Alex Murdaugh’s murder trial; Memphis police charged in beating death; Petito lawsuit – TCD Sidebar
In this episode of True Crime Daily The Sidebar Podcast
Anne Bremner joins host Joshua Ritter to break down the biggest cases making headlines across the nation. They discuss the ongoing trial of Alex Murdaugh, the former police officers charged in the death of Tyre Nichols, and Brian Laundrie’s family attorney being included in the lawsuit filed by the parents of Gabby Petito.
Tweet your questions for future episodes to Joshua Ritter using the hashtag #TCDSidebar.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:00:10]
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, January 27, 2023.
In this week's episode, the murder trial of Alex Murdaugh begins. The former heir of a legal dynasty is accused of the brutal killing of his wife and son. Also in breaking news, five Memphis police officers face murder charges following an alleged fatal beating during a traffic stop. And finally, the addition of Brian Laundrie's family attorney to a lawsuit filed by the parents of Gabby Petito.
Today, we are joined by Anne Bremner, a trial attorney and former prosecutor who currently specializes in civil rights, catastrophic loss, litigation and criminal law, and is also an accomplished legal analyst. You can see on FOX, CNN, MSNBC and many other outlets, and has a new book out, Justice in the Age of Judgment, debuting at number one in Law and Media on Amazon. Anne, welcome.
Anne Bremner:
[00:01:25]
Thanks for having me. It's an honor and a pleasure.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:01:28]
Oh, it is our pleasure. Before we jump in, please tell us a little bit about your background, your current practice, and a little bit about your book.
Anne Bremner:
[00:01:36]
Well, my background is I grew up in the Northwest and I became a lawyer in 1983. So I was a prosecutor like you for five years. And then I went into private practice defending police officers, representing victims, and doing some analysis on TV over the last couple of decades. And our book is written with my little brother, who is a psychiatrist. He was at Yale Medical. Yeah, he was at Yale, and now he's at Emory. And he's published quite a bit, but he's an expert in memory and PTSD, et cetera. We centered it on the Amanda Knox case, which was a real injustice that turned into a justice when she was exonerated. And then we weave in a lot of cases that have been in the news, and some of my cases with the premise being confirmation bias and the media and social media really have impacted trials these days. Some of the trials we'll talk about and basically what the upshot is and how to deal with it as a lawyer and for the public in terms of being informed. So that's kind of a mouthful, but that's what the book is about. It's available on Amazon and thanks for mentioning it.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:02:34]
Oh, absolutely. And it sounds perfect for the cases we're going to talk about today. So we're really curious to hear your insights on these cases. So let's jump right in. The murder trial of former lawyer Alex Murdaugh is underway in South Carolina with opening statements beginning on January 25th. Murdaugh is accused of the 2021 shooting deaths of his son, Paul and wife, Maggie. Their bodies were found on the family's hunting property with Paul suffering a shotgun wound to the head and Alex's wife, Maggie, suffering multiple gunshot wounds from what has been described as an AR style rifle.
Murdaugh is a member of a prominent legal family in the South Carolina low country. Three generations of his family have served as solicitor, which oversaw prosecutions throughout the area. A portrait of his late grandfather, one of the solicitors had hung on the wall of the courtroom in which Murdaugh is being tried, but it has been removed before trial. Crichton Waters, the state's lead prosecutor in the case, highlighted some of the details of the prosecution's case in opening statements.
The evidence includes cell phone data from Alex's phone, as well as a victim's phone that allegedly ties Alex to the crime scene, as well as gunshot residue that was found on some of Murdaugh's possessions. Waters describes the details of the victim's injuries as horrific, telling the jury it's going to be gruesome to hear. The defense on, for their part, has argued that the prosecution's case relies entirely on theories with no direct evidence, forensics or eyewitnesses to convict Murdaugh for the murders. Murdaugh faces 30 years to life if convicted on the murder charges. This is in addition to other charges that he's facing, nearly a hundred additional charges related to fraud and embezzlement.
All right. And it is apparently hard to overstate what an influence the Murdaugh family has had on this area known as the South Carolina low country. Many of the jurors in the case when during voir dire with the judge, said that they were aware of the family, they were aware of the case. And the judge, in fact, let many of them on as long as they said that they would not carry a bias with them. But strangely enough, the defense never sought a change of venue. Do you think that was a misstep in this case, in your view?
