Kohberger’s defense receives new evidence; Gwyneth Paltrow ruled not at fault — TCD Sidebar
In this episode of True Crime Daily The Sidebar Podcast
In this episode of True Crime Daily The Sidebar Podcast: Bernarda Villalona joins host Joshua Ritter to break down the biggest cases making headlines across the nation. They discuss a court’s decision to reinstate Adnan Syed’s conviction, prosecutors handing over evidence to Bryan Kohberger’s defense, and a jury finding Gwyneth Paltrow not at fault in a $300,000 lawsuit.
Tweet your questions for future episodes to Joshua Ritter using the hashtag #TCDSidebar.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:00:11]
Hello and welcome to True Crime Daily's The Sidebar, taking you inside the courtrooms of high profile and notorious cases from across the country. I'm your host, Joshua Ritter. I'm a criminal defense lawyer based in Los Angeles and previously an LA County prosecutor for nearly a decade. You can find me at Joshuaritter.com. We are recording this on Friday, March 31st, 2023.
In this week's episode, new evidence reveals an internal affairs investigation regarding an officer involved in the Bryan Kohberger Idaho murders case. Also, we consider the ski crash heard around the world as jury rules in favor of Gwyneth Paltrow following a $300,000 civil suit. But first, in a surprising twist, Adnan Syed's conviction has been reinstated by an appellate court six months after he was made a free man.
Today, we are excited to be joined by Bernarda Villalona, a criminal defense attorney and former prosecutor. Bernarda is also a legal analyst you can catch on Court TV, MSNBC, and CNN, among many other outlets. Bernarda, welcome.
Bernarda Villalona:
[00:01:15]
Hi. I'm glad to be here.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:01:18]
We're glad to have you. I know you've got vast experience and you've been following these cases closely, so we're curious to hear your thoughts. But before we jump in, tell us a little bit about your background and what your current practice is.
Bernarda Villalona:
[00:01:30]
Well, I'm here in Brooklyn, New York. I was born and raised in Brooklyn, New York. My family's from the Dominican Republic. I've been practicing law since 2004. I started out as a prosecutor in Philadelphia for three years, then I moved back home to Brooklyn. And I was a prosecutor in Brooklyn for 13 years, where I prosecuted homicides for 10 of those 13 years.
After that, I left that. And I've been a criminal defense attorney for the last three years. I represent the Correctional Officers Union, and I also do criminal defense and criminal defense in terms of state and federal practice as well.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:02:04]
Oh, fantastic. Well, like I said, we are going to call upon that vast experience of yours to get into these cases. So let's jump right in.
First out of Baltimore, Maryland. Nearly six months after his conviction was vacated, an appellate court has ruled in favor of reinstating Adnan Syed's conviction. Syed was convicted of the 1999 murder of his former girlfriend, Hei Min Lee, and served over 20 years behind bars.
His case was famously the subject of the first season of the serial podcast and again made headlines in September when a Baltimore judge made the decision to vacate the conviction after a motion brought by the Baltimore State's Attorney, Marilyn Mosby. The decision was based in part on the discovery that material from the state's investigation was not properly turned over to Syed's defense at the time of his trial, as well as two additional suspects to the killings who may have been improperly cleared of involvement in the murder.
This week, the Maryland Appellate Court, however, made the decision to reinstate Syed's conviction based on an improper hearing to vacate made by the lower court. The court stated a new, legally compliant and transparent hearing on the motion to vacate shall be held in which Mr. Lee, who is the victim's brother, is given notice of the hearing that is sufficient to allow him to attend in person an evidence supporting the motion to vacate is presented.
A second hearing to determine the status of Syed's conviction will be held at a later date and he will remain a free man for the time being. Bernarda, jump right in. What was your reaction to this development?
Bernarda Villalona:
[00:03:42]
So I was surprised that they actually reversed it and they reinstated the conviction based on the technicality. And the reason I was surprised is because Mr. Lee did have the opportunity to be present. He was present there virtually. And especially, you know, Josh, that ever since COVID, a lot of hearings have been taking place virtually where it's not even in person. So it wasn't anything that was out of the ordinary. And also, in addition to that, it's also much more convenient.
