Alex Murdaugh takes the stand; R. Kelly sentence reduced; ‘Rust’ prosecution blunder — TCD Sidebar
In this episode of True Crime Daily The Sidebar Podcast
Marie Pereira joins host Joshua Ritter to break down the biggest cases making headlines across the nation. They discuss Alex Murdaugh taking the stand in his own defense, a federal judge’s ruling that will cut 20 years from R. Kelly’s sentence, and prosecutors dropping a gun enhancement charge against Alec Baldwin.
Tweet your questions for future episodes to Joshua Ritter using the hashtag #TCDSidebar.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:00:11]
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 an L.A. County prosecutor for nearly a decade. You can find me at joshuaritter.com. We are recording this on Friday, February 24th, 2023.
In this week's episode, in a surprising move, disgraced lawyer Alex Murdaugh takes the stand in his own defense for the murder of his wife and child, as well as a federal judge's ruling that will reduce our Kelly's sentence by nearly 20 years. And finally, Alec Baldwin's plea of not guilty days after prosecutors embarrassingly drop a weapons enhancement that would have carried a sentence of five years for the actor.
Today, we are joined by Marie Pereira, a former prosecutor, criminal defense attorney and legal analyst. Marie also does pro bono work for undocumented Haitian nationals and aiding in applications for their work authorization. Marie, welcome.
Marie Pereira:
[00:01:16]
Thank you for having me. I'm super excited.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:01:19]
Oh, good. We're excited to hear your thoughts because I know you have experience and I know you've been watching these cases closely. But before we jump in, tell us, I know that you're up to a lot lately. Tell us what your current practice is and kind of what you're involved in.
Marie Pereira:
[00:01:32]
My current practice is mostly right now humanitarian work, working with undocumented Haitian nationals to help them, those that qualify for temporary protected status and work authorizations. I actually have a non-for-profit. It's called the Haiti Immigration Project, and we provide services for free and we're a 501(c)(3) organization. And basically, anybody who needs that paperwork and who qualifies for it, if they need it completed, we do it for free. So that's my main focus right now.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:02:06]
Oh, very cool. That's very admirable of you. I'm sure that takes a lot of your time.
Marie Pereira:
[00:02:11]
It does. But it's so much joy because I'm an immigrant and I'm from Haiti. And I came here documented with my parents and three siblings, but it wasn't easy for us. And it always helps to have someone on this side that makes things just a little bit easier to assimilate.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:02:28]
Well, that's fantastic. We applaud you for that. But let's jump in. I'm really curious to hear your thoughts on these cases, especially the first one coming up out of Walterboro, South Carolina. Former lawyer Alex Murdaugh took the stand last week during his highly publicized murder trial, denying killing his wife and son through hours of testimony. He is currently on the stand as we're recording this today on Friday. And he's under cross-examination.
Murdaugh appeared emotional, intermittently crying through the questioning in which he described an ongoing drug addiction and openly admitted to his financial crimes. Prosecutors have alleged that these financial crimes motivated the killing of his wife, Maggie, and son Paul. However, Alex testified he wasn't overly concerned about the inquiries into his misdeeds. Murdaugh has also addressed a video highlighted by the prosecution taken from his son's phone in which Alex is seen at the scene of the murders shortly before the alleged killings took place.
Alex admitted to lying to investigators about the timeline and location on the night of the murders, claiming that he was paranoid due to drug use and didn't trust investigators. Throughout his testimony, Murdaugh faced jurors directly during the questioning, with one juror even reportedly sliding an emotional Alex a box of tissues. Cross examination of Murdaugh began with a detailed review of his family history and questioning regarding his alleged financial crimes.
The jury recess with the prosecution expected to continue their cross-examination today, Friday, January 24th. I was able to watch a little bit of that this morning. And it's kind of continuing along the same lines of all of his financial crimes. But now they're starting to get into his timeline of the events on the night of the murders. Marie, jump right in. Were you surprised, first of all, that Murdaugh took the stand?