Anne Bremner:
[00:04:51]
Well, given the prominence of the family, I think the defense probably thinks their best venue is where they are, even though this seems to be a real black sheep, right. In terms of the prominence of the family and the respect. But I always think a change of venue is something that should be considered and in any high-profile case. Even though with the Internet, these cases go everywhere with a high profile, right. And because no matter where you are, you could be here in Palm Springs or Seattle or anywhere else, and you've heard the same things really, that this jury is going to hear or they've been exposed to. A mistake, maybe, but they're banking on the reputation of the family, I think, and saying because the fraud evidence isn't coming in, in opening statement, they're not going to be able to mention it. People are going to say, how could a father kill his own son and his wife with no motive from such a prominent family?
Joshua Ritter:
[00:05:38]
That's a really excellent point. As long as they don't know about the drug dealing and all of the other nonsense, then, yeah, the people might just know that, hey, how could somebody with this type of reputation for this community commit this type of crime? Excellent point. And another good point is we're talking about it. I'm in Los Angeles. You're up in the northwest. The whole nation is talking about it. Where are they really going to bring this case that they wouldn't know about this family? But I just thought that was an interesting choice by the defense to not even make that motion.
Another thing is much has been made about the Murdaugh's emotional reactions. And I wanted to talk about this, about how we perceive how people should react, how jurors perceive it. So the first thing is a responding officer took the stand and testified that arriving on scene of the murders and he made a point of testifying that Murdaugh did not cry. Now, talk to me about this, especially given your book, people react differently to different situations. And how does that play with the jurors and how do you think the defense might use that or make a counterargument to what the prosecution might use that for?
Anne Bremner:
[00:06:55]
I've seen the juries over the years that that argument usually holds sway, which is people react differently. You know, people can be stoic. They can be just shocked. They can be suffering PTSD. And jurors accept that unless someone acts in really guilty way. But if you're not crying or you're crying or you're upset, you're not upset, I think jurors get that. You know, we're all different and accept that argument. But there are certain kinds of behavior that they just will look at and say, well, that person just really seems guilty. If they're sweating and worrying and making all kinds of excuses for why they're there and what happened, et cetera, then that's something to consider. But just crying, not crying, I don't know. Jurors, I think, accept people react differently to different things.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:07:41]
Yeah. I mean, it's one thing to be flat out suspicious and it's another thing to behave in a way that some might consider suspicious. But also, it might just be how people react given the circumstances. I mean.
Anne Bremner:
[00:07:52]
Exactly.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:07:53]
Who knows how any of us would react to coming upon her and, you know, our family being dead in front of us.
Anne Bremner:
[00:07:58]
Just stunned. I mean, I'm sure a jury would look at that and say, I get it. He's completely stunned. What a horrific sight for him and to have to report and respond. So I think so far, so good for him on that part of the case.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:08:12]
Yeah. So now, the other side of this is that a lot of reporting has been done about the fact that he has cried a couple of times in court. And they're saying, is he doing this for the benefit of the jury? Now, he's a trial attorney, too, so he has a certain understanding of the jury and how they pay attention to things and especially how they pay attention to the defendant's reaction. What do you make of this? Is the media making too much of it? Do you believe his tears? Do you think this is all an act? Just give me your hot take on it.
Anne Bremner:
[00:08:43]
Well, my hot take on it is that he's faking it and it's crocodile tears. That's just me. But, you know, I mean, he's so good at kind of being a con when you look at the thing with the maid, death, and the insurance that he finagled. And he's basically caused a lot of people to believe in him when he was doing things that were basically suspicious, right, and potentially criminal. So to me, I watch him, and I think, you know, I don't know. I was a juror, I'd be skeptical. But there's 12 people in that box that will watch him and think, oh, he's crying, ge's lost his family. Like I talked about before, how would you kill your own son and your own wife? In a dog kennel no less. I mean, how could you do that in your own home, your own property? And to see him crying, he's crying for them. I think he's crying for himself. But I think a jury could think he's crying for the loss of his family. What a tragedy.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:09:37]
Yeah. Yeah. It's an extraordinary point that just wrapping your heads around what would bring a person to murder their wife and son might just be too much for jurors to swallow and say, I just can't believe a person would do this, especially the person I see crying in court. But who knows? I mean, it's so early on in this trial. We'll see how a lot of this unfolds. But staying with this point on how we expect people to react, the 911 call placed by Murdaugh was played in court. We're going to play a little bit of that for you now.
Male:
[00:10:13]
911, what's your emergency?
Alex Murdaugh:
[00:10:18]
This is Alex Murdaugh at 4147 Roselle Road. I need the police immediately. My wife and child got shot badly.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:10:25]
So Anne, he sounds hysterical here. He sounds emotional. And I guess the point the defense would make is he sounds like someone who happened upon the deaths of his family. What do you think? What kind of an impact do you think that 911 call will have?
