‘The Widower’ faces retrial for death of 6th wife; $1.2 billion ‘revenge porn’ lawsuit — TCD Sidebar
In this episode of True Crime Daily The Sidebar Podcast
Jack Rice joins host Joshua Ritter to break down the biggest cases making headlines across the nation. They discuss Thomas Randolph’s retrial, a judge revoking bond for FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried, and a Texas jury awarding a revenge porn victim $1.2 billion after her former boyfriend maliciously spread intimate photos.
Tweet your questions for future episodes to Joshua Ritter using the hashtag #TCDSidebar.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:00:10]
Hello and welcome to The Sidebar, presented by True Crime Daily, taking you inside the courtrooms of high profile and notorious cases from across the country. I'm your host, Joshua Ritter. I'm a criminal defense lawyer based in Los Angeles and previously an LA County prosecutor for nearly a decade. You can find me on Instagram and Twitter at @joshuaritteresq or at joshuaritter.com. We're recording this on Friday, August 18th, 2023.
In this week's episode we'll be discussing FTX's founder Sam Bankman-Fried has his bail revoked, following what prosecutors allege was another attempt to intimidate witnesses ahead of his massive federal fraud case. Also, a jury awards a Texas woman 1.2 billion, with a B, dollars, in a landmark revenge porn case. But first, updates in the ongoing retrial of the widower Thomas Randolph as he faces a retrial for the murder of his sixth wife.
Today, we are happy to again be joined by Jack Rice, a criminal defense lawyer and legal commentator you can catch on Court TV and many other outlets. Jack, welcome back.
Jack Rice:
[00:01:22]
It's great to be with you. Thanks for having me back. I'm shocked. What are you thinking? I'll pull it together.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:01:28]
No way. We're looking forward to this. For our listeners, though, who haven't heard you before, give us a little bit of your background, your current practice. Tell us what you're up to.
Jack Rice:
[00:01:38]
Well, I'm a criminal defense attorney. I've been doing this for more than a quarter of a century. I am a former prosecutor. I'm a former US federal agent. I'm a board-certified criminal law specialist. Most of the time I'm trying sort of high-level felony cases. I'm a murder crim, sex, rape, kinds of cases, violent offenses. I mean, it's sort of an area that I've spent a lot of time working. And so as a result, I'm really comfortable in front of juries and fascinated by people. So I guess you sort of collect all the things you do in your own life, and you use them. And that's pretty much what I do.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:02:19]
Well, we love watching you on Court TV. It's always one of the more fun segments for me to watch when you're on there and you do have a really unique and enjoyable insights on these cases. And I know you've been following them closely. So again, we appreciate it and we're looking forward to hearing your thoughts. So let's jump right in. We go to Las Vegas, Nevada, where court proceedings are ongoing in the murder trial of Thomas Randolph, a man dubbed the widower by media outlets after four of his six wives died mysteriously. Randolph is currently being retried for the shooting deaths of his sixth wife, Sharon Randolph, along with the couple's occasional handyman, Michael Miller, whom prosecutors allege Randolph hired as a hitman to kill his wife.
Randolph has maintained that Sharon was murdered by a masked intruder whom he shot in self defense. Later realizing that the intruder was Miller. Randolph's previous conviction for these murders was overturned by the Nevada Supreme Court after prosecutors introduced controversial prior bad acts evidence. In that trial, prosecutors leaned heavily on evidence that Randolph had killed his second wife to receive a life insurance payout, a crime he was actually acquitted of in Utah. This time around, however, prosecutors have steered clear of the widower narrative, instead relying on inconsistencies in Randolph's own statements given to law enforcement during a walk through concerning his version of the circumstances of the slayings.
The jury has also heard testimony from Elizabeth Lavadour, who was allegedly in a romantic relationship with Randolph during his marriage to his sixth wife. Further complicating matters, on August 17th, the judge was forced to question jurors regarding their impartiality following an incident in which a bystander yelled at jurors outside the courtroom. The bystander allegedly made a political statement before indicating jurors should vote Randolph Guilty.
Jack, like I said, I know you've been following this case closely. What do you think about the prosecution's case so far? And specifically, have they been able to successfully pivot from the strategy they had the first time around to not relying so much on that prior bad acts evidence this time around?
Jack Rice:
[00:04:40]
Yeah, I think they have. When we think about what it is that the prosecution does and maybe we should look at this case more broadly. If you look at what they did in their previous case, what they did was they did lean into that prior bad acts evidence. We'll call it 404B evidence. And they do this, frankly, not shockingly, because it's been my experience that as a prosecutor, they love it. They love it so much. And frankly, judges love it, too. I would argue they're both wrong.
