[0:00][Music] good afternoon i'm angelico spanos and
[0:12]this is the law and crime report where we are diving into true crime and all legal headlines making headlines today first we'll get started with a preview to monday we are going to be covering a live hearing
[0:23]for justin ross harris for more than four years ago harris was sentenced to life in prison without parole for the murder of his 22 month old son
[0:34]cooper harris cooper died after being left in the back seat of his father's car for over seven hours while his father worked at a home depot office harris is now
[0:45]on a quest for a new trial him and his attorneys will appear in a three-day hearing that will be heard virtually we're going to revisit his trial and go back and look at harris parking his car
[0:57]with his son inside okay looking here at 9 25 17 is there anything in particular this video that you pulled where we see the suspect's car coming
[1:09]into the video so you should be in the top top left is that it right there um i believe so if you can hit play i can see it a little clearer
[1:20]that time is 9 25 17 correct yes is that it that it is okay just gonna
[1:29]continue and let it play
[1:50]okay now the cars come to a complete stop on this video what is the time uh 9 25 39 9 25 398 okay all right now i'm going to go ahead and
[2:02]start the video back again okay i've paused it again did we see at
[2:23]this point it's 9 25 56 do you see the door start to open i do so harris's attorneys filed a motion for a new trial back in
[2:33]2017 they said that the court made a number of errors that prevented harris from getting a fair trial some of those errors they say were the fact that harris was tried
[2:44]for separate charges related to allegedly sending explicit photos to a minor with us today to break all of this down we have imran ansari law and
[2:53]crime legal analysts as well as bernard phil alona former senior homicide prosecutor thank you both for joining us today coming out to you first imran
[3:03]this this this quest that harris is making to try to get a new trial do you think he has grounds here well i think he does have grounds because of the argument that his
[3:14]attorneys are making that these other charges were presented during the same trial and to the same jury those are charges that
[3:23]would tend uh as the defense is arguing uh to prejudice the defendant he was uh certain charges that were presented to that jury angelica
[3:33]uh were the charges associated with sending explicit images to a minor now there were the charges that were related to the unfortunate death and passing of this
[3:43]of his son which were malice murder and all the lesser included however the jury also heard these other charges related to the quote-unquote sexting to a minor those are
[3:54]charges that when coupled with the murder charges could arguably prejudice uh this defendant before the jury so if the defense really hones in on that
[4:05]posing the potential prejudice that he experienced because of these charges being coupled with those murder charges then i think that he may have a
[4:14]prevailing argument to get a new trial all right we will wait and see that is going to be live
[4:24]starting on monday bernard you know with this type of um case and the nature of this with a child obviously um do you think that we'll get a ruling
[4:35]from the judge there immediately or is this something that could take some time so it can take some time because obviously the results the end game of what happens
[4:47]with that decision is going to play a huge role under trial itself however being that the trial is already set to start i believe that maybe the judge will probably take a day or so
[4:59]to reach a ruling because they do want to move the case along all right and what are your thoughts on uh
[5:10]harris's defense here with with him not getting a fair trial do you think that he has grounds there i definitely think that he has grounds there because the reality angelica
[5:21]everyone is entitled to a fair trial you have a constitutional right to a fair trial here harris did not have a fair trial and the main reason why he doesn't have a fair trial
[5:32]is because they coupled this other allegation having to deal with the photographs of these kids that has nothing to do with the death of his son
[5:43]those charges should have been charged completely separate and apart from the homicide charges there's no relation to the two events and because there's no relation to the two events
[5:55]i believe that the jury their mind was cluttered and clouded by the negative connotations of that other charge and being that the case i don't believe
[6:06]that he got a fair trial all right bernarda imran thank you so much again that trial hearing will be live on monday here on
[6:17]law and crime we're going to switch gears now we have new updates on g-lane maxwell's indictment maxwell who is known to be the madam of jeffrey epstein has been held since her july arrest on
[6:29]charges that she procured teenage girls for epstein to abuse in the mid 90s well the socialite has pleaded not guilty and is preparing for a trial next july
[6:40]one of the three alleged victims in the indictment is now attempting to dismiss her civil lawsuit against maxwell and the epstein estate but attorneys for maxwell
[6:51]are objecting saying that they first need to be provided with a copy of a confidential settlement agreement that the alleged victim received from the estate the alleged
