Adnan Syed released; Papini sentenced for kidnapping hoax; BDSM image used as evidence – TCD Sidebar
In this episode of True Crime Daily The Sidebar Podcast
Neil Rockind joins host Joshua Ritter to break down the biggest cases making headlines across the nation. They discuss Adnan Syed’s release after his conviction was overturned, sentencing for Sherri Papini, Alex Jones’ contentious outburst in a Connecticut court, and the use of an explicit photo in the Kristin Smart murder trial.
Tweet your questions for future episodes to Joshua Ritter using the hashtag #TCDSidebar.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:00:11]
Hello and welcome to True Crime Daily’s The Sidebar, taking you inside the courtrooms of high profile and notorious cases from across the country.
I'm your host, Joshua Ritter. I'm a criminal defense lawyer based here in Los Angeles and previously in L.A. County Prosecutor for nearly a decade. We are recording this on Friday, September 23rd, 2022.
In this week's episode, we'll be discussing the release of Adnan Syed. The subject of the serial podcast had his conviction vacated after serving 23 years for the alleged murder of his girlfriend. Plus, Sherri Papini is sentenced after faking her kidnapping in hopes that made national headlines.
Also, a judge rules for a third party to oversee Alex Jones’ bankruptcy as he faces another defamation lawsuit in Connecticut. And finally, we close with an explosive development in the murder trial for Paul Flores, who stands accused of the 1996 murder of Kristen.
Today, we are joined by Neil Rockind, a criminal defense attorney with vast trial experience. Neil is also a legal analyst on multiple media outlets and host of the Killer Cross Examination Podcast. Neil, welcome.
Neil Rockind:
[0:01:20]
Thank you, Josh. It's great to be here.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:01:22]
Great. We are looking forward to hearing your thoughts on these cases. But before we jump right in, can you tell us a little bit about your background and your current practice?
Neil Rockind:
[0:01:32]
So, I'm a criminal defense lawyer. I grew up in metropolitan Detroit. I went to high school here. I went to junior college for a year. I transferred into the University of Michigan. And then I ended up going to Wayne State University Law School. Went right out of the law school into the Oakland County Prosecutor's office. I was a prosecutor for about three and a half years.
And I began to really admire the defense lawyers. I just saw the defense lawyers as people that I wanted to emulate if I could. I thought they were worldly and they had Renaissance. And they seem to be so in touch with different things in the world. And they just seem to have such a cool persona. They were able to compartmentalize their practice and their life and I respected that a great deal.
And then I saw some super high-profile cases and I thought I want to do that. I want to be the guy in the center of the gnarliest, nastiest, like worst cases. And so, I left the prosecutor’s office, joined the firm, and then the rest is history. I left that firm three or so years after joining it.
And I've been on my own with my firm ever since. My firm is named Rockind Law, and we take on all comers. So, my approach to cross examination to trials is I take things personally, I'm aggressive, I want to try every case. I believe every case – I want to put my foot to the accelerator, to the floor and just go all out.
So, to me, like I love winning. I love the idea that what we do as lawyers isn't awake, competitive, and I want to win. I want to win for my clients and I want to win for me.
And I believe every trial over has to have components of both. You have to want to win the case for your client, but you also have to want to win it for yourself. You have to have pride, and I have a ton of pride.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:03:20]
I love it. You got me sold. If I'm ever in Michigan and I get in trouble, I know exactly who I'm calling.
Neil Rockind:
[0:03:27]
There you go.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:03:27]
Well, thank you again for joining us. We appreciate your vast experience and we're going to call upon that in discussing some of these cases. So, let's jump right in.
Let's talk about out of Baltimore, Maryland. A judge was asked by the Baltimore Prosecutors Office to vacate the conviction of Adnan Syed for the 1999 murder of his girlfriend, Hae Min Lee.
Syed walked free from jail on September 19th, 2022 after serving 23 years of a life sentence. Syedwill remain on house arrest for 30 days while prosecutors decide whether to retry the case or drop the charges.
This move comes after the 2014 podcast serial, and this was one of those podcasts that really kind of changed the game in podcasts, turning it into something that people would to tune in to, to see the next episode. The podcast reached millions of viewers and generated widespread interests in Syed’s case.
Baltimore State's Attorney Marilyn Mosby found flaws in the original conviction, including flawed usage of cell phone data and contradictory statements made by an alleged accomplice. Reportedly, there may have been two additional suspects in the crime who were withheld from Syed's defense by the prosecutors back at that time.
The family of Hae Min Lee was reportedly blindsided by the prosecutor's decision to vacate the conviction, claiming they were excluded from the process leading up to Syed’s release. All right, Neil, jump right in. Does this move by the prosecutor surprise you at all?
Neil Rockind:
[0:05:01]
Not really. I think this was an extremely controversial case from the start. As you know, Josh, whenever somebody is convicted in a criminal case, before the trial, before the conviction, before the verdict, they bear the – they have the presumption of innocence.
Then, as you know, as soon as the trial occurs, the verdict comes down, the jury issues the verdict and the person is found guilty if they are. The whole system sort of turns on its head. And for all this time, that case has been identified as one that's been flawed.
