Suspect in Idaho slayings appears in court; Prosecutors to retry Masterson — TCD Sidebar
In this episode of True Crime Daily The Sidebar Podcast
Adanté Pointer joins host Joshua Ritter to break down the biggest cases making headlines across the nation. They discuss Bryan Kohberger waiving his right to a speedy preliminary hearing, evidence presented against Larry Millete, who stands accused of killing his wife, and the prosecutors’ decision to retry Danny Masterson after a deadlocked jury.
Tweet your questions for future episodes to Joshua Ritter using the hashtag #TCDSidebar.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:00:10]
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 Friday, January 13, 2023.
In this week's episode, a court appearance for University of Idaho murder suspect Brian Kohberger and the delay of his preliminary hearing. As well as another preliminary hearing now taking place in San Diego to determine if a husband will be tried for his wife's murder. And finally, the upcoming retrial of Danny Masterson as prosecutors announce they intend to pursue the actor on rape charges following a deadlocked jury in November.
Today, we are happy to be joined by Adante Pointer, a civil rights and injury attorney who has repped many victims of police violence and high-profile cases. Adante is also a legal commentator you can catch on multiple media outlets. Adante, welcome.
Adante Pointer:
[00:01:15]
Thank you for having me. It feels good to be here.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:01:18]
Oh, good. Before we jump right in, tell us a little bit about your background and your current practice.
Adante Pointer:
[00:01:23]
Sure. My practice is based out of Oakland, California here in the San Francisco Bay Area. I have been practicing law going on 18 years. And I spent a lot of time in the courtroom, be it as a private criminal defense attorney or doing a lot of civil rights cases and personal injury cases. So, I've represented many people, everyone from those who you've never heard of and don't know, and those all the way up to celebrities and athletes and so on and so forth. So, I like to consider myself a lawyer for the people.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:01:55]
I love it. Well, we are going to be pulling upon that vast experience of yours to talk about the cases today, because they all have some really interesting legal wrinkles in them that I'm hoping we can dive into. So, let's jump right in. First, we go to Moscow, Idaho and Brian Kohberger, on a case that seems to be making headlines across the country, is the suspect in the University of Idaho killings that left four students tragically dead made a court appearance on Thursday, January 12. Kohberger and his defense waived his right to a speedy preliminary hearing, opting to use the additional time to review evidence obtained in discovery. We have a short clip of that appearance that we'll show to you now.
Judge:
[00:02:45]
If you waive your right to a speedy preliminary hearing, it does not mean that you're giving up your right to have a preliminary hearing. It simply means that you would not be able to come back and challenge that the state did not present probable cause within 14 days. Do you understand?
Brian Kohberger:
[00:03:00]
Yes.
Judge:
[00:03:01]
Have you had enough time to speak with Ms. Taylor about your decision to waive your right to a speedy preliminary hearing?
Brian Kohberger:
[00:03:00]
Yes.
Judge:
[00:03:08]
Do you need any additional time to do so?
Brian Kohberger:
[00:03:00]
No.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:03:11]
His preliminary hearing is now scheduled to commence this summer, on June 26. He is charged with four counts of first degree murder for the stabbing deaths of 21 year old Madison Mogen, 21 year old Kaylee Goncalves, 21 year old Xana Kernodle, and 20 year old Ethan Chapin. Kohberger was a PhD criminology student at neighboring Washington State University, was arrested on December 30th after authorities tracked his white Hyundai Elantra, which was allegedly seen near the murder scene to his parents home across the country in Pennsylvania.
After extradition to Idaho, a probable cause affidavit outlining some of the evidence against Bryan was released. Details revealed in that affidavit that included security video of his vehicle, cell phone data linking him to the area of the murders on multiple occasions, as well as a physical description from a surviving roommate who allegedly saw Brian on the night of the killings as he walked out of the house. Police also collected trash from Brian's parents' home linking DNA, this is incredible, from his father to DNA found on a sheath that was supposedly the murder weapon at the crime scene.
So, they're able to say that they believe the father to a very great degree of certainty of the person whose DNA was found on that knife sheath, lived in that house and they collected that trash. Pretty incredible stuff. The judge has ordered a gag order in the case and Brian Kohberger will be held in state custody without bond. Adante, a lot to jump in to here, but who do you think, first of all, stands to benefit more by the nearly six-month delay in bringing this case to prelim, the defense or the prosecution?
