66 - The Vegas Courtroom King

From the Hell’s Angels to the man now charged in the 1996 murder of Tupac Shakur, Las Vegas defense attorney Ross Goodman has built his reputation in the eye of the legal storm. A Marine Corps Major turned powerhouse trial lawyer, Goodman is now one of the most well-known and respected names in criminal defense.

In this episode of Killer Psychologist, Ross shares how he defends violent crime suspects, celebrity clients, and outlaw bikers, all while managing intense media scrutiny and high-stakes trials. His client list includes UFC fighters Nick Diaz and Wanderlei Silva, pro athletes, and high-profile figures whose cases dominate headlines.

We examine the courtroom strategy, psychological pressure, and public perception involved in defending the accused when the spotlight is relentless and the stakes couldn’t be higher.

Connect with Ross Goodman:
• Website: Goodman Law Group
• Facebook: Goodman Law Group
• X (formerly Twitter): @rosscgoodman


Chapters
00:00 Introduction to Ross Goodman and His Career
02:12 High-Stakes Legal Decisions
06:02 The Tupac Case: Complexities and Challenges
10:27 Defendants and Their Statements
15:11 Psychological Aspects of High-Profile Cases
21:00 The Role of AI in Legal Research
26:52 The Hells Angels Case: A Young Lawyer's Journey
28:01 Legal Representation Across Gangs and Organizations
29:30 The Dangers of Child Custody Cases
31:44 Understanding Sociopathy in Legal Contexts
33:21 The Art of Jury Trials
37:56 Unexpected Verdicts in Court
41:02 The Importance of Client Preparation
44:51 Budget Cuts and Their Impact on Justice
46:06 Navigating Insanity Defenses in Court
49:09 The Complexity of Mental Health in Legal Cases
54:41 Conclusion and Resources for Legal Help


Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/killer-psychologist--6020549/support.

Episode Transcript

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.

Speaker 2 (00:18):
Today, on Killer Psychologist, we're honored to host Ross Goodman,
Marine Corps major turned powerhouse defense attorney. Known for taking
on Las Vegas's most high profile and controversial cases, Ross

(00:40):
has defended everyone from individuals accused of serious violent crimes,
to professional athletes caught in a scandal, to outlaw bikers
and even legendary celebrities. As founder of Goodman Law Group,
a board sort of criminal defense firm, Ross brings battlefield

(01:03):
discipline to the courtroom, stepping in when stakes are the highest.
He's represented UFC fighters Nick Diaz, vonder Ley Silva, legendary
comedian Jerry Lewis, members of the Hell's Angels, involved in
the infamous Lowland River run riot, and even help secure

(01:24):
a five million win for Vision Airline employees. And more recently,
he's gained some significant attention with his connection with Duane
kify D. Davis, the man now charged in the nineteen
ninety six murder of Tupac Secure and if legal legacy
counts for anything. I think Ross has it in his DNA.

(01:49):
He's the son of former Las Vegas mayors Oscar and
Carolyn Goodman. So Ross, I think you were made for
this being in the spotlight. So I think it's no
surprise that rossline tim center stage in the city's most
headline grabbing legal battles.

Speaker 3 (02:10):
Ross, welcome, Thank you for having me. That's quite the introduction.
I forgot half of the cases you mentioned in that introduction,
but I you know, I don't want to date myself,
but I love being in Las Vegas. I was born
and raised in Las Vegas, and I wouldn't practice law
on any other city other than Las Vegas because for

(02:32):
the reasons that you just stated. Where else you can
have celebrities and professional athletes that you know from every
walk of life come to Las Vegas, find themselves probably
having a good time, have too much fun, and get
in trouble, which is when I come into play. Yeah.

Speaker 2 (02:50):
So I'm fascinated by your career and caces that walk
through your door. So what's this internal litmus test when
deciding to take on these high stakes clients that you
know maybe everyone else is back and away from.

Speaker 3 (03:08):
So I made a decision I'm a long time ago
because I guess I'm not a good supervising attorney. So
I'm a perfectionist. So I can only take on so
many cases. I don't have other warriors in my office
that can go make appearances for me or go visit
with clients in custody. So it comes down to, unfortunately

(03:30):
or fortunately, it comes down to money, and it comes
down to the value that you place on a case.
And that allows me, fortunately at this stage of my career,
to only represent people who can afford the fee so
that I could give them the commitment and dedication that's
really needed to work up each and every one of

(03:53):
these cases. So it really comes down to whether or
not there's a rapport with the client and whether or
not they can pay for the defense.

Speaker 2 (04:03):
Yeah, I'm not sure I could afford your defense.

Speaker 3 (04:06):
Well, you would be surprised. It depends on the case,
and it depends.

Speaker 4 (04:10):
If I get in trouble Vegas, I'm calling you.

Speaker 3 (04:13):
The truth of the matter is is that I love
what I do, and so as long as you're conscientious
and you're twenty thirty years in a career and you
love what you're doing. It's really all easy at that point,
and everything comes down to preparation. Like for a real
estate agent, it's location, location, location. For a trial lawyer

(04:35):
is preparation. I'm preparing right now. I have a federal
trial that starts on Tuesday, should only last about four days,
and I'm knee deep in the nitty gritty, which most
lawyers probably don't like. Most lawyers don't have the patience
for but for better or for worse. And maybe it's
a diagnosis that I haven't been diagnosed with yet, But

(04:57):
I'm obsessive, compulsive about the tiniest of facts, and I eat, live,
and breathe these cases, and I think clients know it.
And if I have the time and you know I
can represent them, then I do. And it really doesn't matter,
by the way, whether it's a celebrity, professional athlete or
a mama pot because at the end of the day,

(05:18):
you have to put in the same amount of hours
in working up a case, So it doesn't matter if
it's a high profile case where you have news involved
or just your random like a garden variety dui or
domestic battery. I mean, you know you're a criminal defense Wilder.
I take all sorts of cases as long as you're
accused of a crime, and then I'll represent you. So

(05:40):
it's really a function at my stage of the career.
Unfortunate that I'm able to be selective on the amount
of cases I take, so I can give the attention
to detail that's needed in order to probably pivot and
shape the case so that what looks like a bleak
result can actually be a favorable resolution. Yeah.

