Paul Flores convicted of Kristin Smart’s murder; New evidence in Weinstein’s trial — TCD Sidebar
In this episode of True Crime Daily The Sidebar Podcast
Richard Schoenstein joins host Joshua Ritter to break down the biggest cases making headlines across the nation. They discuss Paul Flores’ murder conviction, the suspect in a massacre cross-examining his alleged victims, the role of Scientology in Danny Masterson’s sexual assault case, and evidence that a victim of Harvey Weinstein allegedly reached out to the mogul for advice on handling a public sex scandal.
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 Thursday, October 20th, 2022.
In this week's episode we have breaking news, Paul Flores has been convicted of the 1996 murder of Kristin Smart, as well as Daryl Brooks ongoing antics in court for the Waukesha Christmas Day parade massacre. Plus, we examine the role that Scientology could play in Danny Masterson’s sexual assault trial in Los Angeles. And finally, shocking evidence to be allowed in Harvey Weinstein’s trial where it appears one of his alleged victims reached out to the mogul for advice on handling a public sex scandal.
Today, we are excited to be joined by Richard Schoenstein, a corporate attorney with over 30 years of experience navigating corporate and employment disputes, representing clients in state and federal courts across the country. Rich, welcome.
Richard Schoenstein:
[0:01:16]
Hey, Josh. Good to be here.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:01:18]
Before we jump right in, could you tell us a little bit about your background and what your current practice is?
Richard Schoenstein:
[0:01:23]
Sure. I'm a litigator and a trial lawyer. I handle mostly civil disputes as you said. So, business disputes, employment disputes are generally in my bailiwick, state and federal court and arbitration. Sometimes I help clients try to stay out of disputes as well.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:01:43]
Excellent. Well, we know you do a lot of commentary on TV as well, so we know that you’re following these cases and we’re interested to hear your thoughts. So, let's jump right in.
We're moving to Salinas, California, where a jury has found Paul Flores guilty of the 1996 murder of Cal Poly Freshman Kristin Smart. Meanwhile, his father, Ruben Flores, was found not guilty of accessory to murder by a separate jury.
Smart disappeared in 1996. She was declared dead in 2002, though her body was never found. No arrests were made in this case until 2021. Much of the prosecution’s case was based on theory surrounding Kristin’s death, including eyewitness testimony from witnesses who claimed to have seen and intoxicated Smart leaving the Paul – party, pardon me, with Paul Flores. The prosecution also cited cadaver dogs that alerted to the smell of death in Paul's former dorm room and soil samples which they claimed contained blood and fibers that match Smart’s clothing.
Also, other women who claimed to have been sexually assaulted by Paul Flores were allowed to testify, with jurors being shown a graphic image of one woman in a red ball gagged on Paul Flores’ bed. Paul Flores faces 25 years to life for his conviction and sentencing hearing is scheduled for December 9th, 2022. So, Rich, jump right in, were you surprised by these verdicts?
Richard Schoenstein:
[0:03:05]
I was a little bit surprised with the guilty verdict. I thought this was a really hard case given the amount of time that had passed and the lack of direct physical evidence tying Paul Flores to the murder. I understand there was a great enthusiasm to get a conviction in this what we assume was a murder. But it was – it did seem to me a hard case for the prosecution. I was not surprised that the father was not convicted.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:03:34]
Yeah, it seemed as though the case connecting him was a little more attenuated, which makes me wonder, did the jurors, at least in his trial, sitting for him as a defendant, not believe that her body was buried under that home at any point. And did the jurors, in Paul’s case may have believed that. And we – it's kind of bizarre that we have two jurors coming to different conclusions using the same evidence. What are your thoughts?
Richard Schoenstein:
[0:04:03]
Yeah, it's – I mean just look at the procedural aspect of this, it's really interesting. They have two different juries, as you say, two different trials. Although, they were done at the same time, and had some overlap in some of the presentation as I understand at some of the proceedings. So, that's a very different way to do it.
Whenever you have two separate trials involved in the same circumstances, you run a risk of inconsistent verdicts. And these verdicts aren't necessarily inconsistent because the jury could find that the son committed the murder, but there's not enough evidence to suggest that the father helped him dispose of the evidence. But as you say, we don't know if the second jury even thought there was a murder. The second jury might have concluded we don't even know if there was a murder, let alone if he helped do anything about it.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:04:57]
Yeah, yeah. And it's funny, we might not ever know, right? Unless these jurors want to come out and talk about what their thoughts were. You're absolutely right, it's a big question that I imagine Paul Flores’ attorneys are going to bring up on appeal. But I completely agree with you that there is an argument to understand how they're not inconsistent with each other that, you know, we believe yes, he was tied to the murder, but we can't go that extra step to show that the father was somehow involved afterwards in concealing it.
