Mother testifies against son in murder trial; Weinstein accuser relives alleged abuse — TCD Sidebar
In this episode of True Crime Daily The Sidebar Podcast
Greg Isaacs joins host Joshua Ritter to break down the biggest cases making headlines across the nation. They discuss a mother’s testimony in the Pike County massacre murder trial, an explosive interaction between the sentencing judge and Nikolas Cruz’s defense counsel, and accusers taking the stand in the sexual assault trials of Danny Masterson and Harvey Weinstein.
Tweet your questions for future episodes to Joshua Ritter using the hashtag #TCDSidebar.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:00:11]
Hello and welcome to True Crime Daily’s The Sidebar, taking you inside the courtrooms of high profile and notorious cases from across the country. I'm your host, Joshua Ritter. I'm a criminal defense lawyer based in Los. Angeles and previously an L.A. County prosecutor for nearly a decade. You can find me at joshuaritter.com. We're recording this on Friday, November 4th, 2022.
In this week's episode, dramatic court action as a mother testifies against her son for the Pike County murders that nearly wiped out an entire family in rural Ohio. As well as a heated exchange from Nicholas Cruz's defense team as victim impact statements were given in the Parkland shooter sentencing hearing. And finally, we turned to Los Angeles for our continued coverage of two high profile sexual assault cases taking place in the same courthouse for the trials of Danny Masterson and Harvey Weinstein.
Today, we are excited to be joined by Greg Isaacs, a Tennessee based criminal defense attorney and legal analyst that you can find on multiple media outlets. Welcome, Greg.
Greg Isaacs:
[0:01:12]
Good to be here, Joshua.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:01:14]
Absolutely. Before we jump into these cases, we're excited to hear your thoughts on them, but could you tell us a little bit about your background and your current practice?
Greg Isaacs:
[0:01:23]
Right. We’re a criminal defense law firm. We do a lot of the high-profile cases in East Tennessee and other states. We tried the first case on Court TV that's televised in Tennessee, have done a number of those. I've also been a legal analyst for the last 20 years and here with the people, I think mutual friends, such as on Court TV with Julie. And I bought him spot every week, Ask Isaacs. So, I appreciate you doing double duty as being a criminal defense lawyer and hosting a podcast.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:02:07]
Absolutely. Well, we're excited to have you. I've watched you many times on TV. I appreciate your insights. And so, I'm really curious to hear your thoughts on these cases. So let's dive right in.
We're talking, first we go to Waverly, Ohio where George Wagner the 4th’s murder trial continues for the Pike County massacre that left eight members of the Rhoden family dead in rural Ohio. George’s mother, Angela Wagner, took the stand for the prosecution to testify against her son, alleging that the entire family helped in the planning, execution, and cover up of the murders.
According to Angela, she believed that her granddaughter, the child of her youngest son, Jake Wagner, and victim Hannah Roden was being abused by the Roden family. She alleged that her husband, Billy Wagner was the catalyst for the murder plot. Angela Wagner struck a deal with prosecutors receiving a 30-year sentence and agreeing to testify against any family members that went to trial. George's father, Billy Wagner, has also pled not guilty to the murders and is awaiting a trial date himself.
Greg, let's talk about this testimony to begin with. Is this so damaging to hear basically a co-conspirator, is this so damaging to the defense that it's nearly insurmountable? What do you think?
Greg Isaacs:
[0:03:24]
Joshua, I think it is insurmountable because when you have a co-conspirator, as you know, you look for ways to impeach the witness and look for bias, you look for inconsistencies. The big thing, it's motivation. What were they offered by the state in order to get their testimony? But in this case, you have a family member. So, it's really going to be hard to get to that level of impeachment and bias if you are defending a defendant’s case.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:03:57]
That's an interesting point that you bring up. And many times, when a co-conspirator’s testifying against other folks, you hear about the deal that they got and you think to yourself, well, that's a real sweetheart deal. Obviously, that's the motive for why they're testifying. I'm saying from a defense perspective how you would try to impeach them. Here, she's getting 30 years. That's nothing to sneeze at. Are the jurors really going to view that as her getting a break?