Speaker 2 (06:02):
So I'm curious and was about twenty twenty three when
you came across the Tupac case, which you know, a
lot of these cases are so famous we come across
them in the news and see your name associated with it.
You know, you were just briefly involved. But maybe you
can share what you can about some complexities and cases

(06:24):
that are so high profile, or the challenges you can
face when representing someone like that. Maybe give a little
background because keepy d I went on a podcast.

Speaker 3 (06:35):
That's the problem, that's what you know, that's what resulted
in the prosecution against him. I mean, he it says,
you know, he's his own worst enemy. As far as
why he was arrested twenty three years after the Tupac
shouldkur killing. So I got the call, like I do,
you know, I don't recall exactly how that came about.
I think a lawyer from LA called me and asked

(06:57):
me to go visit with Dwayne Davis, and I did,
did you know, man him a couple of times and
and so he hired me. But unfortunately, like we just
talked about, there's a payment schedule that's associated with the representation,
and that only went so far. So we left on
good terms. But I couldn't continue devoting my practice to

(07:17):
a case of that magnitude without the right type of
financial resources, so I had to bow out quickly. And
since then, unfortunately he's had two or three different lawyers,
one of which was a public defender's office, and it's
kind of just stuck in quagmire. Right now, I.

Speaker 4 (07:34):
Got to ask a question about defendants with their you know,
talking either publicly on a podcast or to law enforcement.
Right So I want your so, like you may not know,
but I was a police officer for twenty eight years
before I changed careers, and I investigated thousands of cases
and work homicides, everything, And what's fascinating and I think
you know this is that you know, most defendants will

(07:56):
wave their you know, the Miranda rights once you you
get rand warning right. Not all of them, but most
of them do. What's your take on that in terms
of like, why do you think most people do this?

Speaker 3 (08:07):
Well, I think there's a misconception. Actually. I think most
people tell me Ross, you can get the case dismissed,
and I'll say why because they didn't read me my
mirandom warnings and so everything that I just said, all
the everything I just admitted to you can get dismissed.
You can get us oppressed. And I'm like, no, no,
you guys don't understand. I mean, how many movies have

(08:29):
you watched? You don't have to mirandize somebody until they're
under arrest. So typically what an officer does is they
conduct an investigation to listen information for probable costs to
then arrest you. At that point it's too late, then
they mirandize you. So I'll often say to you know,
drive the point home. Did you say anything incriminating on

(08:51):
the way to the jail. No, I didn't think, so, okay,
so that's off the table. But I think that people
think Craig, to answer your question, I think people think
that they can out talk and they're smarter than the officers.
And the problem is I have a lot of smart clients.
I represent lawyers and doctors who get arrested in Las Vegas,

(09:13):
very smart people. But what they don't understand is you
can't outsmart what you don't know. And so, as you
know from your prior experience as a as an officer,
you're not going to share with the suspect the information
that you already have. You're not going to let them
know whether or not you just talk to two witnesses,
they're going to completely contradict what they're saying, even if

(09:35):
it's a lie, and you're not going to tell that
person whether or not closed circuit TV exists or whether
or not there's a ring doorbell camera video that exists
from a witness. So you just don't know. So even
if you're trying to be truthful, it's in a vacuum.
And so that could indicate to an officer you're actually
trying to cover up and lie even though you're being truthful,

(09:59):
because you know know what the other information is as
part of that calculus. And so that's the danger because
most people think obviously that oh if I ever get
arrested and it's the wrong it's the wrong identification. I'm
in the wrong place at the wrong time. I'm just
going to tell the officer that and then they'll see
it and let me go. But that's hardly the case.

(10:19):
In fact, I can't think of the last time where
that actually happened. So my advice, Craig to everybody listening
is to not make any statements until you have, you know,
a lawyer present. There's a reason for that.

Speaker 4 (10:33):
It's crazy because I had a client, so I do
some criminal defense work and I hit have a client
a few years ago that that gave that advice. Obviously,
I said, please refer the investigator, and this was a
sexual assault allegation, refer to the investigator to me, And
inevitably that did not happen. They ended up talking, you know,
because they thought, you know, I'm innocent of this. I
don't know, I don't have to worry about anything. And

(10:54):
they ended up talking anyway. And again, like you said,
it was out of custody, so you know, it's a
two prong tests, you know. So yeah, law corser doesn't
have to give him miranda warning, and so they brought
him in did did the healer? The dealers are warning
they give folks when they arm and interrogate them and
let them know they're free to leave at any time,
don't We don't necessarily mirandize him. But yeah, he talked well.

Speaker 3 (11:15):
I tell people all the time, you want to keep
it so that you have a level playing field. So
when you go talk to the lawyer, he has a
blank canvas to work for him. Right. If you put
handcuffs on me, then it makes it more difficult, more
challenging for me to navigate once I review the evidence,
because you've already said A when you could have said B.

(11:35):
You just said it differently. But now we're locked into
this area, which isn't as good as it would have
been had you not said anything. So I told people
all the time, it's your life, it's your liberally, just
don't make any statements. You're never never going to talk
your way out of being arrested. Don't talk to the
cop real quickly. About Dwayne Davis. The reason why Dwayne,

(11:56):
I mean, I can't speak for him, but the reason
why he went on pop cast and he wrote books,
you know, admitting to being in a car where his
nephew was in that who allegedly shot to pakshakur Is
because I believe he thought that the statute of limitations
had passed in a sense that it never expires for murder.

(12:17):
But he believes he had an immunity deal from the
US Attorney's Office LAPD and the FBI on a federal
drug case about twenty years ago. But as it turned out,
he didn't, and so much time had passed and he
wanted to make some money, and he got paid some

(12:38):
money on doing those podcasts and writing those books. But
you know, as a result, the District Attorney's office here
heard those podcasts, read the book and determined, hey, we
got a great case here. I mean, you can hear
it from his own mouth. So that's the problem.