[7:03]victim annie farmer is 41 years old now she's identified as victim number two in the criminal case and she will likely be called as a witness if maxwell's case
[7:13]does go to trial next summer let's go back and listen to william sweeney the assistant director of the fbi announcing maxwell's arrest almost one year ago when our officers
[7:25]stood before you and announced the arrest of jeffrey epstein i stated that preserving the innocence of children is among the most important responsibilities we carry as adults
[7:35]too often adults in our society have turned a blind eye to the type of criminal behavior that we announced back then and announced again today the villains in these outrageous crimes
[7:46]are the adult perpetrators not the youth who are our neighbors our students vulnerable foster children and teens seeking support today we announced the arrest of one of
[7:58]the villains in this investigation early this morning delane maxwell was arrested in bradford new hampshire by fbi special agents and nypd detectives from the fbi nypd crimes against
[8:09]children task force our team from new york was assisted by special agents assigned to our boston newark new haven and albany field offices we've been discreetly keeping tabs on
[8:21]maxwell's whereabouts as we work this investigation and more recently we learned she had slithered away to a gorgeous property in new hampshire continuing to live a life of privilege while her victims live with the trauma
[8:32]inflicted upon them years ago we moved when we were ready and ms maxwell was arrested without incident like epstein miss maxwell chose to
[8:42]blatantly disregard the law and her responsibility as an adult using whatever means she had at her disposal to lure vulnerable youth into behavior they should never have been exposed
[8:53]and which creates lasting harm we allege that from at least 1994 through at least 1997 miss maxwell assisted jeffrey epstein's abuse of minor girls
[9:04]by helping to recruit entice groom and abuse children under the age of 18. all right i want to talk about this with
[9:14]our guests again here today imran coming out to you first why is maxwell's attorneys why are they dismissing and putting you know kind of dropping the fact that
[9:25]the victim here wants to dismiss this civil lawsuit suit why would they do that so angelica the civil lawsuit and
[9:36]particularly the settlement agreement is a vehicle for discovery if you will that could be used in the defense in the criminal case you have any farmer who had brought a
[9:47]claim against elaine maxwell along with the epstein estate who is now taking advantage of this fund there was a fund the victims fund that has been set up she's going to be
[9:59]getting a settlement from that fund and now she's looking to dismiss with prejudice i would imagine the uh the lawsuit against the afc in the state and elaine maxwell
[10:10]elaine maxwell's attorneys are saying no before you do that we want to see this settlement agreement we want to see some discovery some parameters in that case so you would think that okay you have a
[10:21]plaintiff ready to dismiss a claim against the defendant the defendant would say hey that's great i'm ready to go you know despise the peace but no in this case they want to see that settlement agreement you know why
[10:32]angelica because they could use that information uh during the criminal trial if any farmer is on the stand and we know that she's victim to they could cross examine her they could
[10:42]say listen you've got a settlement in a civil case you received x y and z sum of money and they could sort of spin this defense this narrative that perhaps this was motivated not by
[10:54]being a victim of a crime but by money by a civil pursuit so that's why i think that elaine maxwell's attorneys are looking to say no before he dismiss this case we want to see that settlement agreement
[11:06]and we want to see the parameters and some information in that case all right and we know that right now she's still looking to be released
[11:16]on bail does this have anything to do with that or does this play into that in any way bernarda so her looking to be released on bail remember that at the last
[11:26]bail argument that this victim this complainant did offer some information at that bail hearing requesting that elaine maxwell not be released
[11:36]because she is a terror she is a threat to society giving her pimping out pretty much young girls so she did testify in that effect at that hearing
[11:47]now now in terms of what the defense can actually do is spin it and say that look this same person that is alleging that that i committed these acts is now
[11:58]requesting to dismiss the civil suit but separate and apart these are two different things obviously the disclosure of the settlement agreement
[12:07]is going to be huge for elaine maxwell's defense because in any case the jury has to decide the credibility of each and every witness so in judging
[12:19]the credibility of this complainant of this victim a huge part of discrediting her is that she entered into an agreement
[12:29]and does looking for money and it wasn't about something actually happening to her so this is going to be crucial for her defense at trial but doesn't really affect the bail
[12:40]argument all right bernarda imran thank you both we will be keeping our eye on that as new developments happen with the
[12:51]g-lane maxwell indictment we got to take our first break right now at the law and crime report stay with us plenty more
[12:56]after this and welcome back to the long crime