Greg Isaacs:
[0:04:23]
Well, you know it's going to be interesting to see how far the defense and the prosecution get into the mechanics of that plea agreement. My understanding is a part of the agreement was that the individuals on trial, the death penalty was taken off the table. And you know, Joshua, that always raises an inherent conflict to me when a prosecutor tries to offer a plea agreement to your client.
It also, a third party, we're not going to indict the husband, the wife, the son, the daughter, and it really just creates a conflict that I think you may see down the road in the post-conviction or appellate process. But you know, if you're the jury, I think it adds credibility to this grandmother that she is now agreeing to plead guilty. And not only did she get a reduction in her sentence, but she saved the lives of the others by getting the death penalty off the table.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:05:28]
Yeah, I'm glad that you pointed that out. That was something that I felt was curious myself in the sense that you don't see it all that often. And just to kind of flush out what you were saying is that the deal that was made was that they would cooperate in exchange for the other members of the family who are still going to trial to not have to face the death penalty.
Again, something that the defense might try to exploit to say, well, listen, you're only testifying here to help out your other family members, but you know, again, that deal isn't so great. We're talking about 30 years, could essentially be life for this woman. She's an elderly woman and still it – though death is off the table, it's still a life sentence. So, could you kind of flesh that out for us? Is this – was this a – I guess the question I have was this a good calculation on the prosecution’s part because they're not giving all that much for this testimony?
Greg Isaacs:
[0:06:27]
Well, I think in the facts of this case, if people aren't familiar are fascinating in one respect, and just horrific in another. It's like premeditation on steroids. This family plotted to wipe out an entire family based on a child custody dispute. What they wanted to do and what they arranged was to synchronize the murders of eight separate people at four separate locations.
Again, premeditation on steroids, planning, et cetera. So, what the prosecution had to do was get someone that was in the room when the planning and synchronicity and all about was ongoing. But to think about wiping out an entire generation. The biological mother, so she cannot have custody, but yet her parents and grandparents, anyone that a juvenile court might seem fit like to step in and take custody of his child. So, once the prosecution got somebody that's in the room with that planning, I think that's what their goal was. And I think it's almost going to be an insurmountable hurdle for defense.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:06:27]
Yeah. Yeah. It is a remarkable case from the perspective of how horrific it is as you point out, and that they were able to pull it off quite frankly. I mean, this is, you know, it sounds like some sort of a mafia hit the way that it, you know, several different locations, several – eight different people killed and that they were able to systematically go about this is really horrific.
I wanted to ask you a little bit. I don't know how much experience you have with death penalty cases, but you know people fall all over the spectrum on this kind of politically on whether or not they're in favor of it. But let's talk about here how it still kind of is a valuable negotiating tool for prosecutors in the sense that they were able to use it as some sort of leverage to get cooperation out of some family members in the sense that they said they would not seek the death penalty. What are your thoughts on that?
Greg Isaacs:
[0:08:33]
Well, having tried a number of death penalty cases, it's, you know the phrase the ultimate trial really didn't do creep credence when you're in that dynamic when the state is trying to take the life of your client and it's very powerful. You know, we talk about death penalty, capital punishment in the rubric of a political, ideological debate often, but when you’re in the courtroom, it's very powerful.
So, I think what these prosecutors did, and other prosecutors do is they use the spectre of giving the notice of death as a very strong bargaining chip. And, you know, it's kind of like you're playing high stake legal poker with someone's life because, you know, you really don't know if the state is going to go to that next level to make this a death penalty case.
And once they make that commitment, as you know it changes the landscape completely. Defense is entitled to more lawyers, more experts. Our Supreme Court has said basically you get a open check book. Then, the road for appeals goes on and on forever. The cost is horrific. But anyhow, the death penalty is a very serious situation and I think the prosecution used it as a hammer and they were successful.
Joshua Ritter:
[timestamp0:10:05]
Yeah. We’re talking about another death penalty case, a little bit different, in that there wasn't a guilt phase in this. We were only dealing with the penalty phase in this trial, but we're moving to Fort Lauderdale, Florida, where Nikolas Cruz has been formally sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole for the murder of 17 in the Parkland Shooting Massacre.