And I'm saying this as a former prosecutor, because if we think about this, here's the problem. When you think about prior bad acts, what you're really saying, you can call it shine it up, call it anything you want. Prior bad acts are really saying once a scumbag, always a scumbag. That's really what they are. Oh, no, you know it's true, Josh, because if we think about this, there are exceptions to 404B exceptions to prior bad acts. Right? That say, I want it in for this reason. I want it in for motive. I want it in for MO. I want it in for other reasons.
But the problem is, is when you really dig into what that means, you're going to say, what's your motive? Why? How do you commit a crime like this? When you actually say that, then you say, so why are you bringing it? Well, I'm bringing it in because what I want to show is this person is the kind of person who does this. He did this kind of thing in the past. So now he kind of does this thing now. What is that? That's character evidence. That's bad evidence. What you're literally saying is once a scumbag, always a scumbag. He was a scumbag then. He's a scumbag now. We don't have to talk about this case. Just know that he's a scumbag. How many times did I say that? Probably not enough, because that is actually what the courts, the appeals courts came down and said, you can't do this.
I appreciate that, because if you're going to prosecute a case, any case, my concern is that what prosecutors will sometimes do is they will try to take some of these bad behavior, bad life and roll it in front of a jury and say, what kind of a person is this? This is the kind of a person who's capable of committing this crime. The problem with that is you're not saying, did he? Let me show you the specific evidence that we have in this circumstance, not from his past or her past, but this circumstance that establishes that, in fact, that he or she did that crime.
In this case, we have seen the prosecution pivot. And when they pivoted, they're spending a lot more time talking about inconsistencies. They're talking about forensics. They're talking about the evidence that they have in front of them to establish what they have. So let's think about what it is that Tommy Randolph actually presented, helped provide to the state. They have a blow by blow detail, according to Tommy, of what happened. And so they have all of this on videotape, and they can now use that information against him besides anything and everything else, that they would have to establish the case. Is it weaker without the widower piece? Of course, it is.
I mean, think about this as a not just as a lawyer, but really somebody who trains lawyers. One of the things you and I have discussed in the past is the idea of creating a theme, the idea of the widower piece. Right. That he is somehow this sort of black widower of sorts. And what he will do is he is the one who lies in wait, and he kills those spouses when he is done or taken their money, or he's done something else. It creates a baseline for a jury to accept why somebody would do such a horrible thing.
The problem is, is that it's simplistic, which makes it powerful, but it doesn't necessarily require that you provide all of the evidence to prove the case. You just have little pieces of it and say, he's really shaped like an elephant. But we can show you this little piece here and this little piece here. But don't forget, he's an elephant. He's an elephant. See this little piece in the back? And then there's a little trunk in the front and one part of one foot on the righthand side. But we all know he's an elephant because that's the kind of guy he is.
I appreciate that. What the state is obligated to do now is to focus in, establish the forensics that they have, what they don't have, the statements that were taken, what is inconsistent amongst all those, bring in the witnesses that they have, and anything and everything else that directly relates to the case. So I appreciate what they're trying to do. It makes it weaker, but I would still argue that it's what the state is obligated to do.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:09:36]
I couldn't agree with you more on the prior bad acts evidence. It is so powerful. And as a prosecutor, I loved it. You're absolutely right. If ever I had a case where we had prior bad acts stuff, it's the stuff that you wanted to work up the most because you knew, like you said, how powerful it is to a jury because you say it's like once a scumbag, always a scumbag. I also think it makes the argument of what are the chances, which is such a powerful argument to say to a jury, here, you got a guy who's accused of murdering his wife for life insurance.
Essentially, that's what they're saying here. What are the chances, folks, that he did it before? Look, here's a dead wife who died under suspicious circumstances and he got her life insurance. And it's just such a logical kind of argument to make to a layperson outside of court when you just hear that, oh, this bizarre circumstance that happens to nobody happened to this guy more than once, you go, oh, okay, well, he's in on it. And that they know that what are the chances argument is just so powerful and they just lean into it.
And I'm not even saying I think that we should throw all of it out entirely, but I do agree with you that they need to really pull it back because this is what you get. You get cases where a person was facing the death penalty. And now several years later, they're going to have to retry this person and hopefully convict him if they believe that he committed these crimes, and they gave themselves a chance or gave him a chance of getting out of it because they were just too heavily relying on that type of evidence beforehand.