Speaker 2 (12:57):
Yeah, it looks like he was on a podcast in
twenty ninety teen and then you know, sharing his involvement
in the shooting. But then he went on a podcast
again in twenty twenty three, is my understanding, so elaborating
on some of his experiences.

Speaker 3 (13:14):
Well, he went on multiple podcasts. I mean, you know,
it just wasn't that one. But I mean I think
that you know, in af fairness and context for a jury.
He was experiencing some serious health issues at that time
where he may not have lived that much longer, and
I think that he needed money. They were offering a

(13:35):
significant amount of money to do those shows back then,
and I believe he thought it was for entertainment value.
Other people have profited off of that story, and so
he thought he might as well, because he had no
other way to earn income. So I think it was
a confluence of those factors. And it's going to be
up to a jury to determine whether or not that

(13:57):
those things are believable and whether or not that they
should take what he said at face value, and you know,
beyond a reasonable doubt that he was actually there in
that car, because outside of that, they don't really have
any physical evidence. They don't have any witnesses except for
Sube Knight, who is in prison himself serving a murdered

(14:17):
term who was with Tupac in the car. But outside
of that, there's nobody alive that could come in and
testify that Dwayne Davis was in the car at the
time of the shooting. They don't have the car, they
don't have the gun, they don't have any physical evidence.
So He's going to be an interesting case.

Speaker 2 (14:36):
It sounds like stay tuned, this is going to be
a Netflix special.

Speaker 3 (14:39):
Yeah, I'm sure it will. Wow.

Speaker 2 (14:43):
So, yeah, these cases can catch up with you. I
think people talking. It's not the first podcast where people
have shared details. Maybe they shouldn't have, but seems like
so many people are, you know, as the year's unfold,
they start sharing a little bit by a little bit it,
you know, publicly, and it does them in Craig. Is

(15:04):
there anything you want to say about some of the
psychological aspects of some of these personalities.

Speaker 4 (15:11):
Yeah, I mean there is. I think there is an element,
there's a personality piece to this in some instances because
we have and the viewers may not know what this means,
but I'll just describe it briefly. But there's a personality
architecture called the histrionic personality. And so people who are
historyonic they love to be the center of any kind

(15:31):
of attention, controversy, things like that, and they're very sort
of gregarious and dramatic in the way that you know,
they talk about things. So if they want that, if
they want the attention, someone with that personality organization is
going to be more likely to talk like that and
you know, open their mouth when they shouldn't necessarily do
that and talk to the wrong people, and those sorts

(15:53):
of things. So from a psychological perspective, psychologists we you know,
we do we know that that that's potentially one of
the factors that could be involved in, you know, why
somebody would be in narcissism as well, because those interact,
you know, so we see this like sort of narcissistic
sort of histrionic architecture that where again, people who are

(16:14):
narcissistic ten you know, the grandiosity is the major sort
of excess there. They you know, they love to you know, exploit,
you know, and say, you know, look at how great
I am and you know things I've done. So so
I think it's kind of a combination of those two
that we sometimes will see. And I'm sure Ross has
probably dealt with those kinds of clients that you know,
they love the attention, they want the attention, and that

(16:35):
could be challenging as a as a defense attorney in
terms of trying to rain them in when they want
to tell their story, when they want to talk, they
want to talk to the media, they want to talk
to people.

Speaker 3 (16:43):
But that's like every day right, I mean, that's like
an every day person. I mean, you know, take it
out of the Ivory tower, you know, the street level.
We call it big bawling. Right, you try and big
will everybody or be a telephone tough guy, and people
just like to put the guard down and puff out
their chest, and a lot of times it gets them
in trouble, especially when you know other people are recording

(17:05):
that interaction, which happens all the time. I mean, you
know here in Nevada you can record somebody in person,
and that happens more than people realize when I get
these recordings in these cases.

Speaker 4 (17:17):
Yeah, so it's Nevada is a one party consent state,
not two party like a contrasts, so the viewers, now
cal Ordy has a two party consent state, which means
you cannot record somebody you know without their prior consent.
In certain situations, like in public spaces where there's no
expectation of privacy, that that's a little different. But in Nevada,

(17:38):
you could record somebody right and then that conversation you
don't have to necessarily get their consent first, like if
you're of a telephant conversation.

Speaker 3 (17:44):
With them, right, that's correct, right, unless it's over the
telephone that you need to you know, that's why you
you know, speak to your insurance company or something like that.
They'll say this, you know, this call is being recorded
because otherwise that's a federal crime too. But like you said,
like you mentioned in California, I have a case right now,
a first degree arson case involving how should I describe her?

(18:07):
An escort a high end escort, and she got mad.
There was a dispute that that's what the allegation is
with the person who owned the house. Five million dollar
house that bird to the ground, and so allegedly my
client was flown to Miami where this person who owned
the house was, and he recorded the conversation in Florida,

(18:32):
set up a nanny can in this hotel room, very
nice hotel room. He you know, dined her, He did
everything he could. She had her guard down, and she
made some incriminating statements and based on that, he gave
that to the arson investigator so he could finalize his report.
That Metro, which is a law enforcement agency here in

(18:53):
Las Vegas, ran with it any file first degree arson
against her, and you know, residential burglar and everything else
that's associated with breaking into the house to commit a felony.
And so I had filed emotion on that issue because
in Florida, where he did that from, he has a
second house. In Miami, it's like California, it's a two

(19:13):
party consent. So she obviously in not consent. In fact
when she is on camera, which made it more difficult
for the judge and the prosecutor, she was naked, So
she walked into the hotel room and he was on
the bed and she was naked, So it was a
complete setup, and she made a couple of these incriminating statements,
and I filed emotion and lemonade to exclude that. And

(19:36):
because the judge agreed with me that it was legal
in Nevada to do that, you cann't admit it because
you had to respect where the case is.

Speaker 4 (19:46):
Oh interesting, yeah, but most.

Speaker 3 (19:48):
Of the time you're going to be able to get
recordings in because it's especially here in Nevada, where some
one party consent. So by the way, that prosecutor is
calling me up and trying to negotiate the case right now,
because there's a real no evidence, there's no you know,
ring doorbell video from other neighbors showing her even going
to the house they have. It's a very what we

(20:08):
call thin case, and so so we'll see what apps
on that.

