April 9, 2025 • 43 mins
When high-profile cases collide with Hollywood influence, the courtroom becomes a stage. Attorney David Gelman joins Killer Psychologist to unpack the truth behind the Menendez brothers, Bryan Kohberger, and Sean “Diddy” Combs. From Kim Kardashian’s public advocacy to the media’s grip on public perception, we explore the tension between celebrity influence and cold, hard evidence.
Spoiler: Gelman believes the Menendez brothers should stay exactly where they are.
As a former prosecutor and seasoned criminal defense attorney, Gelman breaks down the legal realities behind the headlines. He weighs in on the media firestorm surrounding Bryan Kohberger’s defense strategy, the federal investigation into Sean Combs, the lawsuit involving actress Blake Lively and the film It Ends With Us, and the chaos surrounding the Karen Read trial—where a former juror shocked the public by joining the defense team.
This episode pulls back the curtain on what really happens when fame, media, and justice collide.
Don’t forget to follow for more true crime and courtroom psychology.
IG: @dr.dana_anderson
X: https://x.com/drdanaanderson
Connect with David Gelman:
IG: https://www.instagram.com/davidgelmanesq
X: https://x.com/DavidGelmanEsq
Follow Craig Wetterer on LinkedIn:
https://www.linkedin.com/in/craigwetterer
Chapters
00:00 Introduction to Celebrity Justice
03:10 The Menendez Brothers Case: A Deep Dive
06:02 The Role of Media in Shaping Public Perception
08:52 Legal Implications of Celebrity Influence
11:58 The Impact of Sensationalism on Jury Selection
15:03 The Karen Reed Case: Mistrials and Juror Ethics
18:06 Comparative Analysis: Prosecution vs. Defense Strategies
22:35 Analyzing Evidence and Defense Strategies
25:01 Understanding Brady Violations in Legal Cases
28:27 The Prospects of Trial and Sentencing
30:28 Celebrity Legal Battles and Public Perception
34:04 The Risks of Psychological Evaluations in Trials
37:16 Diddy's Legal Challenges and Jury Dynamics
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/killer-psychologist--6020549/support.
Spoiler: Gelman believes the Menendez brothers should stay exactly where they are.
As a former prosecutor and seasoned criminal defense attorney, Gelman breaks down the legal realities behind the headlines. He weighs in on the media firestorm surrounding Bryan Kohberger’s defense strategy, the federal investigation into Sean Combs, the lawsuit involving actress Blake Lively and the film It Ends With Us, and the chaos surrounding the Karen Read trial—where a former juror shocked the public by joining the defense team.
This episode pulls back the curtain on what really happens when fame, media, and justice collide.
Don’t forget to follow for more true crime and courtroom psychology.
IG: @dr.dana_anderson
X: https://x.com/drdanaanderson
Connect with David Gelman:
IG: https://www.instagram.com/davidgelmanesq
X: https://x.com/DavidGelmanEsq
Follow Craig Wetterer on LinkedIn:
https://www.linkedin.com/in/craigwetterer
Chapters
00:00 Introduction to Celebrity Justice
03:10 The Menendez Brothers Case: A Deep Dive
06:02 The Role of Media in Shaping Public Perception
08:52 Legal Implications of Celebrity Influence
11:58 The Impact of Sensationalism on Jury Selection
15:03 The Karen Reed Case: Mistrials and Juror Ethics
18:06 Comparative Analysis: Prosecution vs. Defense Strategies
22:35 Analyzing Evidence and Defense Strategies
25:01 Understanding Brady Violations in Legal Cases
28:27 The Prospects of Trial and Sentencing
30:28 Celebrity Legal Battles and Public Perception
34:04 The Risks of Psychological Evaluations in Trials
37:16 Diddy's Legal Challenges and Jury Dynamics
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/killer-psychologist--6020549/support.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
Welcome to Killer Psychologist. I'm Dana Anderson, a forensic psychologist
and your host of the show. Killer Psychologist is for
true crime fanatics and anyone intrigued with the dark side
of psychology. Today, we are joined by the man with
all the legal hot takes that keep making headlines, Attorney
(00:27):
David Gelman, a man who's not afraid to call it
like it is. He's weighed in on everything from the
Menendez Brothers to Sean Diddy, Combes to Brian Kohlberger and
Karen Reid. And while celebrities might be reshaping public opinion,
(00:49):
Gelman's here to remind us where the law actually draws
its line. He's here with us on The Killer Psychologist
alongside my callie Craig Weder, to discuss the celebrity justice effect. Now,
let's talk about a case that refuses to die. This
(01:10):
is a case from nineteen eighty nine that hasn't faded
out of the spotlight decades later. The Menendez Brothers story
is still grabbing headlines and stirring controversy across mainstream media
and pop culture. Some call them monsters, others call them victims,
(01:39):
and somewhere between abuse allegations and a double barrel shotgun
lies one of the most debated cases in modern legal history.
Kim Kardashian said, the Menendez brothers are kind, intelligent and
honest men who've trans formed in prison. Do you buy
(02:02):
that or are we just getting bamboozled by the Kardashian
pr machine. What do you think, David?
Speaker 2 (02:12):
You know Kim Kardashian, she really has, you know, one
hundred percent accuracy in reading people. So you know, I'm
really not going to take her opinion when it comes
to how people are acting. Obviously, you know she was
married to Kanye, so we don't have to look too
far for that one. Look, this is a sensationalized case,
(02:33):
as you just pointed out. I really don't understand why
it's so sensationalized. The only reason it is I call
it the Netflix effect. You know, once it gets on Netflix,
which is pretty much the big screen nowadays, which it's
taken over how everybody watches movies and TV. If it
gets on Netflix, you know, game over. You're going to
(02:54):
be a celebrity overnight, whether you want it to or not.
And you know you're going to have this more and
more when it comes to different crime dramas, and because
I think it's just human nature. Now in this particular one,
I think Netflix definitely is trying to make the Menenda's
brothers out to be something they're not. That's just how
(03:16):
I'm looking at it. You know, people could disagree with me.
They're going to be wrong, but that's fine. They can
still disagree with me. The facts of the case are
the facts of the case, and nothing can change that.
The Menanda's brothers, they're saying that they were physically and
sexually abused by their parents. Let's just believe that, all right.
If that's true, no problem. However, they particulously planned the
(03:43):
brutal murder of their mother and their father. And it
wasn't just a murder shoot them boom done. No, this
was a shotgun to the head of both of them
while they were not looking, so it was you know,
assassin style. And then the mom was begging for her
life and they shot her multiple times thereafter. And not
(04:05):
to mention the abuse wasn't happening at that particular time.
If they were being abused at the particular time of
the murder, they could have a really good defense, but
they weren't. That is what just It drives me crazy
that people just are not realizing this. Oh, they were abused.
They were abused, So if everybody's abused, that means they
(04:26):
can kill whoever is doing the abuse. I mean, that's
really what everybody's trying to say, or the people who
are defending the Menendez brothers are saying, you can't do that.
We're not the type of society. That's why there are
laws here. But everything has gone against Menendez brothers. Every
appeal they have had has lost. They had two trials.
(04:48):
One was a mistrial, the second, which is very hard
to do. After a mistrial, the second trial was a
guilty verdict. Now, usually when you have a mistrial, the
second bite of the apps, it's not really good for
the prosecution. However, in this particular case, obviously there was
plenty of evidence in the jury of their peers believed
(05:08):
it that they committed the crime and that all that
sexual abuse, you know, that had nothing to do with it.
But the Menanda's brothers, they appealed it. They appealed it
to the superior Court, the Supreme Court of California. They
appealed it to the appeals Court of the Federal Appeals Court.
They appealed it to the district court. They appealed it
multiple times and to the circuit courts in California. Every
(05:30):
time they've gotten denied. So what has changed since then?
And now one thing Netflix and everybody is sensationalizing this.
That's it. So nothing else has changed? Now? Have they
changed in jail? Maybe they've grown a little mature. I
don't know they were. They were young guys when this started.
(05:52):
Nineteen twenty twenty one is something like like that. But
they planned this. They tried to get alibis, They tried
to get friends to be brought in to tell different stories.
So I understand they're sorry. Of course they're sorry. They
basically the rest of their life in prison. They're not
going to say they're sorry, then they really have something
wrong with them. But I guess I'm just not buying it.
Speaker 3 (06:12):
This whole self defense argument that they were making, or
at least the defense was was making, right, And you know,
we could talk about imperfect self defense and self defense
and such, but that defense strategy was a long shot, right,
And I think in the second trial, correct me if
I'm wrong, but the judge limited the amount of evidence
that could come in regarding the sexual abuse is that
(06:35):
I think that was what changed in the second trial
and then yeah, that factor and so once that was removed,
they got that guilty verdict. But that's interesting that you know,
even jurors still, you know, that mistrial was because that
that jury, that first juri couldn't come to a unanimous
verdict and it was because of the you know, that
that sexual abuse history that they you know, they testified
(06:58):
to it and they brought in, you know, some family
members and such. Regardless, that argument or that defense self
defense just doesn't.
Speaker 4 (07:06):
Fly in these fact pattern.
Speaker 3 (07:08):
It baffles me as well in terms of, like, how
can people get to that leap of logic where it's
like their lives were in danger of imminent great bodily
injury or death. That's the only that's the only time
you you have a defense to use lethal force in
California and in most jurisdictions, is if your life is
an imminent threat of a serious bodily injury or death.
(07:32):
How do they establish that when they're sitting in there
watching TV in their living room, right, I mean that's
where they were killed.
Speaker 2 (07:39):
They were killed on the couch. Yeah, but you can't
and remember this wasn't something that they just thought of
on a whim. Oh let's go kill nom and dad.
Oh yeah, this was planned.
Speaker 3 (07:47):
They went out and bought the shotgun at Big five
Sporting Goods, like, you know, a month before.
Speaker 2 (07:51):
Yeah, oh yeah, was it Big five?
Speaker 3 (07:54):
Yes, it was Big five, And I think it was
down in like San Diego or something. They drove to
a different city to buy it, you know, they didn't
buy it in Los Angeles County or Beverly Hills where
they were living at the time. I think they went
down to like San Diego to buy it. They went
out of town.
