Drug dealer convicted in fentanyl deaths; Husband faces murder trial in no body case – TCD Sidebar
In this episode of True Crime Daily The Sidebar Podcast
Beth Karas joins host Joshua Ritter to break down the biggest cases making headlines across the nation. They discuss the federal conviction of a drug dealer after three clients died of fentanyl overdoses, the upcoming murder trial facing Larry Millete for the alleged killing of his wife, and the possibility of additional charges being filed following the death of Tyre Nichols.
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 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 2nd, 2023.
This week's episode, the leader of a cocaine delivery service is convicted on federal charges after the tragic fentanyl deaths of three clients. As well as a husband is ordered to stand trial for the murder of his wife in the absence of any physical or forensic evidence. And finally, we discuss the possibility of additional criminal charges that may face police officers and first responders in the tragic death of Tyre Nichols.
Today, we are joined by Beth Karas, a former prosecutor and veteran legal analyst whose work has been featured on 2020, The Today Show, Dateline, Court TV, and many other outlets. Beth, welcome.
Beth Karas:
[00:01:11]
Thank you for having me, Josh. I'm excited to be here.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:01:14]
Well, we're excited to be hearing your opinions on these cases, given all of your experience. But before we jump in, could you tell us a little bit about your background and what you're currently up to nowadays?
Beth Karas:
[00:01:24]
Sure. So as you said, I'm a former prosecutor. I was an assistant DA in Manhattan for eight years, but I left that long time ago. Just before OJ Simpson got arrested, I left. And by the time I started at Court TV, where I was for 19 years, he had been arrested. So between my resignation and OJ getting arrested, I mean, that happened and starting at Court TV.
And the night I left the DA's office after eight years, I was watching the basketball playoffs at home with a friend of mine who's now a federal prosecutor. He was an ADA with me. And all of a sudden, this white Ford Bronco came up on the screen and he said, that's your future. I mean, who knew? It was June 17. And I started the 27th and he had been arrested. Anyway, that was the beginning of a nearly two-decade long career as a correspondent at Court TV. That's where I covered cases all over the country.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:02:16]
Was your first kind of foray at Court TV the OJ Simpson stuff?
Beth Karas:
[00:02:21]
It wasn't OJ because I was brand new and two other reportees and reporters went to LA. One to cover the prosecution, Dan Abrams and a woman named Chris and Janet Myers to cover the defense. I did the B trial during the OJ case. But later he had two more cases, one in Miami where he was charged with road rage. And then in Las Vegas, the hotel robbery that sent him to prison. And I did talk to him and get to know him at both of those trials. So I went to lunch with OJ during that trial and two of his attorneys.
And I tell everybody this story. We're sitting there at a Chinese restaurant, quick meal during the lunch, beginning of the trial, maybe jury selection. OJ is to my left, his lawyers to my right and my food came first. And OJ reached over, and he ate off my plate because he was hungry. He just reached over and took a bite off my plate. And I tell everybody, when OJ Simpson is sitting next to you with a fork and a knife in his hand, you let him all he want. I told that story but --
Joshua Ritter:
[00:03:26]
I love that. I love that. Well, we are so excited to have you as a guest. And with all of that experience that you bring, we're really excited to hear your insights on these cases. So let's jump right in. First, we move to New York City, where you're at. A member of a cocaine courier service was convicted this week after three customers died from overdoses of fentanyl in one single day. Defendant Billy Ortega acted as a dispatcher for the drug delivery service, facilitating the deals between customers and the couriers.
Prosecutors alleged that Ortega was a willing participant in lacing the drugs with fentanyl, even touting the product as a new batch and insisting to customers it was really "strong". The three victims in the case were a trio of New York professionals, including a trading executive and a social worker. Ortega allegedly exchanged text messages with one of the victims, warning not to do too much before making multiple calls to the victim that went unanswered. Ortega was convicted by a Manhattan jury on federal charges, including narcotics, conspiracy and three counts of narcotics distribution resulting in death.
