California, there isn't

30:17

protection for that person's reputation or

30:19

character once they've passed on.

30:21

Well, I'm especially bothered by it because

30:23

one of the two accusers I

30:26

spend a lot of time with and

30:28

was so impressed with his zeal

30:31

to help Michael Jackson in the trial. And I'm talking

30:34

about Wade Robson. I spent time

30:36

with him before the trial. I spent time with

30:38

his mother, with his sister. They

30:40

were zealous supporters of Michael

30:42

Jackson. They were adamant that nothing wrong had ever

30:44

occurred. And I was so

30:46

impressed with Wade Robson , uh

30:49

, in the way he presented himself. He was very

30:51

likable. He was intelligent. Um

30:53

, he was very articulate and very

30:55

adamant and forceful that I was never

30:57

improperly touched. I was so impressed

31:00

with them that I made in my first witness in the defense

31:02

case. And you know, I had to think long

31:04

and hard about whether I wanted to put on a defense

31:06

case because I felt the cross examination

31:09

of prosecution witnesses had been so effective

31:12

that I felt 99.9%

31:14

of criminal defense lawyers in America

31:16

would have rested their case right there. But

31:18

the problem was I knew in

31:20

my heart of hearts they wouldn't get a conviction at that

31:22

point, but I wasn't sure I would get acquittals on

31:24

every count and I didn't want them retrying Michael

31:27

Jackson. So I decided to put

31:29

on a defense case, which meant taking risks

31:31

because every time you call a

31:33

witness, you've got to give the prosecution a chance

31:36

to cross examination that witness and do

31:38

whatever they want to do. So

31:40

if you're going to put on a defense case and take

31:42

the risks involved, you want

31:45

to start strong and you want to end strong. I

31:47

started with what I thought was my strongest witness

31:49

for the defense, Wade Robson. And

31:52

I ended with one of the strongest witnesses for the defense,

31:54

Chris Tucker, the comedian. And

31:56

my second witness was Macaulay Culkin who

31:58

was very powerful and said I was,

32:00

he's my friend. He never improperly touched me at

32:02

all. But I started with Wade,

32:05

who was a terrific witness and withstood,

32:07

withering cross-examination by a really

32:09

good prosecutor , uh, Ron

32:11

zone and one of the best prosecutors I've ever seen.

32:14

Great. Cross examiner, passionate,

32:16

you know, detailed, committed. Uh,

32:18

he couldn't but make Wade

32:21

Robson budget inch. So when

32:23

years later when Michael's dead and can't

32:25

speak out on his own behalf, suddenly

32:27

mr Robson changes

32:29

a story that's very upsetting to

32:31

me cause I'm a direct participant,

32:33

direct witness in what I'm

32:35

talking about. Um, plus

32:38

I think it's a cheap to start coming after

32:40

the dead when they can't speak up on their own behalf.

32:42

I have not seen the four

32:45

hour documentary leaving Neverland and I don't intend

32:47

to see him .

32:48

I know you've spoken favorably about Mr.

32:51

Jackson is as your client and said that he is

32:53

very likable and that you um,

32:55

you, I'm not sure if I could

32:58

say you enjoyed working with him. I'm not sure if that's the

33:00

right phrase, but you found him to be very likable. I

33:02

imagine though that there's times that you work with

33:04

clients that aren't as likable.

33:06

Well, sure. I mean it's a very stressful

33:09

period to begin with. I mean the

33:11

state or the federal government are trying to take

33:13

away your freedom, trying to in

33:15

a sense destroy your life and,

33:18

and that can impact all sorts of

33:20

people, children, cousins, parents,

33:22

you name it. You know, families are involved too.

33:24

So it's a stressful, ugly

33:27

time to begin with. Um,

33:30

and add to that the fact that some

33:32

people are nicer than other people and some people

33:34

are more stable than other people. And you

33:37

do sometimes represent people

33:39

who are not the nicest individuals on the planet.

33:42

Uh, they don't particularly trust lawyers , uh,

33:44

given their experiences and some of the things

33:47

they've heard, lawyers aren't necessarily their

33:49

favorite people and

33:51

that's just part of the business.

33:53

So how do you manage it when you might

33:55

have a client who is into antagonistic

33:57

toward you, even though you're doing your best to assist

33:59

them?

34:00

I do my best to keep focused on what's important,

34:03

not let their individual

34:05

frailties or poor

34:07

habits or, you know, poor behavior

34:10

affect me. I do my best not to

34:13

, uh , let it get in the way.

34:15

And do you have clients that challenge

34:18

you in their fame? So for example,

34:20

a client who is a high profile

34:22

client and brings

34:25

that sense of presence, their fame

34:27

into their conversations

34:29

with you. Um, is that something

34:31

that you have found to be the case?

34:34

[inaudible] . You do represent sometimes people

34:36

with big egos for sure. Um,

34:39

and you represent people who are used

34:41

to calling the shots in their life. They're

34:43

used to telling their agents they want this, their

34:45

managers, they want that. Their lawyers

34:47

who do real estate or business

34:50

or tax or entertainment, they'll

34:52

tell them what they want. They'll call

34:54

the shots and suddenly they're in a, in a world

34:56

they know nothing about and some

34:58

realize they know nothing about it and others want

35:01

to behave the same way and you

35:03

have to let them know this is a world unlike

35:05

any world you've been in. You know,

35:07

things don't work the same way they do and these other

35:09

legal specialties or in the rest of your

35:11

life , uh, as you've been running it, you

35:14

know, you better listen to me because

35:16

a lot of what goes on in the courtroom is counterintuitive.

35:19

It goes against the grain of what you've been taught.

35:21

It's not like these trials you've seen

35:23

on television. It's very different

35:26

being in there yourself when you're the accused.