[13:12]report in ohio the supreme court upheld the death penalty for serial killer sean great great was convicted in 2018
[13:22]of aggravated murder and kidnapping in the deaths of elizabeth griffith and stacy stanley he later pleaded guilty to murders of three other women this is after trying to appeal his
[13:33]charges connected to the 2018 convictions a judge now says that there is no reversible error in the proceedings great argued that his defense lawyers were deficient
[13:44]for not asking to change the venue for his trial he also complained about two jurors who said that they recognized some of his victims and additionally he said that his
[13:55]defense counsel made no attempt to limit media access and were ineffective for withdrawing his plea of not guilty by reason
[14:04]of insanity the ohio supreme court did not agree though said that the death sentence was appropriate and proportionate to the other kidnapping and murders done by
[14:15]great we're gonna go back now and listen to one of the most compelling things in his trial that happened this was the 9-1-1 call from a woman that he was holding captive
[14:26]this was not one of the victims in his 2018 trial but a third woman who was actually able to escape because of this call let's listen john train john green
[14:44]shawn great where is he at now asleep where is he sleeping at in the bedroom what bedroom
[14:58]there's two houses right by the laundry street and it's in one of those houses but you're at the water event no i'm i'm in the bedroom with them this
[15:10]is not a whodunit case this is a he did it case the discovery of this defendant's crimes
[15:23]began tuesday september 13 2016. at 6 48 am a woman called 911
[15:32]from 363 covert court in the city of ashland 363 covert court is a yellow two-story house
[15:42]sitting just a couple of feet from an identical looking structure both houses are across the street from the laundromat
[15:51]on fourth street these houses are supposed to be vacant at the time they were owned by pump house ministries
[16:01]and other than the laundromat neither house with the exception of the other is near anything the area is desolate lonely
[16:15]and despite being out in the open in a way secluded although 363 covert court was supposed to be a vacant house it was very much
[16:26]occupied in august and early september of 2016. the defendant had chosen to take up residence
[16:37]and although he had run he had the run of its basement in two stories he chose to consolidate his assets in a room just off the kitchen separated from the
[16:49]rest of the house by a blanket affixed to the wall he had scouted the house he had watched it for a couple of days
[17:00]he wanted to be sure no one would mind if he moved in all right so we heard that 9-1-1 call and now some of the prosecution's
[17:11]opening statements from that trial um imran ansari with us here today as well as bernard of illinois imran you know what do you think of the supreme court they're saying that the death penalty here was
[17:23]appropriate you agree yeah angelica i think the opinion is spot on where it discusses that the overwhelming amount of evidence that uh
[17:34]tended to prove uh his guilt was enough to succumb uh or surpass i should say the defense argument that there was some ineffective assistance of counsel
[17:45]and that he didn't receive a fair trial to an amount that it would require a reversal of that conviction and of the imposition of the death penalty so i think that the overwhelming amount of evidence i agree with that
[17:57]assessment would override any ineffective assistance of council claim but what was really particularly interesting angelica is that the judge did take an
[18:07]opportunity to sort of throw a jab at his prior counsel and and they and the judge did say that um there was a departure if you will uh and
[18:17]a misstep by his counsel where they failed to present the psychiatric evidence that would have mitigated um on the capital case meaning the psychiatric evidence that
[18:27]may have tended to uh mitigate the likely the likelihood of him receiving the death penalty but regardless the court found that the overwhelming amount of evidence
[18:38]still was enough to uphold the conviction and also the imposition of the death penalty all right and you know with something like this which obviously was horrific
[18:49]in its nature um and you know that 911 call alone just being such a strong um piece of evidence here that ended up convicting him
[18:59]bernarda what do you think of that the nature of this really affecting the fact that he did get the death penalty
[19:10]so angelica when you look at the majority of inmates that are actually on death row around the country you rarely ever see a case where one of the victims
[19:22]are actually alive so this case is much different than the majority of cases around the country of those that are facing the death penalty or actually on death row that you have a live victim
[19:33]that was able to testify as to what she went through what she actually observed what she felt the horror that she went through so i think
[19:43]that definitely had a huge role in the jury determining that this man should face the death penalty and that is what makes this case stands out
[19:53]out of all the cases around the country and it was crucial and devastating to the conviction and the ultimate issuance of the death penalty
[20:02]for this man all right we're going to move on we want to listen to sean great actually pleading guilty let's listen