Beth, we have really seen a shift in federal prosecutors aggressively pursuing these cases involving fentanyl, even when those accused are not alleged to have intended the deaths. Most notably, there was the tragic death of Angels' pitcher Tyler Skaggs. And in that case, the team employee who supplied Skaggs with drugs, Eric Kay, was sentenced to 22 years in prison for his involvement in supplying the drugs. Give me your thoughts on this. Do you think this is the right course of action is pursuing this steeped charges where death is really not intended?
Beth Karas:
[00:05:12]
So let me give you a few more facts in the Ortega case that you'll see that this was absolutely justified in my opinion. He is facing a minimum of 25 years. Okay, 25 years, and it's a maximum of life. First of all, people know fentanyl is an opioid, very strong, 50 times stronger than heroin, 50 to 100 times stronger than morphine. It's given to cancer patients. It's given to patients after surgery, and it has to be closely monitored. And now it is made synthetically.
And now drug dealers are lacing cocaine, heroin pills, a little drop of it. Two grains, the size of salt, it's a fatal dose. So it is a really lethal drug. And this guy Ortega, had sold to someone who took the same cocaine sold to the three who died the day before. Now, the three who died was March 17, 2021, the day before someone called -- a customer reached out to Ortega and said, "Yo. I gave this to a buddy of mine. He ended up in the hospital in the emergency room. That's pretty strong stuff." Ortega knew that and subsequently sold to the three who died.
Now, he did warn, as you just said, at least one of them. Be careful. It's pretty strong. And then he's texting all of them and they're not responding. He reaches out to another drug dealer and says, hey, I got something. Actually, I wrote the quote down. "I got some stuff that's a little strong. Can you give it to some girls and let me know, LOL, bro." In other words, go test it out. Who cares of a couple of girls die from an overdose? Go test it out because it's really strong. That's callous. This guy, that's really callous. So he was on notice that it is known, it is widely known, that fentanyl is fatal. And I think it was reckless disregard for human life. There is a theory of murder that at least in some states, California and New York, where you can charge someone with second degree murder for their grave indifference to human life. And that's kind of what this is, right?
Joshua Ritter:
[00:07:27]
No, absolutely. And you make a really excellent point about -- and I don't think people really appreciate this. People have heard a lot about fentanyl, but they don't realize how small of a dose of it can be lethal. And like you said, a dose the size of a couple of grains of salt. So if you're not a lab technician, you're just some drug dealer and you're adding this to cocaine, how are you able to tell how much is too much? And by the way, when it's too much, people end up dead. So I agree with you. I think the distinguishing factor here in this case was his involvement in knowingly putting the fentanyl into the narcotics. You know what I'm saying is that he knew he was dealing with, like you said, reckless indifference. He knew he was dealing with something that was potentially deadly. And he just kind of disregarded the safety and possible risk of death involved in all of that.
Beth Karas:
[00:08:25]
Right. And even when those three deceased customers, all three working professionals in New York and they're dead because they trusted the drug dealer, it's crazy. This has to stop. You just got to lock people up. You know, you got to lock them up.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:08:42]
No, I agree with you. Just to kind of look at this, if we can, in kind of a larger cultural perspective as well. What are your thoughts about the idea that people are purchasing street narcotics, though, right? I mean, any time you purchase something that's not from a pharmacist, there is the inherent risk that you don't know where this is coming from. Including before the days of fentanyl, cocaine used to be laced with all sorts of things, including sometimes rat poison in things to just add to the effects or add as fillers and everything else. Do you think there's any argument for the defense? And I don't want you to be kind of defending these people who are drug dealers, but is there any argument or pushback there in the idea that we are still dealing with street narcotics? What are your thoughts?
Beth Karas:
[00:09:30]
You mean to go after the top dogs?