Speaker 2 (08:08):
They tried to cover all their steps. I mean, look,
they thought they got away with the perfect murder, and
they did for a period of time. But there I
guess there's really no such thing as a perfect murder
because eventually you're going to probably get caught.
Speaker 3 (08:19):
Yeah, well, in Beverly Hills PD back then, So this
is a funny take. You know, this my days as
as a police officer. But Beverly Hills PD, you know,
they don't get a lot of murder cases. You know,
in Beverly Hills generally is you know, as we all know,
it's pretty upscale. So There was some criticisms early on
about you know, that initial investigation because they kind of
were like Keystone cops initially, oh my god, we've got
(08:41):
a double murder here in Beverly Hills. Let's just say
their detectives didn't have a lot of experience doing.
Speaker 2 (08:47):
But were they trying to figure out who was fighting over?
Like who's long look better? Is that?
Speaker 3 (08:51):
Like well yeah, and and and you know, they're just
there were several strategic mistakes made in terms of how
you deal with a quote witness and or paul simple
person of interest, which again we always looked at the
family members and are the people closest to the victim,
you know, in any homicide investigation or if it's a murder,
(09:12):
you know, the first thing that as an investigator, I
would look at is the you know, the spouse, the boyfriend, girlfriend,
or the parent you know, or the children, et cetera,
because the probability is is that it's likely to be
somebody that knew the victims. Right there was they were
close to the victims, so they weren't looking at them
that way initially in the investigation, and I think there
were some missteps there.
Speaker 1 (09:32):
They weren't looking that hard early on. I don't think
those cops were looking that well in the beginning.
Speaker 3 (09:36):
You know, remember the whole story about the you know,
they thought they were trying to paint the story that
the mafia was involved. There was some type of it
was a hit, it was a calculated hit or something.
They were creating a narrative around that, and that's silly.
Speaker 2 (09:48):
You know, you don't go out and buy rolexes and
and stuff like that. You know, if you keep a
low profile, I mean, you know normal, Well if you're
not normal, if you kill somebody. But let's say if
you had a half a brain, you would think, all right,
we're got to keep low, you know, like it's a
remember the Good Fellows where they robbed that truck and there,
(10:09):
and then they come in and bought you know, mink
cokes and different cars and the naros like, you know,
you guys are idiots.
Speaker 4 (10:16):
Put them all away, right, Like where'd all that money
comes from?
Speaker 2 (10:19):
All of a sudden?
Speaker 1 (10:21):
I love that movie. Yeah, suddenly everyone's wearing furs. So yeah,
you get on Netflix and well this is also turned
very political, right for the district attorney, and I was
wanting to get into office, so that you use this
as this card to play.
Speaker 3 (10:40):
The Los Angeles District Attorney's office has changed since they
got Gas calling out so and I.
Speaker 2 (10:45):
Think this was like the nail in the coffin for
for Gas gone, because you know, he was all in favor, yeah,
of releasing these guys. And I think LA just said,
you've got to be kidding it right, like you're you're
going to just release murders who are conveyed, So, you know,
I think that was a nail on the coffin. And
then this new one who's in now, I forget his
name in the DA, but he is against it. And
(11:08):
I gotta tell you he put out he had a
press conference like what two weeks ago, three weeks ago,
and he put out a closing argument. I thought it
was awesome. I'm telling everybody, if you want to see
what a closing argument should look like, watch this guy.
He just destroyed it. And I don't think it's going
to go very well for the Menanda's brothers getting out.
I don't think a judge's going to to release and
(11:31):
I certainly don't think the parole board will be too
kind to them. But I could be wrong. I guess
I don't know.
Speaker 4 (11:37):
Well, it is California, as you know, so you know.
Speaker 2 (11:39):
That's what they have going for them. Yeah, and Kim Kardashian,
I you.
Speaker 3 (11:43):
Know, well, right, because if Kim says, you know, they
guys are legit, they're not a killer. She's a psychologist, right,
She's a she's a forensic psychologist, and she's trained in
understanding and how to tease out whether someone is a
psychopath or not.
Speaker 2 (11:55):
Right, I think so. And also isn't she an attorney? Right?
Speaker 4 (11:58):
Oh yeah, she also yes, years or something like that.
Speaker 2 (12:01):
I don't know. Yeah, yeah, he's an expert. I'd hire her.
Speaker 1 (12:05):
Well, she has her own show, So what does it
take to get my own Netflix special? So you know,
Brian Kolberger, he's up next for his own Hulu or
Netflix special. What message is this sending out there to people.
Speaker 2 (12:25):
Well, to potential jurors, right, well, number one, it's sending
a really dangerous message because it's sensationalizing killers. You know,
you're gonna have Luise MANGIONI. I guarantee you will have him.
He'll have one soon. This is just the world we
live in now. It's kind of weird where they're sensationalizing them.
They're almost like making them celebrities, and it's going to
(12:48):
make society look and like like normalize us, and it
should have been. Then there's going to be a lot
of sick people out there who are going to say, oh, well,
if i'd admit something like this, I'll be able to
get my own Netflix special, you know. And it's a shame,
but that's kind of the world we're living in now.
But Greg, you're right for jury's election, you know, this
(13:08):
is going to really make everything a lot more difficult
to pick a jury because look, Netflix, like I said,
everybody watches Netflix. So how are you going to have
a juror not know anything and not be able to
and not be biased against the defendant. You're literally you can't.
Speaker 3 (13:27):
Yeah, and that's a very good point. You can't because again,
you know, Netflix, the saturation is is significant in terms
of the number of people that have access to that
media platform. So yeah, I would be if I was
the prosecutor in the Coburger case, I'd be very concerned
about that about trying to get an unbiased jury because
you know, and again you know not, well, we can
get political.
Speaker 4 (13:47):
I guess I don't know, but let's just face it.
Speaker 3 (13:50):
Some of these shows they are framed in ways. They're
crafting narratives, and those narratives might be favoring one side
over the other. They could be trying to favor a
defendant or criminal defendant. So they're going to craft a show,
or they're going to craft a you know, an episode
or whatever, a documentary that only kind of frames things
in exculpatory you know, fashion in other words, it's not
(14:13):
they're not going to look at everything in totality, so
that I worry about that kind of stuff.
Speaker 2 (14:17):
Yeah, I mean, well, number one, look when you got shows,
they may you know, spread the truth a little bit,
but in the end of the day, they're trying to
make money. That's what they're doing, and everybody knows it.
So of course they're going to make somebody look a
little better than they should.
Speaker 1 (14:32):
I e.
Speaker 2 (14:33):
The Menendez brothers. It'll be very interesting you see how
the Kohlberger, how that's going to turn out. Look, Karen Reid,
same thing right now. They have movies about her on
like Lifetime or something like that. They're really skewing the
story and the narrative. And again it's all for money.
We all get that. But when you have a juror
that's going to see this, you know, they're human, all right,
(14:55):
They're not robots, so they're going to remember this. It
could potentially dictate how they would view a case.
Speaker 1 (15:03):
And let's talk about this juror that was on the
Karen Reed trial that was a mistrial, and now this
person's joined the defense team. I heard you make a
comment before, David that you'd never even heard of, you know,
a juror switching sides and joining the defense. Like what
(15:24):
are the legal and ethical implications of that?
Speaker 2 (15:28):
That's the first thing I thought of, like ethically can
you do this? And I'm thinking about and I asked
a couple of colleagues what their opinions would be, and
you know, we all came to the same conclusion that
number one, nobody has ever heard anything like this happening never.
But the second thing, I don't think there's any ethical violations.
(15:50):
There are ethical issues here, like so I don't and
I don't think anything has been raised yet in Massachusetts
from the state. So I'm thinking they're going to be
okay to do it. And when I see that, I
think to myself, Okay, So if a juror is saying
that Karen Reid is innocent, and they have such ingrained
(16:13):
in their head that they think it's their duty that
they have to go defend Karen Reid. What does that
say about the other jurors or the potential new jury
pool that will come about in the new trial. That
is a terrible look for the prosecutor. It's a bad omen.
I mean, think about it. Oh, hey, I'm Joe Schmoe. Yes, uh,
(16:34):
you may remember me. I was a jury on the
previous trial and now I'm representing Karen Reid. That's not
going to be a good look when they have to
introduce themselves to the jury.
Speaker 1 (16:43):
I know as soon as I heard that, it just
changes my perception of the whole trial. You know, guilt
or innocence, just that one thing, right, And this is
so how powerful the media can be with these narratives
and how it does shake people's opinions or perceptions and
(17:03):
even the final outcome of these trials.
Speaker 2 (17:07):
And also let's just remember it's very common if you
have a mistrial on your first trial and the state says,
all right, we're going to go forward again, that the
likelihood of conviction the second time around is not very high.
If you look at cases just in general, the likelihood
of conviction is way lower than a first time. That's
(17:30):
why you don't have a ton of second trials unless
it's absolutely necessary, or the state piels they have a
great case Menendez Brothers. You know, that's more of a
you know, a one off if you will, But overall,
you don't have good luck the second time. So this
Karen Reid trial that is really going to be very interesting.
(17:51):
I don't think the facts of the case are great
to begin with. First only. I think there's a ton
of reasonable doubt and that's all you need as a
defense attorney. Now you have a you have a mistrial
which will be brought into evidence that you know that
will that will be known. So I think that's going
to definitely raise a lot more issues for a jury
and it's going to make the prosecution even more difficult
(18:13):
second time around.
Speaker 1 (18:14):
So if Karen Reid didn't kill her husband, then who did?
Speaker 2 (18:20):
I don't know. That's a good thing.
Speaker 1 (18:24):
I don't know either. I mean, that's the question, right, So.
Speaker 2 (18:29):
Let's take a step back here. I'm not saying that
she didn't kill the husband, all right. I'm not saying
that her boyfriend, whatever they were. But I'm just saying
that the facts of the case, from what I know,
from what I've read, I've read quite a bit of
that of it, there is a lot of reasonable doubt.
That's what I say. I'm not saying she did or
(18:50):
didn't do it, because she certainly could have. But I'm
just saying as a defense attorney, I'm putting my defense
attorney hat on here. I am pounding reasonable doubt. And
reasonable doubt is Look, if you have a sentilla of
doubt that so and so did this, that Karen Reid
did this, you cannot vote to have Karen Reid be guilty.
