50 Shades of Not Guilty

And I got the vibe right off the bat.

So she's just going to be one of these, like, I don't remember anything.

I got everything queued up.

I have a complete time stamp.

Like, you said this at this moment.

Like, I got the receipts.

And so now here we start with the receipts.

I said, you would agree that you, at one point in time, you eventually resumed your sexual relationship with my client.

But you also agree, you didn't tell the detective that.

You actually lied about it.

You told him that you hadn't been involved with him for three months since October.

Or, oh, I don't know.

I don't recall.

I don't.

Okay.

Boom.

Got the recording where she's like, yeah, he's just an ex.

And I think this is where the case was won.

Welcome to Another Not Guilty.

I'm David Moore.

Here, along with my fellow public defenders, presenting to you the untold stories of the criminal justice system.

Objection.

That assumes there's justice in the system, which there ain't.

I prefer calling it the American criminal system.

These stories are about the not-guilties public defenders get on a daily basis.

In an unjust criminal system.

With a deck stacked against us.

Another not-guilty.

All right, all right.

Welcome to another episode of Another Not Guilty.

I'm Dallas Gutman, a PD in Cincinnati, Ohio.

And, McKay, we're back after a break.

We haven't done this in a minute.

So it's good to see you.

We're back. It's been a minute.

It's good to see you, too.

I know, I feel a little rusty.

I'm trying to remember how a trial works, what happens after opening everything.

You're going to be great.

I believe in you.

Yeah, yeah.

We're still locked in.

Still credentialed lawyers.

Here with a great guest today, we have Mike DiTardo out of the Sonoda Law Firm in ATL.

Yes, yes, I am.

I work, like you said, for the Sonoda Law Firm.

We're like, people like to call it crumigation.

I think that's the term that's used now.

I've heard that.

Yeah, so it's criminal defense and immigration.

So a lot of our clients, not all, but a lot of our clients either have some sort of status

in the country or none at all.

They get arrested, and now they've got two problems, right?

So one with immigration, one with the regular county they're in.

I handle the second part.

I don't do immigration stuff, but I have to kind of know enough to be dangerous.

But, yeah, that's where I'm at, and that's what our firm does.

Okay, great.

And so you're not a public defender, but you're a defense attorney.

I am.

I am.

And I used to be a prosecutor, so please don't hold that against me.

Boo hiss.

Wow.

Okay.

We welcome all life pathways.

Everybody makes mistakes.

We're only human.

And truth be told, growing up, I wanted, well, first of all, I wanted to be a major league

left fielder, right?

And once I realized that wasn't going to happen, I wanted to be a lawyer.

And I actually grew up wanting to be a criminal defense lawyer.

And I took a couple twists and turns and wound up being a prosecutor for 10 years before I

wound up getting to this side.

You wound up being a prosecutor for 10 years?

You lost the plot.

You lost the plot, Mike.

Yeah.

It was all that power.

I just couldn't give it up.

No, no.

Honestly, really, the truth of the matter is, like, it was just a program I got into at

law school that was probably my best chance of getting a job in a DA's office.

I did it, and I had the good fortune of working for DA's for 10 years that trusted me to do

my job the way I thought it should be done.

If I thought somebody needed to be buried underneath the prison, I would do that.

If I thought a case was bullshit and it needed to be dismissed, I got to do that, too.

Like, I just got to do what I thought the right thing was, whatever that was.

I think that's probably rare.

I mean, this is maybe an unpopular take in the defense community, but I respect that.

I really do.

And I respect getting a job and hustling, and sometimes you just got to do what you got

to do.

But now you're back on the sunny side, and we're happy to have you.

Thank you.

And we are excited about this case.

It sounds like a wild ride, so strap in, people.

Yeah.

We're sitting at the roller coaster.

Do we need to put an explicit content warning?

Explicit content warning.

If you have any kids in the car, I probably don't need to be listening to this one.

Yeah.

Or they're going to get an anatomy lesson today, people.

Without further ado, let's turn to the case.

Um, talk about what your client is charged with.

So he is charged in a nine count indictment.

He has one count of kidnapping with bodily injury, one count of rape, two counts of aggravated

sodomy, one count of obstructing a 911 call, two counts of cruelty to children in the third

degree, one count of battery family violence, and one count of terroristic threats.

So nine counts.

Uh, those top four counts, uh, any one of those four in Georgia, if, if you're convicted,

carries a mandatory minimum 25 years in prison up to a maximum of life, um, in prison.

Um, so all told, he's looking at four life sentences.

Uh, there were four misdemeanors and then the terrorist, I got, I think that's a five year.

So four life sentences plus nine years in confinement.

Wow.

So this is a serious case.

What are the allegations against your client?

Uh, so the allegations are essentially, it centers around him and the mother of his child,

his on again, off again girlfriend.

So client is a 25 year old.

Um, he meets the, and I'll say she's a victim because she was actually a victim in one of

the nine counts.

We decided prior to trial that we were going to enter a guilty plea to the battery charge

because that was the only thing that he was guilty of doing.

So I'll just refer to her as the victim to keep it simple.

When this crime allegedly happened, my client's son was 11 months old.

The victim had a, also had a three year old son from a previous relationship.

So basically in the house, we have three year old, 11 month old, my client and victim.

So the four of them living together, it gets to a point where she gets pregnant again in

about, I think it was July of 2020.

Ultimately, my client decides he's going to move back to Michigan.

And a few days after that, she informs him that she is going to have an abortion.

And so he is very, very upset about that.

It comes into play later on with the trial, but he decides beginning of, I think like end

November, beginning of December, he's going to come back down to Georgia.

Sometimes he's staying with her.

Sometimes he's staying with his best friend, Jamal.

Everything sort of comes to a head on December 30th of 2020.

He's kind of getting this vibe that there's maybe something between the two of them, between

Jamal and the victim.

One day he just finally asks, like, what's going on with you and Jamal?

And the story from the victim is, oh, well, there was one night we were at a club and he

was kind of grinding on me, but that was really it.

December 30th, kind of the day part of that day, he's messaging her.

He's still kind of pissed off about it.

Messaging Jamal.

How could you try to move in on my mother of my child?

All that.

But he calms down and he goes to the house and he decides he's going to try to apologize

for, you know, everything, for reacting the way that he did, but also all of the cheating

over the last several months.

So he writes her these beautiful notes and he buys her flowers and he buys these wine,

her favorite wine coolers, and he has them all there ready for her.

Real quick, real quick.

So is this the day?

So December 30th is the day of the incident, right?

Yes, correct.

Okay.

So are we about to, like, get into the incident right now?

Because right now, all the facts that I've told you are agreed upon.

Like, everybody agrees.

Like, this is what happened.

Cool.

I just want to make sure.

I don't know.

Yeah, I just want to make sure that we're going in that direction.

Okay, cool.

Yeah.

Cool, cool, cool.

So she comes home.

He gives her the flowers, the wine, the notes, the everything.

I'm sorry.

I didn't have any right to be upset with you.

You know, you were just grinding with him on the club.

You know, sometimes that happens.

You know how that goes, right?

Who among us?

Yeah, I mean, come on.

Did the notes say, I'm sorry, I got mad at you for grinding on him on the club?

Later on, the crime scene people, they take pictures of everything, and you do see, like,

ripped up pieces of some of the notes, but unfortunately, they're not in.

Oh, the notes got destroyed.

The notes.

You didn't get to cross, like, and you said, sorry, I understand you were grinding, and

I'm okay with that now.

Yeah, yeah, no, no, it did not.

You saw the ripped up notes, and we'll get to that, but anyway, so he's there, and he

gives her the gifts, whatever, and so as my client tended to do, he's, like, hanging there,

and he's out on his phone, and the victim becomes suspicious of, like, who are you texting?

And so she grabs his phone, and she sees that he's texting one of his many ex-girlfriends,

and so she loses it, and he basically tries to turn it around on her and is, like, well,

let me see your phone, and she's, like, no, you can't have my phone, and he grabs it,

gets into her phone, and what he sees is highly explicit text messages between Jamal and her.

He goes a little further, and he finds racy videos that she is sending him, and then the

final thing that really set him off was he sees a video that she took where she's in a

hotel room with Jamal, and it's pretty clear that they had just had sex, and then kind of

pans over, and you see his son is, like, sitting near the bed.

This is juicy, this is, like, this is, like, Jerry Springer level, like, drama, and you

know what I find, too, is that, like, most of the things that happen between people is

because of, like, toxic relationships like this, like, don't be with them, just go back

to Michigan, like, you guys are not meant to be together.

You're previewing my closing argument already, by the way, you don't even know that, but that

is part of my closing argument.

Yeah, it's not uncommon.

It's common, yeah, it's so uncommon.

The judge is, like, the judge is, like, are you still with her?

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, so...

Okay, and this is still the agreed-upon version?

Oh, yeah, agreed, we all agree on this, yep, mm-hmm.

So now we're at the part, we're the fork in the road where the two sides disagree, so let's

start with the state's version of events.

Okay, state's version of events is basically, at that point, my client goes into a rage, begins

beating her up, punching her in the face, in the body, throwing items in the house against

the wall, punching the wall, basically just, like, going into a complete rage, which is

actually not, maybe not to the extreme that they portray, but that's consistent with what

my client acknowledges that he did.

He does acknowledge that he did hit her, that he threw some items, but not to the extent that

she sort of made it seem like, but the state also claims that, at this point, after he's

going into this rage, that the victim tries to use that opportunity to scoop up her two

boys and make a run for it, basically.

She tries to get into her car to leave the house, at which point my client grabs her, basically

drags her back into the house against her will, threatens to kill her, tells her that if she

tries to leave, that he's going to kill her and kill both of the kids.

So at that point, from that point forward, her excuse for why she never tries to escape

or call or do anything is because he threatened that he was going to kill me or the boys, so

that's why I didn't do anything.

Apparently, what she says is that he then goes and takes the boys and puts them upstairs to

go to bed.

Again, one at this point is three, and the other is 11 months.