Joshua Ritter:
[00:09:33]
Yeah. And or the idea that this -- you know, I guess what I'm thinking is people die of overdose every single day. People die from heroin. People die from methamphetamine on the streets. Are we shedding too much light on the fact that this was powder cocaine, and it was professionals who were using it? Is there a difference being drawn there or do you not think so?
Beth Karas:
[00:09:56]
Well, I don't know that I can say that. I mean, look, the way I'd like to believe that the system is colorblind, and everybody has their day in court and that regardless of the background of the three people who die in one day, this guy would have been prosecuted. I want to believe that. And I do believe it probably would have happened. It's just three deaths in one day and he had notice of it. He was not charged for a year. Right. I mean, he was a drug dealer for 2015 to 2022. Now, these people died in March of 2021.
So this was investigated, and he used a stash house in Manhattan at his mother's and his family and friends did the deliveries. So this was a little family close operation. And it took some time, but I think that he needed to be stopped because he was putting some bad stuff out on the streets. And we also have to look at people who are buying this when they're addicts, because addicts really need help. Right? Addicts don't need to be thrown in prison. Addicts need help. Right. But the people who need to be stopped and locked up are the ones who are supplying, whether it's a doctor running a pill mill or somebody like this who's lacing his drugs with poison. But I guess I don't -- I mean I don't really delve too much into the narcotics world to have statistics on the tip of my tongue to tell you whether or not this case is different from a lot of others that are prosecuted.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:11:30]
Well, I think it is different in the ways that you've already pointed out, is that when somebody is knowingly dosing fentanyl into narcotics, that they're giving to people in such a reckless way, that is criminal any way you cut it. I don't -- you know, and so regardless, if we're dealing with cocaine or another drug, when you're dealing with, especially with the epidemic that fentanyl is in this country at this point, I agree with the kind of strongarmed approach that the government has started to take in some of these cases. And it's really tragic the continued kind of loss of life.
Let's move on to San Diego, California, where after a two-week preliminary hearing, a judge has ruled that enough evidence exists for Larry Millete to be tried for the murder of his wife, Maya. The Chula Vista mother was last seen in January of 2021, days before a planned family trip to the mountain resort of Big Bear, California, for her daughter's birthday. In October of that same year, Larry was arrested and charged with murder, though his wife's body has never been found.
While the prosecution didn't present physical or forensic evidence, they offered a wealth of circumstantial evidence outlining the couple's declining relationship and Larry's obsession with an affair he believed his wife was having. Interestingly, the DA cited the prosecution of Charles Manson as providing the legal basis to bring a no body case, citing the Manson case, saying production, this is a quote, of the body is not a condition precedent to the prosecution of murder. Larry Millet's trial is expected to begin September 14. Beth, if you could, explain for listeners what is meant by that phrase, "Production of the body is not a condition precedent to the prosecution for murder."
Beth Karas:
[00:13:19]
You do not have to have the actual dead body, the corpse, in order to charge someone with murder. I've covered cases where there's no body recovered. Years ago, not that many years ago, but 2008, Casey Anthony in Orlando was charged with murder. Her daughter hadn't been found. Now, her daughter was found a couple of months later and they increased the charges from murder to capital murder once they found the remains, but she was charged without a body. I've covered cases around the country where there are no bodies. And right now, in Massachusetts, Ana Walshe has not been found. And her husband, Brian Walsh, is charged with murdering her. When there's plenty of other evidence, there is forensic evidence in that case.
Now here in the Chula Vista case, which is also two years old, like the previous deaths we were talking about, there isn't forensic evidence. I mean, you expect to find spouses living together. You're going to find hair and some DNA and skin cells and whatever in your own home, but there's behavior evidence, right. And she was indeed having an affair. I mean, it came out at the preliminary hearing that she had a private Instagram account, and she had one follower. And it was the man she was having the affair with. And she used it kind of as a diary of the relationship too. I mean, her relationship with her husband was spiraling. It was not good. And he purported, the husband, purported to kind of take in stride when he learned she had an affair. But actually, he was seething inside, and if you believe the prosecution, plotting to kill her.
