Nikolas Cruz sentenced; Weinstein’s trial; Alex Jones’ nearly $1 billion verdict – TCD Sidebar
In this episode of True Crime Daily The Sidebar Podcast
Imran Ansari joins host Joshua Ritter to break down the biggest cases making headlines across the nation. They discuss Nikolas Cruz being spared the death penalty, the sexual assault trials of Harvey Weinstein and Danny Masterson, and Alex Jones’ verdict in Connecticut for his claims that the Sandy Hook shooting was a hoax.
Tweet your questions for future episodes to Joshua Ritter using the hashtag #TCDSidebar.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:00:11]
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 here in Los Angeles and previously in L.A. County Prosecutor for nearly a decade. We are recording this on Friday, October 14th, 2022.
And we have a really exciting episode this week. Lots to cover. We're going to be talking about breaking news that Nicholas Cruz avoids the death penalty after a Florida jury spared his life recommending life in prison without the possibility of parole. Plus, two high profile sexual assault cases underway in Los Angeles at the same time as Harvey Weinstein and Danny Masterson each have their respective trials begin. And lastly, we'll talk about the landmark defamation verdict as a jury has ordered our Alex Jones to pay nearly $1 billion to the families of victims for the Sandy Hook massacre.
Today, we're excited to be joined by Imran Ansari, a trial lawyer, former prosecutor with hundreds of cases under his belt, specializing in civil litigation, personal injury, and criminal law. He is also a legal analyst and host for the Law and Crime Network. Imran, welcome.
Imran Ansari:
[0:01:27]
Josh, thanks for having me.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:01:29]
Absolutely. You've been on the show before, but for listeners who have not heard that podcast, can you tell us a little bit about your background and your current practice today?
Imran Ansari:
[0:01:38]
Sure. So, Josh, I started originally before I was a lawyer, I was a TV producer at Court TV. So that sort of gave me the media bug. I had a broadcast journalism undergrad. But while on that Court TV, I started getting more and more interested in the law. That leads me to law school. And after law school, I thought I was going to do entertainment law when I was in law school, and I got an internship at the Brooklyn District Attorney's Office. And I fall in love with trial work. I realized that there's so much synergy and similarities with the skills in the courtroom as with television and the media and scripting for air.
I went to the DA's office. I started as an ADA in the Brooklyn DA’s Office, and I left there in 2014. I joined the firm where I am at now as a partner. It's called Aidala Bertuna & Kamins in New York City. I was doing criminal defense when I first started, but I also started learning civil litigation while I was at it, and I aimed to sort of bring that into the practice. Slowly but surely, that part of the house here in the firm has grown tremendously. And now, I'm leading civil litigation practice. And I'm doing, you know, I still dabble in criminal defense, but I'm primarily handling a lot of the civil practice, but as a litigator and a trial attorney.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:02:59]
Fantastic. Well, we're going to call upon all of that experience and I know you followed these cases closely. So, we're really curious to hear your thoughts. So, we'll jump right in. First, we go to Fort Lauderdale, Florida where a Florida jury has spared the life of Nicholas Cruz, recommending instead of the death penalty that he be sentenced to life without parole for the Parkland massacre.
Cruz had pled guilty last year to 17 counts of first-degree murder for the 2018 shooting that left 14 students and three staff members dead. Jurors witnessed emotional testimony from survivors, video footage of Cruz carrying out the attack and even toured the crime scene at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School.
His defence countered by presenting mitigating circumstances, alluding to Cruz’ extremely troubled childhood, mental illness, and the systematic failures leading up to the attack. According to the jury’s four-person, three jurors were unable to vote for the death penalty. We know it has to be unanimous. With Cruz’ mental illness cited as a factor in their decision, Cruz will now face formal sentencing on November 1st.
Reportedly, all of the victims’ family members who spoke to the media were furious about the verdict, with many seeing it as a miscarriage of justice for their loved ones. Imran, jump right in. Was this verdict surprising to you?
Imran Ansari:
[0:04:20]
Yeah. I'm going to say, Josh, it was surprising. Of course, you know, Florida, you need a unanimous verdict for the death penalty to be the sentence for a defendant. And I was surprised because first, you're in Florida and people in Florida, I'm just speaking transparently and honestly here, you know, they tend – there's a conservative constituency there and people have – are less, let's say not inclined to enter a verdict for the death penalty there.
And I know I'm speaking general, but I'm also speaking about Nicholas Cruz. And I'm speaking about a person who went into a school and took the lives of dozens of innocent children, went into court, took responsibility for that crime, pled guilty, and then litigated the sentencing phase, if you will. Because of the egregious nature of the crime, the testimony, and the evidence that was elicited by the prosecution during the course of that sentencing trial, I thought that there was a good chance that Nicolas Cruz would be the candidate for a death penalty verdict.
