Baldwin charges in ‘Rust’ shooting; Search history incriminates man after wife’s death – TCD Sidebar
In this episode of True Crime Daily The Sidebar Podcast
Michael Koribanics joins host Joshua Ritter to break down the biggest cases making headlines across the nation. They discuss criminal charges facing Alec Baldwin and others involved in the “Rust” film production, a failed political candidate accused of orchestrating attacks on elected officials, and the reveal of evidence used against a man accused of killing his wife, including some disturbing searches he allegedly made following his wife’s disappearance.
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 am 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 20th, 2023.
In this week's episode, in breaking news, prosecutors announced charges against Alec Baldwin and other members of the Rust Production following an onset shooting that killed a crew member. Also, a failed political candidate is accused of masterminding a series of drive by shootings targeted at his political opponents. And finally, the husband of a missing Massachusetts woman arraigned on murder charges after the reveal of some shocking evidence, including alleged Google searches on how to dismember a body. Today, we are joined by Michael Koribanics, a criminal trial attorney and former prosecutor with vast experience handling cases on both state and federal levels. Michael, welcome to the show.
Michael Koribanics:
[00:01:19]
Thank you very much for having me. I appreciate it.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:01:21]
Oh, we appreciate it. Before we jump right into all of this stuff, could you tell us a little bit about your background and your current practice?
Michael Koribanics:
[00:01:29]
Yes. I started out as a judicial law clerk. And then on advice of the judge I was working for, I went into trial work and the best place to go was the Hudson County prosecutor's office here in New Jersey. I was an assistant prosecutor for about five years, and then I went on my own as a criminal defense lawyer. And I've been at that since about 1992. So, it's been a long time. I don't like to say my age, but you'll figure it out.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:01:58]
We won't do the math but.
Michael Koribanics:
[00:01:59]
And I'm lucky to do a lot of federal criminal defense work and a lot of state criminal defense work. And that's all I do.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:02:09]
Oh, fantastic. Well, then this is right up your alley, all the cases we're about to talk about. And we appreciate you coming on and we appreciate the experience that you're going to bring for us and the insights that you have on these cases. So, let's jump right in. This is out of Santa Fe County, New Mexico. In a really shocking turn of events, prosecutors have announced criminal charges against Alec Baldwin and others involved in the Rust Film Production after the onset death of cinematographer Helena Hutchins. Hutchins was shot and killed during a scene in which Alec Baldwin fired a gun loaded with live ammunition instead of industry standard dummy rounds. Baldwin, a producer and actor on the film, has denied pulling the trigger of the firearm. This may become important. However, these comments were later contradicted by an FBI forensic report which concluded the gun could not have been fired without the trigger being pulled. The film's armorer, Hannah Gutierrez read an Alec Baldwin are both charged in two counts of involuntary manslaughter.
And this is interesting how they done this. One count is related to underlying negligence leading to the death, which carries a maximum sentence of 18 months in jail. The second, more serious charge is for the commission of an otherwise lawful act but was done without due caution and circumspection. That's according to the language of the statute in New Mexico. This charge would include a firearm enhancement, increasing the sentence to a mandatory five-year sentence. Both Reed and Baldwin are being charged in the alternative, according to the DA's office, which means a jury will determine which of the two charges the defendants are guilty of should the case go to trial. The film's assistant director, David Halls, who admitted that he had not checked the gun prior to handing it to Baldwin, signed a plea deal to charges of negligent use of a deadly weapon, receiving a suspended sentence and six months of probation. We have some of the DA press conference here, which is interesting. So, we'll play some of that for you now.
Female:
[00:04:12]
That there was such a lack of safety and safety standards on that set, that there were live rounds on set, they were mixed in with regular dummy rounds. Nobody was checking those, or at least they weren't checking them consistently. And then they somehow got loaded into a gun, handed off to Alec Baldwin. He didn't check it. He didn't do any of the things that he was supposed to do to make sure that he was safe or that anyone around him was safe. And then he pointed the gun at Helena Hutchins, and he pulled the trigger.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:04:39]
All right, Michael, a lot to unpack here. First of all, tell us your initial reaction. Were you surprised by these charges?
