Manson family member released; Surgeon charged with missing lawyer’s murder – TCD Sidebar
In this episode of True Crime Daily The Sidebar Podcast
Katie Cherkasky joins host Joshua Ritter to break down the biggest cases making headlines across the nation. They discuss the release of a former Manson family member, murder charges facing a plastic surgeon amid a medical billing dispute, and competency hearings for a woman charged with a man’s brutal murder and dismemberment.
Tweet your questions for future episodes to Joshua Ritter using the hashtag #TCDSidebar.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:00:10]
Hello and welcome to The Sidebar, presented by True Crime Daily, 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 on Instagram and Twitter at @JoshuaRitterESQ or at joshuaritter.com. We are recording this on Friday, July 14th, 2023.
In this week's episode, prosecutors seek the death penalty for a plastic surgeon charged with the murder of a lawyer all over a billing dispute, and the body has never been recovered. Also, the competency hearing of a woman charged with the brutal murder, sexual assault and dismemberment of her alleged lover. But first, after over 50 years of incarceration, a Manson family member convicted in the infamous LaBianca murders walks free.
Today, we are joined by Katie Cherkasky, a former federal prosecutor and current criminal defense and civil rights attorney. Katie is also a legal analyst you can catch on Fox News, CNN, NewsNation and many other national media outlets. Katie, welcome.
Katie Cherkasky:
[00:01:23]
Thanks for having me.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:01:24]
Thank you so much for coming on. We're looking forward to this. And before we jump in, just so listeners are a little more familiar with you, could you tell us a little bit about your background and current practice?
Katie Cherkasky:
[00:01:35]
Absolutely. So I started my legal career in the US Air Force as a JAG and a prosecutor for the Department of Defense, and I was also a former federal prosecutor, as you mentioned. And now, I, along with my husband, we run a criminal defense practice. We focus primarily on federal criminal defense and all sex defense primarily. That's our big thing. But really, any criminal case of whatsoever, we've handled them over the years either as prosecutors or as defense attorneys. So the criminal law is where I've ended up for the entirety of my career for the most part.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:02:07]
Very cool. I love the JAG background because you have to do both sides, right? Did you get assigned cases where you're prosecuting other cases where you're defending?
Katie Cherkasky:
[00:02:18]
Well, kind of, yeah. So there are both jobs. I was only a prosecutor. My husband was a prosecutor, then a defense attorney. You only do one at a time. You don't switch back and forth in the same job per se, but there's opportunities to do both those things. But it's a great trial job.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:02:36]
I know that you have extensive background and that you also follow these cases very closely. So we're very curious and excited to hear your thoughts on these things. So let's jump in. The first case is out of Corona, California, where after being denied parole over 20 times, former Manson family member Leslie Van Houten was released from prison on Tuesday, July 11th, 2023. Governor Gavin Newsom announced that he will not challenge an appellate court decision to release Van Houten, despite having reversed her parole grant on three previous occasions.
Van Houten was convicted in 1971 for her role in the Manson murders, specifically her participation in the attacks on Leno and Rosemary LaBianca in the Los Feliz neighborhood of Los Angeles. Speaking about her role in the murders, in an interview, Van Houten admitted to stabbing Rosemary LaBianca in the lower back 16 times as the victim was lying on the floor. Van Houten and other cult members convicted of murder were initially sentenced to death. But soon after, California's Supreme Court ruled capital punishment was unconstitutional, thereby commuting Van Houten's sentenced to life.
The death penalty has since been re-instituted in California but is currently under a moratorium instituted by executive order of Governor Newsom. Van Houten, who was 19 at the time of the murders, has served 53 years behind bars, gaining both a bachelor's degree and master's degree while in prison. Following her release, Van Houten will participate in a transitional program to attempt to acclimate her back into society. Katie, just jump right in. Were you surprised by this, by her release now these many years later?
Katie Cherkasky:
[00:04:24]
I was surprised. But when we're talking about the parole system, it has to have some meaning behind it. So if you're eligible for parole and you meet the criteria, at some point, the law would require that you should be given that opportunity. But I mean, she really lucked out here. She was serving a death sentence. Now, she's out at 53 years. I mean, that's incredible in and of itself. So I think that from a defense perspective, this is the way that the system is set up.