(19:13):
And it's story if there's some type of doubt. And
so the defense is going to be throwing doubt out
in them left and right, going to be questioning each
and every witness that the prosecution brings, and they're going
to show whoever was investigating the case, and you know
a couple at least one officer was fired already because
(19:33):
of how he investigated the case. That's reasonable doubt right there.
So you bring that, you bring a bunch of other
evidence in there, you know you're going to be just
pounding the table each and every time about reasonable doubt,
and in your closing argument is going to just center
around reasonable doubt. I mean, I'm a broken record, but
that's exactly what you have to be.
Speaker 3 (19:53):
And that's the beauty of being a defense lawyer or
a criminal defense lawyer as opposed to the prosecutor, right,
because hey, that's all you have to.
Speaker 2 (19:59):
Do, it really is. It's a hell of a lot
harder being a prose Yeah.
Speaker 3 (20:03):
I mean you've been a prosecutor, right, Oh yeah, so
that's one thing I haven't done. I haven't been a prosecutor,
but I have. I have defended people in criminal cases.
And so I always say I have a colleague that
was a former police officer and is now a criminal
defense lawyer, and he's like, hey, he's like, this is
the ticket. It's so much easier, you know, because we
don't have to prove anything, right. It sits on the
(20:24):
prosecution side to prove every element.
Speaker 2 (20:25):
Y it really is, and the prosecutor they have a
high burden to prove and their case. Hell, we could
just sit back and you know, tell you I call
this one of the troubles over you know, hypothetically.
Speaker 4 (20:37):
Raise an objection here and there.
Speaker 2 (20:39):
Yeah, But as a prosecutor, I love doing it, Don't
get me wrong. I had a blast. I was had
a great time doing it, and I tried a lot
of cases and I won a fair amount too. But
it is night and day compared as a defense attorney.
Speaker 1 (20:55):
All right, David, would you rather be prosecuting Ryan Kohlberger
or would you rather be working with his defense team?
Speaker 2 (21:03):
All right? So that one. Everything I'm reading so far,
i'd probably go prosecution. Like I'm just winning or losing.
If that's the case, I gotta go prosecution. I like
what the defense is doing. They're really they're they're doing
a great job, but there's just too much evidence against
this guy. And then now they're saying that he's autistic
(21:25):
and they're trying to use that as a defense, which
is just not going to fly.
Speaker 4 (21:29):
Well, no, it's not.
Speaker 3 (21:30):
It's funny because you know, Dana and I did a
documentary with Fox Nation.
Speaker 2 (21:35):
What was it going on two years ago?
Speaker 3 (21:37):
Well, yeah, it was a while back, and I remember
that almost came up during our discussion as terms that
because we were talking about psychological factors and we had
to be really careful what we said, obviously, because you know,
we can't diagnose or anything, but we were discussing that
whole way before this even popped up.
Speaker 4 (21:53):
Is I wonder if autism spectrum might be involved here.
Speaker 3 (21:56):
Of course, you know, we can't diagnose because we'd have
to actually se him an assessin. But that's not gonna work,
Like you said, I mean, autism spectrum is not going
to be because you can't use NNGRI in Idaho.
Speaker 2 (22:07):
So I'm telling you he's going to plead. He will plead.
He's going to have to because his attorneys. Now you
had the sheet the big knife they found, and you
found his DNA game over, and then you had the
other aspects where his phone was turned off and then
turned on in the same areas.
Speaker 1 (22:26):
That's not a good look.
Speaker 3 (22:27):
Yeah, they've got circumstantial and they have some direct evidence
as well. I mean they've got you know, so they
do have good, good facts basically in good evidence.
Speaker 2 (22:35):
They do, they do. And then the bushy eyebrows and
all that kind of stuff. I mean, again, nobody saw
the guy. I get that. But and then his Amazon
search and buying history will also be coming in from
what it looks like, and you know he was searching
for this soul, this sheath and whatever it was.
Speaker 3 (22:53):
Well, and he bought a k bar Yeah, I think
they do have They have that Amazon purchase history, and
I think he purchased a k Bar knife on Amazon.
If I am not mistaken, Yeah.
Speaker 2 (23:01):
I believe he did. It's all I mean, look, there's
there's just so much evidence. Now, reasonable doubt, we'll go
back to it. That's defense. That's what they're going to
say all along. Defense. Yeah, reasonable doubt, reasonable doubt, you know,
because look, there might have been there's some miss sets
maybe in the whole investigation. But I got to tell you,
(23:23):
if i'm his defense attorneys, I'm going to look at
him and I'm like, look, dude, you're going to spend
the rest of your life in prison, or you're going
to get the death penalty. Potentially, you really should think
about let's see if we can avoid you know, you
dying or getting shot to death in Idaho, which is
their death penalty. So I think that's what they're going
to do because it's not going to be good. And also, look,
(23:45):
it's Idaho, all right. Idah is not a huge populated state,
So you're gonna have to live under a rock unless
you don't know anything about this case.
Speaker 3 (23:56):
And your jury pool in Idaho tends to on average
be a lot more conservative in terms of you know,
just looking at the political leanings, you know, unless you're
in like the Boise area. But that's another thing that
they're going to have to look at, which is your
jury pool. What type of juror are you going to get.
This is a you know, Second Amendment heavy state where
(24:16):
they believe in the rule of law and they don't
put up with nonsense there you know.
Speaker 2 (24:20):
Oh yeah, look, I've been. I know, it's a beautiful thing.
I love it. Yeah, very nice. People were very very nice.
But yeah, they are a very Second Amendment pro gun
which I you know, I think is very cool, and
I think that it's going to be very pro prosecution,
which defense knows. You know, they're not stupid, they and
they I think they've done a great job in trying
(24:42):
to keep evidence out. You know, there's only so much
you're going to be able to do. I really think
they've done a fantastic job so far. But when you're
giving oranges, you know, there's only so many things you
can do with it.
Speaker 1 (24:55):
So I heard something about a Brady violation in this case.
Speaker 2 (25:01):
Oh yeah, of.
Speaker 3 (25:02):
Course there's going to be you know, Brady claims be
put up. So do you want to talk about a braid.
Speaker 2 (25:06):
You don't have to get all the evidence all the time,
don't worry about that, of course.
Speaker 3 (25:09):
I mean if they could discredit any of the officers
and any of the investigators you know that could be
under the Brady you know doctor, and then sure they're
going to be able to get potentially get some of
this evidence suppressed. But I'm going to say it's common.
But do you want to explain what a Brady violation is?
I mean the audience may not know what that is.
Speaker 2 (25:26):
Yeah, so this is a Supreme Court case. Pretty much.
What it means is, look, when you are the defendant,
you are entitled to all the evidence in your matter,
all the evidence that was obtained by the state. You
are entitled to it. Now, if evidence is being withheld,
and it's being withheld illegally, we're meaning like you know
(25:46):
they have it and they just don't want to tell
you they have it. That is what they call Brady violation.
And if you find out about it and they're trying
to use it, that evidence will be excluded from trial
and also, let's just put this in there as well.
The prosecutor will definitely get in trouble sanctioned, this barred.
Whoever knows, you know, what'll ever happen. You're right, Greg,
(26:09):
it is somewhat common to bring that issue up. However,
it is very rare. Not saying it's impossible, but it's
rare that a prosecutor will commit a Brady violation because
if they do, they are they're going to get bired.
Number one, their reputation is down the drain, and they
(26:31):
could potentially get this barred. So prosecutors, they don't make
a ton of money to begin with, they're not going
to rest their career on withholding evidence. It's very rare. Actually,
there was a prosecutor here in New Jersey. It happened
to about a year and a half ago. But nobody
liked her, so you know, oh well.
Speaker 4 (26:49):
Get her out of here.
Speaker 3 (26:50):
And I don't know if this in the specific Brady
violation here, if it has to do with officer, if
you know, if the prosecution is withholding any evidence of
say an officer's misconduct, that's actually that was the Those
are the facts of the actual Brady case where you know,
there was an officer who had disciplinary history and was
alleged to have falsified you know, evidence or falsified information
(27:11):
in an official investigation. And if that officer is on
the Brady List, and so DA's offices now I believe
across the United States have to keep a list of
peace officers who have had any kind of integrity violations
that could affect their credibility as witnesses in a criminal case,
(27:32):
and and the prosecution has to disclose that. So, Dana,
do you is that what's going on here? Are they
saying that prosecution is not turning over potential exculpatory evidence.
Speaker 2 (27:43):
I think it's the latter.
Speaker 3 (27:44):
Well, yeah, I mean it could be either, right, So,
I mean it looked like you said, David, it's like,
you know, that's the defense attorney's job. I mean, you're
trying to get you know, if I could find anything
on any you know, you the DA doesn't turn over
any any even sliver of evidence that could could be exculpatory.
(28:05):
I'm going to raise that as an issue obviously, right.
Speaker 1 (28:08):
But honestly, do we think there's anything that can save
Colberger at this point or salvage his soul? I mean, obviously,
I have my own opinion on that, So I'm going
to go with David on that one. I'm going to
be on the profits prosecute too.
Speaker 3 (28:26):
Yeah, if you take it to trial, I mean I
I yeah, if I was to bet on it, I
you know, I think the probabilities are he would likely
and I don't want to say with certainty, but he
doesn't have the odds in his favor in my estimation.
So yeah, I definitely would want to be the prosecutor
as well in that case. And they're going death penalty, right,
They're definitely going death penalty there, and you'll get it
(28:48):
if you get a conviction, right, that's going.
Speaker 2 (28:50):
To be a slam dunk if they if they get
the conviction, I think that's their biggest negotiating piece right now. Hey,
we'll take death penalty off the table, but you better
be guilty.
Speaker 3 (28:59):
Yeah, unless that the DA's hardcore, you know, they might
say nope, we're taking it to trial, you know, because
it's a you know, huge media coverage and all that
kind of stuff. So again, the DA has you know,
may have motives too to want of like nope, you
know we're taking it to trial. We're not reducing this.
You know, we're not going to reduce to life in prison.
This will be interesting to see what happens, because when's
(29:20):
this trial going to be going It's this has been
going on three and a half, what almost three and
a half.
Speaker 2 (29:24):
Years now, I mean, this is is it that long? Yeah?
Speaker 3 (29:28):
And again you know this is another strategy, right if
I'm the defense, drag it out as long as possible.