Marie Pereira:
[00:04:23]
I'm not surprised. You and I share what I call the boxes on Court TV and Law & Crime Network. And this is how we met. And I always said from day one, even though other guests looked at me like I was crazy, why would he take the stand? He had to take the stand because at the end of the day, you know, you and I both know he's not obligated. He's cloaked in a presumption of innocence, as they say.
But if someone is accusing you of a case built on little, tiny circumstances and they're saying that you actually committed a homicide against your wife and a filicide against your son, and you just sit there and take it and exercise your right to stay quiet, I think it's going to blow up in your face. And I think his team know this. And dangerous or not, for him to take the stand, he had to. Because at the end of the day, what does he have to lose when you really look at it by taking the stand?
Joshua Ritter:
[00:05:21]
Yeah, it wasn't -- you make some great points and I want to get back to touch on a couple of them. But one thing is that it wasn't as if his defense had set such a wonderful case that they didn't want to touch it. Right. They had put on some evidence. They had done some work on cross examination of the prosecution's case, but it wasn't so convincing. And I agree with you. It's kind of like, what has he got to lose now because they're shooting for a hung jury, right? I mean, I know they're going for an acquittal, but they just need to convince one or two folks and they can hang this whole jury. So maybe that's what they're shooting for here. Get back to, though, your thought on do you think his attorneys were in on this? I assume they didn't want him to testify, and this was all on him. But do you think this was part of their strategy for a while now?
Marie Pereira:
[00:06:13]
I think it was part of their strategy and I think the strategy evolved over time. And I think the strategy really leaned on what the judge allowed them to use in the prosecutorial presentation. And once the judge opened up that gate and it was like, okay, we are letting in all of this character evidence, we're letting in all the financial crime evidence and all in the name of proving motive. And then when they open the door accidentally to allowing that 911 tape, the suicide that was supposed to be staged as a robbery. All of that came in.
After that, really, what did he have to lose? People don't take the stand because they're afraid when they do, their veracity, honesty, prior crimes, prior convictions are going to come into play. But everyone already knew that Alex was a disbarred lawyer. That's really the name of the case all over, disgraced attorney who stole from his clients, who stole from his family, who had a drug addiction and admitted to it. And in some parts he was fired from his law firm. There was no more dirt on Alex that could come out by him taking the stand. So really, he had nothing to lose and everything to gain.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:07:39]
Yeah, good point. A lot of times, a defendant, this is for listeners to understand, won't take the stand not because they don't want to answer questions about the crimes they're accused of, but because they don't want to answer questions about crimes the jury doesn't know about already. Things about moral turpitude and things that have been kept out from in front of the jury. And they know that if they take the stand, they're going to open the door wide to that. But you're right. Everything's in front of them now. What is it, he's not hiding from anything.
Another point you made, and I'm curious to hear your thoughts on this is we talk a lot about Fifth Amendment protections as. We talk about a lot about your right to remain silent. We talk a lot about your right not to testify against yourself. We talk a lot about the burden being on the prosecution. But jurors are people and people say, if I'm ever accused of killing my wife and child, you're going to hear from me. Do you think that that played a role?
And my follow up is, should that play a role? Because he should have a right to sit there and say the prosecution didn't prove their case. But is it just we live in this world where that doesn't fly? And if you're accused of something like this, you better take those 22 steps to the stand to explain yourself to the jurors.
Marie Pereira:
[00:08:50]
You better walk the walk if you want to save your life. And you're right, you don't have to take the stand. But if you're sitting there, silence in a lot of areas of law is acceptance. It's not supposed to be in criminal law. You're not supposed to be forced to talk. But in a situation like this where they are saying that you blew your son's brain out, your wife was shot five times at close range, some of the shots, and they're saying you did it and you want to be there and be Mr. Preserve my right to remain silent. Good luck with that.