And I think interestingly, in the case, there was other opportunities she had to be granted parole. And the board had found that really because of the nature of the crime being so egregious that she wasn't granted it at some point and a higher court, actually said that because they were not giving her a fair opportunity and were saying point blank, because the crime was so bad, she could never essentially receive parole that they were instituting an unlawful sentence. So they had to be fair about this. And the criteria in terms of being able to go back into society and be rehabilitated to at least some extent, if you meet those, then you should be eligible for that fairly enough.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:05:31]
I've gone back and forth on this so much, but I completely agree with you. And it sounds like with the court in this case that if you're going to sentence someone to life with the possibility of parole, then that has to be an actual possibility. Then you have to actually entertain their request for parole. Otherwise, this is all a farce and you've really sentenced them to life without parole. And we're just going through the motions and it's all a big play that they're putting on.
Katie Cherkasky:
[00:06:06]
Well, right. I think that's interesting. And I think in terms of the nature of the crime, if you're only focused on that, then you can always get back to the answer of it's horrible, it's horrific and seems like a very dangerous person. But that can't be the only analysis, I guess, is what they were saying.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:06:22]
Yeah. No, and I agree with that. But this case bothers me in particular because she was originally sentenced to death.
Katie Cherkasky:
[00:06:31]
Yes.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:06:31]
And just because the machinations of the criminal justice system here in California, they commuted that when they abolished the death penalty in the '70s, didn't commute it to life without parole, commuted it instead to life, which does give her a possibility of parole, which is how we end up here today. When they re-instituted the death penalty, they didn't go back and then reinstitute those sentences against people who had originally been sentenced prior to their change from the Supreme Court. So there's all the getting into the weeds on how we end up where we're at today.
My point being, though, one of my big things is to respect the verdict of the jury. Well, a jury, looking at the facts, having lived through the trial, found her not only guilty, but found it was appropriate to institute the death penalty. Now that's not me arguing that she should somehow be put to death, but it is a little troublesome to me that that same person who was at one point by one jury sentenced to death is now, as of today, walking free. What are your thoughts on that?
Katie Cherkasky:
[00:07:38]
That's a very good point. It's incredible. And I think that it does send a message about the justice system in terms of the finality of those verdicts. She really got the benefit of all these changes of the law, that's for sure. I think we have to remember, though, even though they did send it to her to death at the original time of the crime, it was closer in time. She was 19 at the time. She was obviously a member of a cult. There was a lot of drug use involved. Now, these are mitigating factors. They're not exculpatory factors. But I think that in terms of the kind of mitigation of it, there is a lot there to that extent.
But you're right. I mean, I can't believe how lucky she is. She must be the luckiest inmate that I've heard because that's incredible. But yeah, it's interesting how the law, when there are changes made, sometimes that does or does not impact prior cases. And I think you made a good point about when they re-instituted the death penalty, how do they justify not re-instituting the sentence that was imposed? I mean, it's hard to get a death verdict like that. So I would have thought that, too. But, I mean, under the way things stand, it makes sense, if you will. But there's a lot of questions about the overall justice of it, I think, especially for the family, I'm sure.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:08:56]
Yeah. And to your point, you're absolutely right. She was 19. She was brainwashed by this cult. She wasn't the only person who participated in this. All of these, like you pointed out, mitigating factors. But my point is, those were mitigating factors that were all presented at her trial when she was convicted and sentenced to death. So she had her opportunity for those to be heard.
Katie Cherkasky:
[00:09:23]
Absolutely.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:09:24]
So an analysis of those now is essentially, in my view and I'm not like some huge death penalty proponent, but in my view, it was allowed to essentially usurp, to essentially be reconsider somebody's sentence that was decided upon by a jury. And I'm not saying I feel that somehow, she should remain in prison. I'm not even really getting into that argument. I'm just more talking about the idea of I think it's a slippery slope when we begin to re-analyze verdicts because those should mean something.
Katie Cherkasky:
[00:09:59]
Yeah, I agree with you. It's actually interesting in the military system, when the verdict is rendered, the appellate courts have like a unique ability to relook at the case and determine on their own if there was proof beyond a reasonable doubt. And they can overturn a jury verdict just based on their own independent analysis of it. So I see this sort of, and people, of course, complain about that because it does seem so counter to the notions of our Constitution even maybe, but it's been upheld. And I think there's just these different iterations of how these justice systems work.
