0:10

Hello, and welcome to True Crime Daily's

0:13

The sidebar taking you inside the court rooms

0:15

of high profile and notorious cases

0:17

from across the country. I'm your

0:19

host, Joshua Ritter. I'm a criminal

0:21

defense lawyer based here in Los Angeles and previously

0:24

in LA prosecutor for nearly

0:26

a decade. We are recording this

0:28

on Friday, October fourteenth twenty

0:30

twenty two, and we have A

0:32

really exciting episode this week. Lots

0:35

to cover. We're gonna be talking about breaking

0:37

news that Nicholas Cruz avoids

0:39

the death penalty after a Florida jury

0:42

spared his life recommending life in prison

0:44

without the possibility of parole. Plus,

0:47

two high profile all sexual assault

0:49

cases underway in Los Angeles at

0:52

the same time as Harvey Weinstein

0:54

and Danny Masterson each have

0:56

their respective trials. begin. And

0:58

lastly, we'll talk about the landmark

1:00

defamation verdict as a jury

1:02

has ordered Alex Jones to pay

1:04

nearly one billion to

1:07

the families of victims for the Sandy Hook

1:09

massacre. Today, we're excited to

1:11

be joined by Imran and Sari, a

1:13

trial lawyer, former prosecutor

1:15

with hundred of cases under his belt,

1:17

specializing in civil litigation, personal

1:20

injury, and criminal law. He is also

1:22

a legal analyst and host for the law and

1:24

crime network, Imran, welcome.

1:26

Gosh. Thanks for having me.

1:28

Absolutely. You've been on

1:30

the show before, but for listeners who have not

1:32

heard that podcast Can you tell us a little bit about your

1:35

background and your current practice today?

1:37

Sure. So Josh, I started originally

1:39

before I was a lawyer, I was TV producer

1:42

at Court TV. So that sort of

1:44

gave me the media bug. I had a broadcast

1:46

journalism undergrad. But while in that

1:48

TV, I start getting more and more interested

1:51

in the law. That leads me

1:53

to law school and after law

1:55

school I thought I was gonna do entertainment

1:57

law when I was in law school, and I

1:58

get an internship at

1:59

the Brooklyn district attorney's office.

2:02

And I fall in love with framework.

2:04

I realized that there's so much synergy

2:07

and similarities with the skills in

2:09

the courtroom as with television

2:12

and the media and scripting for error.

2:14

I went to the DA's office.

2:16

I started as an ADA in

2:18

the Broken DA's office. And

2:21

I left there in two thousand fourteen.

2:23

I joined the firm where I am at now

2:25

as a partner. It's called Idalla Tuna

2:28

in Hammonds in New York

2:30

City. I was doing criminal

2:32

defense when I first started, but I

2:34

also started

2:34

learning civil

2:35

litigation while I was at it. And

2:37

I aim to sort of bring that into

2:39

the practice slowly,

2:41

but surely that part of the house

2:44

here in the firm has grown tremendously. And

2:47

now I'm leading civil litigation practice,

2:49

and I'm doing you know, I still dabble in criminal

2:52

defense, but I'm primarily handling a lot

2:54

of the civil practice, but as

2:56

a litigator and a trial of turn.

2:58

Fantastic. Well, we're gonna call upon

3:00

all of that experience, and I

3:02

know you follow these case cases closely,

3:05

so we're we're really curious to hear your thoughts.

3:07

So we'll jump right in. First, we go to

3:09

Fort Lauderdale, where a

3:11

Florida jury has spared the life

3:13

of Nicholas Cruz recommending instead

3:16

of the death penalty that he'd be sentenced to

3:18

life without parole the Parkland

3:20

massacre. Cruise had had

3:22

pled guilty last year to seventeen

3:25

counts of first degree murder for

3:27

the two thousand eighteen shooting that left fourteen

3:29

students and three staff members dead.

3:31

jurors witnessed emotional testimony from

3:33

survivors, video footage of crews

3:36

carrying out the attack and even toured

3:38

the crime scene at Marjorie Stoneman

3:40

Douglas High School. His defense countered

3:43

by presenting mitigating circumstances alluding

3:45

to cruises extremely troubled

3:47

childhood, mental illness, and the systematic

3:50

failures leading up to the attack. According

3:53

to the jury jury's four person, three

3:55

jurors, were unable to vote for the death

3:57

penalty. We know it has to be unanimous. With

4:00

cruises illness cited as

4:02

a factor in their decision. Cruise

4:04

will now face formal sentencing on November

4:06

first. Reportedly, all of the victims'

4:08

family members who spoke to the media

4:10

were furious about the verdict with many

4:13

seeing it as a miscarriage of justice

4:15

for their loved ones. Imran

4:17

jumped right in was this verdict surprising to

4:19

you? Yeah.

4:20

I'm gonna say, Josh, it was surprising. Of

4:22

course, you know, Florida, you need a unanimous

4:25

verdict for the death penalty. p

4:27

to be the sentence for a dependent.

4:30

And I was surprised because first,

4:32

you're in Florida and people

4:35

in Florida. I'm just speaking transparently

4:37

and honestly here. You know, they tend there's

4:39

a a conservative constituency

4:42

there and people have

4:45

are are less, let's say,

4:47

not inclined to enter

4:50

a verdict for the death penalty there. And I know

4:52

I'm speaking general I'm also speaking

4:54

about Nicholas Cruz. And I'm speaking

4:56

about a person who went into a

4:58

school and took the lives of

5:01

dozens of of innocent children

5:04

went into court, took responsibility for

5:06

that crime, pled guilty, and

5:08

then litigated the sentencing

5:11

phase, if you will. Because

5:13

of the egregious

5:15

nature of the crime, the testimony

5:18

and the evidence that was elicited by the

5:20

prosecution during the course of

5:22

that sentencing trial. I thought

5:24

that there was a good chance that Nicholas

5:26

Cruz would be the candidate for

5:28

a death penalty verdict. And no matter

5:30

how you feel about it, political

5:33

the iologically or morally.

5:35

It's on the books there in Florida. It is

5:37

available for juries

5:40

to elect that. as a

5:42

sentence for a defendant in this sort

5:44

of case. So I was surprised, but you

5:46

hear that there were three jurors

5:48

who were the holdouts out of the

5:50

the full jury there. And, you

5:52

know, I hear that the prosecution

5:55

are gonna be looking into some

5:58

aspects of what may have gone on in that

6:00

jury room. I I think there may be

6:02

one juror who did

6:05

say that there were some influence going on

6:07

there that may have not been proper

6:09

amongst the jury. But we're gonna have to

6:11

see as, you know, the the prosecution, I'm gonna look

6:13

into that, the court is gonna do an analysis.

6:15

But right now, as far as we know,

6:18

Nicolas Cruz will spend the left the rest of

6:20

his life in jail and will spare the death

6:22

penalty. No.