And no matter how you feel about it, politically, ideologically, or morally, it's on the books there in Florida. It is available for juries to elect that as a sentence for a defendant in this sort of case. So, I was surprised, but you hear that there was three jurors who were the holdouts out of the full jury there. And, you know, I hear that the prosecution are going to be looking into some aspects of what may have gone on in that jury room.
I think there may be one juror who did say that there were some influence going on there. This may have not been proper amongst the jury. But we're going to have to see it as you know, the prosecution are going to look into that, the court is going to do an analysis. But right now, as far as we know, Nicholas Cruz will spend the rest of his life in jail and was spared of the death penalty.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:06:24]
Yeah, I agree with you. I found this shocking too. I mean it seems like this is the, you know, perfect example of a case of, you know, if you're going to have the death penalty and say that it's reserved for only the most heinous of crimes, how could a crime like this not qualify? Especially on top of that, you know, the death, the loss of life is staggering in and of itself.
But you add to that, his kind of hero worship of these prior mass shooters, and the way he would he would glorify what they had done, and he thought it was such a great thing. Yes, I realize mental illness and all this other kind of stuff, but this is someone who seemed to have enjoyed what they were about to do. And even his conduct afterwards seemed to indicate that it was no problem to him whatsoever. It seemed like this was the type of case that was definitely deserving of the death penalty, if you believe we should have that penalty at all.
Not to mention that these jurors are – were what's called “death qualified”. Meaning that (inaudible) is done differently because each of those jurors have to be able to say that they would be willing to give the death penalty if they felt it was appropriate. So already I agree with you, you're talking about a state that does kind of lean kind of more conservative and law enforcement where they have used the death penalty in the past.
And then you're talking about a group of people who already kind of lean that way and that they're willing to give the death penalty. And for them to not do it in this case, I guess it asks or begs the kind of larger cultural question, do you think that we, as a society, have kind of moved farther away from the death penalty, where it's just going to be too difficult for prosecutors to secure those types of verdicts now?
Imran Ansari:
[0:08:17]
Yeah, perhaps. And, you know, Josh, just for our listeners, no misunderstanding, I wasn't painting with a broad brush, right?
Joshua Ritter:
[0:08:24]
Yeah, yeah.
Imran Ansari:
[0:08:24]
Florida, of course, there's people across the spectrum, politically and ideologically and what have you. But it's just the reality. We as attorneys, Josh, we know that. We think about what venue we're in for our cases.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:08:24]
Absolutely.
Imran Ansari:
[0:08:35]
We think about the jurisdiction. We think about the jury makeup and demographics in any particular area where we have a case pending. And we know that certain cases may have a jury pool, which is leaning in one direction or, you know, and a jury pool in another area. We know as attorneys, that you may be more inclined for our client, more inclined to render a conviction, or what have you.
And that's what I'm saying about Florida. And this was the case as you say, Josh, that you would think that if there was any case appropriate, if you were even on the fence and they went through that broader process, the prosecution were satisfied that that jury would, you know, find for the death penalty if the prosecution proves their case and that it's warranted in their case.
But there you have it not being granted and you wonder is there an ideological shift or an understanding here because we know in other countries across the world, the death penalty in certain areas, right, is looked down upon and it's looked as archaic, but we still have it on the books in many states here in the United States.
But it's interesting because this case unfolded in court, without much remorse from Nicholas Cruz. And when you have that coupled with all the disturbing drawings, the things that we saw through the prosecution's case, even under the lens of mental illness, you still would think that the jury would come to a conclusion that this reached that level, if any case would for the death penalty.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:10:10]
Yeah, yeah. I guess my thought too is that a couple decades ago, maybe longer, maybe shorter, I think this easily would have been a death penalty case. I just – I wonder if culturally, we've kind of moved farther away from that, and I wonder if we'll start seeing less and less of those types of verdicts. But in any case, they've come to their decision. It is final and he will remain for the rest of his life in jail.
So, let's move now to Los Angeles, where two big trials are taking place at the same time in the same building. It's pretty incredible, both of them kind of related in many aspects. We're talking about the sexual assault trial of disgraced Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein has begun jury selection on Monday, October 10th.
And I'm going to stop here for a second for full transparency, my law firm that I formerly worked at is handling the case for Weinstein here in Los Angeles. I was not directly involved in the case, and I don't work there anymore. And Imran, your firm actually participated in Weinstein's defense in New York and is continuing to handle his appeal. Is that correct?