She disappears, and it's just it's kind of mysterious. I mean, she's last seen on January 7th and on that day, at some point, he backs his car into the house. I mean, how many cases have I seen as husbands killing wives and they back the car into the garage because putting the body in the trunk and then disposing it somewhere. Her phone last, like has any pings or whatever the following day. And it was either turned off or smashed or something. I mean, she just dropped off the face of the earth.
And the judge found -- look, at the preliminary, I did grand juries. You do preliminary hearings in California where you can test the evidence in open court, and the defense can cross examine the witnesses. I used to put in these one-sided presentations into the grand jury is just me questioning and the grand jurors. When the grand jurors vote an indictment here, you get, I guess, an information at the end of a preliminary hearing, but the standard is the same. It's probable cause to believe he committed the crime. It's not proof beyond a reasonable doubt so that there's probable cause to charge him with this murder. And that's not a stretch, right. Can you prove it? Can they prove it at trial? That will be the big question. And that's not several months in the fall.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:16:22]
Yeah. And not to belabor it, but you make a really important point that I want listeners to understand is that we are talking about a preliminary hearing, which, like a grand jury is basically just a probable cause determination, meaning the judge has a much lower standard and just has to decide is there enough evidence to hold this person to answer for trial? In other words, we're going to continue to keep this person in custody. Or under the jurisdiction of the court, do we have enough evidence to do that? And so you're right, the prosecution did not likely, and in many cases, does not show all of their evidence, their complete hand to the defense, but enough to satisfy the judge in this case that they had enough evidence to move forward.
And I'm glad you referenced these other no body cases. In many of those no body cases, there is forensic evidence. There is some physical evidence. There is, like you said, some carpet fibers or hair or stuff like that. And that there's also a lot of what we would call consciousness of guilt evidence. We saw that in the Walshe case that you referenced. All these kind of Internet searches and everything else. But in this case, they almost seemed to be relying almost entirely on their relationship and his mental state beforehand, with the idea being who else wanted her dead, right. And if things remain the same, if there isn't other evidence we don't know about, do you think that that's enough to bring to a jury for a conviction with a no body case, right?
Beth Karas:
[00:17:59]
So I don't know all the evidence, and so I can't really say, but you do raise a good point. If it were a capital case, and this is not, but if it were a capital case, the fact that there is, well maybe they can do it even in a non-capital, but the fact that there is no body, it's called lingering doubt or residual doubt that the jury can be instructed on. I've only seen them instruct it in capital cases. I don't know if that's a jury instruction at the end of the case that a judge can give a jury in a murder case with no body if it's not capital. I hadn't researched that issue. But lingering or residual doubt is kind of built in when you have no body, right. I mean, like, is she really dead? Are we going to send this guy to prison for the rest of his life? I mean is she really dead or did she take -- I mean, I'm assuming that the man she had the affair would have come forward and say, I'm not here. I'm not with her, you know. So that it's not like she's off with her lover. So it's a hurdle.
But I know a prosecutor in Florida who specializes in no body cases. There was a book that came out about his cases not too long ago. He must have more six, ten convictions, convictions on no body cases. But as you said, without -- if it's a soft kill, like smothering or strangulation or something, there's not going to be blood. There's not a knife or a gun or something like Ana Walshe's death in Massachusetts. Right. I mean, they found bloody stuff, right. And he went shopping for all kinds of tarp and all kinds of stuff to clean up the scene. He might have dismembered her. So anyway, that's very different because there's like, there's blood.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:19:47]
Absolutely.
