Petito family settlement; Tesla autopilot manslaughter case; Masterson jury deadlocked — TCD Sidebar
In this episode of True Crime Daily The Sidebar Podcast
Robert Simon joins host Joshua Ritter to break down the biggest cases making headlines across the nation. They discuss the settlement reached by Gabby Petito’s family and the estate of Brian Laundrie, the upcoming vehicular manslaughter trial featuring Tesla’s autopilot component, Elizabeth Holmes’ sentence following her conviction in the Theranos fraud scandal, and the jury returning to deliberations after failing to reach a decision on the charges facing Danny Masterson.
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 an L.A. County Prosecutor for nearly a decade. You can find me at joshuaritter.com. We are recording this on Tuesday, November 22nd, 2022.
In this week's episode, a $3 million award in favor of Gabby Petito’s family in the wrongful death lawsuit against the parents of Brian Laundry. Plus, a landmark vehicular manslaughter trial that puts Tesla’s autopilot feature front and center. We'll also discuss the sentencing of Elizabeth Holmes following her conviction in the Theranos investor fraud scandal. And finally, we'll discuss deliberations in Danny Masterson's rape trial after the jury finds themselves deadlocked through three days of deliberation.
Today, we are joined by Robert Simon, a trial attorney specializing in Civil Law, co-founder of the Simon Law Group, legal analyst, podcaster and friend of the show. Bob, thank you so much for taking the time on a holiday week to join us.
Robert Simon:
[0:01:17]
Hey man, happy to be here. Happy to be here. Happy to help you.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:01:21]
I appreciate it. It is a help. Tell us a little bit – for folks who haven't heard you before, tell us a little bit about your current practice and what you've been up to lately.
Robert Simon:
[0:01:31]
Well, I’m up to about 205 pounds. Thank you for the holiday. So, I'm a trial lawyer in California, Texas, about to be in Arizona. I got a law firm of about 20 lawyers who try a lot of civil cases. Also, found a company called Justice HQ which we could talk forever about but I'm a big believer in access to justice, not only for clients but also for lawyers to be able to do what they're passionate about and be able to get in the courtroom quickly. So like you, you were in the courtroom quickly, man, you know. You started out with, you know, a lot of opportunity.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:02:03]
Yeah, they threw me in the deep end, that's for sure. Bob, I know listeners are eager to hear your thoughts on these first couple of cases because they have an interesting civil element involved to them. And in fact, the first case out of Sarasota, Florida is a civil case completely. The family of Gabby Petito has been awarded a $3 million settlement in the wrongful death suit against the parents of Brian Laundry.
The suit alleged that the Laundry’s were aware that Petito had been murdered by their son, at that the Laundry’s had hindered the search for Gabby Petito. Gabby Petito and Brian Laundry had been on a cross country road trip prior to Gabby's disappearance. Petito's body was later found in Wyoming National Park in September of 2021 and a coroner deemed Gabby’s death a homicide by means of strangulation. A nationwide manhunt ensued for Brian Laundry before his remains were found in October of 2021. His death, which seemed to be caused by a self-inflicted gunshot wound.
Newly released footage from Whole Foods in Jackson, Wyoming depicts the couple shopping for groceries on the last day Gabby was seen in public alive. The couple appears to exit their van in an argument and they proceed to shop the aisles of the store before returning to the van or remaining in the parking lot for another 20 minutes.
This is not the end of the Petito family civil litigation. However, the family has also filed a $50 million lawsuit against the Moab Police, where they alleged that the officers allowed the couple to continue their journey despite a stop by police that revealed clear signs of domestic violence.
Okay. Bob, a lot to unravel here. First of all, tell us about this settlement. You know, to a lot of us, it sounds like a lot of money. Is this sending a message? Where's the money coming from? Are they ever going to get it? Jump right in.