And they are saying that you did it because you did all this other terrible stuff, and you were just trying to create a delay and distraction. So to get some adjournments and buy time, you're like, okay, wait, let me go home and kill Paul Paul and Mags so that I can avoid a hearing on my assets. The motive didn't make sense to me. And just based off that motive, he had to get on and speak his piece. And once, like I said, they opened the door and there was nothing to fear because really the evidence that was allowed in by that judge couldn't make him look more like a bum and a thief and a liar than he already was.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:10:10]
Yeah, yeah. No, I agree with you. Another reason, though, he had to take the stand is because of that video. There's that one video. Now, and I'll say another reason, coupled with the fact that he's already essentially testified in front of this jury. They've heard his interviews. The man decided to go ahead and interview with the police several times. So they've heard his statements. And the biggest problem is that he says he was nowhere near those kennels. And now we have this Snapchat video showing that he was at those kennels. I firmly believe if it wasn't for that videotape, we'd be living in a different landscape here and he might not have taken the stand.
But I think he had to get up there and explain why he said I wasn't where I was, where you can now prove I was, right. I wasn't at these kennels, but you can now prove that I was. And I think that was a huge part of why he took the stand. So he explained it and he did that through his direct examination, which is always a good strategy. And he said, I lied, which I think is also a good strategy. I lied to police. Now, his reason for it was that he was suffering from paranoia because of the drugs he was addicted to, and he didn't trust police. And therefore he kind of told them he was nowhere around and now he had to continue to double down on that same lie every time he spoke to anybody about it. One, do you think that's a good explanation. And two, do you think the jury is going to buy it?
Marie Pereira:
[00:11:42]
I think it's the best explanation that he could come up with, because at the end of the day, he was a drug addict by his own admission. And so what else is he going to say? I think just the fact that he owned up to it and got up on the stand, looked at them and said, you know what, I lied and this is why I lied, is a good starting point for him to try to humanize himself because we all make wrong decisions. And that was a wrong decision to lie to the police, but he was on drugs. He suffered from paranoia, and he had an innate mistrust for law enforcement. And that's his story. He's sticking to it. A little bit of testilying, but hey, he's trying to save his life here.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:12:26]
Yeah. Yeah, I agree with you. I don't know if it's the strongest explanation for it, but I think it's his only explanation for it, because otherwise the assumption is you're lying because you were there, because you did it or you were involved somehow. Let's talk about the financial crimes, because the prosecution, and I want to get your thoughts on how you think they're doing so far on this cross. But the prosecution started out, rather than going directly into the night of the murders, they start out with this who is your family and what role did your family play in this community?
And then they start to talk about, well, look at all the people you took advantage of and look at all the people that you conned out of their money. And he starts to freely admit all of that stuff. And it's not like I don't think he's hedging himself on this. He's there's a big mea culpa he's taking on in the way he's talking about this. Yes, I did that. Yes, that was horrible. Yes, I heard these people. Do you think he's taking the sting out of the prosecution's theory of motive by saying, yeah, I did all this stuff, but that wasn't so horrible to me that it caused me to, like you said, I don't know, dot, dot, dot, kill my wife and child.
Marie Pereira:
[00:13:41]
I think he's approaching it correctly because he is admitting what he did was wrong and he's connecting the dots. I am a thief and I am a liar. And I did deceive people whose trust I should have never violated, but it doesn't make me a murderer. I do think, though, seeing him on the stand, the way he went tit for tat with the prosecutor, he's doing a little bit too much and his contrition doesn't seem genuine to me because he always has something extra to add. Almost like he deserves some sort of a prize for admitting that he's a liar. And he heard some of the most vulnerable people, people who were quadriplegics, minors, people who trusted him.
And it's not like, you know, his attorney fee was not in the tune of millions. He got like $4 million on one case. And he still felt it necessary to steal from the people. And he's trying to rush the prosecutor through that line of questioning because it doesn't make him look good. It doesn't make him comfortable. It's like, okay, you know, we've seen this story. There's nothing to see here. I admit it, I'm a thief. Can we move on, please? There's a little bit of arrogance there, and it made me dislike him.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:14:56]
Interesting.
Marie Pereira:
[00:14:57]
That's not a good thing.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:14:58]
No, it's not, because a lot of these jurors are doing what you and I are doing. They're basing their assessment of this a little bit on what he says, but a lot a bit on how he's behaving and how he comes across and whether or not they find him to be trustworthy and likable. And if he's not coming across likable, I agree with you, that could backfire on him. It's funny because I have been watching it and I've taken him to be, for the most part, very respectful and for the most part, very calm. And I know the prosecutor is trying the best that he can to get under his skin, and he doesn't seem that he's allowing that to happen.