But yeah, it really is incredible that you could have a death sentence and then now be out on parole. Granted, I think when they impose the death sentence, obviously there hadn't been as much time for rehabilitation there and it's been decades upon decades at this point. And so that's another consideration that the parole board has that the court didn't have at the time.
But I mean, that's the whole point is when you get information later in time, you can't go back and disturb every jury verdict. I mean, people would love to do that. Oh, you know, now this person has a change of heart, they wouldn't have testified against me like that. Well, too little, too late, right? So that kind of thing, I mean, unless it was like a significantly huge piece of information, but for the most part, it's like these things are final, literally. So that's a very interesting case and especially such a high-profile inmate of all people.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:11:21]
Yeah. And again, to just kind of dovetail off of your argument that, yes, she is a case study in rehabilitation. I mean, she got her bachelor's degree and her master's degree, and all reports is that she was kind of a model inmate in her later years. I imagine there are a lot of people on death row who would love to make a very similar argument that I've been sitting here languishing on death row for the past few decades, and look at all the good I've done. And again, I think that's at least a conversation that really needs to be fleshed out as far as should that matter about overturning a verdict, which is almost what took place here. But again, I don't want to --
Katie Cherkasky:
[00:12:07]
Essentially true.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:12:08]
Yeah, I don't want to keep on -- go ahead.
Katie Cherkasky:
[00:12:10]
I think that in terms of the rehabilitation, when you're in prison, you're really, I mean, how much trouble can you really get into? Now, granted, you can, but it's very limited. And then, of course, getting a degree because you're sitting around, and you might as well do something, I mean that's great and I totally encourage that. But at the same time, is that such a display to overturn a verdict or a sentence? As you mentioned, I mean that's a bit more interesting.
I mean, I think that's why I would like to hear from her because it would be nice if she actually made a public statement like, hey, I really, truly am reformed now. Whatever we might want to hear as the public. But, I mean, what else did she do? Because there's other things that people get involved with behind bars in terms of efforts and sort of beyond just the typical studying and not getting in trouble, but I guess they were compelled.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:13:03]
Well, my last question on all of this is, what do you think the impact this will have on other cases and even the country moving forward? Because one, Patricia Krenwinkel and Tex Watson also convicted and received the death penalty initially involved in the Manson murders, they're still incarcerated. I imagine they're looking at her and saying, hey, what about us? I've done some rehab as well. And also, California just kind of seems to act as a incubator or whatever you want to call it, for policies, both political and legal throughout the country. And I'm wondering what are your thoughts on the death penalty, in general? Do we see kind of maybe a sea change taking place in the country?
Katie Cherkasky:
[00:13:50]
Well, I think as a practical matter, the death penalty has been a huge disaster across the country because of all of the litigation that goes into it and how long it takes to, and I mean it's just not a clean decision that's made. It's never. I mean, there's so many appeals for decades following the imposition of a death sentence that it doesn't make practical sense to a lot of people. But to the extent that it does address the most egregious offenses and to kind of address for the family's sake the victims in those crimes, I think that it is meaningful and significant. But I think as a practical matter, it's a lot more difficult.
So in this case, I think we have to remember that this wasn't just like an automatic decision to just let her out. She had been before the parole board, I think, over 20 times over the years. And I don't do a lot of parole work myself. But there are specific things that these boards are looking at and they will or won't be compelled in a particular case. So the nature of the crime and other people that were involved in the same thing is one thing but it's really the totality of the package that they're looking at. So everybody has their individual case analyzed.
And I guess if you're going to go with this case, if you meet the standards and the board votes in your favor, then you are granted parole if that's something that your sentence makes you eligible for. So I don't know that it changes much in terms of how parole boards work, but I think, like you mentioned earlier, the way that this all played out in the laws in California that allowed for a sentence of death to now be a life sentence with the possibility of parole, that's a big difference. And then when you're before a parole board, okay, I guess if you qualify, you qualify. So I think that's there's no message to be sent other than why did this person end up out of prison in 53 years, which is a long time, but it's certainly not death or life, that's a big difference.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:15:49]
Yeah. No. There's no easy answers to any of this. It's a lot of questions more than anything. But I mean, end of the day, I don't blame her or her attorneys at all. I mean, they're doing the best by their clients. And if she was a prisoner who was eligible for parole, then she should have been given the same opportunities. And I agree with the court's thinking on this case. It's just how we ended up there that gives me a little bit of pause.