[20:14]you've heard the terms of the plea agreement it's not really a negotiated plea but basically you're you're at this point indicating a willingness to withdraw your former plea of not guilty
[20:26]to uh counts four five six eleven the specification account 11 13 14 15 the two specifications to 15
[20:37]count 16 the specification account 16 count 17 the specification account 17 count 18 the specification to count 18
[20:46]and counts 19 20 21 22 and 23 uh and to enter please and guilty to those charges today is that that correct mr great yes mr great did you have a discussion with
[21:00]your attorneys about the timing of deciding to do this today since a lot of these charges relate to a specific individual
[21:16]that is irrelevant to the other two in this case okay and you're aware that this is something that could have happened before this trial commenced and evidence that may not be relevant to the
[21:28]remaining charges would have been produced okay and what made you decide today at this
[21:41]point after all that evidence was in that now you did want to
[21:46]enter a plea to these specific charges
[21:58]all right so there you have sean gray pleading guilty to the murders um he was dubbed serial killer we know that he pleaded guilty to murders of three
[22:07]other women this is on top of the other two um two victims in this so when you have something like this unfolding and you have a death penalty conviction here
[22:19]uh imran what what does this mean when when someone like like great then goes to try to get this reverse do you think people are just like
[22:30]outraged of how he has even the the thought to do this because he did plead guilty right intellicut he he not only pled
[22:40]guilty uh but he pled guilty to some egregiously heinous crimes so i think there would be outrage when the public would be reading these news stories hearing this talk right now when they see
[22:51]grape now attempting to reverse what uh he willingly knowingly and voluntarily arguably uh entered into so um is it
[23:01]uh outrageous that he's now coming to court and looking to reverse what he did well his argument is that he had ineffective assistance of counsel so he's basically saying that when he did
[23:13]enter these pleas when he did sit there for the capital portion of this uh this case and the death penalty was imposed his attorneys were not doing what they
[23:23]were supposed to do and perhaps if he was guided accordingly he would have done uh something else made different decisions but yes i mean you look at the facts of this case
[23:34]and you're just outraged and i'm sure the public uh there in ohio is likewise outraged when they're saying um looking at this going on in court and saying okay now he's back
[23:44]and he's looking to reverse what he um arguably entered into knowingly and voluntarily right absolutely it'll be uh definitely
[23:56]i'm sure the families of the victims here could not believe that he did that so again the ohio supreme court upholding the death penalty for sean great we got to take a break right now
[24:07]in law and crime when we come back plenty more of today's top legal
[24:10]headlines stay with us and welcome back a new law adding
[24:26]protection for judges in new jersey was just signed daniel's law named for a judge esther solace's son will keep judges home addresses and
[24:38]numbers private this is part of a new law that was pushed for a judge who lost her son during a deadly ambush attack at her home the bipartisan legislation
[24:48]will make it a crime to publish the addresses and telephone information of judges and their families online i want to talk about this now with our guests imran ansari as well as
[24:59]bernard villalona bernarda this is obviously a good law coming to be signed right now but sadly this is coming to light after a very
[25:10]unfortunate situation unfortunately it took such a tragedy like this to take place for the government and for the world to take notice that the publication
[25:22]of the addresses and contact information from judges and prosecutors could lead to a tragic incident like this so angelica you know i was a prosecutor
[25:32]for 16 years 10 of those years i worked and prosecuted homicide cases and i can't tell you the numerous amount of times where my safety and the safety of others
[25:44]would put in jeopardy from those that were looking to cause harm or try to stop us from prosecuting their loved one for killing someone
[25:53]it's something that lingers in your head every day as you walk and go to court as a prosecutor when you're just trying to do your job
[26:03]so i love that this finally came about and i'm hoping that the rest of the country does follow suit all right and imran what are your
[26:15]thoughts on this yeah angelica i mean it's really uh sort of a no-brainer here that when you have public officials such as judges prosecutors doing work
[26:26]which may uh you know irk people out there in the public may get defendants and their families upset with them that this information would be kept private of course we want an open
[26:37]forum when we deal with our government officials whether it be judges politicians or prosecutors but this is the sort of personal information that you really would expect to be kept
[26:47]private especially because judges and prosecutors and law enforcement are dealing with such sensitive and controversial subjects and violent individuals on a daily basis um so i think that the