Imran Ansari:
[0:11:22]
Correct, Josh. So, you know, and for full transparency here and disclaimer, you know, I actively represent Harvey Weinstein currently in civil cases. And my firm also act – we’re a small boutique firm. We represent Harvey Weinstein in the appeal of the New York State conviction. We also were his attorneys in the New York State trial, so we actively and currently represent Harvey Weinstein. So, of course, there's going to be a limit as to what I could talk about here, but I'm happy to answer some questions and discuss this case.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:11:57]
Of course. We're very curious now to hear your insights and we will make sure to try to avoid any attorney-client privileged areas. But Weinstein, now 70-years-old, faces 11 counts related to the sexual assault of five women in separate incidents from 2004 to 2013. We're talking about here in the Los Angeles trial.
While the victims in the case will not be named, one woman set to testify has come forward publicly. And that is Governor Gavin Newsom’s wife, Jennifer Siebel Newsom, who will take the stand as Jane Doe 4. In 2020, Harvey Weinstein was sentenced to 23 years for a separate rape conviction in New York. That's the case that we were just talking about. However, in August, the State Court of Appeals granted him permission to appeal his conviction. If convicted in California, Weinstein faces the possibility of life in prison.
Okay. Imran, first, let's talk about that New York case, and I want to talk about the appeal because I think it presents some really interesting issues. Essentially, the argument, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that the judge allowed too much and too far attenuated prior bad acts evidence to be presented in that prosecution. Could you walk us through that, what the argument is there?
Imran Ansari:
[0:13:11]
Sure. So, Josh, there's a few arguments that we're putting for Mr. Weinstein on appeal. One of them is what you said. So, there are – in New York, there's prior convictions, right? You can get evidence of prior convictions and if the judge allows it, but there's also prior bad acts, uncharged crimes. But here our position is that the judge went even beyond, let's say uncharged crimes, to the point where he was allowing evidence before that jury as to just Harvey Weinstein, a general alleged, you know, of behavior at work, to people he met randomly, some employees.
And when I say behavior, I'm not talking about alleged sexual misconduct. I'm talking about just being someone who may have yelled at someone, or cursed at someone, or treated someone, maybe not so nicely. And it – our position was that that evidence was so prejudicial and lacked probative value that it was not properly before the jury. And the judge should have excluded that, and it did not pass the sort of smell test of what prior bad acts or uncharged crimes or even could reach the jury's ears. And it was to such an extent that he was not able to get a fair trial.
Josh, there's other arguments that there was a juror who was, what we say was almost like an activist juror. She had not disclosed originally during voir dire that she had penned a book talking which dealt with older men in power and women. And although that came out during the course of early on in jury selection, the judge still allowed this juror to sit on the jury despite the defense objections from our team.
So, that's another aspect of the of the appeal, but I'm just giving a general sense. There's other arguments, of course, that we have in that appeal, but it was denied. Just to give our listeners a little road map of the New York Courts, right. You have the trial courts, then you appeal to the Appellate Division, which is the intermediary Appellate Court. And then you appeal up to the highest court in the state, which is the New York State Court of Appeals.
And the Court of Appeals, they’re very particular about the cases they're going to hear. So, we – the conviction of Harvey Weinstein was affirmed by that Middle Appellate Court. And the Court of Appeals has issued a decision that they will hair the ultimate appeal up before them and that's what we're working on filing right now.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:15:50]
Understood. Let me ask you a couple questions about what you – and thank you for laying that all out for us. Really fascinating stuff. This juror, you're saying that the judge allowed – did you have challenges to that juror, like a peremptory challenge or what? How was it that you were not able to get that juror off because you're saying that this information came out in voir dire?
Imran Ansari:
[0:16:11]
So, I should clarify that, Josh. So, the information did not come out during voir dire. So, she was seated.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:16:17]
Understood. I understand now. Okay.
Imran Ansari:
[0:16:19]
She was seated. And then at some point between the start of the trial and jury selection, and then the commencement of trial. And it may have been – I can't remember if it was after opening statements or before, but we had a – it was raised to the judge that – and I believe we found this on social media, that she had penned this book which dealt with the power dynamics of older men and women and younger women, which we felt would render her not a fair and impartial juror about someone who may have a bias. And they particularly have a bias against someone like Harvey Weinstein, given the allegations of the crimes he was charged with.
We challenged the – you know, we brought that to the judge’s attention. We said she should be removed from the jury. The judge did not agree and allowed her to sit for the trial, which is one point of appeal that we have for Mr Weinstein.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:17:14]
So, she had kind of purposefully kept that from you during the voir dire process. I'm sure she must have been asked some questions about any biases she carries and was able to somehow hide that information before she actually got sat on the jury. That's pretty incredible.
Imran Ansari:
[0:17:27]
Correct. Correct. So, we're saying she was not forthcoming. It was discovered, yet the judge still allowed her to serve.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:17:33]
Wow, incredible stuff. The other question I had for you is in California, these prior bad acts in sexual assault cases allow for the prosecution to make some pretty powerful and almost insurmountable type arguments because they can argue propensity. And I'm curious if New York operates the same way.