Adante Pointer:
[00:04:59]
Well, generally speaking, the defense benefits from time. And why? Because the defendant gets a chance to review the discovery and the investigation that the police will put together and also pick it apart. On top of that, you're hopeful if you're a defendant, that witnesses scatter, people's memories fade, and you can then not only take apart the prosecution case but build your own defense. So, time usually benefits the defendant. And I always remember when I was a kid and I get in trouble, very rarely did I run inside to get yelled at by my mom or to get a spanking. I took my time. And that's the same thing I expect most defendants.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:05:37]
That's a good analogy. No, I agree with you. There are rare instances where I think a defendant who says, no, I want my prelim as soon as possible might catch the prosecution on their heels, but not in a case like this where they've had nearly two months of a head start in gathering evidence, especially the seriousness of the case, the complexity of it. I agree with you. The defense probably wants as much time as they can possibly get. How much of an affirmative defense do you expect to see them put them on at the preliminary hearing?
Adante Pointer:
[00:06:12]
Yeah. Generally, defendants don't call a single witness at the preliminary. It's the prosecution's show. It's the prosecution's burden to prove that a reasonable person would believe that the defendant committed the crimes. The prosecution doesn't have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. And the defendant can sit there silent and exercise their constitutional right against self incrimination and their procedural right not to have to put on any evidence. Instead, most defendants and their attorneys are watching to see what evidence and how witnesses present themselves on the stand so that they then can mount a defense either for trial or for motion work later on to try to get the case dismissed or charges reduced.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:06:53]
Yeah, excellent points. Tell us a little bit more about that strategy to of the defense. People might think that, hey, well, aren't they going to try to win this thing? But the defense kind of wants to keep their cards close to the chest and kind of nail the prosecution into or a story, right, to pin them to a narrative that they have to stick to. Explain to us that strategy a little bit.
Adante Pointer:
[00:07:15]
You're exactly right. The defendant wants to sit there. They want to listen to the evidence. They want to pin witnesses to a story, paint them into a corner, if you will, and hope that the defendant has some cards that they can play that will either undermine the credibility of the witness or will cause them to bring the testimony of that witness in the question by other evidence that they'll use to conflict with what the witness has said. So, a defendant really is sitting there and they're hoping that the prosecution plays their cards, as much of them as possible so that they can get a preview of what they have to look forward to at trial.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:07:52]
Yeah. Yeah. In the dozens of prelims that I've done, both as a prosecutor and on the defense, I can count on one hand and I don't need all my fingers the times I've seen the defense actually put on witnesses themselves to try to persuade a judge at prelim to kick the case, because, like you said, it's a lower standard. It's almost a rubber stamp most of the time. So why give them a sneak preview of what you intend to put on at trial?
I know you've been following this case really closely. The affidavit has laid out a lot of interesting evidence. And it was interesting, too, because they were being so kind of tight lipped about what they had been doing during the investigation, a lot of speculation was taking place that were they handling this correctly? Why haven't they caught someone? It sounds like they knew they had a suspect far earlier on than we had originally known. But now that you've gone through the affidavit, how strong a case do you think this is for the prosecution?
Adante Pointer:
[00:08:57]
Well, I think the prosecution, they played their cards close to the vest and didn't release a lot of information to the public in large measure because of who the criminal suspect is. Keep in mind, this is a person who was studying to be a criminologist. This is someone who is familiar more than the average person, I don't want to say accidental, but the opportunist criminal suspect, if you will, where this is somebody who has knowledge of how the system works, how investigations played out. And so, I think they're actually pretty smart to not release a lot of information to the public.
And when you look at the affidavit, it's clear that these investigators have been working very hard because not only do they have the eyewitness statements from one of the roommates who was there, but they've already had called the cell phone records the geotracking capabilities of the phone and also the car. And so, they track this person not only at the scene, but also clear across the country. So, this appears to be a case. And I imagine that there's even more evidence that they didn't put into the affidavit that ultimately will come out, be it at a preliminary hearing or at trial.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:10:06]
Yeah, you make a really good point that people should understand who are listening, that this is not the police report, this is not the actual evidence. This is just an affidavit that they presented to a judge to secure a arrest warrant. So, it kind of is a bare bones presentation of the evidence that they have. You're absolutely right. There could be much more out there. But even what is included, I found to be very thorough, you're right, they didn't stop with just, oh, we've got cell phone records to kind of place him close to it. They went for cell phone records and video surveillance. And now we know about DNA and perhaps eyewitnesses and all this other stuff that they really put this case together.