And Syed and his lawyers have been fighting for years, for years to try to prove that a case in which there was no forensic evidence, no DNA, no eyewitnesses, the case was premised entirely on an interpretation of cell phone data that you and I both know is flawed and over relied upon by police and prosecutors and one witness who claims that he admitted to it. And that later, it turns out that there are witnesses and potential suspects and even DNA that undermine the entire case.
It was an extremely flawed case. And it's regrettable that – this the conviction occurred 23 years ago. The evolution of technology is so different, so it doesn't surprise me.
Marilyn Mosby is identified as someone who's – who I believe is progressive. I think she's open minded. I think she was open to the idea that there was evidence that was not disclosed to the defense in the very beginning of this case.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:06:50]
Yeah. Yeah. You talk about 23 years. We talked about this a little bit before we started to record that the world has changed in 23 years. And we're talking about a pre-911 world, is when this trial originally took place.
And the, you know, the advancement in forensics and the advancement in technology and the understanding of cell phone data and everything else, you're right, it's all – the world has completely changed since that time.
I got to say that I was kind of surprised because he had been in for 23 years and because this case had gone under the scrutiny of appeals and other lawyers taking a look at it. And the light shed on it by the Serial Podcast. I remember listening to that podcast faithfully and they did a good job of, kind of, you know, making you double, you know, second guess things. You know, it sounds like that sounds pretty incriminating, some of that evidence. And then other parts of it sound like, you know, he might not be the person at all.
And I thought after 23 years, you know, every kind of review of that case would have been done. And so, I was shocked until I heard something and I want to get your thoughts on this.
And that's about the withheld exculpatory evidence. Apparently, there was other suspects that had certainly some tie that may have implicated them into the crime, as well as some as some other evidence that simply wasn't turned over to the defense.
And I say simply, even though that's not really a simple matter. Explain to us the ramifications of that, how it's supposed to work, and why when you have a breakdown like this, it's really problematic?
Neil Rockind:
[0:08:30]
It's a great question, Josh. And it applies to Syed’s case, but it applies to so many that we see as criminal defense lawyers and those who are really on the front lines of trying to hold the government kind of at bay.
In a nutshell, the state has the obligation to be a Minister of Justice for everybody. The prosecutor has an obligation to be not just the representative of a fictional entity of the people, but they have an obligation be more than an advocate.
We have the burden of being an advocate for our client. That's our responsibility. And our job is not to search for the truth as defense lawyers. We may want to do that, but our job is also to do something else. And our job is to make – to defend this person as zealously as we can, and to hold the state to its burden.
The state has a different obligation. The state’s obligations – if it comes across something within its control or sphere of influence or it's aware of something that will devastate its case, it can't just sit on it or hide it or not disclose it. It has to turn it over to the defense because they are the state. They're representing the defendant and the jury and the judge and the public. And so that's the dual role.
I know you were a States Attorney. I was a States Attorney. I know those phrases are tossed around, but that is we have a – there's a higher burden when you're a States Attorney because you have to look out. You have to, in some ways, almost be prepared to hurt your case. And that's difficult to do for some prosecutors when you're looking at what you think is already a tough case to make.
And here you got to hand over something. And the things that I'm aware of, and you and I know this happens all too frequently, because judges are many times, in my experience, afraid to hold prosecutors to their obligation to turn evidence over. They'll just take the prosecutor’s word but, Mr. Ritter, have you – yes, Your Honor? Have you turned everything over? Yes. Well, Mr. Rockind and Mr. Ritter knows his obligation, he's been in front of me a million times and has a million and zero records so of course he knows that he should turn over everything, and I trust him to do that.
And of course, that means that there's information that could be in a file, could be on the floor, could be in the possession of the police department. The other thing, that said, that you have an obligation to turn over.
And in this case, as I understand it, as happens in so many, there was evidence, for example, there were potentially two suspects. Andthose two suspects, as I understand Maryland multi-position, that the state withheld the potential for there to be two other suspects. Well, two other suspects in the case with no forensic evidence is huge.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:11:15]
Yeah.
Neil Rockind:
[0:11:16]
And the cell phone records were the records that really were supposed to identify and put him near the scene, think about Josh what you said a moment ago, the technology has changed to such a degree that incoming cell phone records, you've gotten these I'm sure, Josh, when you've gotten discovering in a criminal case, we get cell phone records.
And for those who don't know, I don't want to get into the weeds on it, but we get like a code, almost like a table, like an instruction booklet that tells us how to use these cell phone records.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:11:47]
Right.
Neil Rockind:
[0:11:48]
And it's – and this is like how to use safely. And apparently that code, according to the cell phone expert, had not been turned over, had not been disclosed to him. And so, when he actually reviewed it, he saw and said, well, he testified that these incoming cell phone calls were could identify where Syed was and that's not exactly accurate. There's really less reliability on incoming sell records.
So, I'm, you know, 23 years, man. I mean, that's an extraordinary amount of time. We let those numbers just roll off our lips.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:12:24]
Yeah.
Neil Rockind:
[0:12:24]
But you think about the number of minutes, if someone could live to the age of 23 times 3, it’s almost what, that's 70 years basically. Seventy years is a short life, but it's still a relatively long life. And that means that one-third of this young man's life have been spent – one-third of what would ordinarily be a long life were spent in prison for an offense that I doubt that they'll ever try him on.