In other words, it's not just, hey, this person did something similar before, so that demonstrates kind of a general MO or shows, you know , they have – you know, if they prey upon people that, you know, are worker – somebody who works with them and this person accusing them now is also somebody who works with them. You know, you can understand how that might be corroborating evidence.
But the prosecution in California can actually say this person, by these prior bad acts, has demonstrated that they are the type of person to commit sexual assaults. Therefore, you can believe that they are a person who will commit other sexual assaults. They have a propensity to do that. Incredibly damaging. Do they have this similar type of argument in New York?
Imran Ansari:
[0:18:41]
So, Josh, I mean but it's to an extent, right. So, if they're, you know, if they're – and of course, the judge acts as that gatekeeper, right? And it is in the judge’s discretion to allow certain evidence in or not. And of course, if there's a disagreement, there's always that appeal for the defendant if it's the defense objecting to that.
But what happened in New York was that the – I would say the gate was open to such an extent that even the most collateral sort of accusation or, you know, just someone – Mr. Weinstein being an angry man, yelling at maybe a waiter. I forget certain aspects like that -- vidence like that were allowed to come in before the jury, which were so removed from, let's say, the act of an alleged sexual assault that it was just amounting to a pylon.
And I use that word a lot because in essence that's what it was. Instead of evidence that had probative value, this was just a pylon of Mr. Weinstein being a bad man or an angry man, a mean man. And it colored the jury, we feel, to the extent that he didn't get a fair trial. And however you feel about Mr. Weinstein, you have to remember that we have a very intact and commendable justice system for the most part, right, that operates in a certain way which allows evidence to come in or not come in, and which allows everyone to have a fair trial.
And no matter what someone is accused of, be it Harvey Weinstein or someone else, that due process and that fair and constitutional process needs to play out. And if people are so influenced by the, say, the court of public opinion or a movement that is taking place, then you can't allow that as a judge or even a prosecutor to color your prosecution, to color what's going on in court at trial. You have to let it be a fair process. And we argued, to the extent, that he was going to trial in that climate, it wasn't a fair trial month, you know, many things, and that's why that conviction should be tossed.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:20:49]
Understood. So, let's turn to the L.A .case because it's very similar in the sense that you have multiple women. You have five women who are accusing him in in many respects. They're unrelated to each other. You know, they're separated by time and even having – you know, it's not like they're all coming from the same office or something.
And essentially, what will happen, I imagine, is that they – even if you have, you know, one of the allegations being perhaps less convincing than the others, you know, maybe perhaps their memory is affected or their – the defense does a good job on cross examination to show that there's holes in their story, that there's this effective crossings corroboration that if while that person’s allegations may be kind of weak but listen to this other person who was very strong in their memory and very specific, you know, I'm just going to kind of throw them all into the same basket here. Do you think that's – one, do you think that's how it's going to play out? And two, how does a defense deal with something like that?
Imran Ansari:
[0:21:57]
Yeah. Listen, Josh, Mark at your former firm and the whole team there, excellent attorneys, but you know it's going to be a tough trial. I mean it was a tough trial in New York given, you know, what the court of public opinion already having made-up their mind. And now, of course, Mark and the team there go in with Harvey Weinstein having a conviction saddled on his back.
And, of course, they're going to go through that rigorous of voir dire process of trying to find that fair and impartial jury. But, you know, when you have the claims that are piggy backing after a prosecution and a conviction in New York and they're trying to find, you know, obviously that is going to play a part in this trial. That's a conviction.
You know, it's going to be a very tough process. To A, on the first instance, finding fair and impartial juror to be seated on that given now you have not only the Me Too Movement five years in, but also Harvey Weinstein being very famously convicted in the New York case. You're going to have that process being a very difficult process on the first hand. And then also throughout trial with the evidence coming in but, you know, we do our job as defense attorneys and you do yourself, Josh, you know, the best for your client. And although it's going to be a tough fight, I'm sure Mark and everyone is going to be doing their best in court.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:23:23]
Yeah. One last thing I wanted to cover on this, and you have alluded to it a few Times Now. But it's been five years since The New Yorker published their Weinstein expose, which ignited the Me Too Movement. He has essentially become the poster child for that movement. So, you've got that at play. At the same time, you have a 70-year-old man who has a rapidly declining condition.
Apparently, you know, this has come out in arguments that the attorneys have made in court, that his teeth are rotting, he's unable to walk, he's in a wheelchair. Do you think that – which do you think plays a more a stronger role with these jurors, both of which have nothing to do with the evidence, but it's something that does play a role in jurors’ minds, the backdrop of Me Too or you have this person who's essentially falling apart in front of your eyes. Do you think any of that affects the jurors?