6:23

I agree with you. I I found this shocking

6:25

too. I mean, it it seems like this is

6:27

the the the, you

6:29

know, perfect example of a case

6:31

of, you know, if you're going to have the death

6:33

penalty and say that it's reserved for only the

6:35

most heinous crimes, how

6:37

could a crime like this, not qualify? Especially

6:40

on top of that, you know, the

6:42

death, the loss of life is

6:45

staggering in a in an itself. But

6:47

you add to that his

6:51

kind of hero worship of these

6:53

prior mass shooters.

6:55

And the way he would he would

6:57

glorify what they had done and he thought it

6:59

was such a great thing, Yes,

7:02

I realized mental illness and all this other

7:04

kind of stuff, but this was someone who seemed

7:06

to have enjoyed what they

7:08

were about to and

7:10

and even his conduct afterwards

7:12

seemed to indicate that it was no problem

7:14

to him whatsoever. It seemed

7:17

like this was the type of case

7:19

that was definitely deserving of the

7:21

death penalty if if you believe we should have that

7:23

penalty at all. Not to

7:25

mention that these

7:27

jurors are were, quote unquote,

7:30

what's called, death qualified, meaning that

7:32

their fadir is done differently

7:35

because each of those jurors have to be able to

7:37

say that they would be willing

7:39

to give the death penalty if they felt it was

7:41

appropriate. So already, I agree with you.

7:43

You're talking about a state that does kind of

7:46

lean kind of more conservative in law

7:48

enforcement where they have used the death

7:50

penalty in the past. And then you're talking about

7:52

a group of people who already kind of leaned that

7:54

way and that they're willing to give the death

7:56

penalty and for them to not

7:58

do it in this case I

8:00

guess it asks or begs the

8:02

the kind of larger cultural

8:04

question. Do you think that we

8:06

as a society have kind of moved farther

8:08

and away from the death penalty where

8:11

it's just going to be too gift difficult

8:13

for prosecutors secure those types of

8:15

verdicts now. Howard Bauchner: Yeah,

8:17

perhaps. And, you know, Josh, just for our

8:19

listeners, no misunderstanding. I I

8:21

wasn't painting with a broad brush. Right? Florida,

8:23

Of course, there's -- Yeah. Yeah. -- across the spectrum

8:26

politically and i audiologically and

8:28

and what have you. But it's just the reality.

8:30

We as attorneys, Josh, we know that. think

8:32

about what venue we're in park. Absolutely.

8:35

We think about the jurisdiction. We think

8:37

about the jury makeup and

8:39

demographics in any particular

8:41

area where we have a case pending, and

8:43

we know that certain cases may have

8:45

a a jury pool which is is

8:47

leaning in one direction or,

8:49

you know, and a a jury report in another

8:51

area. We know as attorneys already that venue

8:53

may be more inclined for

8:55

our client, more inclined to

8:58

render a conviction or what have you

9:00

and that's what I'm saying about Florida. And this was the case,

9:02

as you say, Joshua, that

9:04

you would think, that if there was

9:06

any case appropriate, if you were even on

9:08

defense, and they went through that Wazir process.

9:10

The prosecution were

9:12

satisfied that that jury

9:15

would you know, find

9:17

for the death penalty if the prosecution

9:19

proves their case and that is warranted in

9:21

their case. there you

9:23

have it not being granted and

9:25

you wonder is there an ideological

9:28

shift or an understanding

9:30

because we know in other countries across

9:32

the world that that penalty in certain

9:34

areas, right, or is looked down

9:36

upon and has looked as archaic,

9:39

but we still have around the books in in many

9:41

states here in the United States, but it's

9:43

interesting because this

9:45

case unfolded in court without

9:47

less remorse. from Nicholas

9:49

Cruise. And when you have that and

9:51

when you have that coupled with all the

9:53

disturbing drawings, the things that

9:55

we saw through the prosecution's

9:57

case, even under the

9:59

lens of mental illness, you

10:01

still would think that the

10:03

jury would come to a conclusion that

10:05

this reached that level any

10:07

case would for the death penalty.

10:09

Yeah. Yeah. I guess I guess

10:12

my thought too is that

10:14

a couple decades ago,

10:16

maybe maybe longer, maybe shorter, I

10:18

think this easily would have been a death penalty

10:21

case. I I just I wonder if

10:24

culturally, we've kind of moved

10:26

farther away from that. And I wonder if

10:28

we'll start seeing less and less of those types

10:30

of verdicts. But In any case, they

10:32

they've come to their decision. It is final,

10:34

and he will remain for the rest of his

10:36

life in jail. Do

10:39

you

10:39

own or rent your home? Sure you

10:41

do. And

10:42

GEICO knows it can be hard work. You

10:44

know it's

10:45

easy, bundling policies with

10:47

GEICO. GEICO makes it

10:49

easy to bundle your homeowners or

10:51

renters insurance along with your

10:53

auto policy. It's

10:54

a good thing too because you already

10:57

have so much to do around your

10:59

home. Go

10:59

to geico dot com, get a quote,

11:01

and see how much you could save. It's

11:03

geico easy. Visit geico dot

11:05

com today. That's geico

11:07

dot

11:07

com.

11:10

So let's

11:10

move now to Los Angeles where two big

11:12

trials are taking place. At the same

11:14

time, in the same building, it's pretty

11:17

incredible. Both of them kind of related

11:19

in many aspects. We're we're talking

11:21

about the sexual assault trial of disgraced

11:24

Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein has

11:26

begun jury selection on Monday,

11:28

October tenth. And I'm gonna

11:30

stop here for a second to to for full

11:32

transparency. My law firm that

11:34

I formally worked at is

11:36

handling the case Weinstein here in Los

11:38

Angeles. I I was not directly

11:40

involved in the case and I don't work

11:42

there anymore. And

11:44

Imran, your firm actually

11:46

participated in Weinstein's defense in

11:48

New York, and he's continuing to handle

11:50

his appeal. Is that correct? Correct,

11:53

Josh. So and so, you know, in

11:55

full trans currency here and

11:57

disclaimer. You know, I actively represent

12:00

Harvey Weinstein. Currently,

12:02

in civil cases, my

12:05

firm also act and we're a small

12:07

boutique firm. We represent Harvey

12:09

Weinstein in the appeal of the New

12:11

York state conviction.