35:28

So you better let , uh , let the lawyer tell

35:30

you what to do in certain situations or you

35:33

may regret it. Later on. I

35:35

had here just remind me, I had a murder years

35:37

ago, was a woman sitting in LA

35:40

County jail, grew up in a poor neighborhood, had

35:42

no money. Uh, she

35:44

was charged with murdering her ex husband

35:47

coming up from San Bernardino County to

35:49

Los Angeles County and murdering her ex husband.

35:52

And I got a call asking me if I

35:54

would be willing to talk to her. And I

35:56

said I would and I agree to represent it for free.

35:59

And I noticed in the relationship

36:02

from time to time, she seemed rather distressful.

36:04

Why are you helping me this way? I don't think she was used

36:06

to anyone helping her this way. And

36:09

we tried the case. I was against

36:11

one of the top prosecutors in Los

36:13

Angeles, a very highly respected

36:16

and skilled and experienced prosecutor.

36:18

And uh, at one

36:20

point with the jury out of the room,

36:22

she said, your honor, I want to tell you all the things that

36:24

mr Mesereau is doing to me that aren't right.

36:27

And she started , uh , out loud

36:29

to list things that I think some of the people

36:31

in the jail that told her he should be doing. You

36:34

know, you've got a lot of jailhouse geniuses who don't

36:36

know what they're doing but think they do.

36:39

And I stopped her right away and said, stop

36:41

that right now. You're not helping yourself.

36:43

And she stopped. And to make a long

36:45

story short, she was acquitted and

36:48

she still calls me periodically , uh , thank

36:50

me and hasn't forgotten. This is, you know, that

36:52

20 years ago. But I mean

36:54

, uh , people are suspicious of lawyers.

36:57

And on top of that, I was doing something

36:59

very generous to her that she

37:01

wasn't used to. So she was suspicious of that

37:04

. You know, I've done my share of

37:06

pro bono work in my career. I had another

37:08

, uh , former gang member charged

37:10

with murder in the Compton courthouse.

37:13

Uh, and a friend of a friend begged

37:16

me to help him. He had no money. I

37:18

did. And he got suspicious.

37:20

Why are you doing this for me? What were you, he'd

37:22

look at me, why are you doing this to me? Why are you being so nice

37:24

to me? He didn't know what was going on and

37:27

wondered one time that the da had planted

37:29

me, you know, I said,

37:31

you know, and he was acquitted of

37:34

murder. Um, and

37:36

it was a, a very, very

37:38

ugly gang shooting with

37:40

a number of eyewitnesses and a prosecutor

37:42

who had never lost a, a gang homicide

37:45

case. He'd went over 70 of them. And

37:47

, uh, he realized I was, you know, I

37:50

met what I told him that I really

37:52

believe in justice and I, you know,

37:54

was brought into this case by a friend of a friend

37:56

who I respect and that's how

37:58

I met you. You know, and I'm here to do

38:00

my very best with you. So, you

38:04

know, people's perceptions of lawyers are

38:06

not always the greatest. And sometimes

38:08

they're very incorrect. I

38:11

may, in our public defenders get a very

38:13

bad rap in the jails and prisons that , you

38:15

know, they call them dump trucks, they call them public

38:17

pretenders. Um, and

38:20

some of our public defenders are the best criminal

38:22

defense lawyers in the country. They're

38:24

dedicated. They're unsung heroes

38:27

and heroines. Uh, and they

38:29

do a great job. And, and much of

38:31

the time they do a great job , uh,

38:34

with no whatever,

38:37

with no understanding whatsoever with

38:39

great suspicion coming from the jails.

38:42

And I've seen them do such

38:44

a good job and not be appreciated.

38:47

Um, but they will still, you know,

38:50

defend whoever they're told to defend, regardless

38:53

of how difficult the cases, regardless of

38:55

Ellen popular their , their client may, it may

38:57

be regardless, so unpopular. They

39:00

may be. Um, and there's

39:02

the, they're the unsung heroes and heroines of

39:04

our justice system, the public defenders around the country.

39:07

I imagine you've seen different

39:09

kinds of responses among

39:11

attorneys, your peers, those

39:14

who handle it admirably like you're describing

39:17

and , and work because of the passion

39:19

they might feel or the conviction they might feel or,

39:21

or doing the right thing. However they might

39:23

describe it. And those who, whose

39:25

motives are more about fame and glory. And you've

39:28

talked before about the perils of fame.

39:30

Well, I think fame is an addiction. I think it's

39:32

an a , it's a very, very addictive,

39:35

powerful drug. And

39:37

you just give a tiny bit of fame to

39:39

your average human being and the act

39:41

like different people all of a sudden. And

39:43

that really applies to lawyers. Lawyers get

39:46

in a high profile case and a couple

39:48

of cameras around them, a couple of

39:50

reporters, one comments, and you see a glow

39:52

in their eye and you see a different

39:54

demeanor and suddenly they start beginning to think

39:56

it's all about them. It's not all about

39:59

them. It's about the client. And

40:01

fame is a very, very well

40:03

fame can kill. We all know that. I mean, the

40:06

last I checked, the three

40:08

most lucrative dead celebrities estates

40:10

were number one. Michael Jackson, you

40:12

know, dead at 50 number two,

40:14

Elvis Presley dead at 42 and

40:17

number three, Marilyn Monroe dead at 36

40:20

so fame can kill you. Fame will

40:23

make you think things about yourself

40:25

that are not realistic. Fame,

40:28

well get you treatment that no one else

40:30

would give any that no one else would get.