One thing that you had mentioned that I wanted to kind of get further flesh out with you because I'm curious about your thoughts was the idea that this case is not, I agree with you, it probably was stronger as far as convincing a jury with that prior bad acts. But it's not a bad case, especially with this recorded statement that he gave. And it's absolutely ridiculous how detailed he is. And he's literally being videotaped, walking them through the circumstances of what took place and enjoying it. It seems as though, I feel like at one point you even see him smile. He is like enjoying walking them through this scenario of what took place and how he got to play the hero and how that is just ripe for cross-examination, even if he doesn't take the stand.
Thomas Randolph:
[00:12:12]
I didn't know what it was, but it made a loud clunk. And I was kind of like I said, I was kind of looking back because I don't hear well, and I can't tell that perception anything. And when I heard the noise, I was kind of, like I said, backing up and kind of trying to make sure there's nothing else going on. And when I heard that noise, it really did scare me and boom, boom. And I mean, I actually got close, boom, boom. And I don't know if I shot him once. I shot him twice and then started coming back down this way. He wasn't moving. He, uh, some noise. Come back down this way. And being real just, you know, Sharon, Sharon, Sharon, and she's not.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:13:02]
So that's what I'm talking about, Jack. This is a person enjoying. Tell you what it doesn't show is a person who seems to be in mourning after having found his wife murdered to death. And then he had to go about killing the person that he felt murdered her. Doesn't seem as any of that appears to be in his demeanor when he's giving this statement. But go ahead and jump in. Isn't this a valuable tool for the prosecution?
Jack Rice:
[00:13:27]
It's gigantic because, and by the way, I could hear your prosecutor's voice as you -- I appreciate that, too. That matters as well. But I think about this idea and imagine this during closings where you're saying your wife is bleeding out on the floor from being murdered. And you step into a room and there she is, face down in the carpet, and your first response is to smile. Your first response is to say, let me show you how I'm the hero, how it all worked out. I want you to think about human behavior and what that means, and then look at the gulf between what that is, and you notice yourselves and where Tommy Randolph was. Why? Why is that?
That is extraordinary, because this is about the human condition. And this is where you're going to be able to take a jury and say viscerally, I want to reach into their guts and start pulling at them and saying this was wrong. There's something about this video that is just wrong. And the only way to reconcile it is that this is a guy who thinks he's smarter than everybody else. He thinks he's playing the cops. And more importantly, ladies and gentlemen, he is playing you. That's what the smile is for. The amusement is that he thinks he's going to get away with murder. Well, let me tell you what, he ain't.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:15:08]
Now, powerful stuff. I agree with you. And they don't -- if that's the argument they go with and focus on that evidence the way that you just pointed out, I don't think they need that prior bad act stuff. I think they've got enough.
Jack Rice:
[00:15:20]
Well, I think so, too. And I think that's important. There's an aspect of this case that I find fascinating. So I have been watching it is that in this case, they actually let the jury ask questions. And I'm blown away by that. I'm still, every time I see this. And while I work in the jurisdiction where I work and the jurisdictions I work in, I've never worked in a courtroom where that is an issue. And some people say, well, this is about justice. And my response is, it is.
But actually what it really is about is about holding the state to the burden of proof. They have an obligation on their own to actually prove the case exists. This is not a horse race between one side and the other or all sides. And you throw everything into the hopper and just see what happens. It's actually about making sure that the state who claims that this thing took place actually prove that it did. And the problem is, is there's actually a shifting burden.
And that shifting burden is if you have a jury who's going to say, you know, there's three or four other questions that should have been asked and we're going to ask them ourselves. My response is, well, why didn't the state ask those three questions? It chose not to ask those three. And now somebody on the jury is saying, here's what we're going to do, state. We're going to pick up the three that you shouldn't do, but you screwed up, so we're going to ask them for you. That's a problem. And I think constitutionally, I understand jurisdictions will do what they do. It still hits me wrong every single time I see it. Every single time.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:16:59]
Yeah. I hadn't thought about it the way that you just put it, but I think you're absolutely right. This is about the people of that state versus this individual and the people of that state represented by the prosecution, not by the prosecution and 12 other people who might be rooting for him. You're absolutely right.
Jack Rice:
[00:17:18]
Josh, there's actually one more. One of the other things, what does the judge say when before you actually start the trial? You are not to deliberate in the midst of this case. You're supposed to keep this to yourself and wait until all sides rest and then you receive jury instructions and then you actually go back to deliberate. In this particular case, what you're actually going to get now is one person talking to the other 11 jurors about what it is that they think because it's not collectively, it might be one juror. Well, that juror is now talking to the other 11 about what they think about a case. It's basically deliberation before you even have the rules.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:18:00]
Excellent point.
