Masterson convicted; ‘Burn after reading’ letter revealed to Gabby Petito’s parents – TCD Sidebar
In this episode of True Crime Daily The Sidebar Podcast
Marie Pereira joins host Joshua Ritter to break down the biggest cases making headlines across the nation. They discuss Danny Masterson’s conviction on two counts of rape, a judge granting the Petito family access to a letter written by Brian Laundrie’s mother, and a personal injury attorney facing legal sanctions after allegedly using ChatGPT to prepare a court document.
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 formerly a 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, June 2nd, 2023. I can't believe we're already into June.
In this week's episode, a shocking letter written by the mother of Brian Laundrie that was released to the parents of Gabby Petito in their ongoing lawsuit against the parents of the man that murdered their daughter. Also in a bizarre case, a personal injury lawyer has landed in hot water after using the AI program ChatGPT to conduct legal research and draft a declaration to the court. But first, breaking news as a Los Angeles jury has arrived at a verdict in the retrial of actor Danny Masterson on three counts of rape.
Today, we are joined by Marie Pereira, a criminal defense attorney, legal analyst and friend of the show. Marie is a former prosecutor who also does pro bono legal work for undocumented Haitian nationals. In addition to her work as a domestic violence advocate. You have a lot going on, Marie. Welcome. We're so glad to see you again.
Marie Pereira:
[00:01:33]
Thank you for having me again.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:01:36]
For listeners who are not familiar from the last time that you've been on the show, can you tell us a little bit about the work that you have going on today?
Marie Pereira:
[00:01:45]
I have a foundation which was created this year. It's called Haiti Immigration Project. And what we do is we help undocumented Haitian immigrants become documented by teaching them how to fill out the necessary immigration forms to allow them to file for whatever benefit applies to their situations.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:02:06]
Oh, that's fantastic. How commendable work. And we also know that part of what you do is a lot of commentary and analysis on channels like Court TV. And I know that you follow these cases closely and I'm always interested to hear your insights. So let's jump right in.
I'm really curious to get your reaction on this case out of Los Angeles, California. Danny Masterson has been convicted on two counts of forcible rape while remaining deadlocked on a third count. The verdict is in stark contrast to Masterson's first trial, in which a deadlocked jury favored acquittal on all three counts, leading the judge to declare a mistrial.
The actor, known for That '70s Show and The Ranch was taken into custody following the verdict and could face up to 30 years to life in prison for the conviction. In contrast to the first trial, prosecutors were given permission this time around to directly allege that Masterson had drugged the victims prior to the sexual assaults. A third accuser, whose count left the jury deadlocked was dating Masterson at the time of the alleged assault. This third accuser claimed that she woke up to find the actor forcibly assaulting her and had to physically pull his hair to stop the assault.
All three women were at one point members of the Church of Scientology, of which Masterson is still a member and have accused church officials into pressuring them against coming forward with their allegations. The church played an even larger role in the actor's retrial, with the judge allowing a former Scientology leadership official to testify about the church's policies relating to allegations of misconduct by church members.
Leah Remini, a actress and high-profile critic of the Church of Scientology, was also present in court, sitting in the trial at times and even comforting one of the accusers during closing arguments. Masterson did not testify in his defense, presented no witnesses on his behalf, instead asserting that the acts between the actor and the victims were consensual and at times employing aggressive tactics to discredit his accusers.
Following the verdict, the Church of Scientology released a statement saying, and this is a quote, "The church has no policy prohibiting or discouraging members from reporting criminal conduct of anyone, Scientologists or not, to law enforcement". A sentencing date for the actor has not yet been scheduled. Marie, were you surprised? This is a drastic turnaround from the first trial. Were you surprised by these verdicts?
Marie Pereira:
[00:04:40]
Absolutely, because like you said, the jurors in the first trial, the mistrial were favoring acquittal. So how do you go from favoring acquittal to convicting of rape? I don't understand. I think what happened here was the quality of the witnesses and what they testified to in the new trial that really swung that jury around.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:05:05]
Yeah. Yeah. You now have witnesses who have some experience testifying. I think they also know what's coming from the defense. They've been cross-examined now at the prior trial and perhaps even at a preliminary hearing. So it's not like there's any more surprises in the defense's back pocket. And you're right, they may have just held up a little bit better for this jury this time around.