So, even if even if we basically know the rough outlines of everything there is, I agree with you, I think it's a fairly powerful case that the prosecution has. Now, try to put on your defense attorney hat for a moment. And I don't want to put you on the spot, but if you are his defense, where do you think they need to concentrate their efforts most to try to create a persuasive argument?
Adante Pointer:
[00:11:10]
Well, the question is, what is the motive? What is his connection to these people? We haven't heard that. You would think when the news reports first broke and after we got past the shock of what took place and the heinousness of these crimes, you start, in my mind, the first thing I wondered was, is this a crime of passion? Was this someone who was like a stalker who had a relationship, a disgruntled ex? And we haven't heard any of those details in terms of what his connection is.
And so, if I'm a defense, I'm saying, okay, why would a person who seemingly has everything going for them has been playing by the rules, is in grad school, why would they throw it all away in such a vicious manner? And then on top of that, just because a person's in the area doesn't necessarily mean that they're the one who committed a crime. He may have an alibi as to why he was in the area. He may have an alibi as to why he turned his phone on and off.
We have yet to hear what their counterarguments is going to be as it relates to the evidence that's really circumstantial. The direct evidence they have right now is the eyewitness and perhaps maybe the most devastating is the DNA on the sheath, which I'm certain that's going to be the subject of a lot of motions to try to get that dismissed or suppressed in the course of this litigation.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:12:35]
Yeah, I agree with you that the whole case, it's not like that it rises and falls just on that DNA. But that DNA is is going to be the elephant in the room unless the defense does something about it. You also make a really excellent point about motive. We all know that the prosecution does not have to prove motive. It's not an element of the crime. And I've seen cases where the prosecution tries to drive that point home.
And I always feel, though, that it's a mistake to not provide some sort of motive to jurors because they have to understand the why. They have to wrap their heads around something, because, like you said, if they don't, then the defense can exploit this and say, listen, yeah, a lot of signs point towards this person, but why, why on earth would he do this? And that can be despite all the jury instructions you can give to jurors, that can be a real question that they might be troubled with.
So, it will be and that was one thing that was kind of glaringly missing from the affidavit was the why. And maybe they know more about that, and they'll get more into it as this case develops. But to me, I agree with you, that certainly was the one point where I'm thinking to myself, okay, you seem to be putting him there and there's a lot of kind of consciousness of guilt behavior and everything else, but what's his connection to these kids?
Adante Pointer:
[00:13:57]
I, one hundred percent agree, that jurors will be wanting to know why. It's a basic human emotion. We try to make sense out of the world that we're in and the environment that we're dealing with, and you're like, why would this person do that? And so, despite it, as you mentioned, the prosecution not having that as a burden, it's not an element of the crime, natural human response to something like this is to want to know what motivated a person to do this. Why would you do this?
Joshua Ritter:
[00:14:25]
And it's a mistake for the prosecution to ignore that. Absolutely. Yeah.
Adante Pointer:
[00:14:30]
No doubt.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:14:31]
Well, this is a case that is going to be, I'm sure, grabbing headlines and our attention for months to come. So, we'll continue to monitor it. Now, let's move to San Diego, California, where Larry Millette's preliminary hearing is underway with a judge set to determine if there is sufficient evidence for Larry to be tried for the murder of his wife. Larry's wife, Maya Millette, a mother of three, was last seen on January 7, 2021, near the couple's Chula Vista home.
In October of that year, Larry was arrested for first degree murder, though no body has ever been found. A prosecution witness testified in the hearing that she worked at a family law office where Maya called the day of her disappearance to request an appointment with a divorce lawyer. According to the witness's testimony, Maya was reportedly, and this is a quote, concerned about the reaction that would happen if it was found out she was filing for divorce.
The prosecution also called a forensic specialist with the Chula Vista Police Department who testified that evidence of blood was found in the couple's master bedroom during a January 2021 search of the residence. However, the specialist could not confirm if that blood came from Maya or even if it was human blood, just that the reddish-brown stains on the wall were identified as blood.
Amongst numerous pieces of evidence, the prosecution has outlined, it tends to present is testimony that Larry allegedly contacted spell casters in an effort to change Maya's mind about divorce. Spell casters are persons purporting to wield magical powers of persuasion. In December of 2020, Larry's messages to spell casters allegedly became more threatening in tone and ask for her to become incapacitated, for her to be in an accident and to suffer broken bones. Witnesses have said that Larry was displaying his homicidal ideations to harm Maya.
The preliminary hearing is ongoing at the time of this recording here today and is expected to last two to three weeks. According to reports, the prosecution will call upon 25 witnesses while the defense has stated they intend to present none of their own witnesses, kind of to our point earlier.