Jack Rice:
[00:18:01]
You contemplate both of those. I just don't see how that's actually constitutional. But you know what? I've seen this before that there are those times when people think that because these are really horrible and some of them are horrible cases, the purpose is less about the process as it is about the outcome. I hate to put it that way, but I believe it's true because I've been watching it too long.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:18:29]
Yeah. No, I agree. It's always troubled me. And now you've kind of articulated a lot of the reasons, I guess, that we're in the back of my mind as to why it is troubling. And I'll add one more before we move on here. But a lot of, you know this, a lot of the end presentation is the part that we see above the water in the iceberg as far as a trial goes. Everything about evidentiary hearings and motions to exclude and everything else is what takes place outside of the presence of the jury. And the attorneys know that.
So a lot of times they're asking questions, or more importantly, not asking questions that they know are inappropriate. What do you do when a juror asks that inappropriate question? And the judge has to say, we're not going to answer that? Well, then that's got 12 people's heads spinning, going why can't they answer that question? That seems like a really good question to me. And we can't sit down and explain to them all the nuance behind evidence why they're not going to be able to hear that information. I agree with you. It takes an already difficult thing to put together, which is a trial and makes it that much more unpredictable.
Jack Rice:
[00:19:38]
Such a great point. Such a great point. If I can, and very quickly.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:19:43]
Yeah.
Jack Rice:
[00:19:43]
Think of it this way, is that there are always really two trials going on at the same time. There's the trial before the trial, which isn't sexy, which isn't fascinating to most people, and sometimes it's very boring in some ways. And what that is, is basically the trial about the evidence that will be presented. Sometimes we call those motions and limni. They're called many things depending upon the jurisdiction. And the idea is you have a hose, and you can squeeze that hose to exclude certain things. And that is about giving the state and the defense the limits, the parameters of what will be presented to this jury, and no more than that. When we do exactly what you said, it opens those back up and creates these weird, nebulous spaces where the jury can now start filling in things that actually is supposed to legally be excluded. And again, that's a third problem.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:20:42]
Yeah. I don't know why more people don't listen to us and just let us write the laws for them.
Jack Rice:
[00:20:48]
Can you call my kids? Seriously, they're not listening.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:20:52]
Well, we will continue to watch this case because it's ongoing. Let's move to Manhattan, New York, where a judge has revoked bond for FTX's founder Sam Bankman-Fried, following what prosecutors are calling a string of attempts to tamper with witnesses. The 31-year-old former billionaire, once hailed as a wunderkind, is facing a string of federal charges after the collapse of the cryptocurrency exchange, FTX. Bankman-Fried is accused of misusing funds from investors and customers to make personal purchases and political donations, as well as cover losses on his hedge fund Alameda Research.
Following Bankman-Fried's arrest in December of last year, he has allegedly maintained contact with potential witnesses while openly giving interviews with the media, writing a memoir and allegedly accessing the Internet using a VPN to camouflage his activity. These actions have prompted prosecutors to seek the revocation of Bankman-Fried's bail on previous occasions. The latest alleged transgression is tied to a New York Times article in which Bankman-Fried allegedly leaked confessional diary entries penned by Caroline Ellison. Ellison was Bankman-Fried's on again, off again girlfriend, served as an executive for the hedge fund and was expected to testify against him at trial after she pled guilty to fraud charges last year.
Revoking Bankman-Fried's Bond, the judge ruled that not only was there probable cause to believe that the defendant attempted to tamper with witnesses, but that his actions could affect other potential witnesses, fearing that Bankman-Fried's personal humiliation and efforts to discredit their reputation. Following the ruling, Bankman-Fried was taken into custody, where he is expected to remain ahead of his trial, which is scheduled for October.
All right, Jack, jump right in and talk to us first about your reaction. Did you think this was the right thing to do? And then how will this change the dynamics of this case to have a defendant? You could talk about it with your own clients, to have a defendant either in custody or out of custody. What a difference does that make?
Jack Rice:
[00:23:08]
Wow. There's a lot there, right? Let's talk about custody in the first place in the very broad sense. Generally, when we're making bail arguments, there's several things that we're looking at. Whether or not they're going to reappear in court, that's one piece. But the other piece is really about danger to society, and that's a much broader question than somebody who's actually threatening somebody. It's also about the impact that it can have on individuals who are connected to this case.
And so we think about what that means. And what will happen is judges will either set numbers, meaning the amount of money that you have to post and the behavior that you're also going to have to be involved in if you're going to be released from custody. And one of those concerns is always the question of witness intimidation or witness influencing.