Michael Koribanics:
[00:04:48]
Yes and no. When I say that, when this first broke in the news and I saw Alec Baldwin being interviewed and saying he didn't pull the trigger and things of that nature, I didn't think that was a very good course of action to take while something was under investigation. And that's a difference because we're criminal defense lawyers, not public agents who are trying to keep somebody in a good standing. Our obligation is to make sure our client doesn't put himself into problems. So already they start the investigation with the contradictory statement because he said he never pulled the trigger and now they have some science behind it to say you had to have. So, I think that statement alone is something that this investigation grew better out of.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:05:39]
Yeah. No, I agree with you. I think it's problematic for him to say the least. And I want to get into that and clients making statements and everything else. But let's talk a little bit about the charges because the DA did something, I don't know if it's bizarre, maybe it's kind of how they do things in that county, but this idea of charging in the alternative. So, if you could walk us through the different charges here. One is just kind of negligence where the causing a death, where the underlying action is illegal, even if it's a misdemeanor. And then the other one is even if the underlying action is legal, if you do it without due caution and circumspection. Can you kind of unwrap any of that for us?
Michael Koribanics:
[00:06:22]
I can only try. It's a little confusing. And what really gets me is the less serious charge. It's very difficult for me to put my head around the fact that someone could be charged criminally for a negligent act. Usually, when we deal with criminal charges, we're dealing with someone who's a little bit more than negligent, because usually when you're negligent, you may know what the consequences could be, but they're really not that apparent, and you just made a mistake. That's like saying I made a right-hand turn and killed somebody. I was negligent. That was an accident. It's not a criminal statute.
But in New Mexico, they use that word. And I'm not familiar with seeing negligent in a criminal statute like that. Usually, it's reckless where something is, you're aware. And that's the next step where we're looking, where we're going from 18 months to a mandatory five years is if, listen, you knew you had reason to know this was a potential problem and you disregarded it. So, you had knowledge. And with that knowledge, you ignored your knowledge just to do whatever you wanted to do. I don't know the facts surrounding this, but it's sort of like the best analogy I could give.
If you get into like a car, like we just said, and you're having a regular business day and you're going to work, you make a right-hand turn and kill someone by accident because you were negligent, you were looking one way or another, that's an accident. That isn't something that you should go to jail for. However, if you're stopped for lunch at a bar, have like 15 shots of tequila, get into your car. Now, you know that you're putting people at risk. Now, you're being reckless, not intentional, not planning to, but you're being reckless. And I think that's where they're going here.
And usually what we would call here is the negligent criminal act would be a lesser included offense in the more serious ones. Now, what they're doing is giving whatever jury this may go in front of, if it gets to a trial, an alternative. Basically, they're saying, listen, if you don't think we meet the highest expectation, I think we're safe. We're going to beat this one. So, it gives the jury an alternative based on the facts. And we're a long way from that because facts change constantly when you're evaluating a criminal defense case and you're trying to find out what's going on. Because, quite frankly, Baldwin's attorneys probably right now do not have all the information that the government has and they're putting forth. So, it's very difficult to contradict what they're saying because you don't know what they're basing it on.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:09:06]
Yeah. Yeah. And you did an excellent job of explaining that. And I think the car analogy is a good one because in California here, we have something specifically called vehicular manslaughter, because you're right, accidents happen all the time. I mean, if we were arresting people and charging them with crimes for every accident that led to injury or death, the courtrooms would be packed with these cases because they happen all the time. And for the most part, they're just seen as is merely that, an accident, a horrible thing that took place, somebody got injured or killed. And it's something that we handle in the civil courts to try to repair damages and medical bills and everything else.
Where it rises to the level of a crime is when there's something additional in the driving. You pointed out perhaps they're drinking. It could even be something like speeding, reckless amount of speeding, lane change unsafely without a blink or something like that. All of these underlying acts don't even necessarily need to rise to the level of crimes either, because speeding can be an infraction. Changing lanes without a blinker can be an infraction. But you start to add all those up and you realize, okay, now the person was acting in a reckless way. That recklessness gives us that criminal intent that we need in order to charge this person with a crime, which may be vehicular manslaughter.