Imran Ansari:
[0:24:19]
Well, you know, Josh, you and I know that they're going to be instructed that they have to put sympathy aside and put sympathy aside, not only for the victims in the case but also the defendant also. And I could tell you that Mr. Weinstein is not in good health, whatsoever. When he was in the New York trial, he was walking with the assistance of a walker. Many people out there in the press and the public thought he was malingering and that wasn't, you know, he was doing that to garner sympathy.
I think at this point in time, I could tell you that that was not true. He was seriously suffering from orthopaedic injury. He still is. He has a slew of other health problems. He's getting older. He's in confinement in prison. And I could tell you that I believe that prison conditions there in L.A are tougher than that they are here in New York. And, you know, there's that question, is he getting adequate medical treatment in prison? You know, there's been a, you know, requests for certain procedures that he needs medically.
And whether the jury looks at that and somehow, even though they're instructed not to have, you know, include sympathy in their deliberations or analysis of the evidence, if that comes into play, I don't know. But then the fact of the matter is that, you know – and Harvey Weinstein in the public eye is not a – is someone that the public really gravitates to anymore, right? So, it's – that may play a role too.
And I have to say though that people cannot lose sight that with movements with very public accusations, people who are accused who may have wealth or power at one point of things, crimes or otherwise, excuse me, it also opens the door. And I'm not naming anyone. I'm just saying it opens the door. And I'm not even necessarily talking about Harvey Weinstein particularly. Opens the door to people making claims that may not be true.
You know, I mean, because that—and that's just the nature of a very public accusation. People who are in power and, you know, people always need to realize that the justice system needs to unfold through the use of evidence. It needs to, really – people have to have a fair shake in court, no matter who you are. And without that, and if people start losing that in this day of social media and podcasts, and so, you know, things online and people just going on Twitter rants and all that, if that starts influencing people's decisions once they're sworn in as a juror, then we're going to really lose what in essence is the most critical part of our justice system and that is having fair and impartial trial.
So, we have to be very cognizant of that. And I'm just sort of saying that in a general sense, you know, as time progresses and technology progresses and people really, you know, bent their views online. I think we'll maybe talk about Alex Jones and someone who, you know, is a prime example of someone really abusing the 1st Amendment right. But, you know, my point is that trials need to be fair, they need to be impartial. People need to get their constitutional right in court.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:27:34]
Yeah. And we kind of saw the other side of that. Not in a criminal trial, but with Johnny Depp and Amber Herd to what you alluded to, that sometimes people make accusations and you put them in front of, you know, rigorous cross-examination and their stories really begin to kind of fall apart, as happened in that case. And again, I'm not – neither one of us are kind of pointing towards any case in particular or any of the women making accusations in this case. But it is –
Imran Ansari:
[0:28:01]
Correct.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:28:02]
I think you are true that we should all remain mindful that the courts need to have these things play out in a fair manner. The Criminal Court building in Downtown Los Angeles is a very busy place nowadays because in another Los Angeles based case of sexual assault, the trial facing actor Danny Masterson began with jury selection on Tuesday, October 11th. The actor and star of that 70s Show faces allegations of drugging women and assaulting them at his home in the Hollywood Hills.
Masterson was charged in 2020 with three counts of rape by force or fear. The charges relate to three different women dating two incidents in 2001 and 2003. Along with Masterson’s former celebrity status, scientology may also play a role in this case, with all three victims belonging to the Church of Scientology of which Masterson is also a member, the victims also alleged they were pressured into keeping the allegation secret by church officials.
However, the judge had been very clear and laying down ground rules saying this is not going to become a trial on Scientology. If convicted, Masterson faces 45 years to life. He has maintained that sex was always consensual. Imran, first of all, this case different – very similar in a lot of respects to Weinstein, but also very different in that these are nearly 20-year- old allegations. How do you think that will affect this trial?
Imran Ansari:
[0:29:30]
Now, Josh, I think it's going to be a test on the evidence, right. So, after 20 years, of course, memories fade, sometimes evidence gets stale. But what I think is, you know, time may have an effect on this prosecution, on this trial. I think it's fascinating though this trial because you're going to see this scientology aspect coming into that courtroom.
And they've said, you know, I forget some player in the case said it's not going to be a trial of scientology necessarily, but actually the crimes that he is accused of, Masterson. But you can't really have one without the other in this case, because I believe that the scientology aspect of things are going to be interwoven with the evidence adduced at trial. So, it's going to be interesting to see how these allegations are put to the test before that jury and the prosecution, you know, and to what extent the prosecution is going to be diving into scientology. And that's a very controversial aspect and, you know, religion if you – in itself.