And so in this particular case, if this were his first instance -- see, that's the thing about Bankman-Friedman. If this were his first instance, I don't think the court would have done this. But it's not. There have been multiples of these over and over, and the judge has come in and said again and again to prosecutors, not enough yet. We're not going to do this. And they'll scream and yell and they'll talk to a defendant, and they'll say, you can't do this again or we can take you into custody.
And so what happened here is I think that this judge got to the end of the rope and said, okay, I think we're done here. And in fact, the defense even said in this case, here's what I want to do is let's take this up to the court of appeals. Why don't you stay your order until we get an answer from them? And the judge said, no, no, no, he's going into custody now. And so that was going to happen almost immediately. And they took him into custody at the time. Literally. Take your coat off. We're going to arrest you right here and walk you out of the courtroom in handcuffs. And I've seen it happen many, many times.
As to the question of defending somebody who's in custody versus out, I've had to deal with both. It is much more complicated, much more difficult to defend somebody who is in custody than out simply because of access. Part of the problem is you want them easy to get to. And what I mean by that is you say you can always find them in jail, but that's not the problem. The problem is the ability to get to them easily, relatively quickly. And frequently, what my experience has been, is that jails are not the easiest to get in and get out of, even as attorneys. And sometimes, and you tell me, Josh, if I'm wrong, I think that's part of the enjoyment that we see from sheriff's offices and others, marshals and such who are actually keeping us out, and they're creating barriers so we can't get to our clients as easily as we would like.
But there's actually the bigger question that I think about, that's one of the things that I need from my client is I need my client to have really free access to the discovery to all of the police reports, to all the video, to all of the audio, to all of the social media, to everything else. And I want to be able to use it around them. So when we're working together and preparing for a trial, they're going to understand what's going on. It's almost impossible to do that inside of a jail because first of all, you generally don't ever want them to even have access to anything in jail out of fear that it gets to anybody else.
So in other words, even paper, you generally are, I'm hesitant to have my clients have that. So I'm always concerned about my effectiveness when my client is in custody versus out. So our goal is always to get them released from custody at that bail hearing or at some subsequent point, because it will give them a better opportunity to actually be acquitted when we pick that jury and when that jury decides after all evidence is in.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:27:08]
Yeah. Now, you make an excellent point, too, about -- I agree with you. I think it's night and day to represent somebody who's in custody or out. And you make an excellent point about the access to them, but it's also their access to the evidence. And especially in a case like this, we're not talking about a couple of police reports in a rap sheet. We're talking about gigabytes of information that I imagine they need him to look over to explain to them when things were taking place and why certain transactions were taking place. And how do you facilitate all of that when he's in federal custody?
I think this is a dramatic turn in this case. And frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if it changes the defense's strategy. I don't even know if at this point do they start talking about a plea bargain because now their chances of truly mounting a defense dramatically shift. Another thing, though, I want to ask about this is that he has taken the tactic that seems very popular as of late with high profile defendants. I won't name names, but to defend their cases in the media and despite orders from the judge and otherwise, they want to go to the media to get their case out there. First of all, what are your thoughts?
Jack Rice:
[00:28:31]
What are you talking about, brother? You got this. Come on. You can say it. Come on. Come on.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:28:38]
I mean, there's a certain former president who I think is his --
Jack Rice:
[00:28:44]
Which one might that be?
Joshua Ritter:
[00:28:46]
In a little bit of hot water lately. But yeah. No, Trump is -- no, but he -- I mean, just recently, I think he canceled his press conference. But it's remarkable to me the idea of having a press conference, in regards to, a criminal prosecution. Now, I realize he's also a political candidate and there's all that at play. But it's not just him. I mean, there's other people who just seem to be far more eager to rush in front of an array of cameras or microphones than they used to be. And I guess, one, do you think there's any value in that or are they just shooting themselves in the foot?
Jack Rice:
[00:29:24]
Well, I mean, when I read this, the case, the initial case we're talking about, I thought of immediately was Donald Trump. I mean, understand, Trump, he's been indicted obviously in Manhattan. He's been indicted in Florida. He's been indicted and most recently in Georgia. But let's stick with Manhattan for a second. If you think about what the prosecutors have argued, because the president, former president has already been scolded, already been scolded in a very similar fashion that we have seen.
And the thing about that is that if I were prosecuting this case, my response is the next time, and I guarantee there will be one more at least from the former president, is to speak out when he was told not to speak out on certain things. My response is, Your Honor, this is about consistency and the integrity of the federal justice system. And if we start treating people differently based upon their status, then what we really have is the fear of the schism where the country does not believe the system is fair for all. And so what we're saying now is that politicians will be treated differently than normal people, even rich, normal people or poor normal people. Are we going to treat them all the same?
