Danny Jones Podcast - #114 - Lawyer Defending Capitol Rioter Explains Freedom of Speech | Bjorn Brunvand

Episode Date: October 14, 2021

Bjorn Brunvand is a Florida criminal defense lawyer known for handling some of the most high profile drug cases and murder cases in the United States. On this episode we discuss one of his latest clients, Robert Palmer who was charged with assaulting a law enforcement officer on the capitol steps on January 6th 2021. We also discuss the War on Drugs, the federal Judiciary process, and the death penalty. https://www.acquitter.com  help us make more money: https://bit.ly/koncretepatreon  sponsors  https://liquiddeath.com -  Use code KONCRETE at checkout to get a free koozie 2-pack with a 12-pack purchase.   danny  https://www.instagram.com/jonesdanny  https://twitter.com/jonesdanny Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Hello world. Bjorn Brunvon is a Florida criminal defense lawyer and a good friend known for handling some of the most high-profile drug cases and murder cases in the U.S. Bjorn's a very interesting guy. He's represented serial killers, neo-Nazis, cartel members. On this episode, we discussed one of Bjorn's latest clients named Robert Palmer, who was charged with assaulting a law enforcement officer on the Capitol steps during the Capitol riots on January 6th. We also get into the war on drugs, the federal judiciary process, and the death penalty. His perspective is just extremely unique and valuable, and it truly is a breath of fresh air, especially in today's climate and how divided we are.

And I hope you all appreciate this as much as I did. Without further ado, please enjoy this fascinating podcast with Bjorn Brun Fond. So tell me about your newest case. You're representing a man who was one of the people who stormed to the capital. on January 6th. How did this case come across your desk? Well, he didn't really storm the Capitol. I mean, he was there.

He didn't go inside. It was referred to me by another lawyer in Texas. And, you know, his brother lives in Texas, and that's how it came to me. Okay. So was his brother there too? No, no, no, no. No, no, no.

It was just my client and a bunch of other people that were up there on January 6th, um, doing some stupid stuff at the Capitol, right? So, so what specifically did your client do? I don't know how much details you can give. So what did he do and what is he being charged? What was he charged with?

And how did they catch him? So he was caught because of what he was wearing, right? Uh, there's tons and tons of video surveillance. Um, and he had a very distinguished, distinguishable jacket and hat, which caused the Huffington Post

to do an article about him and why he hadn't been arrested yet. So that's when he reached out to me, and then I reached out to the agents, knowing that it was inevitable that he was going to get caught. Okay, so essentially you kind of turned him in? Self surrendered.

Self surrendered, right. Okay. Yeah, rather than being arrested in the middle of the night. I was self-surrendered. And that was back in the spring. And we just entered a guilty plea in D.C. last week. It was taken into custody awaiting sentencing in December. So pled guilty to assaulting law enforcement officer on the Capitol steps

by throwing a fire extinguisher towards them, spraying it first and then throwing it towards law enforcement. Jesus, this always happens. We're surrounded by just, we're in Hillbilly land over here. We got this like super ghetto auto repair shop next door and this guy's like revving his engine all the time. It always happens at 7 o'clock. It's like a part of the show now where the people who are watching it, they're just waiting for that to happen. All right. So it's okay.

We can live with it. Okay. So what was this guy like when you met him? Super nice guy. Super nice guy. We're from completely 180 degree different political, you know, viewpoint. I'm a liberal. He's a, you know, conservative Trump supporter.

And very, very much into that when we met, you know, talked about how he's a patriot, at which point I pointed at the photo of myself and President Obama and said, you know, knock off the Patriot thing. We're all patriots. You know, it's okay to have different points of view. That's what's so cool about this country. So he's this super nice guy, nice father,

a hard-working guy, just was caught up in, you know, in the moment, unfortunately. He had no plans on storming, Capitol had no plans on assaulting law enforcement. He was there because of his strong beliefs that the election was fraudulent. I obviously disagree with that. But that was his belief, and that's why he was there. He listened to former President Trump. He was told, you know, to go to the Capitol, and next thing you know, he's in the middle of the hysteria that took place. And unfortunately, he made some bad decisions.

