‘Widower’ convicted of murdering 6th wife; Judge pleads not guilty in slaying – TCD Sidebar
In this episode of True Crime Daily The Sidebar Podcast
Michael Koribanics joins host Joshua Ritter to break down the biggest cases making headlines across the nation. They discuss Thomas Randolph’s conviction, a dentist sentenced to life after a hunting safari murder, and the not guilty plea of a judge in his wife’s shooting death.
Tweet your questions for future episodes to Joshua Ritter using the hashtag #TCDSidebar.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:00:06]
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 are recording this on Friday, August 25th, 2023.
And in this week's episode, we have husbands behaving badly with three cases of husbands accused of murdering their wives. First, a dentist is sentenced to life in prison for the murder of his wife while the couple was on a big game hunting trip in Africa. Also, an Orange County Superior Court judge pleads not guilty to shooting his wife after allegedly texting a confession to his coworkers.
But first, breaking news as the widower Thomas Randolph is found guilty on all counts and is now convicted for a second time of murdering his sixth wife and the hitman, he allegedly hired to kill her. Today, we are joined by Michael Koribanics, a federal criminal defense attorney and legal analyst you can catch on the Law & Crime Network and many other media outlets. Michael, welcome back.
Michael Koribanics:
[00:01:28]
Thank you. Pleasure to be here today.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:01:30]
We've been looking forward to this. We enjoyed speaking with you so much last time. I know that you follow these cases closely and you also have a federal experience, which we're going to ask about a little bit. But before we jump in, tell us a little bit about your current practice.
Michael Koribanics:
[00:01:46]
Well, my criminal practice, I'm a solo practitioner. I just mainly concentrate on criminal defense work. I do a lot of federal work. I also do state work. I'm a former prosecutor, as were you. I was in the other side, though. I'm here in Jersey. I was in Hudson County and Jersey City. So it gave me a lot of good experience and I enjoyed doing what I do.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:02:07]
Fantastic. Well, I enjoy hearing your thoughts on these cases. I always enjoy when I see you on the Law & Crime Network or other places. Pardon me. So let's jump right into Las Vegas, Nevada, where after a mere five hours, a jury has returned a guilty verdict on all counts facing Thomas Randolph and his retrial for the murder of his sixth wife, Sharon, and a hitman he had allegedly hired to kill his wife. Randolph, dubbed the widower, after four of his six wives died under mysterious circumstances, faced two counts of murder and a conspiracy charge after the 2008 deaths of his wife and the couple's occasional handyman, Michael Miller, who prosecutors allege Randolph conspired with to execute a hit on Sharon.
In his defense, Randolph maintained that his wife was killed by a masked intruder whom he then killed, only later realizing that the intruder was Miller. A jury previously convicted Randolph of the murders in 2017, sentencing him to death. However, that conviction was overturned by the Nevada Supreme Court due to overreliance on prior bad acts evidence introduced by the prosecution. This time around, jurors arrived at the same conclusion. However, prosecutors are not seeking the death penalty due to Randolph's age. He is 68 years old. His sentencing is scheduled, pardon me, for October 12th, 2023. All right, Michael, jump in. I know you followed this case closely. What are your reactions to these verdicts? Are you surprised at all?
Michael Koribanics:
[00:03:43]
No, I'm not. I actually was a little surprised at the reversal of his previous conviction because prior bad acts are not unusual evidence in the case when basically they fit like a glove. You wonder how a and I haven't looked at the appellate part and the appellate always much different analysis because it's so detail oriented in putting it with the law as opposed to jurors just listening to the story and finding out whether or not it's proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
However, with that, though, he got his retrial, and I doubt he's going to go very far on any kind of appeal in this case because it was so consolidated. Sometimes when it's so consolidated, the evidence is so strong and so convincing to a jury that it only took him a couple hours to convict on a murder. I don't care who a juror is. They know what's going on with a murder case. And I think that even though they take a vow to not have any sort of emotions come into a case or things of that nature. With a murder case, really they look at it very closely. And here there was just so much overwhelming evidence circumstantially as well as inconsistencies of his statement that I think that was his big problem in the defense.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:05:03]
Yeah. Yeah, I agree with you. Five hours, it's not nothing, but it is a short enough amount of time for a case of this kind of complexity that you have to believe that they were fairly convinced by the time they even got back to the deliberation room. It's funny on that prior bad acts evidence, I tend to see the prosecution relying, and I'm not specifically talking about this case but in my experience, relying too heavily on that.