Speaker 4 (20:12):
They want to make a deal.

Speaker 3 (20:13):
And they want to rest a T shirt five million dollars.
I said, guys, if they had that, then I will
got paid something. I got paid from a third party.
But that's another story.

Speaker 2 (20:22):
Right, that's a very interesting story. I think sometimes how
people get paid to do these things. But in any event,
you're paid.

Speaker 3 (20:31):
And she's getting the best defense you can get. I
can assure you that I believe it. And she has
no idea. Most clients have no idea on what really
goes on. They just hear the generalities. Hey, you know,
my lawyer filed emotion. He's about to have a hearing,
he's about to go meet with it. Like, they have
no idea what really goes on behind the seeds and

(20:52):
how many hours it takes or research, draft, prepare think
through these issues, which is okay, but.

Speaker 4 (21:00):
Yeah, exactly no. And I think, you know, this is
why we go to law school and we learn how
foul memorandums points, authorities all that fun stuff do have
a legal research So now I have a question for
you about this is affecting us, I think in a
positive way on our forensic sych side. How much are
you looking into the use of AI to assist your

(21:21):
your legal research? You know, because now we have these
AI tools that can really facilitate and help with that.

Speaker 3 (21:26):
I get asked that question more than any question nowadays.
And you know, my answer is not what people expect.
It's not because you know, I'm a solo practitioner. I
do everything myself. You know, not going to say I'm
an expert, but I know how to navigate research, and
you know, I have different databases and I just do

(21:47):
everything on my own anyway. But if you're a bigger
law firm, or if you have you know, different types
of cases, I think AI is going to be invaluable.
And obviously it's going to change the landscape of how
you're going to practice law because you know, you're gonna
be able to be a meetings, You're gonna be able
to take that positions, You're going to be able to
distill and summarize all the witness statements. So if you

(22:09):
have a bigger case like what we used to have,
which doesn't seem to happen anymore. But when I first started,
like the Hell's Angels case that was leated to be
six months, and you know, that trial went six weeks
in federal court, and I was cross examining just by luck,
because there was I forget how many defendants we had

(22:31):
to I mean, there was one hundred people arrested. But
what the government did was break it down and did
what they believe were the most culpable defendants first because
it's the easiest group to convict, they thought, and then
everybody else would fall so they wouldn't have to do
years and years of trials because you can only do

(22:52):
so many people at a time. So my guy was
Rodney Cox, and it was on dateline of forty eight
hours and everything else, this video NonStop throughout you know,
National Needs Forever back then. And he was a guy
that had these sunglasses on, this white biker helmet, these
white biker gloves, and he walked around with the crescent

(23:14):
wrench because he was a felon and he didn't want
to have a firearm. So he walks into Harris Waffling
Casino and you see him on video as clear as day,
and he takes a stool that sits there that you're
gonna play, you know, slot machine with, And there was
all these people who had already been fighting on the floor.

(23:34):
Not Dad, just you know, knocked out on the floor
because there was a melee. When I say melee, you
can only imagine between two gangs or two motorcycle gangs.
So Rodney took one of the chairs, put it over
the leg of a mongol that was on the ground,
and kneed and put his knee on the chair and

(23:54):
as a guy and as that guy was coming up,
he just took this big asked cress and wrench and
came down right on his head and blood spewed, ray
matter spewed all over the place. And that was one
of the murder charges that they had against the Hell's Angels,
and they had him for racketeering and some other charges.

(24:16):
And so what we did back then is there was
a bunch of lawyers representing I think we had ten
defendants at the time, and so we uh the planned
for that. We just simply said, okay, you're going to
take these two witnesses. You're gonna take these three witnesses.
It was just random and one of the witnesses that
I was assigned to do with. Somebody else was the
undercover ATF agent that had infiltrated the Hell's Angels gag.

(24:40):
And he was a Hell's Angels, but he was undercover
with the ATF. And as I was cross examining him
and sometimes about nothing right, it just you stand up
there for a couple hours and you're just asking him questions,
hoping that you're going to get him to say something
that you can then you know, seize on and that
and then explore that. Well, it came out that there

(25:01):
was a report that he referred to, and I start
looking back. I'm at the elector, and I start looking
back at the lawyers behind me, and they're all going
like this too. And the look was, do you know
what report that he's referring to? Nobody knew what report
he was referring to. So we waited until a break
and the jury was excused, and that became a whole

(25:24):
you know, motion practice about whether or not the government
acted in bad faith and not producing that report that
was exculpatory that I would have been able to impeach
that agent on. And so as a result, the judge
of Federal Judge dismissed the case.

Speaker 4 (25:41):
Ooh, so potential Brady vile. I mean it sounded like
a Brady violation then, right with him? Yeah, yeah, correct.

Speaker 3 (25:48):
But the judge was not very happy with the prosecutors.
There's a little bit more involved than what I'm telling you,
but wasn't happy with it. Gave him, or gave the
government every every shot to come back in and and
remedy it and answer the questions and produce the reports,
and he never did. Now, that wasn't the end of
the case, though. They were also charged with murder racketeering

(26:10):
in state court. So then we had to go across
the street from federal court to state court and we
had to do those cases. And we had filed what's
called a wrint of habeas corpus to the Nevada Supreme
Court to Carcas City on some of these issues, including
the jurisdiction issue, and we got argument, and so we

(26:30):
flew up the Carca City and we had an argument
on our appellate issues which were pre trial in state court.
And as a result of that, we had then convinced
the prosecutors to negotiate the case where my client got
credit for time served I think he did about two
years in jail waiting for both the state and federal

(26:51):
cases to go.

Speaker 4 (26:52):
WHOA, So I have a quick question, So how did
they avoid double jeopardy if the actually double jeopardy wouldn't
attach because he didn't get convicted of the other charge.
So they basically filed the same charge in state court,
is what you're saying, Like they just used a state
legal theory instead of a federal statute.

Speaker 3 (27:08):
Correct, And even if they had been convicted in federal court,
they very well may have been able to proceed on
state court charges.