And so, I think it's an excellent way of understanding what the DA is trying to do here. The part that I think is difficult for people to wrap their heads around, you and I included, is because where is that kind of negligence? Are they saying it's merely in the fact that Baldwin didn't check the gun himself, or is it the way that weapons were generally being handled on set? This is all the kind of stuff that I imagine they've done their due diligence on. I mean, it's been over a year that they've done this investigation.
But from what I see right now, I'm having a hard time seeing it because from what I'm being told, and I realize it's not all entirely coming from reliable sources and that some of it's coming from Baldwin himself. But if he's handed a gun, he's an experienced actor, he's handed a gun, he's told it's safe. Are we going to now hold these people to the responsibility of chucking the bullets themselves, right?
Michael Koribanics:
[00:11:24]
Well, that's difficult. And I think what's really complicated to see even more was not only was he an actor, now they're saying he was a producer in part of this, which would put him to another level, because I think it's a little -- to be honest with you, I had a very tough time making a distinction when I first heard this. I was like, what's the relevance of whether he's an actor or whether he's a producer if this occurred? But the more you try to, the more I looked into the statute as we spoke about, with the negligent part and the reckless part, and now you put a title to the person actor, that's a little bit more than someone who's just showing up somewhere. That's someone who's getting paid to work and has a responsibility.
A producer is even more so because a producer is really more of like a supervisor, for lack of a better term. I'm not real familiar with the entertainment industry, but would seem as someone who would say, okay, I'm the producer here, I'm running what's going on and how we're filming this. So, I have obligations to make sure it's safe. And as an actor, I've got obligations to make sure I do it, it's safe. So it'd be different than someone who just picked up something they thought was a gun and tried to shoot it, but they had nothing to do or not involved in the situation or the company. And I think that's what the government's going to rely upon to elevate this and make it more digestible for a jury to understand as to what their position was and what their obligations.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:12:50]
Yeah, I've wondered about that myself. If he was only an actor, would they have charged him? But I don't know. I mean, we're going to see what their theory is as this begins to play out. But you're right, the idea that he was a producer in their mind may have extended his kind of responsibility to know about safety standards and to know that, hey, is the armorer somebody who's properly trained, and are we following the proper protocols here? I don't know. Again, all of this sounds like we're still talking in the world of civil liability. So to get to criminal, I think is still going to be a bit of a leap, but we'll see if they get there. Okay. Let's talk about the statements, because I know as a criminal defense attorney, you were probably pulling your hair out as much as I was about the --
Michael Koribanics:
[00:13:33]
Obviously.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:13:36]
All of it. I'm glad you caught me on that. Good for you. He kept on talking to the press and he kept on making these statements. And these weren't kind of generalized, ambiguous denials of wrongdoing but he's making specific statements, famously, as you pointed out, saying, I didn't pull the trigger. Well, now that's problematic because the FBI has come out and said, listen, there's no way this gun would have fired without pulling the trigger. Talk to me about how much of a mistake do you think all of that was? And then generally, what is your thinking on clients, even if they're celebrities, and this kind of inability to keep their mouth shut about cases that are under investigation?
Michael Koribanics:
[00:14:21]
Well, first of all, as a criminal defense attorney, you have to make it clear to your client that you're not their press secretary. And I think as a criminal attorney is, I always look at it, three sort of standards that are set. Our first thing is to keep our client out of jail. That's the most important. Then we try to not have a conviction and try to get him acquitted and then he could go home. The problem is, is that people don't realize at times is you have no burden of proof as a defendant. The government has to prove every element of the case against your client beyond a reasonable doubt. You have no obligation to take the stand.