40:32

I mean, look at poor Michael Jackson being given

40:34

propofol to help sleep. If

40:37

you are , I had an insomnia problem

40:39

and went to a physician, they'd never give us propofol

40:41

for that purpose. A look at

40:43

the medications that were given to Elvis

40:46

Presley and I perhaps

40:48

Marilyn Monroe, I'm not quite sure. Um,

40:52

some people think that was a suicide. I may

40:54

have been an overdose. But nevertheless,

40:56

celebrities are treated differently

40:59

because they're celebrities and sometimes

41:01

they're treated differently in ways that are fatal.

41:04

And all of a sudden everybody wants to be your friend

41:06

and everybody's got something you need and everybody

41:08

wants to remind you of what they did for you

41:11

when you were coming up. So you'll owe them something

41:13

and everybody wants a loan and everybody wants this

41:15

favor. And if you give them a loan,

41:17

they resent you. And if you don't give them a loan, they resent

41:19

you. I mean, I can talk about fame

41:21

forever. It's a very dangerous,

41:24

addictive commodity. And

41:26

you've gotta be very careful with the lawyers who've

41:28

had a fair amount of fame because they

41:31

may think it's all about them and

41:33

not you, the client.

41:34

Have you ever witnessed, and you wouldn't have to say

41:36

who of course, but have you ever witnessed

41:39

an attorney who was addicted to their

41:41

own fame and then you've seen that

41:43

addiction costs their client?

41:46

Well, it would be my opinion that it cost the client.

41:48

Oh yes, of course. Of course. I've

41:50

seen things that are very unacceptable, very

41:53

disturbing to me as a a , as

41:55

a criminal defense attorney. I've seen

41:57

lawyers clearly think it's all about them

41:59

and get completely enamored by the media. I've

42:02

even heard of one who was entertaining the media

42:04

every, you know, most nights during a very

42:07

high profile trial. And even

42:09

the media people who told me about it thought it was

42:11

foolish, but they were going to take advantage

42:13

of it if they could. And the media know

42:15

that lawyers can be manipulated and

42:18

the lawyers are suckers for fame. So,

42:20

you know, I've had media representatives, you know,

42:23

suggest to me they could do all sorts of things if I would

42:25

help them in a certain way. And

42:27

, uh, you know, for most people,

42:29

I think what their approach probably would've worked.

42:32

It didn't with me. [inaudible]

42:33

well, your, your conviction is very

42:35

clear, the way that you're true to

42:38

your own principles and , and your own

42:40

approach. And I know that you, you developed

42:42

that over over a number of years

42:44

of your experience. Just the willingness to take

42:46

risks, the willingness to be unconventional.

42:49

You talk in many of your writings about

42:51

the fact that you approach things sometimes very

42:54

unconventionally.

42:55

Yes. And I think that the product

42:58

of taking my profession very

43:00

seriously, and as I said before,

43:02

at one point early in my career,

43:04

I said, why are some lawyers better than others?

43:07

You know, we all go to law school, we all pass

43:09

the bar exam, we all take trial practice

43:12

classes, we all take refresher

43:14

classes that we're required to take , uh

43:16

, to continue to be a practicing lawyer.

43:19

We all go to seminars. Um, why

43:21

are some better than others? What is it

43:23

? What made the difference? And

43:26

I would read biographies. I would

43:28

read autobiographies. I would go

43:30

down to watch lawyers try cases. I

43:32

would look at video tapes and audio tapes in

43:34

the old days, you know, now of course it's on

43:36

the internet, but , um, I

43:38

would do whatever I could define some kernel

43:41

of something that may

43:43

be is people different or better. And

43:45

I decided that , uh, you

43:48

know, knowing yourself,

43:50

number one was critical. Uh,

43:52

experience was critical. But

43:55

trying to find

43:57

where the heart of a case was and what story

44:00

really resonates from the facts and

44:02

taking risks to get witnesses

44:04

to help you , uh, or

44:06

conversely to get witnesses to hurt the other

44:08

side , uh, that

44:11

it was an art, not a science, that you'll

44:13

never completely master it. You're

44:15

always learning if you're lucky. Uh,

44:18

and I looked at some of the lawyers who were considered

44:20

good, but maybe not that great.

44:23

And a lot of them basically stop learning. They

44:25

reached a level of experience

44:28

and success that made them think,

44:30

you know, my over, you know, I'll

44:32

teach you how to do it. An arrogance

44:34

and narcissism that , uh , in my opinion,

44:37

stop their growth and didn't help them.

44:38

So a willingness to learn is important . Yeah

44:41

,

44:41

very important. And a willingness to try hard

44:43

cases. Cause there are a lot of lawyers out

44:45

there who handpicked their cases. They're afraid

44:47

to lose, they're afraid of loss,

44:50

will Turners the reputation or will

44:52

hurt their sales pitch , uh,

44:54

to unsuspecting clients. And

44:57

I've always said try the hardest

44:59

cases. Try them your whole career. Don't

45:01

shy away from anything, you know,

45:03

every case teaches you something new and

45:06

do your best under the worst circumstances

45:09

and make our system work.

45:16

[inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible]

45:19

[inaudible]

45:21

you've said the same thing about adverse

45:23

experiences and situations

45:25

in the courtroom to not shy away from

45:27

those, but, but to really face those head

45:29

on,

45:30

I think a , you should

45:32

embrace the things that are most difficult

45:35

and find a way out

45:37

of them that helps your client

45:40

and you know, helps you help your

45:42

client. Um, you know,

45:44

we all know as you walk through life, you know, there's

45:47

the , the half full glass example,

45:49

you know, the optimist looks at , uh , how

45:51

much is in the glass and the pessimist looks at

45:53

how much is not in the glass. Well

45:55

that can apply to any tough experience

45:57

in the courtroom. You know, a

46:00

, you try to find what you can that

46:02

will help your client and help you get the job

46:04

done.

46:05

Are there days when you're not at optimist?