Speaker 4 (27:16):
Okay, I'm assuming then the legal theories were different. Yeah, yeah, yeah, okay. Wow.

Speaker 3 (27:22):
So that was my Hell's Angel's case, which was a
great case to be you know, I was a relatively
young lawyer back then, and it was a great case
to be involved with. And if you ask me, Dana,
because a better question would be, so, how did you
get involved in that case? It's such a young lawyer
because it was like not the case of the century,
but it was a high profile case that everybody was

(27:44):
I'm interested in, And the answer would be, I have
no idea. I don't remember how I got involved in
that case. But Fortunately I did, because there was a
lot of very experienced lawyers involved in that case who
had been practicing for a long time at that time,
and somehow, some way I found myself involved.

Speaker 2 (28:01):
Yeah, I would hate to be be the losing attorney
for the Hell's Angels.

Speaker 3 (28:07):
Well, you can say not about anybody, about about any
gang or organization. You know, I've been lucky enough to
represent this right because anybody is going to be involved
in charges, federal charges or state charges, whether or not
that's people they perceive to be part of somebody from
Armenia that's part of the Armenia mafia, or Vietnamese gang

(28:29):
or your traditional blood crips. I mean, you know, I've
represented everybody. And sometimes I'll get somebody saying, hey, I
know that you represented somebody Long Beach, which is a
Long Beach crips, and you know we have a problem
with them. I'm like, well, they use me. I'm not
affiliated with any particular organization. I'm a criminal defense lawyer,

(28:51):
and you know I'm an equal opportunist, So I'll represent
anybody that wants me to represent them, that can afford
me to the cryps or the blo you.

Speaker 4 (29:00):
Know, doesn't matter right non discrimination clause on that, right,
Like yeah, well it's the same thing, like just I mean,
doing child custody work as an attorney, you know, that's
another dangerous, dangerous area, right, Like you know for lawyers
and even for us you know, psychologists doing child custody
evaluations because generally there's a loser, well somebody who doesn't

(29:22):
get what they want in those cases. And if you've
got someone who's personality disordered right on the other side
that gets the short end of the stick, then all
of a sudden, now you're getting threats and things like that.
I mean I've seen cases like that, right, That's happened
before frequently.

Speaker 3 (29:37):
Well I'm not going to mention names, but there has
been some high profile cases just you know recently where
a lawyer was shot and at that position during a
child custody dispute. There was but somebody I knew that
was involved with shooting was state judge up in Reno
because he didn't like the custody decision. So whenever you're

(29:58):
talking about children in any emotions, you know, it's not
difficult to assume that there's going to be people who
break They either have a nervous breakdown or whatever you
want to call it. You guys are a psychologist, you
would know better than you do. But I mean it
happens quite a bit. And from a legal standpoint on
this side of the desk, I can tell you without

(30:20):
being credential that a lot of my clients exhibit sociopathic
I tendencies like they have no reservation in testifying under oath,
and a lot of jurors you don't believe what they
say because they're very convincing. As you know, it's one
of the traits of being a sociopath, and unfortunately, I

(30:43):
think there's a more social path than we know.

Speaker 4 (30:49):
Yeah, no, I agree with that. Yeah, I mean, the
MAS rates about a one percent. Whether it's sociopathy or psychopathy,
we kind of use those terms synonymously, but the outcome
and the behaviors are the same. But yeah, you're right.
Oftentimes have no problem because they are persuasive, they're convincing.
They can come across as very truthful, right, And that's
just part of we call it psychopathic architecture because they

(31:10):
don't have the emotional arousal associated in the guilt with
telling a lie. That's why it's hard if I'm talking
to a psychopath. They could lie to me, and I'm
looking for non verbal, you know, cues that could suggest
they might not be truthful. But they're not going to
necessarily exhibit those cues because their brain structures are slightly
different than the non psychopath. And that explains why they're

(31:32):
able to maybe get up on the stand and be
very calm and not rattled by you know, a vigorous
like self or a cross examination, you know, by opposing
counsel that kind of stuff. So that's interesting.

Speaker 3 (31:44):
Yeah, just like you're evaluating somebody in your field, I mean,
jurors going to be evaluating the witness as well. You know,
maybe not to the degree that you are, but you know,
if you don't exhibit anything, it's just the opposite. They
come across as actually credible and believable. You know, I
see it more times than not. And that's what the
issue is, is criminal defense way that that's where the

(32:04):
ethical issues are raised at that point, Right, So as
long as I know that the client isn't a committing perjury,
honest dand I don't have any knowledge of that that
you know, if a jury wants to believe his story,
then the mess up to the jury. You know, people
always ask me, Ross, we know that he did it,
how did you get it not guilty? And don't you

(32:26):
feel bad about it? And my answer is the same
every single time, which is if he was that guilty,
then why I didn't twelve people find him guilty. It's
not up to me. I'm not the judge during execution er.
That's why we have jury trials. So that's why I
love my job. Data, that's why I continue to do
it after almost thirty years at this point, and I

(32:47):
don't see stopping anytime soon.

Speaker 2 (32:51):
So tell me about one of your favorite jury trials,
because most attorneys aren't trial lawyers or would be intimidated
to go to trial because I think it takes on
a whole other level skill set to craft a performance
in front of the jury. And like Vegas, you know,
it's a performance, it's the final act, right, it's a

(33:15):
you know, a bit of a game, like you can
perform and put on a show and like you're you've
got this audience.

Speaker 3 (33:23):
Right, I mean, it's not a big audience. It is
twelve Jersey.

Speaker 2 (33:25):
Yeah, well it's on the news it is, But.