Anne Bremner:
[00:10:43]
Well, those calls are admissible because they're basically excited utterances and res gestae, which means you're describing what you see and so that it's reliable evidence because he's in the excitement. That's not the right word, but that's what the evidence will say is of the moment. And so there's not at least as an evidentiary basis, there's not a basis for him to basically make up stuff or to act in a certain way that's premeditated. He's just reacting to what he just saw. And I think for the defense, it's a great piece of evidence because he's high pitched in his voice. He's absolutely shocked and panicked. And he's describing finding the bodies, not being the perpetrator of the crime.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:11:21]
Yeah. Yeah, I agree with you. I think the defense certainly has an argument to be made with it. It will be interesting, though, because if the prosecution is able to prove that he is the one behind these murders, that's going to be a really chilling piece of audio to look back on, right, to realize this person's just faking this all for the benefit of the 911 recording. We will continue to watch this case slowly as the whole country is. And it's going to go on for weeks.
Let's turn to Memphis, Tennessee. Five former police officers in Memphis have been indicted on charges of murder and kidnapping for their part in the death of Tyre Nichols. Nichols, a 29 year old black man, was reportedly pulled over for reckless driving January 7th of this year. According to officers, a confrontation occurred when they approached Nichols' vehicle and he allegedly fled. A subsequent confrontation occurred after his eventual apprehension. Soon after being taken into custody, Nichols reportedly experienced shortness of breath. He was subsequently taken to a hospital where he died three days later. Photos of Nichols in the hospital have been released and show Nichols with severe swelling and lacerations. An independent autopsy was commissioned by Nichols family, which cited his cause of death as, "extensive bleeding caused by a severe beating".
Bodycam video of the incident has been previously shown to the family, and it is expected to be released publicly Friday, January 27th. That is the day that we are doing this recording. So we don't have the benefit of having seen the video just yet. The five former officers who are also black face charges of aggravated assault and kidnapping, official misconduct, and official oppression in addition to second degree murder. In Tennessee, second degree murder is punishable by a sentence of 15 to 60 years.
Also worth noting, Memphis PD amended their policy regarding the duty to intervene in the wake of George Floyd's murder, stating and this is a quote, "any member who directly observes another member engaged in dangerous or criminal conduct or abuse of a subject shall take reasonable action to intervene". And I think it's clear that this case really hinges on what is on that body cam video. We don't have it to have reviewed by the time we're doing this recording. But talk to me about what you would expect that video would need to show in order to bring these types of charges and precisely second degree murder.
Anne Bremner:
[00:13:57]
Well, a severe beating and we've heard it described, of course, already by the police chief in Memphis and the FBI director saying it's horrific, it's vile, it's unimaginable, and decades of police work, we haven't seen anything like this. So we're getting basically the preview of something that sounds to be a second degree or intentional murder, and that would be an intentional beating. They've compared it to the Rodney King case, which took place a long time ago. But we also saw those videos of a beating of Rodney King where the state charges ended up in a not guilty finding, but then the federal charges stuck on the federal criminal case against them.
So you and I have talked. We both have represented police officers over the years. And they have a very difficult job. I'm defending a police officer now in a homicide case. And I also just I think I told you, defended our sheriff in Pierce County on a false reporting charge, and he was acquitted recently out in the northwest. So we expect to see, I guess, what would be a beating, right? I mean, and then he dies from what's called a beating from the medical examiner's opinion. So it sounds like it's going to be very brutal and it's very unfortunate, but we have to wait till we see it.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:15:08]
Now, what do you think about the decision even to release it at all before it's being used in court? The idea of bringing in kind of the public to the evidence of this case?
Anne Bremner:
[00:15:19]
I think that with confirmation bias that once that video is out, if it's as described, it's going to be devastating for the defense. And I don't know how you can get past that, frankly. I've been in a situation depending on police officer where a video was released prematurely and it was very difficult to get around. On the other hand, with bench press guidelines and the right to a fair trial that we want to ensure, would that tape be admissible in court? And the answer is yes. So prosecutor can be justified, as you know, in releasing that kind of a tape, because they can be assured in advance that they're not releasing something that won't be admissible and would prejudice the right of these officers to a fair trial. But at the end of the day, look at the Chauvin case and George Floyd, that video basically convicted him. All the jury needed to do is watch that video and hear from a medical examiner. They didn't even need to hear from all the other witnesses in that case.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:16:14]
Yeah. Yeah. It's so curious to me too why there's kind of this additional fanfare around the release of the video instead of just bringing the charges and releasing the video. They've kind of announced the charges and then they're having this release date a couple of days later. Especially, like you said, in light of kind of just the political temperatures that are going to be raised by something, if it's as graphic and as horrible as it's being described, which is another curious thing to me is everybody's commenting on it rather than just letting it speak for itself, you know?