Let's take a closer look at what it was that happened to Bankman-Friedman and why they put him back in custody and then apply that same standard to defendant Trump as it applies in Manhattan to what it is that he's doing and frequently saying, because we haven't talked about what he's doing in DC. But when we think about those statements, this question came down to what, it came down to witness influencing and witness tampering. And when you have statements that come out that say, you go after me, I'm going after you, which the president, former president has said publicly, does that not apply to both of those in a very similar fashion?
So I think that the president's attorneys are watching this case extraordinarily closely, oddly, because I think that's the next move by the prosecutors in the Manhattan Federal Office. Those Deputy DAs, ADAs are all thinking about how they're going to come after Trump the next time because they've been doing it. He continues to ramp up, and I think they're going to ramp up too.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:32:03]
Yeah. Yeah. No. It is a interesting question, too, from a First Amendment perspective that people, especially in the instance of Trump, he's a political candidate. He has a right to speak. He has a right to speak even about things that are current events, which he happens to be in the center of, which he happens to be the focus of. So you can understand where to a certain extent he should be able to talk about and defend himself in a public manner. And that not only are we talking about his First Amendment rights, but also his rights in political speech as a candidate.
Jack Rice:
[00:32:46]
Oh, Without question.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:32:47]
But you put the hammer right on the head of the nail when you say, but when we're getting into witness intimidation or witness tampering or somehow dissuading possible witnesses from coming forward, that becomes a huge problem. That was the real turning point in the Bankman-Fried situation. And perhaps President Trump is pushing up against that. And is that going to cause a real turn in this case? I mean, you talk about historical first. Imagine putting an actual political candidate who happens to be the leading candidate for the opposition party in custody before the election because of something like this. I can't imagine it happening. But at a certain point, you can imagine that a judge is going to look at a case like Bankman-Fried's and go, where do we draw the line here?
Jack Rice:
[00:33:38]
Yeah, I mean, there's the rub, right? There is the rub, because we think about a former president and we're talking about political speech. But when is it not about the First Amendment? And this is exactly what this federal judge actually said. He says it moves beyond freedom of speech when you're actually using it to commit a crime, when you're using this to intimidate witnesses, when you're using this to manipulate witnesses, to try to control witnesses, because those are actually federal criminal charges potentially as well.
So we think about what that means. I mean, that's part of the problem here is when you start to try to muzzle defendants, and I don't care who that defendant is, including the former president, because my real concern with that from a defense standpoint is that what we see regularly is prosecutors' offices will indict somebody and then they'll have a big conference, a big public conference, and they'll have a table with a bunch of kilos of coke and a bunch of M-16s sitting on the desk. And they'll talk about what happened.
And my response is, so my job is to sit quietly, silently and sit back and we'll just have our day in court. Why the hell would I do that? I have the obligation to fight back, to bite back. And this president, former president, also has the right to bite back when you have the government come down and say he is an alleged criminal. He has that right, too. It's a very difficult space to maneuver. And most importantly, we have never maneuvered it anything like this before because all of these are brand new. We know what the law says, but we don't know how it applies or if it applies or how far it applies. So we're all watching at the same time.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:35:33]
And to your point, in each of those prosecutions, they have done a press conference. They are not shy in speaking about their theories on the case. So you make an excellent point. Why is it incumbent upon the defendant, a current, a former president, current candidate or otherwise, to have to sit on their hands and just take it while the case is proceeding? I agree with you. And it presents some very interesting questions. And Bankman-Fried, I imagine now that he's in custody, we will see that case move with a little more alacrity toward trial. So we'll continue to follow that as well.
Finally, we move to Harris County, Texas, where a jury has awarded an anonymous victim of revenge porn, $1.2 billion in punitive and compensatory damages after a mere 30 minutes of deliberation. The victim, who has been identified in court records only by the initials DL, alleged that her ex-boyfriend, Marques Jamal Jackson, shared intimate photos of her following their breakup, including some which were allegedly recorded without her consent. According to the plaintiff, Jackson became delusional and paranoid following the breakup, believing that DL had begun a relationship with one of his friends.
She further alleges that Jackson retaliated by sharing the photos to social media sites in emails to DL's friends, family and coworkers, and even claiming that Jackson had added the photos to a publicly accessible Dropbox folder for anyone to see. Jackson also reportedly threatened the victim following these actions, saying, and this is a quote, "Spend the rest of your life trying and failing to wipe yourself off the Internet".