What – and it was a very difficult case. You are talking about a cold case, no body case, little forensic evidence, no eyewitnesses. What do you think the jury that convicted hung their hats on? What do you— what did you feel was the most powerful evidence to come out?
Richard Schoenstein:
[0:05:44]
Yeah. I mean I think the jurors must have bought the story. So, in terms of evidence, it did appear that he was the last person that was seen with her a lot. And so that might have been compelling. And certainly, this other evidence you allude to about other physical instances he had with other women, I have to question why that was even allowed in as evidence to tell you the truth because it seems to me there's a decent argument that the prejudicial nature of that outweighed the probative value. And I imagine that's going to be a hot issue on appeal. But having been given that evidence that this is somebody who, you know, maybe conducts himself that way with women, he was the last person seen with her, they bought the story.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:06:34]
Yeah, it's interesting that in California there is a way to bring in that type of evidence to argue, essentially propensity. But what the prosecution had to do here, you can't – he's charged with murder, right? He's not charged with sexual assault.
Richard Schoenstein:
[0:06:49]
Right.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:06:50]
So, they didn't bring in prior incidents of murder, they brought in prior incidents of sexual assault. So, what they had to do in their case was showed that this was a murder because of a sexual assault, that he had been sexually assaulting her, and in the course of that killed her. And that's the only way that they opened the door to this other evidence. But I agree with you, if again, if you're his team and you're bringing this up on appeal, that's certainly something that you're going to focus on, because I do think that that was probably some of the most powerful evidence that we heard from it. And this idea of hey, what are the chances that this guy, the last person seen with this girl, no one else seems connected to this murder in any type of way that he also happened to have sexually assaulted a couple of other women.
Richard Schoenstein:
[0:07:35]
Yeah, I don't know. I mean a ball gag. I mean, that doesn't make you necessarily a murderer. It's far from it. People, you know have all sorts of different hobbies, sexually. And they don't necessarily mean that you have propensity to be a killer. I thought it was a little bit of a stretch.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:07:54]
Yeah, yeah. Well, whatever it did, it convinced these jurors. One other thing that's always stood out to me is I feel that jurors – and tell me your thoughts on this. I feel that jurors, they really want to hear from the defendant in some type of way, whether that's him taking the stand, whether that's an interview that he did with police. You didn't have either one of those in this case. I mean, he did give an interview, but it didn’t in any way did he implicate himself. He described some injuries differently, and things like that, and I'm sure the prosecution used that to their advantage where they could.
But the part I'm focusing on was there were these wiretap phone calls between Paul Flores and his mother, where they're discussing a podcast actually that was covering the story of Kristin Smart's death, and it focused in on Paul Flores a lot. And his mother makes some sort of comment about, well, I'm sure you'd be able to poke holes in that story. And that's this kind of like voice from the defendant that I think jurors hang their hats on because it's an adoptive admission of sorts, right? That they're thinking to themselves, wow, this guy didn't say to him, but mom, I had nothing to do with that, but he kind of went along with it. Do you – what are your thoughts on that type of evidence and what role it may have played here?
Richard Schoenstein:
[0:09:12]
I think that evidence may have played a role. And you know, when these defendants don't testify at trial, the jury gets instructed up down in sideways that that's not, you know, you're not supposed to reach conclusions based on them not testifying, but we all know that jurors do. We all know that jurors want to hear from this guy. They want to see him on the stand say no, I didn't do this and evaluate his credibility.
And the fact of the matter is that they may jump to a conclusion when he doesn't show up and do that. And then if you combine that, that he's not going to testify in the trial with these audio snippets that maybe suggest a guilty conscious, that's what the jury takes away from this.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:09:57]
Yeah. Yeah. And whatever it was, however the prosecution put this case together, it was enough to convince those people beyond a reasonable doubt. So pretty, pretty incredible stuff on a very, very interesting case from a trial perspective.
