Wife proclaims husband murdered her in letter; College admissions scandal — 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 the conviction of Tory Lanez, Rick Singer’s sentencing for his part in an infamous college admissions scandal, and the retrial of a man whose murder conviction was previously overturned for the use of a controversial piece of evidence.
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 6, 2023.
And so Happy New Year, everyone. This is our first podcast of 2023, and we are excited to announce that we have reached 5 million subscribers on YouTube. And that's all because of you guys listening and watching. And so, we're so very grateful and it's a great way to start the New Year.
In this week's episode, we have some really exciting cases. First, the conviction of hip hop artist Tory Lane's following the assault that left artist Megan Thee Stallion with bullet fragments in her feet. As well as the sentencing of Rick Singer, the perpetrator of the infamous college admissions scandal that helped children of high profile and wealthy clients gain admission to some of the nation's most prestigious universities.
And finally, the retrial of a former stockbroker whose murder conviction was overturned after the use of a controversial piece of evidence left behind by his deceased wife. Today, we are joined by Jack Rice, a criminal defense lawyer and legal commentator. You may have seen him on Court TV, MSNBC, Fox, and many other outlets. Jack, welcome back. Good to see you again.
Jack Rice:
[00:01:42]
Well, thank you, my friend. I'm always happy to do it. You know that.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:01:45]
I do and I appreciate that.
Jack Rice:
[00:01:47]
We just talk and shop anyway, right.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:01:47]
Exactly, we'd be doing this anyways.
Jack Rice:
[00:01:50]
Totally true.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:01:51]
For those listeners and those watching who have not seen you on the show before, can you please tell us a little bit about your background in your current practice?
Jack Rice:
[00:02:00]
Sure. I'm a criminal defense attorney and I'm a trial lawyer based out of Saint Paul, Minnesota. I've been doing this for decades, frankly. I know, just like you. And primarily I do a lot of serious assault cases, rape cases, murder cases. And so, I've tried a lot of cases. I'm a board-certified criminal law specialist. I'm a former prosecutor years back. I'm a former Central Intelligence Agency case officer. I bring a lot of different things to the table sometimes. So, this is a lot of fun. I'm always happy to do it.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:02:28]
No. And it's because of all that experience that we're really excited to hear your thoughts on these cases, especially the last one is kind of interesting from a very legal perspective. So, when we get to that, I'm curious to hear your thoughts on it.
But first, let's jump right into Los Angeles, California, following a contentious trial, a Los Angeles jury convicted Canadian hip hop artist Tory Lanes on three felonies following his shooting of fellow artist Megan Thee Stallion. The incident, which dates to 2020, was the result of an argument between Megan and Lanes that took place in the Hollywood Hills following a celebrity party.
According to Megan's testimony, the argument became, especially heated when she insulted Lanes' music. Megan alleges that she walked away from the SUV that they were riding in. Lanes yelled for Megan to dance before firing a handgun at her feet. She later needed surgery to remove those bullet fragments. The defense argued that Lanes was not the shooter, alleging that a mutual friend who was with the pair fired the shots at Megan in a jealous rage.
However, the jury of seven women and five men deliberated for only a day before convicting Lanes of assault with a firearm, possession of an unregistered firearm, and discharging a firearm with gross negligence. Jurors also agreed that there were aggravating factors, which means he could be sentenced to up to 22 years in prison and risk deportation. His sentencing is set for January 25th of this year. Okay, Jack, jump right in. What was your reaction to this verdict? I know you had been following this case.
Jack Rice:
[00:04:06]
Yeah, I have. I was impressed with what the prosecution did, honestly. And the reason I was impressed by what they did was that any time you're prosecuting or defending, it almost doesn't matter in this sense, you need to be able to tell a cohesive story. But telling a story that a jury will viscerally accept, they will be able to hear this, feel this and say, you know what, that's just right or that just doesn't make sense. In this particular case, this idea of what Megan did when she took the stand is she talked about what this was, how it felt, what it meant, this idea of dance. It just felt, it felt right. And when you get something like that, plus some forensic evidence, like some of the bullet fragments they pulled out of her, I mean, all of those things, they fit into that cohesive answer that a jury loves. And they loved it in this case with seven and five people.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:05:06]
Yeah. Yeah. It's storytelling, right? I mean, if you cannot tell a good story, and I don't mean to use the word story like it's not true, but you have to even take a police report, make it come to life, take someone's testimony and make it, like you said, visceral and real. It's storytelling at its very purest form, and it has to be convincing storytelling. And I agree with you. I think the prosecution did a marvelous job in this case.