Cruz was spared the death penalty by a jury who could not reach a verdict on the ultimate penalty, with three jurors unable to recommend death, citing his childhood troubles and mental illness. Families and victims of the shooting gave emotional impact statements condemning Cruz’ actions and even directing some of their anger at his defense team itself.
Cruz’ legal team took offense to some of the impact statements, asking the judge to stop the families from attacking the defense counsel, which led to a heated exchange between the judge and the defense. We have some footage of that. We're going to show that to you now.
Judge Elizabeth Scherer:
[0:11:02]
What you are doing right now is highlighting something and making more of a spectacle. So, if your office in general does not want to facilitate and or incite violence, then we need to just sit down and move on. That's it. There were 18 witnesses, 16 or 18 witnesses that testified today. There was nothing that was said until Miss McNeil made her point made. And, you know, we're moving on.
Defense Team:
[0:11:32]
But is the court going to do anything about maybe stopping it from happening again.
Judge Elizabeth Scherer:
[0:11:37]
When these people are upset about specific things that have gone on from that table, like shooting the middle finger up at this court, and laughing and joking – Miss McNeil, be quiet. When these people have sat in this courtroom and watched this behavior from that table, and they want to say that they're not happy about it, what is the problem?
Defense Team:
[0:12:02]
Judge, I have no problems because I have thick skin. But once you bring my children, I think that's highly inappropriate --
Judge Elizabeth Scherer:
[0:12:08]
I didn't even know you have children. I don't know what you're talking about. Your children, what about your children?
Joshua Ritter:
[0:12:12]
Really heated exchange there. This is not the first eruption between Cruz’ defense and the judge. Previously the judge became irate when the defense abruptly rested their case after calling only 25 of their 80 planned witnesses.
Greg, jump right in. What are your thoughts on the conduct of this judge? It's obviously, we've talked about this how death penalty cases make the courtroom incredibly emotionally charged. But is she going too far here or is she warranted in her reaction? What are your thoughts?
Greg Isaacs:
[0:12:44]
My thoughts are this is atypical, it's bizarre, and it's unfortunate. Actually, it's kind of serendipitous. Actually, I had a client send me some footage and sort of its Twitter thread of the judge hugging the prosecutors and hugging some of the victims after the trial. And you know what I saw was a jurist amplify the emotions that were in that room.
And that's the last thing that you need from a judge. They need to be the icon of impartiality. They need to be the symbol of justice. You know, they got to call strikes, regardless, if it's the home team or not. And I just thought this judge played to the cameras and this was amazing to me. You know, I just tried a federal case last week and you know, we had thought we’re ready call the number of witnesses based on the state of the proof, we did not regress it.
But that's typical in doing what we do, and you make judgment calls and you make assessments. Just because the defense decided not to – they only called 25 witnesses versus 80, for a judge to publicly scold and chide them, I thought it was just very – it's atypical, it’s unfortunate. So, this has just been a very strange case from the beginning.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:14:15]
Yeah. And listen, as defense attorneys, we’re used to, you know, sometimes being antagonistic with the judge. Sometimes, it's – we feel like it's us against the prosecution and the judge and we're used to that kind of, you know, all sides pitted against us. But it does seem as though the judge became embroiled in this case and started to take some of the things personally.
But I'm curious how about the defense team? There have been reports of them laughing in court, perhaps even making obscene gestures. Do you think the defense team went too far in their conduct and decorum in court, and may have caused some of that reaction from the judge?
Greg Isaacs:
[0:14:54]
I think it's a possibility. And you know, I often tell clients you know it's important how you don't testify and how you don't say anything when you're setting your counsel table, when you're taking notes, when you stand up when the jury enters, they leave. You know, there has to be obviously every indicia of respect, control. Courtrooms are theatre. Body language is – body language is language for communicating. And if you communicate disrespect or unpreparedness, I think it translates.
But you know the other thing, Joshua, I was doing some commentary and got to see some of the testimony live. And when you heard the testimony of some of the students at the time, when the AR15 was being shot, and just the raw mental imagery of young people getting torn apart by the bullets. The reverberation of the gun was so loud, the ceiling tile just they shattered, and it was like it was fog or snow. It shook the whole school. When the cameras would pin to the audience, you saw literally that the parents of all these individuals, just their aghast, teary eyed, hugging each other.