Speaking of the death penalty, let's now move to Saint Petersburg, Florida, where Florida prosecutors are seeking the death penalty for a plastic surgeon charged with murdering a lawyer who has been missing since March of this year. The attorney, Steve Cozzi, represented a medical practice that was being sued by Dr. Tomasz Kosowski. Kosowski alleged the practice had shorted him thousands of dollars in medical billing and even harmed his reputation as a doctor.
According to authorities, sometime after a conference call, both men attended in March of 2023, Cozzi was never seen again. Police believe that Dr. Kosowski took the conference call, get this, from a Toyota pickup parked outside of Cozzi's office. Kosowski is alleged to have then entered Cozzi's office and murdered him in the bathroom before dumping his body in a remote area of the Everglades. Authorities searched the landfill, where the body was believed to be located. However, the facility regularly compacted trash, which would make finding the lawyer's corpse nearly impossible.
According to court documents, evidence against the surgeon includes blood and DNA evidence from Cozzi found in the law practice and Kosowski's garage. Additional DNA was located in a pickup allegedly used to transport the body, which authorities say Kosowski purchased in cash before Cozzi's disappearance. Authorities have also stated that cell phone data collected from Kosowski's phone is consistent with their theory of Cozzi's murder and that the concealment of the body. Following a nearly six-hour bail hearing on Tuesday, July 11th, a judge denied bond for Kosowski, leaving the doctor in custody awaiting trial.
All right, Katie, in most cases involving the death penalty, we've been talking about that today, and we talked about how jurors have a lot of mitigating and aggravating circumstances to consider in arriving at that very heavy decision. And that's why usually these cases are reserved for murders that are particularly heinous and murders where the evidence is remarkably strong is just kind of where we anecdotally seem to find it. So my question to you is, are you surprised by prosecutors moving to seek the death penalty in this case despite the lack of a body?
Katie Cherkasky:
[00:18:47]
Well, it's interesting for sure. And this is a textbook circumstantial case. I can't believe what they have on him. So to the extent that they don't have a body, I guess the prosecution's theory is that probably is one of the aggravating factors, the concealment of the body, the manner in which he disposed of it in a trash compactor, that that explains the absence of the body and, in fact, should be used to show how much more heinous this crime was. So I'm sure that's the thought process behind it. And, I mean, it's compelling. There's a lot there. They got the whole story lined up. So it's interesting.
And I think we're talking about this, this is in Florida, right? So the death penalty recently was changed to not even require a unanimous verdict in Florida, which is very interesting in and of itself. And I think that there's political points that are being made about how they're going to respond to criminal activity. And in this case, it is very heinous. There's premeditation evidence. I mean, there's just a lot of factors that probably played in favor of that recommendation, but the lack of the body is going to be a problem. It's always a problem in any murder case, I think. But I think they have a good explanation here.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:20:04]
Yeah. Yeah. No, I think the putting aside the fact that they haven't located the body, the circumstances are such that I understand it fitting into a case where they might seek capital punishment. I mean, you have a murder based upon some sort of financial gain or revenge you have lying in wait. It was obviously premeditated. All the kind of hallmark things that you look for in a case that might be considered for capital punishment.
My point is more along the ideas of, as the defense, you can see, I could absolutely see them making the argument of how in the world you may feel that he's involved in his death, but there is always the chance that we don't know if this person's actually, in fact, dead because we have not located them. And to put somebody to death for that, it's just asking too much of you, ladies and gentlemen of the jury. I don't know. That might not be an argument that holds much water, but it's just you don't seem to find these types of capital cases in cases where there is significant, and it might be that they're able to surmount those. But I would call a no body case a significantly difficult case for the prosecution.