Speaker 3 (33:29):
You do have an audience. I mean, there's so many
cases that come to mind, and so many trials, and
but I'll tell you one that kind of just stands out,
which is it probably what you're expecting because it's not
that juicy, but it's just one that I always thought
was that I had prepared my client that the jury
was going to come back within an hour with a

(33:49):
guilty verdict. And it was one of those cases where
the client had nothing to lose. He was down on
his luck. He had at that point, he had a
gambling addiction, which is another thing that we can talk
about here in Las Vegas, which you see more often
than not, I mean, even more than drugs. It seems
like that that's kind of what the source issue is

(34:10):
for a lot of these people. Unfortunately. So he had
a gambling addiction, which he kept pretty well, Hitten. And
his job was working in a bell Bond's place where
people would come in to bond out their friends and
family members, and as part of that, you would put
down ten percent cash, which is a premium that the

(34:32):
Bellbond's company gets, And so you have this big safe
in there and the cash would go in there, and
they had the record keeping it and all that well,
the owner of the Bell Bonds place, who I knew
well just being in town forever. It was a popular
Bellbonds place. He had let's call it, you know, ten

(34:52):
agents working for him. And you know, my client was
a full time an agent who had been there forever,
and he really at some point that there is a
bunch of money missing. I think the total was about
close to half a million dollars. And so they did
a sting operation and they could never show on video

(35:15):
or have any direct evidence that it was him. However,
you know, circumstantially it was pretty clear that it was
him because of the times that he worked, the money
that came in. They had other agents identify the premiums
that came in were from these right, so they were
able to kind of do a good investigation on him.

(35:35):
And what did I just tell you, He had the opportunity,
right because we found out he was a gambling addict
and he was gambling all this money away, and so
it was a pretty tight case. But they didn't have
the smoking gun. They didn't have any video of him
actually taking the money, hiding the money, or doing anything
like that. They charged him with multiple counts of theft

(35:58):
and embezzlement, and we went to jury trial and my
client was, you know, accepted the out come. He goes, Ross,
I don't have any complaints. You did a great job.
I don't know how you you know, even cross examined
these officers and you know my co employees. You know,
you did a great job. And I said, well, listen,
maybe I did a good enough job that I can

(36:20):
keep the jury at there thinking about it for you know,
more than an hour, and sure enough, before I can
even leave the court house, the courthouse proper and I
get a call on my phone from the bailiff, mister Gibbon,
and jury's returned to verdict. I'm like, I mean, is
that good? No, that's not good. That's not good, Bob.

(36:41):
And we go back there and the two prosecutors are
very happy, they're confident, they're you know, shoot shit whatever.
I'm sure they didn't any leave, and a poor person
said not guilty, not guilty, guilty, not guilty. And the
reason why that came to mind, data is because if
you ask me, what do you think, I had no

(37:01):
idea what happened? And that's the beauty about jury trials,
because you're right, most lawyers don't try cases. Most lawyers
don't have the trial acumen to even try cases, to
handle things that come up on a fly. And you know,
you got to do jury instructions. You really have to
understand it's a different animal than just representing people and

(37:23):
negotiating these cases. And I can't tell you I've thought
about that case a lot. If I tried it nine
more times, or maybe even ten more times out of ten,
the jury would have come back with the conviction. So
it was unanimous. Obviously, It's not like it was one
or two Jordis that had a problem because they didn't
have the video of itence was pretty clear at the

(37:44):
end of the day that he you know that he
had the opportunity and the motive, but they came back
with them not guilty. So that's one of your favorite
stories because it was so is so unexpected.

Speaker 4 (37:56):
Did he take the stand in that case or do
you just did heed?

Speaker 2 (37:59):
Not?

Speaker 3 (38:00):
Is not in a mental state of mind to you know,
say anything.

Speaker 4 (38:04):
Which is probably good. I mean that because the prosecutors
would would have torn into that whole addiction. That gambling
thing for hope, great.

Speaker 3 (38:11):
Unless you have a self defense case is probably never
a good idea even if you have somebody who's articulate
and smart to ever testify, because there's just too many
things that can go wrong on cross examination that you know,
you can only prepare a client so much. And these
prosecutors are also good. They also prepare and juries. Like

(38:36):
you were just saying about evaluating your patients, these juries
will look and you could be testifying for three hours
and then an hour four. You could be a little
bit tired, or you know, the prosecutors asking the same
question and you you know, do a facial twitch or
you look the other way because you're just annoyed or frustrated,

(38:56):
and a juror's going to remember that write down. Oh no,
k now, we got him. He lied, And you go
back and you talk to the jury and they're like,
with jury number four and five said this is what happened.
I didn't catch it, but they felt very strongly about
that being a body cube about him lying and he
was good for their first three. How about the fact
that he was just tired or annoyed that the prosecutor

(39:19):
kept asking the same questions and that's you know, they
know what they're doing. That's part of the game. On
why they ask repetitive questions, you know, much like a
police officer, much like you know, Craig. I mean, you know,
you get the answer you wanted in the first hour
of the interrogation. Well an hour two is guys, Minna
say you know what? Okay, Yes I did robbery? Yes,

(39:41):
they okay, Well he knew that he was going to
commit a robbery. They go, well, why is that because
he said it the twentieth time you asked him exactly?

Speaker 4 (39:50):
He wear him down? Yeah, Dana, correct me if I'm wrong.
Is this recency biased? You know, when you see a juror,
for example, the defense tastes testifying, you know, the first
like three hours on stand and is doing a fairly
good job. But again, like Ross said, the prosecutor is
basically trying to wear them down, trying to catch them
in any inconsistency, get them angry or irritated, and then

(40:12):
so in that last say twenty minutes, you know, they're
pissed off and that comes out. And there's cases I've
seen where this happens, where it's shifted the jury sentiment
on the defendant, right, And that's like a recency bias
because they the jurors are only remembering kind of the
last you know, maybe the last twenty minutes or whatever,
and they're sort of ignoring that first maybe hour or two.
Does that makes sense? Is that recency bias or am

(40:33):
I wrong?

Speaker 2 (40:34):
They're going to haul in on that last thing calling
that information and it's negative. But one of the things
that I see that's problematic is that attorneys not propping
their client for these interviews or taking the stand. I've
seen cases just literally fall apart any deposition or taking
the stand for plankifts or defendants totally not prepared for

(40:59):
what was couldn't be asked of them, and it's five
find it kind of shocking or jaw dropping of like
how attorneys let their clients get up there and it's over,
it's done for like, we're done. We can't repair that damage.