Witnesses forget things. You know, it's like, you know that's
another strategy, right, you know, delay delay, delay.
Speaker 2 (29:39):
Yeah, yeah, that's true. I think it starts in July.
Speaker 4 (29:44):
Oh so they finally have a trial day set.
Speaker 3 (29:46):
So yeah, because I think what we were doing that special,
remember Dana, they were saying, oh, they're thinking the trial
is going to start next year, and we filmed that
in twenty twenty three, so I think this happened what
in twenty twenty two?
Speaker 1 (29:59):
Meanwhile, Netflix producers are cooking up, you know, their own
Coburger episode. Right, Okay, David, we ask you what side
you're on for Colberger. Let's see, are you team Blake
Lively or just held Yungmi. It's not a criminal case,
(30:20):
but it feels criminal to just even be taking all
their content in it's really over the top. Will this
ever end?
Speaker 2 (30:30):
So I have to be on either side because I
hate both of them.
Speaker 1 (30:32):
Honestly, No, you don't have to be on any side.
Four hundred million dollar legal brawl seems kind of pricey.
Speaker 2 (30:42):
It's all bullshit. I mean, come on, I read all
these text messages, which frankly, I can't get that amount
of time back in my life.
Speaker 1 (30:50):
Oh my god, I'm glad you read them all because
I can't do it.
Speaker 2 (30:55):
Oh it was insane, Like you know, justin he seems
like a whiny bitch. You know, I'm just going to
call spade a spade here. Blake, she didn't seem like
a peach herself. And then Ryan Reynolds, Yeah, I really
like him in his movies. I think this is all
going to settle in the end. In fact, I know
(31:16):
it will settle in the end because you have these
you know, Blake Lively, Ryan Reynolds, book dollars. Okay, you
have Baldoni on the other hand, a very big amount
of money as well. You also have publicists that are involved,
You have media agencies that are involved. You have Taylor
(31:36):
Swift who may be involved, meaning she would have to
be subpoena and and give a deposition. Potentially nobody wants
these things because once that happens, then shit really is
going to hit the fan, and other questions can come out,
and other answers can come out that could be embarrassing
to all parties involved. So I don't think that this
(31:59):
is going to go much further, and that would be
my guess. They're going to have a settlement. I don't
know who would come out on top. Frankly, I don't
think anybody's coming out on top because people are looking
at it and be like, you have these two Hollywood
stars bitching about you know, money and oh he was
(32:21):
mean to me and she was mean to me, and
you know, like get the hell out of here. Look,
I'd love to be the attorneys on that because make
a ton of money.
Speaker 1 (32:30):
Twenty four to seven. You're building twenty four to seven
because the dialogue just never ends, you really are.
Speaker 2 (32:35):
And look, I have some pretty high profile clients, and
some of them are They're awesome, Like I've never had
any problems with them, but you have to know how
to handle them. And now, I've never had anybody as
high profile as Blake Lively or Baldoni or Ryan Reynolds,
don't get me wrong. So I can only imagine the
gloves they're gonna have to wear, the attorneys, and gloves
(32:58):
are gonna have to wear for them. But they are
smart enough to realize that when you really, when you
start doing depositions, that's when some stuff is going to
come out that you do not want to come out.
And they're telling the attorneys that. So I have a
feeling that in the end there will be a settlement done.
And you know, obviously part of the settle it'll it'll
(33:20):
be non disclosed and we'll never know it obviously, but
I'm sure a part of it will be that, you know,
you can't disparage each other anymore, obviously, never going to
work together again, you know, and you kind of just
go your separate ways. That's what I would think is
going to happen.
Speaker 1 (33:35):
Wow, Yeah, how did that work out for Amber? Heard?
When she went to trial and you're on the stand
and the cameras rolling, and you've been psychologically evaluated and
the test scores are in, and someone's going to be
testifying on that whether this has caused you trauma or
(33:58):
PTSD or what is the actual diagnosis now, and you
know what, that turned out not to be a really
good look. And I would say be careful when you
end up being psychologically evaluated. You might not like the
outcome of that, because there's some severe personality pathology and
(34:20):
cases where you're bickering back and forth forever. And I
know because I do a lot of cases where people
picker back and forth forever, like child custody evaluations and
family law and all kinds of cases right where they're
fighting forever and they can't stop, and I do their
psychological testing and it can reveal a lot about a
(34:41):
person that if you take a look at that, you
may not want that to go to trial for the
public to consume and give you feedback on. And I
think it probably went differently in Amberherd's mind.
Speaker 2 (34:55):
And you raise a good point there, data because I
think that's all the that's a cautionary tale for celebrities
where all right, look you can sue anybody you want,
but it doesn't look good. Juries. Don't want to see
celebrities in a court complaining over money, and that I mean,
you both probably know this better than anybody from all
(35:18):
your work where you see juries, juries are not. You know,
you're dealing with, you know, a jury of your peers.
So not everybody lives in a fifty million dollar mansion.
Everybody is there. There are a lot, a lot of
working class people. So when they see people on the
stand and they're in their designer suits or dresses and
you know, with their designer bags, and they're saying, oh, well,
(35:42):
you know they were mean to me when I was
making thirty million dollars on I said, and whatnot, it
doesn't look good.
Speaker 4 (35:48):
It doesn't resonate. Yeah, especially when when most jurors are struggling.
Speaker 1 (35:53):
You know what else The jury doesn't like to hear
about someone shitting in someone's bed.
Speaker 2 (36:01):
Yeah, nobody would like that.
Speaker 1 (36:02):
I mean, that was the end for me.
Speaker 3 (36:04):
I mean, but yeah, I could get much worse than that,
but yeah, that's your Yeah, that's the kind of stuff
that nobody wants to hear. A juries particularly don't want
to hear that. But you're yeah, so yeah, that that
is a cautionary tale and it is important I think
for just generally anybody to know that if you make
a claim that involves psychological injuries, right, any kind of
injury to your psyche, then expect your psyche to be
(36:27):
evaluated vigorously, and unfavorable things might emerge in you know,
our evaluation, our assessment, which can include as Dana said,
you know, personality pathology. And you know, personality pathology is
not mental illness, by the way, it is trait and
character based. So and some of those results, you know,
(36:47):
may not look good borderline personality, narcissistic, antisocial, those sorts
of things.
Speaker 1 (36:53):
All right, let's talk about Team Didty. Is anyone on
the Didty's side? Is there any team did Do You
want to be on the prosecution side for Sean Diddy Combs, right,
or you want to be working the defense, but the
defense is making some bank because this case is working
(37:13):
around the clock.
Speaker 2 (37:14):
Okay, it's funny you say that. So I was watching
Harvey Levin did on TMZ did a mock trial. It
was on TV a couple days ago. I don't know
if anybody saw it. And you know, when you have
these pretty big, high profile cases as a defense attorney
in as a prosecutor, you're going to try to have
(37:35):
mock trials. They cost a couple of dollars to do.
But if client has money, I always advise, Hey, look,
this is something you might want to do, especially if
you have a potential plea versus a trial. You it's
good to do this. And in the mock trial that
TMZ did, it really wasn't as cut and dry as
(37:57):
everybody says, because number one, I think it's going to
be very difficult to get an unbiased jury because everybody
knows Diddy, So that's number one. But number two, there's
going to be the topic of race. And I thought
of it originally, but I didn't really put a ton
of stock into it. And in the TMZ mock jury,
(38:18):
the jurors they were at that pretty hard, so they
think that this there could be some racial epithets around this.
So I think that could be something in Ditty's favor.
The other thing that the jury was talking about. And
I've said this from the beginning, but you know, there's
so many things with Ditty that it's hard to keep up.
(38:38):
Where a lot of these crimes, these federal crimes that
he's being charged with, you have to have some type
of profit, meaning there's all these sex parties allegations, and
he made people engage in these sexual activities, but there
had to be some type of profit and there was
(38:59):
from all the testimony and from everything that I've seen,
there is no profit. So the jury saw that and
that was a big question. So there was not a
unanimous jury in that TMZ show that they did and
that could be a precursor to his federal trial. I'm
not saying, you know, they did it, all right, and
(39:21):
I'm not saying that, And obviously TV trials and real
trials are two different things, but it's something that I
would be keeping my eye on. So right now, Look,
I think the government has the upper hand. That's one
hundred percent in any federal case, government has the upper hand.
I mean, it's a very unfair process when the federal
(39:42):
the federal system, the Feds don't take cases unless they
really think it's going to be a winner, all right.
That's it's not state, it's fed de fence. So they
really are They really have, you know, like you said,
a lot of resources, but they just they don't take
loser cases. They take winning cases. It's just what they do.
And I'm not saying that they don't have a winning case.
(40:02):
But I think Diddy, may you know, have a couple
of tricks up his sleeve in the end. I don't know.
And at the same time, again I know that Diddy
is saying, oh, you know, I'm taking this trial. I
want to go. I'm still not going to be surprised
one way or another if it does go to trial
or if it ended a play.
Speaker 1 (40:23):
And is it my understanding they haven't named any of
the co conspirators.
Speaker 2 (40:28):
Yet, that's accurate. Yeah, they haven't, and that's something they have.
You know, you have to actually have You need to
know who is being charged or aren't charged, but you
need to know the other individuals that are associated with
your case. It's a due process claim. So while for
them not to know it, especially this late in the ballgame,
(40:51):
I think that's very problematic. Well I want to know, yeah,
you and me both. I think p Diddy knows, he
better know, he better know.
Speaker 1 (41:04):
Oh it'll be interesting to see the whatever defense strategy
you know they're trying to pull for him, you know,
any psychological angle you know, for sympathy. I think they're
still trying to get him out on bail and that's
being declined.
Speaker 2 (41:18):
He won't get out, there's no way.
Speaker 1 (41:20):
No.
Speaker 2 (41:20):
I think they've they've tried like at least three times,
if not more, and each time they've been denied, there's
no change in circumstances. And yeah, apparently he hasn't been
a model citizen either in the prison, so I don't
think a judge is going to be that sympathetic towards it.
Speaker 1 (41:35):
Oh my god, Well, I think we covered all the
cases today. We'll have to have you come back. What
case do you want to come back on and discuss?
There's so many fascinating cases.