But what about the evidence that the judge allowed more directly for the prosecution to argue that he had drugged these victims prior to their assaults? Do you think that was a turning point or there's also this kind of further evidence they heard about the Church of Scientology and their attempts to dissuade witnesses from coming forward. What do you think was more impactful?
Marie Pereira:
[00:06:02]
I think what was more impactful was the evidence about the drugging of the alleged victims, because drugging now eliminates any possibility of consent. Because when the person is drugged, how can they validly give legal consent to be engaged in a sexual act with you? The person is drugged up, mentally impaired, physically impaired, and that gives you power over that person. So it sort of eliminates the option of consent. And that, I think, is what turned it around for the prosecutors and catastrophically affected the defendant.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:06:45]
Yeah, I agree. I think that that was maybe a missing element from the first trial. I also do think that this kind of larger role that Scientology was allowed to take on in the retrial had to have had some effect. It was used in the first trial to explain the delay in reporting. But I think having these witnesses testify to what it was actually like to be in that church and be prevented from coming forward, probably further, obviously, in the jurors' minds, at least on two of the counts, further kind of addressed any issues they may have had with those delays.
But let's talk about that third victim that the jurors did hang on. And so a mistrial was declared, at least as to that one victim. She was involved in a dating relationship with Masterson at the time. What effect or how difficult do you think that is for a prosecution in a case involving allegations of rape where there is admittedly a consensual, for the most part, sexual relationship between the victim and the defendant?
Marie Pereira:
[00:08:00]
I think it's difficult because once you have a couple who have had sex before and there's been prior consent, it's hard to gauge whether or not this time around it was a rape with zero consent. I think at some point when there is a relationship, there's a meshing and a merging. It depends on what happened between the couples. Did she like it forcefully or did she not? It creates a situation where it muddies the waters, where you don't know where consent ended, began or continued. And that's what hurt that third victim.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:08:35]
Yeah, I think you're absolutely right. I think what jurors do in these cases is they start to place themselves in the mindset or position of the alleged victims. And they say to themselves, one, when you're talking about a delay in reporting, they say, listen, if somebody raped me, I'd be calling 911 that evening or I'd be at the police station the very next day. And that's not always true. And it somehow sometimes difficult to explain to jurors to a reason for that or an understanding for that.
Add to that, now you have a victim who may have stayed in a relationship with him or may have had a prior relationship with him, but is claiming that in this one instance, it was a sexual assault and was without consent. I think, again, they placed themselves in the minds of that person and they say, I don't think I would have behaved that way in spite of testimony explaining it or even in spite of sometimes experts explaining how these things can continue on even after somebody has been attacked. But he has been convicted.
And so I don't know if we're ever going to see a retrial on that third count. I find that really hard to believe that they would put that person through that again. But talk to us generally about retrials and why do they tend to favor the prosecution?
Marie Pereira:
[00:09:57]
You think -- you said why do I think they tend to favor the prosecution?
Joshua Ritter:
[00:10:03]
Or do you? I don't want to answer it for you. Do you think they tend to favor the prosecution or no?
Marie Pereira:
[00:10:09]
I think it favors the prosecution because at the end of the day, they're the ones with the large burden to meet. The accused simply has to sit down and watch it go down. So at the end of the day, if you have a retrial, it's almost like giving the prosecution an opportunity to see where they fail.
So hold the jury to see how deep into acquittal land were they and what caused it so that they come back with bigger, better guns, like, okay, he drugged this person. Okay, let's bring back someone from Scientology who can really explain the internal mechanism of making these people feel like it was wrong or shameful to make a complaint. Let's do that. And that worked.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:10:55]
Yeah. No, I agree with you. I think what prosecutors do, I know I did it when I was a prosecutor if I had a case that would hang. They use jurors almost in that first trial, almost like a focus group. And you're able to talk to the jurors, ask them what they felt was the problem. Where did they get hung up? Where did they find the evidence to be less than convincing to them? And also, they've now been able to see what the defense is going to do.