And she just waits downstairs patiently, I guess.

Then he comes back down and proceeds to, for the next two to three hours, forcibly rape

her vaginally, anally, forces her to perform oral sex on him downstairs, then goes upstairs

where the two boys are sleeping, apparently, and does more stuff up there, ties her up with

like a robe tie up there, and, you know, rapes her up there, then brings her back downstairs,

and that proceeds on for a couple hours.

And it's just a, you know, like something out of a horror film, basically.

Yeah, that sounds terrifying.

Yeah.

If true.

If true.

If true.

Terrible.

So, eventually, she gets so tired of everything that what she says is, she decides that I'm

just going to take a bunch of morphine pills that I have over here and kill myself, that

you have to promise me if I do that, then you'll take care of our son, and then you'll

make sure that my older son gets to his father, and that you won't hurt the boys, basically.

And she throws back, like, 12 morphine pills.

Before she dies, my client feels bad and decides to allow her to use her phone to call 911 for

help.

And they come up with, because she has bruising on her face, so before she calls, they have

a discussion about how they're going to explain these bruises.

And the explanation is, we'll just say that you got jumped earlier today, if somebody asks

you about the bruises.

Once victim gets to the hospital, she is pretty quickly not believed by this whole I got jumped

story, so they call the police.

The police start questioning her, and then she immediately flips to the version of events

that I just gave you.

So, they arrest him.

That's where you come in?

That's kind of where I come in, yeah.

But, like, important fact is, they do no other investigation at the point that they drop

the warrants, right?

They didn't, they hadn't at that point even gone inside the house to, like, got a search

warrant, like, nothing.

Like, hadn't done anything.

So, yeah, that's kind of where I come in.

So, there obviously is many problems with that story, just, like, off rip, right?

And I'm sure you get into all of them.

What did you think when you heard that version of events?

What were you feeling?

The biggest thing to me that stood out was the nonsensical, suicide-packed part.

Like, that was by far the strangest part, right?

Because if you actually believe that this man is capable of killing you and your two children

in your home, would you as a mother ever agree to just kill yourself and leave these two kids

with said guy?

Right.

You would never do that.

So, like, that to me was the biggest, like, that don't make sense, right?

Then, part of what the victim tells the police is, oh, hey, by the way, one of the times that

he was forcing me to have sex with her, or forcing him to have sex with me, he was recording

it on his cell phone.

So, like, if you get his cell phone, you'll see, you'll see the rape.

And at that point, we didn't have the video or anything from the cell phone.

In the detective's report, he describes, he's seen this video, and in his report, he says

the video shows him brutally raping and sodomizing said victim.

And I'm like, okay, but you know how police are sometimes when they write the reports.

They see it, and they want to see it.

So, I'm like, well, we'll see the video.

So, that kind of was, like, my first impressions of the case.

So, how did you meet your client?

I met him in jail, and he was in custody in this case for three years.

Wow.

He had a bond, but it was, I want to say the bond was, like, $100,000.

And from the jump, he tells me, like, listen, man, I know this sounds crazy, but we had this

sexual relationship where we had this rape roleplay, rape fantasy sexual relationship.

Like, she loved when I would tie her up and, you know, force her to do things, and she

would tell me, no, stop, and I wouldn't stop, and, like, she was into that.

And that, in a nutshell, is most of what happened that night.

He's like, I did hit her.

You know, that part happened because I kind of flew off the handle, but the rest of this

is made up.

How is he feeling when you first meet him?

I felt like he's a pretty well-adjusted, like, normal at this point, but I did throughout

the course of the three years.

Because I think when I came in, he had been in custody for, like, nine months.

Okay.

Wow.

And I...

He's already been in.

He's, like, accepted.

He's, like, it's, like, sinking a little bit.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah.

But he's...

Over the course of the three years, they didn't have to try.

Like, I saw him go, like, mentally, like, go down.

You know?

Like, I saw...

That's hard to watch people, yeah, like, kind of disintegrate.

I've had that before in trials where, yeah, you just watch someone's mental health just,

like, go down the tubes.

It's really tough.

He was pretty hopeful in the beginning because I think he got a good vibe from me and kind

of thought, like, okay, this guy, you know, knows his stuff.

And the county that this case happened in was a county that I was a special victims unit

prosecutor in for, like, four years.

So, like, you know, I feel like he felt pretty good about, like, me helping him and representing

him on the case.

You know the field from having worked in it.

Is this your first trial as a defense attorney?

This is my first trial as a defense attorney, yeah.

Yeah, how are you feeling?

Imposter syndrome, right?

It's like, I was.

It's like, I was the government, right?

So, like, anyone can win on that side.

But, like, this is...

This is what separates the men from the boys or the girls from the women.

But, yeah, first trial.

So, I'm like, okay, and now all your friends are going to be sitting here in the Gwinnett County

courthouse, like, watching you to see, like, all right, yeah, we saw Mike when he was

a prosecutor, but let's see him do it over here.

Right, like, yeah, all eyes on you, exactly.

Like, you jumped right in with, like, two feet on this one.

Can we go back to what your client said happened?

Because I think that you said that they had this, like, rape fantasy.

Right.

Yeah.

But I don't know if you took it all the way to, like, kind of killing yourself.

So, yeah.

Yeah.

Can we go back to what your client said happened?

So, that's essentially his story, is that he did hit her, did flip out at first, but then

things calmed down.

They had consensual rape fantasy sex.

And then in the afterglow of that, essentially, he tells her, like, I could never be with you

now, knowing, like, what you're capable of doing to me.

She flips out, she tries to kill herself, and that's how, that's how that goes.

Yeah.

Whatever version, this is a roller coaster for me, too.

Her version, his version.

Yeah.

So, as far as discovery, what do you get in discovery?

So, I get a lot of pictures.

The CSI person, like, earned their paycheck on this case, because they must have taken,

like, 700 pictures.

There was a lot of stuff that was, like, thrown around, but at a certain point, it's like,

okay, yeah, we get it.

Like, there's another piece of paper that's on the floor.

I also get the pictures of her injury, so she did have some pretty substantial bruising

to her face.

I think she may have had one or two marks on her body, but there were no injuries to

her vaginal area or anus, and that's important for reasons we'll get into later.

They also took photographs of my client's knuckles, which were a little bit red and bruised.

So, they have photos of that.

And then they took his cell phone, and in the cell phone, we've got the videos.

There are a few videos of sexual encounters between the two of them.

I think there were, like, six in total.

Like, five of the six were, like, 20 to 30 second clips of her performing oral sex on

him.

Are they all from that night?

Yeah, all from that night.

Okay.

Yeah.

And then there was one video that was about 20 minutes long.

It's the most, like, calm, chill setting.

They have what I would consider, like, regular, like, vanilla sex.

Like, there's nothing too crazy about it, except she's got bruises on her face, and they're

saying things to each other, you know, as if he had just, like, beaten her up and was

actually raping her.

You do hear certain times where she's like, yeah, I wanted you to, I want you to rape me.

I want you to rape me.

But you can tell, like, the vibe isn't, like, a rape and zombie vibe.

No, no, no, no, no, no, no.

It's like a, everyone's consenting vibe.

Not coming off me, either.

Yeah.

So, like, that's, I'm watching this video, and I'm like, all right, like, I can, like,

I can work with this.

You know, like, this is not at all what the detective represented it to be.

And, you know, her face is bruised to shit, so that's not good, right?

But at the same time, she's, she's not acting at all like what I would think someone who

is actually getting raped.

She's into it.

Yeah, she's into it.

She's acting the way, like, I would think someone who's, yes, who, this is like a Fifty Shades

of Grey type spot.

Right.

Sure.

He had also sent himself from her phone the videos of her and the best friend, so he had

that on his phone.

Here's some not good stuff for us.

So.

That was the good stuff.

Let's talk to him.

So they went ahead and got a search warrant for my client's cell phone.

And at the time, there hadn't really been any cases in Georgia that said, like, hey, you

can't just go get a search warrant and dump the person's entire phone and look through it

if you only have reason to believe there's just one little thing on there.

Is there a case about that now?

It does now exist.

And it came, the case came down, like, right before our trial happened.

Honestly, as a prosecutor, I would be sitting there sometimes going through a defendant's

phone extraction and I'm like, this kind of seems wrong.

Like, I don't, I like, I don't know of a law that says I can't do this, but like, it

seems wrong when I'm like, just because a person's cell phone, like, that's, that's

like their stuff, you know, like, that's their, that's their life.

Well, I mean, you think about it in the context of like a search warrant, like you can't go

looking for other things.

I mean, if you, if you find them, you find them.

And if it's like within the scope of what you're looking for, like, but you know, if

you're looking for a body, you can't look in a drawer, like, you know, and that's like

the same type of idea.

And it comes down to probably to particularize too.

Like if, if the phone is a house, then like this folder that the photo is like, it's not

you're, you're, you could be in the wrong room.

Yeah.

Right.

A hundred percent.

So, but like, so in this case, they got a search warrant for his phone only because

the victim tells the police, he took a video of the crime.

So go find that video.

So you know you're looking for that video.

Correct.

But they extract all of the data on his phone, not just the videos and the technology exists.

Cellbrite will allow you to, to get specific things.

Right.

So they find something bad in this dump.

Yes.

Then what it is, is he's searching on his phone, how to get away with murder.

Oh my God.

Never search that.

Okay.

Listeners never search that.

Don't search that.

Don't, you don't want, just figure it out yourself.

He also searches, how easy is it to get away with murder?

No.

He searches domestic violence, GA, I'm assuming for Georgia.

And then what should I use to tie her up?

That could go.

Okay.

That could cut either way.

I don't hate that one as much.

I wind up winning a motion to significantly limit the amount of evidence that they're allowed

to use from the phone.

But my explanation for those things were going to be, he wanted to kill his best friend.

He wasn't trying to find out how to kill the victim.

He was thinking about killing the best friend, which is, which is what he told me.

Also, he's not charged with attempted murder, right?

100%.