Let's move now to Waukesha, Wisconsin. The prosecution is expected to wrap their case in the murder trial of Darrell Brooks. The defendant accused of killing six people and injuring dozens when he crashed his SUV into parade goers during a Christmas parade in November of 2021.
Brooks has chosen to represent himself in the trial in which he faces 77 counts, largely using it as an opportunity to disrupt the proceedings. Brooks was allowed to cross examine his first witness in the case who was a victim that had been struck by Brooks’ SUV and spoke to the jury through an interpreter. Brooks grilled the witness over his ability to recall the color of the SUV that hit him which launched the man 15 to 20 feet in the air.
Brooks objected to nearly every state question of the witness and when overruled, Brooks took the opportunity to add his own commentary. Brooks was worn by the judge repeatedly to stop with the commentary in his cross examination before she kicked him out of the court again, noting that he had interrupted the judge over ten times during the day’s proceedings. As the prosecution closed their case, jurors were taken to see the red SUV that was used in the attack. We have some footage from Brooks in his antics in court that we can show you now.
Darrel Brooks:
[0:11:30]
Nothing to see here that fix the trial because you don't want to tell the truth to the jury.
Judge Jennifer Dorow:
[0:11:30]
Mr. Brooks, please stop. You are being disruptive. You are being disrespectful. The witness may step down.
Darrel Brooks:
[0:11:30]
You know, please, you’re always going to find some reason to say somebody is being disruptive because they want the truth to be out there and then quitting. You're supposed to be Judge –
Judge Jennifer Dorow:
[0:11:49]
Mr. Brooks, I'm advising you that continued interruptions will result in you forfeiting your rights in this court.
Darrel Brooks:
[0:11:55]
Okay. And under what law in fact can you do that?
Judge Jennifer Dorow:
[0:11:57]
Illinois versus Allen, sir.
Darrel Brooks:
[0:11:30]
Okay, the fourth option that you made-up, that's not even in the law because you can't do that.
Judge Jennifer Dorow:
[0:11:57]
I need to make a plan.
Darrel Brooks:
[0:12:05]
By law, you can't do that. And you know you can’t.
Judge Jennifer Dorow:
[0:12:07]
I need to make a finding. All right. I'm going to excuse everyone. Mr. Brooks is being removed from the courtroom. He will continue in the neighboring courtroom.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:12:15]
Pretty incredible stuff and it just goes on and on and on like this. It just looks exhausting for everyone including the judge. Rich, do you think all this chaos though that he's creating in court is creating appellate issues or is this judge doing a good job of keeping things under control?
Richard Schoenstein:
[0:12:32]
I think that is this judge’s mission in this trial. And I think she is laser focused on that mission. She is – people keep asking why she is so patient with the guy. She is trying to make sure that she can get this case to the jury, get a verdict, and then keep that verdict on appeal. So, she is giving him lots of room. She is being extremely patient with him. And I don't think there has been any issue created yet that could overturn this on appeal. I think she is doing an excellent job in that regard, and I think she is very focused on it.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:13:12]
Yeah, I agree with you. She has really been commendable and shown patience beyond what I think many people would have. I had initially thought that maybe she was making a mistake by allowing him to represent himself, but I think she has that, you know, foresight of the long game and view that you just outlined that if she didn't grant him that constitutional right, that that would create an appellation issue and I agree with. She wants to make sure she puts this case to bed and that there are no problems on it.
But again, we've talked about this before. This case is not a difficult case regardless who's representing Mr. Brooks, himself or the best you know, trial attorney in town. it's a fairly clear cut case that, you know, everyone saw it. There's tons of footage of him plowing through a parade and he was arrested soon thereafter.
But let's talk about what effect you think his antics or, you know, compared to any other case when the defendant starts to take on this kind of active role in the courtroom or the jurors have to be brought out of the courtroom, proceedings have to be stopped, what kind of effect do you think that has on jurors?
Richard Schoenstein:
[0:14:21]
I think it's– listen, I think representing yourself in almost any circumstance is a bad idea. In a criminal murder trial, representing yourself is a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad idea. There's nothing good that can come out of it. It never works. And this case is just evidence of that. So, let's look at what he's doing.
First of all, he's not really competent to be representing himself. Now, I don't mean he's not competent enough mentally to do it. I mean, he's not trained to do it. He's making objections. He knows the name of objections, he knows to say hearsay, relevance, leading, but he doesn't know what objections match what questions. So, he'll make a hearsay objection when the question had nothing to do with anything anybody said.