So I was surprised that the conviction was reinstated. But just know that it's just a technicality. So when this hearing does take place and Mr. Lee has the opportunity to be present in court, I presume that the same outcome is going to take place, where the conviction is going to be vacated and the case is going to be dropped.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:04:26]
Yeah, I want to get into that with you later about how much of this is just kind of a formality here. But my other question was, you know, I remember when this took place, and it did seem to kind of be a real rush to get this done. And I remember at the time that the victim's family was kind of causing a fuss about it. They said that they weren't given a proper opportunity.
And I wonder, do you think that the DA at the time, the state's attorney at the time, she's no longer the state's attorney there, but at the time, maybe just could have taken a breath and said, okay, fine, if we're going to do this, we realize what a huge decision is being made here, how it's going to affect many other people's lives aside from Mr. Sayed's. Let's go ahead and take our time and do this the right way. Do you think in retrospect that might have been the better path?
Bernarda Villalona:
[00:05:18]
So, Josh, there's a lot of conflicting statements, conflicting statements by Ms. Lee's family, as well as from the state's attorney. And just for full transparency, I went to law school with Marilyn Mosby. So we are familiar with each other. We are cool.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:05:32]
Okay, good.
Bernarda Villalona:
[00:05:32]
She is a friend of mine. But aside from that, I have investigated cases like this where we have overturned convictions during my time while I was at the DA's office. And one of the priorities is that you don't want to sit on a case that you want to reverse and vacate the conviction, because each day that passes by, that's another day where that person who's been wrongfully convicted is still suffering from that same wrongful conviction. So that's why you want to move fast with that.
My understanding is that state's attorney, Marilyn Mosby, did contact the family and actually through the family's attorney, but the family's attorney was being combative in a sense that didn't want to cooperate with the state attorney's office because they didn't agree with the findings of the state attorney's office.
So in terms of the investigation itself, this is not something that took place in a matter of days or weeks. That case was being investigated for months. And that final decision was made after they evaluated all the evidence. And also, the crucial thing that came out of this is that there was a huge violation of statements that were not turned over to the defense at the time of trial.
Now, you know that from being a prosecutor that that right there is grounds for any conviction to be overturned, especially since you know that the person did not have a fair trial and didn't have the evidence that would have exculpated them in a sense of that they had evidence that someone else could have committed this crime.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:06:59]
Yeah, excellent point. And that's something we're going to get into a little bit further in one of the other cases we're going to talk about today. But to get back to this, I agree with you, you're right. If you realize that you have somebody who is improperly convicted, put it that way. And it's important I think to draw the distinction here. No one is saying they now believe him to be innocent.
Bernarda Villalona:
[00:07:22]
Exactly. That's a huge distinction.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:07:25]
Right. What they're saying is they do not believe that they followed the law or gave his defense at the time a proper opportunity to defend him, and which are no small things. And so I think if you feel that that has been done, absolutely the DA's office, it's incumbent upon them to do something about that and not to wait a minute longer if they feel like they have somebody who is improperly in prison being held there.
My question, though, is you made the point that this is probably a formality, though. Go back into court. The victim's family will have an opportunity to be heard. But nothing is really changed since the time of the original decision till now that you would expect them to have a different outcome.
But do you think knowing that the appellate court, is this perhaps a signal from them on their part that they don't agree with the decision? And this is just kind of their first foray into this case and the decision that was made saying that, you know, listen, you got to do this properly to begin with, and then we're going to take another look at it.
Bernarda Villalona:
[00:08:29]
I think that played a role in it. You got to think that this appellate court is the same appellate court that also, after it was ordered for a new trial, they overturned the decision for a new trial and let the conviction stand. So we're dealing with the same court. I'm not sure if we're dealing with the same judges, though. So that played a role.