Thank you, Dallas.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Thank you.

100%.

100%.

Not charged with murder.

It's not illegal to think about killing somebody, okay?

Yes.

Yes.

Just think.

No, you're correct.

Yeah.

Yeah.

We're getting dangerously close, but yeah.

So yeah, thought crime.

So yes, it's not like, my defense was going to have to be like, it's not a crime to just

think about killing somebody.

But also, the person he was trying to think about killing was the best friend.

He wasn't going to kill the mother of his child.

But anyway.

Ladies and gentlemen, he was trying to kill someone else.

Not her.

And then, also in the phone, there were texts to other people that he was sending, saying

like, he was ready to kill somebody that night.

Once he had found out about the grinding, the story that they gave him about, oh, shoot.

He was texting people being like, I'm going to have to kill somebody tonight.

That's like a colloquial phrase.

I agree.

I agree.

Come on.

Who hasn't said that?

Come on.

Yeah, I will say, we're reaching a peak level of colloquial uses of things.

Yeah.

How to get away with murder.

Everybody Googles that.

Isn't there a show?

I think there was a show called How to Get Away With Murder, right?

Yeah.

He's looking, he's trying to find the new episode of the show.

Yeah.

Yeah, sure.

Who among us hasn't Googled that five times in one night?

Yeah.

Yeah.

Hold on.

But I also, what I also find eventually, and there is a significant amount of data on

the extraction, as you probably know, but like, I also do find text messages between the

two of them where they're talking in very graphic detail about this rape fantasy that they would

have where she's telling him, I really, really like it when you, when you, when I tell you

to stop and you don't stop.

Right.

And, you know, we don't use safe words.

That's probably dangerous.

She's like, I want this to be unsafe.

Yes.

I want this to be like, and then dangerous, take me to the edge and back.

She, she sends him a text, which I wound up using in closing where she goes, LOL, toxic

AF.

So I find what my client told me was going to be in his phone.

I eventually find it.

And then I'm very excited.

Obviously I bring it to him at the jail and he's like, I told you.

Um, but like, cause before I found these text messages, I'm like, yeah, of course, like the

jury is never going to believe you.

Right.

Of course they're going to be like, yeah, of course you're saying it's a rape fantasy, like

actual evidence of it.

She's probably never going to admit it.

Like, but now I have like proof.

So that's basically what I get in discovery.

Do you do any of your own investigation?

I tried contacting the victim.

You know, one of the other things that we're doing on the front end is trying to see like,

is this a case that's going to go to trial or might they offer something that like

everyone can live with to minimize the risk that he's facing?

So yeah.

Were there offers?

There were offers, but not like the best offer was 25 years in prison to follow by a life

on probation as a sex offender.

So that eventually was like the best offer.

So what did he say when you brought him that offer?

It's like, no, absolutely not.

Now what I was, what I was lobbying for was something more in the range of like 10 to 15

years.

Um, he was a younger guy.

He would survive that.

Now he would be a sex offender and everything that comes with that.

But if he loses, like he's never getting out.

What's the, um, exposure on the battery?

One year.

It's a misdemeanor.

I will say 25 is a rough offer, but four of these charges have a 25 year mandatory minimum.

Is that right?

Man, it's where a minimum.

Uh, I think the way that they alleged it, they would not merge because I think they took

the kidnapping with bodily injury, no, the rape, and then the two ag sodomies, they did

one for anal, one for oral.

So no, I don't believe they would merge.

They charge this from every angle.

No pun intended.

But all.

Yeah.

So I do, I, in terms of investigation, I tried to reach out to her mainly because I wanted

to see like, do you really want to see him go to prison or like, what's the deal here?

But she never responded.

So whatever, that's fine.

And then I also, part of the discovery was, I forgot to mention this.

So recordings where the detective's interviewing the victim at the hospital, and then he does

a follow-up later on at the police station, like a week later.

And in the follow-up, he mentions, yeah, I went to your neighbor's house to see if there

was any like surveillance videos or anything.

And it looks like one of your friends like came to your house that night.

Now, he didn't mention that in his written report, and I didn't have a copy of any surveillance

videos.

Like, so like, in terms of investigation, I'm like, well, I wonder if I can find this video

and like what it might show.

So I drive out to the neighborhood, knock on the door, and talk to this guy.

And he's like, yeah, I don't have it anymore.

And the detective came out, and I showed it to him.

And he said he was going to come back to get a copy of it, and he just never did.

So there's someone in the driveway during the time where this whole like hostage situation

was supposed to be going on?

Apparently, according to the only person that, yes, he's the only one that saw it, other than

I guess the neighbor, but he didn't really remember what it was.

He had like no significance, yeah.

He just handed over his phone that showed the recording, and the detective watched it,

and that was it.

So yes.

So I made note of him.

I subpoenaed him just in the event the detective tried to lie or say that, oh, yeah, I reached

out to the neighbor, and he didn't get back with me, or something like that.

So I sent him up for that.

But that was really it in terms of investigation, other than just like reviewing all the discovery

and having everything ready to go.

So then you're like, you've rejected offers.

We're going into the trial phase.

So before trial, were there any significant motions or any pretrial hearings?

Yes, huge motions.

So I mentioned that the Supreme Court of Georgia ruled shortly before our trial that essentially

where they had gotten a search warrant for someone's cell phone and requested all data,

and the Supreme Court held, that's a general warrant.

You can't do that.

You have to specifically tailor it to what it is that you have PC for, because these programs

are capable of distinguishing that, right?

They can sort by dates.

They can sort by text versus videos versus whatever.

But yours was a little bit different, right, because they did, the warrant was just for the

videos, right, but they got everything?

Yes, correct.

No, like the affidavit, their probable cause affidavit just referenced the video, but their

request said all data.

Oh, okay, okay.

So it's on point.

Okay.

Yeah.

So I file a motion to suppress everything from the cell phone based on, it's a general warrant.

I kind of made a mistake here.

I had assumed that the state was going to call the detective and then call the person that

does the extraction, the actual expert, right?

And this is one of the things, like the lessons I had to learn as a defense attorney, because

as the state, I was always like, I'm the one putting up the case.

I'm the one putting up the witnesses.

I know who I'm calling and I'm just like focused in on that.

And as a defense attorney, you can't count on the state calling somebody.

So I had assumed that that's who they were going to call those two people and that I would

be able to question this expert about the technology that the tech is capable of.

If you're just looking for videos, you can get just videos.

And he never came.

And the only person who testified was the detective.

And the detective just flat out lied about what the technology was.

I thought I was still going to win that motion, but I did not.

I lost the motion to suppress.

So at that point, all of the data from the cell phone is in.

And so I file a motion in limiting basically saying like, only allow, only allow them to

introduce the video, which by the way, I kind of wanted the video to come in.

I know.

I was going to say, I think that's a better way to do it because if you suppress everything

and then you introduce the video that's on the cell phone, I think you kind of open the

door to the rest of the cell phone.

Correct.

Where now the cell phone's coming in and you've limited it.

So I think that's a better way.

It all worked out.

Yeah.

Oh, and there were, uh, there was a call history too, where the victim story is my client takes

her phone and holds it and does not give it to her for the whole night.

Yet her call, the call log for my client's phone shows multiple calls throughout the night

between the two phones.

And there was one phone call that was like a minute and a half long.

So that was also like very strange to me.

Like why?

Between her phone and his phone?

Yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Oh, well, and they're together?

Well, they are by both accounts.

Yes.

They're both in the house that night.

Now by her account, he has both of her phone.

He has both of her phone and his phone.

We also filed a motion to introduce rape shield evidence.

Can you explain what that is?

So rape shield basically is saying that to the extent the defense is going to try to bring

up anything regarding sexual history, partners, sexual amours, anything like that, they have

to file a pretrial motion about that and it has to fit under certain criteria.

Otherwise it doesn't come in.

And so like in our case, we were going to be bringing up evidence of the two of their

previous, uh, their sexual relationship, right?

That they had this rape fantasy, uh, situation to explain that in fact, what happened here

was consensual, which is one of the permissible allowed purposes of, of that kind of evidence.

So we won on that end.

Um, so this is like a procedural motion that you have to have to put your defense on.

Correct.

We also, there were also videos.

So in her interview with the detective, she tells the detective, yeah, um, we have not been

sexually involved in three months.

Um, this is the father of my child.

We're not involved at all.

Um, she's definitely painting it as if like they had a clean break back in October when

he first goes to Michigan and she has the abortion when in fact there is evidence on her cell phone

that they were still engaged in a sexual relationship, both, uh, from afar and then ultimately when

he comes back to Georgia.

So, um, that was also something that we were going to put in and needed to, to, to file

that motion to, um, to make sure we were good to do that.

And then, um, there was also evidence that during her sane, um, she said that she had had sex

with the best friend, uh, like two days before, or I think a day before this.

So, um, to the extent that they were going to try to argue that there was any sort of injury

to her body, um, that would be something that would be permissible, that would be allowed

under, um, the rape shield statute.

But there's evidence that they had sex too.

So, right.

That can be, yeah.

But, but if they were, if they were going to try to make the argument that like she had

some sort of injury and my client caused it because of the force that was involved,

we needed to be able to show, well, he wasn't the only person that she had had sex with

in the recent, you know, last day or two.

Um, so, uh, that was the rape shield.

And then here's the thing that's like never happened to me before.

And I don't know if it will happen again.

So run up to trial.

I told you all the different counts that he's facing.

Um, one of the counts that he's charged with, one of the misdemeanors is cruelty to children

in the third degree.

All right.

Which in Georgia, that means, um, anytime you commit a crime of family violence in front

of a child, if they can see it or hear it, or if you commit a forcible felony, like rape

or aggravated sodomy, where a child can see it or hear it, that's cruelty to children in

the third degree.

And they charged my guy with two counts of that for both kids.

Correct.

The problem with that is there was no evidence whatsoever that this three-year-old saw or

heard anything.

In fact, they eventually interviewed the three-year-old and he talks about seeing the, like my client

hitting her.