So, he looks ridiculous because he objects to every question as you say, and the objections are almost always overruled. And then he's muttering, he's arguing with the judge. He's making these comments. He's making many of them in front of the jury and he just looks bad. And here why I think that is additionally a strategic mistake is he doesn't appear to have any remorse.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:15:40]
Right.
Richard Schoenstein:
[0:15:41]
Now, he could sit there quietly, let somebody else represent him, choose not to testify, and the jury might at least think he has some remorse. But his antics here, his decision to do this on his own and create theatre. And how bad does it look when he's cross examining the people who were in that parade? It just looks terrible. And I think it is eviscerating any sympathy the jury might have otherwise had for him.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:16:11]
Yeah, I agree with you. He – we have to remember that this is on the backdrop of really horrible, horrible massacre that took place to all these lives lost, all these people, the mourning family members, and even people who weren't killed, people who were injured horribly. The trauma that they're going to be dealing with, and this is the closure that they get.
It's so sad that it's this ongoing circus by this man, and I just hope that we're able to conclude this soon and be done with it so that these people can go about trying to heal what's left of their lives. Really sad stuff.
But next, we turn to two high profile, pardon me, cases taking place in the same courthouse in Los Angeles. In fact, I was in that courthouse the other day and the trials are actually on the same floor and they’re on opposite sides of the same hallway from each other. So, it's pretty incredible to have two really interesting high profile cases involving very similar allegations taking place at the same time in such close proximity to each other.
But first is Danny Masterson charged with raping three women between 2001 and 2003. He had a final hearing before trial began. Masterson’s defense has been pushing for any mention of Scientology to be left out of the sexual assault case. The three alleged victims also belonged to the church and claimed that the church officials kept them from coming forward with their allegations sooner.
Masterson's defense has argued that his affiliation with the religion could be used to Masterson’s detriment, making him guilty by association. However, the prosecution argued that the religion is paramount to the victims’ claims, as well as explaining why the victims didn't come forward sooner. The judge agreed, and that Scientology aspect was relevant. Likening it to the public just staying that many defendants encounter when they are affiliated with either gangs or other entities of public scrutiny. Rich, do you think that the judge made the right call here?
Richard Schoenstein:
[0:18:21]
I think so. I don't think you can exclude mention of Scientology from this trial altogether. I know that's what the defense would like to keep it out, but it is relevant in two regards. One is it explains the connection between the defendant and the victims, who I guess knew each other from the church. And so, it's part of the story. It's kind of hard to leave it out. If you left it out, I would be wondering as a jury, how did they even know him, right?
And it is relevant, I think to the other point you made Josh that, you know, the women are being attacked for not having come forward sooner. And they're saying part of the reason they didn't come forward sooner is because they are members of the Church Scientology and that was preventing them or disincentivizing them from coming forward. So, it helps explain that part. I think it is relevant in that regard.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:19:19]
Yeah, I completely agree. I'm trying to imagine how the defense expected this to play out any other way because they are obviously, but one of their strongest points they're going to try to make is why this 20-year delay? Why are we sitting here in 2022 talking about things that took place in 2001? And they're going to make much hey about that.And, you know, the prosecution is going to have to answer that argument in the most logical way of answering it and saying, hey, the church leaders told them to keep their mouth shut. I just don't see any way this could play out otherwise.
Okay, put on your defense attorney hat for a second if you can. How do you handle that aspect though of Scientology? Do you just try to breach past it as quickly as possible and try to not make it an element or do you somehow use it to your advantage? What are your thoughts?
Richard Schoenstein:
[0:20:09]
Well, the first thing I would be doing is I would look – and I think the prosecution has to be careful here. I would be looking for any suggestion that goes beyond the probative importance of the Scientology issue. So, if the defense – you know, if the prosecution starts saying things about the church that, you know, get into that as the defense, I might look to make that an appellate issue or object to it during the trial. I don't – you know, I think the defense is going to try to stay away from getting into the church itself in any way, shape, or form. Well, still attack the fact that these stories didn't come out for some number of years and just deal with it that way.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:20:55]
Yeah. Again, I'm trying to imagine how this all plays out. If I'm the defense, I could see maybe some strategy of trying to say, well, listen, you're taking revenge out against the church, aren't you? You know, with these accusers, you know in your cross examination. Aren't you more angry at the church and you're trying to make a statement and blah blah blah? I could see potentially them using that.