46:07

Are there days when, when you

46:10

, you feel as though you, you

46:12

don't have what it takes to , to

46:14

face the courtroom that day? Or, or

46:17

would you say that you just trust yourself

46:19

enough? Um, and you're

46:21

on self efficacy enough to make it

46:23

through?

46:23

There are tough days because

46:25

if you're a caring person, if you're a sensitive person,

46:28

you're going to have ups and downs. You're gonna have

46:30

good days and tough days and you just

46:32

can't overreact to them because

46:35

the story hasn't been completed

46:37

yet. But I think

46:39

that any really conscious

46:42

caring lawyer has a

46:44

sensitive level , uh

46:47

, emotionally that will

46:50

insist that you have some bad

46:52

days. There are callous lawyers

46:54

out there. They don't care. They're burned

46:57

out on jails. They're burned out on violence

46:59

and blood and guts and, you

47:02

know, difficult clients. They're burned out. They're

47:04

just making a living. So they

47:06

tune out to some

47:08

of the areas I'm

47:10

talking about so they don't get bothered

47:12

as much. Um, but

47:14

if you really care, you are going

47:17

to toss and turn. Should I have put that witness

47:19

on? Should I put my client on? Uh

47:22

, there are times you put a client on what you don't

47:24

have to in a criminal case and

47:27

the client will have some bad moments and heart

47:29

[inaudible] as you're watching drop into your stomach. You

47:31

know, you're just trying to keep a, a

47:33

, a very even keel persona

47:37

and you're trying not to look like anything's bothering

47:39

you. But I mean, inside your , you're , you're doing

47:41

somersaults and after

47:43

a loss, you know, if you care, you

47:45

, you have what I call the dark night of the soul.

47:47

You toss and turn. But you know,

47:49

should I have done this? Should I have done that?

47:52

Um, but you have to have tough

47:54

moments if you care. I think

47:57

I'm sure people who are listening

47:59

can really relate to what you just described because

48:01

it's part of the human condition. To

48:04

have those moments where you've

48:06

experienced things from on a spectrum,

48:09

from regret to just second

48:11

guessing or questioning yourself to just the,

48:14

the , um, inner

48:16

turmoil of things that,

48:18

that are challenging and sometimes don't

48:20

go your way.

48:21

Well, I mean that, that, that's, that's just true.

48:23

I mean, and, and sometimes you have to

48:25

understand that what you think is a victory

48:28

, uh, may or may not be a victory.

48:30

And what do you think is a loss being or not be

48:32

a loss? I mean, it may be that you walk

48:34

into a courtroom defending

48:37

a murder case where you're hoping you can get a

48:39

manslaughter conviction cause the

48:41

facts are so bad. Um,

48:44

and you come out with a manslaughter

48:46

conviction and you, you feel very, very

48:49

good about it. I mean , um,

48:53

uh, you'd like to get an acquittal on every

48:55

count, but sometimes

48:57

getting convicted of a lesser offense is

48:59

still given all in all the facts

49:01

and given the situation

49:04

is actually a win.

49:06

It's interesting because you bring up the lesser offenses.

49:09

Uh , and I remember in the,

49:11

in the Jackson trial , um,

49:13

something occurred in, in that trial which

49:16

gave the opportunity to the jury

49:18

to find Michael Jackson guilty of lesser

49:20

offenses. This, I don't think even was something

49:22

that was present when the trial began.

49:24

I think that was something that occurred as the trial progressed.

49:27

That's true. The judge Michael Jackson was indicted

49:29

by a grand jury on 10

49:31

felony counts. That's the way we began

49:33

the trial. When the judge

49:36

gave the charge to the jury, which is a fancy

49:38

way of saying he told them what their to consider.

49:41

He on his own volition, he

49:43

and his own motion decided

49:45

to give them the option of

49:48

convicting on for lesser included

49:50

misdemeanor counts. What the judge

49:53

said to the jury was, if on any

49:55

of those last four accounts , you

49:57

find Mr. Jackson not guilty,

50:00

you may still convict on a what is called

50:02

a lesser included misdemeanor count,

50:04

which is giving alcohol to an underage

50:07

person and

50:09

they came back with 14 not guilty. He's

50:11

not guilty on the 10 indicted felony

50:13

counts and not guilty on the four

50:16

lesser included misdemeanor counts of

50:18

giving alcohol to an underage person. We

50:21

walked into that trial. Nobody gave us a chance.

50:24

In fact, some of my close friends warned

50:26

me, don't take the case. They said

50:28

it's going to be the most watched case in , in

50:30

American history. Um,

50:33

it's gonna be watched by millions of Jackson

50:35

fans around the world. A , you

50:37

can't win it. Um,

50:40

everywhere you go for the rest of your life, you're going to be the one

50:42

who sent Michael Jackson to prison. And

50:45

I know some lawyers who strongly

50:48

urge me not to take it and said they wouldn't take

50:50

it.

50:51

How did that pressure get to

50:53

you?

50:54

Not really. I thought about it and that's not who I

50:56

am. I'm a criminal defense lawyer. Listen,

50:58

there are lawyers who, if they want a case like

51:01

that would be very careful what other trials

51:03

they did , um, because

51:05

they'd want to retain this aura

51:08

of invincibility. And I don't do that

51:10

either. You know, I'm a criminal defense lawyer.

51:13

I try challenging cases. I

51:15

try cases that people warned me not to take

51:18

this as who I am, take

51:20

it or leave it. I'm proud I'm not

51:22

a cherry picker. Like some

51:24

famous lawyers I know who stick

51:27

their toe in the water to see what the temperature

51:29

is, to see if they really think they can

51:31

win it. I'm proud

51:33

to not , uh , not operate that

51:35

way.

51:36

Well, it's clear that you know yourself very well, which

51:39

I'm sure helps you in your work. As

51:41

I said, when we met last, I really could talk

51:43

to you for hours and hours because it's fascinating.