12:13

We also were his

12:15

attorneys in the New York State

12:17

trial. So we actively and

12:19

currently represent hard RBYC. So,

12:21

of course, there's gonna be a limit

12:23

as to what I could talk about there, but

12:25

I'm happy to answer some questions. I've discussed

12:27

this case? Of course, we're we're

12:29

very curious now to hear your insights, and

12:31

we will make sure to try to avoid

12:33

any attorney client privileged

12:35

areas. but Weinstein now

12:37

seventy years old faces eleven counts

12:39

related to the sexual assault of five

12:41

women in separate incidents from

12:43

two thousand four to two thousand thirteen. We're talking

12:45

about here in the Los Angeles

12:47

trial. While the victims in the case will not

12:49

be named one woman set

12:51

to test fight has come forward

12:53

publicly, and that is governor Gavin

12:55

Newsom's wife, Jennifer Siebel

12:57

Newsom, who will take stand

12:59

as Jane Doe four. In

13:01

twenty twenty, Harvey Weinstein was sentenced to twenty

13:03

three years for a separate rape conviction

13:05

in New York. that's the case that we

13:07

were just talking about. However, in

13:09

August, the state court of appeals granted

13:11

him permission to appeal his conviction

13:14

If convicted in California, Weinstein

13:16

faces the possibility of life in

13:18

prison. Okay. Imran,

13:20

first let's talk about that New York case, and I I

13:22

wanna talk the appeal because I think it presents

13:24

some really interesting issues.

13:27

Essentially, the argument, and correct me if

13:29

I'm wrong, is that the judge allowed

13:31

too much and too

13:33

far attenuated prior

13:36

bad acts evidence to be presented

13:38

in that prosecution. Could you walk us through that what

13:40

the argument is there? Sure.

13:41

So, Josh, there's AAA few arguments

13:44

that we're putting for for

13:46

mister Weinstein on appeal. One of

13:48

them is what you said there. So there

13:50

are in New York, there's

13:52

prior convictions. Right? You can get evidence of

13:54

prior convictions and if the judge

13:56

allows it, but there's also fire bad

13:58

acts, uncharged crimes. But

14:01

here, our position is that the

14:03

judge went even beyond, let's say,

14:05

uncharged crimes to the point where he was

14:07

allowing evidence before

14:09

that jury as to just

14:11

Harvey Weinstein's general

14:13

alleged, you know, behavior

14:16

are at work to people he

14:18

met randomly, some employees. And when I

14:20

say behavior, I'm not talking about

14:22

alleged sexual misconduct. I'm talking

14:24

about just being someone who

14:26

may have yelled at someone or cursed

14:28

at someone or treated someone,

14:30

maybe not so nicely.

14:32

And it our position was

14:34

that that evidence was so presidential and

14:37

lacked proof of the value that it

14:39

was not properly before the

14:41

jury, and the judge should have excluded

14:43

that, and it did not pass the

14:45

sort of smell test of

14:47

what prior bad acts or uncharged

14:49

crimes or even could

14:51

could reach the his ears, and it was

14:53

to such an extent that he was not

14:55

able to get a fair trial.

14:57

Josh, there's other arguments that there was a

14:59

juror who was what

15:01

we say was almost like an activist

15:03

juror. She had not

15:05

disclosed originally during Poirier

15:08

that she had pen

15:10

to a book talking which which

15:12

dealt with older

15:14

men in power and women.

15:17

And although that

15:19

came out, during the course

15:21

of early on in in

15:23

jury selection, the judge still

15:25

allowed this juror to sit on

15:27

the jury despite the defense

15:29

objections from our team. So that's another

15:31

aspect of the of the

15:33

appeal, but I'm just giving a

15:35

general sense. There's other arguments, of

15:37

course, that we have in that appeal, but it

15:39

was denied just to give our listeners a

15:41

little roadmap of of the

15:43

New York courts. Right? You have the

15:45

trial courts, then you appeal to

15:47

the appellate division, which

15:49

is the intermediary appellate

15:52

court, and then you appeal up

15:54

to the highest court in the state,

15:56

which is the New York State Court of

15:58

Appeals. And the Court of

16:00

Appeals, they're very particular

16:02

about the cases that are going to

16:04

here. So we of the

16:06

conviction of Harvey Weinstein was

16:08

affirmed by that middle

16:10

appellate court and the court of appeals

16:13

had issued a decision that they will

16:15

hair the ultimate appeal up

16:17

before them, and that's what we're working

16:19

on filing right now. Understood.

16:20

ask you a couple of

16:22

questions about what you and thank you for laying that all out

16:24

for us. Really fascinating stuff. This

16:28

juror you're saying that the

16:30

judge allowed did

16:32

you have challenges to that journey, like a

16:34

peremptory challenge or what how was it that

16:36

you were not to get that jitter off because you're

16:38

saying that this information came out in

16:40

Vadir? So

16:41

I I should clarify that,

16:43

Josh. So the information did

16:45

not come out during Guadir. So she was

16:48

Understood. I understand that. Okay.

16:50

And then at some point between the

16:52

start of the trial and during

16:54

so election and then the commencement of

16:56

of trial. And it may have been I can't

16:58

remember if it was after opening statements or

17:01

before, but we had it

17:03

was raised to the judge that and I

17:05

believe we found this on social media

17:07

that she had penned this

17:09

book, which dealt with

17:11

the power dynamics of older men

17:13

and women, and younger

17:15

women, which we felt

17:17

would render her a

17:20

not a fair and impartial juror,

17:22

but someone who may have a bias

17:24

and may particularly have a bias against

17:26

someone like Harvey Weinstein given

17:29

the allies occasions than the crimes he was charged with. We

17:31

challenged

17:31

the you know, we we brought that

17:33

to the judge's attention. We said she

17:35

should be removed from the jury. The judge

17:37

did not agree and allowed her to sit

17:40

for the trial, which is one point of

17:42

appeal that we have for

17:44

mister Weinstein. So she had kinda

17:46

purposefully kept that from you during the

17:48

vadir process. I'm sure she must have been

17:50

asked some questions about any biases

17:52

she carries and was able

17:54

to somehow hide that information before she actually

17:56

got sat on the jury. Correct. Correct. So

17:58

we're saying she was not forthcoming. It was

17:59

discovered yet the judge still allowed

18:02

her to serve. Wow.

18:03

Incredible stuff. The other

18:05

question I had for you is, in California,

18:08

these prior bad acts

18:10

in sexual assault cases

18:12

allow for the prosecution to

18:15

make some pretty powerful

18:17

and almost insurmountable

18:20

type argument minutes because they can

18:22

argue propensity. And I'm curious if

18:24

New York operates the same way. In other

18:26

words, it's not just, hey,

18:28

this person did something similar before, so that

18:30

demonstrates kind of a general MO

18:32

or shows, you know, they they

18:34

they have, you know, if they prey

18:36

upon people that, you know, are

18:39

you know, worker somebody who works with them

18:41

and this person accusing them. Now is also somebody who

18:43

works with them, you know, you can understand how

18:45

that might be robberating evidence.

18:48

But the the the

18:50

prosecution in in California can

18:52

actually say, this person

18:55

by this prior bad acts, has demonstrated that

18:57

they are the type of person to commit

18:59

sexual assault. Therefore, you can believe

19:01

that they are a person who will commit

19:04

other sex SHOLLO SALTS. THEY HAVE A

19:06

PREPENSITY TO DO THAT. INCREDIBLY DAMAGING.