[26:58]law is well placed it's uh you know it's thankfully it's in place now and and and hopefully across the country those states that don't have this will be following suit
[27:08]because you want judges and prosecutors law enforcement to go about their jobs without this in the back of their mind you want them to make the decisions appropriate in order for justice to happen and not
[27:20]be afraid that if they make a decision on the bench or they make a decision to prosecute or arrest that they're going to have some sort of retribution both for themselves or their family you want them to have a clear mind in
[27:31]order to do their job properly so i think that this this law it's well placed and uh thankfully it's in the books now all right imran bernarda thank you both
[27:42]we're gonna switch gears right now christopher otero rivera and his father angel rivera are facing murder charges in the death of otero rivera's estranged wife
[27:53]nicole montalvo she disappeared after dropping their son off at the rivera's home in october of 2019 her body was later found dismembered and
[28:03]buried on two properties owned by the rivera family well now their attorneys are arguing that evidence obtained in early search warrants should be thrown out because they say
[28:14]that it was unlawfully collected in a hearing this week the defense said that they don't believe the warrants gave them authority to search underneath the earth let's listen events i think we have laid out i know
[28:30]we put out a lot we we called in a lot of witnesses back in october and there was a point to bring in all those witness all those witnesses while they were here for quite some time
[28:39]there was one or two points that um kind of come into play when we think about franks and the omissions um we believe that we've established that the omissions i'm going to lay out were material
[28:50]and whether it was intentional or just a reckless disregard for the truth um law enforcement laid out their affidavit in a way that
[29:01]deceived judge clark about what they had and why they were entitled to a search warrant of the rivera family the first point is
[29:10]uh the search searches at hixon um when they wrote their affidavit they never discussed what had happened prior to them requesting the search warrant
[29:20]what we know is that on the 23rd there were some issues about no one had talked to nicole no one had seen the call and the first officer to get over to the
[29:32]rivera property was deputy deco he talks to mr rivera at 9 30 in the morning um he leads from there get a call from the state attorney's investigator to get back over to
[29:43]the hixson property because not only are they going to be there but they're going to send the probation officers over there now i know the state's going to argue like hey this was not a warrantless search and
[29:54]uh perhaps it wasn't your standard search because we know what we were dealing with but you had five officers that go into the hixson property um miss witherspoon testified and i
[30:04]believe that she was reluctant to say what she needed to say and i think we know why but in any event what we did get out was the fact that there were five people there she went into the home they spread out
[30:15]through the home whether they didn't take pictures or open drawers they were not looking for little pieces of evidence what they were looking for was was nicole montalvo at the residence was her car at the
[30:26]at the residence whether you want to call it a war research or not they were there and what they came out of the resident residence with was there was no signs of the coma towel there was no
[30:37]vehicle of the coma it's not what we learned later it's what they knew at the time and so i will continue to go back to that point because that's what we have to look at for purposes of whether they have probable cause for the
[30:49]search warrant what did they know at the time at the time all they knew was she was there she left and she text mr rivera's phone two hours later at that point they had no reason not to
[31:00]believe mr rivera so armed with that they still keep deputy deckel at the premises and he's there for 24 hours or let me not misrepresent the osteo county
[31:11]sheriff's office is there for for a number of hours until they execute the war the next day that same day on the 23rd detective miller and detective sastry they go into the family home the
[31:22]rivera's um uh uh welcomed them into the home they interview mr rivera senior rivera they interviewed christopher otero and they interviewed wanda rivera that interview led to
[31:34]no information that nicole was there her car being there they basically gave him whatever they want detective miller said he didn't see anything he didn't search the property but he didn't see anything that caused
[31:46]him any concern that was that that has been omitted from the first search warrant and and i'll go into why that's important the second part was
[31:55]in the search warrant they talk about um the fact that christopher rivera um was on community control because when you look at the first search warrant it's not about angel
[32:07]rivera it's not about wanda rivera we are focusing on well at least osceola county sheriff they're focusing on christopher otero so this is from a missing person investigation to
[32:18]mr otero in his affidavit he says that he details the information i've already provided and then he starts talking
[32:29]about christopher and nicole how they were separated and he's living with his parents and some some research he did revealed that