Was he there by himself? Was he there with friends? By himself. He was there completely by himself. He just decided to fly from Tampa to go see Trump talk. Drove. Drove. Wow.

That's an interesting viewpoint that you spoke about, like when you met him, you pointed to him, you know, knock off the Patriot thing. We're all patriots. Right. You know, a lot of people don't have that sort of view. A lot of people view it more as like one. Team Red versus Team Blue. Right.

My team versus you. It's very tribal. What was his reaction to your point of view and your outlook? I mean, he was receptive to it. I mean, not receptive to changing his outlook, but receptive to the idea that it's okay to have different opinions. It's okay to have strong different opinions, you know? That doesn't mean that, you know, that you go in and storm the capital.

You know, that's not something that we expect to see in this country. I mean, it's, it was, I think the whole world was watching because it's just not supposed to happen here in the United States. Have you seen that documentary on HBO called Q? No. Into the storm? I don't think so. It's about, it's about majority how the people that were there on January 6th,

how that whole situation culminated. and from basically social media internet algorithms and these internet boards, these uncensored internet boards such as 8chan and 8 Kuhn where these people go and there's virtually zero censorship and everyone remains anonymous. Okay. So no one uses their actual name or an actual picture themselves. they all have anonymous pseudonym names and they just talk about whatever they want.

There's like different boards for different subjects and there's this guy called Q who everyone believes is like this embedded somebody who's embedded in Trump's campaign who's very close to Trump or could be Trump who's like sending these cryptic messages to all of his followers online

and it basically you know it shows that the people who follow that and believe it and buy into it and wrap their identities around this thing whether it be Trump or whether

it be QAnon but these people who essentially just invest everything in their lives and wrap their entire identity around this political this one political belief or ideology

that's what it is as an ideology you know it's People who are essentially either vulnerable or very gullible or don't have anything else going on in their lives where, you know, they need something to cling to or, you know, they're misfits. And anyways, it's this whole thing that culminates in the September 6th storming of the Capitol. January 6th. That's right. That's what I meant. Yeah, January 6th.

Yeah. So I didn't know if you guys has spoken about that or if he said anything like that to you. No connection to that. Not at all. With my client. I mean, clearly there's a connection to, you know, all the hysteria that's online. I mean, Facebook, Twitter. I mean, it's everywhere, right?

Right. And I think, you know, Trump was just in, was it Iowa? he was having a little political event this past weekend, I think it was. Oh, was he? Yeah. And, you know, one of the things that he does is he talks about the threat of socialism. Right. And how the, you know, the Democrats are bringing in socialism.

And, I mean, it's just so stupid. I mean, there's no basis in fact whatsoever. I mean, Democrats are not socialist. right but I've encountered people in the past a couple of years I mean bright people people that are you know college professors or retired college professors lawyers doctors who just have this sincere strong belief that this threat is real you know and I think that's you mean socialism socialism right yeah I mean this is or communism well yeah

Socialism communist. And I mean, to me, it's just completely ludicrous. But that's something that's sort of been ingrained in people here in the United States for a very long time. Very long time, yeah. And so it doesn't take a lot if someone in power starts stirring that up. And that's what Trump is doing or has been doing. What is your take on him getting banned off of all social media? You think that's a good thing or a bad thing?

I mean, I guess I'm not a believer in banning people from speaking, you know, whatever is on their mind. So, I mean, I don't know that that's how you fixed a problem. I mean, so I can't say that I'm in favor of banning him or anyone else from social media. I mean, you know, I remember in college, and when I first started studying, law and, you know, the First Amendment in particular, and, you know, issues came up about, you know, why do we protect neo-Nazis, you know, and their right to march, you know, and protest or, you know, KKK, why do we protect their right to protest and, you know, put on their stupid, you know,

hoods and what have you, right? But the reason we do it is because freedom of speech is so important and so valuable. And so when we start saying that you can't be part of it, you can't speak, you can't say what's on your mind is problematic. I mean, I think we need to look at what's underlying all of this stuff. Why in the world, obviously I'm not a Trump fan at all. Right. But, you know, why in the world would we allow someone like that to come to power?