Let's talk a little bit about the defense, because they made an interesting choice here. They didn't go with -- they opted for the defense of I didn't do it, not this was an accident, not the gun misfired, not I never intended to harm her or not even self-defense. But I didn't do it, somebody else did it. Do you think that was a mistake or was that all they were left with?
Jack Rice:
[00:05:55]
Well, you know, and I know you've seen this, too. There are times when we get back into the corner and you're stuck with what you're stuck with. And you would think to yourself, I've got to have something better than this but sometimes you don't. And so, you're stuck with what you're stuck with. And part of the problem is this, is that what can sometimes happen is there are no offers on the table. You'll have a prosecutor who comes to you and their response is plead guilty straight up or plead to count one, the worst of the bunch with no agreement. And so, what you don't get is something called at least what we call up here in the upper Midwest a cap. You don't get a cap on time, so you can't limit the parameters of exposure. And so, you're stuck.
But in this particular case, when you actually say, I didn't do it, the problem is, is you have at least one person, two actually who will say, oh yeah, he did it. Whereas what you could do is if you had gone with a different theory and we could have talked about that, Josh, if we wanted to, at the beginning of this, this idea of telling a cohesive story, it's about theory, but it's about theme.
But if you go with a different theory of your case, you could accept both of what they say, which is he did it. At least then you can say you're right, I did it and I can't believe it happened this way. I never thought this was going to play out because you sometimes have to embrace the facts that are provided to you, embrace even the testimony that is going to be pushed against you, because then what you can do is you can say they don't know what was in your head. They just know that you pull the trigger. Fine, I pulled the trigger. Here's why or how or what happened. It gives you something else, something more.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:07:37]
Yeah. Yeah. And I don't want to be one of those having a conversation where we're kind of second guessing another attorney. I'm not trying to do that, but just if we could look at it, if this just got handed to us here, I agree with you. I think that the best defenses are the ones that admit as much as what they can. Right. And so, here, I think you have to admit the gun was in his hand.
I think the theory of I wasn't even holding the gun, somebody else fired it, it's not going to go anywhere. It's not going to get traction. And to your point, it's not going to create a visceral story that the jury can hang their hat on. But I think the alternative of, you're right, I had the gun, I admit that. You're right, the gun was in my hand when it was fired. I admit that. But to your point, you don't know what I was thinking. What I was thinking is I was as much shocked that it went off as anybody else. I certainly did not mean to shoot it. And this is all an accident and throw yourself at the mercy of the jury.
Jack Rice:
[00:08:34]
Well, you know, you could do that. I mean, maybe one of the reasons and again, I mean, I am not second guessing this defense attorney either in that sense, because sometimes you're stuck. Here's an example of that. Let's say you make that argument. Now, what you've just done is you pled guilty to count two. You pled guilty to possession without registration of a firearm.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:08:53]
Yeah.
Jack Rice:
[00:08:54]
Just all of a sudden, you've got a felony count sitting in your hands right now before you're out of the chute.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:08:59]
A hundred percent.
Jack Rice:
[00:09:00]
Dare, I use that term. But before you could even start. And so, depending upon priors, depending upon other circumstances, the problem that you get is that you may be shackled to certain stories, because if you open up one side, you just didn't think you're going to go down on everything and that --
Joshua Ritter:
[00:09:19]
Hundred percent. And he's facing deportation. That could have been it. That could have been I can't take anything because I've got to be able to work in this country. And that could have been the reason why they decided to shoot the moon.
Jack Rice:
[00:09:30]
We see that all the time.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:09:31]
Yeah, yeah.
Jack Rice:
[00:09:31]
Totally. We see that all the time.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:09:32]
Yeah. No, you're right. You're right?