Richard Schoenstein:
[0:21:21]
But don't you then open the door? If we start saying the victims are out to get the church, then I think you've opened the door to having the prosecution tell you more about that church.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:21:33]
Yeah, a hundred percent.
Richard Schoenstein:
[0:21:34]
So, I'm not sure you want to do that.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:21:36]
Yeah, a hundred percent. And if you're the defense, how much do you try to grill them on the fact that they delayed? Because the more you get into, you know, trying to make it sound absurd that they would delay in telling authorities what had happened to them, the more they're able to explain how powerful this church is and how controlling it is over your life. And so, it really is a third rail issue for the defense and it's going to be interesting to see how this plays out in court.
Richard Schoenstein:
[0:22:03]
Josh, I don’t think the delay issue is as important as it used to be, because as a society, we've come around to understanding that victims don't always immediately report sexual assault, and sometimes, the stories come out years later. And you know, it didn't impede that the last case against Bill Cosby, for example. And I don't know that that's the great defense issue it used to be.
Joshua Ritter:
[timestamp0:22:28]
Very good point. Really good point, especially when part of the prosecution's case, I mean this is all with the backdrop of the Me Too Movement, is that this is a powerful rich man, and that explains you know why people wouldn't report even aside from the church, that this is, you know, they're afraid of the repercussions, and they see how you know, before – decades before, how women were treated if they made accusations against a man in his position. Really good point. It might not be as big a deal as I'm thinking it will be. But again, I don't know what more of the defense has to work with here. So, I imagine it will play some sort of a role.
Moving down the hallway now, as Harvey Weinstein’s sexual assault trial is underway, new evidence surrounding the key prosecution witness will be allowed in Weinstein's defense. Jennifer Siebel Newsom, wife of Governor Gavin Newsom, apparently reached out to Weinstein two years after she was allegedly raped by the disgraced Hollywood mogul.
The judge allowed Newsom’s emails to be used as evidence in which she reportedly asked for Weinstein's advice in navigating a sex scandal involving her husband. The scandal dates back to 2007 when Gavin Newsom admitted to having an affair with his campaign manager’s wife. While the judge will allow the evidence, which made clear that the defense would be prohibited from asking questions pertaining to the affair itself.
The prosecution has argued that Newsom’s personal life has no relevance to the case. Weinstein’s trial is ongoing with jury selection still taking place. He faces four counts of rape and seven counts of sexual assault alleged by five women in Los Angeles. Rich, this to me seems like pretty powerful evidence for the defense. What are your thoughts?
Richard Schoenstein:
[0:24:15]
Yeah, I think it could potentially be powerful evidence, and it’s certainly relevant. I mean, I understand why we're allowing it in. The communications between accusers and defendants in cases like this are usually relevant, especially if the issue is whether or not it was consensual in the first place. Then there, after the fact, communications can often be relevant. And this does seem to be an interesting one if she's asking him for advice, navigating some other kind of you know sexual dispute. I could see why that's relevant, and it could be powerful.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:24:54]
Yeah. Again, I wonder, in a normal kind of a case not involving somebody like Harvey Weinstein, you know, I imagine that the defense would try to make much of the idea that a person alleged that they were raped on one occasion, and then two years later goes back to that person who raped them and ask for their help on an issue. But I'm wondering, again to your point on the last case, are we in a different time now and we can understand where victims may go back to their attackers for a number of reasons, not the least of which being how powerful this person was. What are your thoughts?
Richard Schoenstein:
[0:25:34]
I think that's a good point. And also, if I'm the prosecution, I'm going right at this fund direct examination. I'm not going to wait and let her get cross examined on it. I'm going to have her tell her story about the allegations of the assault. I'm going to have her tell her story about what happened afterwards. I'm going to show her as a prosecutor, hey, you sent him this e-mail, why did you do that? And I'm going to have her explain it on direct examination and explain why she finally came forward, and the timing. I think the prosecution wants to lay all of that out in its affirmative story and not let the defense just bring it up for the first time on cross.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:26:16]
A hundred percent and take the sting out of it, right? It will completely take the sting out of that got you moment with the defense. You know, I'd like to introduce this email as an exhibit and the whole jury reacts to it and everything. I totally agree.