Robert Simon:
[0:03:47]
All right. So, first of all, settlement means that two parties willingly engaged into an agreement, right. This isn't – this didn't go to trial. This wasn't a fact appearing in judgment. People agreed on this. Now, to be very clear, this is against the estate of Brian Laundry. Will he ever have $3 million? Will he ever have accumulated this over his lifetime if they liquidate all of his current assets? What does it add up to?
I think this is just a call between the family and the, you know, the executor of essentially his estate to say hey, what's a compromise we can make that is a good number even though I mean 50 million, I think is not even enough for this. But $3 million is going to end up being a paper judgment that's looking to liquidate all of his assets. You'll be the first credit online and get you wherever we can. Because if they go – your – at one point, you're throwing good money at bad, because if you're prosecuting a case, if you're hiring experts, putting on evidence, it can be expensive for trial. Would you rather have that money go to the family, because you're not going to collect that off the estate.
Now, the sexier cases, it's going to be against the Police Department. And there's still an active case against the parents of Brian Laundry for intentional and negative infliction of emotional distress, which could be covered on your insurance for the negligent part of itm, but we can say go into that later. That one still, I think a judge in July allow that cause of action to go forward against the parents of Brian Laundry. So, we'll see where that goes from kind of covering up, they knew where he was, they misled people, misled information. So, I think that has some teeth to it.
But, you know, we've reached on what the Moab Police Department where hey, you know, I'll be looking at qualified immunity. A lot of times we see where, you know, it's up to the city to decide if they put a stop sign somewhere or not. You can't sue them because there was no stop sign there. You know, same thing here is this a judgment called by a police officer where there's a government immunity, which means you cannot even bring a lawsuit. It's dead-on-arrival.
Some states lift those. I know in Nevada, they lifted for this type of situations where this could arise.
So, it's going to be a very – if this case gets to trial, I believe the plaintiffs will have already won because there's all the legal hurdles to get there through the immunities are the hardest part of those cases. So, if they get there and you get to trial, I mean it's an easy – I mean you can tell a jury. I mean, this is what you hire Police Department to do. They're supposed to serve and protect. You have somebody here that's in obvious distress and he didn't do anything.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:06:18]
Yeah, yeah. I want to get to that because I find that to be the most fascinating part of this is the possible lawsuit against the police but help us just to understand a little bit this first lawsuit, what was just settled was just against Brian Laundry's estate. And there's still a pending lawsuit against the parents for a different cause of action. Could you help us understand that?
Robert Simon:
[0:06:43]
Yeah. So, one lawsuit is against so you think entities or defendants, multiple wrongdoers, for the same arm. For her death, there's one wrongdoer who was Brian Laundry, which is now the estate of him. And that estate has what's called an executor. Like if you die and there's a will or probate or somebody that's hired is the person that's controlled estate. So the lawsuit is against the plaintiffs, the family versus the estate in the executor of the estate. Those are the entities that law suits.
If you look at the order signed by the judge office, and there's probably some sort of settlement agreement. The judge then had to order it to make sure that there was an actual judgment that's in place that you can effectuate on so that, you know, anytime you're going through probate, you're going to have to do certain things to be able to liquidate assets. So, you need that judgment. So that order becomes a judgment for $3 million that they can liquidate his estate, which again, it ain’t going to be much, you know, it's a paper judgment.
I don't think it affects anything whatsoever on – you know, usually when you take these cases of multiple defendants, I do overtime like in product liability cases, we're settling out different entities. Usually can't talk about the dollar amount you settle another defendant out for. The jury just instructed that they used to be a party or not anymore. You can't consider blah blah blah blah. They can apportion who's responsible.
So now you have the other lawsuit against the family or against the parents of Brian Laundry and tomato, tomorrow, whatever. That one’s for the intentional flexion, emotional distress, and kind of the cover up situation. Get different types of damages because you're not pursuing what's called wrongful death cause of action. It's for the parents’ harm their emotional distress due to the wrongful conduct of Brian Laundry's parents of trying to cover it up, right?