Jurors voted unanimously to award the victim $1 billion in punitive damages and an additional $200 million in actual damages for her suffering. However, it will be up to a judge to make the final judgment, which is expected in the coming days. Attorneys for the victim noted that they were aware that Jackson did not have assets to cover the verdict, noting that the case was a deterrence case, not a money case. Jack, I first want to talk about that. Talk to us about what do they mean by a deterrence case, and what are we doing here? Is this all monopoly money or what is the point of a trial like this?
Jack Rice:
[00:38:01]
Yeah. I mean we could shine this up all we want. It is Monopoly money. He doesn't have it. There is no money here for that. I mean, it's kind of strange in a lot of ways. So we have to think about nominal damages or actual damages on the one side. Then we have punitive damages. Actual damages are actual loss. Now, I'm kind of -- first of all, let's start with that one. I'm kind of amazed what you're saying. She has lost $200 million.
All right. Let's be clear on this issue. They started dating in 2016. This really started happening around 2021. It happened subsequently where he was doing this. So 2020, 2021, in that time period. So we're talking about maybe two, maybe three years or maybe less, and we're saying her losses will result in actually $200 million. If that is an acceptable number, and then we find out there were people who were jailed for 15, 20 years for a crime that they didn't commit, and because some prosecutor someplace withheld evidence. And then we find out that they're released because they actually didn't do it, they were actually exonerated. And we've seen those instances and they'll say, well, we're going to give them like $3 million for that.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:39:26]
Or a person who's damaged in an accident and disabled for the rest of their life. And we talk about, yeah, seven figures, but nowhere near $200 million. You're making an excellent point. I don't mean to interrupt, but please keep -- please, keep going.
Jack Rice:
[00:39:44]
No, no. That's exactly it. I mean, let's think about how if you're standing in front of a jury and you say, how do you calculate loss? And I mean actual loss. Not punitive, but actual loss. You start talking about what do they do for a living? How much money do they make? How much does health care cost? How much does 24 hour service of nurses and et cetera, et cetera? All these other expenses and losses that actually come, those are actual losses. Then once you get that number, and you calculate it all up, you come to the jury and say, this is actually what the law says. How they got to $200 million is astounding to me no matter what, because I don't know where you get there.
But then you go to the punitive piece and the punitive piece is basically saying, this is the warning, right? This is the one that says we have to do this because we're trying to make a point. And that's a broader point in some ways to them. But sort of in the bigger sense when we're thinking about $1 billion, $1 billion, and it's the $1 billion mark, that is a much different animal here because that is designed to do something like this. And I think part of the purpose was this individual, this person who did this to this woman was pretty heinous. What he did, what he said was pretty heinous. And they wanted to say, we're going to make this guy pay.
Well, the problem that comes with that is I'm not sure exactly who that warns. Maybe it warns the rest of society that there are certain behaviors that we can never cross, you can never cross. I hope that's true, but I don't see how this $200 million $1 billion is going to fix either of those. It's very hard for me to calculate in my head. I don't know. Maybe I'm missing something here.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:41:45]
No, I don't think you are. I think they obviously -- and I agree with you. I mean, we're talking a lot about the kind of extraordinary numbers. And do those actually reflect losses and damages and everything else? And I don't want to downplay, you are absolutely right to characterize it as heinous. This is criminal behavior, in my view. And I'm curious to know what the history was behind that and why he wasn't actually prosecuted for a crime, because you're absolutely right, to exploit someone this way to --
Jack Rice:
[00:42:21]
It's a crime in Texas too, by the way. It is a crime.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:42:23]
And this was done without her consent. And then just the kind of viciousness of his actions afterwards and the threats and everything else, totally understand a prosecution or even a lawsuit. I'm just -- we're remarking, I think, upon the numbers. But you're right. What does this do? What is the intended effect? And maybe who knows? I mean, maybe if we're talking divorce proceedings and everything else down the line, are people going to think again about the liability they expose themselves to participate in this kind of behavior? It's certainly catching a lot of people's attention because that is a splash. But I guess explain to us and for listeners, the judge is going to do something about this, right? I mean, a judge has a lot of kind of latitude as to how they're actually going to handle this verdict.
Jack Rice:
[00:43:17]
Yeah, there's no question about that. We've seen this before, frankly, where you have a verdict that's determined, and they'll come up with numbers and a judge will come back and they will pull those numbers way back. And there are limits to those. I want to try to remember. I don't recall if there were any big punitive numbers in the Johnny Depp case, but they actually pulled those numbers. They're actually capped.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:43:43]
Right, they were statutorily capped. So they did have big numbers and they brought them back down.