Why do we embrace all the hate? and all the, you know, hysteria that he promotes. But, you know, that to me is the bigger question. You know, you can ban Trump from social media, and there will be someone else that will pop up. And, you know, we need to be able to hear what people have to say and be able to say that's nonsense. And, you know, you had the right to say it,

but beyond that, you know, we're going to ignore it. I think one of the bad things about it is it emboldens those people more when they're being silence or when they're being censored. I think it just, it makes them fear more emboldened or more like a martyr. Sure. You know what I mean? And it gives them,

it gives them more fuel. Absolutely. To push their own narrative and to fight back. Right. Right. And then there will be another forum for them to present that same information. So it's, and the argument towards it is, you know,

these are, these are corporations, you know, they're, they're, well, they're public companies, but they're not, they're not necessarily, you know, you can't say it's freedom of speech because it's a private company that, you know, just happens to be a monopoly, you know, a monopoly of free speech, but it's not like, it's not like legally, it's not tied into the law, right? Right, right. So that's, that's people's argument for, for banning him. So, so, so the company, because it's a private,

a company should be able to do whatever they want ban whoever they want right you know and i and i understand that but it but it just seems to me that it's so much part of our lives these days i mean we can't get away from it right i mean it's it's here to stay and and um you know i mean if it's complicated. I mean, I don't know, I don't know what the answer is, but it, but it seems to me that it's a dangerous slope if, you know, these big corporations basically can steer propaganda and, and say, we're going to allow this, but we're not going to allow that, right, you know. And these big, and it's also scary because now these big corporations, because of how big they are and because they are basically monopolies, you know, it's very easy for them to sway,

public opinion in the country and and and make it go whatever way they want it to go. Sure. And you know, the problem is everything is is like snapshots or sound bites. So when there's arguments online about, you know, the election was fraudulent and people will post and regard you to say information that's online. but none of it has any foundation. None of it has, you know, if you dig down into it and, you know, there's no basis in any of it. No. But people are receptive to it to the people that believe it was fraud.

They'll hold on to all these little sound bites and say, here's the proof, even though it doesn't prove a thing. Right. They don't do any of their own digging or there. I mean, to find, to really figure out if something's true, not the amount of work that you actually have to do and the time you have to spend to, like, dig into the sources and find out where that source came from, where that source came from, where that source. came from and where this all originated. The amount of work that requires is ungodly. No one's going to be able to do no one's going to want to do that.

You know, you just find a headline that has a nice zinger to it and you retweet it or whatever you have to do and that benefits the social media company because they make more money because that's how their algorithms work. If I feed this person these headlines, they keep clicking on them. People like him are going to keep clicking on them

then we're going to make more ad revenue. Right. And it's just a big fucking vicious cycle of them making more money. Absolutely. And not thinking about the consequences for humanity and for the culture, you know, of our country. So it's, it's a, it's a, it's a sketchy, it's a sketchy thing. And it's, it's, it's, it's tied.

I feel like it's tied into people like your client, um, people similar to him who are, who see these things online, people who haven't grown up with the internet. I like to use the term bullshit detectors. People that don't typically have very good bullshit detectors. People who came into the internet late or social media late. And they typically believe things that they see and not kind of like just, they see a headline and they want to share it and retweet it and not actually consider, you know, how true is this?

Or where's this coming from? Probably lots of people with bad bullshit detectors, regardless of when they enter the world. world of the internet. I mean, right. So, but yeah, absolutely. I mean, I think that's, that's very true. I mean, and, and they just dig in and, and it's like you can't reason with the person. You can't, there's, nothing's going to change their mind that this was fraud and, and nothing's going to change their mind that the Democrats are socialist and they're going to take all your money away from you and your property and your guns away from you. Right, right. So. Yeah, and then COVID,

throw COVID into the whole mess and it just makes things 10 times worse, right? Right. Exactly. Exactly. So your client, he's in prison right now. He's in jail. Okay, he's in jail, waiting for his court date. Correct.