Okay. Let's first talk about this testimony regarding the statements that Maya allegedly made to the family law witness. Usually, this type of testimony would be considered hearsay, Adante, but here it's being allowed under a state of mind exception. Could you explain to us a little bit of how that works? Do you think the judge made that right call here? Because this is pretty powerful evidence.
Adante Pointer:
[00:17:06]
Well, to me, just up front, I think this is the fact that the judge allowed this in, and the judge is supposed to be a gatekeeper of evidence, it seems like it's ripe for appeal. Ripe for appeal, because, yes, I understand it's a hearsay statement. It's out of court statement offered for the truth of what it's asserted, which is saying, hey, she was afraid. She actually made this call, she made these statements and that he was going to behave in a certain kind of way. And she was afraid of that.
And so, that's very damaging evidence. And so, it's the type of thing that if I'm a defendant, I'm keying in on that because that's a discretionary type of decision that the judge made. And the appellate court might see it differently. And frankly, if I was the defense attorney, I'm going crazy in the courtroom objecting every time that's mentioned to make sure that the record is clear. So, that's a tough piece of evidence that the defendant's going to have to try to deal with.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:18:03]
Yeah, I agree with you. I struggled with this evidence as well. I don't know if I feel, I feel it certainly will be an issue on appeal if he's convicted. It would be malpractice to not bring it up. I struggle to know if the appellate court will go along with your persuasive arguments. But the problem here, just so we can explain for people who are listening, is that these are statements that, like you said, are so damaging and he doesn't have a right to cross examine them. He doesn't have a right because the person who said them is missing. He doesn't have a right to say, well, what did you mean by that? Were you talking about actual physical violence or were you talking about he would yell at you? Do you actually believe he would act out on his threats? Or is this all just kind of, all of that kind of stuff that a defense attorney like yourself would really want to dig into? They can't. And so, now the jury is just left with this statement and draw their own conclusions from it, which can be very damaging conclusions.
Now, the flip side of that is that there is some inherent reliability on a statement that's talking about your present state of mind. Right. That she's not talking to someone that she expects to be a witness in court. She's speaking to someone saying, I really want to get this done quickly because I'm worried about what he might say. Any of that make any score, any points with you, or no?
Adante Pointer:
[00:19:28]
Well, sure. I mean, if I'm the prosecutor, I am pounded on my desk telling the judge this is a reliable statement, as you mentioned. This lady or whoever that was at the law office doesn't have an ax to grind. She's just reporting what took place. And yeah, if the lady wasn't dead, she could come in here and say exactly what she said or what she told to this law firm, and the defendant could cross examine her. But unfortunately, she's not here. So, we have to rely upon others to speak for her. So, the judge, it's a difficult call. It's a close call, in my opinion. And like I said, it's something that if he gets convicted, certainly will be brought up on appeal.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:20:04]
Yeah, absolutely. Okay. Let's now turn to this spell caster evidence. I thought this was so interesting. I've never heard of this or even something similar to it. But again, we're considering hearsay evidence, right. The exception here being, however, that it's being made by a, it's a party admission, they call it. So essentially, anything a defendant has said in a criminal trial is usually fair game because they are considered a party to the proceedings and therefore their admissions, as it were, their statements would be allowed in. Do you think that this type of evidence will be persuasive to jurors if it ends up going to trial and being presented at trial?
Adante Pointer:
[00:20:45]
Once again, it's similar to what we talked about earlier, which is a jury listening to this information and saying, well, what is the motive of this spell caster who comes into court to testify about this, who looks at the defendant, say, yeah, that's him. He called us and he said all these bad things. The question that jurors say, well, why would they come to court? They don't know this person. This was an arm's length transaction ostensibly. He paid money, and he wanted a result. He wanted a service, and he made these statements. So, assuming the spell caster comes in court and is not a spectacle, meaning it's so weird to get up or sin or some will, some --
Joshua Ritter:
[00:21:27]
Holding their crystal ball with them. Yeah.