So, the attorneys are going to have a, you know, dual role here. You're going to be trying to find a jury who are going to be fair and impartial in light of the accusations and the crimes charged, right? But you're also going to have to probably voir dire on scientology and those people’s opinions of the Church of Scientology because there's been a lot of controversy with that, the Church of Scientology. And I'm sure that's going to be peppered throughout this trial.
But, you know, serious accusations that he's facing and there's also been civil lawsuits and I know another civil lawsuit actually against the Scientology – Church of Scientology. But you know what, Harvey Weinstein’s trial happening in L.A. Now, you've the Masterson trial happening in L.A., and they're sort of crowning this five-year anniversary of this whole Me Too Movement. It’s going to be interesting to see how thoughts and opinions have evolved since then. But I think Masterson with these accusations, also that scientology aspect of things, you know, we'll see if their – his team are going to be able to poke holes in the prosecution and prevail with an acquittal. We’ll see.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:31:42]
Yeah. It's funny, the judge says this isn't going to be a trial about scientology. I don't see how this is avoidable. And I want to tease that out a little bit more with you because I'm wondering, who does it benefit more? I think it is going to play a role, absolutely. If you're the prosecution, I imagine one of the arguments you might make is, well, that explains the delay in them reporting, right?
Yes, this is 20 years old, but we have a very understandable reason for that, that they were under the control of this very controlling church. They had a lot of things affecting their ability to just – they could have just come forward about what had happened to them as other people might feel more free to do. But then, if you're the defense, I imagine you might make the argument of, hey, this isn't about Masterson. This is about scientology. That's who they're trying to get a revenge against, and they don't care if they bring Masterson down as long as they bring the church down. And that's what this is really about. Who do you think it benefits more or how do you think this plays out?
Imran Ansari:
[0:32:44]
Yeah. I mean both of those arguments are strong in their own right, you know. And I guess that you're going to see what the evidence compliments, either of those arguments. And I think, Josh, you're correct. I think that's going to be the route that defense takes. Of course with, you know, calling into doubt the other evidence or, you know, the passage of time and whatever, you know the defense will point out in terms of the accusations or the evidence supporting the allegations. But I think scientology is going to be a part of both.
Prosecution have a really strong argument in that passage of time aspect and that sort of climate of the Church of Scientology that we've heard about. And if there are already allegations that members of the church and they try to arbitrate things and keep things down and silence, and I think that gives the prosecution that explanation. If there's any doubt in the jurors’ mind as to why these women may have not come out with an initial outcry as to these allegations, right, that would be the explanation.
As a prosecutor, you could give them. And of course, you're going to have to shore that up with evidence. And I think there may be an expert witness regarding scientology who's on the prosecution's witness list, but you know, they're going to be looking to that, the sort of aspect of the church which people have accused the church of being, you know, something more silenced. You know, any sort of people who step out of line, I guess in the church or could bring bad light on the Church of Scientology. And I think the prosecution, they're going to be looking to those aspects as they, of course, try to prove the elements of the crimes that they have charged Masterson with.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:34:17]
Yeah. Last question on this. Something that people always wonder. And I'll say it in both of these cases, do you think either Weinstein or Masterson, any chance of them taking the stand and any benefit to them taking the stand?
Imran Ansari:
[0:34:33]
I would say that it's likely that you will not see them take the stand. As to Weinstein, I'm not going to talk about that. With Masterson, you know, if he – if they call him to the stand, if anything, you know, he's going to be – he's now confronted the cross-examination.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:34:53]
Yeah. Yeah.
Imran Ansari:
[0:34:55]
I think that with three accusations, three accusers, and crimes charged for three rape accusations, I think it's for safer bet for the defense not to put him on the stand. But then again, you know, I'm not privy to what's behind closed doors there. So, we'll save it.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:35:10]
Yeah, I appreciate you navigating those waters for us. Sorry, if I put you on the spot.
Imran Ansari:
[0:35:16]
No, it’s okay.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:35:17]
But it is a question that people always have. And it's hard to kind of explain sometimes to folks who either aren't lawyers or are not specifically criminal defense lawyers that, you know, what a difficult decision that is. Because people’s natural inclination, and you see this all the time during jury selection, you can tell people how, you know, the burden is on the prosecution and my client has a Fifth Amendment right, he doesn't have to testify, and explain that until you’re blue in the face.
But there are people who always say, listen, if I was accused of something that I didn't do, you would see me take those 15 steps up to the stand immediately to tell everybody in the world how I didn't do this thing. And that is something that's just kind of so natural and hardwired into some people that they just can't get around it, but they don't understand it.