Jack Rice:
[00:09:33]
Yeah, we just do.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:09:36]
Talk to me about your thoughts on sentencing because his exposure is 22 years. What do you think? I mean I'm asking you to read the tea leaves here, but do you think the judge is really going to give him serious time on this?
Jack Rice:
[00:09:49]
No, I don't. The injuries weren't as substantial as one would think. And in some cases, this was closer to a second degree assault. This is a relatively simple case in some ways. And normally, I could see somebody going down four, two to four, two to six. I don't think somebody would cross the ten-year mark. The problem is, is this idea and this is something people sometimes don't think about, this idea of we all have a presumption of innocence. The state has to prove he's guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. We have the right to go to trial. Guess what? There can sometimes be a cost to going to trial. You sometimes go to trial. And if you lose, you have a judge who's a human being will sometimes look at this case and say, because of what you did, your decision to exercise your constitutional right, they won't say this, but I think they think it, and I don't know if you agree or not, but they think that because you decided to go to trial and waste my time or waste this jury's time, waste all of that court resources, you're going to pay a price for that. So, you could see a judge kind of go, you know, you did it exactly the same. But if you had pled, I'll give you this, but because you didn't, I'm going to give you this.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:11:00]
Yeah. Well, the way they describe it is they say you can take advantage of an early disposition of this case. The flip side that is unsaid is if you don't take advantage, just wait and see.
Jack Rice:
[00:11:16]
Well, they can also argue this. They can say a lack of remorse.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:11:20]
Right.
Jack Rice:
[00:11:21]
And that's, you know, if you say, I'm sorry, I did it, I screwed up, I can't believe this happened. Well, now you get something potentially for that. If you go to trial, it's kind of hard after the fact and say, got me.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:11:34]
Yeah. Yeah. I think that this does end up with him in some custody time. I agree with you. It's probably in the single digits. But I can't see a judge really hammering him for the conduct. Even everything is assumed to be true, that was in the police reports, it still does not rise to that level where you would see somebody doing a decade or more in prison but we shall see.
Jack Rice:
[00:11:57]
Yeah. They might even have been ricochet rounds because we had fragments, whereas -- so which makes me think, which by the way, was some of the evidence, right. This idea of consistency of dance. So, the idea you shoot at the ground, and it bounces off into somebody, at least then they might see an argument that, yeah, this was a stupid idea that I saw in the movies, but for some reason I thought I didn't think it was going to hit her.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:12:20]
Yeah. No one ends up with bullet fragments in their feet when it happens in the movies.
Jack Rice:
[00:12:24]
Right. Right.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:12:26]
Well, we'll keep an eye on this case and see how the sentence does turn out for Mr. Lanes. Let's turn now to Boston, Massachusetts, where nearly four years after the story first broke, Rick Singer, former owner of the college counseling and prep enterprise known as the Key, has finally been sentenced to three and a half years in federal prison for his orchestration of the college admissions scandal referred to as Operation Varsity Blues. He will also have to pay nearly $20 million in restitution and forfeitures of ill-gotten gains.
Singer's prep business helped parents of wealthy students gain admission to prestigious universities, in some cases by coordinating cheating on standardized tests like the SAT or ACT. In other instances, bribes to administrators and college coaches were also facilitated, allowing for designation as student athletes, even if students didn't play that sport. The sprawling scandal resulted in the rest of over 50 people, including actresses, CEOs, test administrators and coaches.
While Singer pled guilty to charges of conspiracy, racketeering, money laundering and obstruction of justice in March of 2019, his sentence represents the most severe given to any participant in the scandal. Prosecutors allege that Singer gained more than $25 million from clients paying more than $7 million in bribes and profiting over $15 million for himself. So, they've described this as, and it is, the most time that anyone has been sentenced to in relation to this conspiracy. But, Jack, in your opinion, is it too little? Is it too much, just right? What do you think?
Jack Rice:
[00:14:04]
Josh, I'm torn on this case. I mean, I really am. And maybe I'm biased. So here's why, I got four kids. My youngest right now is a senior in high school.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:14:18]
You're in the thick of it.