Okay. And how long does he have to wait? December 17th is sentencing. Okay. And is there like a minimum that he's going to get or what is he expecting to happen? So there's federal sentencing guidelines. that call for a sentence that is a discretionary sentence on the part of the court. You know, the court gives a lot of weight to what the guidelines call for, but they're not mandatory.

So the expectation is that the guidelines call for a low end of 47 months in prison. my hope is that, you know, the court's going to recognize some mitigating circumstances and agreed that a much lower sentence would be appropriate. I can't imagine. What is it like just being next to so many, you spend so much time with these human beings who are just reduced to essentially their lowest, most vulnerable state when it comes to these situations, especially when it comes to. when it comes time to be sentenced and go to prison,

what is that like dealing with people like him, especially when you see the dichotomy of where he's at, wearing that American flag jacket, throwing a fire extinguisher at the police, to sitting in court and he's crying on your shoulder? I mean, it's hard, you know? I mean, it's very difficult for, for my client and his family.

And it's hard for me too. I mean, it's because I, you know, I get to know my clients. I see their humanity. I see the other side of them. That's, most of my clients are, you know, have lots of wonderful aspects to them. They made some bad decisions that may have taken place over, a few seconds or a few minutes.

And from those decisions, you know, they may lose everything they've worked for. They potentially lose their liberty. And so it's tough. I mean, I still enjoy it. It's a strange thing to enjoy. Well, I guess. I guess it's a strange thing to enjoy. I mean, I enjoy the fact that I can help them.

get ready for that moment. I can help them hopefully get a lower sentence. I can help them focus on the fact that it's not the end, you know, regardless of what may happen in court, regardless of what the sentence may be. Life continues and they can have value and and good things can still take place. You know, and I can say that because I've had clients who have gone to prison and, you know, have served their time, have been able to do productive things while they were there and, you know, reconnect with society

and become productive members of society. Do you think networks like Fox and CNN paint, when you deal with this guy one-on-one and you see the humanity in him and then you go on Fox or CNN and you see how they paint all these people, in like one certain light and they seem to have like one certain narrative

like these are bad guys like these are all bad guys do you notice that I mean I think they want juicy headlines right like you said earlier that's that's what gets ad revenue that's what gets you know dollars coming in I don't care if it's Fox or CNN

they're all corporations that survive based on making money right? So their focus many times is limited. They all have an agenda. It may vary slightly. And so there's no doubt that that exists. And, you know, I was on CNN with this particular case.

And their headline was slightly wrong. I mean, and... What was the headline? that he beat law enforcement or that he you know that he you know suggesting that there was physical contact and there was never any physical contact it was an assault an assault basically means you know I put my fist up as if I'm going to hit you or I hold a weapon up as if I'm going to use the weapon or I throw something towards you that could be considered a weapon that's an assault you know if I batter you I'm actually having a physical contact, right? Right. And so, and there's a huge difference because no one was hurt. There was no contact.

Nobody was hurt. Yeah, there was like a big wall of shields, right? Yeah, but it didn't. I don't know that it necessarily even hit the shields. Oh, okay. You know, was it thrown towards them? Absolutely, you know. Going back to, we talked about it last time you're on the show,

the case with the Russian guy, Yuri, I believe his name was. Right. That you represented. ever since then you've had a lot of have you had a lot of similar clients to him a lot of not I mean not you can't say not similar to him as in he was completely innocent

right he got hijacked his boat got hijacked and they basically threatened his life said take this cocaine into the port or you die but I mean people like as far as cartel members and stuff like that have you dealt with a lot of those types sure I mean, first of all, no one is completely innocent, right?