I see – Marilyn Mosby has already said that she won't try it, but she will certify his innocence. How about that? She’ll certify his innocence of the DNA that they find either identify somebody else or doesn't identify him. That's how weak she believes this case is.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:13:07]
Wow. Pretty incredible. You know, you did such an excellent job of explaining kind of the different roles between a defense attorney and a prosecutor. And I just wanted to kind of dovetail off of one point that you made that you know it's them being kind of the stewards of the evidence that they're compelled to turn over everything. And that doesn't mean that they get to decide.
You made the point. You know, they need to turn over something, even if it's devastating to their case. That to me is clear cut. Like if you have evidence that's devastating to your case, then you don't have a good case, and maybe that's a problem and maybe that's something you should take a look at. Why are you even bringing this case to trial if you have a very poor case?
But where I see it even being more problematic is in the cases where they go, well, that's really not that important. This other suspect, we don't believe that's a real good suspect, so we're not going to turn that over.
Neil Rockind:
[0:14:03]
That’s even a better point.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:14:04]
That's not your decision. That's not your decision to make.
Neil Rockind:
[0:14:07]
Such a good point, Josh. Such a good point. And that is a fantastic addition to the point that I made. I'm glad that you clarified hat point because the ambivalent stuff, the stuff that is on the edge, that's the stuff that 23 years ago, 24 years ago, 25 years ago, they may well, I don't know if this is going to go anywhere. It doesn't matter. Just hand it over. Just let us deal with it.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:14:37]
Right. It's not your job as the prosecutor to decide what is valuable to the defense and what isn't. Let the defense make that decision or let the judge make that decision. And it's not just because you hand this stuff over, that automatically means it ends up in front of a jury either. We know that, that there were motions in Lynn Day and evidentiary hearings about, you know, can you bring in these other suspects or can't you, but that is not a decision that should be made by the prosecution.
I see it a lot too with cell phone evidence that we, you know, in every single case it seems like we have cell phone evidence now, and they'll turn us, turn over to us, I mean the defense the parts of the cell phone that they feel is valuable or useful or relating to the crime.
I don't want you to be the gatekeeper of that. Give me the entire cell phone and let me see what else is on there that might be interesting to me or important to the defense’s case. And that's where I think the prosecution can do the most damage and has the most responsibility to kind of be open about all of that.
Neil Rockind:
[0:15:38]
So true. And it’s a big job.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:15:39]
Yeah.
Neil Rockind:
[0:15:40]
I mean, let's be frank. It’s a big job to be a prosecutor prosecuting a case like the Syed case. That's a huge responsibility. And it's a huge responsibility if you're prosecuting an assault and battery or domestic violence case or a drunk driving case. It's a huge responsibility.
And that means you're not just getting into it because you want to get trial experience or you want to get chops. This every single case has the potential to impact the lives of the complainants, the victims or the accused. And so, if you have an – and I'm sick of hearing cases where someone says, well, I'm not sure we have enough to go forward. Well, you know what, then don’t.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:16:18]
Yeah. Yeah.
Neil Rockind:
[0:16:19]
Then don't go forward. And it seems like in this case, the victim's family was this – what was her last name, Lee, I think their family was divided in some way on what should happen ultimately in the case. One brother I think came forward and said that he was supportive of the prosecution, letting the case go. He wasn't, you know, angling for one position or the other. He wasn't biased or prejudice. He just wanted the justice system to work.
But then, of course, there are family members in the case who felt stung by what happened and by the fact that the case was dismissed. And I think with Christine, Josh, is the fact that that prosecutors are too often motivated by the desire to do right by the victim's family as opposed to doing right overall in the case.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:17:12]
Excellent point. And I completely agree with you. They represent the people, right? They represent the people of their state. They don't represent a victim. They should be concerned with the victim. They should absolutely listen and have the victim have some sort of voice in the process. I completely agree with that.
But they don't represent that victim. They represent the state. And it's the state, you know, bringing a case against a person for a crime that was committed against that state’s laws.
But I'm glad you brought this up because this was one thing that the prosecutors received some a little bit of backlash on this because it seems like there may have been a level of perhaps insensitivity or maybe not an extension of graciousness as much to the victims and not including them in all of this.
What are your thoughts on that? Could this have been handled differently? Because I'll tell you, you know, I don't want to see an innocent person spend one more second in prison longer than they've already done. But at the same time, you're dealing with a huge decision here about a murder. Do you think a little more time and a little more discussion with the victims might have been warranted?
Neil Rockind:
[0:18:25]
That is a – it's a tough question. I watched it behind the scenes with the communications between the prosecutor and the victim's family.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:18:33]
Sure, sure.
Neil Rockind:
[0:18:36]
So, I don't know how much talk there was into it. I would imagine that there was some notification. Although, I can tell you that I've read that there was some notification. And that there was discussion about it with some of the victim’s families or the representatives or lawyers ahead of time.
But in a case, that's this highly publicized, where you're making the decision to free somebody, I think principally the prosecution wants to get to the courthouse, make the pronouncement, make the motion before the judge, and then there's going to be fallout.