And that sounds like what they may have done in that prior trial is it's not that the evidence itself was inadmissible as a rule, but that they felt that they just leaned on it too heavily and it became a trial about the prior trial rather than about the trial that they were actually sitting for. At least that's how the appellate court viewed it, because correct me if I'm wrong, getting a retrial is a pretty rare circumstance. Usually those appellate courts are inclined to say harmless error or something like that. You agree?
Michael Koribanics:
[00:06:11]
Oh, absolutely. Absolutely. And you make a great point there is when you have good evidence that supports your main case, use it in that sequence, in that kind of circumstance. But if you're relying too much on things that aren't the main part of your case, it does make it look like the main part of your case is evidence is not that strong and you're relying on the supporting evidence as opposed to using the supporting evidence to rely on the direct evidence in the case before the jury.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:06:44]
Yeah. Yeah. Talk to us a little bit about retrials in your experience or just kind of generally, because I've always felt like they favor the prosecution because the defense has kind of gone through all of their tricks, whatever opportunity they had, to kind of catch some witnesses off guard or surprise witnesses they called themselves. They've already missed all those opportunities on the first trial. And the prosecution kind of can correct those errors the second time around.
But this trial seemed a little bit different because the prosecution really had much of their case taken from them because of how much they relied on that prior bad acts evidence. And they had to pivot their theory and rely more heavily on the statements that he had made to police. Obviously, they were successful. I'm not asking you to give your opinion on whether or not you felt that they were successful but tell us about that. Just your general idea on is it generally in favor of the defense's second or prosecution's second time around? And how is pivoting difficult for them?
Michael Koribanics:
[00:07:59]
Well, see, Josh, this is why I like doing your show, because you have experience. You're not just talking about it. You've been there. And what you're making is a great point is it's never really, to my opinion, as defense attorneys benefit on a retrial because basically the obligation and the burden of proof is on the state or the government. So we don't have to disclose our cross examination or things of that nature before we deal with each witness. When you get a retrial, you've basically told the government, here's where your case is weak, here's where we think we're going to be very successful. And you throw the punches. But now when they have a retrial, they know what punches are coming before you throw them, and they can tighten it up and they can substantiate evidence that they thought was weak.
In this case, quite frankly, I think the appellate division, by making them retry it, actually strengthened their case because they said deal with the present, don't deal with the past, deal with the present. That's what's going to help get this case. Don't rely upon a motion of what may have happened and have the jury there is quite frankly, as the government live up to your obligation to present proofs relevant to this case, not other cases, to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. And I think that's important. And I think that was a good move by the appellate division and it strengthened this conviction, absolutely.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:09:27]
Yeah. Excellent point. They may have done them a favor. Keep it simple, stupid, right? I mean, just don't get caught up in all of this other nonsense. Concentrate on the case at hand. It was not a weak case, obviously, with the verdict that we have here. But one question always we consider asking this question. This case did rely from the defense perspective very heavily on those statements that he made to police. There were these recorded video statement where he walked through how everything took place and the prosecution really chopped that apart. Do you think in addressing that, it might have been, now in retrospect, in his best interest to take the stand to try to explain some of that?
Michael Koribanics:
[00:10:17]
Theoretically, yeah, maybe. But in reality, and practicality, based upon the way he was so inconsistent with the things he said and quite frankly, I guess I'm being one of those old guys. I'm not a big cell phone fan. And as cell phones, I don't think people realize, especially criminal defendants don't realize, cell phones don't help you. In my understanding here is they had a lot of cell phone records which aren't confidential or things of that nature of him going back and forth with the man he killed who was his friend.