Speaker 2 (41:46):
Out there, which ever won you? Just you let me know.
Speaker 1 (41:49):
I'll be here, Okay, I will, I will. Well, thank
you so much. Let our audience know where they can
connect and find you. Follow you on Instagram and whatever
others your favorite social media app is, so you can.
Speaker 2 (42:05):
Go to our website at Gelman Law Firm dot com.
And also, I know we have an Instagram thing but
I really don't know it, but we also have a
Twitter the X. It's a David Gelman ESQ.
Speaker 1 (42:20):
You're the same on Instagram. Somebody's hooking you up and
I just went on and watch your videos. So you've
been on a lot of media outlets and they're posting
everything there. So I'll collab with you there. And I
know you're active on Twitter, which I think it's great.
So people can connect with you. We can ask you
what side you're on, ask you any questions, interact with you.
(42:41):
So I so much appreciate your time today and your insight.
It was really fun to have you, David.
Speaker 2 (42:47):
Thank you, oh, thank you very much for having me.
I look forward to coming back and this was a
lot of fun.
Speaker 1 (42:51):
All right, awesome, have a great day.
Speaker 2 (42:53):
The two guys.
Speaker 1 (42:56):
Thank you for listening to Killer Psychologist. To watch fool
Vido episodes, or if you want to interact with me,
you can find Killer Psychologists on YouTube. You can also
get notified of new episodes by signing up in my
stand store. Now, if you want to work with me,
you can book a console. My website is psychologydoctor dot com.
(43:19):
That's psychology dr dot com.
Welcome to Killer Psychologist. I'm Dana Anderson, a forensic psychologist
and your host of the show. Killer Psychologist is for
true crime fanatics and anyone intrigued with the dark side
of psychology. Today, we are joined by the man with
all the legal hot takes that keep making headlines, Attorney
(00:27):
David Gelman, a man who's not afraid to call it
like it is. He's weighed in on everything from the
Menendez Brothers to Sean Diddy, Combes to Brian Kohlberger and
Karen Reid. And while celebrities might be reshaping public opinion,
(00:49):
Gelman's here to remind us where the law actually draws
its line. He's here with us on The Killer Psychologist
alongside my callie Craig Weder, to discuss the celebrity justice effect. Now,
let's talk about a case that refuses to die. This
(01:10):
is a case from nineteen eighty nine that hasn't faded
out of the spotlight decades later. The Menendez Brothers story
is still grabbing headlines and stirring controversy across mainstream media
and pop culture. Some call them monsters, others call them victims,
(01:39):
and somewhere between abuse allegations and a double barrel shotgun
lies one of the most debated cases in modern legal history.
Kim Kardashian said, the Menendez brothers are kind, intelligent and
honest men who've trans formed in prison. Do you buy
(02:02):
that or are we just getting bamboozled by the Kardashian
pr machine. What do you think, David?
Speaker 2 (02:12):
You know Kim Kardashian, she really has, you know, one
hundred percent accuracy in reading people. So you know, I'm
really not going to take her opinion when it comes
to how people are acting. Obviously, you know she was
married to Kanye, so we don't have to look too
far for that one. Look, this is a sensationalized case,
(02:33):
as you just pointed out. I really don't understand why
it's so sensationalized. The only reason it is I call
it the Netflix effect. You know, once it gets on Netflix,
which is pretty much the big screen nowadays, which it's
taken over how everybody watches movies and TV. If it
gets on Netflix, you know, game over. You're going to
(02:54):
be a celebrity overnight, whether you want it to or not.
And you know you're going to have this more and
more when it comes to different crime dramas, and because
I think it's just human nature. Now in this particular one,
I think Netflix definitely is trying to make the Menenda's
brothers out to be something they're not. That's just how
(03:16):
I'm looking at it. You know, people could disagree with me.
They're going to be wrong, but that's fine. They can
still disagree with me. The facts of the case are
the facts of the case, and nothing can change that.
The Menanda's brothers, they're saying that they were physically and
sexually abused by their parents. Let's just believe that, all right.
If that's true, no problem. However, they particulously planned the
(03:43):
brutal murder of their mother and their father. And it
wasn't just a murder shoot them boom done. No, this
was a shotgun to the head of both of them
while they were not looking, so it was you know,
assassin style. And then the mom was begging for her
life and they shot her multiple times thereafter. And not
(04:05):
to mention the abuse wasn't happening at that particular time.
If they were being abused at the particular time of
the murder, they could have a really good defense, but
they weren't. That is what just It drives me crazy
that people just are not realizing this. Oh, they were abused.
They were abused, So if everybody's abused, that means they
(04:26):
can kill whoever is doing the abuse. I mean, that's
really what everybody's trying to say, or the people who
are defending the Menendez brothers are saying, you can't do that.
We're not the type of society. That's why there are
laws here. But everything has gone against Menendez brothers. Every
appeal they have had has lost. They had two trials.
(04:48):
One was a mistrial, the second, which is very hard
to do. After a mistrial, the second trial was a
guilty verdict. Now, usually when you have a mistrial, the
second bite of the apps, it's not really good for
the prosecution. However, in this particular case, obviously there was
plenty of evidence in the jury of their peers believed
(05:08):
it that they committed the crime and that all that
sexual abuse, you know, that had nothing to do with it.
But the Menanda's brothers, they appealed it. They appealed it
to the superior Court, the Supreme Court of California. They
appealed it to the appeals Court of the Federal Appeals Court.
They appealed it to the district court. They appealed it
multiple times and to the circuit courts in California. Every
(05:30):
time they've gotten denied. So what has changed since then?
And now one thing Netflix and everybody is sensationalizing this.
That's it. So nothing else has changed? Now? Have they
changed in jail? Maybe they've grown a little mature. I
don't know they were. They were young guys when this started.
(05:52):
Nineteen twenty twenty one is something like like that. But
they planned this. They tried to get alibis, They tried
to get friends to be brought in to tell different stories.
So I understand they're sorry. Of course they're sorry. They
basically the rest of their life in prison. They're not
going to say they're sorry, then they really have something
wrong with them. But I guess I'm just not buying it.
Speaker 3 (06:12):
This whole self defense argument that they were making, or
at least the defense was was making, right, And you know,
we could talk about imperfect self defense and self defense
and such, but that defense strategy was a long shot, right,
And I think in the second trial, correct me if
I'm wrong, but the judge limited the amount of evidence
that could come in regarding the sexual abuse is that
(06:35):
I think that was what changed in the second trial
and then yeah, that factor and so once that was removed,
they got that guilty verdict. But that's interesting that you know,
even jurors still, you know, that mistrial was because that
that jury, that first juri couldn't come to a unanimous
verdict and it was because of the you know, that
that sexual abuse history that they you know, they testified
(06:58):
to it and they brought in, you know, some family
members and such. Regardless, that argument or that defense self
defense just doesn't.
Speaker 4 (07:06):
Fly in these fact pattern.
Speaker 3 (07:08):
It baffles me as well in terms of, like, how
can people get to that leap of logic where it's
like their lives were in danger of imminent great bodily
injury or death. That's the only that's the only time
you you have a defense to use lethal force in
California and in most jurisdictions, is if your life is
an imminent threat of a serious bodily injury or death.
(07:32):
How do they establish that when they're sitting in there
watching TV in their living room, right, I mean that's
where they were killed.
Speaker 2 (07:39):
They were killed on the couch. Yeah, but you can't
and remember this wasn't something that they just thought of
on a whim. Oh let's go kill nom and dad.
Oh yeah, this was planned.
Speaker 3 (07:47):
They went out and bought the shotgun at Big five
Sporting Goods, like, you know, a month before.
Speaker 2 (07:51):
Yeah, oh yeah, was it Big five?
Speaker 3 (07:54):
Yes, it was Big five, And I think it was
down in like San Diego or something. They drove to
a different city to buy it, you know, they didn't
buy it in Los Angeles County or Beverly Hills where
they were living at the time. I think they went
down to like San Diego to buy it. They went
out of town.
Speaker 2 (08:08):
They tried to cover all their steps. I mean, look,
they thought they got away with the perfect murder, and
they did for a period of time. But there I
guess there's really no such thing as a perfect murder
because eventually you're going to probably get caught.
Speaker 3 (08:19):
Yeah, well, in Beverly Hills PD back then, So this
is a funny take. You know, this my days as
as a police officer. But Beverly Hills PD, you know,
they don't get a lot of murder cases. You know,
in Beverly Hills generally is you know, as we all know,
it's pretty upscale. So There was some criticisms early on
about you know, that initial investigation because they kind of
were like Keystone cops initially, oh my god, we've got
(08:41):
a double murder here in Beverly Hills. Let's just say
their detectives didn't have a lot of experience doing.
Speaker 2 (08:47):
But were they trying to figure out who was fighting over?
Like who's long look better? Is that?
Speaker 3 (08:51):
Like well yeah, and and and you know, they're just
there were several strategic mistakes made in terms of how
you deal with a quote witness and or paul simple
person of interest, which again we always looked at the
family members and are the people closest to the victim,
you know, in any homicide investigation or if it's a murder,
(09:12):
you know, the first thing that as an investigator, I
would look at is the you know, the spouse, the boyfriend, girlfriend,
or the parent you know, or the children, et cetera,
because the probability is is that it's likely to be
somebody that knew the victims. Right there was they were
close to the victims, so they weren't looking at them
that way initially in the investigation, and I think there
were some missteps there.
Speaker 1 (09:32):
They weren't looking that hard early on. I don't think
those cops were looking that well in the beginning.
Speaker 3 (09:36):
You know, remember the whole story about the you know,
they thought they were trying to paint the story that
the mafia was involved. There was some type of it
was a hit, it was a calculated hit or something.
They were creating a narrative around that, and that's silly.
Speaker 2 (09:48):
You know, you don't go out and buy rolexes and
and stuff like that. You know, if you keep a
low profile, I mean, you know normal, Well if you're
not normal, if you kill somebody. But let's say if
you had a half a brain, you would think, all right,
we're got to keep low, you know, like it's a
remember the Good Fellows where they robbed that truck and there,
(10:09):
and then they come in and bought you know, mink
cokes and different cars and the naros like, you know,
you guys are idiots.
Speaker 4 (10:16):
Put them all away, right, Like where'd all that money
comes from?
Speaker 2 (10:19):
All of a sudden?