But he, after that says like, oh, and then, um, he uses my client's name and says he takes

me upstairs and he put me down and gave him my Batman toy.

Like nothing about seeing a rape or he was on mommy or anything like that.

So, but they charged him with this count of cruelty, third degree anyway.

So, and the run up to trial, I think that the state realized like, uh, actually we have

no evidence to prove that count.

And they wound up not calling the three-year-old to testify anyway.

Good for them.

I mean, honestly, that three-year-old's been through enough.

Sure.

But part of my defense was going to be this, this was, this case was a rush to judgment.

You know, that was going to be one of my defenses.

In fact, um, it was, I think 13 minutes.

The detective had been on scene and talked to the victim for 13 minutes before he starts

making comments to her about like, don't worry about, uh, the defendant.

Like I'm going to be taking him to some very fun places.

You're not going to have to worry about him before he even like goes to talk to him.

He sounds like he's going to sodomize him.

Yeah.

Right.

Um, so, so the state moves to null process or dismiss count seven, which was one of the

counts of cruelty children, third degree, because they don't want to have to get up in front

of the jury and be like, uh, actually we don't have any evidence to prove that count.

Yeah.

So they make their motion right before we start jury selection.

The judge turns to me, I'm assuming you have no objection, Mr.

DeTartle.

I'm like, actually I do.

I object.

And she's like, why?

And I explain, I go, judge, part of my trial strategy is going to be that this case was this,

the detective completely rushed to go ahead and arrest my client.

And the state just rubber stamped everything that this detective said.

They did no investigation because if they had, they would have seen the truth of what this,

this situation was.

And she's kind of sat there and thought about it for a little while.

She's like, well, Mr.

DeTartle, you're always, you're always making some creative arguments.

I, you know what?

You don't want me to dismiss it.

I won't dismiss it.

So I'm like, great.

They didn't dismiss it?

She didn't, did not dismiss the count.

Okay, but that's bold though.

That's extremely bold.

What does that charge carry?

It's a misdemeanor.

It's really not the order of the house.

If it's a misdemeanor, I understand using it for trial strategy.

If it was one of the, one of the 25 to life, don't dismiss the ring.

We want to try it with that charge on.

Bam.

Yeah, so those were, those were all the pre-trial motions.

So where, so where in time are we?

So, uh, the incident is December, 2020.

So now with these motions, yeah, where are we?

We do the motions.

I think the motions to suppress all the cell phone stuff happened like early in 2023, but

then the rest of everything else kind of happened closer in time to when the trial was, which

I want to say was like November, 2023.

So now we're like, okay.

Three years almost.

So, and you said your client kind of took a downhill turn.

So can you talk a little bit about how he's feeling during these motions?

Yeah, he's, uh, he kind of started to be like, well,

cause I was, again, still trying to see whether there was some sort of plea offer that the

state would make that he would maybe be interested in to minimize his exposure.

And he's like, he kept saying, I'm either dying in prison or I'm getting out after the

trial.

I'm dying in prison or I'm getting out after the trial.

I was like, how are you feeling at this point?

You've won some good stuff.

And you've got a lot.

I think you've got a favorable motions outcome.

I really did.

Yeah.

I feel, I feel like I have a shot, but the big thing that in my mind, I'm just like, can

I find 12 people who are not just going to say to themselves, well, if he, if he beat

her up and punched her in the face and he must've done everything else.

So moving into jury selection in this County, are you hopeful that you can find jurors like

that?

Yeah.

So Gwinnett County in the last probably eight years or so, there had been a significant, you

know, influx of, of, of a more diverse jury pool that I did feel like, yeah, like I feel,

I feel good about my chances of, of getting a jury that's going to consider things from

all angles and not just take the perspective of like, well, if the police said he did it,

then he must've done it, you know, type of thing.

Is it judge directed or do you get to kind of pitch your case during it?

Oh yeah.

Oh good.

Because the last couple of people we've interviewed have been judge directed.

So this is going to be fun.

I like talking about it.

Yeah.

Take us there.

Yeah.

One of the things I wanted to see was like, is there anybody out there that's not aware

of this whole like 50 shades of gray women and men sometimes consensually engage in this

rape fantasy sex thing?

Like, is there anyone who's like, no way that that there's, that's not a thing.

Right.

I actually did get a couple of hands on that.

So including one kid who did make it onto the jury and he was, oh my God.

So this kid is, I think he was like barely 18, whatever the minimum age is.

I think it's 18.

He was homeschooled.

He put his hand up on this question.

And oh God, he got a real lesson, right?

He's like, he gets to know, he's like, oh, I have jury duty.

The whole jury.

He's like, mom, why didn't you tell me?

Well, what really, when he really was in for it was like, so he actually got picked and

I, I didn't really mind him too much because I, I, I kind of had him as one of those, like,

he's going to go with the flow people.

But apparently when the, uh, when the sex tape, as I was calling it, the sex tape was

playing, he was like, so.

But I think that's not one of those questions that's like, if people haven't heard of it

or don't think it's a thing, it's not something to strike on really.

Like if they don't agree with it, maybe, but if it's like, I've never heard of it, then

maybe it's a good opportunity to educate about it.

But yeah, I was mainly just being like, well, if there's someone that's like, that's, that

can't possibly be what actually happened.

Right.

So, but, but I didn't really get too many on that.

The other question that I asked just point blank, you know, and I like to try to just

put my soul out there for the jurors and be just like completely as honest as possible.

It's like, I want to be honest with you guys.

I'm very, very worried.

I'm representing this man for his life.

And I just feel like he's, he's going to plead guilty to the battery charge.

I'm just telling you right now, before this trial starts, he is entering a plea of guilty

to the battery charge because that's the only crime he committed.

And I'm worried that because he's entering that plea, that the juries in this case are

not going to actually consider whether he's guilty of the other crimes he's charged with.

Does anybody, does anybody feel like that might be the case for you?

You know, because I was, I was testing, testing that out because that was really my main fear.

Did you get anybody on that?

I did.

I did get, I did get a few.

Yeah.

And you know, like all of these questions, I kind of always suspect that they're not being

completely honest.

Um, but yeah, that's a good, that's a good deselection tool though.

That is put your biggest fear out there and see like what comes back.

And this is a case where, you know, they kind of bungled the investigation.

So you're going to go into that.

Did you talk about, you know, who believes law enforcement, no matter what, who would take

it?

Okay.

Did you get anyone on that?

I asked, yeah, I asked this question.

Does anyone believe that the police, they've just faced too much criticism in the recent

couple of years?

Cause remember this is 2020 or not that, you know, the trial happened in 2023, but you know,

it's not too far off of that.

No, we're still, we're still in the thick of it.

Yeah.

That's a really smart way to word that.

Yeah.

Is anybody like, instead of just being like, you know, are you pro law enforcement?

Like, does anyone think the police, they're kind of catching a little too much shit,

you know, like anybody?

Um, so yeah, and I got, I got several people that put their hands up on that.

Um, it's not per se disqualifying, but it's something that, you know, it's okay.

Let's maybe be careful of that person.

How was the prosecutor's, um, voir dire?

I didn't really think that there was anything out of the ordinary there.

Do you like your jury at the end?

I do.

I do like them, but we'll see.

But again, the other thing I talked to my client about is really, you got four counts

here and we got to go four for four, right?

You can't go three for four, you know, you go three for four, that's a loss.

How's he feeling at the end of voir dire?

He's scared and, you know, but he's kind of also like in this weird mindset of like,

I'm going to prison for the rest of my life or I'm going home.

Like at least it's going to be over with.

Getting into opening, state opens first, then you, right?

Uh-huh.

How was the states open?

Tell us about that.

So first he starts by mentioning an excluded text message.

So he talks about something that he wasn't supposed to talk about, which I don't object

in the moment, but he talks about one of the text messages that day where he's like, I

might have to kill someone later and that wasn't what's supposed to come in.

Right.

You don't, you don't object in the moment?

I don't object.

What's the strategy of that?

I don't want to draw more attention to it because I know what's going to happen.

And the reality is I'm not asking for a mistrial because my client is, is done with it.

Ready to go.

He wants this case going.

And I don't, I don't think that like that's going to change the outcome.

And so what I'm going to do is I'm going to bring it up once he's done with his opening,

which I did.

And the judge scolded him and he tried to be like, oh, I didn't, I didn't understand that

part of the order.

I'm sorry.

Oh, wait, that, that was included too?

That specific message is to, to mention that when it's not coming into evidence is, I mean,

to me, it sounds reversible.

Like it's, that's so incendiary, but also it's in the, it's in opening is so much happens

between opening and when they're deliberating that if it's never mentioned again, maybe they

forget about it.

Um, so he talks, he says that then he says this and I actually quoted it because I wanted

to tell you what I said in response later on.

He goes, by the end of this case, I believe that you're going to look at rape the same

way, uh, as violence as someone with a black eye and treat it the same rape is about power

and control.

So he's basically saying like rape and a black eye, same thing.

So when I get up in my opening, I said, uh, prosecutor said at the beginning that I think

you'll find that rape is the same as a black eye.

And I know that they're hoping that you buy that because a black eye is the only thing that

they have.

And it's the only law that my client broke.

So I was able to sort of throw that back, uh, at him.

He also said in his opening that the older child was around to, to witness what happened,

which is definitely not true.

And he later had to concede in closing argument.

Like, yeah, I remember I said that I was wrong.

And then he said that there's blood everywhere, which there was not blood everywhere in this

case.

So he was, he was promising.

He was, he was writing checks.

He wasn't going to be able to cash.

He also, the other thing he did in opening and he continued to do it until close, which I

thought was a bad strategy was he was focusing on the rage that my client felt about the abortion.

And so he wasn't talking about what I thought was the most logical motive for my client to

have actually done the things that the victim said that, uh, he did, which was he was pissed

off she was banging his best friend.

Yeah.

And had found out that night.

Correct.

Like how much, how much motive motive?

Yes.

Yes.

The thing that happened two months ago or the thing that happened two seconds ago.