Katie Cherkasky:
[00:21:24]
No, that's true. I think it would depend on the extent of the forensic evidence of the blood and how much we're talking about. If there's a chance that it's not consistent necessarily that somebody absolutely died. Like I mean, I know that you're going to have differing expert opinions on that, I'm sure. But I think I don't know enough about all their physical evidence that they have.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:21:44]
Yeah. No, we'll find out. We're very early on, so maybe I'll end up eating my words here to some extent, but it was just an interesting thing that stood out to me. The other thing I wanted to talk about is you brought this up. Florida has recently changed their laws regarding the death penalty, and they did that in response to, for the most part, the Parkland massacre where that shooter was not ultimately sentenced to the death penalty because the jury in his penalty phase was not able to reach a unanimous decision.
And that bothered a lot of people, myself included, actually. I mean, I believe that if we're going to have the death penalty, it should be reserved for incredibly heinous acts. And this is one of them. And many were frustrated by the idea that one or two jurors took that away from people who wanted ultimate justice in that case.
Putting politics and everything aside, they've now changed the law in Florida so that it's no longer a unanimous decision. And I always have a problem with legislation that seems to be a knee jerk reaction to something that you don't like. And I'm curious to hear your thoughts on that change. Do you think it's a good change? Do you think it's problematic? What are your thoughts?
Katie Cherkasky:
[00:23:06]
Well, my understanding was that there was bipartisan support behind it, probably because it was so emotional in terms of the Parkland case. So I don't know that it's constitutional necessarily, really. But I am surprised that that's all that we're going to require. And I'm not entirely sure of the procedures, but my understanding is that a judge might also have to take a look at the case and make an independent decision on the sentence.
But yeah, I mean, it's significant to not require a unanimous verdict for a capital punishment. Very significant. And yes, I think you're right that sometimes in looking at things myopically, you want to make a rule that applies to a certain situation, and you don't really think about how that will be used against you in the future. Classic.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:23:52]
Yeah. Yeah. So we see this all the time where there's a lot of public outrage and part of my problem to it is it's not public outrage to usually a very systematic problem that needs to be created but it's usually one case. One case will offend people so much that they want to change in the law. And I think this is an example of that, where this case bothered people so much that they demanded from their legislators to do something about it. And it's also in the wake of an incredibly emotional response. We're not talking about a change in the law some five years down the line where everybody's emotions may have calmed down. But in the wake of all of that, I just think it doesn't make for good law. But I'll leave it at that.
Finally, we turn to Green Bay, Wisconsin, where a Wisconsin judge is considering a psychologist's testimony surrounding the competency of a Green Bay woman accused of a man's brutal murder and dismemberment. Taylor Schabusiness has been charged with homicide along with mutilating a corpse and third-degree sexual assault for the murder and dismemberment of her friend, Shad Thyrion. Schabusiness has undergone multiple competency hearings with a judge ruling in 2022 that she was fit to stand trial. However, a psychologist testified recently that he did not believe that Schabusiness is competent to stand trial, noting that the 25-year-old's lack of insight and judgement would render her unable to assist in her own defense. Notably, and along those lines, Schabusiness recently even attacked her own attorney in court. And we have some footage of that that we can show you now.
Male:
[00:25:41]
Stop it. Stop it.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:25:45]
Pretty incredible stuff. This psych testimony comes shortly before Schabusiness is scheduled to stand trial on July 24th. While no ruling has been made on her competency, another evaluation has been scheduled and the judge will hear testimony on that next Friday, July 21st, before jury selection is set to begin in the case. So they're putting these hearings really up close against the 11th hour of trial here. So, first of all, Katie, talk to us about the standard for competency. When we're talking about competency, it's different than what we're talking about, insanity that's used as a defense. It's a much lower standard.
Katie Cherkasky:
[00:26:29]
Right. So when we're talking about competency to stand trial, that's different than saying that you're not guilty by reason of insanity, because at the time of the commission of the offenses. So the analysis has to be done whether you can actually participate in your own defense, whether you have an understanding of the proceedings and the nature of the proceedings.
And to the extent that somebody claims that they're not fit to stand trial, for the most part, they're going to be held in a state mental institution pending their return to sanity and fitness to stand trial. They're not just allowed to continue on with their life. So it's not a get out of jail free card, literally or figuratively for that matter. But it is a matter of being able to constitutionally defend yourself under the law. And yes, you're right, it doesn't have to be to the highest, to the standard that you don't appreciate the wrongfulness of anything, but just really that you're able to participate meaningfully in the proceedings and in your defense.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:27:23]
Right. And in fact, we have seen in many cases where somebody is pursuing a not guilty by reason of insanity defense and has been declared competent to stand trial. So it's not like the argument can be made that, well, if I'm so insane, I shouldn't be able to stand trial or vice versa. It's a really different question. And like you pointed out, it's a very low standard. Essentially, it's just are you able to understand what's taking place? And if you are so suffering from some sort of mental impairment that you don't even understand who the judge is, who your attorney is, what you're being charged with, then we're not going to put somebody, and rightfully so, through all of that.