And many times, the defense only has so many gotcha moments. And so if you've already used that on the first trial, you're not going to catch that witness again on the second trial. And in fact, a good prosecutor might even address whatever were the issues on cross on direct the second time around and take the sting away from whatever the defense was about to do. So I know anecdotally and I think there's statistics to prove this out that it usually does favor the prosecution when they have a retrial, which is obviously the case here.
Now, they haven't sentenced him yet. I know from experience that the sentencing laws concerning sex crimes in California are especially onerous in cases like this. The judge may be statutorily required to stack the sentences, meaning that she cannot run the time concurrently for each of the victims that they would have to be done consecutively. And that, there, adds a life exposure, meaning that it's not a determinative sentence, meaning he would be granted parole at a certain period, but he could potentially spend longer than what we've been hearing about 30 years in prison. And that's why they call it 30 to life. But I'm not asking you to kind of read the tea leaves here, but do you think this is the type of case where you could see a judge, max him out, as it were, on the time?
Marie Pereira:
[00:12:59]
I think it is, especially in this climate of MeToo and justice for women and domestic violence, zero tolerance. I think he may face the maximum, which is why his wife completely broke down in court, because I know she didn't see it coming. I think he may. Especially, he's been out on bail. So he has not even to say time served or anything like that going for him. It's going to start from zero to prison, period. That's a problem.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:13:30]
That's very true. Yeah. Well, we will keep an eye on it to obviously report on what that sentence is. But yes, it's an existential moment for him and hopefully bringing some comfort to the victims.
Let's turn now to Sarasota County, Florida, where a judge has ruled that the parents of Brian Laundrie must turn over a letter authored by Brian's mother, Roberta Laundrie, which makes reference to disposing of a body and breaking her son out of jail. Brian Laundrie was the fiance of Gabby Petito who confessed to killing in a notebook that was discovered after Laundrie took his own life.
The couple had been on a cross-country road trip that culminated in Petito's disappearance before her remains were found in the Bridger-Teton National Forest in Wyoming. Following Gabby's murder and Brian's suicide, the parents of Petito filed a lawsuit against the Laundries, alleging the infliction of emotional distress, claiming the Laundries intentionally withheld information regarding their daughter's murder.
The undated letter, which was placed in an envelope marked with the words burn after reading, was discovered in Laundrie's backpack near his body after he died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound. Petito's parents were given a copy of the letter after a judge ruled that the contents could be relevant to their civil suit. The letter is now publicly available.
It reads in part, and this is a quote, "I just want you to remember I will always love you and you will always love me. You are my boy. Nothing can make me stop loving you". Roberta Laundrie goes on to profess the depths that she would go for her son, writing, "If you're in jail, I will bake a cake with a file in it. If you need to dispose of a body, I will show up with a shovel and a garbage bag.
The Laundries have maintained that the letter had nothing to do with Gabby, claiming the letter was written before the couple left on the cross-country trip. Interestingly, the judge has not yet ruled on the admissibility of the letter. Marie, what's your reaction to this? What do you make of this letter? Do you think it's just simply a kind of a hyperbolic profession of a mother's love? Or to you, does this read like an admission of some sort of conspiracy and understanding that he was in trouble?
Marie Pereira:
[00:15:56]
I think it reads like consciousness of guilt, because if you were just sending your son a love note from his mom, why would you say burn it after? What would be wrong with someone reading it? It's because it contains information that is damning to you that shows that you knew he did something wrong and you were basically saying to him, I'm your ride or die. I'm your mom. There is nothing that I wouldn't do for you. And that's what that letter is saying.
So what is it that he did that was so horrible? That's what that letter is saying. You knew when he left, you had to give him that letter so that he could stay alive, knowing that no matter what, I'll come see you in jail. I'll bring contraband to jail. I will be there for you. That's what it says.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:16:50]
That's an interesting take. Would your mind change about it if it wasn't in that envelope that said burn after reading? Because I like your point saying, listen, if it's just a profession of love from a mother to her son and she's kind of using these examples that are kind of pushing the extremes, why would she put burn after reading on the front? If it wasn't in that envelope or the envelope didn't have those words, do you think you'd change how you thought about the letter?