So, if there ever was a case that the lawyers and the judges or their clients and or the system needed to show control and respect, this was it. And I think that control and respect was lacking on all sides. Now, I don't think – you know normally, I'm criticizing and say the prosecution was playing theatrics, they got out of control. They're – you know, it's too much vitriol and acrimony, but you know, really it became the judge and defense and just very unfortunate in a case of this magnitude.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:17:00]
Yeah, yeah. Let's talk a little bit about some of those impact statements. Some of it started to be directed towards the defense team itself. And first of all, let me just say, I give these family members incredibly wide latitude for what they have suffered, the almost unimaginable loss and suffering that these people have gone through. It's obviously you know still on the surface for them, and they wanted to see some sort of closure here that they feel that they were robbed of. So, we understand all of that
But I'm curious about your thoughts on directing some of their thoughts towards the defense team, and I want to point out the fact so that people understand the jurors were outside of the courtroom for much of the back and forth between the judge and the defense. And for much of the defense arguments on things that they want to do and a much of the stuff that might have caused these family members who weren't outside of the courtroom, were actually sitting in the courtroom watching these arguments and why they might have a different reaction to the defense team itself than the jurors may have felt. That’s just kind of a point I wanted to explain for folks. But what are your thoughts on how this became kind of personal towards the defense team for some of these family members?
Greg Isaacs:
[0:18:17]
I thought this jury was with all the professional certainly I have once you return a verdict to death. So, I'll tell you what I'm impressed with is the voir dire that the defense did in this case to have jurors selected that did follow the law as they went through this process. So having said that, I think when you have families and I've had it happen in the – they express their emotions toward the defendant and that's part of victim impact statement. I mean, victim impact.
There's not a victim that gets up and says I'm very happy I'm the victim of a crime or my son, daughter, husband was murdered. But there are some transforms, when you do your job well, when you cross examine people, when you argue for mitigation, victims are not going to like it. And I think if you’re the defense counsel, I mean it comes with the territory in the game.
I've had people point their finger. I've had people say how dare you defend this paedophile. And you know what you do, you sit there and give them the respect that they're entitled under the law to give a victim impact statement, as long as they are expressing their feelings to you as a defense lawyer in the courtroom, I think that's their right.
Now, once they leave that door, and I'm walking down that hall, I've had people try to follow me to my car, you know, game over. Inappropriate, I take it personally and I get unfirm. But you know what, a case of this nature, that's just part of what you and I do, Joshua.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:20:05]
Yeah, yeah. I agree with you. It’s – this is one of those things where it's hard to kind of blame anyone for how emotions can arise and bubble over, especially when you're dealing with this kind of a loss, this kind of a case, as horrific as it is, the frustration that must be felt by the family members to not get the verdict that they were expecting. And I agree with you, I think that a lot of people were expecting. It's unfortunate that it won't bring them closure, but it is the close to the case because it is final now that he has been sentenced to life without parole.
So, turning now to Los Angeles where the first of our two ongoing high-profile cases are taking place. Danny Masterson’s third accuser described in court as Jane Doe number two, took the stand this Wednesday in the actor’s ongoing rape trial. She described a sexual encounter with Masterson as “rape”, adding he was like a predator.
While the accuser was also a member of the Church of Scientology, a trait shared by all three accusers and Masterson, Jane Doe 2 did not initially come forward to the church with her allegations against Masterson. She testified she had previously come forward to the church with allegations against a prior boyfriend who was a member of the church and was told by a chaplain that she and, this is a quote, was not under any circumstances to think that about another member or to accuse another member of that, or to repeat it to law enforcement. Some pretty strong instructions from the church.
The witness later forwarded – came forward, pardon me, with allegations to police 13 years after the alleged incident and waited three years for charges to be filed against the actor. While the third accuser also alleged that she had suffered intimidation and harassment from church officials since making her allegation public, the judge instructed the jury that claims of the harassment by the Church of Scientology are not being presented as truth.
Greg, first of all, I want to talk about this instruction because I'm sure you've encountered these many times before. We see this all the time where judge is allowing evidence. In this case, it's hearsay, but instructed the jury not to use it for the proof of what's being for – the proof of the truth of what's being said, but for another purpose. Are jurors in your experience able to split hairs like this when they hear this kind of really damaging testimony?