[32:38]he was on probation community control house arrest and that there was an active injunction all right so that was defense there
[32:50]making their argument that a lot of the evidence obtained here was not obtained lawfully they're talking about cell phone data
[32:59]as well as uh warrants and other information that wasn't included in some of these affidavits so bernardo when you hear this and when you see
[33:09]the defense trying to make this claim what is your reaction well angelica every defendant has their constitutional right to dispute
[33:19]whether any search of their property or their items was lawfully done so obviously if they are able to get this suppressed get this illegally seized evidence
[33:31]suppressed then it will severely weaken the case of the prosecution so it is crucial for the defendants to actually litigate this kind of motion and to go very
[33:42]hard in litigating this kind of motion because it will have tremendous impact on the strength of the case of the prosecution so if the prosecution were to lose
[33:53]all of this evidence i'm not sure whether they even will be able to go forward with the case but for the very least they probably will not be able to prove the defendant's guilt beyond a
[34:04]reasonable doubt all right and when you when you think about the fact that
[34:13]this was a dead woman uh how would it be that the officers wouldn't they have to have acted in this case like this is not a uh you know
[34:24]small crime that we're talking about so of course the police would have to have acted based on
[34:35]all the information that they had at hand however the acting of the police is still guided by the constitutional rights of every individual in this country so
[34:47]but what the prosecution can do is argue that there was exigent circumstances and exited circumstances would be what allowed them
[34:57]to actually go on to the property if they feel that the evidence that would have been there would have been destroyed so it still allows them to act
[35:08]however it would be up to the judge to determine whether the police rightfully acted given the totality of the circumstances all right bernarda thank you we're going
[35:21]to talk more about this after the break stay with us here on law and crime and welcome back to the law and crime
[35:39]report we have more defense closing statements from christopher artero rivera's hearing this is about them trying to say that obtaining the
[35:49]search warrants to search his property was done incorrectly especially when his wife was still just listed as a missing person let's listen
[36:01]that they had a prior domestic violence situation and that was that what he felt to include was that he was also not just house arrest
[36:12]he was on community control level two why why is that important because what he had on him was a gps and i'll tie that into the next omission he had a gps but what
[36:23]what detective human does is just indicate he's on community control house for us the next the next thing he sells to oh what he omits from the affidavit was
[36:33]the fact that about two hours before he submits his his affidavit for a search warrant he feels to include that he locates nicole montalvo's vehicle and where he finds that
[36:45]vehicle is at big sky and why is that relevant that's relevant because big sky is eight to ten miles away from the hixon property and i think what that does is if judge
[36:58]clark was provided with that information she may have paused and she may have paused because what they are suggesting in the
[37:08]affidavit is this nicole montavo drove to hixson and she never left the coastline is at hixon and it's still there
[37:19]but nicole and and um and therefore she has been kidnapped by christopher otero and the reason why the omission is this
[37:31]because judge clark may have clause and said well wait a minute if mr otero is your suspect and he's on a gps and he has not been violated because that was another point
[37:41]asa daniel pennell knew from the get that that mr otero had never left the premises he was never where he wasn't supposed to be so there was absolutely no violations
[37:53]so then the question becomes well if mr otero is your suspect and nicole montavo drove her car to that place and neville left how is it that that car ends up in big sky
[38:04]yet mr otero is still at hixon and never left that was deceptive to judge clark they did not give her that information because they knew
[38:16]she may have caused she may have questioned wait a minute you need to go back and investigate a little more because you can't think about angel rivera whether he was involved at that moment
[38:26]or wanda rivera this is about the only person that they identify in this affidavit is christopher otero and his relationship with
[38:35]miss montalvo all right so more there from the defense i want to get your opinion on this imran so now that we've heard what the defense is saying here
[38:46]about these warrants and about the way that they were gone about what are your thoughts on them trying to make this argument do you think that this
[38:55]will be uh successful angelica this is classic fourth amendment search and seizure law they're looking to attack the probable
[39:07]cause upon which these search warrants were issued they're talking about deception they're talking about uh miss construing facts or leaving out certain
[39:17]facts in the uh the affidavits that were presented to the judge in order to get this search warrant and that's what we call looking to establish the fruit of the poisonous tree argument