And help us appreciate what it's like to be under cross-examination, and sometimes even a person telling the truth. If it's good enough, cross examination can be tripped up or made to look as though they're not telling the truth. And that sometimes, that's enough for the jurors to hang their hat on, that they – that maybe they didn't find the evidence all that convincing. But when they see this person take the stand and appear to lie to them, that's it sometimes for a defendant. What are your thoughts on that?
Imran Ansari:
[0:36:36]
Yeah. In a criminal case, I mean that is one of the most difficult decisions you have. Of course, there's certain cases where you have an affirmative defense, say of self-defense. And, you know, if you don't put your client on the stand to really explain that, you're sort of taking some of the air out of that self-defense claim. But in cases where that's not at play, but you feel that your client has that, you know, that could explain something away, that needs to come from his or her mouth, you're really left with that tough decision.
Of course, it's always the client’s decision whether they're going to take the stand. You could counsel your client, listen, you take that stand, you're going to be cross-examined. They're going to be showing you this, that, and what the other – it's going to be a cross exit, you know, leading questions and you may get tripped up. And if they say, well, no, I want to testify, even though you counsel them, you have to defer to that, right.
But it is one of the toughest decisions you make, not only, obviously the defendant themselves, but as counsel because strategically yours now bringing an aspect into that criminal trial where you can't necessarily hang your hat on that, you know, keep them to their burden, you can. But now you have put on a case with the defendant and that, you know, that presumption is now on display, right. And they're open to cross-examination.
As you point out, a skilled attorney, a skilled prosecutor will be able to ask questions of the defendant in a way that could elicit a yes or no answer, which, you know, on redirect, you know, you're going to try to get that explained to the jury, but it's not always effective. There may be something in a document that, you know, they're cross-examined on that would have been left – better left alone just on a prosecution’s case.
You know, opening them up, but that's the tactical decision we make as attorneys. We start thinking through it, the theory of the case, our strategy. And sometimes it works, but Josh, listen, sometimes it doesn't, right? And you have a defendant who is now on display for the jury and under rigorous cross-examination. And then on summation, it's up to you to really sort of bring it back to your side. But it's a tough choice to make, not only for the client, but also for the attorney.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:38:49]
Yeah. I remember when I was a prosecutor. I loved it when defendants would want to take the stand. It was all nothing but fun for me because I knew I could twist them up somehow. There is a prosecutor, he's still in the L.A. DA’s Office, named Phil Sterling, very experienced, very good trial lawyer. He prosecuted a lot of gang related cases, but he would famously whenever a defendant would take the stand and he would start cross-examination, the first question out of his mouth is he would say do you have anything else you'd like to tell us.
And then he would just step back and let them go. And you could just see the panic fall on the face of the defense attorneys because now their clients up there with absolutely no safety net, just talking about whatever they want to talk about, and he'd let him go because they're just going to start adding to whatever kind of nonsense story they had about how they weren't there or they're the wrong guy or something like that. And it just opened up the floodgates for him in cross-examination.
So, I appreciate you explaining for our listeners just how difficult that decision is. Finally, we turn to Waterbury, Connecticut, where jurors have handed down a verdict on Infowars host Alex Jones to pay, get this, $965,000,000 to the 15 plaintiffs who alleged they sustained years of trauma for claims that he made that the Sandy Hook massacre was a hoax. Jones was obstinate during most of the proceedings, calling the trial a kangaroo court. The conspiracy theorist was found liable for damages by default after failing to cooperate with court rules on sharing evidence, leaving the jury only to decide how much the eventual damages would be.
Jones has already filed for bankruptcy, testifying in his trial in Texas that he couldn't afford to pay an award over $2,000,000. However, his Free Speech Systems company has been valued at upwards of $270,000,000. He will now face a third trial, this time back in Texas again for claims that the Sandy Hook, a shooting that left 20 children and six adults dead was a hoax. Imran, tell us, did this verdict surprise you?
Imran Ansari:
[0:41:01]
Not at all. I mean, I listen, it was above the amount that the plaintiff’s attorney, the, you know, asked for, but it doesn't surprise me when you look at Alex Jones. And, you know, I'm a New York guy here, right? So, the other day, I'm looking – I open the Daily News and what do I see? I see a great quote about this case by you, Josh, you know, in the New York Daily News, right.
So, and you had it right in that in your quote right there. and I'm going to echo that. I mean listen, will they ever collect on this, meaning the families, right? It's such a large amount, right, and Alex Jones which just -- mean I have a lot of words for Alex Jones. I'll keep it back because it's just so insulting that he continues in the light of the truth, in the light of the verdicts that he's being hit with, to keep railing against the process, to keep spinning this sort of conspiracy theory, and there's no remorse. There's really no apology here.