Adante Pointer:
[00:21:29]
Right. So, when they come in the court with some semblance of credibility and maintain it throughout their testimony, then once again I think it's pretty damaging. However, the idea that this is coming from a spell caster, the jury is going to have to wrap their minds around that, just as I had to as I read that. I'm thinking to myself, you know, what is this like one of those 1-800 numbers that you used to see in TV at the middle of the night, and they're saying, call us and we can tell you your future and your fortune. It's a little odd and off putting, but at the same time could be incredibly damaging if that witness comes in and maintains their credibility. And you couple that, if I may, you couple that with all the other circumstantial evidence, right? And one item alone probably isn't enough. But when you start having a pattern and they all kind of you look at the jury is going to be looking at all this stuff together at one time, it's looking like, it makes one piece makes the other pieces more credible.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:22:26]
Yeah. Yeah. Well, the prosecution is going to have to kind of get everything that they can, again in front of the jury, who knows that this will be this kind of spell caster stuff will come out at prelim. But if it's in front of the jury, they're going to have to get out everything they can because this is a no-body case which are difficult, difficult cases for the prosecution because the defense is going to hammer home. We don't even know if this person is dead. We don't have proof that this person is dead, folks. Yeah, it's very strange that she disappeared. Yeah, it's bizarre. But you know what? People do it. People sometimes take off on their lives because, and guess why they do it? Because they're unhappy, because they're unhappy with their marriage. And that's exactly the type of people who run off.
Again, I think the prosecution will probably be able to get past a lot of that with the fight that she would have abandoned a family if that were true and her children and everything else. But in a no-body case, the prosecution is probably going to have to pull out every trick, which I wouldn't be surprised if we see some crystal ball wielding spell casters take the stand and like you said, could be very persuasive if they can get past the spectacle of it. All right. Well, that's still an ongoing prelim, so we'll keep an eye on that case as well.
Let's turn to our final case here. Out of Los Angeles, California, prosecutors announced on January 10 that they intend to retry Danny Masterson on three counts of rape following a deadlocked jury in November of 2022. The three charges come from three different women who have alleged that the assaults happened at the actor's Hollywood Hills home between 2001 and 2003, so a while ago. While the jury was ultimately hung, jurors favored acquittal for Masterson with votes of 10 to 2 on one count, 8 to 4 on another, and 7 to 5 on the last, all in favor of acquittal.
Scientology played a major role in the first trial, with all three victims alleging that they were persuaded by church officials into keeping their allegations against the actor silent. While the defense worked to minimize mention of the church, Masterson's attorney, Philip Cohen, noted that Scientology was brought up over 700 times in the initial trial. Court dates were set for February 16th and March 6th for a status update and pretrial motions. All right. Adante, jump right in. With jurors favoring acquittal so heavily, were you surprised by the prosecution's decision to retry this case?
Adante Pointer:
[00:24:56]
Completely surprised. I've seen much closer jury deadlocked six-six and a prosecutor say, well, we're not going to do it because we don't think we can prove it passed the burden of doubt or to say prove our case up. And we're not confident enough that we can prove our case the second go round, given what happened the first go round. So but I think what's driving this, in my frank opinion, is you have the MeToo Movement, you have Weinstein going and being convicted in two different jurisdictions here in California, as well as New York. And so this is a very, in my opinion, political driven case on top of the facts that underlie it.
So, I can see prosecutors thinking that they have a lot of public pressure, perhaps to bring the second case and to get a conviction against this man. But I'm very surprised because the defense has an opportunity to hear everything and prepare their defense that much better because they've had a preview now of what the prosecution has. But I'm a little surprised that the prosecutors want to take a second bite of this apple. I would think we would try to get some type of plea deal and move on.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:26:06]
I agree with you, Adante. I'm surprised by this as well. And I want to get into your last point about the fact that the defense has basically gotten a preview of this case again. But something I wanted to touch on that you mentioned earlier was usually in a case that hangs like this, and the prosecution makes a decision to retry it, it's because they're going to do something drastically different the second time around. And what I mean by that is that witnesses who were reluctant to come forward before are now going to join the case. And now instead of three women, we've got five women or something like that.
But in the first trial and I know you followed this closely, as did I, it seemed like they put on about as good a case as they could, including the fact that they got in some sort of kind of surprise witness because the defense opened up the door to allow a fourth woman to come who wasn't one of the charging women to come in and testify that he had also done this to her and she wasn't a member of Scientology. So, that's what's confused me so much, is what do they expect to do differently?
I, I did a retrial myself on a case when I was a prosecutor. And one of the things I drastically did different is trimmed down the case. When I did it the second time around, I dropped one of the defendants entirely. So, we had two defendants the first time, the case hung, I made it just one defendant kind of laser focused on that and was able to secure a conviction. And so, that's what surprised me here, is what didn't they do the first time around they expect to do this time around, that's going to now flip a case which is strongly defense heavy into a case that's going to be prosecution heavy? And are they going to look like they got egg on their face if they hang this case again? What do you think?