You have a constitutional right to remain silent. And if you choose not to do that and try the case before it gets to court, because that's what ultimately happens. If you're going on the press, you're trying to beat them to it. You're trying to get your story out first. However, doing that and not knowing what their investigation entails can only lead to a problematic situation such as we have here. Because now you're saying I never pulled the trigger. That's all over the world now, because you're on a major network where you said that. You already now have something to contradict what the government's claiming science has proven. So, your credibility now is at risk and that's a problem.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:15:56]
Yeah. Excellent point. It's sometimes the innocuous details. Sometimes the things that you don't think are a big deal at all is the statement that ends up being a problem for you later on down the line. And that's why it's best to just consult your attorney certainly before you start making some of these statements. I was thinking about what if what if his defense ends up being something about the malfunction of the gun, that perhaps the trigger pull was way too light and therefore, it's not his fault. It was a hair, what do they call it, a hair trigger. And so therefore, he couldn't have anticipated that it would have fired. Well, now, can he go back to any of that because he's already said he didn't pull the trigger? And now he's just got himself caught up in this narrative that who knows how it's going to prove to be later on down the line. Let's talk about the AD David Halls taking a plea deal. What do you think are the chances that that deal includes him being willing to cooperate with the prosecution and testify perhaps against Baldwin down the line?
Michael Koribanics:
[00:17:06]
Well, thus the term suspended sentence, I think that is indicative and I'm not saying it's sure that he's going to do it, but I believe it's indicative that he will testify truthfully.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:17:19]
I don't want to cut you off, but explain for listeners what that means, suspended sentence.
Michael Koribanics:
[00:17:25]
Well, it basically means that you will be put on probation, which means you won't go to jail. You will have a criminal conviction. You will be able to basically live your life normally, except the fact that you'll have to report either weekly, monthly, every other month to probation and make sure you lead a law-abiding life. If you violate probation and get rearrested, have another drunk driving, something like that, they could then go before the court. And the government says, we ask that the court find the violation of probation, and now put forth the sentence that was suspended because it should come into interaction, because we gave this defendant a chance to turn his life around and he failed.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:18:13]
Exactly.
Michael Koribanics:
[00:18:14]
And it also is really good pressure to testify the way the government wants you to, because that's hanging over your head. Just got to be --
Joshua Ritter:
[00:18:22]
That's the point I wanted to make, is that that might be a little squeeze on him to make sure he continues to cooperate. So I interrupted you, but what do you think then, now knowing what all that means, is there a chance we see him testifying?
Michael Koribanics:
[00:18:38]
Only if this goes to trial. But I think, yes, there's a very good chance that he'll be testifying. And also there could be if, whenever this case goes to trial, if his whole case is done with, maybe he's got a year probation. This doesn't come in two years. His case is over with. They have a right now to just subpoena him without a cooperation. Because he has no Fifth Amendment right to put forth because he's got no charges pending.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:19:04]
Right. And who knows what he's told police. I mean, he apparently and this is just going off of reports that we've seen and heard, he apparently is the one who is kind of in between the armor and Baldwin and handed the gun to Baldwin. Baldwin has gone around saying that he was told the gun is safe. So, I'm just putting the pieces together. Again, I've not seen the police report. None of us have. But if we're putting the pieces together, we can assume that maybe it was Halls who told him the gun was safe, allegedly.
What if Halls says that's not true? What if Halls says he just handed him a gun? Does that then create some sort of responsibility on Baldwin's part to have asked or checked or checked with the armorer before he started handling that weapon? I don't know. A lot of this is unknown. We're in this weird situation where they've announced they're going to make charges, but they haven't actually made the charges. So, still a lot of developments to come on this case and we'll continue to follow it.
Let's move to another part of New Mexico now. We're going to Albuquerque, where Solomon Pena, an unsuccessful candidate for state office in New Mexico, has been arrested in relation to a series of shootings that allegedly targeted elected officials. Pena, a Republican, is accused of paying in conspiring with four men to fire at the homes of Democrats, including state legislators and county commissioners. After a loss in November, Pena claimed the election was rigged and even approached the homes of officials without permission, claiming he held paperwork that proved fraud in the vote. The shootings, which took place between December 4th and January 4th, were allegedly masterminded by Pena, with police alleging that he may have even taken part in one of the drive-bys.
Well, no one was injured. A witness was allegedly instructed by Pena to conduct the shootings at times that would most likely strike victims in the targeted homes. So, this wasn't just merely according to these allegations about scaring people. Pena, who faces nearly two dozen charges in the shootings, appeared in court on January 18th, where he was denied bond until the next hearing on February 1st. He has yet entered a plea to the charges.