Joshua Ritter:
[0:08:31]
Do you think that would be something that would be collectible for the family?
Robert Simon:
[0:08:34]
Again, it boils down to how much money these people have. Florida is a homestead estate. Can you even get their own, you know? Do they have a business? And then there are – a lot of people don’t know this but any negligent act that you commit is technically covered under your homeowners insurance policy or renters insurance policy, if you have one.
So that's where a lot of times lawyers like us plead negligence on top of intentional acts in type of pleading, so it's covered. But you see this in a lot of these funny stories came out few months ago where people were suing individuals for passing STDs, and insurance policies were picking up coverage because it was a negligent act, negligent transmission of an STD, didn’t do it intentionally and insurance policies were picking it up.
Now they have specific exclusions as they're putting in there. So unless there's a specific exclusion for lying about the murder of somebody, right, I think the insurance might – what's the insurance policy? Is it 250K? Is it a million? Who knows?
Joshua Ritter:
[0:09:45]
Yeah. Wasn't there a famous case recently – you made me think of this talking about the STDs where somebody sued the auto insurance of somebody else because of the transmission of an STD in the back of a car? Am I wrong on this?
Robert Simon:
[0:10:00]
No, you're right man. It's the same thing we're just talking about. So, it's like the way these policies are written, it could be very technical. It’s like anything that has caused and effect with you using your automobile is technically covered by your automobile insurance. If you do something negligently in your automobile, well, then technically it could be covered. It is incredible. Just to say be careful. I always tell people when they want to like show me your insurance policy, I'll take a look at it and tell you might be able to be covered here and not realize it so.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:10:30]
So funny. All right. Well, we got into the weeds a little bit on that. But this idea of qualified immunity that you brought up with the police here, is this idea that the police are almost, you know, immune from any kind of lawsuit as long as they're performing their duties, but there are exceptions to that. And kind of most famously we've seen it recently in the prosecution with George Floyd, where officers were convicted essentially for not taking an action that reasonable people thought they should have taken.
Do you think that there is possibly a theory for that here in the Moab case and the argument being made by the Petito family is that listen, you stopped this vehicle, you obviously saw signs of domestic violence. That's their argument. And by not taking any action, you're therefore liable for what took place after that, which now we know to be her death. Is that a bridge too far or do you think there's actually some teeth to that?
Robert Simon:
[0:11:30]
I mean, me being an advocate for victims, I see the bridge and think it should be there. Different states have different laws that protect government entities and police officers more or something less, right? So on a situation like this, it's – you know, you have – it's called a 1983 Civil Code where you sue the officers individually, but then ultimately the tab is picked up by – it's always who’s responsible paying the Police Department or the county is going to be the one that ends up paying, even though you sue them individually.
So putting a crystal ball thing on here, this is press, nobody is going to want to see your deal with or – because when you do these lawsuits, you get into policies and procedures, you get into the backgrounds of these all these officers. And then, you know, you start seeing they had so many stop and seizures for broken tail lights for black folks and that they didn't do it in this incident. I mean this is shit that people just they don't want to hear, don't want to deal with, don't want those stones uncovered.
So if I'm that police department, I'm thinking real hard to, hey, are we going to try to resolve this before we get there? It's not going to be $50 million, right? But I think they should resolve that case. I don't think the bridge is – I think it should be there. I think it is totally foreseeable.
What do you think what happens in domestic violence cases? What happens? Sometimes the abuser kills the victim. So abuse don't stop that, you know. It is like an officer, if you see somebody on the street beating up a woman, are you going to just be like, hey, okay, bye, right? No, that's – you should have a duty to intervene or do something. So that's – to me, that’s the strongest case that they have for actual ability to recover money for their daughter’s estate so.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:13:20]
Well, we'll keep continue to keep an eye on it because I find it fascinating as well because of the ramifications outside of this. You know, what is – what does that then mean about police policy and, you know, how do they need to – you know, do they need to be worrying about in the back of their minds some sort of civil liability if they don't take an action, or if they do take an action? And you know, the kind of consequences down the road, so we'll continue to watch it.