Marie Pereira:
[00:17:21]
I may have. The burn after reading implies that this is something that you need to take to your grave. We'll both have to take this to our grave. Why? Because it's wrong. I know what I'm implying is wrong. I know I'm telling you I know what you did, tell me where the body is, I'm coming with the shovel. That's what it's saying.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:17:44]
Yeah. Yeah. It's funny because I like that point that you make because I was thinking about it more about because the letter goes on to talk about things like, I'd fly to the moon for you and just kind of all these examples of something that you might say to someone to just let them know how much they mean to you.
But it does take on a bit of a more sinister element with that idea that she put burn after reading on it, especially that it was found in his belongings too. That it was a letter that he brought with him when he knew he was hiking out into the middle of the swamp to take his own life. Talk to us, though, about the admissibility of this, because the issue is going to come down to, is this letter -- the judge will do a weighing test, right? Is this letter more probative than prejudicial or the other way around? And could you explain that for listeners what we're talking about?
Marie Pereira:
[00:18:41]
Well, when a judge is making a decision on whether or not to let evidence in, first, they look at relevance. Okay. And this is definitely relevant to the case because Gabby Petito's family is claiming that Laundrie's family knew that she was dead. They knew he did it. Meanwhile, they left the family in agony, wondering where she was and even wishing that they find her safely when they knew she was dead. Okay. So it's definitely relevant to what they're accusing and alleging against Laundrie's family.
Now, we talk about probative value. Is it probative to prove the plaintiff's case against the defendant without making it look like it's extremely prejudicial and making the jurors be unable to come to a fair finding? That's what the judge is faced with. I think in this situation, I said defendant because we're used to the world of defendants, but it's more like a plaintiff and a respondent, right?
So the judge is going to have to weigh and balance. But I think at the end of the day, the judge is going to find that it's more probative and not as prejudicial and they should let it in because it comes to the crux of the case. Does that letter show that they knew she was dead, and they pretended she wasn't to protect their son at the expense of Petito's family? I think the answer is going to be yes. The probative value outweighs the prejudicial value because it is so relevant to the claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress and a reckless manner, intentional or negligent. It's probative and it has to be let in.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:20:37]
Yeah. Yeah, you may be right. Lots of times, I've seen judges in these situations, they kind of fall back on this idea of, well, it goes to the weight, not the admissibility. Meaning I'm going to allow it in, but you can go ahead and argue to the jury all you want that it's not discussing their knowledge of an understanding that he had already taken this poor girl's life, and they can argue what they want and leave it up to the jury to decide what weight to give it, but I'm not going to decide that it's inadmissible.
You may be very right. I think the Laundries are obviously going to pound their fists about this, saying that all the jury is going to do is single out that one sentence about burying a body and ignore everything else in the letter. But to your point, maybe that's exactly the point of this and why it is probative. But we shall see. Again, we're going to wait on that ruling if this ever even makes itself to see the light of day in a courtroom.
Finally, we turn to New York, where a personal injury lawyer is now facing legal sanctions over the citation of false cases in a ChatGPT assisted court filing. It all began when a prestigious New York law firm filed a lawsuit against the Colombian Airline, Avianca, alleging damages that resulted from being struck in the knee by a metal serving cart while flying on the airline.
As is customary in many personal injury cases, attorneys for the airline filed a motion to dismiss the case, arguing an expiration of the statute of limitations. In a filing opposing the dismissal of that suit, the plaintiff's attorney issued a brief, citing half a dozen different court cases which allegedly supported legal precedent supporting their lawsuit and why it should continue.
However, after extensive or maybe not all that extensive legal research, none of the cases referenced in the motion could be found by the airline's attorneys. This led to the discovery that the cases referenced were actually manufactured by the AI text generative tool, ChatGPT.
Stephen Schwartz, one of the lawyers representing the plaintiff, admitted to using ChatGPT while drafting the documents. Schwartz claimed that he hadn't used the program before and wasn't aware that the legal research provided could be false. While Schwartz has maintained it was never his intention to deceive, he will appear in a Manhattan court next week to face possible sanctions.