Michael, this is an absolutely wild case. According to law enforcement sources, firearm evidence, surveillance video, cell phone and electronic records, and a witness in and around the conspiracy aided in the investigation and helped officials connect others to the alleged conspiracy. I know this is early, but is this starting to look like a slam dunk to you or what arguments do you think Pena might have left?
Michael Koribanics:
[00:21:47]
There would be very difficult arguments. And you made a great point when you were showing what evidence they produced. And being now an older lawyer than I was, and when a lawyer who went through prior to all this technology, when I was a prosecutor, we didn't have all this technology. Beepers were a big deal. It wasn't like a cell phone. And it's pretty incredible. And I don't think people realize how much your cell phone tells about you. And like tell us where you were, what time you were in, who you were with. Text messages never get erased. Once there's a warrant to search all that, the government puts together such a strong case because it's almost undisputable. And now, as you pointed out, there is a witness who will talk about the communications they had with this person who set all this up. So, it's not like someone who lost an election and ran out that night and lost it. This was planning. This had intent. This is a very strong case based on what I've heard here for the government.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:22:52]
Yeah, I agree with you. Again, it's early. We're only going off of reports, but it looks like there's just a lot of stuff pointing towards this man. I know prosecutors don't have to prove motive, but how about the fact that there appears to be kind of a clearly political motive to all of that? How do you feel that plays out? And how will jurors, you think, respond to that if this goes to trial?
Michael Koribanics:
[00:23:15]
Like you said, and it's a great point, is that you really never have to prove your motive for doing it. But when you have that, especially if you don't have direct evidence, circumstantial evidence, when you have a motive with circumstantial evidence, to me it serves almost like a cement that when you're doing a patio, you're putting those bricks in and the motive sort of just strengthens it and puts it all together and gives the jury something very strong and stable to stand upon to put those facts together and explain them as to why they meet the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. So, motive is strong.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:23:58]
Yeah. And especially in a case like this, because otherwise, what is it, just random attacks? Why would this guy out of nowhere start shooting up people's homes? Well, he had a political motive to do it. That seems pretty strong.
Michael Koribanics:
[00:24:11]
Motive also goes and helps support the art of the charge that they have to show intent, because if you show the motive, it shows the intent. And I want to thank you because when you just said it, it clicked in my head of how that comes together. So, maybe I'll get some continuing legal education credits doing this with you.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:24:30]
Yeah. Well, I'll send you the form afterwards. But that case is still early on, it's just kind of breaking news. He's just been arraigned, so we'll continue to follow that and get developments down the road. Finally, we turn to Quincy, Massachusetts, where Brian Walsh has been arraigned on murder charges after prosecutors claim he killed and dismembered his wife instead of divorcing her. According to police, Brian's wife, Anna Walsh, was reported missing by her workplace on January 4th. Brian had not filed a missing person report. In a statement to police, Brian said Anna was last seen on New Year's Day 2023 before she left for a work trip to Washington, D.C. However, prosecutors allege no evidence exists that she was driven to the airport or boarded a flight.
Brian's arraignment was on January 18th, marked the first-time prosecutors definitively announced that Anna is believed to be dead. It was an incredibly revealing arraignment proceeding more than you usually would see. The prosecution laid out some of their evidence that led to Brian being charged with a murder. Amongst those details is that it is alleged the police found blood stains and a broken blood covered knife in the couple's basement. Problematic. Prosecutors have also alleged that surveillance video captures Brian disposing of a trash bag that was later found to contain bloodstains, cleaning equipment, along with a hacksaw and hatchet, as well as Anna's Prada purse and COVID19 vaccine vaccination card.
And additionally, Brian allegedly made a series of specific and disturbing Google searches in the days following Anna's disappearance. We're going to get into all of those later, but they include topics such as dismemberment and how to get away with murder essentially. Walsh has pled not guilty to the charges, and his next court date is set for February 9th.