But I also think that the appellate court wanted to send a message to the world in the sense of the importance of victims' rights. And one of the important rights that a victim has, and the family has, is to be present and made aware of any crucial decision making during a trial. And you definitely know the vacating of a conviction is a crucial decision in a trial. So they're supposed to be let know if there's any plea negotiations in terms of major decisions in a trial. And this one was a major one. And the appellate court wanted to make that known to everyone that we have to be mindful of the victim's rights. There's a Victim's Rights Bill in Maryland as it is here in New York and several other states all around the country.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:09:32]
Yeah. No, I think you're absolutely right. And it's important point to be made. Last question on this. So the podcast Serial, which really was huge at the time, I remember listening to it. And it really did kind of change the game as far as, you know, there were true crime podcasts around before then, but this one really did this kind of look back at a case that we've now seen several times since then with other podcasts, taking a look at different cases that Kristin Smart, that murder investigation was kind of reopened in part because of a podcast that followed it.
What are your thoughts on that? I've been asked this question myself, and I'm not quite sure where I land on all of it. Do you think it's a good thing that these podcasts or other kind of media outlets really shed light on these cases and ask for a new look at some of them? And can that put undue pressure, I guess, is my question on the prosecutors in these types of cases merely because of the attention it's getting from something like a podcast?
Bernarda Villalona:
[00:10:40]
But that's it right there, Josh. When it comes to placing pressure on the district attorney's office or even on government officials to do something, is the pressure from the media. That's what makes them act, you know, when it's hard for them to, actually they need a little nudge to do something or to bring it to the forefront, put it on their table in order to focus on it. And that's exactly what the podcast Serial did, because aside from the podcast, it led to a series being produced. I believe the series was on HBO and other shows that started focusing on this, and it brought attention.
Attention led to a movement. A movement led to that movement putting pressure on the district attorney's office to be like, I need you to take another look at this, especially when you're dealing a case that's now being closed, because you got to think a prosecutor can easily say, look, someone already decided that case and made a decision. And a jury, after hearing all the evidence, found this person guilty. And that was even before my time, before I was a prosecutor. So I don't have to look into it. It's been closed and you've exhausted all your appellate procedures, so there's nothing more to do.
So it took that pressure for the state's attorney to be like, okay, maybe this is a case now that I'm listening and hearing things about it, things that doesn't sound right that I should look into it. Because in the end, the role of a prosecutor is to seek justice and not merely a conviction.
But that just goes to show you, Joshua, the power of podcast, the power of media these days, because that's not the only case that resulted in being reopening or an arrest being taken place because you got to think, for example, R Kelly, surviving R Kelly. What led the Eastern District of New York to prosecute R Kelly? It was that series. So that's just a prime example right there. Same thing with dealing with Jeffrey Epstein and also Ghislaine Maxwell. It was series having to deal with TV series and podcast series that led the pressure for law enforcement to act.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:12:41]
You're right. You're absolutely right. Excellent points. And you and I both know, too, you make such a good point. When a case is closed and done, and you weren't even the prosecutor assigned to it, may not even been hired by the office by the time this was all taken care of, it's so easy to say, listen, what do you want me to do? This has already been handled. A jury took a look at it. Judges were involved. Why are we going to kick up the dust on this old case? It's that inertia that you're dealing with of trying to get a bureaucracy like a DA's office to take another look.
And I agree with you, there's nothing wrong in shedding light and there's nothing wrong in lighting a little fire because prosecutors, you're right, their job to do the right thing doesn't just end upon a guilty conviction. So anyways, let's take a look at another case that involves prosecutor's obligations. Were moving to Moscow, Idaho, where attorneys for Bryan Kohberger received details of an internal affairs investigation which concerns one of the officers who responded to the Idaho murder scene.
Kohberger stands accused of the murders of four college students in a case that shocked the small community and captivated the media. Prosecutors in the case informed the judge that they would be disclosing the potential Brady Giglio material to Kohberger's defense earlier this week. While the information will remain under a protective order withholding details from the public, the evidence reportedly involves one of the officers involved in the investigation following the murders.