Now, turning to here in Los Angeles, a manslaughter trial is set to begin for a fatal crash caused by a Tesla operating on autopilot. The case presents a first of its kind tests for the criminal culpability of a human driver in a car that was partly under control of a car technology itself. Kevin George Aziz Riyadh has been charged with vehicular manslaughter with gross negligence after his Tesla S ran a red light exiting the freeway in Gardena, California. The Model S crash into a Honda Civic after barreling through the intersection, killing Gilberto Lopez and Maria Guadalupe Nieves Lopez. The pair are not related, but were reportedly on a first date.
Prosecutors have alleged that Riyadh’s high speed and failing to stop was reckless. However, Riyadh's defense has argued that he should not be charged with a crime, given that the car’s autopilot system, which can control speed breaking and steering, was engaged at the time of the crash. Tesla is not facing charges in this case. However, the DOJ is reportedly investigating if Tesla should face criminal charges over the self-driving claims.
The family Gilberto Lopez is also suing the Tesla Corporation with the trial date currently set for July of next year. Okay, Bob. Just jump right in. What are your thoughts on this? There's such a unique issues being presented here. I'm curious to hear what you think.
Robert Simon:
[0:15:08]
Yeah. First of all, full disclosure, I have two Tesla Model X’s. I love them. We had Teslas in a long time. Those two and I have a 71 Ford Bronco that eats away from all the eco-friendly stuff I do with those teslas. Okay.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:15:24]
Does the Ford Bronco have self-driving too or no?
Robert Simon:
[0:15:26]
Well, sometimes when goes right down the hill. But okay, here's the deal, Tesla's in trouble and here's why. Forget the criminal case against the individual right now. He's using it as a defense. He is going to prove a case within a case. Maybe he gets off, maybe hanks that jury because Tesla is not – in that case, they're not facing criminal charges. The DOJ is investigating them.
There are – there's going to be a lot uncovered through these civil lawsuits. So not the one that you mentioned. There's another one called Benjamin Maldonado Escudero and that's versus Tesla. That's in Alameda County and it’s case number RG21090128, okay. That case is set for spring of 2023. Maybe they get out, maybe they don't.
I know the [inaudible] on that case. It's Ben Swanson, Greg Shafer, and Brett Shriver. These people are geniuses. I had the pleasure of trying, I think four or five cases, with Ben Swanson, one with Greg Shafer, but Brett Shriver is probably the most talented travelers I know. They've uncovered a lot of things. There's other lawsuits and uncovered a lot of things that there were actual engineers at Tesla that raised their hand and said we cannot put this product to market. This is not ready. We are not going to be using humans as guinea pigs to see whether or not this is working.
Now, I use the autopilot feature on my vehicle, but I use it as kind of a fail safe. I do it if I'm in traffic. I stay in the carpool lane on the freeway. But you have to still be engaged yourself to have your hands on steering wheel. In fact, if it's – if you're not on long enough, it makes you touch it or jerk a little bit to make sure you're still paying attention. But it's just – it’s an app. I mean, it's essentially not controlling your vehicle. Somebody hacks into it, or if there's a glitch or guess what can happen? These things can happen, right?
If these things come out, these whistleblowers that are coming forward can show that they were really telling that these things were real problems, Tesla’s in a lot of heat. You know, we see this like way back in the day, the first manufacturer, product liability big trial was way back in the Ford Pinto case where they knowingly put the gas, didn’t know it was going to explode if it got rear-ended and they just said, hell, we would rather pay the wrongful death cases than change this product, right. This is going back a long time, but the profits over safety type situation. And I think we're seeing that here.