Michael, I know it's still early, but we have bloodstain evidence. We have surveillance video. Hold off on the Google searches for a moment if you can. But is this from what you've heard so far, just from that arraignment, which was amazing to me that the prosecution was so forthcoming, is this shaping out to be a strong case? What are your thoughts?
Michael Koribanics:
[00:26:52]
Yes, it is. Yes, it is. It's a very strong case. I mean, some people will say it may not be that strong now, because my understanding is they haven't recovered the body. But the evidence, you pointed out, the very fact that this was his wife, whether he's going to divorce her or not, he wasn't proactive in seeing where she was or if she disappeared. Why would you not contact the law enforcement? Where is my wife? Where can I find her? And you stay silent and then you have all this weapon with blood on it. The interesting thing is, I don't know if the body is not found, if there is some sort of medical, I'm sure they could go into some of her prior medical reports to see what her blood type was and to even start at a very basic to see if the blood type's match. Yeah. So, think this is a very strong case.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:27:47]
Yeah. If they're unable to kind of have a source material for DNA on her, yeah, I imagine they would do something like that. And you talk about no, there not being a body. So, this is one of those "no body" cases. Give us kind of the defense perspective. How are they going to try to use that to their advantage?
Michael Koribanics:
[00:28:11]
Well, I think the defense will use it in its most simplistic form, is that you've heard all these witnesses here today, but you didn't hear from a doctor who will tell us what her cause of death was. We don't have a death certificate. We don't know if she's dead or not. So, those are always a problem. And I wish I could remember, but I always remember a movie in a criminal law movie where the actor went in front of the jury and said the victim is going to walk through those doors now and the jury all look through the door. And he said, if you looked, that means you have reasonable doubt as to whether or not this person is, in fact, dead or not.
I don't think that'll work here. That was about 20 years ago. It was so long ago. I can't remember the actor of the movie. But that's where I think you're going to do is say there are elements of the crime and you have to meet every element and it has to be proven by the government beyond a reasonable doubt. And without any evidence as to whether or not she is, in fact, dead, direct evidence, they're circumstantial, but without any direct, how could you find that beyond the reasonable doubt? I'm not saying it's going to carry the day, but you know, as a criminal defense attorney, you have to work with the hand that's dealt to you and play the game out that way.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:29:29]
Right. And to finish your story on telling all the jurors the person is going to walk through the door, the way that ended is they convicted him anyways. When the defense attorney was asking why, they said, well, everybody looked towards the door except for your client.
Michael Koribanics:
[00:29:46]
That's great.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:29:52]
Because this was the most fascinating part of this to me was the Internet searches, because I have never experienced anything. I've dealt with Internet searches before and how they can at least kind of circumstantially look like somebody was involved in some criminal conduct or suspicious behavior, but these are incredible. So, I have a list and I just want to go through them quickly, if I can, with you, if you'll be patient with me. But on January 1st, 4:55 a.m., these are the searches allegedly that he put into Google. How long before a body starts to smell? 4:58, how to stop a body from decomposing? 5:47 a.m., 10 ways to dispose of a body if you really need to. 6:25, how long for someone to be missing to inherit? 6:34, can you throw away body parts? 9:29 a.m., what does formaldehyde do? 9:34 a.m., how long does DNA last? 9:59, can identification be made on partial remains? I mean, this is just incredible stuff. 11:34, dismemberment and the best ways to dispose of a body. 11:44, how long to clean blood from wooden floor? Look at how specific that is. 11:56, luminol to detect blood. 1:08 p.m., what happens when you put body parts in ammonia? 1:21 p.m., is it better to put crime scene clothes away or wash them? I mean, crime scene clothes is the phrase he uses in his Google search.
Now, we go to January 2nd. And this is where Walsh has allegedly traveled to Home Depot, paid cash for some supplies, including mops, a bucket, goggles, tarp, a hatchet and baking soda. On that day, 12:45 p.m., hacksaw best tool to Dismember. 1:10, can you be charged with murder without a body? 1:14, can you identify a body with broken teeth. The following day, what happens to hair on a dead body? That's at 1:02 p.m. 1:13, what is the rate of decomposition of a body found in a plastic bag compared to on a surface in the woods? And finally, going back to his purchases, 1:20 p.m., can baking soda mask or make a body smell good? Wow. Michael, jump in. I'm floored by this stuff. It almost reads as fake to me, but have you ever dealt with this? How damaging is this? Do you think there's any way the defense keeps this out? What are your thoughts?