Right. But Yuri was, in my opinion, he was a pawn of the Russian mob. He was a pawn of the Colombian cartel. He was a pawn in a big scheme, and he was misunderstood by the American War on drugs. And so he became, instead of being a pawn, he became to the U.S. someone who was actively involved in trafficking large amounts, you know, tons of cocaine. You know, it's, I don't know if we talked about this last time, but there's a lot of vessels that are stopped on a regular basis

multiple times throughout the year in both the Caribbean and in the Atlantic and in the Pacific Ocean. And they generally have an excess of one metric ton of cocaine on these vessels, which is worth a lot of money. Submarines and stuff too. Submarines, semi-submersibles. I mean, it's just, it's a huge amount of cocaine that's constantly being shipped to Europe, to the United States. United States is the biggest market for cocaine.

And I'm convinced that whenever they stop a vessel, in the majority of the time at least, it's not an accident. It's not like they're out there doing surveillance and they see the vessel and, you know, they stop it and it and it has cocaine in it. It's based on information that's provided by people that are. serving prison sentences in the United States. So what I mean by that is the big cartel leaders, the powerful cartel leaders who end up getting prosecuted in the United States and end up in prison in the United States, they know that if they can get information through sources back home,

which includes coordinates and shipments and where it's going to be and when it's going to be there, they know that that shipment gets seized by the government, they're going to get a reduction in their sentence. So a bunch of these low-level fishermen, you know, peasants who will be paid a little bit of money to go on these drug trips. They end up coming to the United States, they go to prison for, you know, a minimum of 10 years, you know, or more.

and the guy who is, and I say the guy because it's usually men, but, you know, could be women as well, the big powerful drug lord who's sitting in a prison in the United States gets his sentence reduced. So, and that happens all the time. And I know this happens because I've represented people that feed the government that type of information in order to get a lower sentence. Wow. Now, what is your mindset? when you're in a situation where you're like you're flying to South America or Columbia or something like that and you're going to meet with one of these people

like what's one mindset? Yeah, what is your mindset like like I mean for me I've watched so many you know insane cocaine documentaries and Scarface and you know especially when I was just telling you about the new cocaine Cowboys documentary and I've seen these situations you know where these lawyers are flying to South America and meeting with these cartels, it's just like I would be fucking terrified to do that. You know, I find that most people that are involved in high-level drug trafficking are businessmen. I mean, they, you know, I really don't have a problem at all. I've never really felt unsafe or in danger. I mean, you're careful, like, anywhere you might go, but, you know, they need your help,

and you're not doing anything unlawful. You're going down there to help guide them, you know, mitigate their circumstances. So usually the people that we would meet with down there are people who are in the process of being charged in the United States or have already been charged in the United States. They may be awaiting extradition. to the United States, and it's not a problem. I mean, I'm always honest with them. I don't oversell the case.

I don't suggest that I can do something that I can't do. I'm not going to tell them, you know, I can get you a certain sentence if you pay me X, Y, C, amount of money, because that's probably not smart. That's not smart in any circumstances. So, you know, it's fun. it's it's um you know um but it but they're business people there are people that uh they just happen to be in a business that's illegal yeah yeah like i was telling you before i was watching that

new cocaine cowboys and they talked about that that the willy falcones salmogluta case and that was the biggest botched case by the federal government i think in they said in the history of the united states or the history in the history of the war on drugs it was the biggest failed case by the government because they were able to bribe multiple members of the jury on the case and

they got the not guilty verdict and these guys got free and it was just and then like I also said they let they released the list of 80 witnesses involved in the conspiracy case and a majority of the 80 witnesses got murdered and

so you you never that's not reality in your in your experience It's not reality. Okay. It's not reality. I mean, it's 97% of cases in federal court over solved via pleas. What percent? 97%.

Wow. I mean, the great majority of people enter a plea, and quite frankly, in my opinion, the higher up you are in the hierarchy of drug trafficking organizations, the faster you step up in one anore plea. Really? Yeah. So, I mean, there's this, there's no doubt, I mean, that people have been hurt and threats have been made over the years, you know, and that some of these cartels can be very dangerous. But my experience is the people that I've dealt with, you know, when I deal with them, that's not their focus.