And yes, it's heartbreaking for the victim’s family, but how much notice are you talking about? A week? A month. I mean, the reality is that, most important to me and most important to you, I'm sure, is that justice was done before, you know, the people started to check on the emotions of those involved.
And I know that may seem insensitive. It's not meant to be. But as I understand it, there was actually a relative of the decedents of the victim who was actually in court and who spoke and said, “Look, I hold no grudges, I just want the system to work as best we can.” So, somehow, they were notified.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:19:50]
Yeah. Yeah. Well, and this isn't the end of it because like we said, there's this 30-day period. It sounds like the prosecutors already made-up her mind on whether or not to pursue the trial, but we'll keep an eye on this to see when this finally comes to its ultimate. conclusion.
Moving now to Sacramento, California. Sherri Papini Knee has been sentenced to 18 months in prison after pleading guilty to the 2016 kidnapping hoax that terrified Northern California and made national headlines. Following her jail term, she's subject to 36 months supervised release and has also been ordered to pay nearly $310,000 in restitution to the California Victims Compensation Board and the agencies that investigated the kidnapping.
After being declared missing for 22 days, Papini was found bound on a highway on Thanksgiving Day. She told authorities that she had been kidnapped and tortured by two Spanish speaking women, who was later revealed that she stayed at the house of an ex-boyfriend and inflicted all of her “injuries” on herself, even starving herself to appear malnourished.
After sticking to the story for years, even when confronted with evidence that didn't support the kidnapping narrative, Papini pled guilty to mail fraud and making false statements in April of this year. The mail fraud charge comes from Papini receiving compensation from the Victims Assistance Board, as well as disability payments after she had been recovered from her kidnapping.
We want to show you a clip right now of part of her interrogation, because it really is kind of shocking and remarkable to see someone who's still kind of so caught up in their own narrative.
Male:
[0:21:34]
I know all of those things and I know there was no sex. I know all of that because he passed a polygraph test that said it's not an abduction. She asked me to come together. I rented a car, drove up and picked her up. He passed the polygraph test, Sherri.
If that's not what happened, what did happen, Sherri?
Sherri Papini:
[0:21:59]
No, there’s no way it’s changed. There’s no way. There’s no way.
Male:
[0:22:06]
The DNA doesn’t lie. His DNA –
Sherri Papini:
[0:22:09]
There’s no way.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:22:11]
Pretty remarkable footage there. Neil, the judge in this case actually went above the sentencing guidelines. The prosecution had asked for eight months prison, with the defense asking for one month plus seven months home detention. What do you make of that? Is the judge trying to send a message here?
Neil Rockind:
[0:22:29]
That is certainly one of the factors that a judge would consider in sentencing. As you know, judges consider rehabilitation, the types of sentences available, sentencing of like offenders and they also are going to look at the deterrence of the accused and deterrence of others.
You know, what goes into the mind of a particular judge when it comes time to sentence, I would love to have the formula to be able to sort of, you know, divine that. After the fact, it's pretty clear, prosecutors asked for eight months. She was asking for one month in prison in seven months of supervised release or home detention.
And the judge decided that this was too long, too high, too long of a scheme, too high profile of a case to just let it go. And this reminds me of Gone Girl. I mean, it reminds me of the movie Gone Girl in a way.
So, she left. She had her husband’s support. She was kidnapped. She had her husband support. Then she's dropped off, you know, on the road. And as it turns out, really none of that was true.
I think that the judge looked at that as something that was akin to filing a false report against somebody and he wanted to send a message.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:23:55]
Yeah.
Neil Rockind:
[0:23:56]
So, if you want the short answer, Josh, the judge wanted to send a message don't do this.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:24:05]
Message received. Yeah, yeah.
Neil Rockind:
[0:24:06]
I'm going to go twice of whatever the prosecutor asked for.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:24:10]
Yeah. It's a really strange and remarkable case because I don't quite understand what her end game was. Was this to get away from her husband? I mean is this really just her trying to defraud the Victims Fund in California? None of it seems to make sense.
And the elaborate steps that she went through all to – all for this fraud. You said it reminds you of Gone Girl. The case that came to my mind was Jussie Smollett. I mean, here you have this kind of elaborate charade that was put on. At least in his case there was kind of an understanding of his motivation for why he did it.
But I think you see the same kind of response from the public and from the judges in both of these cases that, you know, some sort of message needs to be sent, you know. And it's funny to me because if you want to look at the actual crimes committed here, right, in Jussie Smollett and here with Papini, no one was hurt, no one was killed, no life was lost, no actual property was stolen.
It's just this incredible waste of resources that we are offended by, I think that, you know, to just see, you know, police and everybody get up and running to try to look for this poor woman and then, you know, to try to solve for kidnapping and then all of the resources that were spent after she was found trying to find the alleged kidnappers, it offends us. And I think the judge was offended by it and sent a message. What do you think?
Neil Rockind:
[0:25:43]
I mean even the defense lawyer couldn't identify a motive for why she did what she did. I mean, usually by the time defense lawyers are, as you know, writing a memorandum or standing before the court addressing the judge, they've at least come up with some theory as to why your client did it.
But even in the end he’s just like this was his – she left her family “in pursuit of a nonsensical fantasy.” So basically, I read that to mean, he couldn't figure it out.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:26:23]
Well, I read it to mean there's absolutely no sympathetic reason for it either, right?