Like, what do you think?

We're all looking for who did this.

Five years ago, she borrowed his car and it got out.

Okay.

And then yours was the, like throwing it back at them.

And then was there any other zingers in there?

Uh, no, I just, and I wanted to as many times as I possibly could put these texts, um, where

they're talking about the rape fantasy stuff and where she's talking about all the specifics

of the non-consensual things that she was really into doing.

Like I wanted them to see that as much as possible.

So they kept, they kept that open mind as much as possible.

Like I'm a very big believer that you open strong.

Like you gotta put it out there.

Don't hide anything.

Don't like, Oh, I'm going to save it for this beautiful aha moment on close or on cross

or whatever.

Like, no, because I do think like most jurors, they start to make up their mind in openings.

And so make sure you can cash the checks that you're writing for sure, but like, don't

hold anything back.

Right.

So it's also when they're paying the most attention probably a hundred percent like after

opening, they're like, Oh God, we got to.

Sit here for a week.

And I think opening so powerful because jurors can read energy.

Like the genuineness with which we speak is palpable.

And even if you don't remember what was said, you remember how you felt.

A hundred percent.

Yeah.

So I, I, yeah.

Open strong.

I mentioned the 13 minutes, 46 seconds.

You know, I mentioned that a couple of times, 13, like basically tell them like, unfortunately,

ladies and gentlemen, we didn't have an actual investigation in this case because 13 minutes

and 46 seconds and detective made up his mind.

So like you're our detectives for $25 a day.

I'm sorry, but this is your job now and you're going to have to do it.

And I'm going to be here to help you along the way.

But, um, you know, that's kind of where we're at.

So, um, that's pretty much what I did.

Refrain.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Then we get into witnesses, right?

So the state starts calling witnesses.

Who do they call first?

Uh, so crime scene tech guy.

So that, or girl, I think, um, nothing really crazy there.

Just a lot of pictures and a lot of apparent blood.

And I verified that they in fact didn't test any of the blood.

And also, of course, we don't know when that blood got on the things that it got on, but

there wasn't a lot.

I mean, it just said that there was a lot, but there was not, there was like a couple of

spots of blood on the carpet and maybe like something on a

road, but that was the prosecutor's blood everywhere, a couple of spots that.

And in the, the SANE, there was, um, evidence of, of blood in her vaginal area, but it was,

it was explained by the SANE as menstrual blood.

If it was not from an injury and the prosecutor in his clothes was like, I know the SANE said

it was menstrual blood, but I, I don't, I don't believe that.

You can't say that.

I let him say it.

Cause I was like, sure.

I'm not going to object.

If your opinion, that's ridiculous.

I know they said my client raped her, but I don't believe that.

Okay.

He was pretty frustrated, frustrated at that point.

Yeah.

So the first one was the crime scene and they were CSI crime scene investigator.

And they were just talking about the pictures they took and some blood they didn't test.

Okay.

Yep.

Next was doctor from the hospital that treated the victim.

Um, and there, there weren't any bone fractures.

The worst I think she had was a contusion and then the bruises.

So, um, the one thing that was weird that they opened the door on is remember she took like

nine to 10 morphine pills at once.

Yeah.

And she didn't get to the hospital for like an hour or so.

So, so they asked the doctor, is there any reason that someone who took that many pills

wouldn't die without Narcan?

And the doctor's like, well, if they had built up a very high tolerance to opiates, that would

be one reason.

Wow.

And I'm like, so basically you're saying like your, your girl's popping pills.

Well, I mean, if you have morphine pills just laying around, it's probably not your first

rodeo with pills, but, but yeah, like I was, and then so, so on, so on cross, I was, I,

I just, doctor, I just want to make sure I heard you right.

When you testified, did she say that the, the, that she was because of built up tolerance

to opiates?

Is that what, I didn't, I didn't hear you.

You know, so I made sure to do that, but that was pretty much it for doc.

Okay.

Next was the victim.

So she went through the history of the relationship and kind of throughout direct, she was very,

there was very dramatic pauses and batting her eyes.

And she was definitely like playing the role of someone who had, you know, been brutalized

in the way that she claimed that she was.

Well, she's got to sell it.

I mean, at this point, sitting in the chair in the witness stand across from like the father

of your child who you're trying to put away for life, you got to sell it.

Yeah.

So here is the, oh my God moment of the, of her direct.

So we get to the point where the state introduces the video of the sex, the sex tape, as I call

it, the video of the crime, as the state calls it.

We'll call it the sex tape for all intents and purposes.

I like that.

At various points of this video, she appears to be having an orgasm.

The prosecutor says, asks her, it sounds like you were having an orgasm of some kind of that

kind of stuff at different points in that long video.

Was that, uh, were you experiencing that?

Her response?

God, I was kind of waiting for it to be over.

I did have an orgasm once.

I thought about my kids most of the time.

Oh my God.

Whoa.

I wasn't probably going to go there.

I was just going to let the video speak for itself.

They went there.

She's like, no, it was legit orgasm.

Which of course, the medicine, the science tells you is, is, is absolutely a possible thing

in scenarios where someone is legitimately being raped and it's not consensual.

Sometimes the body does that.

Like, I know that as having done this job, but like for her to be like, I was thinking

of my kids, it was just like, it was weird.

So yeah, she was doing too much there.

She didn't have to do all that.

Yeah.

Yeah.

So, so she kind of goes through everything and you know, she, she sticks to the script

for the most part.

So again, on direct, she's very, very gentle and she's got to take breaks and she's doing

all that.

Right.

So I get up on cross.

So the first question I asked her, it's really just like, I'm trying to see how cooperative

she's going to be with me.

I go, did you, um, so did you review your, the statements that you had made to law enforcement

prior to testifying today?

Did you have an opportunity?

Her response was not really.

Okay.

Okay.

So I go, okay.

Um, well, what do you mean by not really?

Is that a yes or a no?

No, I can't recall.

So like right off the bat, I know that this is going to be a, I don't recall.

I don't remember.

Please ask the question again so I can stall and think of what my answer is going to be.

Like I can tell.

And I'm like, great.

Because the thing I was most worried about was she was going to get up there and she was

going to own everything.

She was going to own the text messages.

She was going to say, absolutely.

In the, in the, in the context of my consensual sexual relationship with your client, we did

engage in this role play, but it was never after a time where he beat me about the face.

That's how I expected her to testify.

And had she testified that way, I feel like she would have had significantly more, you know,

more credible.

Well, one thing's for sure is that alleged victims who are lying are not slick at all.

No.

They're just not.

They think they are.

They think they're getting ahead of you.

They think they're seeming genuine.

They're just not.

So yeah.

And I got the vibe right off the bat.

So that she's just going to be one of these, like, I don't remember anything, which is,

which is a good thing for me because I like to be Mr. I have the receipts guy.

I got everything queued up.

I have a complete timestamp.

Like you said this at this moment, like I got the receipts.

That's the best feeling.

You're like, okay, let's go.

So now here we start with the receipts.

So, um, we agreed.

I said, you would agree that you at one point in time, you eventually resumed your sexual

relationship with my client after this whole abortion argument, right?

You'd agree with that.

She's like, yeah, I agree.

And I said, but you also agree.

You didn't tell the detective that you actually lied about it.

You told him that you hadn't been involved with him for three months since October.

Oh, I don't know.

I don't recall.

I don't.

Okay.

Boom.

Got the recording where she's like, yeah, he's, he's just an ex.

And so I immediately provide her with like right off the bat, you're going to deny something

that you know, you lied about.

I'm going to be able to make you look down in front of the jury.

So like set the tone already where, so then instead of her just flat denials, now it's

changing into the more like, I don't recall, or I don't remember, but I'm still, every

time she's lying about something, I've got the, the, the receipts.

I started showing her the texts, like, do you, is this your text?

Is this your time?

And she's taking forever to read over these texts that are, they're not taking three seconds

to look at it.

It's like three words.

Yeah.

She's very clearly, and I talk about this in closing argument.

She's looking at, it's a, it's a printout of three messages, her message, his message,

hers message.

And she's looking at it for four minutes.

She's like, what do I say?

What do I say?

Exactly.

Exactly.

I'm telling the jury, I told him in close, I go, she's thinking about what, how she's

going to lie her way out of it.

Yeah.

Instead of just, if she were genuinely, you know, if she had actually been the victim

of the things that she says that she was a victim of, she would have just got up there

and been like, yeah, I texted him that.

And like, yeah, we did that, but this, this was a different thing.

Like he went, he took it to another level and I've, I was in such fear for my life that

I just kind of went along with it, but I did not actually consent to it.

Like instead of playing it that way.

So she's lying about a lot of stuff she's denying and can't recall.

And, um, um, did she ever like get that you had all the receipts and she stopped lying?

No, no, not really.

That's painful.

Yeah.

That's painful for her.

Yeah.

Exciting for you and painful for her.

Yeah.

And I think this is where the case was won, honestly, like, because it's, it was just such

a terrible performance by her on cross.

Um, and then I sat down and then no redirect from the state, which that's always a good

sign for you.

Like, they're just like, we want this to be over with.

So that was the, that was the victim.

Great work.

Then we had a crime tech who had just gotten, they went ahead and got a buccal swab from

my client and tested it.

And his DNA was in her, in her exam.

Surprise, surprise.

So they, but they called a witness to say that.

So that was cool.

And then they had the sane who happens to be a man.

Can you, sorry, can you just explain what a sane is?

Yeah.

Sexual assault nurse examiner.

Okay.

Okay.

They do like rape kits.

They examine rape kits.

Okay.

The state kept making this big thing of like, so ladies and gentlemen, the sane, he's,

it's a man.

We just want to let you know that he happens to be a man.

I'm like, okay, I get it's unusual, but like they kept having this weird thing.

The sane is a man?

The sane is a man.

It is a man.

And the state like brought it up 20 times?

Yes.

So they call the sane and the sane testifies no redness or injury in the vaginal assessment.

The bleeding was, but it was a menstrual cycle that was going on.