51:45

It really is. But I don't want to keep you

51:47

much longer. I'm, I'm just gonna switch

51:50

gears if you don't mind and ask you some questions

51:52

that I ask of everyone that I

51:54

speak to. Uh

51:56

, so we'll jump into that if that's okay . So,

51:58

Tom, what in life are you still curious

52:00

about?

52:02

I'm curious about all kinds of things.

52:04

I mean, I'm curious about a , my

52:07

family that I love dearly. I'm

52:09

curious about myself. Uh

52:11

, I feel like you're always learning and always,

52:13

you know, developing if you're

52:15

lucky. I'm curious about

52:18

, uh , life in general. Our justice

52:20

system will always be of curiosity

52:23

to me because it's always changing.

52:25

It's always trying to evolve into something

52:27

better, but it never is perfect. Um,

52:31

I'm curious about people and how complex

52:33

they are and how they change with the

52:35

times and how what

52:37

we prioritize seems to change

52:39

with the times, particularly the age of social

52:41

media, which I don't know that much about, and

52:44

I'm not a social media person, but the impact

52:46

on our youth, the impact

52:48

on our society or civilization

52:51

is fascinating to , uh, to try

52:53

and work through.

52:54

And it impacts the courtroom , I would imagine too.

52:57

Well, yes, because you're always worried about what's

52:59

going to impact a jury. And , and even

53:01

though judges tell jurors or potential

53:03

jurors not to look at social media about

53:05

the case, you don't know if they're really doing

53:07

that or not.

53:09

Oh . Which is more distracting to you in,

53:11

in the courtroom or as you do your work praise

53:13

or criticism?

53:15

Well, I'd rather take the criticism than

53:17

the praise. Praise doesn't teach me very

53:19

much. Uh, we all like it.

53:21

We all smile a little bit when someone praises

53:23

us. Um , uh, but

53:26

it doesn't teach you very much. I like,

53:28

I love to talk to jurors after trial

53:31

and , uh, whether I win it

53:33

or lose it, I always like to ask them,

53:35

did I do anything that upsets you or irritated

53:37

you? Do you use, can you think of any area where I can improve?

53:40

I always do that. I've noticed

53:42

that a lawyer is just loved to get praised out

53:44

. You know, when a trial's over by jurors and

53:47

if there were smart, they say , well, tell me somewhere

53:49

I can improve anything. I do irritate you. Did

53:52

the way I treated any witness, upset you and

53:55

find out whatever you can.

53:56

You're willing to make yourself vulnerable

53:58

enough to receive criticism.

54:01

You're , you're soliciting it in order

54:03

to make yourself better at what you do.

54:06

I think that's a , I

54:08

think that's a better way to live. Period. Let

54:10

alone just, you know, how to try a case. I

54:12

think we should always be looking for constructive

54:15

criticism to help us evolve as people

54:17

and , and do a better job with , uh, with our short

54:19

lives. A certain level of success

54:22

, uh, gives people a narcissistic,

54:24

you know, shell and can

54:27

actually shut them out of constructive

54:29

criticism, you know, helpful suggestions

54:32

how to improve themselves and I hopefully don't

54:34

live that way.

54:36

Tom, as a , as a courtroom attorney, you obviously

54:38

prepare for every trial, which we've spoken a little

54:40

bit about and yet the unexpected can happen.

54:43

Is there a time when something unexpected has

54:45

happened to you and you felt like it threw you off?

54:48

Like it, it really , um, set

54:50

some of your progress aside.

54:52

Part of being a trial lawyer

54:54

is to be prepared for the unknown,

54:57

for the unexpected witnesses you thought would collaborate.

54:59

You end up helping you. What is you, you thought

55:01

would help you end up collaborating? You?

55:04

Um, the unexpected is a

55:06

continuum in trials

55:09

and you don't really know who those jurors

55:11

are. You know, you , you, you, you see

55:13

them for the first time

55:15

in a courtroom setting, you get a

55:17

little information about their background.

55:20

Um, you, you're able to question them a

55:22

little bit depending on what courtroom you're in.

55:24

Some federal courtrooms, judges won't let you question

55:26

them at all. They will do the questioning.

55:29

But nevertheless , uh, you have

55:31

these people up there who you don't really know

55:33

and who may not even know who they are themselves.

55:35

I mean, so you're dealing with all

55:37

this uncertainty. You don't know what's gonna

55:40

resonate with them. You don't know who's going to take control

55:42

in the jury room, who's going to have more staying

55:44

power, who's going to be more locked

55:47

into their positions. And, and

55:49

all of this is uncertain. It's unknown.

55:53

Um, the

55:56

only thing that's certain is uncertainty

55:59

as you walk into a trial. So , um,

56:02

you have to be ready for that. Sometimes you react

56:04

better to it some

56:07

days than other days. Um, but I've had witnesses

56:09

shock me with , um , with

56:11

things they said and things they did. Um,

56:15

and that's just

56:17

part of the game. Yeah.

56:19

So you control what's controllable. And

56:22

you do your best. You do your best.

56:24

You're taught how to control situations

56:26

in the courtroom as best you can. Um,

56:29

but again, you don't know how any

56:31

of this is impacting jurors. If

56:33

you try to restrict a witness

56:35

and control them and don't let them

56:37

go off on tangents, a jury might

56:40

say, that person's tricky. They're just manipulating

56:42

the juror. We want to hear everything.

56:44

We want to hear everything they have to say. You just don't know how

56:46

that will impact. If you object too much,

56:49

you don't know if some jurors will say, that person's

56:51

a trickster, that person's a technician.

56:54

You know, they're trying to block the truth. You just don't

56:56

know you do your best. Uh, in

56:58

the situation you're in, what

57:00

is one comment that still stands out

57:03

to you because of its impact, whether

57:05

that's good, bad, or for whatever reason?