Greg Isaacs:
[0:22:39]
Absolutely not. One of most frustrating things that you encounter is when a judge gives a curative instruction after the prosecution where a witness splits out something that has been suppressed or they shouldn't say, that has been already at a bench conference rule prejudicial because you can't unring the bell.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:23:00]
Yeah.
Greg Isaacs:
[0:23:01]
You can say okay, forget what you saw or whatever, I mean it’s ludicrous. It's like having a long discussion or an argument or debate and say oh, by the way, I want you to forget 30 seconds of what I said there. I mean, it's legal fiction. The other thing that is frustrating is when a judge let's in powerful testimony. In this case, this cult like behavior of the Church of Scientology is significant because if I'm the defense, I want to know why you, the victim, waited 13 years, 14 years. Why this? Why there's no fresh complaint? Why there's no forensics?
And when you have a sex case with no evidence, and it's the way, you’re really, I mean hamstrung if you’re defense, because basically it's their credibility in the word. So, now you've got this I listened to the cult excuse to bolster their credibility. So, I think the judge should have not allowed the testimony because it's probative value that beauty is clearly outweighed by its prejudicial effect. So, you know, now you have an explanation as to why the delay. It kind of broad brushes and kind of props up their credibility so I think it's very unfortunate for the Masterson team.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:24:32]
Yeah. I appreciate the way that you explained that. I want to get a little bit into the weeds on this because it is something that bothers me as well as I can tell it bothers you. We talk about these curative instructions that something happens in court and somehow the judge just turns to the jury and it is, you know, some sort of Jedi mind trick told them to just ignore that, or only use it for a certain purpose and not for another.
And I agree with you it, it simply cannot be done. We're asking them to perform mental gymnastics that they just cannot do. And just so people understand the reason for judges doing this as they're trying to avoid a mistrial, right. They don't want something to happen in court that turns the whole trial upside down, and now they have to start all over. So, we understand that, and they want to try to just cure it, curative state instruction. You know, take, somehow handle it as the trial continues to go.
But in an instance like this, it almost highlights that statement. And the problem here, and if you could flesh this out for us, the problem here is she is giving – she is telling the jurors a statement that was told to her outside of court, so in other words hearsay, and the defense has no ability to cross examine the person making that statement, what they meant by it, when it was made, and if it was made at all. Talk to us more about why that is so problematic.
Greg Isaacs:
[0:25:58]
Well, one of the hallmarks of the criminal justice system is your right to confrontation under the confrontation clause of the United States. And when you have hearsay, you're saying a hearsay, you know, you lose the right to confront your accuser. And then the judge does this legal fiction by you know the definition of hearsay that we learn first year law school, an adequate statement by declaring altered for the truth of the matter asserted. Well, when the judge goes down this rabbit hole just as well, it's not offered for the truth, silhouetted in.
Well, why are we having statements that aren't offered for the truth? Why are they relevant or probative? Because this issue is, I mean clearly to me, offered for the truth. I didn't come forward because I was pressured by the church, by the cult. I mean, there's no way around it. So, if you're the defense, you can't cross examine that you say declaring, you can't have your client’s right a confrontation. So, I just think it's an incredible problem.
But this concept, Joshua, when a curative instruction that judge can perform a judicial lobotomy and remove things from a juror’s consideration is burnt. And as you said, what everybody knows except the jury is the judge doesn't want to grant a mistrial. And so, we're going to just go ahead and do an instruction and then maybe you'll win in the Court of Appeals.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:27:41]
All right. Last point on this one. In spite of the evidence that has been presented by the prosecution to explain this incredible delay in reporting these allegations, 13 years is still a very long time. Do you think the prosecution is still going to have problems with that delay even with the explanations that they presented or are those explanations good enough?