So I think by putting him on the stand, you really took a big risk, as we say in court of opening the door, which when we say opening the door allows the government because you brought up a subject to actually take admissible evidence that may not have been admissible and now substantiate and strengthen their stance that he's lying, he's not telling the truth, and here's how he can show. So I think while in theory, it's always good to speak about your client taking the stand. In practicality, it's very difficult, especially someone who had who is suspected of killing his previous wife. Once he opened his mouth on that stand, all the things on the appeal might have been able to come back in. And that's where I think they ran a risk.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:11:42]
No, excellent point. As you were speaking, I'm thinking you're absolutely right. If he's up there and he even says something along the lines of, you know, they ask him, why couldn't you remember, why did you misspeak in this statement? And he goes, well, I was in such shock after finding my wife dead. I've never experienced anything like that. Oh, really? Well, let's talk about the four other wives that have ended up dead that you've been married to. It just, you could see any opportunity like that, it would be a real tight wire act for him to testify and explain those things and not open up the door. Excellent, excellent point.
Let's move now to Denver, Colorado, where a successful dentist who murdered his wife on a hunting trip in Zambia has been sentenced to life in prison following convictions for murder and fraud. Laurence Rudolph shot his wife, Bianca, in a hunting lodge before trying to frame her murder as an accident. Following Bianca's death, Rudolph filed nearly $5 million in fraudulent insurance claims upon his return to the states. Rudolph was eventually arrested and later tried by federal prosecutors in Denver, where the insurance companies were based.
Prosecutors argued the murder was in part motivated by Rudolph's desire to begin a new life with his mistress. In addition to his life sentence, Rudolph will be required to repay the insurance companies a $2 million fine. All right. This is the part I'm hoping you can shed a little light on, Michael. In the federal world here, it's really a jurisdictional question. This murder took place in Africa, another country across the world. Why are they able to prosecute that case here in the states?
Michael Koribanics:
[00:13:28]
Well, we have a -- in the federal courts, there is a foreign murder of United States nationals. So we have actually law written in the federal government that says if there is a United States national with another national anywhere in a foreign country, we maintain jurisdiction if they so choose. So that's how it came over. We actually have a statute that allows it because in Africa where this occurred, they just wrote it off from what I understood and said it was an accident.
The federal government came in and it appears did a much larger investigation and we're able to put the investigation together probably a lot easier and better because of the fact that they were able to go after the illegal activities with the insurance fraud and things of that nature that were gone going here. So when they were looking at that, it opened up, I think the investigation into the murder and saying, well, we need to take a closer look at this. And the laws we have in the United States allows us to have jurisdiction on them.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:14:40]
Something important to keep in mind if you're deciding, thinking about killing anybody out of the country that they can still -- the long arm of the law can still reach out and grab you. But talk to us about, I mean I've handled cases where witnesses may have lived in other states or may, you know, events may have occurred in other states, even though the crime itself occurred in my home state. But now you're talking about the crime itself, and nearly all the witnesses involved are in another country. What difficulties do you think that presents for the prosecution? Obviously, they were able to surmount those, but still.
Michael Koribanics:
[00:15:23]
Well, it's difficult for the prosecution. Quite frankly, it's even more difficult for the defense attorneys because the federal prosecutors, I mean that is why a lot of times the feds will take over a case for the state, because they just, quite frankly, have much more resources and more extensive resources in doing their investigations, as opposed to a county police department or a state police department and things of that nature. And they also have better funds to go do the travel and all that kind of thing.
Now, as a defense attorney, either you're getting paid by your client who has to go into their pockets and may not be able to pay for investigations and things of that nature, to fly your investigator over. Because as attorneys, we can't interview clients by ourselves because that would make us a potential witness in the case. You have to have an investigator with you. So it's very difficult for both sides, but even more so because what if they needed to go interview some witnesses in Africa? That's not an easy task for the defense to do.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:16:31]
I'm so glad you brought that up, because that was one of my questions is do you think that those difficulties themselves create an appellate issue? In other words, can he say or make some sort of argument, I've been denied due process to some extent, because you're asking me to essentially fly across the world to try to cobble together a defense on a case that was rejected, as you pointed out, by the home country. And now I'm trying to piece together my defense this amount of time later and in another country. And it's just simply too much for me to be able to -- too much of an obstacle for me to get past. Whereas you, the government, have unlimited resources. Anything there, you think?
Michael Koribanics:
[00:17:18]
I do think from a practical sense that it's a great point and I understand it. But from a legal perspective, I would assume an appellate court would say, hey, you should have thought of that before you went to Zimbabwe. And we have a law that says we can do this. Now, granted, a lot of people don't realize, too, is a defendant if they're not financially able to defend themselves, can always apply to the court, whether it's a federal court or state court, to have some sort of support financially or in order to do a valid defense as long as they can show the court they can't afford it.