Now, can they correct it? Can they correct it now going forward? Yes, but, you know, these people – these things happen, these people died. These people are named. And you're going to see a lot, not through the criminal stuff but through the civil case that they're going to then be giving information to the Department of Justice. Well, I think we'll eventually step in for some of these whistleblowers to prosecute, move forward, and just like we're seeing about the next case that we're talking about how you have the civil springboard start to do fact discovery and then the government steps in with criminal consequences, you know?
Joshua Ritter:
[0:18:31]
Yeah. It's funny to me too, because the more I'm thinking about it as you're as you're talking is Tesla's interests are aligned with the prosecution criminally in this case, which is funny because they want to be able to say no, this driver is responsible for his actions. He should have disengaged or overridden or grab the wheel like you said and not allowed the car to continue to race along. Whereas his defense is opposed to Tesla and saying no, no, no, you call this thing autopilot for Christ sake. I'm assuming this thing can take over the vehicle and I can be safe. It's funny to me to see kind of how Tesla would have to try to align itself in this criminal prosecution at least. But talk to me about that idea of even just the marketing of it calling it autopilot, is that problematic?
Robert Simon:
[0:19:25]
So that's one of the allegations in a lot of these complaints. I'm looking at one right now. This is a case called Matsako versus Tesla and this one’s in United District Court, Northern California. And here's their allegations against Tesla’s case. Violation of the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act as a product liability, breach of express warranty. That's what they – you expressly tell somebody that the product can do. Breach of implied warranty of merchantability, this is what the product is supposed to do outside of being expressed, right. And here's the big one, violation of the California false advertising law, right. Violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act. Fraud and deceit, negligent misrepresentation, regular negligence.
So when you're bringing up this false advertising, this is a stand alone cause of action in California at least, which still leads the way to damage recovery from Tesla. So even if you can't prove a product liability theory which could be difficult, you have a straight up misrepresentation of what the advertising you said what this vehicle could do.
I could very well see a juror having problems with maybe a product liability theory, even though I think you should win. But if you get down to that one, that's a pretty easy call. And guess what that leads to money damages. But in between there, you're doing this big bag discovery and juries have no love lost for it.
I mean we saw earlier this year, Bernard Alexander, he's an employment lawyer here in California. I think he hit Tesla for $150 million on an employment case where they were doing bad things to an employee there. That's just an employment case. And he's being honored as our traveler of the year here in Los Angeles in January. But yeah, I just – it's not going to be pretty for them, you know. I think they knowingly did a lot of bad stuff and now they're getting called out for it.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:21:15]
Last question I have for you on this. And this is just kind of outside of the law and everything else, but technology marches forward, right? And this technology seems to be the wave of the future. And I'm wondering what are your thoughts on, is there just too much like – because we're talking, you know, tens of millions, perhaps millions of dollars in lawsuits against the company simply for, you know, trying to provide advanced technology. Are they eventually going to say this isn't worth it and give up on it? Or is it just so much the marching of technology that we're just going to see it and the law will have to adapt?
Robert Simon:
[0:21:54]
I think it's the latter. We're going to continue to see it no matter what. It's going to push forward. And this is why – I mean, you always say why do we need legislators? Why do we need laws? Because things evolve, right? A lot of these new bills are being written or trying to figure out technology.
The people that are writing these bills have no freaking clue about technology. They got to get educated on it. And I do think technology, look, I'm in a legal text space, like with just HQ and these things. I think technology is a very good place for helping a lot of people and doing it very competitively. So like we've also all seen iRobot, a great movie, Will Smith, right? Driverless cars, but we saw it could go wrong, you know.
I think it will come here in some form or fashion. You just got to do it as safely as you can. You got to regulate it. These auto manufacturers, they just have to be held accountable in some form or fashion and have guidelines, but I think as we’re seeing the private sector technology is moving at an exponential pace and how it's very hard for any safeties and standards to keep pace with it so.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:22:56]
Yeahl. Well, I agree with you. I don't think there's any stopping this from happening. It's just going to be interesting on how our insurance company is going to handle it. You know, you’re going to have to get different levels of insurance depending on the technology you have in your car. It's going to be an interesting path forward.