He is very specific on the way he answers questions, and he will not give an inch to the prosecutor when the prosecutor tries to throw something into a question. And for instance, this morning, I saw the prosecutor asked some sort of question where he says, well, then you admit that there was a ton of evidence to show where you were that evening. It was something along those lines. And he said, well, I admit that there is evidence and data that shows where my phone is, but I don't know if I would agree with your characterization of a ton, because I don't know what that means.
Now, to you and I, that sounds like a very lawyerly answer. And you're right. I don't know how the jurors are going to perceive that, but he's not giving him an inch and admitting to anything. And I think it's smart, but he has to maintain a likability while he does it, right. Let's jump into the prosecution's cross. I'll just ask, how do you think they're doing so far?
Marie Pereira:
[00:16:33]
I don't think they're doing very well. I think a cross examination really typically should be on my prosecutorial show. And they are giving Alex way too much shine. They're allowing him to go on with storytelling and narrative in addressing the jurors. A cross examination is succinct. And you're supposed to go in and elicit information that you want to elicit. I feel like up there, he's Alex Murdaugh, not the defendant. He's also the attorney. He's interrupting the prosecutor and he's outshining the prosecutor and he's addressing the jurors. He's veering off into topics that was never I didn't ask you that. I feel like they are giving him too much leeway to present his case, and I don't think they're doing a good job.
And I want to circle back to his response when I say his, Alex's, and response to some of the questions. Going back to the financial crimes, the prosecutor said, can you remember one example of when you stole money from one of your clients? And give me one example of that. And he really never answered the question. He just kept saying, I don't remember. How do you not remember? I remember. Gloria Satterfield, your housekeeper. I remember that. So if I remember it, I know you remember it, too. And it just made him look very decent, genuine in his contrition. And again, it made me dislike him. He is a master manipulator. If he's saying he doesn't remember specifically one case from one person, he stole from, are you kidding me?
Joshua Ritter:
[00:18:16]
Yeah. Yeah, I agree with you on that. And I also agree with you on the fact that I don't think the prosecutor -- this is not an inexperienced prosecutor. It's a very experienced attorney. And so, I have to assume that the decision he made in how he's conducting this cross was conscientious. And I'm curious as to why he's doing it the way he is, but he's not asking him traditional cross questions, which are leading questions that are yes or no questions. Isn't it true, sir, you lied to police, yes or no? Yes, I did. And then you control it. Then you control it. You control the speed of it. You control the witness. But he's asking a bunch of these open-ended questions that has allowed for Murdaugh to give almost narrative answers to some of this stuff.
And I don't know if that's because the prosecution wants to present this idea that they allowed this man to say everything he had to say and he still didn't explain himself properly. Maybe that's where they're going with it. But it does not seem as though he's picked up a pace and it doesn't seem as though he's nailed him down where he needs to really pinpoint his lies. I mean, that's what it really all comes down to, this whole thing. And maybe that's where they're getting to this morning.
But this whole thing should come down to, sir, your wife and child had just been murdered. According to you, you don't know by whom. And instead of doing your best to help the police find that person by giving them the most accurate information, you're telling us that you were more concerned with your own drug induced paranoia that you started telling them you were nowhere around when the crime took place. Isn't that important for the police to know where you were to establish a timeline of when they might have been killed? Maybe he's getting into that right now as we're speaking. But boy, it doesn't -- that's the strong suit and they're sure taking their time getting there. What do you think?
Marie Pereira:
[00:20:17]
They really are. I think he's making it more the Alex show, and that's not the way it should be. He's allowing him, like you said, to almost come -- every statement is a narrative. And even when he tells him to stop, he just continues doing it. He doesn't have control of the defendant and he should have control.
But earlier today, as I was watching it, you know, Alex is going and he's going and he's going about how I have already admitted that I heard people that trusted me, people who trusted me, people who I loved. And when he kept saying that, I saw maybe there is a strategy. So you stole from all of these people that you love and you still love, but it didn't stop you from hurting them, though. So he kept saying, I love this person, I cared for this person, and I violated the trust. And I admit to doing that. And I'm so sorry. And he said it so many times. I was waiting for the prosecutor to come in with the kill. So you love Maggie, right? You love Paul Paul, right? And he never said it.