57:07

Well, I tried a very ugly death

57:09

penalty case about

57:12

probably 18 years ago, I think

57:14

, uh , in the state of Alabama.

57:17

I did it pro bono and my client

57:19

was a white man who had been on Alabama's

57:21

death row for six years. He

57:23

had been convicted of a double homicide.

57:27

Um, two young men were innocently just

57:29

shot to death in a park and

57:31

there was evidence of drug use and, and

57:34

devil worship and other things, and the

57:36

jury convicted them and sent them to death row.

57:39

The conviction was reversed on a pure

57:41

technicality and it came back

57:43

for a retrial and I was asked if I would help

57:45

defend them and I said I would.

57:49

And uh, it looked like an extremely

57:51

difficult case. Uh, just

57:53

on paper say that he had testified

57:56

in the first trial that he was using these different

57:58

drugs. Uh, any rate

58:00

, uh, I agreed to defend them

58:02

. Um, part

58:04

of our defense was that one of the prosecution's

58:07

main witnesses was actually the one who

58:09

did the murders. And

58:11

he had been a friend of our client. He

58:14

had been a main witness against him in the first trial.

58:18

Um, saying that basically our

58:20

client had admitted doing all of this to

58:22

them and told him what happened. So

58:24

I'm cross examining this person on the stand

58:28

and he doesn't realize what I'm doing,

58:30

but I'm asking

58:32

him very detailed questions about

58:34

the crime scene and

58:37

he claimed that everything he knew

58:40

he had learned from the client. So

58:42

I'm asking him about the distance between

58:44

this factor and that factor. I'm asking him

58:46

to describe how this body was

58:48

positioned and asking him to describe how another

58:50

body was positioned. They asked him about shell

58:52

casings. Were they on the ground? Where

58:54

were they? And he was answering

58:57

in precise detail all these questions

59:00

and at one point,

59:02

and he didn't realize what I was showing

59:05

the jury was that he didn't learn this

59:07

just from being told, you know,

59:09

you can't remember this from just, you

59:11

know, having a normal, normal conversation

59:13

with a friend. So at

59:15

in Alabama the

59:18

courts permit what are called speaking

59:20

objections. And

59:22

a speaking objection means you object

59:24

and you give the reason for your objection in

59:27

front of the jury. In most States like

59:29

California, you can object, but

59:31

you can only give a very abbreviated

59:34

description of what the objection is. Otherwise

59:36

you have to do it at sidebar outside

59:38

the presence of the jury, you know

59:40

, uh , in other words, you could say, objection, relevance

59:42

in California, but if

59:45

there's any more to discuss, you

59:47

say, your honor, may we approach? And then you discuss

59:49

outside the presence or hearing of the jury

59:52

why you're thinking it's irrelevant.

59:55

But in Alabama they have speaking objections

59:57

right in front of the jury. So

1:00:01

at one point I asked this person,

1:00:04

I switched gears and said to him, isn't it true

1:00:06

that on one occasion you particularly, you

1:00:08

took a hand gun and put it to a baby's

1:00:10

head? And the prosecutor

1:00:13

jumped up and said, objection, relevance.

1:00:16

And the judge said to me in front of the jury,

1:00:18

what's the relevance, mr misery Allen ? I said,

1:00:20

your honor, the relevance is, and I pointed

1:00:22

to the witness, that's the killer. And

1:00:25

he had an expression on his face,

1:00:27

which was almost, he was almost agreeing

1:00:29

with me. His head sort of went up and looked like

1:00:32

it was going up and down and he was smiling.

1:00:34

And I think that may have been the key moment in the

1:00:36

case. My client was acquitted. Uh,

1:00:39

my co counsel says it was the most Perry

1:00:41

Mason like moment he's ever seen in

1:00:44

a, a in a criminal courtroom. And he does

1:00:46

lots of capital murder cases in Alabama.

1:00:48

He's, he's the best Capitol

1:00:51

defender in, in city of Birmingham.

1:00:53

But that was where someone didn't say

1:00:55

something, but their demeanor and

1:00:58

their reaction in my opinion

1:01:00

spoke volumes. And of course in our closing

1:01:02

arguments, we talked a lot about that.

1:01:05

That really is a Perry Mason moment for

1:01:07

sure. Yes, yes. My

1:01:10

goodness. Wow. And I know you had

1:01:12

some of those moments in the Michael

1:01:15

Jackson case as well, which , um, we

1:01:17

spoke about but didn't actually make it

1:01:19

onto the recording because of my recorder last

1:01:21

time where you were questioning one of the

1:01:23

main accusers , um , if

1:01:25

a member of the, of the family of one

1:01:28

of the main accusers about the pornography

1:01:30

that he had alleged that

1:01:32

Michael Jackson had shown him and it turned

1:01:34

out, I'll let you explain it . [inaudible]

1:01:36

well, that , that, that was the brother of

1:01:38

the primary accuser who

1:01:41

claimed he had seen his brother being molested.

1:01:44

And the both

1:01:46

of the brothers had claimed that Michael

1:01:49

Jackson was showing them pornography.

1:01:51

And the prosecution's theory was that this

1:01:53

was designed to condition them

1:01:56

, uh, to be molested.

1:01:59

Um, so the

1:02:02

prosecution had introduced into evidence

1:02:05

a lot of pornography,

1:02:07

but it was heterosexual pornography

1:02:09

was Playboy and penthouse and

1:02:11

things like that. Uh,

1:02:14

they introduced a edition

1:02:17

of Playboy that

1:02:19

this witness said Michael

1:02:21

Jackson had shown him ,

1:02:24

um , [inaudible] ,

1:02:25

you know, the , the word is grooming the,

1:02:27

basically the pressing was saying this was part

1:02:29

of the grooming process to prepare these children

1:02:31

to be molested. So I

1:02:34

got up on cross examination and

1:02:36

said to him, you know, words to the effect

1:02:38

that I remember exactly what the question was that

1:02:40

you're sure he showed you this magazine?