Keeping with this, you know, technology theme, Elizabeth Holmes, the CEO of the now defunct blood testing company Theranos, has been sentenced to 11 years and three months in federal prison for the fraud scheme that led to the company's collapse. Holmes was convicted in January on fourn counts of fraud and conspiracy for her role into frauding investors by making misleading statements about the company's finances and blood testing technology that was allegedly non-operational.
A 15-year sentence was sought by the prosecution in the case while Holmes’ defense was seeking 18 months with a preference for home confinement, I'm sure. Holmes’ defense indicated that they intended to appeal the sentence. However, in court, Holmes accepted responsibility for her actions saying I regret my failings with every cell of my body. I thought that was an interesting choice of words on her.
Robert Simon:
[0:24:05]
Spell. Was it C-E-L-L?
Joshua Ritter:
[0:24:06]
Right. In addition to the prison sentence, prosecutors wanted Holmes to pay nearly $804 million in restitution as a penalty for the nearly one billion in capital Holmes raised from investors. The judge will decide on possible restitution at a future hearing that has not been scheduled. What your initial impression of this do? You think this is, you know, a lengthy, severe sentence or is it expected?
Robert Simon:
[0:24:32]
Well, I think it's expected and probably not enough. I think that white collar crime hurts far more people than any other type of crime. It has the ripple effect. Maybe people are taking advantage to get to that point. You know, again, it's the intention – the intentional fraud misrepresentations. I mean it's – I mean if anybody saw the documentaries, it's sociopath stuff, man. It was just – it's crazy. So just something to call out restitution is it's the criminal court saying, you have to pay back XYZ.
Now again, we're talking civil side. There's nothing stopping the creditors, the investors doing a civil lawsuit for fraud and everything else against her individually or anybody else on the board that may have partaken it on a civil lawsuit. So she may be on the hook for a heck of a lot more. So, I think the good thing is that I think they've seized all of her accounts. They know where the money is, and they're just going to have to start paying it back. She'll think about that in her cell.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:25:33]
For a very long time.
Robert Simon:
[0:25:34]
Very long time.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:25:35]
At one point, Theranos was valued at much as $9 billion before it collapsed. It's hard to talk about this case without talking about it in the backdrop of our current FTX scandal. What is happening here? How are people able to perfectly – I understand fraud, but we're talking billions of dollars in fraud before anyone starts to take a look under the hood and say hey, what do you guys exactly up to here? What do you think is the fallout from this case from FTX moving forward? Are we just going to see a brand new, you know, pushed towards regulation in these types of industries and is it something we need?
Robert Simon:
[0:26:22]
I don't think so much the regulation issue but, you know, get dealing in this space with companies and entrepreneurism that made my wife do. It's more about the market has to correct itself. For a lot of these companies right now are overvalued and people get too crazy about the homerun opportunity and don't do their due diligence. It's like oh my God, this product is out there, look at their pitch deck and what they're saying is real and I saw it, let me just give you a lot of money.
And then you see like the Bernie Madoff stuff. Like there are some very sophisticated individuals that were defrauded by this person. I mean there's some very, very good thieves out there, like level 100 thieves, you know, that really trick people and do these things and how many – like they broke all the rules and regulations that we have in place. And it's just – I think this is where you have to start to have the criminal courts come down harder on these folks.
I think it's the only way you can curve this type of behavior because they're going to think like, oh, shit, it's just money, I'll get more money defrauding somebody else over here made also in prison. Almost in prison, right? I think this FDX guy is going to be in a buck load of trouble. But I think the more you're going to be holding these people accountable over and over and over again, and $9 billion valuation, you know, for a product that didn't even exist, again it's all hype.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:27:44]
Right. You know, the other thing that I thought is interesting is this Sam Bankman Freed SBF, he's the former CEO of FTX, shares a lot in common with Holmes in the sense of this celebrity status that they both sort of maintained. And there's almost a – they created almost a cult kind of a mentality around them. I don't even know if I have a question here, but I do find it interesting that there's this kind of hero worship of these tech people as they become, you know, billionaires overnight and then nobody seeming to kind of do their due diligence to find out who's exactly running this and what are their bonafides to be a billionaire.