Speaker 3 (41:16):
Well, I think that's attributed to the fact that, especially
in private practice, I mean, there's lots of very good
public defenders. I work with them all the time, so
you know, they get a bad rap too because they're
in that office and they represent you know, indigent people.
But there are a lot of people who have that
passion that they want to help people out, and so
they stay in the public defender's office, and they're just

(41:38):
as good as a private warrior, if not better. Uh So,
I'm not saying this about public defenders, but I'm saying it.
That's why the money that a lawyer charges is not
out of thin air, and there's a vast difference between
what warriors charge, and that's part of the reason, right.
I mean, if you know lawyer A charges five thousand

(42:00):
dollars to do whatever, and lawyer B, C and D
charge five thousand dollars, is that five thousand dollars lawyer
going to spend as much time to prepare that client
so it doesn't fall apart. Probably not, And so that's
ultimately what the issue is. It takes so much time
to do it the right way to avoid those pitfalls

(42:22):
on those issues, which is why you need to charge
a certain amount of money to pay for that time.
And I think most clients don't appreciate the level of
detail and preparation that's needed to make sure that that
doesn't happen to them. And unfortunately, I send it the
courtroom and I see it happen all the time as well,
and it's just the nature of the beast. You can

(42:44):
only devote so many hours when you get charge X
amount of dollars. So a lot of times it does
come down to, you know, whether or not you have
the financial resources to hire the right lawyer who can
spend the time to make sure that they think through
all those issues, so something like that doesn't happen in
trial or in an interview or you know whatever you have.

Speaker 2 (43:07):
Yeah, and I work with a lot of public defender cases,
folks that are indigent. And I can tell you you
know a lot of the I work in different states,
different jurisdictions, so there's different settings, but a lot of them,
you know, finances is an issue. In fact, I'm telling you,
so they don't have the money to even for even competency.

(43:31):
So some of these people who aren't competent to slam
trial who I'm referred to at the last minute. I'll
tell you recently, I was appointed to one like a
week before trial starts. They said, we think this client
maybe not competent. So they're telling me this and I'm like,
sounds crazy. So I go down there. Within the first minute,
I'm like, no, she's psychotic and also tried to light

(43:53):
yourself on fire and burn down this place.

Speaker 3 (43:57):
That's a tell tell sign, right if you try to
like your ouf on fire, that you have a psychotic episode.

Speaker 2 (44:03):
Not in a good mental state. So hold cancel Christmas,
everyone cancel it. And budget cuts are a real thing
within the Public Defender's office, and so they they'll start
chipping away saying, well, we don't want a third evaluator
or a second opinion. So they're told to cut the

(44:26):
cuts so heavily. I'm being called right up, like the
day before or something, and I will go to the
gel and assess them and say, no, they're not competent,
or no, what is going on, like this is an
insanity case or something else. So budget does matter very much,
so and it's going into twenty twenty five, you know,

(44:49):
Craig and I have seen changes.

Speaker 4 (44:51):
Yeah, cuts are coming, especially with the recession that we're
likely in right now, like I you know, given what
just happens, you know what we're seeing in the markets.
But yeah, that's a good point. Yeah that, Yeah, money matters,
Like that does matter. You're right, I mean there's no
way around it.

Speaker 3 (45:08):
You have to have the resources, not just fin answer resources,
but you know, resources with experts in order to make
sure that somebody's due process is not violated. I mean,
you're looking at this isn't a business case. You're looking
at potentially, you know, life in prison or years in prison.
So you shouldn't work at reducing the budget for criminal

(45:28):
cases for the reasons that we just you know, talked about.

Speaker 2 (45:32):
Yeah, I can tell you do process rights are violated.

Speaker 4 (45:36):
Depending on the state. We evaluation other states too, Like
we've got to ask ross this question. I'm burning you
to ask this question. Affirmative defensive NGRI. Now you likely
have asserted that very often. Is that accurate? I mean,
that's something that you're probably not going to assert, right,
and that's obviously because you have to. Then the client
is essentially admitting they've committed this offense, and so it's affirmative.

(45:58):
We have a valueuations. Should I name the state? Maybe
I shouldn't name the state, but we do evaluations. It's Ohio, Okay,
all right, we do evaluations at Ohio. And I just
got to ask you this. So I get we call
them a dual combo. I get a combination competency NNGRI
concurrently at the same time. And I have never in

(46:20):
my career evaluated so had so many NNGRI cases. I've
probably done sixty or seventy of them now, like concurrent
to a competence evaluation. What do you think about that?

Speaker 3 (46:31):
Like?

Speaker 4 (46:31):
And again most of the folks, just so you know,
they don't NJI defense does not work. You know, in
the world, majority of the cases wor is it one
to four percent or something could be successful from what
I have read, But we just see these things. The
defense lawyers just assert them when they follow their emotions.
They just assert the NJR. At the same time, what
do you think about that?

Speaker 3 (46:51):
I don't like it. I mean, I've never asserted it.
I've done competency obviously, because you know, for a variety
of reasons, and sometimes you do competency for strategic reasons.
But you know, I've had a lot of people who
weren't competent, and you know, we're found not competent and
they're up at a crossings right now. But if somebody

(47:13):
is really insane, then you think that a lawyer would
be able to see that quickly and do a competency
herring first and foremost, and then later on developed insanity defense.
You know, you wouldn't plead to that until much later
in the state litigation. But it's very, very difficult in

(47:35):
Nevada because of the case law to ever prove insanity
at the time that the crime occurred.

Speaker 4 (47:44):
Yeah, I just had to look this up recent and
Nevada does use this sort of modified may not rule.
But again it's it's it's definitely the burdens are pretty high.
And so when I do these, majority of the time
I don't find they meet the criteria. They don't meet
the standard, the legal standard, because in the sandity's a
legal construct, not a psychologic or psychiatric construct. And I

(48:04):
think I've only had two, maybe a two where I
actually did find that they met the criteria. They were
you know, they were floridly psychotic. I rolled drug induced
psychosis out, which is a huge thing. Like a majority
of these cases, these folks are under the influence at
the time of the offense, and that's certainly a bar
to that. You know, you can't you can't assert that
if someone is, you know, it's a drug induced psychosis.