Jack Rice:
[00:14:19]
Oh, brother, you have no idea. It's a nightmare. And the fourth is getting ready to go to college. And we're dealing with all of these scholarships and applications and all of these companies coming to us saying things like, we can help you with your testing, we can help you with scholarships, we know people in schools. I mean, the problem that I have with it is that I hate the unfairness of it all. I hate the unfairness of it all. And yet at the same time, which makes me want to go after them. And yet at the same time, I know absolutely there are people who are connected, who know the boards of Regents at Yale and Harvard and SC and UCLA and wherever else. And it's just fine if I know these people and I can pull triggers or what how about this, I can build you a library in your school. Yeah, my kid's kind of a knuckle dragger, but I can build you a library.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:15:13]
Right.
Jack Rice:
[00:15:13]
You know? And I'm like, yeah.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:15:16]
A hundred percent.
Jack Rice:
[00:15:17]
See, that's the part that gets to me. I mean --.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:15:19]
Yeah. No, I mean, this was another question I was going to ask you, but let's jump into it, because he has infamously described this scheme as the side door, right? He said that there's the front door, which means you get in on your own. There's the back door through institutional advancement, which is ten times as much money. And I've created this side door and he's talking exactly what you're talking about. This has been going on for forever.
Jack Rice:
[00:15:47]
Forever.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:15:47]
You just have to pay ten times as much as what Singer was asking you to pay. And the way that he would describe it to a lot of these parents is, hey, I'm just making sure that the funds are getting to the proper people quickly. And a lot of these parents were not charged because they didn't feel they were doing anything wrong, and it didn't appear that they were doing anything wrong, if you appreciate their perspective on it. But I agree with you, it begs the larger question of how do we eliminate this all together or can we? As long as there's wealthy parents and people desperate to get into these institutions, is it just going to be part of life?
Jack Rice:
[00:16:23]
Well, the thing is, is again, I'm again father of four. The youngest one's right on the cusp. The thing is, is how much effort have I gone to? I mean, I don't know how many applications we've filled out together. How many times it said, "Dad, I need 80 bucks", "Dad, I need $250", "Dad, I need". And I'm like, here, babe, just take it, take it. Here's my card. Just keep it. It's yours. You just use it until it gets declined. And then we haven't even paid tuition yet. And the idea is, if I can get my kid into SC, if I can get my kid into UCLA, how much is that worth to my kid's life.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:17:05]
Right.
Jack Rice:
[00:17:05]
Now, you start asking that question and it isn't how much I'm going to pay now. How much is it worth to them in their life trajectory? And you have somebody who has the money. Is it shocking that what they're going to do is start pulling triggers and saying, you know what, I have somebody who is like the head coach of the football team, you think I'm not going to call them and say, what do I do next? Versus I mean, by the way, that all being said, let me be clear on this. I grew up in a trailer park. My parents never graduated from high school. My grandparents worked in the fields. My brother and I were the very first in our entire extended family to ever to go to college, let alone go to law school. And so, the idea that I could pick up the phone and call anybody, I didn't know what the hell I was talking about when I was applying. And so I looked at this and I'm like, yeah, is it fair? That's not fair either. So this one, I'm just like, yes. Does it suck? Yes. What he did was he helped them cheat on their tests. My response to that would be, guess what, SATs, LSATs, master's program tests, these are all, all of them. They have found out they are objectively biased towards certain people, against people of color, against those who are from outside of the country. It has nothing to do necessarily with intelligence. It's written by a certain group of people for a certain group of people. So am I really outraged at this guy because he's playing the system, that others are playing it differently.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:18:35]
Right.
Jack Rice:
[00:18:36]
And I'm the guy who's getting screwed at the end of the day, right? Because I don't have the money. I don't have the connections. I don't have the guy who's saying back door, side door, front door. I got none of that. So I'm torn.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:18:50]
Yeah, well, the one wrinkle, though, and I agree with everything you're saying. The one wrinkle, though, that I think made his conduct more offensive to me was his profiting off of it. Right. It would be one thing if he was running this kind of scam and wasn't really dipping his hand into it. He made $15 million that we know of off of this scam. And I've seen, especially in the federal system, people, you get into the seven figures in a fraud scheme, you're doing several years in prison. Easy. And so, to me, I was thinking is he being showed some favor here because there was no clear victim in all of this or was it his cooperation that perhaps bought him a lot of time? Go ahead.