19:08

DO THEY HAVE THE SIMILAR TYPE OF ARGUMENT

19:10

IN NEW YORK?

19:11

SO JOT I mean, but it's to an extent. Right? So

19:14

if they're, you know, if they're and,

19:16

of course, the judge acts as that

19:18

gatekeeper. Right? And it is in the judge's

19:20

discretion to allow certain evidence in

19:22

or not. And, of course, if there's a disagreement,

19:24

there's always that appeal for

19:26

the defendant. If it's the

19:28

defense objecting to that,

19:30

But what happened in New York was that

19:33

the the I I

19:34

would say the gate was open

19:36

to such as the extent that even

19:38

the most collab lateral sort of

19:40

accusation or, you know, you know, just someone

19:43

of mister Weinstein being a a

19:45

angry man yelling at maybe a waiter, I

19:47

forget certain aspects like

19:49

that evidence like that were allowed

19:51

to come in before the jury,

19:53

which were so removed from, let's

19:55

say, the act of an alleged sexual assault

19:57

that it was just amounting to

19:59

a pylon. And I used that word

20:02

a lot because in essence,

20:04

that's what it was. instead of

20:07

evidence that had probative

20:10

value. This was just a pile on

20:12

of mister weinstein being a

20:14

bad man or an angry man, a mean

20:16

man, and a colored the

20:18

jewelry we feel to the said that

20:20

he didn't get a fair trial. And

20:22

however you feel about mister Weinstein,

20:24

you have to remember that we have

20:27

a very in tacked

20:30

and commendable justice system for

20:32

the most part. Right? That operates in

20:34

a certain way, which allows

20:36

evidence to come in or not come allows

20:38

everyone to have a fair trial. And

20:40

no matter what someone has accused of,

20:42

the RBY's senior or someone else, that

20:45

due process and that fair and

20:47

constitutional process needs to play

20:49

out. And if people are

20:51

so influenced by the, say, the court of

20:53

public opinion or a

20:55

movement that is taking place,

20:57

then you can't allow that

20:59

as a judge or even a prosecutor

21:02

to color your fusion

21:04

to color what's going on in court

21:06

at trial, you have to let it be

21:08

a fair process. And we

21:10

argued to the extent that he was

21:12

going to trial in that climate. It wasn't

21:14

a fair trial month, you know,

21:16

many things. And that's why that conviction

21:18

should be tossed. Understood.

21:20

So let's turn to the

21:22

LA case because it's it's very similar. In the

21:24

sense that you have multiple women, you have

21:26

five women who are accusing him

21:29

in many respects, they're unrelated to

21:31

each other. You know, they're separated by

21:34

by time and even having

21:36

know, it's it's not like they're all come from the same

21:39

office or something. And

21:42

essentially, what will happen, I imagine,

21:44

is that they even if you have

21:46

you know, one of the allegations

21:50

being perhaps less

21:53

convincing than the others, you know, maybe

21:55

perhaps their memory is affected or

21:57

their their the the defense does

21:59

a good job on cross examination to show

22:01

that there's holes in their story,

22:03

that there's this effective crossing cooperation

22:06

to if well, that person's

22:08

allegations may be kind of weak, but listen

22:10

to this other person who was very

22:12

strong in their memory and and

22:14

very specific you know, I'm I'm just

22:16

gonna kinda throw them all into the

22:18

same basket here. Do you think that's

22:20

one, do you think that's how it's going to

22:22

play out? And two, how

22:24

how does a defense deal with something like that?

22:26

Howard Bauchner: Yeah,

22:28

listen, Josh,

22:30

Mark, at your former firm and the

22:32

whole team there, excellent attorneys

22:34

But, you know, it's going to be

22:36

a tough trial. I mean, it was a tough

22:39

trial in New York given, you know,

22:41

what the court of public

22:43

opinion already having made up their

22:45

mind. And now, of course, Mark

22:47

and and the team there go

22:49

in with with

22:51

Harvey having a conviction

22:53

saddled on his back. And, of course, they're gonna go

22:55

through that rigorous watch dealer

22:57

process of of trying to

22:59

find that fair and impartial theory. But, you know,

23:01

when you have the claims

23:03

that are piggybacking, after

23:06

a prosecution and a conviction in New York, and you're

23:08

trying to find, you know, obviously, that's

23:11

gonna play a part in in this trial.

23:13

That's a conviction. you

23:15

know, it's gonna be a very

23:17

tough process to, a, on the first instance,

23:19

find a fair and parcel drawer to

23:21

be seated on that. Given now,

23:24

you have not only the me too movement

23:26

five years in, but

23:28

also Harvey Weinstein being very

23:30

famously conviction did. In the New

23:32

York case, you're gonna have that

23:34

process being a very difficult process on

23:36

on the first hand. And then

23:38

also throughout trial with the evidence coming

23:40

in. But, you know, we do our

23:42

job as depends attorneys as you

23:44

do yourself, Josh, you know, the best

23:46

for your client. And although

23:48

it's gonna be a tough fight, I'm sure, Mark, and

23:50

and everyone's gonna be doing their best in

23:52

court. Howard Bauchner: No.

23:54

One one last thing

23:56

I wanted to cover on this, and you've alluded

23:58

to it a a few times now. But it's

24:00

been five years since the New Yorker published

24:03

their seen expose, which ignited

24:05

the Me Too movement. He

24:07

has essentially become the poster child

24:09

for that movement. You

24:11

So you've got that at

24:14

play. At the same time, you have a

24:16

seventy year old man who's has

24:18

a rapidly declining condition. apparently,

24:20

you know, this has come out in arguments that

24:22

the attorneys have made in court that his teeth

24:24

are rotting. He's unable to walk.

24:26

He's in a wheelchair. Do

24:29

you think that

24:31

which do you think plays a

24:33

more a stronger role with these

24:35

jurors, both of which have nothing to do

24:38

with the but it's something that does play a role in

24:40

jurors minds. The backdrop of

24:42

me too or you have this person who's

24:44

essentially falling apart in front of your eyes, do you

24:46

think any of that affects

24:48

the jurors? Well, you know,

24:49

Josh, you and I know that they're gonna be instructed

24:52

that they have to put sympathy aside,

24:54

and they put sympathy side,

24:56

not only for the victims of the case, but also

24:58

the defendant also. And I

25:00

could tell you that

25:02

mister Weinstein is not in good health

25:04

whatsoever. When he was in the New

25:06

York trial, he was walking with the assistance

25:09

of a walker, many people out there in

25:11

the press and the public body

25:13

mold lingering, and that wasn't you know, he was doing

25:15

that to garner sympathy. I think at this

25:17

point in time, I could tell you that

25:19

that was not not true. He was

25:22

seriously suffering from orthopedic

25:24

injury. He still is. He has a slew of

25:26

other health problems. getting older.