Jack Rice:
[00:43:48]
Exactly. Well, I mean, to some degree, there's an example where what you'll do is you'll say by law, there's no way that this number is appropriate or can't apply. But it's similar in the sense that there will be a legal authority that will then come in and start to rein those numbers back into a number that is somehow appropriate and somehow legitimate and acceptable under those circumstances. And I think that that's what you're likely going to see here.
It's really interesting, if you think about these, though. And this was actually the debate where in my jurisdiction, this became a crime within the last five years. And one of the things that made this one difficult for some people was there's a First Amendment aspect to this. And I got to think about think it through. But the First Amendment piece is, is that my right to do and say certain things and even produce certain things?
And one of the logics and this is now about contract law to where you say, if somebody gifts me, dare I say it this way, please understand my logic, is if somebody gifts me a picture or a video without limitation, do I have the right to do anything and everything I want with that thing? If somebody gives me a car, are they saying I can only drive it on certain roads or in certain counties or make sure that I can only drive it at night or I can only drive it where people can't see it or something else? Or are there limitations to what that means? And once a gift is given and it's now yours, if somebody comes back after the fact and says, I have decided there are now stipulations on that gift, if something is now my possession and my literally my property, do I have the right to use it as I see fit?
And so people started working through what this meant. I understand the logic and especially when we've seen statistics on it, the number of people who have sent various photos or videos or whatever else to each other with the intention, unspoken intention of sharing them between themselves. Once you give that to another person, are you giving them free rein to do anything with it or do you actually have to say, I have decided to provide this photo to you, here are the stipulations to what that means. Right? Which is pretty weird if you think about that.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:46:26]
No, you make an important point. And we're talking about this like lawyers. And sometimes you have to talk this through to its logical end. And, yes, when we're considering something where it was done consensually, obviously it's a whole other category when you're talking about photographs or video that was taken surreptitiously and the person doesn't know.
Jack Rice:
[00:46:51]
Absolutely.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:46:52]
But you're right. When they send a photograph or give a photograph in some sort of manner and there's not some sort of explicit strings attached or that's not done on some sort of forum where the person believes it's going to be erased upon the person viewing it or something like that, at what point does that person -- where do the bounds end as to what that person is allowed to do with it?
And I know that some people listening are going to go, don't be ridiculous. You send a picture of yourself naked to someone, you're only assuming that person will keep it to themselves. Of course. But the law doesn't work that way. It says, well, under what theory should that person have known that? And at what point does that mean that their conduct somehow turned criminal or subject to some sort of civil liability because they behaved otherwise?
Jack Rice:
[00:47:44]
Now, the law is clear on this issue. I'm simply saying, when you think about legally how we do this, when she gives him or anybody gives somebody a picture without limitation, without stipulation, if you give somebody as a gift and it now belongs to them, what are the limitations as to how far they can go with that? I mean, here's the difference is that you balance -- there's the legality question which, Josh, you and I are discussing on this one. But the other part is that legality isn't always morality. Right. I mean I think anybody --.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:48:17]
That's a good point.
Jack Rice:
[00:48:18]
Anybody in the room can say if I send you a naked picture of myself, it's for you. This is for us. This is something that we are doing ourselves. But we know, I don't have to tell you that I'd prefer not that this be posted on Google this weekend. We know that. And morally speaking, I think anybody and everybody in the room will all agree that if you did that, that's immoral and it's disgusting and it's a horrifying thing. But the difference is the morality side versus the legal side. How do you build that bridge? How do you combine those to say, we're going to make sure that that which is moral is also legal or immoral illegal?
Joshua Ritter:
[00:49:13]
No, no. Excellent point. And we will leave it at that, because that is our show for this week. Jack, thank you so much for coming on. Where can people find out more about you?
Jack Rice:
[00:49:23]
Oh, well, I'm around, man. I mean, they'll follow you with me. I will be on wherever you want me to be. And if you want me back here. What are you doing tomorrow? We can make --
Joshua Ritter:
[00:49:37]
It's always an extreme pleasure. Thank you again for making the time. We know how busy you are. So thank you again.
Jack Rice:
[00:49:43]
Thank you so much.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:49:45]
I'm your host, Josh Ritter. You can find me on Instagram and Twitter at @joshuaritteresq or at joshuaritter.com. And you can find our Sidebar episodes wherever you get your podcasts. And we want to hear from you. If you've got questions or comments you'd like us to address, tweet us your questions with the hashtag #TCDSidebar. And thank you for joining us at the True Crime Daily Sidebar.