Robert Simon:
[0:28:37]
It's all megalomania, you know. I think it's all – every one of these people has a personality disorder, and anybody that I do business with or I invest in their companies or we do partnership agreements, I sit him down, look him in the eyes, right. I mean I think anybody, if they were really paying attention, sat down and looked these people in the eyes and talked to them, they would have thought something ain’t right? I mean this guy in Brandford, listening to their advisor, you should invest in this company. If you're doing that kind of money on something, you got to meet the person, you got to meet the person that's pushing it forward.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:29:10]
Hundreds of millions of dollars they're putting into these people. You're absolutely right, yeah.
Robert Simon:
[0:29:15]
I don't get that shit man. I just – even like what, you know, hiring employees, whatever, and dealing with people, it's – you got to talk to them face to face. I just realized that I have my wife's women shoes behind me, I just want to explain this to everybody that's listening, so –
Joshua Ritter:
[0:29:27]
Oh, go ahead, go ahead. We're waiting.
Robert Simon:
[0:29:29]
Holiday break, right. You can tell from my raspy voice that I had a cold this weekend. Kids are sick. My Internet goes down at the house. So I got my Wi-Fi piggybacking off. I’m usually in my basement, right, do this for my whiskey room. I don't get reception down there from my Wi-Fi because it relies on Verizon.
So I'm doing it from my wife’s closet because she's in her office across the hall. Also, piggybacking off this device so doing her own. She has a keep it simple sexy podcast that they're – she's doing a lot for today. Well, here I am. So yes, and she's got some nice women, like her George, got some nice Js over there. Very nice, very nice. So I don't people think this is my closet. There’s nothing wrong –
Joshua Ritter:
[0:30:08]
We appreciate you stepping up and dealing with what you have to deal with to be here with us.
Robert Simon:
[0:30:14]
Always, always.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:30:16]
All right. Last case here. This is something that I found to be so frustrating and I'm curious to hear your thoughts on this. Just as a trial lawyer, aside from criminal or civil. Jury deliberations will continue in Danny Masterson’s rape trial, following a week long break for the Thanksgiving Holiday. This after jurors failed to reach unanimous decision on any of the three counts facing the former That 70s Show actor.
After failing to reach a verdict for two, three days of deliberation, the jury informed the judge that they were at an impasse. However, the judge informed jurors that they had been deliberating for an insufficient amount of time to declare their verdict deadlocked. The three charges of rape stemmed from accusations alleged by three different accusers that all took place between 2001 and 2003. All three alleged victims were once members of the Church of Scientology, which Masterson himself is still a member. The accusers all claimed that the church suppressed their allegations against the actor, intimidating them from coming forward sooner. The highly publicized case has been largely intertwined with the Church of Scientology, will resume deliberations, parodn me, on November 28th.
Okay. This is the part that frustrates me, Bob. They had been deliberating for three days, which is not a short period of time. They had asked to see evidence. They were obviously working and they came out and said that they're hung and that – listen, that's not a verdict, but it is a decision. They're saying we can't reach – we're at an impasse, we can't reach a decision.
And the judge sends them back for an entire week over the – what do you think they're doing during this week, right? They're going to be visiting with family members. If I'm the defense here, I'm just pulling out my hair because I feel like in some sense, my victory is – the victory is being robbed from me. What are your thoughts?
Robert Simon:
[0:32:10]
I'd be in the same situation because you're inviting a mistrial, like misconduct. Yeah, you don't think these jurors are going to to talk about this? And if they find out they talked over Thanksgiving break, you can – prosecution undo the hung – look man, you know, if you’re a criminal – if you're the prosecutor, you want quick verdicts, right. Everybody agrees.