25:29

He's in a confinement in in

25:31

prison, and I could tell you that

25:33

I believe that

25:34

prison conditions there in LA are

25:37

tougher than that they are here in

25:39

New York. And you know,

25:41

there's that question. Is he getting adequate

25:43

medical treatment in prison you know, there's been,

25:45

you know, requests

25:47

for certain procedures that he

25:49

needs medically. And whether the

25:51

jury looks at that

25:54

and somehow even though they're instructed not

25:56

to, you know, include

25:58

sympathy in their deliberate deliberations

26:00

or analysis of the evidence. If that comes

26:02

into play, I don't know. But then the

26:04

fact of the matter is that, you know,

26:08

and and Harvey

26:10

Weinstein. The public eye -- Yeah.

26:12

-- is is not a it's

26:14

someone that the public really gravitates

26:16

to anymore. Right? So It's a that

26:19

may play a role too. And I I

26:21

have to say though that people cannot

26:24

lose

26:24

sight

26:25

that with movements, with

26:28

very public accusations, people

26:30

who are accused who it may

26:32

have wealth or power at one point of

26:34

of things crimes or otherwise,

26:36

excuse me, it also

26:38

opens the door. And I'm not naming anyone. I'm

26:40

just saying it opens the door, and I'm not even

26:42

necessarily talking about RB

26:44

Weinstein for significantly opens the door

26:46

to people making claims that may not

26:48

be true. You know? I mean,

26:50

because that and that's just the

26:52

nature. of a very public accusation

26:54

of people who are

26:56

in power and, you know,

26:59

people always need to realize that that

27:01

the justice system needs to

27:03

unfold through the use of evidence.

27:05

It needs to really people have to

27:07

have a fair shake in court no matter

27:09

who you are and will that out that. And

27:12

if people start losing that in this in this

27:14

day of social media and

27:17

podcasts and so, you know, things

27:20

online and people just going on, Twitter rants

27:22

and all that. If that starts

27:24

influencing people's decisions,

27:26

once they're sworn in as a then

27:28

we're gonna really lose what in essence

27:30

is the most critical part

27:32

of our justice system and that is

27:34

having Barrett and partial trial. So we

27:36

have to be very cognizant of that.

27:38

And I'm just sort of saying that in a

27:40

general sense, you know, as

27:42

time progresses and technology progresses,

27:45

and people really, you know, bent their views

27:48

on online. And I think we'll maybe talk

27:50

about Alex Jones and he's

27:52

So one who, you know, is a prime example

27:54

of someone really abusing the

27:56

first amendment. Right? But, you know, my point

27:58

is that trials need to be fair, they

28:00

need to be parcel, people need to get

28:02

their constitutional right in court. Howard Bauchner:

28:04

No. And we kind of saw the other

28:06

side of that, not in a

28:09

criminal trial, but with Johnny Depp and Anne herb

28:11

to what you alluded to that

28:13

sometimes people make accusations and you put

28:15

them in front of, you know, rigorous

28:18

cross examination and their stories really

28:20

begin to kind of fall apart as

28:22

happened in that case. And again, I'm not we're

28:24

neither one of us are are kind

28:26

of pointing to awards any case

28:28

in particular or any of the women making

28:30

accusations in this case, but it is --

28:32

Correct. -- it is, I think,

28:34

you are true that we should all remain mindful

28:36

that the courts need to have these

28:38

things play out in a fair manner.

28:40

Do you

28:41

own or rent your home?

28:43

Sure you do. and

28:44

GEICO knows it can be hard work. You

28:46

know it's easy

28:47

bundling policies with GEICO.

28:50

GEICO makes it easy to bundle your

28:52

homeowners or renters insurance along

28:54

with your auto policy. It's a good

28:56

thing

28:56

too because you already have so

28:58

much to do around your home.

29:01

go to geico dot com, get a quote, and see how much

29:03

you could save. It's geico

29:05

easy. Visit geico dot com today.

29:07

That's geico dot

29:09

com.

29:11

The criminal court building

29:12

in downtown Los Angeles is a very

29:14

busy place nowadays because in

29:17

another Los Angeles space, case

29:19

of sexual assault, the trial facing

29:22

actor, Danny Masterson, began

29:24

with jury selection on Tuesday, October

29:26

eleventh. The actor and star of that

29:28

seventy show faces allegations of

29:30

drugging women and assaulting them at his home

29:32

in the Hollywood Hills. Now Masterston was

29:34

charged in twenty twenty with three counts of rape

29:36

by force or fear. The charges

29:38

relate to three different women dating to

29:41

incidents in two thousand one

29:43

and two and three. Along

29:45

with Masterson's former celebrity

29:48

status, Scientology may also

29:50

play a role in this case with all three

29:52

victims belonging to the Church of

29:54

Scientology, of which Masterson

29:56

is also a member. The victims

29:58

also alleged they were pressured into

30:00

keeping the allegations it by

30:02

church officials. However, the judge has

30:04

been very clear in laying down ground rules

30:06

saying this is not going to become a trial

30:08

on Scientology. If convicted

30:10

masterpieces faces forty five years to

30:12

life, he has maintained that

30:14

that sex was always

30:16

consensual. Imran, first

30:18

of all, this case different,

30:20

very similar in a lot of

30:22

respects to Weinstein, but also very different in

30:25

that these are nearly twenty year

30:27

old allegations. How do you think that affect this

30:29

trial? Howard Bauchner: Yeah, now Josh, I

30:31

think

30:31

it's going to be a test on the evidence.

30:33

Right? So after twenty years, of

30:35

course, memory

30:37

spades, sometimes evidence gets

30:40

stale. But what I think is, you know, time

30:42

may have a effect on

30:44

this process. fusion on this trial. I think it's

30:46

fascinating though this trial because you're going to

30:48

see this scienceology aspect --

30:50

Yeah. -- coming into that courtroom.

30:52

room. And they've I I forget some player

30:54

in in in the case said that it's not gonna be

30:56

a trial of scintology necessarily,

30:59

but actually could be crimes

31:01

that he is accused of, Madison. But

31:03

you can't really have one without the other in

31:05

this in in this case because I believe

31:08

that the scientific aspect of

31:10

things are going to be interwoven

31:12

with the evidence induced

31:14

at trial. So it's going to be

31:16

interesting to see how these allegations are

31:18

put to the test before that jury,

31:20

the prosecution, you know, and to what

31:22

extent the prosecution is going to

31:24

be diving into scientifically that's a

31:26

very controversial aspect and

31:29

and, you know, religion if you

31:31

in itself. So of

31:33

the the attorneys are gonna have a, you

31:36

know, dual role here. You're gonna be trying

31:38

to find a jury who are gonna

31:40

be fair and impartial in light of

31:42

accusations and the crimes charge. Right?