1:02:43

And he said, absolutely. And then

1:02:45

I proved that the magazine wasn't even published

1:02:48

until after they had, the family had left Neverland.

1:02:51

And that was a , a good moment for

1:02:53

us. But the prosecution

1:02:56

kept showing to the jury

1:02:58

one naked picture of naked women

1:03:00

after another. And I was thinking to myself, do they

1:03:02

really think this is helping? And I don't think it did.

1:03:05

And I think the verdict showed it didn't.

1:03:07

So this is a different kind of question

1:03:09

now on the, on the heels of that one,

1:03:11

but, but how do you move on from failure?

1:03:14

You , uh, you're depressed for

1:03:17

awhile, you're down , uh,

1:03:20

you're upset, but you realize

1:03:22

it's part of your business and it's part of your profession.

1:03:25

And your , I say if you care,

1:03:27

if you're sensitive of it, it,

1:03:30

it sticks to you for a little while, but

1:03:33

then you move on and you bounce back. Like we

1:03:35

all have to do in life in many different

1:03:37

situations.

1:03:40

Have you ever had what you would say was a transformative

1:03:42

moment in your work and if so, what was

1:03:45

it?

1:03:48

A transformative moment in

1:03:51

my work?

1:03:53

Um, well,

1:03:59

you know, I w when I was coming up I

1:04:02

did a lot of low pay and pro bono

1:04:04

cases , um, which

1:04:07

I'm very proud of and I still do

1:04:09

a pro bono murder case in Alabama

1:04:11

every year. Um,

1:04:13

I have a small free legal clinic where

1:04:15

we twice a month at

1:04:18

a African American church. We counsel

1:04:20

people, lawyers and law students

1:04:22

and volunteers,

1:04:24

paralegals donate their time. I'm

1:04:27

very proud of this kind of work. I , I,

1:04:29

I marched with a women of Watts every

1:04:31

year for the last 16 years, 17 years

1:04:33

, uh, against gang violence, through

1:04:35

the projects with the children to try and help the

1:04:38

situation as best I can.

1:04:41

Um , [inaudible]

1:04:42

these I often tell

1:04:44

lawyers cause cause we live in such a

1:04:48

society to me is becoming more greedy.

1:04:51

The cost of living is high, the cost

1:04:53

of education is high. The

1:04:55

cost of housing is impossible.

1:04:58

A young people come out of school

1:05:00

feeling like they're , they've got a mortgage without

1:05:02

a house, you know. And

1:05:05

in a situation like this to

1:05:08

tell people they should do something pro

1:05:10

bono or charitable is often

1:05:12

falls on deaf ears. Um,

1:05:15

but I always tell people, you're

1:05:17

going to get more out of it than the people you hell . You

1:05:19

watch what it does for your spirit and your soul. There are so

1:05:21

many unhappy, unhappy lawyers who

1:05:23

would feel better if they did something like this.

1:05:26

But I took a case in 1995

1:05:31

or 96 I represented

1:05:33

a former city council woman

1:05:35

in Compton who

1:05:37

had been indicted by a federal grand jury for

1:05:40

various counts of corruption. And

1:05:43

they had that the FBI

1:05:45

had infiltrated

1:05:48

her life in very unsavory ways.

1:05:50

They had an informant, she was African

1:05:53

American. They picked an African American man who was a

1:05:55

convicted felon who was working with him, had

1:05:57

him approach her with flowers in her office.

1:06:01

Uh, he gave her a card saying he was

1:06:03

a success , was essentially presented

1:06:05

himself as a successful businessman who would

1:06:07

get her involved in the company. Took

1:06:10

trap trip, traveled to Mexico with her. Uh,

1:06:13

I thought it was very unsavory what they did

1:06:15

and they taped her for over a year,

1:06:18

allegedly taking bribes

1:06:20

and they admitted that it took them about

1:06:23

a year to get her to take one, which I thought was unfair,

1:06:27

but then they tape, they tape recorded her for

1:06:29

another year, you know, in their minds

1:06:31

taking improper payments. I

1:06:33

took the case pro bono. There

1:06:35

were about over 600 tapes,

1:06:38

audio and video in the case, massive

1:06:41

amount of documents. Um,

1:06:44

and a one point I,

1:06:48

it was a Saturday night, I was in my office at the century

1:06:50

city just weary from listening to tapes

1:06:54

and I heard this tape and something sounded off

1:06:57

and there was clanking in

1:06:59

the background. There was discussion about Notre

1:07:02

Dame football and I realized

1:07:04

that two FBI

1:07:06

agents and

1:07:09

their informant were waiting for her to arrive

1:07:12

for allegedly the first payment. And

1:07:16

the informant says words to the effect,

1:07:20

they are greedy. Every black one's coming from

1:07:22

everywhere. Let's put her

1:07:25

on ice and get another one. And

1:07:28

I was appalled by this discussion

1:07:30

and it was clear to me they were accidentally

1:07:32

taping themselves. Now,

1:07:35

I had been given transcripts prepared by the

1:07:37

FBI of these conversations.