Neil Rockind:
[0:26:27]
There was no sympathetic reason. There's no reason. You know, and it sort of reminds you of, I mean, the idea that somebody would set out to do that, to then attempt to seek victim compensation funds from the Victim Compensation, you know, Commission.
I don't think many people know that people who are the victims of crime can seek victim’s rights compensation. And every judgment that we have in every case, someone has to pay a victim’s rights fund, the fee. Even if your case doesn't have a victim, you pay in certain cases X amount of a fee and it goes into a fund. And that fund pays for people who are victims. They pay for certain services, support, counseling, what have you.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:27:20]
And just be clear, nobody’s getting rich off this. The victims aren't – there’s not some big windfall for them. No.
Neil Rockind:
[0:27:25]
No, no.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:27:26]
Certainly, not a motivation to fake your own kidnapping.
Neil Rockind:
[0:27:28]
No, nor motivation to be a victim of a crime.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:27:31]
Right.
Neil Rockind:
[0:27:32]
I mean, it's not like winning the Lotto or winning the lottery. There's no like scratch off and go, hey, I got the big victim award today. You know, no.
And on top of that, you know, she applied for and accepted the victim compensation fund for claiming she was a kidnapping victim. And so, in some respects, you can see a judge saying you put yourself in the same position as the people who really were victimized. And to the extent that there is any kind of funding problem, not saying that there is, you put yourself right next to those people. And so, you knew the entire time you're doing that that you shouldn't be there
So, I assume the judge is sending the message, but I have a whole – we can have a whole another talk about what we all think about the turns and general deterrence but I'm sure that that's what the judge was thinking.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:28:22]
Yeah, I think you're right. It was adding insult to injury that on top of all of this, then you're going to try to collect these checks. I agree with you.
We turn from that craziness to some even more craziness now out of Waterbury, Connecticut. Alex Jones took the stand in his Connecticut defamation suit, giving fiery testimony where he proclaimed I'm done being sorry, in a meandering rant. We have some footage of that. Let's take a look at it now.
Alex Jones:
[0:28:48]
You have families in this courtroom here that lost children, sisters, wives, moms. This is a struggle session we have in China. I've already said I'm sorry a hundred times and I'm done saying I'm sorry. I didn't regenerate this. I was the first person to say it. American governors might be blamed for this as the left did. So, we rejected it mentally and said it must not be true. But I legitimately thought it might have been staged and I stand by that. I don't apologize for it.
Male:
[0:29:16]
And don't apologize, Mr. Jones. Please don't apologize.
Alex Jones:
[0:29:19]
Now, I've already apologized to the parents over and over again. I do apologize for you.
Male:
[0:29:21]
Because, you know, you –
Male:
[0:29:23]
Objection. Objection. Objection guys.
Male:
[0:29:25]
You're going to do it again.
Male:
[0:29:27]
Objection, argumentative –
Joshua Ritter:
[0:29:31]
This is the second of three trials Jones is facing for statements he made about the Sandy Hook massacre that left twenty children and six educators dead. As a Connecticut jury decides just how much Jones will pay to the families of the Sandy Hook victims, a judge in Houston has ordered new personnel to oversee the bankruptcy filing of Jones and his Infowars Empire. The judge noted a lack of transparency on the part of Jones and his company, Free Speech Systems.
Okay, Neil, I know you have an interesting take on the lawyers in this case and how they're each handling the case. And I was hoping you could share that with us.
Neil Rockind:
[0:30:10]
It's a fascinating case to watch. And I wish that it wasn't on the back of – wasn't strapped to the back of such a tragedy.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:30:17]
Right.
Neil Rockind:
[0:30:19]
The two lawyers and the law firms in the case are trying two different cases. And as you know that whoever is able to capture as a lawyer with your theme in your theory, whoever is able to capture the jury and to sort of get the jury going with their narrative has a tendency to begin to be able to bend the jury their way.
And the plaintiffs are trying a very traditional plaintiff’s case. And that's perfectly acceptable. There’s nothing wrong with that. They're trying to case that their family, that their victims, that the family members of the Sandy Hook decedents and victims have – they've been kicked around, they've been insulted, that's the case that the plaintiffs are trying.
And they're trying to cases, you know, only on damages because Alex Jones was defaulted. He was given a default on liability and whether or not they suffered damages. So, the only question is how much?
So, on the other hand, Alex Jones’ lawyer who is Norm Pattis, who's a very well-known lawyer in Connecticut, is he's defending Alex Jones. And he's trying a different case. And the case he's trying is focused on as much as he can to show that Alex Jones is that they're trying to shut him up and that this is an ideological conservative voice, a right-wing voice who's now sort of everybody is lining up against him and what could possibly could the damages have been.
Yeah, he didn't kill them. He didn't cause the murder. And he's trying to gun rights Second Amendment, First Amendment type case. And so, it really is different because there really are times talking across purposes.
Whoever ends up getting the jury to side with their narrative. And a narrative and a theme in a case is important because the jurors are going to get on one of these two narratives or themes. They're going to go with one or the other, eventually. And if the plaintiffs prevail, they're going to get – the jurors are going to give them a very large verdict.