Anne Bremner:
[00:16:51]
Right. And I don't know if you saw, but the president's also weighed in on it. President Biden came in and is asking for calm and saying that what's upsetting, I guess he's heard about it or seen it, but asking for calm and that may be one reason to delay the release of the video, which is if it's released, will it cause unrest? And so they want to make sure they're prepared with security.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:17:12]
Yeah. Well, we will unfortunately, have to wait to see it later today and comment on it at a later time. But let's talk about this change in policy for the Memphis Police Department. I read it earlier, but how much do you think that affected their decision to bring a filing for second degree against five officers in this case? And what we're being told is that not all of those officers were directly involved in the alleged beating.
Anne Bremner:
[00:17:44]
Right. And we've seen that change. We have it in my state, too, which is basically you have a duty to intervene as an officer if you see a fellow officer using excessive force. Now, we had that in the Chauvin case, and you have that potentially in this case. If there's bystanders and they're letting this happen and they don't intervene, then they're going to be in violation. And I think it's an important basically offshoot of the Chauvin-George Floyd case, which was you had officers there that were directing traffic. We've seen it all in the videos or were not directly involved in the use of force. It's the use of force that killed him, that killed George Floyd. And so the law basically says we don't care if you say that you were there and you didn't cause the death, because if you didn't help and you didn't intervene when you clearly saw other officers using excessive force, then you're going to be guilty, too.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:18:33]
Yeah, it makes me and I'm curious to hear your thoughts if you have some on this. But it it makes me think to what complications this is going to further add to police work in the sense that these situations are very fluid. They're fast moving. And lots of times you have officers, you know, some officers are involved in the takedown and detention of a suspect and other officers are being given orders. And it's important that orders are being followed. But now officers are put in a position where they're saying you have to sometimes ignore those orders if you feel that something illegal is taking place. Do you care to comment on any of that?
Anne Bremner:
[00:19:19]
Yeah. And I think, like you, I've defended officers for so long. And the seminal case is Graham versus Conner, which says you can't judge the use of force by armchair quarterbacking or 20-20 hindsight because officers have to make split second decisions all the time. And then you compound the problem that the officers face with telling them, well, don't follow your command staff orders, but you've got to intervene and make sure that excessive force isn't being used. So it makes it very difficult for them.
And I feel like with police officers, they're damned if they do and they're damned if they don't these days. In Seattle, we've lost so many police officers that can't be effective in law enforcement. Where I live, we've had break ins like crazy in a very secure neighborhood and building. You just see it everywhere with crimes coming up, police officers are leaving, and they probably are confused to a certain extent about what to do in a situation with split second decision making where they think, I don't know if they're using too much force. I can't really. What if you can't really see? What if you're like not within the use of force itself, you might be directing traffic. I mean, there's so many factual questions on that. Finally, I think the pendulum swinging back a little bit for officers to where people say. We need safety, we need police officers, and we need to give them clear boundaries in terms of what they do, but also, we need to support them.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:20:42]
Yeah, yeah, I agree. Listen, there are instances where officers commit criminal acts. Absolutely true. And they should hell be held responsible. Absolutely. And I hope that is what's taking place in this case that we're talking about here. But at the same time, you're talking about people who I, like you said, it's some of the most difficult work that you can get involved in where you're making these split-second decisions that can change a person's life, could end a person's life, could perhaps end your own life if you don't act quickly enough. So my sympathies go out to them, especially because we know for the most part, the vast majority are really hard-working people who are very conscientious and just trying to do a good job.
Finally, let's move to Sarasota County, Florida, where a judge has ruled that the attorney of Brian Laundrie's family can be added as a defendant to the civil lawsuit filed by the parents of Gabby Petito. Gabby's parents, Joseph Patino and Nicole Schmidt, initially filed the lawsuit against Chris and Roberta Laundrie last year, alleging the infliction of emotional distress after the Laundries' failed to provide information about Gabby's murder. The Laundrie's attorney, Steven Bertolini, previously tried to have the lawsuit dismissed, arguing that the Laundries were under no obligation to come forward with any knowledge regarding Gabby's death.
However, a judge ruled that the statements made by Bertolini while the search for Gabby continued, gave sufficient cause for the lawsuit to move forward. Gabby Petito was found dead in Grand Teton National Park in 2021 after a massive search following her disappearance. While authorities were attempting to locate Gabby, and I think this is what is important, Bertolini made a public statement saying, on behalf of the Laundrie family, it is our hope that the search for Ms. Petito is successful and that she is reunited with her family. A trial date is set for August 14th of 2023. Anne, jump right in. What is your reaction to the judge's decision here?