Are these cases generally, like conspiracy cases, or what type of? types of cases are there? Are there a lot of witnesses involved? A lot of... They're pretty much all conspiracy cases. Okay. I mean, the federal government pretty much, uh, anything that they prosecute is generally going to have the substantive offense and the conspiracy offense. Okay. And I mean, conspiracy basically is does two or more individuals agreeing to commit an awful act. Okay. So it's not like, right. It's not like, uh, you know, you have a meeting and say, hey, boys, we all got. going to get together and we're going to have a conspiracy.

Right. You know, it's, it's, you and I decide that we're going to transport cocaine from clear water to St. Pete. Okay. I'm going to get to cocaine. I'm going to give it to you. You're going to drive it to St. Pete. And you're going to give it to someone down there.

It's a conspiracy. That's all it takes. So why is the, why is the plea bargain percentage so high? Why does so many people take the plea? So the people that are extradited from Columbia, for example. So there's a treaty that basically protects them so they can't get more than 30 years in prison, right? Now, most of these individuals are in their 40s, 50s, 30 years in prison is a long time. If they provide assistance to the government, they accept responsibility for what they did,

and they take that route, it's not at all uncommon for these people to end up with sentences in the range of four years, five years, six years. So you're looking at, okay, I can, you know, gamble on my life and possibly spend the next 30 years in prison, or I can tell them that I'm guilty, and these are the people I did it with,

and I'll be willing to be willing to. to testify truthfully against those people and then you get less than 10. So under those circumstances and what happens to the people down the line who get told on? Do those people have the opportunity to please well?

Usually. Okay. What if there's no one left? Like you're the last guy in line, everyone told on you and you're like, oh, you're stuck with 30 years. I mean, so here's what you, here's the problem with that is as long as there is a demand right for cocaine. As long as

to, you know. As long as it's illegal. Well, but as long as there are people that will pay for cocaine, there's going to be people that are going to supply it to cocaine. So as people are being arrested and prosecuted, there are other people that are stepping up and taking over, right? Okay. It doesn't like end.

This is why, I mean, the war on drugs has been going on since, what, Ronald Reagan, 30 years. the price of cocaine has been pretty steady. The supply has been pretty steady. You know, so it's not, nothing's really changing. We're not winning the war on drugs. I mean, that's really why. The war on drugs is just a fake name. Like the Patriot Act.

Yeah, it's just, it's silly, really. I mean, in my opinion, if we just legalized it and focused on treatment, it would be a much better deal. I mean, particularly these days, now that fentanyl is such a huge problem, and they find it in, it's mixed in everything. And so, I mean, the number of overdoses that are taking place right now because of fentanyl is through the roof. Right, right.

And if they legalized it and regulated it, regulated it and tested it and made sure, like, when you go to the bar and you order a shot of vodka, you know it's a shot of vodka. Right. But when you do a random line of cocaine, you don't know what the fuck that is. Exactly. You could be half fentanyl and you could be dead. Exactly.

Exactly. And I think it's better to have less dead people. I think so. I think so. But do you think, do you see any light at the end of the tunnel? As far as the war on drugs and this whole problem with cartels and violence and people getting locked up and put in prison? As long as there's a demand for drugs. And as long as there are people that are.

poor who are looking to make money to provide for their families and I don't see it ever ending. I mean, you know, there's always going to be someone that's going to want to make the profit and sell the drugs. So, you know, I don't think, I don't think the war on drugs is working. I don't think it's going to work. And I think the only solution would be to legalize. What would it take to legalize it? Well, it's not going to happen, I don't think. There's too much, there's too much money being made. It's way too much money being made by powerful individuals, you know.

Like the prison industrial complex and... Well, I mean... Do you think... Like the major traffickers that are not getting caught. I mean... You think they're working with the government? Some of them may be. Some of them may be working.