Jack Rice:
[00:19:41]
Okay. Well, so let's say I got a kid who can throw a football really, really well. And Penn State or Michigan or UCLA says, "Well, heck, we'll give you a free education, but we're going to make $50 million off that Army." And they do it all the time. So, UCLA makes 50 million, gives this guy a $100,000 education, which is awesome. But if we're talking about who's making money on this thing, I mean I'm sorry.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:20:14]
No, you're right.
Jack Rice:
[00:20:16]
There's your motivation again. So, you know, we can wrap ourselves in the laurels around our heads and we can put the graduation cloaks around our shoulders. But at the same time, I just see it packaged slightly differently, but it sure feels the same way to me, Josh.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:20:35]
Yeah, yeah. And you're right. I mean, some of the parents, they probably would have paid him his vague anyways, right? If they knew that, hey, I need you to give me 500,000 bucks. I'm going to take half of that, I'm going to give the other half to this person who's going to get your kid in. I think a lot of these parents would have said, fine, just as long as he gets in.
Jack Rice:
[00:20:56]
I can show you on my cell phone right now emails I'm getting from companies who can "help" me get scholarships. You think they're doing it for nothing?
Joshua Ritter:
[00:21:07]
Right.
Jack Rice:
[00:21:08]
They're all coming to me saying all I need is X number of dollars in order to do that. So, my question is, are they motivated by altruism, are they motivated by the bottom line? I think I'm doing pretty good on this argument, Josh.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:21:21]
Oh, you are, a hundred percent. No, the problem is that it's a broken kind of thing that we've got this, there's this desire that makes no sense and on a lot of it is just kind of the prestige of it or you feel like you're giving your kids this leg up. Maybe you are or maybe not so much, but it's this idea of this desperate desire to get these kids into these very elite schools.
Jack Rice:
[00:21:50]
And it's also hard. It's also hard to quantify sometimes why it is that they get in. Yes, I understand. My father was the secretary of defense.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:22:05]
Right.
Jack Rice:
[00:22:06]
My father or my mother is a famous actress in Hollywood. I have a gold medal from the Olympics. I mean, it happens all the time. All of a sudden, you see this person who was a gymnast who has a gold medal, who's at Harvard and my response, are they all that utterly brilliant? And I'm talking about intellectually brilliant. Or do you think we got a couple of knuckle draggers in the group? I mean, I'm sorry. But what you see is Harvard is like, oh, I want that gold medal, please. And you're like, why? Well, what's that going to do for you intellectually? But they're looking for something too. They want something, too. Everybody wants something, Josh.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:22:56]
I know. Finally, we turn to Kenosha, Wisconsin, where a new trial and this is the one I really want your thoughts on here, Jack. A new trial has been scheduled for Mark Jensen, a former stockbroker convicted in 2008 of poisoning his wife, Julie Jensen, with antifreeze. Nearly a decade earlier, it was alleged that Mark murdered his wife to continue his affair with his coworker, who he later married following his wife's death. Mark's defense alleged that Julie's death was a suicide, arguing that she had a history of depression, and her death was a reaction to her husband's infidelity.
The case gained notoriety for a highly controversial piece of evidence used by the prosecution. Get this, a letter which was written by Julie expressing that she would not commit suicide. And in the event of her death, her husband should be considered a suspect. This led to Mark's conviction being overturned in 2013, with the court agreeing that the evidence violated his Sixth Amendment right.
Now, prosecutors will attempt to retry Mark for murder. However, statements made by Julie and the letter will not be used in trial. Mark Jensen's trial is scheduled for January 9th of this year. This was the case that I was really happy to talk to you about, because I know you have such an interesting take on these things and an understanding of this. But could you first explain for listeners exactly what was going on with this letter and why the court decided to throw it out?