1:07:42

The government had already tried the mayor

1:07:44

in the same investigation. They had tapes of

1:07:46

him, he had, he had

1:07:48

resources. So he hired private counsel who

1:07:50

clearly didn't just listen to the tapes, they read the

1:07:52

FBI transcripts. I

1:07:55

looked at the FBI transcript and it left

1:07:57

out this stuff. So

1:08:01

I made a motion to dismiss the indictment

1:08:03

for a selective prosecution based on

1:08:05

race and mentioned

1:08:07

that a FBI

1:08:10

agents and the informant had a discussion

1:08:13

and filed a motion and

1:08:17

the government was just indignant. And the prosecutor

1:08:19

was a very good prosecutor, said he had talked

1:08:21

to the agents and they had done this. And

1:08:24

then I just pull this tape out of my pocket

1:08:26

and said, why don't we listen to this? And

1:08:29

it was a pretty dramatic moment. A

1:08:31

, they were horribly embarrassed. The judge would not

1:08:33

dismiss the case, but

1:08:35

, um, she was not impressed

1:08:37

with their behavior. But I say she wouldn't dismiss the

1:08:40

case. It was a moment,

1:08:42

you know, a lot of people said to me, why are

1:08:44

you doing this case? She's been on the news. They've

1:08:46

showed these tapes with her taking money.

1:08:48

And I said, look, you know

1:08:50

, um, their behavior

1:08:52

was deplorable. Putting this man

1:08:54

in her life to become her lover, to travel

1:08:56

to Mexico. Whether he became her , one

1:08:58

of her campaign managers. I

1:09:00

said, this is absolutely, you know, beyond

1:09:03

the pale. Then I found another tape

1:09:05

where they were talking to a former

1:09:07

mayor who was African

1:09:10

American. They were talking about offering him a white

1:09:12

blonde woman in a hotel. And of course he doesn't

1:09:14

know he's being taped or set up. And

1:09:16

I just thought this was very unsavory behavior

1:09:19

even though she was convicted, but she was acquitted

1:09:21

of a lot of accounts, which I'm very

1:09:24

upset the government tremendously and she got a very

1:09:26

minimal sentence below, way below

1:09:28

what they wanted. I felt

1:09:30

very good about exposing this in

1:09:32

the way I did. And this

1:09:35

is another example I hope of what

1:09:37

criminal defense lawyers do. We make

1:09:39

them think twice about bending

1:09:41

the rules. When I say them,

1:09:44

I mean government, prosecutors,

1:09:47

FBI agents, police, whatever

1:09:50

agency is working with the prosecution.

1:09:53

We call them to task when they

1:09:55

do things that are improper, we may not

1:09:57

totally win the case, but

1:10:00

we went a lot for Liberty

1:10:02

and for freedom for all of us when we expose

1:10:04

this kind of stuff. So

1:10:06

you say transformative. That was a, something

1:10:08

I was very proud of. It

1:10:11

burned a hole in my bank account. I will still

1:10:13

tell you that

1:10:15

it transformed more than one aspect

1:10:17

of your life. Well,

1:10:19

finally, Tom in, in brief, what

1:10:21

have you learned about yourself from

1:10:23

your particular work as a trial attorney?

1:10:28

I think I've learned that

1:10:30

I can be effective

1:10:32

in this particular setting. I

1:10:35

think I've learned that I combine , I hope

1:10:38

a certain level of toughness with compassion

1:10:40

and empathy and kindness.

1:10:43

Um, that works,

1:10:46

you know , um, [inaudible]

1:10:49

I certainly have learned that , uh, we live

1:10:51

in a very difficult society where greed

1:10:54

and callousness towards others is alive

1:10:56

and well. And you

1:10:59

know, the late Clarence Darrow, one of my heroes

1:11:01

, uh, who was one of the greatest trial lawyers

1:11:03

in American history, tried

1:11:06

very difficult cases in very difficult

1:11:08

settings and saw

1:11:11

the worst of society and saw the worst

1:11:13

of government oppression and

1:11:16

misuse of power. And

1:11:18

he could be fierce in the court room

1:11:20

and snide and sarcastic

1:11:22

and going after the other side. But I think people

1:11:24

also who watched him knew there was a compassion

1:11:27

and a kindness. And a humanity to him that

1:11:29

you rarely saw. I

1:11:31

would like to think that I have an empathy and

1:11:34

the compassion that that comes out.

1:11:37

Uh , I think it's a strength, not a weakness. I

1:11:39

think there's a misnomer about tough lawyers.

1:11:42

Tough lawyers sometimes are the worst and least

1:11:44

effective lawyers and sometimes

1:11:47

decent, honorable lawyers who

1:11:49

are human and not perfect are more effective.

1:11:52

Um, I think I've learned that I'm compassionate

1:11:55

and kind and that that can be

1:11:57

a strength. I hope.

1:12:00

Well you very kind to spend your time meeting

1:12:02

with me and I have learned a lot from you,

1:12:04

so I really appreciate you taking the time to chat.

1:12:06

Well, it's been my pleasure and I'm very much

1:12:08

appreciate that you ask great questions and thank

1:12:11

you for thinking of me . Thank you so much, Tom.

1:12:13

Thank you.

1:12:15

Okay ,

1:12:25

this has been managed the moment with dr Shep.

1:12:28

Okay .

1:12:28

Life is a collection of moments. It's

1:12:30

how you manage the moments that makes the difference.

1:12:33

Wow . My sincere thanks again

1:12:35

to Tom Mesereau for joining me for this conversation

1:12:38

and thank you for listening. You

1:12:40

can subscribe to the manage the moment podcast

1:12:42

for free just by clicking the subscribe button

1:12:44

wherever you're listening to this podcast, and

1:12:46

then you'll be sure to get the newest episodes

1:12:48

as soon as they're uploaded. And

1:12:51

for more information about the manage the moment podcast

1:12:53

, you can see the episode notes for this broadcast.

1:12:57

You'll also find us on social media, and

1:12:59

I'm on Twitter and Instagram at dr Shep

1:13:01

. Thanks so much for listening and taking

1:13:03

the time to share these moments with us. Until

1:13:05

next time. Right .