And that's what why this large amount, I think the jury spoke what many of us in the country watching Alex Jones and his actions, even after the process in court has started, I've been thinking, you know, this is the amount to try to get you to shut up, right? But, you know, and I have no problem saying that Josh. But, you know, he's doubling down on things, whether legally, you know, and practically, whether he ever pays this, he's not going to be able to pay, right.
He's filed for bankruptcy. You know, he is such a large amount both in Connecticut and then also in Texas and you know, he's facing more out there. So, what's – what do the attorneys for the plaintiffs do? You want to get some money into the pockets of the families who endured this horrific tragedy with their children only to have, you know, the conspiracy theorist that, you know, totally insult them. But, you know, they – but how do you get that on the practical standpoint?
Maybe we're approaching Alex Jones to talk about a settlement on the judgment, I don't know, to get some money into the pockets of these families. I don't think he would ever entertain that, Josh. But if it's not a practical verdict, definitely speaks volumes in terms of a symbolic verdict. And I hope it gives everyone pause out there who may be taking to the airwaves and thinking that they could talk, you know, really that, you know, the law of defamation is out there.
And even though that there's Anti-SLAPP laws in California and now also in New York, when you rise to that level of defamatory conduct, you know, you can be taken to the math for it and held accountable. And I think Alex Jones has – that's exactly what happened to Alex Jones but unfortunately, I don't think he's got the message yet.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:43:59]
Yeah, yeah. You touched on something that I hope you can kind of explain for us further because I don't think a lot of people understand how this works that, you know, a verdict this big, what oftentimes happens is that attorneys approach each other after and they say, listen, you know we're going to appeal this until the world turns cold. You're never going to see this money. But if we can talk about something far more reasonable and we’ll waive our right to appeal, and, you know, they come to some settled agreement. Explain that to us.
Imran Ansari:
[0:44:31]
Sure. I mean in a let's say a case with less emotion and more reasonable people, right, as clients on the defense side. You know, you have a large verdict but then there's the practicality of things, right. Is it collectible? So, you could get a judgment in court for many million dollars against a defendant but if that individual or the company ends up going bankrupt, if they can't satisfy that judgment, then you may end up as a creditor in bankruptcy and you're going to get pennies on the dollar, if you will, of the judgment that you have earned in court via verdict or even a settlement, person is up filing for bankruptcy later down the line.
So, then it becomes a question about how to best serve the client and how to best allow some sort of recovery for the client. And at that point, the plaintiffs’ attorney may very well approach the defense attorney and say, listen, let's talk about the finances here, what can be satisfied in terms of the judgment, the verdict? And you know, there is a give and take, right? You know, maybe you’re even going to take less than what that person can satisfy. So, you leave some dollars in that person’s pocket so they're not completely destitute.
What happens here? I don't know, because it's just such a wild card on the defense side, right. But -- meaning Alex Jones as a defendant. And but also bankruptcy, the bankruptcy process itself, you know, they become creditors, becomes a secured judgment, it's a very complicated thing. And there is a big question mark, you know, where are his assets? There also may be a collections process that may unfold.
Did Alex Jones – you know, does he have assets somewhere that can satisfy this judgment. You know, I think he has publicly on his airwaves expressed distrust for the federal, you know, banks or banks and things like that. I know he's in cryptocurrency and all that. So, there may be a process where the plaintiffs’ attorneys start digging and looking to see if there's any assets in cryptocurrency or, you know, not in banks. I don't know.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:46:37]
Yeah, very interesting.
Imran Ansari:
[0:46:38]
I'm speculating a little here but those would be some of the processes that may take place for a defendant, Alex Jones, or otherwise, whether as a judgment or verdict, larger than the assets at play.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:46:51]
Yeah. Well, it sounds like with all the appeals and everything that could take place after this trial and the Texas trial, and now a third trial taking place in Texas, we – the plague of Alex Jones is going to remain with us for a while. So, we'll continue to watch his antics. But in the meantime, that's the end of our show for this week. Imran, thank you so much for coming on. Where can people find out more about you?
Imran Ansari:
[0:47:16]
Josh, well, first of all, thanks for having me. I think this is an excellent podcast and I always love being on with you, either here or on Law & Crime, or what have you. You could find more about me on our firm website. That's aidalalaw, A-I-D-A-L-A-law.com or my Instagram which is @ImranAnsariESQ. And you can find me on Instagram and Facebook, what have you, but there you go.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:47:47]
Fantastic. And I'm your host, Josh Ritter. You can find me on Instagram and Twitter, @JoshuaRitterESQ. And I have a new website, joshuaritter.com, so please come check it out. I try to keep it updated. And if you're looking for a lawyer, that's where you can find me. 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 #TCDSidebar. And thank you for joining us at the True Crime Daily Sidebar.