And if the defense prevails, if they get on the juror’s side with their narrative, this ideological narrative that Alex Jones is being picked on, then Norm Pattis and Alex Jones are going to end up seeking or getting a very, very small verdict.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:32:46]
Yeah, yeah. Well, we'll see how it turns out. One of the kind of wild card elements here, though, is we just watched some of his testimony. We, you know, in the previous trial, we got to see him testify. You know, it's explosive. He's all over the map. He runs his mouth. He doesn't listen to objections. He just kind of says what he's going to say.
To me, it looks like he's just doing his show. how do you think that's playing with the jury, though? I mean, are they, again, you make an excellent point, this is all on the backdrop of one of the greatest tragedies we've ever witnessed in this country, right? The incredible loss of these young children.
The jurors know that. Even though this case isn't about that, they know that he was profiting off of that to some extent. Now, was he – the question comes down to not, was it defamation, but how much was he profiting and how much should he be punished for that.
But do you think they're going to punish him perhaps even more for these shenanigans that are taking place in court? Or do you think that that works into his kind of persona and they just believe this is a blowhard and it's just kind of how he behaves?
Neil Rockind:
[0:33:57]
Josh, I thought his testimony was clean up on aisle three. There was a there was a witness implosion on aisle three. So, I mean, you could have literally turned on a, you know, alarm and said listen for all you lawyers who are ever going to cross examine or examine a witness in court, remember we are taught to try to control witnesses. Except sometimes, sometimes a witness is his own or her own worst enemy.
And in this case, Alex Jones, from my perspective, imploded on the witness stand, talking about what are we, what is it, a Chinese was a struggle group at one point. He talked about comparing their families to Iraqi to people in Iraq. He just brandished everybody a liberal.
And at the very end what got him so hot was that they had put up – it's still on his website right now. According to the cross examination, they put up his current website and it showed what are you leading into, what things are you leading into, I do believe are going to occur as we lead into the midterms.
And the very top one which was a poll for those who join on or attempt to subscribe or look at the website, the Infowars website, said mass shooting. Which one of these do you think is going to be a false flag leading into the midterms? And the number one thing up there was false flag.
And so, the exchange between Jones and the plaintiff's lawyer was just – was hot. And I don't think that it played well for Alex Jones. I don't think that it hurt the plaintiffs. And Alex Jones was not – he wasn't even cross examined after that by his own lawyers because they took a break. And then today, I think that he decided to pack it in today. But he did talk on the courthouse steps, of course, but he didn't talk in the courtroom.
I thought it was a – look, there's an old Tom Luedecke saying, Josh. And that saying is you catch a fish by its mouth. And I think in that case that the plaintiff’s lawyers, from my perspective, they caught a fish by its mouth with Alex Jones’ testimony.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:36:26]
That's excellent. Excellent point. And by design, right? I don't think that any of that kind of reaction by him was a surprise to them. They were doing that by design to get him to behave that way in front of the jury.
Another thing that they did that I thought was so clever is they put up images of articles on his website talking about the current trial that are currently on the website and showing images of the judge and criticizing the judge and just this kind of – the point being he's still trying to profit off of all of this. He's even using this trial as a way to boost his image and to get more advertising dollars. And he's at your – it's almost like they were making the point of you're watching the crime as it continued to be committed right here in court.
I thought that was pretty powerful. You know, you made an excellent point about how they're trying different cases here. My view is this is going down the same way that it did in Texas. I would not be shocked if we saw some pretty heavy-duty damages in this case. Compensatory, yes. But punitive, definitely.
Neil Rockind:
[0:37:40]
I agree with you and that leads to the next question, which is, one is Alex Jones collectible? He says that he's not.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:37:54]
Right. Right.
Neil Rockind:
[0:37:55]
And of course, amazingly, as you know, punitive damages are not – I don't think they're dischargeable in bankruptcy. And so, he and his company had filed bankruptcy. And they've done that preemptively, it seems to me, in an effort to try to beat back these verdicts that they can see coming.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:38:19]
Yeah.
Neil Rockind:
[0:38:20]
So, I think we're going to see huge verdicts in Connecticut, huge. He's on the courthouse steps, telling jurors to do your research, research what's going on. Like the jurors are getting instructions from the judge saying don't do any outside research.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:38:39]
Yeah. No, it's all madness. And I don't – I've been going back and forth trying to figure out, is he stupid like a fox or is this just a person who's lost, you know, become untethered to reality and kind of caught up in his own ego? You know, does he have anyone around him advising him or are they just a bunch of yes men?
Or is this some sort of master plan, you know, that he's devised where it's just going to continue to, you know, I mean, here we are talking about him, right? Court TV and Law and Crime, they're covering him every single day that he's in the news and that's where he wants to be.
So, I don't know. This thing is not going to end for a while because like you said, it goes from here to a bankruptcy court. So, we will see how this all plays out.
Finally, we turn to Salinas, California. The murder trial continues for Paul Flores, accused of the 1996 murder of Cal Poly Pomona freshman Kristin Smart.
The prosecution concluded their case by presenting two witnesses that claimed they were sexually assaulted by Paul Flores on separate occasions in 2008 and 2011. As they rested their case, the state presented an explicit photo of a woman with a red ball gagged in her mouth on Paul Flores’ bed. The image was a screenshot allegedly taken from a video on Paul’s computer.