Anne Bremner:
[00:22:47]
It's kind of a mixed bag. I mean, I kind of support it because I think that if you go too far as a lawyer and you tell that family that we hope that she's reunited with your family when you know she's dead, then that is the definition, right, of intentional infliction of emotional distress. It's outrageous and not even tolerable in a civilized society. That's the definition as we know of intentional infliction of emotional distress. But the question is, of course, did he know that she was dead? Right? I mean, and how do you get there when you have attorney client privilege? How do you get that information, right?
Joshua Ritter:
[00:23:20]
Exactly. Exactly. No, this is such a interesting question from a legal perspective to me, because as attorneys, we want to feel that we can make a statement in advocacy of our clients. And let's assume for a second, he knew that Gabby was dead. Is he getting too close to the line here of trying to just kind of make a bland statement just to the press on behalf of the family that they hope it's successful. But you're right, the line that you pointed out and she is reunited with her family.
Anne Bremner:
[00:24:01]
Right. Right.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:24:02]
That's really the pivotal thing. I think that was the step too far. Had he said, you know, we hope that they're successful in their search, blah, blah, blah, and kind of left it ambiguous. But this idea that they believe that she may be found, you know, you can only assume that what you're saying by that statement is may be found alive. And if he knew that she was not, in fact, alive at that time. But the point that you make is that part of this would have to be to prove that he knew she was alive. And how do you do that? In a civil suit, he's going to be a defendant subject to discovery. This will likely include depositions. But how are they going to navigate this when he's got attorney client privilege and at the same time has to go under the crucible of a deposition? What are your thoughts?
Anne Bremner:
[00:24:49]
I don't know how they're going to get there. The plaintiffs, I mean, her family, how do you get that exact information that he knew she was dead without violating attorney client privilege? Can they say there's other evidence out there that was clear that she was dead? Is there circumstantial evidence to show he should have known she was dead? You know, all of that kind of evidence, maybe. And of course, the burden is over in a civil case. So they want to go forward on that score. Is it an ethical issue for the bar to take a look at?
Now, I think that's probably where it is for the bar to say, did you make a statement that was knowingly false and did you violate 3.6 or anything else in terms of what you can say publicly about a case, or whether candor to the tribunal doesn't really fit because it's not part of a court proceeding. At that time, it wasn't, but just candor in general and professionalism. So ethically, there might be issues, but I just don't know how they get there unless they know something we don't know. I mean, did they know something we don't know?
Joshua Ritter:
[00:25:45]
Right? Maybe they do. And maybe they're just hoping to find that out in the discovery process by other mechanisms. But I was wondering, could they ask the simple question of at the time you made this statement, did you have reason to believe she was, in fact, dead? Does that violate -- could he say attorney client privilege at that point? I don't know.
Anne Bremner:
[00:26:06]
I think your question is perfect because he has to answer that without violating the privilege, right. I mean, that's a brilliant question that you pose.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:26:16]
Right. Oh, well, thank you. I'll send them my bill.
Anne Bremner:
[00:26:21]
Yes, send the bill. Yeah, because that's the question to ask. Exactly.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:26:24]
Yeah. Well, it's really interesting because usually you do not see the lawyer as a defendant in these types of civil suits. So it's a really interesting case. We'll have to see how it plays out, because I do believe it has ramifications beyond this, because an attorney should be able to feel free to comment on behalf of their client in a form of advocacy. And we hear this all the time. Right. You know, attorneys will say, my client is completely innocent and intends to prove that in a court of law. And the client may have talked to them in their office and said, yeah, I did it. Here's the gun, please, you know. So how far do we take all of this? And it's just weird that it's being handled in this civil suit. So anyhow, another case where we keep an eye on, but that unfortunately is the end of our show for this week. And thank you so much for coming on. Where can people find out more about you?
Anne Bremner:
[00:27:21]
Oh, thank you. It's been a pleasure to be on with you. And I'm AnneBremner.com, A-N-N-E B-R-E-M-N-E-R.com. And of course, I have the book out that I wrote with my brother, and I credit him. He's the writer. I was just the source, so to speak, on some of the cases.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:27:36]
Fantastic.
Anne Bremner:
[00:27:37]
Thanks for having me.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:27:38]
Absolutely. We will definitely check out that book. And I'm your host, Josh Ritter. You can find me on Instagram and Twitter, @JoshuaRitterESQ. Check me out at my website at JoshuaRitter.com. 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.