Joshua Ritter:
[timestamp]
[00:21:34] No. And that's a good argument and I can follow that. And that would have been an interesting strategy. But still, boy, that's a big leap, right? That's a big leap from taking money from people. And on a day that seems like any other day deciding to massacre your family, that's the problem.
The biggest problem that I've had with this case is that we don't see that that buildup of animosity or anything. It's like they were having a wonderful day. They're spending time on their property. They're playing with the fruit trees or whatever it was that was going on. And then I decided to wake up from a nap and grab a shotgun and kill my family. It's so hard to wrap your head around with very little explanation. And I think that's the hardest problem that the prosecution has with this case.
Marie Pereira:
[00:22:26]
It is. It is their Achilles heel. It really is. Even for me as a mom, a lawyer, a potential juror, I still struggle with that. And I still, as we speak today, cannot believe he did that. I don't know how it happened. Maybe he had something to do with it indirectly, but I don't see him physically shooting his son's brains out of his head and doing that to his wife, especially with the forensic evidence and the telephone data.
You know, never a text to say, you know, I hate you, you failed me. You're a horrible husband. None of that. He even had his wife's password. They seem to have not a perfect marriage, but not a terrible marriage that would lead to that. If they had damning texts, they would have come up with it by now. It's just not connecting the dots for me. And I think that's the prosecution's biggest hurdle. Even though motive was never something mandatory, once they introduce it, they have to connect the dots. And I think even at this stage, the dots are not connected for me.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:23:42]
Yeah. Yeah. Well, it's a fascinating case to watch. Like I said, it's continuing to go on as we're recording this. I assume it will still be continuing to go on as we release this podcast and we will continue to keep our eye on it. In the meantime, let's move to Chicago, Illinois. A federal judge ruled against prosecutors in the sentencing of R&B singer R Kelly, a move that will effectively cut 20 years off his sentence.
R Kelly received a 30-year sentence following his conviction in New York on charges of federal racketeering and sex trafficking. He was subsequently convicted on 6 of 13 counts at a later trial in the singer's hometown of Chicago, including counts of producing child pornography and enticing minors for sex and sentenced to 20 years in that case. While prosecutors argued for R Kelly to serve his sentences consecutively, meaning one after the other, keeping Kelly behind bars until he was nearly 100, a judge ruled that all but one year if his sentence would be served concurrently, meaning at the same time, meaning he could leave prison when he was around the age of 80.
Though the judge has noted the heinousness of Kelly's crimes, he did not agree with the allegation that R Kelly used fear in the manipulation of his victims. A distinction that was pivotal in the extension of Kelly's sentence.
Marie, the judge made a distinction between cases of forcible rape and what he described in Kelly's case as the opposite of fear of bodily harm. It was the fear of lost love, lost affections that allowed Kelly to coerce his victims. What do you make of that, Marie? Do you feel that is a fair distinction?
Marie Pereira:
[00:25:27]
I think so. And at the risk of being canceled in this era of Me Too and domestic violence, I am a domestic violence victim advocate, and I'm not in any way underplaying what happened to those victims. But a lot of them, when they came into it, came in with their parents who wanted them to be superstars and they were minors. And the parents knew this, and they basically delivered them to R Kelly. And people were just looking for a come up and he capitalized on it, and he preyed on vulnerable women and little girls, but it wasn't a situation where he had a gun to anybody's head.
I think decisions were made to conduct transactions and I think the parents of those children, some of them were minors, were really complicit because they were just looking for their kids to become superstars and they basically sold their little kids to R Kelly and just turned a blind eye when everything was going on. So not to say that he shouldn't be held responsible, but I don't think that there was a particularly heinous nature, like the judge said, that would warrant making him serve consecutive sentences. I think 30 years is enough for what he did. I think they've done enough to him to make him accountable.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:26:44]
And that's an important point, too, is that it's not that he's not being held accountable. He's going to prison for 30 years. It's just whether or not the judge decided to stack all of those sentences. And the judge agrees with your thinking on the case here I think to a large extent that, no, it didn't demonstrate the type of force of violence that we usually see when they stack these types of cases.