First of all, you got to laugh, Marie. I mean, it's just kind of whenever you feel like you've heard as ridiculous as things can get in this world that we both live in, here's something more to shock you. But what do you think this is? Is this a serious ethical violation or is it just kind of a corner cutting oversight on the part of this attorney? How do you fall on it?
Marie Pereira:
[00:23:34]
I think it's a corner cutting oversight. And I don't think it's an ethical violation because at the end of the day, he did research. Okay. Even if he had Googled or gone to a popular lore research site, what he failed to do is he failed to go back and look at the cases to see if they were pertinent, because had he done that, he would have discovered the cases never even existed.
Where he failed is that he did his homework and did the research, but he didn't go the step further, and verifying the cases which every lawyer should do. Now, is that an ethical violation? I would argue no. Is it a violation that really could make him lose his job? Because this is extremely embarrassing, and a big LOL moment and I will add an LMMAO to it because I mean, that's enough.
I feel like that should be punishment enough for him. He shouldn't have to face an ethical violation because that's really very serious. It's just that he's messy. He's not thorough, and maybe he's not deserving a job at this prestigious law firm because he cuts corners, and he caused extreme embarrassment for this law firm. And that should be enough. He suffered enough. Really?
Joshua Ritter:
[00:24:55]
It's so funny to me because you're right. I mean, is it -- I guess, one, it's a question of should he have ever used the program to begin with, which I don't know where I fall on that. I think if you use it as an assistant to help you kind of draft something, why not? As long as though you're going back through what it is written and making sure that it's all legal and makes the correct arguments. One.
But then two, if you're going to cite to case law, you would think the bare minimum would be make sure those cases actually exist. I was thinking, how hilarious would it have been if they were actual cases, but cases that had nothing to do with his argument. So now you've got this team of attorneys on the other side searching through all this case law to try to find some argument that he's saying they make, and it doesn't apply.
I don't know what would be more embarrassing for him, but it does seem to me like this could have easily been avoided. Had he just have a law clerk, have a paralegal go through and just site check everything that leaves your door to make sure that you're at the bare minimum, those cases do, in fact, exist. Talk to me about what do you feel about the use of AI? Does it have a place, a future in the practice of law?
Marie Pereira:
[00:26:23]
I think it does. I think it does, but with a follow up of a human being with a brain behind it to verify. Because at the end of the day, they do put out some very informative aspects of anything you're researching. So to say that because a computer is doing it and it's artificial intelligence, that is no good, I think that's taking a leap. I think it is helpful. You should be able to use that tool.
But at the end of the day, use your brain cells, your human brain cells to follow up and make sure what you're citing makes sense. And that goes for any type of research. Even if he went to, let's say, LexisNexis to research and they cited cases, it's his obligation as a litigator to look up the cases and see if they even really apply to your fact pattern, because that's your job as an attorney to do your research. And that's where he failed. And he's giving AI a bad name. Now, we know don't just rely on AI, rely on the brain too.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:27:32]
Yeah. I can imagine the moment when he put in the prompt and because this AI stuff is really incredible. I don't know if you've played around with it, I have. But you give it a prompt and it's amazing the stuff that it can write. I mean, you would have a hard time telling that that was not written by a person. But I imagine he put in the prompt trying to save himself some time. It spat out the document or the declaration, whatever he was working on.
And then when he saw it, it had case law. He must have thought jackpot. That's the real work. Now, I don't have to do any of that. I don't even have to look up anything to support my arguments. They already provided it and send it out the door. It's a funny story, but I think it also does have some real-life ramifications and maybe, like you said, some ramifications for this attorney. We will see what happens.
But in the meantime, Marie, it's always a pleasure. Thank you so much for coming on this week. Where can people find out more about you?
Marie Pereira:
[00:28:36]
Well, they can log on to www.hip.support and they can log on there to see about immigration project and what we do and they can log on there to see about Haiti Immigration Project to see what we do and perhaps even make a donation to the cause so a sister can buy some toner, pay for paper, and paper clips because a sister is not funded yet and it's all self-funded.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:29:07]
Oh, fantastic. Well, then we encourage everyone to please go check it out and donate a few dollars if you can. I am your host, Josh Ritter. You can find me on Instagram and Twitter at @JoshuaRitterESQ and please check out my website, 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.