[39:29]that's saying that anything that was part of this poisonous tree and that would be the illegal or unlawful search warrants that were improperly uh gotten by the prosecution and on law
[39:40]enforcement if you will um would the fruit that would be the evidence coming from this tree would not be able to be used at trial because it's a fruit of the poisonous tree meaning that the warrant from inception
[39:52]was unlawful it was improperly gotten and and now you can't use that evidence and as bernard had said before the break you know that is the best way to sort of cut down that tree
[40:01]to cut uh undercut the prosecution and take away evidence that the prosecution may be relying on to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt at trial as a defense attorney if you're
[40:12]able to suppress evidence based on search and seizure law based on violations of the fourth amendment uh on an improperly gained warrant well you know what you're putting
[40:22]yourself at an advantage and you're undercutting and cutting out uh the prosecution case and their ability to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt and that's what they're trying to do here they're trying to take away the
[40:33]prosecution's evidence by uh getting it suppressed and if they're unable to do that angelica well i think that they're going to be able to really put on a better defense for their clients all right imran thank you so much we're
[40:49]going to switch gears right now we want to talk about our last topic of the show today there are new developments with the murder of 59 year old journalist
[40:58]jamal khashoggi he was killed in istanbul in the saudi consulate last october well now the cia it's determined that they cannot block
[41:10]a video that was acknowledged by president trump being expo or being shown or exposed a tape of him entering the consulate was
[41:20]found and president trump had alluded that there could even be a tape of his actual murder because it was acknowledged um that now the cia cannot
[41:32]block that information now um after being pushed for more details about his death and for those um idea for the investigation
[41:42]to be released the cia now says that it cannot refuse to disclose whether or not they have this tape of the murder the tape's existence
[41:52]was again acknowledged by trump publicly as well as vice president mike pence so this does mark a small victory for the open society justice initiative
[42:03]which was one of the groups that was fighting for the transparency surrounding khashoggi's death and his investigation my question here for you all
[42:14]is whether or not that because it was simply acknowledged by the president does that mean that it has to be uh released now imran i'll come to you
[42:25]first well judge paul engelmeyer of the sdny a very uh cautious and very careful judge when rendering decisions has issued this decision and it's
[42:36]basically saying listen there's been acknowledgement by the executive branch by president trump and vice president pence and cia director gina haspel that there's evidence
[42:47]possibly a video and most likely a report regarding uh khashoggi's death and an investigation into that so that's giving a good faith basis for this motion for this action to come
[42:58]forth in the sdny and for this open justice initiative um to seek transparency and there's a good faith basis to seek these documents and the cia
[43:08]really can't say that they don't exist or they're going to have to come forward with some more uh evidence or at least um you know some sort of proof that it
[43:18]doesn't exist so i think it is a victory um in for transparency and there's an acknowledgement here and perhaps we're going to see this investigation and perhaps we're going to see this tape
[43:29]come to public light all right and if this tape were to be released bernard this would be huge because there's been a lot of
[43:40]controversy surrounding this a lot of people wanting to know what exactly happened and as of right now we don't really know what exactly happened inside that consulate there's many
[43:51]speculations there's a lot of different ideas and theories floating around but if this tape's released it would be game changing right definitely because the tape the
[44:01]videotape is going to speak for itself so the truth will be revealed to the public of what actually took place in this embassy there is no hiding of the truth when there is videotape
[44:13]evidence of what actually transpired you're not able to spin it in any certain way because the video speaks for itself without the video sure people could have put out there
[44:24]this is what could have happened or this would have may happen but with the video now being in existence and if it were to be revealed to the country for us to see
[44:35]then it speaks for itself there's no way you can spin it absolutely and you know one of the things that was talked about was the fact that khashoggi was
[44:47]critical of the saudi government and he entered that consulate so there was a motive if you will he was a journalist writing about this so that was one of
[44:56]the theories here so again as bernardo said the tape would speak for itself and just be absolutely crucial in giving us answers and transparency in
[45:07]khashoggi's death that is all for today on the long crime report coming up we have more of our regular scheduled programming imran ansari bernardo villalona thank
[45:16]you [Music]
[45:33][Music] you