Greg Isaacs:
[0:28:10]
You know, I think if it was one accuser, I think it would be easier to show some bias, some uncertainty, problems, recollection. I would call somebody that's an expert to forensic psychologist on the issue in memory, you know, do everything I could in my power to find out any other statements, any other things that she said or done is inconsistent. But then when you have not, he said, she said but he said, she said, she said, she said, I think it bolsters their credibility. So, in and of itself, I think that the way the no fresh complaint, no forensics would be a hard hurdle for the prosecution to overcome. You have the spectre of people wanting to jump on the Me Too bandwagon. You got somebody with some fame and fortune. But you know when you get multiple people are saying the same thing, I think that's a high hurdle to defense.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:29:14]
Yeah, I agree with you. Well, now moving down the hall of the same courthouse to probably the poster child of the Me Too Movement, a celebrity massage therapist testified in Harvey Weinstein's sexual assault trial about her encounters with the former Hollywood mogul. Weinstein faces eleven charges, including sexual assault and rape alleged by five different women.
The massage therapist referred to only as Jane Doe is the second of Weinstein's accusers to take the stand. The witness testified to visiting Weinstein on multiple occasions. In each instant, she alleges Weinstein cornered the victim and groped her while masturbating in front of her. She claimed the embarrassment and shame she felt from the encounters kept her from coming forward.
However, she allegedly revealed the indiscretions to another client, actor Mel Gibson. When the witness originally came forward to police, she only disclosed the initial assault, which the defense focused on in their cross examination arguing that the victim’s recollection of the events has changed overtime. More of Weinstein's accusers are set to take the stand in the following weeks, including Jennifer Newsom, the wife of California Governor Gavin Newsom.
Greg, right from the start, this victim alleges that she kept coming back to perform massages for Weinstein, in spite of the fact that she had been sexually assaulted multiple times according to her testimony. How is that going to play out for jurors you think?
Greg Isaacs:
[0:30:45]
I think it's highly significant, but you know then again, it didn't work in the Bill Cosby case when people said they were drugged and had sex, and oops, by the way I came by the next night to be drugged and have sex and whatever. I think it's a problem because you got to see was the conduct consensual, I mean. So, if you were assaulted, it was non-consensual, you were in imminent fear, bodily harm, sexual battery, whatever, and you do it time after time after time, I think that's a problem if you go on prosecution. And I think that's going to be a significant issue with her credibility.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:31:24]
Yeah. A lot of these witnesses, the victims have already or will testify I imagine, you know, just based upon what we've heard in opening statements, that the reason they didn't come forward earlier and allowed this to kind of continue was their fear of this very powerful man. Especially in the world of Hollywood, he basically ran the place for a decade there, and they felt that they couldn't do anything or say anything against him. This victim is a little different, I wanted you to kind of tease that out because she's a massage therapist, so she doesn't have that – those same kind of motivations. Is that something you think that defense will exploit?
Greg Isaacs:
[0:32:06]
Yeah, absolutely. I think so. And I think, you know, you have in the Masterson case, you know, the control inspector of the Church of Scientology. But in this case, Weinstein, everyone says they were afraid, I didn't come forward because he had the power to blacklist me from Hollywood. You know, I think over time his influence and power has become greatly exaggerated. And I think he could have impacted some individual’s careers, but I don't think he was the gatekeeper to every single job in every single studio in Hollywood. This person is a little different, so I think you know again, but you have these multiple accusers, but if you look at the microcosm of just this testimony, I just think it's problematic.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:33:04]
I want to talk to you a little bit about trial tactics and calling upon your own experience if you have some with cross examining female victims of alleged sexual assault. The defense team in this case has been apparently by reports very aggressive in their cross examination. The added element is that both of the defense attorneys are male. They're cross-examining female victims. How delicate of a task is that to cross examine someone who's been obviously traumatized from, you know, crying on the stand. One of the witnesses has been. And how aggressively do you feel that is smart strategically for the defense attorneys to go after these victims?
Greg Isaacs:
[0:33:48]
Joshua, I think that's a question that really can't be answered. Now, the last case I tried on Court TV, I came back at lunch break and we've gotten an email from a viewer, basically said Mr. Isaacs is better volume that he needs to back off of that female witness. And, you know, I didn't think I was lenient.
So, I don't know. I mean, it's a judgment call on each witness. It's a judgment call with the responses. I mean if you're going in and you're trying to show this person is lying and trying to ruin your client’s reputation and send them to the penitentiary, then you're going to have some professional disdain when you ask those questions. Because you got someone that was trying to speculate and fabricate your client in a penitentiary.