Marie, another thing is that Kelly's attorneys made much of the fact that if he was sentenced to concurrent time, he essentially would have no chance of being ever released from prison. But now he will have a chance, albeit as a very old man. And I'm just curious, what are your thoughts on this idea of the age of the defendant playing a role in sentencing?
Marie Pereira:
[00:27:34]
I don't think the age of the defendant should play a role. And I think you meant to say if he was sentenced to consecutive time. Right?
Joshua Ritter:
[00:27:42]
Right. Pardon me. Yeah.
Marie Pereira:
[00:27:43]
I don't think the age matters. We're talking about justice and accountability. And sometimes, you know, prosecutors want to go overboard and just make a point like we put him under the jail. This is not an under the jail situation. It's accountability that matches the crime you committed. And I think 30 years is enough. Most people don't live till the age of 100, so they want to make a point, but this is not a make a point situation. It's called justice. And I think the judge was reasonable in his assessment of the sentencing scheme.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:28:19]
Yeah. Well, the defense and the judge agree with you. And I think most people who understand how sentencing should be imposed would agree with you as well. Finally, let's move to our last case here out of Santa Fe, New Mexico. Alec Baldwin has pled not guilty to manslaughter charges after the onset shooting that caused the death of Rust Cinematographer Halyna Hutchins.
Baldwin opted to waive his first formal court appearance while the film's armorer, Hannah Gutierrez-Reed, is expected to appear in court the day we are making this recording. Reed and Baldwin were formally charged with involuntary manslaughter last month, with prosecutors dropping a firearm enhancement charge earlier this week, which would have carried a potential five-year sentence. Under New Mexico law, the manslaughter charges facing the defendants carry a maximum sentence of just 18 months in jail and a $5,000 fine.
With the harsher sentence removed, many experts expect Baldwin to take this case to trial, with a preliminary hearing likely taking place in the next few months. Production on the film Rust is expected to resume actually this spring with Halyna Hutchins' husband joining the film as a producer. Marie, I want to first talk to you about the prosecutors "dropping" the weapons allegation. The reason they dropped it was because the law was not in effect until months after the shooting took place. Is this a huge blunder on the part of the prosecutors?
Marie Pereira:
[00:29:50]
I think it is a huge blunder. And I think it undermines their authority and it undermines just what's happening in that office, because really, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out, was this illegal when it happened in our situation? And it made them look sort of very Keystone prosecutors' office. And it wasn't a good look at all. It was a good look for the defense. And I think it strengthened Alec Baldwin's position. And he's really coming at them because it just makes them look, for lack of a better word, rinky dink.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:30:27]
Yeah, I agree with you. And to put on a little bit of defense of the prosecutor here. Having been a prosecutor, there is not a huge amount of turnover in criminal law. So for the most part, when you're going through your charging manual and you're trying to decide what elements, what facts apply to the elements of which crimes, and I'm going to check the boxes there, you're assuming that these laws have been on the books for some time. That's what I'm going to go ahead and say on their behalf.
But the other side of that is this is the case that you've been investigating and talking about and having an entire team of people consider for close to a year. And you're telling me you didn't have one law clerk assigned to make sure that the crimes that you're going to bring against the largest high-profile case that you've ever had in this county, make sure those statutes are all good. That's the part that is so, as you put it, rinky dink. I would put it amateurish. It just, you have the whole world watching.
Adding to that, you've kind of added fanfare to this whole thing. And the way that you've charged it, you did take forever to investigate it. I got no problem with that. That actually shows some discretion in my view. But then this idea where they announced it and they went on this kind of media tour defending their position on it, and now the first thing out of the gate that a judge has to make a ruling on is to dismiss this five year allegation. What do you think this does to the prosecutor's case as far as you talked about their credibility? But how about their position as far as negotiation with Baldwin's team?