This dentist, it appears, would have a very rough argument because it appeared he could afford it before he even got involved in this. He was involved, if I understand it correctly, he had a very big dental company. Not just he wasn't a dental doctor. He also had a company supporting it. So I don't know where it would go in this case, but that's always difficult.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:18:26]
Yeah. Yeah. Interesting case, just from the logistics standpoint of it. Anyhow --.
Michael Koribanics:
[00:18:33]
One of the first I heard like this. It's one of the first I heard where something happened in a federal.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:18:38]
Yeah. Me --
Michael Koribanics:
[00:18:39]
Another country, totally in another.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:18:41]
Me too. Especially the idea that the home country didn't treat it as a crime. Usually, the times that you've seen it is a crime may have been committed in another country and that country is investigating and is allowing it to be turned over to the United States. But here, they were like, hey, this look like an accident to us. And the US government took it upon themselves to take another look after, like you said, there was a lot of insurance money changing hands. And I imagine that's what kind of got everybody to take a real close look at all of this.
Let's now turn to our final husband on wife murder of today in Los Angeles, California, where Orange County Superior Court Judge Jeffrey Ferguson pleaded not guilty to murder after allegedly shooting his wife, Cheryl Ferguson in an argument. The couple reportedly began bickering at a restaurant where Ferguson made a hand gesture indicative of pointing a gun at her. The argument continued into Ferguson's Anaheim Hills home, where Cheryl said something to the effect of, why don't you point a real gun at me? Prosecutors allege that that statement prompted Ferguson to remove a 40 caliber Glock pistol from his ankle holster and shoot Cheryl in the chest.
Following the shooting, Ferguson allegedly texted his law clerk and bailiff, quote, "I just lost it, I just shot my wife. I won't be in tomorrow. I will be in custody. I'm so sorry." Ferguson's adult son, who was in the home at the time of the shooting, called 911 and Ferguson was taken into custody shortly thereafter. After Ferguson posted $1 million bond, he was required to surrender his passport and prohibited from consuming alcohol or possessing firearms. Because of Ferguson's close connections to the criminal bar in Orange County, serving both as a DA and as a judge, the case has been removed to Los Angeles County for prosecution.
All right. I'm going to -- I know you're not a local here, so I'm going to help you out a little bit with this question. But my question is the moving of it from Orange County to L.A. County, does that really change anything? And the reason I ask this is that historically, just to give you some background, you probably know this already. Orange County is seen as a far more politically conservative area in California than L.A. County. Do you think that's going to change anything about the dynamics of the case, just when we're talking about jury pool?
Michael Koribanics:
[00:21:21]
I don't think so, because it doesn't seem to be a politically motivated sort of case. I think one of the reasons they're moving it is more so because of the fact he was a judge there and just having a judge walk in as a defendant now in a county where all his Tom Reiser, his professional friends here are the judges, I think that makes a little bit of an uncomfortable, difficult sort of area that could cut both ways for the defense or the prosecution. So I think moving it out is just a better way to just get any sort of appearance of favoritism because he was an employee there, to just put it on the side.
But I don't think it will make that much of a difference because this is such a, you know, it's almost unbelievable, we're talking about three husband and wife murders today, and it's like all over the place here. And it's just a very unusual situation. But I think once we're into murders, especially a family member, politics and things should go to the side. I don't see how they could be politically motivated.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:22:36]
I think I agree with you. I think it's much more about the appearance of it. I don't know if they -- I think he probably would have received a very fair trial and fair jurors and everything else had it remained in Orange County. But I think it just didn't pass the sniff factor for everyone. And they thought it's just best for optics to move it to L.A. County.
That being said, though, they are still going to have orange county DAs prosecute the case here in L.A. County. If we're going -- what are your thoughts on that, if we're removing it out of the county because of his connections? Well, he used to work for the DA's office there in Orange County. Should they also get other prosecutors involved? What do you think?
Michael Koribanics:
[00:23:19]
I don't really believe so. I think it would be different if he was still a DA there. I mean, listen, I have judges I appear in front of who were prosecutors when I was in the prosecutor's office, and I don't think they show me much favoritism at times. But it's just such a natural kind of -- well, it would have become -- most judges have trial experience or should have.