The defense began their case with testimony from a doctor specializing in decomposition of the body and continued with a forensic expert trying to poke holes in the prosecution's case in which there is nobody.
Neil, explain to us how it is that prosecutors can use these other victims, unrelated women, in a case where we're talking about a murder of a woman back in 1996. How were they able to bring in this type of evidence?
Neil Rockind:
[0:40:32]
So, there are rules of evidence that permit prosecutors to seek in certain cases the use of what we call other acts or similar acts evidence. And that is how prosecutors have traditionally attempted to prove cases where there are reluctant victims, where there are no eyewitnesses, there's a lack of forensic evidence, there's an eyewitness that they're trying to corroborate.
And essentially, what they do is they have little direct evidence of the accused committee in this particular crime. But what they do is they try to bolster it from the sides and they try to bolster it from underneath with other evidence of other crimes.
And, of course, it's prior judicial. And of course, it has a tendency to make the jurors think that the accused is someone who's done it in the past and therefore that has done it in this case which the jurors are told not to think about, they're not allowed to use propensity evidence.
But the way the rules are traditionally written, the prosecutors are allowed to allowed to use other acts and they're allowed to use other acts to prove things like intent, motive scheme, modus operandi. And basically, they're allowed to do it to try to bolster an element of the offense, to bolster their case.
Let me give you one very common example where this failed, which we all saw, was in the OJ Simpson case. Again, not trying to pick sides in the case. But in the OJ Simpson case, we saw the prosecutors attempt to lead into their case with all their acts evidence. Nicole Brown Simpson was clearly murdered.
And the prosecution began its case with a presentation of domestic violence calls and 911 calls and a note that she left in a picture and a note that she left in in a safety deposit box saying that, you know, showing what she looked like and almost like she's speaking from the grave.
Well, he wasn't accused of those other domestic violence events in that murder case. He was accused of murdering her. And so, the prosecution brought in other acts to try to show that he was capable of or had done this in the past or had done things, again not for propensity purposes, but to show that he was someone who -- this was his modus operandi, the reason why he would kill Nicole Brown Simpson.
And in this case, they don't have a body and the only DNA evidence they have, as I understand it, is, well, it's not even DNA. They have some evidence of what may be decomposed blood in the dirt beneath a ramp and a porch on a house that he occupied at one point.
And so, they're doing what they can to try to say you don't even have a body. Somebody saw, somebody believed that they were together, they have something in the dirt, and she was kidnapped. And these other cases corroborate one of the witnesses, I believe, who came to court and said that he admitted that he had kidnapped her, he had his fun with her I believe was the phrase he had used and he got rid of her.
And so, they're trying to show that this woman, the witness, was in a position to one, that she had been kidnapped by him. That two, her story about having been kidnapped and sexually assaulted was corroborated by this photograph. And three that this is what he – this was his ammo, so to speak, that he kidnapped women, sexually abused them, and then got rid of them afterwards.
The challenge with that theory, Josh, as you know, is that there isn't any real corroboration for that specifically. And the two women who claim who claimed to have been kidnapped and raped by him apparently, according to them, he dropped off when he was – he didn't kill them, he dropped them off and took them home.
It's a very, very interesting case. Again, from an academic standpoint, it's interesting. If I'm a trial lawyer, war story, people like you and I who like watching how these things play out because we're interested in our profession, in our art, in our field, these are fascinating cases to watch. From a human tragedy standpoint, they're horrible.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:44:46]
Yeah, yeah.
Neil Rockind:
[0:44:47]
It's horrible that we have to have this conversation about someone’s child.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:44:50]
Yeah. No. Absolutely. You did an excellent job of kind of explaining that idea of propensity evidence and everything, and I just kind of wanted to add to that. In California, the law actually changed in cases involving either domestic violence or sexual assault.
They can bring in these other uncharged acts to specifically prove propensity and the prosecution can make that argument that this person has done it before. Therefore, you can use that to conclude they have the propensity, the likelihood, to have committed the crime that we are now presenting to you and asking you to convict that person on. Incredibly powerful tool for the prosecution.
That law changed in response to a case. What case was that? You brought it up, the OJ Simpson case where the prosecution was not allowed to make those types of arguments. The legislative response to that was that this is so unacceptable that we cannot allow people who commit domestic violence or sexual assault, to not make that argument that they are kind of have a propensity towards that type of behavior.
And so, since that time, the laws changed in California and it's become an incredibly powerful tool for the prosecution. Now, we could have an entire show about is that fair? Are people being convicted of crimes that they're not actually being charged with, that they're being bootstrapped with other, you know, a bunch of very weak crimes or being bootstrapped together to make it seem like it's an overall stronger case?
We can get into all of that. We could get into is this important for the prosecution to show that this person has a repeated behavior that includes these types of things and therefore it's important for the jury to know all about that?I'll leave that for another day. It's a bit of a third rail issue or it's very damaging. From the side of the courtroom that we operate on now, it’s incredibly difficult to deal with from the defense. Very powerful for the prosecution.
I know that you – let's get back to Paul Flores, though. And I know that you've followed this fairly closely. What are your thoughts? I mean, I'm not asking you to make a call here, but has your thoughts on the power of the case changed at all as you've been watching it?