Marie Pereira:
[00:32:16]
It undermines their position. And it undermines the -- it makes them look almost disingenuous, like, okay, look at this. If we didn't point it out, you would have added this enhancement, which, God forbid, if he was found guilty, he would be facing five years' incarceration. And we had to point that out. I mean, should he have ever been charged in the first place? Are you doing this for publicity for your office? Like, are you even genuine in bringing forth the charges because you're not supposed to be just a prosecutor.
You're supposed to be prosecuting people who you feel their presence is a danger to society. They did something they needed to be punished for. Is Mr. Baldwin really someone that falls in this category, or are you just doing this for fanfare? It makes the whole process of even bringing the charges against them look disingenuine. And it's not a good thing for the prosecutors at all. And I feel I was surprised when they announced that they were going to criminally charged him for what happened. I was very surprised.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:33:24]
Yeah, I was surprised, too. And I kind of gave them the benefit of the doubt to say, well, maybe there's a bunch of evidence we just don't know about. There was this whole business with him saying he never pulled the trigger, and then we find out that gun can't be fired without pulling the trigger. And I thought, you know, maybe there's just more to this whole story. But now I'm agreeing with you, at least for appearances, it's like they're in over their head and they're just out over their skis on the way that they've gone after this case. And it's just an almost unforgivable mistake to me that they, you're right, in a case that in and of itself is not all that strong. You're trying to prove somebody, hold somebody criminally liable, well no one is going to argue that there was any kind of criminal intent here.
So in a case that's already kind of on tenuous legal grounds to begin with, and then you make this allegation that then falls apart, it is not a good look at the very best. Do you think this changes the posture of how this case ends? Because some people now feel, oh, he's going to head to trial on this whole thing. I have some thoughts on that. I'm curious to hear yours, but I'll start off by saying 18 months is still nothing to sneeze at, right? I mean, we're still talking about a man who's never spent any time in jail. Now, the possibility of 18 months, do you still think that the strategy here is to charge forward towards trial?
Marie Pereira:
[00:34:59]
It may be because Alec Baldwin is a special type of defendant. I find that he's particularly arrogant. Even before the case was indicted, he was going around on everybody's television show who would allow him on to say he knows for a fact he's not going to be indicted. And really he talks too much and he's arrogant. And just the fact that he didn't bother to show up at the arraignment, I don't think that sent a good message because at the end of the day, you want to show respect for the process. And what would it have cost for him to just show up and say, okay, I take this very seriously. I think him blowing off that court appearance made him look arrogant. And nobody likes an arrogant defendant, even when that person is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:35:49]
That's an interesting point. I hadn't even thought about that. Just the optics of him not even bothering to take the time to fly out there to make that court appearance. Interesting. I think, and I'll just go out there and we'll see if I'm proved wrong on this. I see this thing ending in some sort of settlement where both sides can spin it as a win, where Baldwin accepts some sort of responsibility, but it's not manslaughter. Maybe it's misuse of a firearm, negligent handling of a firearm or something like that, where he can spin that as I took responsibility, but I didn't cause her, I'm not responsible for her death. And that the DA's office could take that and spin it and say, well, listen, you know, we hold everyone accountable in this county no matter who you are.
But if that includes any kind of jail time on his part, I agree with you. I think he says I'm not spending an evening in behind bars. We're going to go ahead and put 12 in the box, if that's what you want me to do. But we'll see. A lot to still be done in this case. And it's already having some interesting twists and turns to it. But, Marie, thank you so much for coming on this week. Where can people find out more about you?
Marie Pereira:
[00:36:59]
You can log on to my non-for-profit website. It is Haiti Immigration Project. To log on, you go to www.HIP.suppport. HIP stands for Haiti Immigration Project so it's easy to remember. And you can donate to my cause because it is a 501(c)(3) organization. Everything you give me is tax deductible and 100 percent of the proceeds go towards the efforts of helping Haitian immigrants to assimilate into American society and just do better.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:37:35]
That's fantastic. And again, we applaud you for that. That's really great to hear. And I'm your host, Josh Ritter. You can find me on Instagram and Twitter at @JoshuaRitterESQ. And you can find me at joshuaritter.com. Please come check it out. You can find our Sidebar episodes wherever you get your podcasts. And we want to hear from you. If you 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.