It is not known the severity of the infraction committed by the officer, but prosecutors are required to share any information that could damage the integrity of a witness, as well as information that may prove the defendant's innocence. Kohberger, who waived his right to a speedy trial, is expected to be back in court the week of June 26th for a preliminary hearing.
Could you describe for listeners and viewers, first of all, what is this Brady or Giglio material that we're talking about? And why is it so important for prosecutors to turn this type of evidence over?
Bernarda Villalona:
[00:14:44]
So this is crucial for prosecutors to turn this type of evidence over. So according to the Constitution, everyone has a constitutional right, of course, to a fair and impartial trial. So as a part of that, there was a decision, Brady, that was under the US Supreme Court, where it requires that if there's any exculpatory evidence that can lead to the innocence or give any inference of innocence of the defendant, the person that's been charged, then it must be turned over.
If it is not turned over and there's a trial and there's a conviction, then that conviction can be overturned, and that case can either be one dismissed with prejudice where the prosecutor won't be allowed to prosecute that case again. And that depends on the judge, whether they want to give such a strong holding on that type of case, or the conviction can be vacated and a new trial be ordered.
So like I said before, in terms of a prosecutor, their job is to seek justice and not me conviction. So in doing that, they have to make sure that what they're doing is fair, fundamental fairness in any criminal justice process. And in doing that, if you have information that can exculpate a person, you must turn that over as soon as you find out about that information. You can't sit on it for months or wait until the trial happens.
Secondly, in terms of Giglio, if you have information that goes to the credibility of a witness, that's key to the investigation or to the trial or that would be testifying at trial, you must turn that over as well, because anything that goes towards the credibility, the negative credibility of a witness goes to the heart of the matter as well, because a jury is supposed to evaluate the credibility and the believability of a witness.
The defense attorneys usually majority of times don't have access to this information because it's the prosecutor that's done the investigation and has all these documents. So they don't know what they don't know. And that's why it's the duty of the prosecutor to turn that over so the defense can form a defense and effectively represent their client.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:16:50]
So well said. So well put. Just to dovetail off of those thoughts, for listeners to appreciate, too. The prosecutor is the steward of the evidence. The defense is at a disadvantage in that most of, if not all of the evidence they're ever going to get in a case has to be handed to them by the prosecutor.
And so, what these cases stand for is that the prosecution doesn't get to decide what they feel is important for the defense to have or not, that the defense needs to have the opportunity to decide for themselves what is valuable information. And they may be taking a look at this evidence that the prosecution found to be innocuous and say, no, this is valuable to us to some extent. So that includes what is outright exculpatory evidence. But even evidence that the prosecution may not feel is all that important to their case but may be important to the defendant's case.
And so it's incumbent upon them to be as forthcoming with all of that evidence as possible to give the defense a fair opportunity to defend themselves. That being said, it's also important, and this is for listeners to understand that that doesn't mean all of that evidence can be used.
Bernarda Villalona:
[00:18:00]
Yes.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:18:00]
A lot of this can be turned over to the defense and they might want to use it. And because of evidentiary hearings and a judge may say, no, we're not going to allow you to get into that. And that's a lot of times what happens with this so-called Brady evidence as it relates to officers is that officers have a file on them.
Many prosecutors' offices keep what's called a Brady unit. I know in Los Angeles they have a very robust Brady unit that basically keeps any and all kind of complaints ever lodged against an officer so they can turn that over to the defense if that officer is going to be a potential witness in a case. But that doesn't mean that all of that is going to come into that case, even if that officer testifies.
But what it can do is and I think we might see this in the Kohberger case and that's what I want to ask you, is it might cause the prosecution to not bring that officer to the stand. If there is something in this officer that apparently there was something in this officer's file that needed to be turned over to the defense.
And if that's impactful enough, and if that could cause enough problems on impeachment and cross-examination, they might just not even call that officer, which could present problems for the prosecution. Usually the way they solve it. Don't you agree? Do you think that's the way it might even play out in this case?