Beth Karas:
[00:19:48]
Not here. So assuming that this guy killed her, it may be a soft kill. And so, you'll have to speculate. You know, what jurors hear in all murder cases -- well, here, they won't hear from a medical examiner because there's no body, but they hear about the manner and cause of death. Right. The cause of death is a mechanism of death. You don't know. You're just going to like, okay, jurors, we don't really know how she died, but we know she's dead, and we believe he did it. We believe the manner of death is a homicide, but we don't have a body to really tell you more. It can be problematic.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:20:22]
Yeah. Yeah. I think if everything is as it remains, I think I agree with you that it might be a difficult case. Especially because a lot of this evidence that they're presenting as evidence of why he had a motive to kill her is also evidence that defense can use as evidence as why she had a motive to leave, right? If the relationship was falling apart and she was having an affair and she did want nothing to do with him, that's another reason for her to take off. I don't know if the jury would buy that type of argument, but it's certainly there.
Beth Karas:
[00:20:52]
I mean, she was looking at a divorce. She had just signed up for a divorce workshop. She was consulting attorneys in the San Diego area for a consultation on divorce. So, I mean, she looks like she was going to take the right route, the legal route, the proper route to divorce him. So that weighs in the prosecution's favor. This is not a woman to stand up and leave. She's looking to talk to lawyers.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:21:20]
She's making plans. She's making plans for her future.
Beth Karas:
[00:21:23]
Yeah, divorce workshop. She's trying to figure out the money and whatnot.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:21:27]
Yeah. Interesting case, all these no body cases. And I don't mean to take away from the tragedy of all of it, but from a courtroom spectator perspective, they're always very fascinating to watch. So we will definitely keep an eye on this one. Moving to Memphis, Tennessee, where after filing criminal charges against five Memphis police officers, Shelby County prosecutors have said additional charges could be forthcoming in the investigation of Tyre Nichols' death. Nichols died in a hospital three days after he was pulled over by officers for reckless driving, with an autopsy determining the cause of death as extensive bleeding caused by a severe beating.
Video footage of the traffic stop was released last week depicting officers pulling Nichols out of his car before repeatedly tasing, pepper spraying, and beating the man while he was restrained. In addition to the five officers criminally charged, two additional officers were relieved of duty, and the Memphis Fire Department terminated three of their members, revealing they had violated numerous protocols at the scene.
Memphis Mayor Jim Strickland also announced the permanent deactivation of a specialized group known as the Scorpion Unit, of which the charged officers were also members. The Scorpion Unit was initially designed to focus on the problem of street crime in Memphis. Beth, we have all seen this video and it is shocking and disturbing, to put it mildly. But I want to focus on the other people that could be charged here. In your opinion, could the response or lack thereof, in response from these first responders, these EMTs, result in criminal charges? What do you think?
Beth Karas:
[00:23:10]
Well, I mean, I think that if they fill out paperwork that might not have been totally accurate, there may be some sort of false reporting or perjury or obstruction charges. I don't know if the duty to fail to render aid would rise to the level of criminal, but it may. That actually is something I mean, the officers who are charged with murder were charged with using excessive force and failing to intervene when they had a duty to or to render aid. So it's possible. Yes, but it will be something lower.
The murder charges are for the five who actually administered the assault on Tyre Nichols. And I did want to comment on that charge, the murder charge, because it's an -- I looked at Tennessee second degree murder and it's an intentional killing. And one of the defense attorneys said we all want our day in court. We want justice to be done here, but these officers did not set out intending to kill Tyre Nichols. So I was like, well, wait a second. There is, in some states, as we were talking a few minutes ago, another theory of second degree or another theory of murder, where you engage in such reckless conduct that you create a grave risk of death to someone which you could argue just sustained beating and not rendering aid. And I mean, that they're killing him, right, to that conduct, but they don't have that theory. So they have in Tennessee. So but --
Joshua Ritter:
[00:24:49]
Well, that's interesting.