Adante Pointer:
[00:27:59]
Well, I think you're right in the sense that if the prosecution wants to take it to second bite at the apple, they're either going to trim the case down and get rid of or eliminate witnesses or evidence or a line of questioning that they feel the jurors had trouble with following or feeling as if like, hey, they opened the door or they allowed some type of reasonable doubt to creep into the trial by way of putting a particular witness on the stand or by way of presenting some other type of evidence. And perhaps they're going to eliminate that the second time around.
Or perhaps, they left some gunpowder dry. Tere's some evidence, there's a witness that they made a decision not to include in the trial that this time they're going to try to get in. And the reason why we have to believe, I think we're both seeing it the same way, that there's something extra that the prosecution is going to bring to this trial or eliminate is because the defendant has had a chance to see the prosecution's case play out.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:29:02]
Yeah, that’s --
Adante Pointer:
[00:29:04]
Once you do that, then you can structure your defense in order to counter it. So, I'd imagine that they have something else that they're going to bring out the second time around.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:29:12]
Yeah, that's the point that I wanted to get back to again that you're making there. Flesh that out for us a little bit. You now have women who have spoken to police. So, there's police report statements that they've made. Perhaps there were follow up interviews. So that statement, number two. Then they did the prelim the first time around, then they did the trial. Now, they're going to go through another prelim. All of these statements about incidents that took place several years ago, there's bound to be inconsistency in all of those statements. How does the defense use that to their advantage?
Adante Pointer:
[00:29:49]
That's a defendant's bread and butter. Just as it is for the prosecution, it goes both ways. And what I mean by that is for every inconsistency, for every contradiction, the defendant is going to say this is a reason why you shouldn't believe these people. But during the course of cross-examination, you get to ask a witness. Well, in 2003, you said this, when it first started. And then the second time the police contacted you, you didn't mention this fact. And the third time you gave a statement, you mentioned this fact. And then when you showed up to trial ten years later, you left this out, you included this, which statement is true? Why should these ladies and gentlemen of this jury believe you? And that could be incredibly powerful if it's pulled off the right way.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:30:34]
Right. Were you lying then or are you lying now? And how can we believe you what you say right now? Yeah, really good points. It's going to be an uphill battle because like you said, the defense is just going to have a field day with all of those different statements, and what changed and why should they be more reliable? And here's another thing. It will come out in this trial, because I've done these that there was a trial before. There's no way of hiding that.
The jurors are going to find out at some point that there was a trial before, and they may not be told that that trial hung. In fact, they won't be told that, but they're smart enough to piece things together and they're going to figure out that like, oh, oh, why are we, oh, they had a trial. Something must have happened that time around and talk to each other and figure out, you know what, this it probably hung the first time around. And that's why we're sitting here again, which though it shouldn't, could play a role in their heads that like, hey, there might have been problems with this thing. We're now dealing with an old case. It's been going on forever and they're expecting us to be the ones to bring it home. I don't know. What do you think?
Adante Pointer:
[00:31:42]
I think that that's certainly will go to a jurors' mind when you hear that a witness testified previously at trial and the defendant is still sitting there, there's no conviction, the same witnesses for the same charges. You're sitting here as a juror thinking there must be something wrong with this case. And even if I don't know what's wrong, I feel it innately that the prosecution must not have been able to send this guy to prison and convict him. So, why am I going to do it now the second go round? Unless the testimony comes out and the way the defendant presents makes them think that he pulled a fast one and somehow got out of trouble and the prosecutors are just trying to do the right thing.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:32:19]
True. That could be the flip side to it. You're right. They could think to themselves, he's gotten away with this before and it stops here now with us. Who knows? Very interesting stuff. Again, another case we will keep our eye on, but that is our show for this week. Adante, thank you so much for coming on. Where can people find out more about you?
Adante Pointer:
[00:32:38]
Hey, you can find me pretty easily, social media and on the web, Adante Pointer. Just like the Pointer Sisters, Adante with an A. Instagram, Twitter, wherever, YouTube and right here on your podcast. So, join us.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:32:53]
Fantastic. And thank you again. And I'm your host, Josh Ritter. You can find me on Instagram and Twitter at JoshuaRitterESQ. You can find our Sidebar episodes wherever you get your podcasts. And we want to hear from you. If you've got questions or comments you'd like us to address, tweet us your questions with the hashtag #TCDSidebar. And thank you for joining us at the True Crime Daily Sidebar.