Okay.

He said the most that he said was bleeding could have possibly been accelerated by the

assault, but there was no active bleeding.

So I, my opinion, it was menstrual blood.

That's what he said.

No injury or redness anywhere on the genital areas.

Now here's a, here's a, like a little pro tip I like to use.

So a lot of times when there's no injury for something that people might think that there

should be injury for, they'll like to throw out the little stats, right?

So the stat that they threw out here was, you know, less than 10% of sexual assault

patients actually show any genital injuries, even though a sexual assault actually occurred

or could have occurred.

They like to say that.

They testify to that.

Do you object to that?

If that's what their research and their experience tells them, then yes.

But I think the better way to attack that is to say less than 10% of sexual assault patients

actually show injuries, even though they've been sexually assaulted.

How do you know that those people were actually sexual assaulted?

Like what, what, how does a study get that number?

Are you, you're just assuming they were assaulted because they said it?

And usually the answer is like, well, yeah, they reported they were sexually assaulted.

They were sexually assaulted.

Yeah.

Okay.

So you're not accounting for the possibility that those people are making that up, right?

Nope.

And they'll usually like admit to that.

And then this, the prosecutor asked him a question that I think the guy was completely

surprised by.

And he asked him, what is Stockholm syndrome?

And the same was like, um, I'm familiar with that.

I don't know the exact definition or the research articles, but I know that Stockholm syndrome

is a way that a victim will go along with the perpetrator or the captor just to get the event

over with and they'll act like they're possibly enjoying it.

And they're being friendly with the person, but it's not necessarily how they would act

when the situation doesn't occur.

That is literally what his quote was, which is not Stockholm syndrome at all.

So when I get up on cross, the last thing that I asked him is about, did you diagnose the

victim with Stockholm syndrome?

And he says, well, no, I didn't, I didn't formally diagnose with Stockholm syndrome.

I go, well, correct me if I'm wrong, uh, but isn't Stockholm syndrome a situation when

the person that is captured has no previous relationship with their captor at all?

Like they've never, they don't know who they are.

Oh yeah, yeah, that's true.

And, and in actuality in Stockholm syndrome, the person refuses to cooperate with the authorities

because they sympathize with their captors, right?

Like that's Stockholm syndrome.

And that's not what happened here, right?

She reported that my client did these things to her.

Yeah, yeah, that's true.

And I go, so the, the Stockholm syndrome thing was just something that the prosecutor just

asked you about, but you would agree that that's, that's nonsense, right?

He's like, yeah, yeah.

This guy's like almost a defense witness, like almost.

Yeah.

Uh, I also was able to get out through him that, um, she claimed that she had been strangled

and blacking out and woke up to my client penetrating her.

Uh, but she never testified to that.

And there were no strangulation injuries on her exam, even though, um, she was asked one

to 10 level of force.

How is he strangling you?

She said eight and there were no marks on her neck whatsoever.

So we got that out.

Um, so yeah, that was the, um, that was the scene.

All right.

Anyone else?

Uh, and then we get the detective.

This is where, uh, as a prosecutor, I would get cases from detectives like this and I wanted

to strangle them with an eight out of 10 force because they would do terrible jobs.

And so like, I would just have to clean up their messes, right?

As a prosecutor.

Right.

As a defense attorney now, I proudly do not have to do that anymore.

No, you love it.

It's good for the case.

I get to come at them.

Yes.

And so this poor guy got like my pent up 10 years of frustration with every law enforcement

officer that ever did a half-assed job on one of my cases.

Like I, I came at him.

I don't think it was as significant of an issue in the case as the way that the victim testified,

but I do think it mattered.

So the photographs of my client's knuckles, remember I told you about that?

Yeah.

So I had been provided digital copies of these photos and you see, again, he's biracial.

Um, so he's, he's a little lighter skin, uh, black male.

You can see that there's some, some redness on, on his knuckle area.

Okay.

So the, the detective is the one that took these photos.

So right.

They're going to publish these photos to the jury and now they have printed them out.

And right before they're about to show them to the detective, they show them to me really

quick.

And I'm looking at these photos and his knuckles are like, they looked like there's blood on

them.

And I'm like, hold on a second.

Like these are not, that's not the same photograph that, that was taken.

And like, these have been, I'm not saying it was intentional, but like, this doesn't look

anything like the digital version.

And he's like, I'm, I'm trying to ring them anyway.

So I had to be like, I'm sorry, judge.

I have to object.

Like, can we take something outside the presence of the jury?

So I tell the judge what's going on.

The state's like, absolutely not.

These are the same.

So the judge is finally like, all right, so here's what we're going to do.

You give me the paper copies and then prosecutor, I want you to put up, publish on the Elmo,

the overhead thing, the, um, the digital copies.

And she looks at the two of them and she goes, and I quoted her here on this.

There's a difference there.

Same picture, big difference.

Do you want to offer an explanation?

Wow.

Nice.

He goes, yes, judge.

I think it's subjective.

What?

And she goes, I don't think so.

I'm the objective voice.

I love it.

Isn't it great when the judge like goes after the prosecutor and you're like,

he has to go ahead and we have to stop the show so he can get like non-adulterated photos.

Yes.

But that was really it.

That was really all that they did because he didn't do much, um, on his investigation.

So they get the photos in and then it's my time for cross.

You know, I asked him about the comments that he makes telling him, tell where he's telling

the victim, like, don't worry about him.

He's not going back to the house.

I'm like, did you, did you tell the victim that 13 minutes and 46 seconds into your being

on scene?

Yes, I did.

Okay.

You made, he was going to jail, right?

Yeah.

I also was able to cross examine him about, he actually had taken additional warrants for

things that clearly never happened, that nobody had ever said happened.

Like he took a warrant against my client for aggravated battery against the victim, alleging

that the victim was unable to drive because her eye was so swollen.

The problem with that was that at the point that he had taken the warrant, she hadn't

driven a car.

She, her eye was a little swollen, but like, it wasn't swollen to the point she couldn't

see.

He just made it up.

He was like, she probably can't, she probably can't drive.

Probably can't drive.

And I was, and I was crossing him on that and instead of conceding and being like, well,

I, I assumed that she wouldn't be able to drive.

He's just like, no, I think that she said that at some point.

Like, well, when, you know, I established that she hadn't driven.

So anyway, there was that.

Um, I also got a warrant like he had, there were other charges that he started filing or

tried to file that didn't make it.

They were dismissed.

Correct.

Yeah.

Also in his kidnapping warrant, he said that the, the victim had reported to him that my

client grabbed her by the neck outside by the street is what he said in the warrant.

Like, that's what the victim told you that he's like, yep.

She told me that it was outside by the street.

And so that's where I was able to tie in the whole issue with the surveillance video.

Oh, and a friend.

Yeah.

Well, you want, remember when you, you, you didn't write this in the report, right?

That you looked at the surveillance video and you didn't get it.

You didn't get the surveillance video, right?

He goes, it didn't show, it didn't capture what I was looking for is what he testified to.

That's the reason why he didn't preserve it.

So your victim told you she was dragged out by the street and you, we agree that this video

showed the street, right?

Yep.

But you didn't save it because it didn't capture what you were looking for, right?

Yep.

Oh, that's a beautiful cross moment.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Clean.

He was like almost proud of the shitty job that he did.

It was, it was baffling.

I think they have like an ego about him sometimes and they feel backed into a corner.

So they just like own it.

Yeah.

Like, I didn't do it.

So what?

Yep.

Didn't, didn't, didn't need to.

This is so clearly, you know, open and shut case.

Right.

It was kind of like his mindset.

So, so yeah, that was, that was the detective.

Is that all the state witnesses?

Yeah.

Yeah.

Then just the other person who tested the DNA and his DNA was in her vaginal and anal

swabs.

Okay.

Again, we said it was consensual.

So.

Right.

No problem there.

Okay.

So that's all the state's witnesses.

How are you feeling after the state's case?

I'm feeling, I'm feeling pretty good.

Yeah.

You got some good stuff out there.

Yeah.

I'm always a little pessimistic about my chances and things.

Like I just, I think this is a way like I protect my emotions.

Um, from like getting, you know, too high.

So I'm feeling all right.

Yeah.

Protect your emotions and protect the client.

Like we got to play like we're losing.

Cause we don't know.

Yeah.

He, he, he, he chose to like focus in on the one thing and he actually, apparently he laughed

when the victim said that she had a, like a legit orgasm and she was thinking about

her kids.

Apparently he was like laughing about that.

He's like, they're, I ain't believe in her.

Like that's bullshit.

Like she's like, you know, and I, so he felt, he felt pretty good.

I find that the clients do feel better after they hear the cross, you know, I think that

that kind of is like, Oh, okay.

I see what's happening here.

Like it's hard to explain how it's going to go at trial.

Cause like often we don't really know how exactly how it's going to go.

And we can't really describe like, you know, it's going to, yeah, it sounds bad as it stands

right now, but we're going to poke some holes and it's hard to describe how that's going

to really feel, but I tend to find that clients feel better after the state's case.

If it's a, if it's a good case, if it's a good case, yeah.

Well, I, in the sense of like, for, with my experience, it's like, Oh, I want to testify.

I want to testify.

I want to testify.

And then at the end of the state's case, they're like, I don't need to testify.

Yeah.

I'm like, okay, I told you, like, Oh, we're going to get out.

Cause you're facing 25 to lifetime four and you've never seen a trial and it's your trial.

And so eventually you're like, Oh, okay.

Never been arrested.

He was never arrested before.

Like he had never been in any trouble.

Uh, crazy first outing.

Yeah.

Um, did your client testify?

He did not testify.

I do feel like, um, this one of those situations where I want to tell the client, like, here's

my advice to you.

Right.

And, and especially in a case like this, um, it needs to be your decision, right?

Like the, the, the thing that I would feel terrible about is as an attorney, if I felt

strongly like you shouldn't testify and I, I gave you that advice and I kind of badgered

you into making the decision not to, and then you wound up losing and you never got that

opportunity to get up there and like, say your side, you know?