Many times, as a prosecutor, if I knew that I had somebody who was testifying that had a criminal past and that was going to be used as impeachment of their character to bring up the fact that they've been convicted, I would ask it right at the end of my direct examination. Oh, and by the way, weren’t you convicted of this on this day and this on this day, and this on this day? Yes, I was. Absolutely. Okay, great, but you're telling – everything you're telling us here today is the truth? Yes.
And it just really took the air out of any kind of cross examination that they had. Really, really excellent point. How about the fact that this is the governor's wife? What role do you think that will play with jurors? Are they going to be able to just kind of put that out of their mind?
Richard Schoenstein:
[0:27:10]
Yeah, I don't know what they'll do with that. I mean, I think it's the right ruling of the court to say listen, we're not getting into the Newsom’s marriage. We're not going to go there. We're not going to get distracted by all of that. That's not really probative.
So, the judge is going to try to keep a lid on it somewhat. But it does, you know, that will make it all the more interesting to the jury, I think, and I don't know really which way it cuts. I have to hear the evidence.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:27:38]
Yeah. We’ll see, soon to play out. It appears, though, from these pretrial in limine motions that we're hearing about evidence that the defense is taking a – no holds bar kind of approach to the way they're going to cross examine these witnesses. No pulled punches as it were. Seeing now some of the kind of embarrassing history that may come out with Miss Newsom’s testimony, how do you think that affects the other witnesses, the other accusers in their testament? Or do you think anyone – I guess my long-winded question is do you think anyone is getting second thoughts about testifying in this case if they're seeing how kind of their dirty laundry can be aired in a very public trial?
Richard Schoenstein:
[0:28:29]
Well, it depends what kind of laundry they have lying around, which we don't the answer to. But sure, I'm sure the Weinstein’s folks are looking for it and looking to bring it in. And remember, though, the accusers here have strength in numbers. So, the fact that the governor's wife has this whole story that's mitigated to some extent by the fact that there are other accusers here.
It's not like she's the only one telling the story about Harvey Weinstein. She's got support and others who were in similar circumstances. And I think it's difficult if you were the defendant here to successfully attack every victim, right. I mean—
Joshua Ritter:
[0:29:12]
Yeah.
Richard Schoenstein:
[0:29:14]
It sort of looks suspicious to somebody watching the trial if you just go on the attack on each of them.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:29:21]
Yeah. Excellent point. And you bring up a good topic to discuss, this idea, the same is happening with Masterson when you have more than one alleged victim and their story seemed to be similar and they don't seem to be really directly connected in any kind of way that you could argue, oh, they're just conspiring to take my client down. It almost becomes insurmountable for the defense, like you said, to say you know, all of these people are lying to you. You know, all of their stories don't add up, and they all kind of begin to cross corroborate each other to some extent. Do you agree?
Richard Schoenstein:
[0:29:58]
Yeah. No, I think it makes it a much more powerful to prosecute these cases when you have multiple victims. There's no doubt about it. I mean, a one victim case in a sexual assault situation still is a he said, she said at the end of the day. And when you have multiple victims, I think the odds are a lot better for the prosecution.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:30:21]
Yeah. Yeah, I agree with you. And in Weinstein's case in particular, they really do have to run the table on this or otherwise you know, I mean if he's convicted on one or two counts, he's still going away for the rest of his life. I mean with his age and, you know, health, any kind of prison conviction, regardless of what happens in the appeal on the New York case could be devastating for him. It might as well be seen as a life sentence.
All right. Richard, thank you so much for coming on this week. Where can people find out more about you?
Richard Schoenstein:
[0:30:54]
Well, what I should have mentioned at the outset is I'm a partner at the firm Tarter Krinsky & Drogin in New York. We are a full service mid-sized firm. So, I do litigation, but we do great work in any number of areas. So, people can go to tarterkrinsky.com and find me and find my partners.
As you said, I've been appearing as a legal analyst on Law & Crime Network, as a guest legal analyst on Court TV so people can see me there. People can find me on YouTube and people can find me on the social media under the handle @lawfulriches. I'm on both Twitter and Instagram.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:31:37]
Fantastic. We will definitely check you out. And I'm your host, Josh Ritter. You can find me on Instagram and Twitter @JoshuaRittereSQ. And I have a new website, joshuaritter.com that I try to keep updated with things I'm up to. And if you're looking for a lawyer, check it out.
You can find our Sidebar episodes wherever you get your podcast. 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.