Michael Koribanics:
[00:32:32]
This be very difficult for the defense to keep this out because I think their biggest argument for the government is going to be consciousness of guilt, a jury charge that comes across. I mean, I'm not specific into that jurisdiction because I haven't practiced there, but it shows consciousness of guilt. And I think what they're going to do is, and this is why people think technology is so helpful, not if you're a criminal. And you see it more especially, and I do a lot of federal work. I mean, you see where they have the ability and the capability to go into with search warrants into Google, into your computer, into your cell phone. Whether you deleted it or not, it doesn't get deleted from wherever it's stored, and they have access to it.
And what this does, once again, it sort of adds these links in a chain to the end of the case, because they're going to say, okay, at this time, like you were reading the date and time, then they're going to see what happened after that. Could baking soda at 1:20? Well, 3:00, if you can find the receipt that he went and bought baking soda, sort of putting it a little bit together now and it's putting it very strongly together. So, I think it's a very big problem and I think it builds a very strong case for the government.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:33:47]
Yeah. I keep thinking about we live in this modern world. It's not like we're all kind of confused as to what the World Wide Web is, and we're still kind of trying to figure out how much the people can investigate what we've done on our computers. But it's just flabbergasting to me that this person, if it is true, I mean, innocent until proven guilty, all of this is allegations. But if you're the person who just murdered someone to not have the foresight to understand that these Internet searches could be problematic to you and to just be searching for this stuff. Like I said, some of it's so specific. How do you clean up a crime scene? How do you get around something like that if that's presented to jurors?
Michael Koribanics:
[00:34:34]
Well, it's difficult, too, because then you're saying, well, wait, your other argument is your government was well, if he had nothing to do with this and his wife was missing at this time, why wasn't he searching how do I find my wife?
Joshua Ritter:
[00:34:46]
Oh, excellent point.
Michael Koribanics:
[00:34:47]
How could I hire someone to get me a private investigator? I happen to have a great one. You could have called me. I would had an investigator who would, you know. So, these are the things which I think is difficult. And that's where you would show a contradiction of consciousness of guilt.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:35:04]
That is an excellent point I hadn't even thought of. Like, not only is this the behavior of somebody who just killed someone, but it's also not the behavior of somebody who's missing their wife. Right. These are not the searches you would expect. Incredible stuff. I mean, is this the most powerful evidence to you so far that you've heard? We've heard a lot of stuff, the surveillance video, the bloody items that recovered. Is it all just kind of part of this tapestry of evidence or is there something that stands out to you?
Michael Koribanics:
[00:35:37]
Well, I think what it does is it just keeps building it stronger and stronger. It's sort of like a pole that goes down and you put another pole and push it up and then you put another, and that's when you have the pole that stands strong. And I think the government putting this all together, I just think in the sense of proofs, these Google searches are sort of like for the government, the ribbon around the package that's already been ready to be given as a gift. This is the one that really ties it all together.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:36:04]
Yeah. Again, I've never seen something like it. I've dealt with cases where maybe somebody's searching something that there's an argument to be made and maybe there's even a defense argument for, hey, that could be viewed in an innocent sense. I don't know how you view any of that in an innocent way, especially in the rapid succession in which he's searching close in proximity to when we believe she's missing, perhaps dead. Just incredible stuff. Anyhow, Michael, thank you so much for coming on this week. Where can people find out more about you?
Michael Koribanics:
[00:36:38]
Go to my website, koribanicsandkoribanics.com. I don't know how much more they want to find out about me though, but that's certainly it.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:36:44]
That's excellent. Well, we will definitely check it out. And I'm your host, Josh Ritter. You can find me on Instagram and Twitter, @JoshuaRitterESQ. Please check out my website, Joshuaritter.com. And you can find our Sidebar episodes wherever you get your podcasts. And we want to hear from you. If you have 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.