So like, I'm, I'm like completely open with him about that.

And I'm like, in my opinion, it's their, it's their case.

It's their life.

We don't know.

They might want to, yeah, go, go.

You can tear your case down if you want to.

Like, it's not my case.

I'm going home tonight.

So exactly, exactly.

And he, I mean, he clearly trusted me at that point and he, uh, he was like, tell me what

you think.

Well, tell me what you think.

And I was telling him, but when we were prepping, cause I did prep him in the event that he would

testify, he had this habit of like nervous smiling or laughing while he was talking about

this like very serious situation that happened that night.

I'm like, you're not testifying.

Okay.

But you did put on a case, right?

I put up the officer that did the cell extraction.

There was a message that I found where my client sends his cousin who later testifies for him

as a character witness, sends his cousin a picture from, I think it was like 10 45 PM where you

can see their son is like on the ground, like in their, in their room.

And the victim is standing in front of him fully clothed.

That's important because the victim claims that this all kicks off around eight 30.

And shortly after that, he basically strips her naked and is raping her from room to room and

continues to force her to be naked throughout the course of the night.

That was her story.

So this picture showed that that timeline couldn't have possibly been true.

So I called the guy from the forensics lab for that.

I called the cousin because later on that night before the suicide attempt, the cousin FaceTimes

my client just to kind of like say, Hey, what's up?

What's going on?

I think he was checking in on him because I think that my client had texted him earlier that

day in frustration after he had gotten the story about the grinding and all that.

I see the one that was like, I'm going to fucking kill somebody.

One of those texts was like, yes, that didn't come out.

Right.

Yeah.

No, it's not.

Um, did you tell the cousin like, Hey, don't accidentally say this.

Okay.

Don't go there.

And I'm like, so you FaceTimed, right?

Yeah.

And you talked to the victim and my client.

Yeah.

Did anybody seem upset?

No.

Was there anybody crying?

No.

Was there anybody like, Hey, help me.

He's trying to kill me.

No, no, nothing like that.

Okay.

So I had him.

I also had this sweet old lady testify from his hometown in Michigan, the girl, lady that

was friends with his mom that came and talked about how she had met my client and seemed

like, you know, a good, peaceful person.

And that she, she, the state tried to cross her and be like, you live in Michigan.

You don't even really see him much.

And she's like, actually, no, I, he brought his baby, uh, one time and, you know, came to

my house and we, we all like kind of visited.

So, I mean, I've seen him pretty recently enough to have seen his kid.

And he's like, eh, okay.

Uh, nothing like a, nothing like a sweet old lady to add credibility to your case.

Gotta have one of those in your back pocket.

Gotta have.

I have a paid actor I use.

A Betty White type.

It's not a central casting.

No, but for real, cause it's, we always dabble with the idea of a character witness.

I feel like every case we have that in the back of our mind a little bit, like, oh, like,

cause that's something we should even, a card we should play.

But I, it's so rare that we actually do that.

Were you worried about rebuttal at all for the character witness?

No, because like, I, there, he really, prior to this incident, there's, there's no evidence

that he had ever, he had never done anything like this.

He had no record, like nothing.

So no, I was, I, with this client, I was pretty comfortable with the character defense.

Cool.

Um, and then I had a roommate come and former roommate and say, you know, it was a good

guy.

Everyone liked him.

Good heart.

Not a violent person.

That was it.

Great.

And that was your case.

That was it.

Okay.

All right.

So let's talk about clothes then.

So state closes first.

What's their clothes like?

They waive their opening clothes.

Oh, okay.

Yeah.

They take, they take, uh, they take their first one off the board, which I, I don't understand

it.

And you don't often see the state, uh, wave an opportunity to talk more, but I'm like,

did you consider just not closing then?

Me?

Yeah.

So they can't rebut and it's over.

And they're like, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.

Wait, I don't know.

Procedurally would that, is that how it would work?

If they waive and then you waive and then they can't rebut, they would just be able

to close.

But if it's a rebuttal, close and defense waves.

So I think that they're, I think that they're entitled to open and, and, and close in closing,

like regardless of what we do.

I mean.

Imagine being the defense attorney.

That's like, hold my beer.

We waive close.

And then the state just shits all over them.

What the fuck?

That didn't work out like I thought it was going to.

Take it, take it back.

Take it back.

Yeah.

Yeah, exactly.

Okay.

So then you close first.

So tell us about your close.

Yeah.

First slide.

LOL.

Toxic AF.

Perfect.

And I tell them, you know, the other thing that the victim was doing in her testimony was

talking about, she had all the buzzwords, you know, consent every time.

No is no.

This was her trauma that she went through.

Like she talked about, she had clearly been through counseling and, and I said, that's

great.

Problem with that is that's not what was going on back when this case happened.

That's not the relationship she had.

That's not the relationship she decided to engage in.

And she can't now three years later with benefit of hindsight say, oh no, no is no and consent

every time.

When she's here in this text message and in this text message and in this text message

talking about how much she enjoys it when she tells my client to stop and he doesn't

stop.

I had this slide up there for a little while and just kind of hit on that point.

I talked and then I went through and just talked about how, you know, this is how you

know that she's lying about what she said my client did because she's lying about these

little things.

Why would it take her four minutes to look at a piece of paper with three text messages

on it?

You know why.

It's because she's thinking of the next lie.

So you have common sense, you know.

So I was just kind of hitting that theme.

I also just kind of threw a little bit of dirt on the state's case in terms of like, they

have a lot of exhibit stickers.

They have a lot of like stuff here, but a lot of nothing burgers.

Like they're just putting in stuff to make you think that they have evidence of this

when they don't.

So I use the nothing burger term.

I also use this thing where I had a defense attorney do this to me once as a prosecutor

and I'm like, damn, that's good.

I'm going to steal that one day when I'm a defense attorney.

He said, and this is what I said, I go, everyone wants the last word in an argument, right?

A closing argument's, you know, a different form of an argument.

I don't get it because I don't have the burden of proof the state does.

So I need you to just do me one favor.

The state's going to get up here and they're going to say a bunch of stuff and then you

guys are going to go back and deliberate.

And just do me this favor.

When you're talking about the arguments that the prosecutor makes that I don't get to get

back up and rebut, somebody say, well, what would Mr.

Dottardo have said to that if he had the opportunity to respond?

Do me that for me.

So I always kind of put that in there.

I'm going to use that next time too.

That's powerful.

Yeah.

So I like to throw that in there.

And then for my grand finale, I pulled a move that really put the prosecutor into a tailspin.

I revealed to the jury that my client's in custody and has been in custody.

And I put up on there 1,004 days in a box.

And I talked about how, because here's the reality, like it depends on the county you're

in and how they kind of shuffle people in and out.

But in Gwinnett County, they know.

Every trial that I ever had where I talked to the jurors after their, I mean, they don't

know it for a fact, but they're like, we think he was in jail.

I also don't think it's the same as saying like, you know, you're deciding whether or

not he's going to spend the rest of his life in prison.

You know, you're not really talking about that.

I don't really see the issue with it.

Well, and I, what I didn't want them to think was a few things.

Like I wanted them to know, because I felt like this was a case that could be close enough

where they could be back there and they could say, all right, he did a, he did how many

days?

1,004.

All right.

So we know that he committed the battery.

Maybe we think he maybe did some of this other stuff, but we're not convinced beyond a

reasonable doubt.

I'd say 1,004 days in jail is, that's a, that's, that seems fair.

Like that's kind of my thought process.

And I also kind of snuck in there, like he has a bond, but he's just too poor to afford

it.

So that's the other thing is like, I kind of, I don't want them to think like he's in

custody because, you know, he has like three prior felony convictions.

Yeah.

So you're giving Adrian out to just credit time serve him.

Yeah.

So that's, I said, his clothes are a facade.

We want you to not look at him and see him in chains in a jumpsuit and be able to be

a fair and impartial jury.

But the truth is he's been in a box every day for the last 1,004 days and now his life's

in your hands.

So that's kind of how I wrapped it up.

All right.

So then let's talk about this tailspin.

The first thing he says, you disregard what he said about 1,000 days.

That's not evidence.

That's not evidence.

He's just waving his hands.

And I'm like, oh, he's rattled.

And then he's, everything that he's talking about is either something I just said or it's

about me.

So he, they use 1346.

We got a number.

It's eight.

That's how many hours she was tortured.

And I'm like, yeah, I'm going to say 1346.

Thank you for repeating that.

Yeah.

Yeah.

They're, they want to talk about nothing burgers.

Well, I got this whopper for them.

And there's a picture of her face where she's got bruises on it.

So I'm like, okay, once again, you're talking about.

I mean, good.

And then again, he launches into the, you know, this is trying to connect the motive

to the abortion and not mentioning anything about the best friend and her sleeping with

his best friend.

The only thing that he did that I kind of liked that I was like, ah, that's a little

clever is he had a picture of King John signing the Magna Carta.

Have you ever, have you ever seen anyone do this before?

No.

No.

So basically if you Google King John signing the Magna Carta, it's, it's basically this,

the King at a table signing the Magna Carta.

And there's people that got like swords pointed at him, you know, they're all like, so he's

like, yeah, she consented to the sex, you know, just like King John signed the Magna Carta.

And I was like, that's clever.

I like that.

So that was like the one thing that I thought was like kind of, kind of clever, but, um,

he also started making future dangerousness arguments, which I let him do three or four

times until I finally objected.

Yeah.

He also said orgasms has, have been faked for far less than trying to save your life and

trying to save the life of your own children.

Again, the problem is she's in, she's in a state who faked it.

She said she had a real orgasms.

So I'm like, okay, uh, this is probably why you want to do a, a first close because then

you're not like thrown yet.

Yeah, exactly.

You're able to like make sense, you have like an outline.

Yeah.

Absolutely.

Absolutely.

So to end things up, he's like, oh, by the way, you can find him not guilty on the cruelty

children, third degree.

Um, it was a mistake.