On the other hand, if you think you’re somebody that may be mistaken or it's a case of a consent or whatever, you might be a little more delicate. You might want to have use a scalp and not a butcher knife when you're going through that cross examination. So, you know, it really depends on how hard you hit the gas, I think making a judgment call of that witness.
And I don't think you just go in, better be able to shift gears and react. I don't think you go in saying I'm just going to, you know, suddenly soft pedal this or I'm just going to go in and decimate this witness. I think you got to be able to react, have an organized cross. And, you know, when it comes time to be firm, you’re firm. When it comes time to be subtle, you’re subtle. But jurors pick up on acrimony and theatrics for the sake of acrimony because you and I know – I mean it's easy to get there and do theatrical and grout and whatever. And you know, oftentimes, that didn't do your client a baby. So, could it be a good strategy? Absolutely. Could it be a terrible mistake? Absolutely. So, it kind of remains to be seen.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:36:02]
Yeah. I think it's one of the most difficult things that defense attorneys have to do in criminal cases is this exact scenario, cross examining witnesses who have been according to their allegations, you know, severely traumatized by your client and that you have to get up there and somehow cross examine it, cross examine them without making it look like you're further kind of victimizing and traumatizing them.
And you pointed – you made this point and the way I've always thought about it is that you have to wait for the witness to give you permission to get more aggressive with them. And what I mean by that is they're going to start digging their heels in and they're going to start kind of talking back to you, and they're going to start kind of perhaps giving attitude to the attorney doing the cross examination, and then you can dig in. But if they're not, if they're a mess on the stand, there's – it's very difficult to kind of try to handle that, but still poke holes in their testimony. And so, we'll see how this kind of continues to flesh itself out as these witnesses continue to testify in this case.
But one last point, I wanted to talk to you about this is something that you've alluded to before that you have experience with. The jurors in this case, there are no cameras in courtroom currently, but they know, they have to know, the media attention and notoriety that this case has. First of all, they're hearing witnesses talk about what a kind of powerful celebrity like person Weinstein was. They're hearing the names of all sorts of famous people being mentioned in court. They're perhaps going to hear from a celebrity witness like Mel Gibson. One of the Jane Doe's is the wife of the governor. How does this affect jurors? They see crowds when they come into the courtroom every single day of people trying to get into that courtroom. It's a packed courtroom even without the cameras. How do you think that affects jurors?
Greg Isaacs:
[0:38:02]
I think you've got to embrace that dynamic because it's to pretend that it’s not going to happen and judge to again do this magical traditional instruction, I hereby instruct you not to get on social media tonight, watch TV, do all this stuff, it's going to happen. You know, in the Johnny Depp case, I think that was a good example. I mean, you know obviously you could tell people were listening and looking at media reports throughout the trial witnesses, et cetera.
So, I just think you have to embrace that dynamic and use it to the fact that sometimes the spectrum celebrity can make a witness less credible. Maybe that somebody is more eager to be involved, but it's a reality that I just think has to be dealt with and witness the warrior. Don't need to be starstruck. But to pretend that these 12 people don't see the limousines and the TV cameras when they walk in and walk out is just not reality.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:39:10]
Yeah, I agree with you. Well, we will continue to keep an eye on both of these cases as they eventually reach their conclusion over the next couple of weeks. But in the meantime, that's the end of our show. Greg, thank you so much for coming on this week. Where can people go to find out more about you?
Greg Isaacs:
[0:39:28]
Check our website or our firm, isaacslawfirm.com and you can Google our name. We have a number of social media presences and a lot of cases that we've been involved with that we list on our website. But Joshua, it’s a pleasure. It's interesting talking to a fellow lawyer that likewise offers some interesting insights.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:39:49]
Oh, thank you so much. It was a pleasure. And I'm your host, Josh Ritter. You can find me on Instagram and Twitter @JoshuaRitterESQ. And please visit my website at JoshuaRitter.com where you can find out what I've been up to lately or if you're just looking for a lawyer.
And you can find our sidebar episodes wherever you get your podcasts. And we want to hear from you. If you've got questions or comments you'd like us to address, tweet us your questions with the hashtag #TCDSidebar. And thank you for joining us at the True Crime Daily Sidebar.