(48:24):
But yeah, I just find it interesting that you got
these differences across states, you know, and in some of
these cases are high profile of it. You know, I've
seen that done. They're you know, they're folks are facing
pacing murder charges and those sorts of things. Yeah, they're
just going for it. They're doing n GRI at the
same time of competency.

Speaker 3 (48:40):
Yeah, but I mean a mental health component. I you know,
obviously he's wearing his ugly head and you know, overall
the criminal justice sy stuff, and people don't understand. I
think people conflate insanity with you know, different psychiatric disorders,
just because somebody may be bipolar for example, and after
medications at the time that the defense happened, a lot

(49:03):
of people think that, oh, see he's insane or she
was insane at the time to act happen. Look how
she was acting. Look at we have our video, you know,
like a day before doing this that the other. But
as you just explained, it's very very difficult, I think,
to establish the insanity defense. And I think, you know,
I see it more often used in capital penalty cases

(49:26):
or capital death penalty cases where you're arguing for mitigation
and extenuation. That's usually what I see forensance psychologists come
in to talk about that to try and save that
person from the death penalty. But you know, at a
direct level, to try and assert that as a defense.
You can assert it as a defense, but for it
being a viable defense as a whole different, you know.

Speaker 4 (49:48):
Animal, Yeah, then you again, you've you've sort of your
client now essentially the prosecutor net doesn't have to prove
any of the elements essentially because you you're it's affirmative
meaning like you're you're asserting that your client like did this,
but for the you know, the severe mental disease or illness,
they should be found not guilty because you know, they
didn't know what they were doing was wrong. But that

(50:08):
would be my I mean, and I thought about that, like,
you know, doing defense work myself, Like I wouldn't start
it either.

Speaker 3 (50:14):
Well, Craig, you would just plead not guilty, right, and
then you would negotiate the case and you would plead
guilty by reason of insanity, or you would at some
point just assert that as in the defense. But you're
not You're not really pleading not guilty by reason of insanity.
I see that happen very infrequently for the reasons that

(50:34):
we're just that we're talking about. But I mean, you know,
I mean, it's not a competency evaluation, right, You got
to have significant financial resources if you're a private defense
lawyer and you have a private client, to even work
that up so that it meets standards, I mean. And
so that's why it's difficult. And most of the time

(50:55):
this happens when somebody's indigen on the state side, so
the state can pay for it.

Speaker 2 (51:01):
So Kraig and I do a lot of competency emails.
I do at least ten every month, maybe some months
maybe fifteen. But like competency is pretty routine. I always
get the whole medical record file from the GEL before
I even see the person. I'm doing two people tonight
and three tomorrow, so I'm doing five this weekend. But
I already have the medical records on all them and

(51:22):
all the criminal records, and already compile the reports, already
ready to go. But one of the things I'll see
that in competency evaluations across the states is that some
states or counties jurisdictions pay far too little, and people
aren't really interested. They're interested in doing the least amount.
They'll pass them through competency even when maybe they're not.

(51:43):
They don't look at the records or anything. And that happens,
and it's dangerous because then you see these cases circle back, right.
So that's my warning out there for superior courts or
agencies that want to low ball or not get good
experts in, or not share medical records or things like that.

(52:07):
And it's very frustrating to see that.

Speaker 3 (52:10):
It's amazing how many times I see the competency evaluations
come back to against one like what I mean, it
should be more clear to me. I mean I never
really see. I mean I do, but for the most part,
I always see like there's a conflict, you know, just
for people who are watching. It's a fluid process too.
I mean, I've been where my client's been found competent

(52:31):
and then clearly six months later he is not competent,
and so they I'll have to request a competency evaluation again.
So it's not like a you know, like you're arguing
for bail like one time and that's the only shot
you got. You can continue, I mean, up until trial.
You can determine whether or not your client's competent. And
you know, sometimes just I think being in custody, especially

(52:54):
depending on what the charges are, there's other factors at
work that create you know, people having more psychological issues,
which you know. I've had clients tell me when I
walk in there, hey, who are you? You're the prosecutor.
I'm like, come on, no, I'm not are you Are
you joking? Or is this real? Doct to go through
this whole thing again, it's a common thing.

Speaker 4 (53:17):
Yeah, And you brought up an interesting point about which,
again the viewers probably don't know this, but there is
variation across states in terms of how many evaluators are
needed when what's called a four one to five in
Nevada four two five evaluation is ordered by the by
the court. But in Nevada we have to have two
pre commitment, you know, for pre commitments, we have to
have two evaluators, right, and then you get split sometimes,

(53:37):
but then once they're they're committed into a forensic restoration facility.
In this case, Nevada has two of them. Vegas has
steyned and we have likes that you set up in
Reno where I work. Then you have to have three evaluators.
We have to have two, you know, and then we
have what's called a third which there's only I think
only one other state that does that. Right now. I
think the legislature is actually trying to change that right
now in the current session. From what I heard, I

(53:59):
don't know if that's happened, but that's things like you said,
when you've got two that's find confident, and we see
this too, find confident one says no, you know. And
then so now you've got to split and then the court,
you know, the judge has to issue that final ruling
on that right like, it can create a big it
can create a mess.

Speaker 2 (54:15):
Well, if you ever need competency evaluations for sure, well awesome,
Thank you so much for your time today. Fascinating stories.
I want to hear more stories. I want to know
more about this federal case you're working on. Sure you
can't tell me all the details, but like it's just
fascinating to follow your journey and your career. And for

(54:38):
people that are listening in, you know, they need a defense,
they need Ross Goodman, where can they find you?

Speaker 3 (54:46):
Call me? I can help you out, all right.

Speaker 2 (54:49):
Awesome, Thank you so much for your time today. I
really appreciate it. And thank you Ross and Craig.

Speaker 3 (54:55):
Thank you for having me.

Speaker 1 (54:56):
Yeah, thank you, thank you for listening Killer Psychologist. To
watch full video 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

(55:19):
psychologydoctor dot com. That's psychology dr dot com.