Speaker 1 (10:21):
I love that movie. Yeah, suddenly everyone's wearing furs. So yeah,
you get on Netflix and well this is also turned
very political, right for the district attorney, and I was
wanting to get into office, so that you use this
as this card to play.
Speaker 3 (10:40):
The Los Angeles District Attorney's office has changed since they
got Gas calling out so and I.
Speaker 2 (10:45):
Think this was like the nail in the coffin for
for Gas gone, because you know, he was all in favor, yeah,
of releasing these guys. And I think LA just said,
you've got to be kidding it right, like you're you're
going to just release murders who are conveyed, So, you know,
I think that was a nail on the coffin. And
then this new one who's in now, I forget his
name in the DA, but he is against it. And
(11:08):
I gotta tell you he put out he had a
press conference like what two weeks ago, three weeks ago,
and he put out a closing argument. I thought it
was awesome. I'm telling everybody, if you want to see
what a closing argument should look like, watch this guy.
He just destroyed it. And I don't think it's going
to go very well for the Menanda's brothers getting out.
I don't think a judge's going to to release and
(11:31):
I certainly don't think the parole board will be too
kind to them. But I could be wrong. I guess
I don't know.
Speaker 4 (11:37):
Well, it is California, as you know, so you know.
Speaker 2 (11:39):
That's what they have going for them. Yeah, and Kim Kardashian,
I you.
Speaker 3 (11:43):
Know, well, right, because if Kim says, you know, they
guys are legit, they're not a killer. She's a psychologist, right,
She's a she's a forensic psychologist, and she's trained in
understanding and how to tease out whether someone is a
psychopath or not.
Speaker 2 (11:55):
Right, I think so. And also isn't she an attorney? Right?
Speaker 4 (11:58):
Oh yeah, she also yes, years or something like that.
Speaker 2 (12:01):
I don't know. Yeah, yeah, he's an expert. I'd hire her.
Speaker 1 (12:05):
Well, she has her own show, So what does it
take to get my own Netflix special? So you know,
Brian Kolberger, he's up next for his own Hulu or
Netflix special. What message is this sending out there to people.
Speaker 2 (12:25):
Well, to potential jurors, right, well, number one, it's sending
a really dangerous message because it's sensationalizing killers. You know,
you're gonna have Luise MANGIONI. I guarantee you will have him.
He'll have one soon. This is just the world we
live in now. It's kind of weird where they're sensationalizing them.
They're almost like making them celebrities, and it's going to
(12:48):
make society look and like like normalize us, and it
should have been. Then there's going to be a lot
of sick people out there who are going to say, oh, well,
if i'd admit something like this, I'll be able to
get my own Netflix special, you know. And it's a shame,
but that's kind of the world we're living in now.
But Greg, you're right for jury's election, you know, this
(13:08):
is going to really make everything a lot more difficult
to pick a jury because look, Netflix, like I said,
everybody watches Netflix. So how are you going to have
a juror not know anything and not be able to
and not be biased against the defendant. You're literally you can't.
Speaker 3 (13:27):
Yeah, and that's a very good point. You can't because again,
you know, Netflix, the saturation is is significant in terms
of the number of people that have access to that
media platform. So yeah, I would be if I was
the prosecutor in the Coburger case, I'd be very concerned
about that about trying to get an unbiased jury because
you know, and again you know not, well, we can
get political.
Speaker 4 (13:47):
I guess I don't know, but let's just face it.
Speaker 3 (13:50):
Some of these shows they are framed in ways. They're
crafting narratives, and those narratives might be favoring one side
over the other. They could be trying to favor a
defendant or criminal defendant. So they're going to craft a show,
or they're going to craft a you know, an episode
or whatever, a documentary that only kind of frames things
in exculpatory you know, fashion in other words, it's not
(14:13):
they're not going to look at everything in totality, so
that I worry about that kind of stuff.
Speaker 2 (14:17):
Yeah, I mean, well, number one, look when you got shows,
they may you know, spread the truth a little bit,
but in the end of the day, they're trying to
make money. That's what they're doing, and everybody knows it.
So of course they're going to make somebody look a
little better than they should.
Speaker 1 (14:32):
I e.
Speaker 2 (14:33):
The Menendez brothers. It'll be very interesting you see how
the Kohlberger, how that's going to turn out. Look, Karen Reid,
same thing right now. They have movies about her on
like Lifetime or something like that. They're really skewing the
story and the narrative. And again it's all for money.
We all get that. But when you have a juror
that's going to see this, you know, they're human, all right,
(14:55):
They're not robots, so they're going to remember this. It
could potentially dictate how they would view a case.
Speaker 1 (15:03):
And let's talk about this juror that was on the
Karen Reed trial that was a mistrial, and now this
person's joined the defense team. I heard you make a
comment before, David that you'd never even heard of, you know,
a juror switching sides and joining the defense. Like what
(15:24):
are the legal and ethical implications of that?
Speaker 2 (15:28):
That's the first thing I thought of, like ethically can
you do this? And I'm thinking about and I asked
a couple of colleagues what their opinions would be, and
you know, we all came to the same conclusion that
number one, nobody has ever heard anything like this happening never.
But the second thing, I don't think there's any ethical violations.
(15:50):
There are ethical issues here, like so I don't and
I don't think anything has been raised yet in Massachusetts
from the state. So I'm thinking they're going to be
okay to do it. And when I see that, I
think to myself, Okay, So if a juror is saying
that Karen Reid is innocent, and they have such ingrained
(16:13):
in their head that they think it's their duty that
they have to go defend Karen Reid. What does that
say about the other jurors or the potential new jury
pool that will come about in the new trial. That
is a terrible look for the prosecutor. It's a bad omen.
I mean, think about it. Oh, hey, I'm Joe Schmoe. Yes, uh,
(16:34):
you may remember me. I was a jury on the
previous trial and now I'm representing Karen Reid. That's not
going to be a good look when they have to
introduce themselves to the jury.
Speaker 1 (16:43):
I know as soon as I heard that, it just
changes my perception of the whole trial. You know, guilt
or innocence, just that one thing, right, And this is
so how powerful the media can be with these narratives
and how it does shake people's opinions or perceptions and
(17:03):
even the final outcome of these trials.
Speaker 2 (17:07):
And also let's just remember it's very common if you
have a mistrial on your first trial and the state says,
all right, we're going to go forward again, that the
likelihood of conviction the second time around is not very high.
If you look at cases just in general, the likelihood
of conviction is way lower than a first time. That's
(17:30):
why you don't have a ton of second trials unless
it's absolutely necessary, or the state piels they have a
great case Menendez Brothers. You know, that's more of a
you know, a one off if you will, But overall,
you don't have good luck the second time. So this
Karen Reid trial that is really going to be very interesting.
(17:51):
I don't think the facts of the case are great
to begin with. First only. I think there's a ton
of reasonable doubt and that's all you need as a
defense attorney. Now you have a you have a mistrial
which will be brought into evidence that you know that
will that will be known. So I think that's going
to definitely raise a lot more issues for a jury
and it's going to make the prosecution even more difficult
(18:13):
second time around.
Speaker 1 (18:14):
So if Karen Reid didn't kill her husband, then who did?
Speaker 2 (18:20):
I don't know. That's a good thing.
Speaker 1 (18:24):
I don't know either. I mean, that's the question, right, So.
Speaker 2 (18:29):
Let's take a step back here. I'm not saying that
she didn't kill the husband, all right. I'm not saying
that her boyfriend, whatever they were. But I'm just saying
that the facts of the case, from what I know,
from what I've read, I've read quite a bit of
that of it, there is a lot of reasonable doubt.
That's what I say. I'm not saying she did or
(18:50):
didn't do it, because she certainly could have. But I'm
just saying as a defense attorney, I'm putting my defense
attorney hat on here. I am pounding reasonable doubt. And
reasonable doubt is Look, if you have a sentilla of
doubt that so and so did this, that Karen Reid
did this, you cannot vote to have Karen Reid be guilty.
(19:13):
And it's story if there's some type of doubt. And
so the defense is going to be throwing doubt out
in them left and right, going to be questioning each
and every witness that the prosecution brings, and they're going
to show whoever was investigating the case, and you know
a couple at least one officer was fired already because
(19:33):
of how he investigated the case. That's reasonable doubt right there.
So you bring that, you bring a bunch of other
evidence in there, you know you're going to be just
pounding the table each and every time about reasonable doubt,
and in your closing argument is going to just center
around reasonable doubt. I mean, I'm a broken record, but
that's exactly what you have to be.
Speaker 3 (19:53):
And that's the beauty of being a defense lawyer or
a criminal defense lawyer as opposed to the prosecutor, right,
because hey, that's all you have to.
Speaker 2 (19:59):
Do, it really is. It's a hell of a lot
harder being a prose Yeah.
Speaker 3 (20:03):
I mean you've been a prosecutor, right, Oh yeah, so
that's one thing I haven't done. I haven't been a prosecutor,
but I have. I have defended people in criminal cases.
And so I always say I have a colleague that
was a former police officer and is now a criminal
defense lawyer, and he's like, hey, he's like, this is
the ticket. It's so much easier, you know, because we
don't have to prove anything, right. It sits on the
(20:24):
prosecution side to prove every element.
Speaker 2 (20:25):
Y it really is, and the prosecutor they have a
high burden to prove and their case. Hell, we could
just sit back and you know, tell you I call
this one of the troubles over you know, hypothetically.
Speaker 4 (20:37):
Raise an objection here and there.
Speaker 2 (20:39):
Yeah, But as a prosecutor, I love doing it, Don't
get me wrong. I had a blast. I was had
a great time doing it, and I tried a lot
of cases and I won a fair amount too. But
it is night and day compared as a defense attorney.
Speaker 1 (20:55):
All right, David, would you rather be prosecuting Ryan Kohlberger
or would you rather be working with his defense team?
Speaker 2 (21:03):
All right? So that one. Everything I'm reading so far,
i'd probably go prosecution. Like I'm just winning or losing.
If that's the case, I gotta go prosecution. I like
what the defense is doing. They're really they're they're doing
a great job, but there's just too much evidence against
this guy. And then now they're saying that he's autistic
(21:25):
and they're trying to use that as a defense, which
is just not going to fly.