And most of us get our trial experience from either being, you know, starting out in the prosecutor's office or the public defender's office, where you are constantly trying cases. You're not trying once in a while. You have an experience that builds you to move up to the next step. And I think that's sort of something that needs to be taken into consideration. So I don't think that the prosecutor's office would be in a conflict since he's been out of it for so many years while he was a judge.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:24:13]
Interesting. Well, we'll see. I think I agree with you. I think everyone can behave like adults in all of this. The fact that he's a judge, I don't think is going to dramatically affect how everyone behaves. Last point on this. Apparently, after his son called 911, he also called 911 and was asked by the operator if he had shot his wife and he made the statement something to the effect of I don't want to comment on that right now.
So he's obviously cognizant of the idea that statements are important things, statements from a defendant soon after a shooting takes place. But then he goes about texting his clerk to say, and I'm going to read this quote again because I want to kind of go through it. "I just lost it. I just shot my wife. I won't be in tomorrow. I will be in custody. I'm so sorry". And I imagine a lot of the case is going to focus on that as being an omission by the prosecution. My question, though, to you is put on your defense attorney hat here. And is that truly an admission of guilt or is he more admitting that a shooting took place, but not that it was an indefensible shooting, if you can follow where I'm going with this. What are your thoughts?
Michael Koribanics:
[00:25:31]
Well, I think, as defense attorneys, we have to work with what we have. We don't create what's coming. We work with what we have. Once again, though, it goes back to what I said earlier is I just don't understand why people find the need to use their cell phones so much when all they're doing is making evidence. I mean, this is basically you almost think the government could stand up and just show the text to the jury and say, I got nothing more to say and sit down.
But I think the defense is going to have to do what you say is take that big wall that the government's going to use as a text and see what bricks they can pull out to weaken that wall and keep it from being strong enough to make proof beyond a reasonable doubt and incarcerate them. I do think that while he did admit to a shooting, he did say I lost it. So maybe that will help for some sort of mental evaluation as to whether or not he had the intent.
But then again, you have recklessness here, but I think that they're going to have to figure out how to work with it. And you made the best point of how to work with it is that he's not showing intent, that there may be a mental breakdown here. This was an accident. And if he did as a defense attorney, wouldn't we argue if he did murder her, why would he be informing his staff of what was going on if right thereafter he knows, he's a judge, he knows about his Fifth Amendment right. That I think would be a short argument.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:27:00]
Yeah. Yeah. I'm just trying to think of how they would deal with this. And that's where I was going is you're right, I think if you're his defense in opening statements, you say my client shot his wife. That's undisputed. Now, let's talk about why it happened and whether that defense is some sort of temporary insanity or some sort of self-defense or whatever it is. Embracing the idea that the shooting took place covers what's in that text, but I think there is at least some argument or wiggle room to be made to say that that doesn't make it first degree murder, which is really what he's going to be facing here.
So I don't know. I'm not saying it's a winning argument. I'm just saying that initially, sometimes we look at those things and you might think it's a slam dunk, but a clever defense attorney could maybe cause a little bit of doubt out of that text message. What do you think?
Michael Koribanics:
[00:27:58]
Absolutely. I mean, that's the base. You got to see what develops around it and how it develops. I think there's going to be a lot of focus on that text message to be able to use it as a defense because it's coming at you either way. So you bet the defense needs to really work on it. And I think they're going to have to really look into psychological evaluations for this person is judge to see if they have a defense they can put forth that would say he couldn't form the intent because he had a psychological breakdown.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:28:29]
Yeah. Yeah. Well, that case just got started. He was just arraigned. He's out on bail. So I imagine that will drag out for a while. We will continue to watch it. But in the meantime, that is our show, The Husbands Murdering Wives Show. Michael, thank you so much for coming on this week. Where can people find out more about you?
Michael Koribanics:
[00:28:51]
Well, they could check me out on Instagram, @KoribanicsLaw and show up at a courtroom. I'm usually in those. That's the best place to find me. So but I appreciate being on your show and having the opportunity to discuss and learn from you. Thank you.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:29:04]
Oh, we always appreciate you and we appreciate you coming back. I'm your host, Josh Ritter. You can find me on Instagram and Twitter at @joshuaritteresq or at joshuaritter.com. 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.