Like they're protected, like, where they say, like, hey, I'll give you one shipment every six months. I'll give you 20 tons. Not blatant like that. Not blatant like that. But, I mean, you know, they may be pretending that they're or cooperating to some degree. And then while the government is busy working on what they're doing as far as cooperation, the other hand is, you know, fueling the demand, you know, through the back door. Right.

So, I mean, there's no doubt. I mean, it happens with people that cooperate, right? you're told, okay, you're going to cooperate, you need to stop dealing drugs. It happens all the time at the street level or at the next level up where people are caught because they're cooperating and they're dealing at the same time. So if it happens at the street level, it's happening at every level, right? Right. So if you're a major trafficker and let's say you're in prison in the United States,

but you're still operating your organization, and you want a reduction of your sentence, and so you provide coordinates to the government as to where a particular vessel is going to be with three or four tons of cocaine in the Caribbean on a particular day, then you're going to know that law enforcement is going to be busy on that particular day

with that particular vessel, right? And so what keeps you then from shipping additional cocaine from other vessels through other avenues, right? it's insane that these guys are still able to run these organizations from prisons do you know chapo still running the cartel from wherever he's at i don't think so what prison is he he's in the colorado somewhere right like one of the super supermax yeah i'm not i can't i'm not sure what he probably is in super max in colorado but i'm not sure i haven't checked i can find out but i yeah that's what i that's what i thought i'm pretty

sure it's it's colorado yeah i mean the people that are in there i i i cannot imagine that that any of those people are able to to run their enterprises. But, you know, there are lots of other people that are significant players, but not at his level. Right. Yeah,

I mean, there's a clear difference between, you know, somebody like El Chapo, he's clearly not a very violent guy. He's like a very little guy. Like, he is not very intimidating. Okay. The Supermax Prison of Colorado. That's a great name for it. Oh, and his wife? We've pled guilty.

Yeah. When was that? Yeah. Click on it. Oh, 2019. Yeah. Hmm. Do drug dealers like him get locked up with, like, serial killers?

Are they separated or... You spend time in those prisons. You go and meet with all different kinds of people. Do they get grouped together, or do they keep, like, you know, little... I mean, essentially, he's just a businessman, right? He's just, he was able to, he hires tons of hitmen to kill tons of people. He's probably killed more people than any serial killer ever in history. But there's a difference when you're dealing with someone who's like a psychopath who rapes and kills women and children.

And you're someone like El Chapo who just pays people off to do stuff. You know, I mean, I'm not going to comment on what he is or he isn't as far as that's concerned. But the prisons basically will house people who are, problem prisoners, right? People who can't behave and pose a threat to other inmates. They're going to be housed in solitaire or they're going to be

locked up in facilities away from others. So, you know, the definition of a serial killer, I mean, is someone who kills more than two people. Okay. So, I mean, you're can theoretically you can probably be a serial killer and still function well with others in prison depending on what type of a serial killer you might be you know yeah so it so it's really

multiple types there's multiple types you know so it's it's generally though the prisons try to separate those who pose a threat to others and and and i would say that most people that are drug traffickers generally aren't going to pose a threat themselves to others. I mean, their organization might pose a threat to others, but they're not. I had a guy in here last week who was a really big weed trafficker in the 80s in South Florida. And he was basically describing it, like living in South Florida in the 80s, and especially if you're in your teenage years or your early 20s or mid-20s or whatever, he's like you would have to be extremely lucky not to be given the opportunity to make a ton of money

in cocaine or marijuana trafficking he's like if you chances are if you lived in south florida in the 80s you know somebody you are trafficking cocaine or marijuana or you are really good friends with somebody you're really close to somebody who's doing that and the for the opportunity not to come across not to hit you to, hey, you want to go out and unload this container for 50 grand, you know, especially someone in being in their 20s. He's like, that's why so many people like himself got wrapped up and got, you know, got in trouble in those early days in South Florida because it was so prevalent and it was everywhere and so many people were making money and it was generally very young people who were,

you know, getting paid, like I said, like fishermen, this guy was a fisherman. He was like a crab fisherman and his captain's like, you want to make 50 grand tonight sure go offloads of marijuana off the ship and um you know i don't know where i was getting out with this story but um i mean i mean i came to florida in the in the early 80s um i certainly was never offered the opportunity to make a lot of money transporting or having anything to do with drugs really no i was not but you were a lawyer well i wasn't a lawyer when i first came here. I mean, I was, I came here in 81. I was 17. Okay. Right. And then went to college. Yeah, but you were in Tampa, right?