Speaker 4 (21:29):
Well, no, it's not.
Speaker 3 (21:30):
It's funny because you know, Dana and I did a
documentary with Fox Nation.
Speaker 2 (21:35):
What was it going on two years ago?
Speaker 3 (21:37):
Well, yeah, it was a while back, and I remember
that almost came up during our discussion as terms that
because we were talking about psychological factors and we had
to be really careful what we said, obviously, because you know,
we can't diagnose or anything, but we were discussing that
whole way before this even popped up.
Speaker 4 (21:53):
Is I wonder if autism spectrum might be involved here.
Speaker 3 (21:56):
Of course, you know, we can't diagnose because we'd have
to actually se him an assessin. But that's not gonna work,
Like you said, I mean, autism spectrum is not going
to be because you can't use NNGRI in Idaho.
Speaker 2 (22:07):
So I'm telling you he's going to plead. He will plead.
He's going to have to because his attorneys. Now you
had the sheet the big knife they found, and you
found his DNA game over, and then you had the
other aspects where his phone was turned off and then
turned on in the same areas.
Speaker 1 (22:26):
That's not a good look.
Speaker 3 (22:27):
Yeah, they've got circumstantial and they have some direct evidence
as well. I mean they've got you know, so they
do have good, good facts basically in good evidence.
Speaker 2 (22:35):
They do, they do. And then the bushy eyebrows and
all that kind of stuff. I mean, again, nobody saw
the guy. I get that. But and then his Amazon
search and buying history will also be coming in from
what it looks like, and you know he was searching
for this soul, this sheath and whatever it was.
Speaker 3 (22:53):
Well, and he bought a k bar Yeah, I think
they do have They have that Amazon purchase history, and
I think he purchased a k Bar knife on Amazon.
If I am not mistaken, Yeah.
Speaker 2 (23:01):
I believe he did. It's all I mean, look, there's
there's just so much evidence. Now, reasonable doubt, we'll go
back to it. That's defense. That's what they're going to
say all along. Defense. Yeah, reasonable doubt, reasonable doubt, you know,
because look, there might have been there's some miss sets
maybe in the whole investigation. But I got to tell you,
(23:23):
if i'm his defense attorneys, I'm going to look at
him and I'm like, look, dude, you're going to spend
the rest of your life in prison, or you're going
to get the death penalty. Potentially, you really should think
about let's see if we can avoid you know, you
dying or getting shot to death in Idaho, which is
their death penalty. So I think that's what they're going
to do because it's not going to be good. And also, look,
(23:45):
it's Idaho, all right. Idah is not a huge populated state,
So you're gonna have to live under a rock unless
you don't know anything about this case.
Speaker 3 (23:56):
And your jury pool in Idaho tends to on average
be a lot more conservative in terms of you know,
just looking at the political leanings, you know, unless you're
in like the Boise area. But that's another thing that
they're going to have to look at, which is your
jury pool. What type of juror are you going to get.
This is a you know, Second Amendment heavy state where
(24:16):
they believe in the rule of law and they don't
put up with nonsense there you know.
Speaker 2 (24:20):
Oh yeah, look, I've been. I know, it's a beautiful thing.
I love it. Yeah, very nice. People were very very nice.
But yeah, they are a very Second Amendment pro gun
which I you know, I think is very cool, and
I think that it's going to be very pro prosecution,
which defense knows. You know, they're not stupid, they and
they I think they've done a great job in trying
(24:42):
to keep evidence out. You know, there's only so much
you're going to be able to do. I really think
they've done a fantastic job so far. But when you're
giving oranges, you know, there's only so many things you
can do with it.
Speaker 1 (24:55):
So I heard something about a Brady violation in this case.
Speaker 2 (25:01):
Oh yeah, of.
Speaker 3 (25:02):
Course there's going to be you know, Brady claims be
put up. So do you want to talk about a braid.
Speaker 2 (25:06):
You don't have to get all the evidence all the time,
don't worry about that, of course.
Speaker 3 (25:09):
I mean if they could discredit any of the officers
and any of the investigators you know that could be
under the Brady you know doctor, and then sure they're
going to be able to get potentially get some of
this evidence suppressed. But I'm going to say it's common.
But do you want to explain what a Brady violation is?
I mean the audience may not know what that is.
Speaker 2 (25:26):
Yeah, so this is a Supreme Court case. Pretty much.
What it means is, look, when you are the defendant,
you are entitled to all the evidence in your matter,
all the evidence that was obtained by the state. You
are entitled to it. Now, if evidence is being withheld,
and it's being withheld illegally, we're meaning like you know
(25:46):
they have it and they just don't want to tell
you they have it. That is what they call Brady violation.
And if you find out about it and they're trying
to use it, that evidence will be excluded from trial
and also, let's just put this in there as well.
The prosecutor will definitely get in trouble sanctioned, this barred.
Whoever knows, you know, what'll ever happen. You're right, Greg,
(26:09):
it is somewhat common to bring that issue up. However,
it is very rare. Not saying it's impossible, but it's
rare that a prosecutor will commit a Brady violation because
if they do, they are they're going to get bired.
Number one, their reputation is down the drain, and they
(26:31):
could potentially get this barred. So prosecutors, they don't make
a ton of money to begin with, they're not going
to rest their career on withholding evidence. It's very rare. Actually,
there was a prosecutor here in New Jersey. It happened
to about a year and a half ago. But nobody
liked her, so you know, oh well.
Speaker 4 (26:49):
Get her out of here.
Speaker 3 (26:50):
And I don't know if this in the specific Brady
violation here, if it has to do with officer, if
you know, if the prosecution is withholding any evidence of
say an officer's misconduct, that's actually that was the Those
are the facts of the actual Brady case where you know,
there was an officer who had disciplinary history and was
alleged to have falsified you know, evidence or falsified information
(27:11):
in an official investigation. And if that officer is on
the Brady List, and so DA's offices now I believe
across the United States have to keep a list of
peace officers who have had any kind of integrity violations
that could affect their credibility as witnesses in a criminal case,
(27:32):
and and the prosecution has to disclose that. So, Dana,
do you is that what's going on here? Are they
saying that prosecution is not turning over potential exculpatory evidence.
Speaker 2 (27:43):
I think it's the latter.
Speaker 3 (27:44):
Well, yeah, I mean it could be either, right, So,
I mean it looked like you said, David, it's like,
you know, that's the defense attorney's job. I mean, you're
trying to get you know, if I could find anything
on any you know, you the DA doesn't turn over
any any even sliver of evidence that could could be exculpatory.
(28:05):
I'm going to raise that as an issue obviously, right.
Speaker 1 (28:08):
But honestly, do we think there's anything that can save
Colberger at this point or salvage his soul? I mean, obviously,
I have my own opinion on that, So I'm going
to go with David on that one. I'm going to
be on the profits prosecute too.
Speaker 3 (28:26):
Yeah, if you take it to trial, I mean I
I yeah, if I was to bet on it, I
you know, I think the probabilities are he would likely
and I don't want to say with certainty, but he
doesn't have the odds in his favor in my estimation.
So yeah, I definitely would want to be the prosecutor
as well in that case. And they're going death penalty, right,
They're definitely going death penalty there, and you'll get it
(28:48):
if you get a conviction, right, that's going.
Speaker 2 (28:50):
To be a slam dunk if they if they get
the conviction, I think that's their biggest negotiating piece right now. Hey,
we'll take death penalty off the table, but you better
be guilty.
Speaker 3 (28:59):
Yeah, unless that the DA's hardcore, you know, they might
say nope, we're taking it to trial, you know, because
it's a you know, huge media coverage and all that
kind of stuff. So again, the DA has you know,
may have motives too to want of like nope, you
know we're taking it to trial. We're not reducing this.
You know, we're not going to reduce to life in prison.
This will be interesting to see what happens, because when's
(29:20):
this trial going to be going It's this has been
going on three and a half, what almost three and
a half.
Speaker 2 (29:24):
Years now, I mean, this is is it that long? Yeah?
Speaker 3 (29:28):
And again you know this is another strategy, right if
I'm the defense, drag it out as long as possible.
Witnesses forget things. You know, it's like, you know that's
another strategy, right, you know, delay delay, delay.
Speaker 2 (29:39):
Yeah, yeah, that's true. I think it starts in July.
Speaker 4 (29:44):
Oh so they finally have a trial day set.
Speaker 3 (29:46):
So yeah, because I think what we were doing that special,
remember Dana, they were saying, oh, they're thinking the trial
is going to start next year, and we filmed that
in twenty twenty three, so I think this happened what
in twenty twenty two?
Speaker 1 (29:59):
Meanwhile, Netflix producers are cooking up, you know, their own
Coburger episode. Right, Okay, David, we ask you what side
you're on for Colberger. Let's see, are you team Blake
Lively or just held Yungmi. It's not a criminal case,
(30:20):
but it feels criminal to just even be taking all
their content in it's really over the top. Will this
ever end?
Speaker 2 (30:30):
So I have to be on either side because I
hate both of them.
Speaker 1 (30:32):
Honestly, No, you don't have to be on any side.
Four hundred million dollar legal brawl seems kind of pricey.
Speaker 2 (30:42):
It's all bullshit. I mean, come on, I read all
these text messages, which frankly, I can't get that amount
of time back in my life.
Speaker 1 (30:50):
Oh my god, I'm glad you read them all because
I can't do it.
Speaker 2 (30:55):
Oh it was insane, Like you know, justin he seems
like a whiny bitch. You know, I'm just going to
call spade a spade here. Blake, she didn't seem like
a peach herself. And then Ryan Reynolds, Yeah, I really
like him in his movies. I think this is all
going to settle in the end. In fact, I know
(31:16):
it will settle in the end because you have these
you know, Blake Lively, Ryan Reynolds, book dollars. Okay, you
have Baldoni on the other hand, a very big amount
of money as well. You also have publicists that are involved,
You have media agencies that are involved. You have Taylor
(31:36):
Swift who may be involved, meaning she would have to
be subpoena and and give a deposition. Potentially nobody wants
these things because once that happens, then shit really is
going to hit the fan, and other questions can come out,
and other answers can come out that could be embarrassing
to all parties involved. So I don't think that this
(31:59):
is going to go much further, and that would be
my guess. They're going to have a settlement. I don't
know who would come out on top. Frankly, I don't
think anybody's coming out on top because people are looking
at it and be like, you have these two Hollywood
stars bitching about you know, money and oh he was
(32:21):
mean to me and she was mean to me, and
you know, like get the hell out of here. Look,
I'd love to be the attorneys on that because make
a ton of money.