31:44

But you're also gonna have to probably

31:46

volunteer on scytology in

31:48

those people's opinion of the Church

31:50

of Scientology. Because there's been a lot

31:52

of controversy with that, the Church of

31:55

Scientology. And I'm sure that's gonna peppered

31:57

throughout this trial, but, you know,

31:59

serious accusations that he's facing.

32:01

And there's also been civil

32:04

lawsuits. And I know another civil lawsuit actually against

32:07

the Scienceology Church

32:09

of Scienceology. But,

32:11

you know, with Harvey Weinstein's

32:13

trial happening in LA, now you have

32:15

the Masterson trial happening in LA,

32:17

and they're sort of crowning this

32:20

five year anniversary of this whole Me

32:22

Too movement is gonna be see interesting

32:24

to see how thoughts

32:27

and and opinions have evolved since

32:29

then. But I think master's in with

32:31

these accusations also that

32:33

scintology aspect of things. you

32:35

know,

32:35

we'll see if if their his

32:37

team are gonna be able to poke holes in the

32:40

prosecution and prevail with an acquittal. We'll

32:42

see. No. Yeah. It it's funny. The

32:44

the judge says this isn't gonna be a trial

32:46

about scontology. I I don't see

32:48

how this is avoidable. And I

32:50

wanna tease that out a little bit more with you because

32:52

I'm wondering who who does it

32:55

benefit more? I think it is going to play a

32:57

role. Absolutely. If you're

32:59

the pro execution, I imagine one of the arguments you might

33:01

make is well,

33:03

that explains the delay in

33:05

them reporting. Right? The the yes.

33:07

This is twenty years old, but

33:09

we have a very understandable reason for that, that they were

33:11

under the control of this very controlling

33:15

church. They had a lot of things affecting

33:17

their ability to just They couldn't just come

33:19

forward about what had happened to them as

33:21

other people might feel more free to

33:23

do. But then if you're the

33:25

defense, I I

33:27

imagine you might make the argument

33:29

of, hey, this isn't

33:31

about Masterson, this is about

33:33

Scientology. That's they're trying to get a revenge

33:35

against and they don't care if they bring masters and

33:37

down as long as they bring the church down and

33:39

that's what this is really about. Who

33:41

who do you think it benefits more? Or how how how do

33:43

you think this plays out? Yeah. I

33:45

mean, both of those arguments are strong in

33:47

their own right, you know. And I guess they you're gonna

33:49

see what the evidence comp

33:51

events, either of those arguments. And I think, Josh, you're correct.

33:53

I think

33:53

that's going to be the route that defense takes.

33:56

Of course, with, you know,

33:58

calling it to doubt the

33:59

other evidence or, you know, passage of

34:02

time and whatever,

34:04

you know, the defense will point out in terms

34:06

of the accusations or the evidence supporting the allegations.

34:09

But I think, Scientology is gonna be a part

34:11

of both. Prosecutors have a really strong argument

34:13

in that passage of time aspect.

34:16

And that sort of climate

34:16

of the science of Church of

34:20

Scientology we've heard about. And the

34:21

is there already allegations that members

34:23

of the church and they're

34:25

trying to arbitrate things and keep

34:28

things down and silence.

34:30

And I think that gives the prosecution

34:32

that explanation. If

34:34

there's any doubt in the tourist's mind as to why these women

34:36

may have not come out with an

34:38

initial outcry as to these

34:40

allegations. Right? That would be

34:42

the explanation as a

34:44

prosecutor, you could give them. And of course, you're gonna have

34:46

to shore that up with evidence. And I

34:48

think there may be an expert witness

34:50

regarding science who's on the prosecution's witness

34:52

list. But, you know, they're they're gonna

34:54

be looking to that

34:56

sort of aspect of the

34:58

church, which people

35:00

have accused the church of being, you know, something more

35:02

silence, you know, any sort of people

35:04

who step out of line, I guess,

35:06

in the church or could bring bad light

35:09

on the of scintology. And I think the prosecution are gonna

35:11

be looking to those aspects as they, of course,

35:14

try to prove the elements of the crimes that they have

35:16

charged Master's in

35:18

wit. No.

35:18

last question on this, something

35:21

that people always wonder. And

35:23

I'll I'll say them both of these cases.

35:25

Do you think either

35:28

WEINSTEIN OR MASTERSEN ANY CHANCE OF THEM TAKING THE

35:30

STAND AND ANY BENEFIT TO THEM

35:32

TAKING THE STAND. I

35:35

WOULD SAY THAT it's

35:37

likely that you will not see them take

35:39

the stand. As to Weinstein, I'm not gonna

35:41

talk about that with that

35:44

person. You know, if if he if they call

35:46

if they call him to the

35:48

stand, if if anything, you know,

35:50

he's gonna be, oh, he he's

35:52

now confronted cross examination.

35:54

Yeah. Yeah. I think that

35:56

it with three accusations,

35:58

three accusers and crimes

36:00

charged for three rate

36:02

accusations. I think it's for safer bet

36:04

for the defense, not to put them on the

36:06

stand. But then again, you know, I'm not privy to

36:08

what's behind close doors there. So We'll see. Yeah.

36:11

I I

36:11

appreciate you you

36:14

navigating those waters for us. Sorry if

36:16

I put you on the spot. But No.

36:18

It a question that people always have. And and it's hard

36:20

to kind of explain sometimes to to

36:22

folks who either aren't lawyers

36:25

or are not specifically criminal defense

36:28

lawyers. They you know, what a

36:30

difficult decision that is?

36:32

Because people's

36:34

natural clinician, and you see this all the time during jury selection.

36:36

You can tell people how, you

36:38

know, the burden is on the process

36:41

fusion and my client has a fifth amendment. Right? He

36:44

doesn't have to testify and explain

36:46

that to your blue in the face, but there are

36:48

people who always say, listen. If

36:50

I was a used to something that

36:52

I didn't do, you would see me

36:54

take those fifteen steps up to the stand

36:56

immediately to tell everybody in the world

36:58

how I didn't do this thing. and that is

37:00

something that's just kinda so natural

37:02

and and hardwired into some people that

37:04

they just can't get around it. But

37:06

they don't understand and and and help

37:08

us appreciate

37:10

the what it's like to be

37:12

under cross examination and sometimes even a

37:14

person telling the truth. If

37:16

it's good enough cross examination can be

37:18

tripped up or made to look as though

37:20

they're not telling the truth and that

37:24

sometimes that's enough for the jurors to hang their hat on that they that maybe they didn't

37:26

find the evidence, all that convincing, but

37:28

when they see this person take the stand in

37:31

appear to lie to them, that's it

37:34

sometimes for a a diff defendant.

37:36

What are your thoughts on that? Yeah. No.