Beth Karas:
[00:24:50]
Yeah. I didn't see. Involuntary manslaughter is a knowing or intentional killing, but with provocation. And so I suspect that the defense is going to try to say this is really a manslaughter. It's not a murder. They didn't set out intending to kill him. There's a huge difference in sentencing because the murder is it carries 15 minimum, 15 to 60 years. But the voluntary manslaughter carries 3 to 15 so the minimum on the murder is the maximum on the manslaughter. A big difference if you're an officer who's going to go to prison for this. So I think that may be where they're going. I mean, it's caught on tape. It's not that they can say, oops, we didn't do it, or we didn't -- I mean, they're going down, right. I mean it's hard to believe.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:25:41]
No. And that's a really, really good distinction that you make. And I'm glad you did that research. But you're right. I don't even think the prosecution would dare to argue that they intended to kill him. I mean, they ended up arresting the man and they ended up calling paramedics and they ended up bringing -- they made several moves to bring him into custody and to render him aid. You can attack all of the how good all of that was and how adequate all of it was, but it certainly doesn't play into the idea that they actually intended for this man to end up dead.
Beth Karas:
[00:26:16]
But that's the charge. The charge is an intentional killing. And I mean, listen, in the research I did, I did not see any other theory. And I guess, you know, let me just qualify what I'm saying to you today, that I'm not a Tennessee lawyer. I'm a New York lawyer. There would be a different theory in New York. There would be a different theory in California. So I guess I need to maybe dig a little deeper. But from what I saw, there was no alternative theory for secondary murder and so, it's an intentional killing. Maybe there's case law that interprets their conduct that if you keep going excessively over and over, then that elevates your conduct to intentional.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:26:53]
We consider that to be intent at that point. Yeah, who knows?
Beth Karas:
[00:26:57]
That's possible. Yeah.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:26:58]
But I agree with you, too, about extending that criminal liability to the medical personnel who responded. At some point, you're going to have to draw the line. And I mean you can continue to second guess people's actions all the way through up until his time of death. And I don't know how far you want to extend criminal liability.
Beth Karas:
[00:27:19]
I'm just thinking, as you say that, you're right but it depends on what they said or wrote.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:27:25]
Yeah. And so that's the point that I wanted to make, is that one of the things that the DA said in their statements about kind of hinting at charges that they said they are looking at and this is a quote, "persons who participated in preparing documentation of the incident afterwards". Go ahead and tell us your thoughts on where that might lead.
Beth Karas:
[00:27:44]
Okay. So they're preparing documentation. They have to write a narrative of what happened and what they observed. Were they influenced to say something different so that everybody's kind of on the same page with the party line? That's possible. And if so, then that's criminal, right? They're filing a false report. Maybe they're swearing to it and it's perjurious. Did they do something to somehow obstruct the investigation even for a short time? So these are lesser crimes, but nonetheless, really important when your job is to file reports accurately. So we just don't have all the information yet. But if they're looking at that, I would imagine that's what they're looking at.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:28:27]
Yeah. And I can almost guarantee you, and this is just based upon my experience, I haven't read any of the reports, so I'm not putting myself out there. But I can almost guarantee you that those reports do not entirely accurately reflect what we have now seen on both those body cam and surveillance video. Because I don't see any officer putting into a report as he was on the ground, restrained, officer so-and-so kicked him in the face. I just can't see something like that ending up in a report. And so that might lead to perjury charges for the officers compiling those reports if they were aware of those facts or other folks.
Beth Karas:
[00:29:08]
Right. Right. You know, it's dangerous to speculate, but we've got the video and we know the process, the procedure. So we are engaging in educated guesses but we should wait and see. We'll wait for the evidence to come out.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:29:25]
Yeah. Yeah. Well, it's a tragedy. And I hope it leads to some good, but it is really sad to see that we're still kind of dealing with these problems. But in the meantime, Beth, thank you so much for all of your thoughts and thank you for coming on this week. Where can people find out more about you?
Beth Karas:
[00:29:43]
Well, I have a website, bethkaras.com. It's really just a sort of a static resume site. And my Facebook and Twitter are the same, Beth Karas. I'm not real active on social media these days. I feel like, for what? I don't know. I don't think people really care. But I do have Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, all Beth Karas. And my website, if you have tips or stories, bethkaras.com, there's a contact link.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:30:16]
Fantastic. 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'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.