But you kind of got to a point I wanted to also ask you about here. If she is deemed incompetent, that doesn't mean that she's done. And we saw this famously and most recently in the Lori Vallow case, where she was the mother accused of killing and now convicted of killing two of her children. She was declared incompetent, went to a mental institute, competency was regained, went back a couple of times, and that is what kind of delayed her trial. So I guess talk to us about that.
Katie Cherkasky:
[00:28:41]
Right. Exactly. So under the law, at least, maybe in reality as well, people can be either insane legally for portions of their life. So maybe during the commission of an offense, you might claim that you're not guilty by reason of insanity. And that may actually be true. But that does not mean that you continue to be insane, legally speaking, necessarily. It has to be determined at the time of trial whether you're still in that state or not.
And then, as you mentioned with Lori Vallow, there are people that are declared to be unfit to stand trial. At a certain point, they could be suffering from an acute mental disorder that does remedy itself or alleviate to some degree to allow them to be able to meet the standard to participate in the proceedings later. So it's not a forever diagnosis, if you will, and it has to be determined under the circumstances at the time that you're looking at.
So if we're talking about can you stand trial, the question, as you said, is, are you able to understand what's going on here and participate? You don't have to be a lawyer or like at the same level as that, but you have to generally understand what's happening and what you're being accused of and how this whole thing is going to go. So that can change over time. And you have experts that get involved and do analyses of these people that are accused and patients, and then they give their testimony and the judge has to make decisions about that. And of course, there's going to be arguments on both sides about it. But ultimately, the call is made on one side or the other.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:30:11]
Yeah, yeah, that's a really good point. It's not a one way door. You can float in and out of it and at different points in your life and been declared at one point incompetent and perhaps even make the argument that you were insane at the time of the commission of the crime and fully be competent enough to stand trial. So thank you for explaining that to us.
Last question on this. The judge is hearing all of this, but he's not moving the trial date as of yet. And that trial date is quickly approaching and we're still having these hearings. Am I reading too much into this or do you think that's kind of signaling something a little bit about maybe where the judge is leaning on this issue of competency?
Katie Cherkasky:
[00:30:52]
I think that the defense is going to argue that it was predetermined if they don't get their way. I think also, though, on the other hand, sometimes you just want to schedule things and have the jury ready to go in case you can move ahead. But if the judge determines that she's not fit to stand trial, they have to hold the trial in abeyance until she's found fit. So I don't know if it's been predetermined or if they're just trying to logistically set things up so that if they're able to roll into the into the case, then they can do so without a huge hassle. It might just be that, but it's going to be interesting to see what happens.
I think I mean and hopefully is fair what happens is that if there's legitimate evidence, she's not able to stand trial at that time or participate in the defense, then it should be delayed. And if it's not really a problem anymore, and maybe even they think she's exaggerating or something like that, then got to go. But these things will be litigated, and they'll continue to be litigated even after the trial, especially if she loses. And they proceeded at that point. So the defense will hang on to that for a while.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:31:55]
Yeah. And one thing I know, a big motivating factor for judges is they don't want to be reversed on appeal. So I don't think a judge is going to push this issue to the point where they feel like they're giving the defense some sort of appealable issue but --
Katie Cherkasky:
[00:32:10]
Right. Not at this point at least.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:32:11]
Right. Right. We will continue to watch that case and update everyone. But in the meantime, that is our show. Katie, thank you so much for coming on this week. Where can people find out more about you?
Katie Cherkasky:
[00:32:22]
Thanks for having me. You can find me on my website at goldenlawinc.com. And I am really not active on Twitter too much, but I'm on Twitter at @CherkaskyKatie.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:32:33]
Fantastic. And I'm your host, Josh Ritter. You can find me on Instagram and Twitter at @JoshuaRitterESQ or at joshuaritter.com. 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.