Bernarda Villalona:
[00:19:21]
Exactly. It depends. So usually the majority of the time, officers, when they respond to locations or where they act doing an investigation, they act along with another officer. So it's possible what the prosecutor can do is say, I'm not going to call this officer because this officer has huge issues, but instead I'll call the partner or the person that was with that officer who can testify as to the same events that this officer could have done. But it all depends what is the issue and two, what is it exactly that this officer, investigator, detective, because we're really not quite sure what is the allegations in that person's file.
Either way, you have still some issues at trial where a judge may say, I'm going to give a missing witness charge, meaning that you're not calling this officer or this witness because whatever they say can have some adverse inference as to your case. So there's a lot that can come out of it.
But this is not crucial and it's not fatal to this prosecution because there's so much other evidence in this case that I think will still lead to the guilt of Mr. Kohberger. Remember, the way that we got here is that still his DNA was found on the sheath of the legend knife that was used during the stabbing of these four students.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:20:36]
Yeah. Yeah. I mean, this whole case is really performing a circus act around that one pivotal point that you point out, that his DNA is found at that scene and there's a bunch of other stuff that connects him with the DNA on that sheath, on that knife is just the most crucial piece of evidence in this thing that we know of so far, as far as what we've learned, what's been released to the public.
And just to kind of close out this point for people to understand, what we're talking about is there could be something in his file where it's alleged he was rude to someone in the past, to somebody he was investigating, or that he didn't respond as quickly to a scene as might be expected, something really innocuous.
Or it could be he's been accused of planting evidence before or he's been accused of misreporting something in a report, something that very important in the way he compiled a police report. If it's those big of a things, big problem for the prosecution. If it's something innocuous, you might not even expect it to play any kind of role.
But my last question on this, is that this case, any time anything happens in this case and this type of a ruling here or not even a ruling, this type of turning over Brady evidence happens all the time, every single day in thousands of criminal cases across the country. And it never makes a blip on the news.
But all of a sudden, you've got all these media outlets reporting on the fact that this has happened in this case and it's because of the incredible scrutiny it's under. Give me your thoughts on that, on how do you think that plays any role in this case? Will it benefit the defense, benefit the prosecution or neither? What are your thoughts?
Bernarda Villalona:
[00:22:22]
I don't think it's going to affect neither party. And I believe there's a gag order in this case where the prosecutor is not allowed to make statements about this case, nor is the defense allowed to make statements about this case. So you're really not going to get a response or let me frame the narrative from either side. So that's why I don't think it's going to affect the case at all.
You also got to think that a reason why the judge wants this way because they want to preserve the integrity of this trial, meaning they don't want to taint the jury pool. So by putting information out there and allowing attorneys to give arguments, it's a possibility that it can taint the jury pool in the sense that you can't get a fair and impartial jury to try Mr. Kohberger in that specific county.
So I don't think it's much to do with anything. The reason why we're so interested is because, Jesus, four students were killed inside of their home. It's just crazy about what happened. And because we're not getting much information at all about it, that's why.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:23:25]
Yeah. Yeah. Now, the story itself is just nightmare fuel. It just is. So the more you think about these people being stabbed to death in the middle of the night while they're sleeping, you can understand the kind of hysteria for information that is continuing to follow it. But you hinted at something and I'm going to make a prediction now. I think there is going to be a change of venue in this case. I don't know how they can --
Bernarda Villalona:
[00:23:53]
I agree.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:23:54]
It's such a small community, such a tight knit community. I don't see how the defense -- I think the defense can make a very strong argument that they're not going to get some fair and impartial jurors out of that community, and they might just have to move. It doesn't mean out of Idaho. It might just mean to a different area where it hasn't had such an impact on that local community. But we will continue to watch it, obviously, and keep a close eye.
Turning to our last case, big news out of Park City, Utah. After a civil trial for a ski slope collision, Gwyneth Paltrow has been found 100 percent not at fault for a 2016 crash. Paltrow was sued by retired optometrist Terry Sanderson for $300,000, alleging that the actress slammed into Sanderson, leaving him with broken ribs and allegedly brain damage that had lasting effects on his daily life.