They’re off three days, guess what's happening? They come to agreement. I've had the luxuries on the civil side, you know, and that's – you can read the writing on the wall. I think it's BS man. I think the judge went over – bend over backwards to try to get to prosecution giving mistrial. I mean, come on.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:32:51]
Well, and it's funny too because it's sending a message, don't you think, to the jurors that a hung jury is unacceptable, and it's explained to them that a – listen, part of their job – I'm stumbling over myself because I'm getting so frustrated by this, but part of what's explained to jurors is that they – each of them are entitled to their own verdict of each individual juror. And if your verdict is different and you're hanging a jury, you're supposed to feel comfortable to do that because you felt that the prosecution didn't meet its burden, or whatever way you came out. But you're entitled, the defense is entitled, everyone is entitled to each juror’s independent verdict.
Well, if the judge is saying three days is not long enough, I'm going to have you take a break for a week and send you back in, isn't that in some ways saying no, you're not allowed to be hung? Isn't that a problem?
Robert Simon:
[0:33:47]
It's a big problem and this is why traditional appointments are so, so important in this country. I think judges shape more policy and procedure and say what happens to the individuals more than any other legislative branch ever will. And look, you brought the same thing. We were even in front of some terrible judges. I'm in front of judges that had never try the case or ever seen one. They don't know what evidence is. And it's a circus, and it's frustrating.
And I think it's a huge problem in the United States. And this is maybe a little piece where people can look into a window here and see when you have judges, they’re another advocate for the other side of the table, and they're doing everything they can to make sure you don't get justice where they should just be neutral referee, but they're not so.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:34:35]
Yeah, yeah. I mean I understand there is – listen, judges do have a motivation to make sure that cases are concluded, right. They don't want to have to go through a retrial and put everybody through that again. So I can kind of understand that that isn't something that's tugging against them. But end of the day, I, you know, I just feel this is setting this whole thing up for some sort of mess at the end of all of it.
Last question on this, Bob. If he's convicted let's say, what – how do you think that affects any kind of settlement discussions between the church and these alleged victims?
Robert Simon:
[0:35:19]
If he's convicted, which doesn't look like it's going to happen. But if he's convicted, the church probably is going to think about resolving something sooner than later. You know, we've all heard these stories about the church and how they handle things and do they feel vindication if he's exonerated or the jury’s hung, right? I think they do. And I think that they wall up and make this go a distance. You got a civil suit, something different but look, would you agree that all signs point to this is hung jury at best?
Joshua Ritter:
[0:35:57]
I think so. And I would – maybe I'd feel differently if I hadn't heard the idea that they had asked for certain evidence. I mean sometimes a judge can say, well, listen, you've been back there for a while, but you haven't asked for read back on any witnesses, you haven't asked to see any evidence, but they've been asking for things, and they've been asking for read back as my understanding. So they're obviously doing the work. And three days of work and they, you know, someone in there has dug in their heels, or a few people have dug in their heels. We don't know what the split is. So I mean it could be a six, six hung. And what are you going to do? You're not going to get six people to decide the other way.
So, I agree with you, I think it might be hung. I just think it's a mistake to have them take a break for a week. Especially if you're the defense, you're just absolutely kicking yourself because though a hung is not a win, it also is not a conviction, and that's the most important thing for them.
Robert, from your wife’s closet and with your voice hanging on by a thread, we are – thank you so much for coming on this week. Where can people find out more about you?
Robert Simon:
[0:37:02]
You know my Instagram, Planet Fun Bob. My website is justiceteam.com. You can find me anywhere, man. I'm around. I could give everybody your cell so that they can call you and they can reach out to me but I don't.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:37:17]
Maybe after the holiday weekend, I'll give out my cell. And I am your host, Josh Ritter. You can find me on Instagram and Twitter, @JoshuaRitterESQ or at joshuaritter.com. Please check it out.
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’s Side Bar.