37:38

In a criminal case. I mean, that is one of

37:40

the most difficult decisions you have. Of course,

37:43

there are certain cases

37:43

where you have an affirmative defenses, say, of self

37:45

defense. And, you know, if you don't put your client on the

37:48

stance really explained that you're sort of taking some

37:50

of the air out of that self defense claim.

37:52

But in in in cases where that's

37:54

not at

37:56

play, but you feel that your client has you know,

37:58

that could explain something away that

38:00

needs to come from his or her mouth.

38:02

You're really left with that

38:06

tough decision. Of course, it's always the client's decision whether they're gonna

38:08

take the stand. You could counsel your client. Listen.

38:10

You take that stand. You're gonna be cross examined.

38:12

They're gonna be showing you this.

38:15

and then what what the other is gonna be cross exam

38:18

you know, leading questions

38:20

and you may get tripped up. And if

38:22

they say, well, no, I wanna testify,

38:24

even though you counsel them, you have to defer

38:26

to that. Right? But it is

38:28

one of the toughest decisions you make,

38:30

not only not obviously the defendant

38:33

themselves, but as counsel because

38:35

strategically, you're now bringing aspect

38:37

into that criminal trial

38:40

where you can't necessarily hang your hat on that, you know, keep

38:42

keep them to their burden. You can. But

38:44

now you have put on a

38:46

case with the defendant

38:48

and that you know,

38:50

that that presumption is

38:52

now on display. Right? And they're

38:54

open to cross examination. As

38:56

you point out, a skilled attorney,

38:58

a skilled executer will be able to ask

39:00

questions of the defendant

39:02

in a way that could

39:06

elicit a or no answer, which, you know, on redirect,

39:08

you you know, you're gonna try to get that

39:10

explained to the jury, but it's not

39:12

always effective. there

39:14

may be something in a document that, you know, they're cross examined on that

39:16

would have been left better left alone

39:18

just on a prosecution's case.

39:21

You're opening now up,

39:23

but that's the tactical decision we make as

39:26

attorneys. We start thinking through it, the theory of

39:28

the case, our strategy,

39:30

and sometimes it works, but

39:32

Josh, listen, sometimes it doesn't. Right? And you

39:34

you you have a a defendant who is

39:36

now on display for the jury and

39:38

under rigorous

39:40

cross examination. then on automation, it's up to you to really sort of bring it back to

39:42

your side. But it it's

39:44

a it's a tough choice to

39:46

make, not only for the client, but

39:48

also for

39:50

the attorney I remember

39:50

when I was a prosecutor, I loved

39:52

it when defendants would wanna take the stand. It

39:54

it it it was all nothing but fun

39:56

for me because I knew I could

39:59

I could twist them up

40:02

somehow. There is AAA

40:04

prosecutor. He's still in the LA DA's office

40:06

named Phil Sterling, very experienced,

40:08

very good a trial lawyer. He prosecuted a lot of

40:10

gang related cases. But

40:12

he would

40:14

famously, whenever defendant would take the

40:16

stand and he would start cross examination. The

40:18

first question out of his mouth is he would

40:20

say, do you have anything else you'd like to

40:22

tell us? And then he would just

40:24

step back and let them go. And you could just see the

40:26

panic fall on the face of the

40:28

defense attorneys. Because now

40:30

their clients up there with

40:32

absolutely no safety net just

40:34

talking about whatever they wanna talk about. And he'd

40:36

let them go because they're just

40:38

gonna start adding to whatever kind

40:40

of non sense story they had

40:42

about how they weren't there or

40:44

they're the wrong guy or something like that, and it

40:46

just opened up the floodgates for

40:48

him in cross examination. So I I appreciate you explaining

40:50

for our listeners just

40:52

how difficult that decision is.

40:54

Finally, we turn to water

40:57

very Connecticut where jurors have handed down

40:59

a verdict on Infra Wars host Alex

41:02

Jones to pay, get

41:04

this nine hundred in sixty

41:06

five million dollars to the fifteen

41:08

plaintiffs who alleged they

41:10

sustained years of trauma

41:12

for claims that he made that the Sandy Hook massacre

41:14

was a hoax. Jones was

41:16

obstinate during most of the proceedings,

41:18

calling the

41:20

trial Kingaroo Court. The conspiracy theorist

41:22

was found liable for damages by

41:24

default after failing to cooperate with

41:27

court rules on sharing evidence

41:29

leaving the jury only to decide how

41:31

much the eventual damages would

41:34

be. Jones has already filed for

41:36

bankruptcy testifying in his trial in

41:38

Texas that he couldn't afford to pay an award over

41:40

two million. However, his free

41:42

speech systems company has been

41:44

valued at

41:46

upwards of two hundred and seventy million. You will now

41:48

face a third trial this time back in Texas again

41:50

for claims that the Sandy Hook

41:53

shooting that left twenty children at six

41:55

adults dead was a hoax.

41:58

Imran, tell us, did this verdict

41:59

surprise you?

42:01

Not at all. I mean, listen, it was

42:04

above the amount that

42:06

the plaintiff's attorneys, the,

42:08

you know, asked for, but it doesn't surprise me when you

42:10

look at Alex Jones. And, you know, I'm a New

42:12

York guy here. Right? So the other day,

42:14

I I'm looking. I opened the daily

42:16

news and what do I see?

42:18

I see a a great quote about

42:20

this case by you,

42:22

Josh. You know? And

42:24

the New York Daily News. Right? So

42:26

and you had it right in that in your quote right there, and

42:28

I'm gonna echo that. I mean, listen, will they

42:30

ever collect on this? Meaning the families, right?

42:33

It's such a large amount and

42:36

Alex Jones, which just I

42:38

I mean, I have a lot of words for

42:40

Alex Jones. I'll keep it back because

42:43

it's just so insult say

42:45

that he he continues

42:48

in the light of the

42:50

truth. In the light of

42:52

the verdict, that he's being hit with to

42:54

keep railing against the

42:56

process, to sort of keep

42:58

spinning this sort of

43:00

conspiracy theory and there's

43:02

no remorse. There's really no

43:04

apology here. And that's what

43:07

why this large amount,

43:09

I think the jury spoke what many of

43:11

us in the country watching Alex Jones

43:13

and his actions even after the

43:15

process, Incor has started. I've been thinking,

43:17

you know, you know, this

43:19

is the amount to try to get

43:22

you to shut up. Right?

43:24

But, you know, and and I have no problem saying

43:26

that, Josh. But, you know, he's

43:28

he's doubling down on things, whether legally, you know, and

43:30

practically, whether he ever

43:32

pays this, he's not gonna be able to pay.

43:34

Right? He's filed for bankruptcy.