Paltrow denied any wrongdoing in the accident and launched her own countersuit against Sanderson for a single dollar, plus her legal fees. Sanderson and Paltrow had differing accounts of how the accident occurred, with Paltrow claiming Sanderson was uphill of Paltrow and ran into her back, even apologizing before the skiers were separated.
Sanderson, for his part, claimed that he heard a blood curdling scream before he was hit by the actress and that his relationships and life were completely altered by the accident. We have some footage of their respective testimonies in court. It's very entertaining. We'll play some of that for you now.
Gwyneth Paltrow:
[00:25:19]
And two skis came between my skis, forcing my legs apart. And then there was a body pressing against me and there was a very strange grunting noise. I said, "You skied directly into my F-ing back". And he said, "Oh, sorry, sorry. I'm sorry."
Terry Sanderson:
[00:25:36]
I just remember everything was great. And then I heard something I've never heard of a ski resort, and that was a blood curdling scream. Just I can't do it. It was ahhhh. And then boom. And it was like somebody was out of control and going to hit a tree and was going to die. And that's what I had until I was hit.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:26:07]
The jury just took over two hours to deliberate before ultimately finding in favor of Paltrow. Bernarda, first of all, were you surprised by this outcome? I know you've been following this case.
Bernarda Villalona:
[00:26:20]
Not at all. I was not surprised by this verdict. So Ms. Paltrow came out a winner. So they say all you need is a dollar and a dream. And here you got a dollar in a verdict in your favor, especially when it says that Mr. Sanderson was 100 percent responsible for this.
So Gwyneth Paltrow had no type of liability. She did not cause this at all. It was all Mr. Sanderson. So I wasn't surprised because it was poor lawyering. But the question for the jury was like, which poor lawyer was better than the other poor lawyer?
Joshua Ritter:
[00:26:52]
And you make an important point. In a civil case, we talk a lot about criminal cases on here, which are winner take all. But in a civil case, you can have split liability. They could have come out and said, you know, we find Sanderson 70 percent liable and Paltrow 30 percent liable. But they didn't. They came out and said 100 percent, it was his fault.
So she wins the whole thing. All of a dollar plus legal expenses, by the way, which I'm sure are not cheap. But you think this case and that's what was going to be my next question was, to me, the whole case came down to credibility. But you think even the lawyering played a role in this? Talk to us about that.
Bernarda Villalona:
[00:27:30]
Absolutely. So, yes, cases come down to credibility, credibility of the witnesses. But also, you know, what credibility is and styles of the attorneys, of your advocates of the person that is selling this story to this jury. And I have to say that this lawyering from both sides were subpar. I was not impressed at all. I mean, maybe they do things different in Utah, I guess. I mean, I'm just a New Yorker. I've tried hundreds of cases. This is what I do. I live in the courtroom, and I love it and I love watching trials.
But no, the lawyering was horrible. There's so many things that happened during the trial that I was like, that would not happen in a criminal case. That wouldn't be allowed in a criminal case. And that type of action and banter inside of the courtroom would not be acceptable in the cases in the courtrooms that I practice in.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:28:18]
Yeah, some of it was difficult to watch. It was a little cringe. Especially the cross-examination by the plaintiff's attorney of Paltrow, this female attorney. You know, you can understand wanting to create at least the appearance of friendliness sometimes. That might be a tactic, right? Maybe you don't want to come out of the gate so hard and going straight for the jugular on a witness. And so you could understand why they might want to present themselves to being friendly to the person they're about to cross-examine.
But this looked like celebrity worship to me at points. I mean, it just became so obvious that they were kind of star struck to have this celebrity in court that she was getting the opportunity to chat with. It felt like they were at brunch together rather than sitting in a courtroom. And I don't think that sat well with the jurors.
Now, obviously, I can say that now that they've given her the complete verdict. But you made the point, but kind of continue to expound on that. How can a lawyer's demeanor affect the jurors, not even the questions coming out of their mouth, just their demeanor?
Bernarda Villalona:
[00:29:31]
Huge, because she lost credibility. It's like, how can I take this woman seriously? I don't know what's going on in this courtroom. Do you have a woman crush on Ms. Paltrow. What? You're worshiping her. Is she your friend? Do you know each other? Do you have problems with her from before? Did you all meet before? I just couldn't figure it out. It was just so weird.