Neil Rockind:
[0:47:11]
You know, it's tough to say I try not to bite into or buy into or get caught up in the daily who's doing better, who's doing worse.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:47:22]
Right.
Neil Rockind:
[0:47:25]
I think one of the things that really—if I can buy – if I can sidestep that question and make this observation, I think it's really difficult for defendants and defense lawyers in these sorts of – in these cases to be able to find experts, to find those that are willing to come forward and testify for the defense because the state had almost in many ways has a monopoly on crime lab and on resources and funding for – and for funding for these types of the analysts and experts who are testifying in this case about yeah, the likelihood of identifying blood and decomposed blood, and what does that mean, and dirt and where could that be found.
And, you know, so, I try to keep my defense lawyer hat on when I watch these trials and I try not to get caught up in the day-to-day of it and thinking which side is, you know, kind of winning the day. But no body murder cases are very tough. They're very, very, very difficult.
And, you know, I think in a no body murder case where there's any doubt about the forensic evidence and any doubt about the reliability of the witnesses, no matter how heinous and horrible the act is, how heartbroken the victims are for the loss and the absence of Kristin Smart, I hate to see somebody convicted in a case like that. I really do.
But you know, I mean, this is an interesting full circle, right? We started our discussion talking about Adnan Syed and we end our discussion, the last case we're talking about is a case in which another, a young woman disappeared in 1996 and is presumed to be – to had been murdered and they’re on trial for the murder and assistance in moving her body.
And the very difficult part of what you and I do of what we're talking about is that it is hard to advocate for people, when there are people who sit there and they want justice, well, justice is the right result. Vengeance is different than justice. Vengeance is different than getting the right result in court.
And sometimes the right result is one that doesn't make you feel like this has been solved. And the hard part in this case is that it's a very tough case. I think jurors, in my experience, have had a tendency in cases like this to lean with the state because they're almost in some ways afraid to not but we'll see.
I mean, there's no forensic evidence. There are really no eyewitnesses. So, it's really a case of trying to build the defense is saying it's a house of cards and the prosecution is saying that it's a house of bricks so we'll see.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:50:44]
Yeah, yeah. You can't imagine a more difficult case for the prosecution. It's a cold case. It's a no body case. Zero to little forensic evidence, no eyewitness. You know, all of the things that you usually would see somewhat a prosecution put their case together, they don't have.
I'll tell you though, you know, putting aside these last two witnesses that they called, they talked about their interactions with Paul Flores. I think that's devastating stuff to his case but to me a turning point in this whole thing and we'll see how it turns out.
But to me, a turning point was when they played or they presented evidence of wiretaps from the phone calls that Paul had with his mother, and they're talking about this podcast, and they're talking about how his mother makes a statement along the lines of, “Well, you can help to put poke holes in that case.”
And jurors, in my experience, the most powerful evidence they can hear is from the defendant themselves, and whether that's them taking the stand or them being captured, confessing the crime to someone or what have you. But this type of stuff where it sounds like they are implicating themselves and it's being caught secretly in what they believe is a secret conversation just might be enough for those jurors to put their – hang their hat on.
And again, I agree with you, I don't think that's fair to call it day by day, but that to me was a real turning point in this case. But we'll find out, you know.
Neil Rockind:
[0:52:17]
The jail phone calls. I know these aren't, say, jail phone calls, but you sit there, you're preparing your case, you're preparing your case, and then you get the trove of a hundred gigabytes of jail phone calls.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:52:31]
Yeah, devastating stuff.
Neil Rockind:
[0:52:33]
Devastating stuff.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:52:34]
Neil, thank you so much for coming on this week. Where can people find out more about you?
Neil Rockind:
[0:52:39]
So, you can look me up. You can just look up my name, Neil Rockind, N-E-I-L R-O-C-K-I-N-D. You can go to rockindlaw.com or you can call my now good friend Josh Ritter and I'm sure he'll direct you to me if you have anything you want to know about me in Michigan.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:52:53]
Absolutely.
Neil Rockind:
[0:52:54]
But I'm easy to find. I've got a pretty loud voice, got these big ears. So, if you holler my name from anywhere, I'm going to find you. But if you want to look, I'm on Twitter. I’m on Twitter, you can look me up. I think it's @rockindlaw or @nealrockindlaw.
Every Wednesday, I'm on the Law & Crime Network as a guest, contributor, commentator, talking head with Linda Kenney Baden, who’s one of just the great lawyers. I know you've been on with her as well. She's fantastic. And so, I'm on there from twelve to one, talking about cases.
I’m here on local television here in Michigan from time to time. I’m on the radio from here from time to time. And you can catch me on my podcast on The Killer Cross Examination Podcast. So, it's, you know, these are true crime stories and I enjoy talking about them.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:53:57]
Fantastic. Well, we will definitely have to take a listen. And I'm your host, Josh Ritter. You can find me on Instagram and Twitter, @JoshuaRitterESQ. And you can find our Sidebar episodes wherever you get your podcasts.
And we want to hear from you. If you've got questions or comments you'd like us to address, tweet us your questions with the hashtag #TCDSidebar. And thank you for joining us at the True Crime Daily Sidebar.