We're sorry.

And then that was how they like sat down.

Okay, cool.

Yeah.

So, so then how are you feeling?

How are you feeling after that close?

That's feeling great.

What a relief.

It's over.

You don't have to do it.

I mean, like a not over, over, but you know, you've done all you can do.

So you feel good.

I feel good.

I feel good.

But again, I'm, I'm the type that I'm like, I don't know.

I'm still worried about that compromise possibility.

Cautiously optimistic.

How's your client?

How's your client doing?

Yeah.

He's, he's good, but you know, he's, he's also, he's kind of right there with me.

He's like matching my energy a little bit.

So I start to feel bad about like not being like,

rah, rah, but I, you know, you never know how these things go.

Like I've seen so many different crazy things happen.

Like, I feel like we got a good shot, but you never know until you know.

Yeah.

So, so you part ways with client, you go home, he doesn't.

Um, and you come back Monday.

Do you guys like wait around in, in the courtroom for the verdict or how does it work in your

jurisdiction?

Yeah.

So as a defense attorney, as a private attorney, who's does, does not have an office in the

courthouse, you got to just like hang out in the conference room.

So that's what I was doing.

I just was like, I had brought some other stuff to try to distract me.

I just told him like, I'm going to be out there.

Like if you need me, you know, I'm there.

So we got, um, a couple of questions.

So there was a question about, um, there was something that came out that the first responding

officer had actually been terminated.

And I tried to get into the reason why he was terminated because I didn't know.

And there was an objection and it was sustained.

So the jury actually asked the question, like, are we like, can we find out why that first

officer was fired?

And they just wanted the juice.

They're like, we want, we want the tea.

We just want the tea.

We're just curious.

What do you do?

So I'm like, verdict, but we just want to know.

So, so I'm like, all right, well, it's like, that's, I guess, good.

They're like starting to kind of look a little sideways at some of the police officers.

Good.

All right.

Then at the end of the first day, at the end of Monday, they didn't really have a question.

It was more of an issue where there was a juror that had a major doctor's appointment

on Tuesday morning.

So they wanted to start late.

And this juror was one that like, wasn't one of my favorites.

And the judge was already of the mindset of like, F no, we're not starting late.

Like, I want to get this done.

So she's like, I would propose, like, we just replace this juror with the alternate and keep

rolling.

Because I think we had two alternates.

And I'm like, I'm fine with that.

Because I like the first alternate, actually.

And so, yeah, we got that alternate.

We got that in.

And that was the only thing on Monday.

And then we're waiting all day Tuesday.

Midday Tuesday, we get a note from one of the jurors privately to the, to the bailiff.

And the note was complaining that one of the female jurors kept saying that she had a similar

experience and she was terrified.

And that's how she is, she's evaluating the evidence.

She's using her own experience in evaluating the evidence.

That's great that you got that, like, intel.

Because I feel like that's kind of rare.

Yeah.

At that point, I'm thinking, maybe I'm looking at this the wrong way.

But I'm thinking I got, like, an 11 to 1 situation going on here.

Or a 10 to 2, maybe if she's got a buddy.

And I'm feeling really good.

And so, the way that the judge cured that was basically, I'm going to bring everybody in

and just instruct them that they're to consider the evidence and set their, you know, experiences

aside.

You know, just kind of the standard instruction for that.

And then it was maybe, like, an hour later, we had a verdict.

Wow.

So, yeah, describe the feeling of getting the verdict.

Very, just, like, super, super, super.

Super nervous.

Like, I just, you know, this case is, the stakes can't be higher.

Maybe it's a death penalty could be higher.

But that's about it.

Yeah.

Yeah.

So, you walk into the courtroom.

Walk into the courtroom.

Nine-hot indictment.

Client's in there.

He's in there.

Everyone.

And now, all my buddies from the Gwinnett DA's office that are still in the office,

they get the word there's a verdict.

And I know how it goes in the office.

They yell.

And maybe they do that in the PD's office, too.

Like, they got a verdict.

Got a verdict.

Got a verdict.

Oh, totally.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

We're, like, in the courthouse.

So, you have, I'm, like, great.

So, this is either going to be easily the greatest moment of my career as a defense attorney

or, like, by far the worst.

And all of the people that I worked with for years are going to see it.

Like, all right.

And then, also, by the way, this guy's life's on the line, right?

Yeah, that, too.

There's that little minor thing.

How's he doing?

He's very nervous, as well.

So, the funny thing about the whole verdict process is, so, normally, I was used to the

way that the verdict forms would be written is they'd go count by count, and it was, we,

the jury, find the defendant guilty of, and there was a box, whatever the charge was.

Let's say it's rape.

Guilty of rape, and there's a little box.

You check that if you think he's guilty.

And then the next one would be not guilty.

So, it would give the options, guilty first, or not guilty.

Guilty first, or not guilty.

That's how I've done probably 95% of my trials.

For whatever reason, and I can't really remember why, this judge likes to flip it and give them

the option to do not guilty first, I guess, to, you know, presumption of innocence.

Yeah.

There you go.

Yeah.

I bet you it matters, statistically, if you look at it.

I think so.

Exactly.

Yeah.

When I see not, they're like, I would have convicted them, but that option first.

She does sound like a G, based on her rulings, and.

Yeah.

She's great.

She's great.

So, she gets the verdict, the jurors come in, and of course, you're trying to, like,

play that game, where you're like, okay, can I, like.

Read the tea leaves.

I could never tell.

Yeah.

And so, the judge looks at the verdict form.

It's a couple pages long, because we got, like, eight or nine counts.

And then she asks, the attorneys come up to the bench, and she's holding the verdict

form.

Oh, so you can, like, see through it?

I always try to see through it.

I'm always so far away.

I can see through it.

I can see through it.

But Dallas, I can see through it as I'm walking up.

I have great vision.

And I'm seeing that the first option is checked for all of them.

Oh, no.

And I'm like, oh, no, I lost.

Because I'm thinking, in my head, it's guilty as the first box.

So, my heart is just sinking.

I'm like, oh, my God.

And then I get up there, and she, like, turns it around to me and the prosecutor, and I see

it's, like, not guilty, not, and I'm, like, oh, and I'm, like, oh, but I'm trying not to

have, like, an obvious reaction.

You're, like, woo!

Oh, sorry.

So, and, obviously, he was, he was guilty of the battery, and everything else was not guilty

across the board.

And so, I turn around, I turn around, and I'm looking at my client, he's looking at me,

and I'm, like, very smoothly, I'm, like, trying to think what I'm going to say, and I just

lean over to him, and I tell him, you're going home tonight.

Oh.

And that's what I tell him.

Sit down.

And he starts crying.

Oh, my God.

And the judge starts, he starts, she starts reading the verdict, one by one, and he's

crying, and, I guess, like, I got a little emotional, like, I held on there, but he was

just, like, super, super, super, super emotional, and just, like, you know, thanking me, and,

you know, thanking, you know, he was, you know, waving to the jury and all that, so it was awesome.

It was, it was, I'll never forget that moment.

That's incredible.

Yeah, what a great moment.

Yeah.

That's incredible.

Yeah.

So, yeah, so he, I mean, he had been in for 1,004 days, so he was guilty of the misdemeanor,

but he got time served.

And he got to leave that day.

Mm-hmm.

That night.

But it is an injustice a little bit, because he's had to spend three years of his life in

jail.

Yeah.

On something that he was convicted only, that the max was only a year.

Because he's poor.

Because he's poor.

Because he's poor.

Do you stay in touch with him?

I do stay in touch with him.

Yeah, so he, because of the battery conviction, the victim immediately went and got a T.P.

against him.

Mm-hmm.

And was using that as the basis to deny him access to his son.

And so, he still really hasn't been able to see his son to this day.

And, you know, it's been tough for him.

And he's back in Michigan.

And he, you know, we had talked about maybe grabbing a beer or something when he was back

in town.

Haven't had, haven't been able to make that happen.

But we do talk about sports.

He's a big basketball, football guy as an ally.

So, we talk about that all the time.

And, yeah, he seems to be doing better.

Good.

I'm glad that you guys stay in touch.

That's good.

Awesome.

Yeah.

How did you feel after that win?

First win of many as a defensive team.

Did it convert you?

It was, it definitely gave me that confidence.

I feel like I needed to know that, like, I can do this on this side of the fence.

And, you know, trust my instincts because I did some sort of controversial things that

maybe people wouldn't do.

Objecting to null process, entering guilty pleas, telling the jury my client was in custody.

But it just, I thought through everything carefully.

And I had a reason for the decisions I made.

You know, I think that that paid off here.

Yeah, I'm inspired by a lot of that.

So, thank you for sharing that.

Thank you.

Extremely thoughtful.

You know the next question that's coming.

Why did you come over to the sunny side?

Why did you want to be a defense attorney?

So, I grew up actually wanting to be a defense attorney.

I just, I feel and felt that very strongly that I can't imagine anything worse than to

go to prison for something that you didn't do.

Like, and so, that to me was just, it just felt like a calling.

Most people, I think, understand, especially nowadays, that, you know, it's important that

we have good people doing this job because when the government can just say you did something

and put you in a cage, that's not, that's not a society that anybody wants to live in, right?

Yeah.

I feel like I, it took me a long winding road to get here, but now I am, and I'm happy

I am.

You made it.

And you're doing great stuff.

And you guys are doing great.

You guys are doing great stuff with this podcast.

Let me tell you.

And shout out to my Reddit, Reddit people, the Public Defenders Forum is where I found

out about this podcast.

And yeah, you guys do an amazing job.

We're doing it.

Yeah.

Thank you for what you did.

We couldn't do it without stories like yours.

So thank you for coming on our podcast.

We really appreciate it.

Thank you.

And thank you for having me.

That was a great win.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Thanks for tuning in to this week's episode of Another Not Guilty.

Shout out to Daniel Mark, original A&G theme music composer, and Mike Grimm for the remix.

And guess what?

We'll be back in two weeks with Another Not Guilty straight from the trenches.