I mean, at what point she was like, please tell me I'm as tall as you. Please tell me I'm beautiful like you. And I'm like, it was so one sided, too. It would have been different if Gwyneth Paltrow was entertaining this, but she was like she was even weirded out. You saw by her face.
But there was a catty moment, Josh, and that catty moment, women we know, when Gwyneth Paltrow said, "I'm sorry, what's your name again?" When she asked her attorney her name after sitting in that courtroom for, what, two weeks or so and also being examined by her for, I think, almost an hour. And then she asked her name. It was almost like, who are you? I don't respect you. Like it was so catty. I thought that was a big moment right there.
But I think that she lost credibility. That attorney lost credibility because I couldn't trust you and I didn't have confidence in you. And if I don't have confidence in you and I don't respect you, then I can't be receptive to what you're trying to sell me. And that sell the jury what you're trying to sell the jury. So I think that's why it worked against the plaintiff I think her actions in the courtroom.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:30:57]
Yeah. Yeah. Paltrow was just a moment away from asking her to go grab a latte for her. It was bizarre moments in court. Last question on this. A lot of people have asked this. Why did Paltrow put herself through this? $300,000, a lot of money to you or I. To Paltrow, not so much.
She could have gotten rid of this whole case, it seems. I don't know how much insurance companies played a role in forcing them all into court, but it seems as though she could have made this whole thing go away. And recently she released a statement on Instagram where she made it sound like this was her putting her foot down.
Bernarda Villalona:
[00:31:35]
That's right.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:31:36]
Saying, I'm not going to take this. I'm not going to take responsibility for something I didn't do. What are your thoughts? Do you think this was about her credibility or were there other players that we may not know about that caused this case to end up in court?
Bernarda Villalona:
[00:31:52]
So I think a couple of things played a role. Aside from the insurance, how they played a role, I'm going to put that aside. And I think for Gwyneth Paltrow, what it was, it was principle. Principle of the sense of, number one, this occurred with her kids present. With her kids, they are on vacation.
So it's like, what message do you want to send to your kids that, you know, you can have someone lie about you and try to take advantage of you and sue you for money for something that didn't happen. Like you need to take a stand when you did something wrong. So I think it was principle in the sense of for the family and for the kids.
But also secondly, that she knows her position. She knows that she is a celebrity and she's a wealthy celebrity. So she's like, I need to send a message that I'm not just going to allow anybody to come sue me and I'm just going to fall for it and just here's the money and I'll just settle. At some point, this has to stop and I'm going to make it stop by sending that message with a publicized trial. And now with the win that I will fight, I will be present, and I will win. And that's the message that she sent.
And then third, of course, principle for herself. For herself, in the sense of she knew that she did not do this. And she wanted to fight it and see it through from the very beginning to the end. But I just also have to add a fourth aspect to it is that, remember, Terry Sanderson had given an interview, and pretty much had Paltrow, the King Kong, came from behind and took me down.
So I think it's the words, the words that Sanderson was using to describe Gwyneth Paltrow. She's like, no, no, no, no, no. I'm going to fight this, but I'm going to fight this in court.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:33:26]
We're going to clear this up, sir. Very funny. Well, it was one of those cases that just kind of seemed to fill the void of people's continued interest in these courtroom dramas. So whether or not it was a good use of all of our times, we'll put that question aside. But it was certainly interesting to watch. Bernarda, thank you so much for coming on this week. Where can people find out more about you?
Bernarda Villalona:
[00:33:54]
Thank you for having me. It's been a pleasure being on your show. So you can follow me on social media, whether it's Instagram, Twitter, TikTok, @VillalonaLaw. So @VillalonaLaw. Or you can also go on my website, which is VillalonaLaw.com.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:34:10]
Fantastic. And I'm your host, Josh Ritter. You can find me on Instagram and Twitter at @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 again for joining us at The True Crime Daily Sidebar.