Jack Rice:
[00:24:26]
Okay. It's complicated because it kind of goes up to the Court of Appeals. It comes back down. They start looking at Supreme Court cases, too. So federal, the US Supreme Court cases that could impact what that means, what the Sixth Amendment means or how you look at something on appeal. So it gets complicated. But maybe if we pull back for a second and think about it this way, sometimes what can happen is if you had something called a dying declaration. And what that means is, you know, the police come and there's a woman with a knife in her chest and she goes, "It was Josh Ritter. That guy did it to me." That's probably going to come in. And the reason that's going to come in is because it's part of an investigation, an ongoing investigation. It's non-testimonial, if you will. At least that's the argument they're going to make, that it wasn't actually testimonial. And if you caused it, that's the argument, that may all be a piece of why that comes in differently. And so, that's really part of this argument. This is not that.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:25:29]
And explain too, just so everybody's following along, the reason it wouldn't come in is because it's hearsay, because otherwise you're talking about a statement that's made out of court that you're trying to present, and the person is not testifying to it in court, but this is an exception to that.
Jack Rice:
[00:25:44]
Right. So that's true. If we actually started with step one, I went to step two. The idea is if you have an out-of-court statement and you want to say, let's get in that out of court statement, generally speaking, the rule is it doesn't come in, generally speaking. And so, this is an exception to that rule that would say, oh, it was Josh, he did that to me, that's the exception. And so, what you're saying here is the prosecutors were trying to bootstrap that concept with this letter by saying this is the equivalent of the knife in the chest and the police show up. Well, the thing is, is that, and the judge agreed by the way, that's why they let it in. And then they took it up to the court of appeals. And what you saw then was a fight on whether or not it was sufficient or insufficient. And what they actually did is they argued it slightly differently. They started arguing that well, they had enough evidence despite that to win. And so therefore, no harm, no foul. That's for rather than use the legalese, no harm, no foul, they still had enough on him. That was whatever. Even if we excluded that, that was error, but not a big deal. The problem is, is what this was when you really look at it, is it's a very big deal because this is a unique piece of evidence that you can't confront. It wasn't non-testimonial. It is hearsay. And the problem is, is what it does is it points unilaterally at this man, and he has no way of being able to respond to it. And he's stuck with this letter that says, my husband murdered me. There's no way you can fight that fight. And it was something that was premeditated on her part. She wrote this stuff down. It feels wrong for a lot of people because they're saying, if I die, you should be looking at this guy. That seems like it should have value. And yet at the same time, this idea and one of the reasons we talk about hearsay and non-hearsay for those of us who aren't lawyers is that it's all about the ability for somebody who is charged with a crime to be able to confront the person who actually did and said and wrote something. If you can't, then what we can do is mail in all kinds of stuff from other people that says things, and we don't have the ability to confront them about what they did or did not say. And that's really a big part of what they were looking at in this case and why they decided we're going to go forward, we're going to retry this case after, what is it, 14 years now. By the way, he was sentenced to life. So, 14 years, he's in custody. He always said from the beginning, I never did this thing. He didn't testify, but I didn't do this thing. This new trial will mean that the prosecutor has to come back and try this case, but they don't get that piece of evidence. And that is a massive difference. And I think that in itself highlights why it is that that piece of evidence wasn't just no harm, no foul. It was a monumental, the most important fundamental anchor to what made the prosecution's case so powerful.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:29:01]
Yeah. No, that was an excellent job of explaining all of that. Thank you. One thing I wanted to kind of dovetail off of what you said is I think to, because even if it was a dying declaration that you've explained, somebody stabbed me, you show up, I've got the knife still on me, I said Jack did it. You know, that's going to be a lot.
Jack Rice:
[00:29:22]
Josh did it.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:29:23]
Josh did it. Everybody's going to --
Jack Rice:
[00:29:24]
Don't point in me, brother. I don't know what you're talking about.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:29:27]
Everybody's going to allow that in. And part of the reason you still can't cross examine that statement in court, right? You still got all the same problems that you would have with the letter. The difference being is that the law has decided that there's something inherently reliable about that statement, you with the knife in your chest are likely not going to be making up lies with the last few breaths that you have. Where this letter is different is that she wasn't dying at the time she wrote this letter. She was suspicious that perhaps she was trying to do something to her but that doesn't carry the same kind of inherent reliability for why we have carved out that exception.
And that's the problem why I think the courts got it right, it should not have been allowed, especially given the evidence. I'm not trying to weigh in either way, did he do it or not to it, but especially given the evidence that she may have been suffering from her own kind of mental anguish at the time, who knows how reliable she was even at the time she's writing that letter. So, it is, and I agree with you, it's going to be a game changer in this case. They may still come back with a conviction, but, boy, is this a different case.