43:36

See, you know, he he is such a

43:38

large amount both in Connecticut and then

43:41

also in Texas and, you know,

43:43

he's he's spacing more out

43:46

there. So what's what do the attorneys for

43:48

the plaintiffs do? You wanna get some

43:50

money into the pockets of the families who

43:52

endure this horrific tragedy when

43:56

their children only to have, you know, the

43:58

conspiracy theorists that, you know,

44:00

totally insult them and But,

44:03

you know, they but how to get that on

44:05

a practical standpoint? Maybe you're

44:08

approaching Alex Jones to talk about a

44:10

settlement on the judgment. I don't know to

44:12

get some money into the

44:14

pockets of of these

44:16

families. I don't think he would ever entertain

44:18

that, Josh. But it's it's

44:20

if it's not a practical verdict.

44:23

It's it's definitely speaks

44:26

volumes in terms of a

44:28

symbolic verdict. and I hope it

44:30

gives everyone pause out there who

44:32

may be taking to the airwaves

44:34

and and thinking that they could talk, you

44:36

know, free believe that, you know, the law of defamation is

44:38

out there. And even though that there's anti

44:40

slap laws in in California,

44:43

now also in New York, when you rise to that level of

44:46

defamatory conduct, you you know, you can't be

44:48

taken to the map for it, unheld

44:50

accountable. And I think Al

44:52

shows an has that's

44:54

exactly what happened to Alex Jones. But,

44:56

unfortunately, I don't think he's got the

44:58

message yet.

44:58

Yeah. Yeah. You touched

45:00

on something that III hope you can

45:02

kind of explain for us further because I I don't think a

45:05

lot of people understand how this works that

45:07

you, you know, a a verdict

45:10

this big what oftentimes happens is that attorneys approach each

45:12

other after and they say,

45:14

listen, you know, we're gonna

45:16

appeal this until

45:18

the the but world turns

45:20

cold. You're never gonna see this

45:22

money. But if we can talk about

45:24

something far more reasonable and we'll

45:26

waive our right to appeal

45:28

and, you know, they come to some settled agreement. Explain that to us.

45:30

Howard Bauchner: Sure, I mean, in

45:32

a,

45:32

let's say, a a case with

45:34

less emotion

45:36

and and more reasonable people. Right? Right.

45:38

Clients on the defense

45:39

side. You know, you you have a

45:41

large verdict, but then

45:43

there's there's deep practicality of things. Right? Is it collectible?

45:45

So you can get a judgment in court

45:48

for many million dollars

45:50

against a dependent. But if

45:52

that individual or the

45:54

company ends up going bankrupt, if they can't

45:56

satisfy that judgment, then

45:58

you may up as a creditor in bankruptcy, and you're gonna pennies

46:00

on the dollar, if you will, of of

46:02

the the the judgment that you

46:06

have earned in court by a verdict or even a settlement

46:08

person ends up applying for

46:10

bankruptcy later down the line. So then

46:12

it becomes a

46:14

a question about how to

46:16

best serve the client and how

46:18

to best allow some

46:20

sort of recovery for the client. And

46:22

at that point, the plaintiff's

46:24

attorney may very well approach the defense attorney and say,

46:26

listen, let's talk about the finances

46:28

here. What can

46:30

be satisfied in terms

46:32

of of the judgment, the verdict.

46:34

And, you know, there is

46:36

a give and take. Right? You know, maybe

46:38

you're even gonna take less than what that person can satisfy, so you

46:41

leave some dollars in that person's pocket,

46:43

so they're not completely destitute.

46:46

what happens here,

46:46

I don't know because I it's just such a

46:48

wildcard on the defense side. Right?

46:51

But, meaning, Alex

46:53

Jones has dependent. And

46:54

but also bankruptcy.

46:56

The bankruptcy process itself, you know,

46:59

they become creditors, becomes a

47:01

secured judgemen. It's a very complicated thing.

47:03

And there is a big question mark,

47:05

you know, where are his assets? There are

47:07

also maybe a collections process that

47:09

may unfold. Did Alex Jones, you

47:12

know, does he have assets

47:14

somewhere that can satisfy this

47:16

judgment? You know? I think

47:18

he has publicly on his airwaves

47:20

expressed distrust for the federal, you know, banks for

47:22

banks and things like that. He,

47:25

I know, is he's in cryptocurrency and all

47:27

that. So there may be a process where the plaintiff's

47:30

attorneys start digging and looking

47:32

to see if there's

47:34

any asset that's in

47:36

cryptocurrency or, you know, not in

47:38

banks. I don't No. I'm sorry. You're late. a

47:40

little here. But those would be some of

47:42

the process that may take place for a defendant,

47:44

Al Jones, or otherwise,

47:46

whether it's a judgment or

47:48

verdict,

47:49

large than the

47:51

assets at play. Yeah. Well,

47:52

it sounds like with

47:54

all the appeals and everything that

47:56

could take place after this try and

47:59

the Texas trial and now a third trial taking

48:01

place in Texas. We the plague

48:04

of Alex Jones Alex Jones is

48:06

going to remain with us for a while.

48:08

So we'll continue to watch his

48:10

antics. But in the meantime, that's

48:12

the end of our show for this week. Imran,

48:14

thank you so much for coming on. Where can people

48:16

find out more about you? Josh. Well, first of

48:18

all, thanks for having me. I think this is an

48:20

excellent podcast, and I always love being

48:21

on with you, either

48:24

hair or a law on crime

48:26

or what have you. You could find more about me on our

48:28

firm website that's Idala Law

48:32

AIDALA law dot com

48:34

or my Instagram, which

48:37

is at imran, and

48:40

sorry, e

48:42

s you. And you could find me on Instagram and

48:44

and Facebook, what have you, but

48:46

there you go. Fantastic.

48:48

And I'm your host, Josh

48:50

Ritter. You can find me on Instagram and Twitter

48:52

at joshua Ritter es q. And I

48:54

have a new website, joshua ritter dot com. So

48:56

please come check it out. I try to keep

48:59

it updated. And if you're looking for a lawyer, that's

49:01

where you can find me. And you can find

49:03

our sidebar episodes wherever you get your podcasts.

49:05

And we wanna hear from you. If you've got

49:07

questions or comments you'd like us to address, tweet us

49:09

your questions with a hashtag

49:12

TCD sidebar, and thank you for

49:14

joining us at the

49:17

True

49:18

Crime Daily sidebar.

49:21

Do you own or

49:24

rent

49:25

your home? Sure you

49:27

do. And GEICO

49:28

knows it can be hard

49:30

work. You

49:30

know it's easy bundling policies with GEICO. GEICO

49:33

makes it easy to bundle

49:35

your homeowners or renters insurance along

49:37

with your auto policy.

49:40

It's a good thing too because you already have so much to

49:42

do around your home. Go to geico

49:44

dot com, get

49:45

a quote, and see how

49:47

much you could save. It's

49:49

geico easy. Visit geico dot com today. That's geico

49:52

dot com.

49:53

dot