Speaker 1 (32:30):
Twenty four to seven. You're building twenty four to seven
because the dialogue just never ends, you really are.
Speaker 2 (32:35):
And look, I have some pretty high profile clients, and
some of them are They're awesome, Like I've never had
any problems with them, but you have to know how
to handle them. And now, I've never had anybody as
high profile as Blake Lively or Baldoni or Ryan Reynolds,
don't get me wrong. So I can only imagine the
gloves they're gonna have to wear, the attorneys, and gloves
(32:58):
are gonna have to wear for them. But they are
smart enough to realize that when you really, when you
start doing depositions, that's when some stuff is going to
come out that you do not want to come out.
And they're telling the attorneys that. So I have a
feeling that in the end there will be a settlement done.
And you know, obviously part of the settle it'll it'll
(33:20):
be non disclosed and we'll never know it obviously, but
I'm sure a part of it will be that, you know,
you can't disparage each other anymore, obviously, never going to
work together again, you know, and you kind of just
go your separate ways. That's what I would think is
going to happen.
Speaker 1 (33:35):
Wow, Yeah, how did that work out for Amber? Heard?
When she went to trial and you're on the stand
and the cameras rolling, and you've been psychologically evaluated and
the test scores are in, and someone's going to be
testifying on that whether this has caused you trauma or
(33:58):
PTSD or what is the actual diagnosis now, and you
know what, that turned out not to be a really
good look. And I would say be careful when you
end up being psychologically evaluated. You might not like the
outcome of that, because there's some severe personality pathology and
(34:20):
cases where you're bickering back and forth forever. And I
know because I do a lot of cases where people
picker back and forth forever, like child custody evaluations and
family law and all kinds of cases right where they're
fighting forever and they can't stop, and I do their
psychological testing and it can reveal a lot about a
(34:41):
person that if you take a look at that, you
may not want that to go to trial for the
public to consume and give you feedback on. And I
think it probably went differently in Amberherd's mind.
Speaker 2 (34:55):
And you raise a good point there, data because I
think that's all the that's a cautionary tale for celebrities
where all right, look you can sue anybody you want,
but it doesn't look good. Juries. Don't want to see
celebrities in a court complaining over money, and that I mean,
you both probably know this better than anybody from all
(35:18):
your work where you see juries, juries are not. You know,
you're dealing with, you know, a jury of your peers.
So not everybody lives in a fifty million dollar mansion.
Everybody is there. There are a lot, a lot of
working class people. So when they see people on the
stand and they're in their designer suits or dresses and
you know, with their designer bags, and they're saying, oh, well,
(35:42):
you know they were mean to me when I was
making thirty million dollars on I said, and whatnot, it
doesn't look good.
Speaker 4 (35:48):
It doesn't resonate. Yeah, especially when when most jurors are struggling.
Speaker 1 (35:53):
You know what else The jury doesn't like to hear
about someone shitting in someone's bed.
Speaker 2 (36:01):
Yeah, nobody would like that.
Speaker 1 (36:02):
I mean, that was the end for me.
Speaker 3 (36:04):
I mean, but yeah, I could get much worse than that,
but yeah, that's your Yeah, that's the kind of stuff
that nobody wants to hear. A juries particularly don't want
to hear that. But you're yeah, so yeah, that that
is a cautionary tale and it is important I think
for just generally anybody to know that if you make
a claim that involves psychological injuries, right, any kind of
injury to your psyche, then expect your psyche to be
(36:27):
evaluated vigorously, and unfavorable things might emerge in you know,
our evaluation, our assessment, which can include as Dana said,
you know, personality pathology. And you know, personality pathology is
not mental illness, by the way, it is trait and
character based. So and some of those results, you know,
(36:47):
may not look good borderline personality, narcissistic, antisocial, those sorts
of things.
Speaker 1 (36:53):
All right, let's talk about Team Didty. Is anyone on
the Didty's side? Is there any team did Do You
want to be on the prosecution side for Sean Diddy Combs, right,
or you want to be working the defense, but the
defense is making some bank because this case is working
(37:13):
around the clock.
Speaker 2 (37:14):
Okay, it's funny you say that. So I was watching
Harvey Levin did on TMZ did a mock trial. It
was on TV a couple days ago. I don't know
if anybody saw it. And you know, when you have
these pretty big, high profile cases as a defense attorney
in as a prosecutor, you're going to try to have
(37:35):
mock trials. They cost a couple of dollars to do.
But if client has money, I always advise, Hey, look,
this is something you might want to do, especially if
you have a potential plea versus a trial. You it's
good to do this. And in the mock trial that
TMZ did, it really wasn't as cut and dry as
(37:57):
everybody says, because number one, I think it's going to
be very difficult to get an unbiased jury because everybody
knows Diddy, So that's number one. But number two, there's
going to be the topic of race. And I thought
of it originally, but I didn't really put a ton
of stock into it. And in the TMZ mock jury,
(38:18):
the jurors they were at that pretty hard, so they
think that this there could be some racial epithets around this.
So I think that could be something in Ditty's favor.
The other thing that the jury was talking about. And
I've said this from the beginning, but you know, there's
so many things with Ditty that it's hard to keep up.
(38:38):
Where a lot of these crimes, these federal crimes that
he's being charged with, you have to have some type
of profit, meaning there's all these sex parties allegations, and
he made people engage in these sexual activities, but there
had to be some type of profit and there was
(38:59):
from all the testimony and from everything that I've seen,
there is no profit. So the jury saw that and
that was a big question. So there was not a
unanimous jury in that TMZ show that they did and
that could be a precursor to his federal trial. I'm
not saying, you know, they did it, all right, and
(39:21):
I'm not saying that, And obviously TV trials and real
trials are two different things, but it's something that I
would be keeping my eye on. So right now, Look,
I think the government has the upper hand. That's one
hundred percent in any federal case, government has the upper hand.
I mean, it's a very unfair process when the federal
(39:42):
the federal system, the Feds don't take cases unless they
really think it's going to be a winner, all right.
That's it's not state, it's fed de fence. So they
really are They really have, you know, like you said,
a lot of resources, but they just they don't take
loser cases. They take winning cases. It's just what they do.
And I'm not saying that they don't have a winning case.
(40:02):
But I think Diddy, may you know, have a couple
of tricks up his sleeve in the end. I don't know.
And at the same time, again I know that Diddy
is saying, oh, you know, I'm taking this trial. I
want to go. I'm still not going to be surprised
one way or another if it does go to trial
or if it ended a play.
Speaker 1 (40:23):
And is it my understanding they haven't named any of
the co conspirators.
Speaker 2 (40:28):
Yet, that's accurate. Yeah, they haven't, and that's something they have.
You know, you have to actually have You need to
know who is being charged or aren't charged, but you
need to know the other individuals that are associated with
your case. It's a due process claim. So while for
them not to know it, especially this late in the ballgame,
(40:51):
I think that's very problematic. Well I want to know, yeah,
you and me both. I think p Diddy knows, he
better know, he better know.
Speaker 1 (41:04):
Oh it'll be interesting to see the whatever defense strategy
you know they're trying to pull for him, you know,
any psychological angle you know, for sympathy. I think they're
still trying to get him out on bail and that's
being declined.
Speaker 2 (41:18):
He won't get out, there's no way.
Speaker 1 (41:20):
No.
Speaker 2 (41:20):
I think they've they've tried like at least three times,
if not more, and each time they've been denied, there's
no change in circumstances. And yeah, apparently he hasn't been
a model citizen either in the prison, so I don't
think a judge is going to be that sympathetic towards it.
Speaker 1 (41:35):
Oh my god, Well, I think we covered all the
cases today. We'll have to have you come back. What
case do you want to come back on and discuss?
There's so many fascinating cases.
Speaker 2 (41:46):
Out there, which ever won you? Just you let me know.
Speaker 1 (41:49):
I'll be here, Okay, I will, I will. Well, thank
you so much. Let our audience know where they can
connect and find you. Follow you on Instagram and whatever
others your favorite social media app is, so you can.
Speaker 2 (42:05):
Go to our website at Gelman Law Firm dot com.
And also, I know we have an Instagram thing but
I really don't know it, but we also have a
Twitter the X. It's a David Gelman ESQ.
Speaker 1 (42:20):
You're the same on Instagram. Somebody's hooking you up and
I just went on and watch your videos. So you've
been on a lot of media outlets and they're posting
everything there. So I'll collab with you there. And I
know you're active on Twitter, which I think it's great.
So people can connect with you. We can ask you
what side you're on, ask you any questions, interact with you.
(42:41):
So I so much appreciate your time today and your insight.
It was really fun to have you, David.
Speaker 2 (42:47):
Thank you, oh, thank you very much for having me.
I look forward to coming back and this was a
lot of fun.
Speaker 1 (42:51):
All right, awesome, have a great day.
Speaker 2 (42:53):
The two guys.
Speaker 1 (42:56):
Thank you for listening to Killer Psychologist. To watch fool
Vido episodes, or if you want to interact with me,
you can find Killer Psychologists on YouTube. You can also
get notified of new episodes by signing up in my
stand store. Now, if you want to work with me,
you can book a console. My website is psychologydoctor dot com.
(43:19):
That's psychology dr dot com.
Popular Podcasts
New Heights with Jason & Travis Kelce
Football’s funniest family duo — Jason Kelce of the Philadelphia Eagles and Travis Kelce of the Kansas City Chiefs — team up to provide next-level access to life in the league as it unfolds. The two brothers and Super Bowl champions drop weekly insights about the weekly slate of games and share their INSIDE perspectives on trending NFL news and sports headlines. They also endlessly rag on each other as brothers do, chat the latest in pop culture and welcome some very popular and well-known friends to chat with them. Check out new episodes every Wednesday. Follow New Heights on the Wondery App, YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts. You can listen to new episodes early and ad-free, and get exclusive content on Wondery+. Join Wondery+ in the Wondery App, Apple Podcasts or Spotify. And join our new membership for a unique fan experience by going to the New Heights YouTube channel now!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.