Jack Rice:
[00:30:40]
Well, you know, I mean they may, or they may not. I mean I agree with you. And again, that's the reason when we talk about hearsay, you know this out of court statement that there are exceptions to it. But all of those exceptions, every single one, is designed to basically say we have a little more under this circumstance that gives us some confidence that this is true and reliable. And so therefore, we're going to allow it. An example would be sometimes people will say an excited utterance.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:31:12]
Yeah.
Jack Rice:
[00:31:12]
Right. You chase something like when you're in the heat of it, you know, he's like, oh, I hate that Josh Ritter guy. And all of a sudden that comes in because it's more likely that it was just heat of the moment, it drops out of your mouth, it's more likely true. That's an example of maybe a little more confidence, just like it is if I'm dying and I'm on my last breath and I have Josh's name, I see how I keep saying this over and over again, Josh, just on my lips that somehow all people should be more confident that this is true. Then if it were just me planning, sitting back in the corner, don't trust that Josh guy, he is a hmm.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:31:57]
Yeah. And you the points that you make is that we really are talking about a constitutional right being at play here in the fact that we are allowing statements in that cannot be confronted and cross examined. Right. But in each of those exceptions and the ones that you point out, there's something that the courts have found that lends a reliability to it that outweighs whatever problems with confrontation. It's so why they allow these types of statements in which doesn't exist in this letter here. And so, I'm really going to be following this case because just from a law school kind of question point of view, I just think it's a fascinating example of, you know, as we're continuing to -- the law continues to just kind of. Define things and we get these outlier cases and it adds to our understanding of the right way to handle a trial.
Jack Rice:
[00:32:53]
Well, it also highlights something else in my mind is that sometimes and I remember I suspect you might have been this way. I certainly was early on. I had this perception that judges were sacrosanct, that they were perfect, that they were geniuses, and they would sit up on these benches and talk from on high down to us lowlands, and that whatever they did was true and correct. It's not. Frequently.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:33:17]
No.
Jack Rice:
[00:33:17]
Frequently. I find judges who don't know evidence. They don't know the law, they don't know procedure, and they're a disaster. I know some of the most brilliant jurists, judges who are incredible, but I have been in front of some who were less than credible. And in this particular case, this judge made a -- yeah, how about that? I'm running for Congress next year.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:33:43]
Yeah. You're being very kind.
Jack Rice:
[00:33:43]
Speaker of the House. I'm working to be speaker. Can I run next? Might be you and me.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:33:49]
Anybody's got a chance at this point. Yeah.
Jack Rice:
[00:33:52]
Yeah. In six months, people won't remember why that joke was funny. But it was. But you know, this example where this judge made this monumental, catastrophic mistake, this man may have paid 14 years of his life because that judge's saying, I'm just going to let it in. Great.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:34:12]
Yeah. Yeah, you're absolutely right. Yeah, we will see. You could be right. We will see if this is actually the game changer in that case. This was an absolute pleasure, Jack. Thank you so much for coming on this week. Where can people find out more about you?
Jack Rice:
[00:34:26]
You can go to the website, JackRiceLaw.com. I mean, I do a lot of stuff around the country and sometimes around the world, too. I'm getting ready to go and do some stuff in Prague in a couple of months. I was teaching in Istanbul not long ago. Before that, I was in Morocco. I've taught in Russia, in Republic of Georgia, and Uganda, Tanzania, Kenya, South Sudan. I mean, I teach trial advocacy stuff because I love this stuff. Josh, just like you, I just I can't help it. There's something about this that I just love.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:35:02]
That's very cool. I did not know that you go all around the world. I'm going to stay right here because I've got a two-year-old and a newborn on its way so I'm probably not going anywhere for a while. But next time you're on a trip, let me know.
Jack Rice:
[00:35:18]
Haven't you had enough? You need a break.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:35:19]
I do. I do.
Jack Rice:
[00:35:19]
Come with me.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:35:19]
Well, thank you again. And I'm your host, Josh Ritter. You can find me on Instagram and Twitter, @JoshuaRitterESQ. Please check out my website 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.