Well, I know, but there was drug trafficking in Tampa. I mean, maybe not the same as Miami, but Right. Nowhere close to Miami, I don't think. No, but the point is, most people don't become drug traffickers, even when the opportunity is there, right? I mean, even in the early 80s, it wasn't like everybody, you know, I have a lot of contemporaries. the vast majority have never had anything to do with drug trafficking. Right. So was the opportunity there for people who are so inclined? Absolutely.

Right. Is the opportunity here now for those who are so inclined? Absolutely. Yeah. I mean, the money that people are making, you know, distributing fentanyl is unbelievable. Unbelievable. I had a client who was caught with a significant amount of fentanyl. was addicted to fentanyl, right?

He's making fake oxycodone pills. He had $1.4 million in cash in his house when they arrested him. I mean, for someone to be able to be addicted to the drug and still have that kind of revenues come in in, you know, so it's the opportunity is there for people who want to do it. It was there in the 80s. It's there today. It's different drugs.

But to suggest that because the opportunity is there, that everyone has the opportunity. No, it's some people make those choices. They're not bad people necessarily because they make the choices. There's a variety of reasons why they end up making those choices. Most of them, you know, probably come from a poor background. Although there are people that come from, you know, I've had clients who are very wealthy,

who never needed to do anything like that and ended up getting involved in the interest. I guess of, of, and the adrenaline rush that probably is associated with drug trafficking, right? But, but, um, I feel like I just empathize with it because I see myself as an 18 year old. When I was 18 years old, I was working on a construction site. And one of my friends said, do you want to make $50,000 tonight? All you got to do is just pull a couple bales of cocaine and throw them in a pickup truck and drive it an hour down the road.

I would, it would be hard for me to say, know sure well how about you know take this car and drive it to Orlando for me and you make 10 grand right are you kidding me right right right in a heartbeat in a heartbeat but it does but it but it but it's not something that's just offered to everyone right I mean has anyone ever offered that to you yes someone's offered for you to drive a car that was I hope you declined I declined when I was when I was when I was when I was when I was when I was working construction when I was younger I had someone ask me if I could drive a truck to Jacksonville. Okay.

He didn't tell me what was in it. Right. And he told me he was going to pay me a lot of money and I didn't do it. But yeah. Right. And then some people think that, oh, if I don't know what's in there, then it's not a problem. Well, that makes it really even worse, you know, because if you don't, you know it's something that's not right, right?

Because people aren't going to just pay you $10,000 or $5,000 to drive a car. you know, from here to Jacksonville or Orlando. So, you know, there's something illegal in that car. There's something unlawful about it, whether it's drugs, weapons, you know, anthrax, you know. Right, right. So. Yeah, I mean, it is the rush. And, you know, especially just like, I feel like young people.

It's just young people are more susceptible to it because they're, that's what they're kids. And their brains aren't fully developed and they can't make, they can't make. well-informed decisions most of the time. No doubt. And those are the people that get locked up, right? A lot of times, yeah. Yeah. And they're the ones that frequently are very much afraid to talk about the people that hired them to do it. I know where I was getting at with that story about the weed guy.

Okay. He came time for him to, this is, he said it, and it came time for him to cooperate against the, because he was, the people that were bringing the cargo ships, uh, full of, weed off the coast of Naples, I believe it was. They were coming from Columbia, coming through the Yucatan Peninsula. Uh-huh. And the prosecutor was like, okay, you need to give us the names of these Colombians because he was also going down to Columbia towards the end of it.

Right. And he basically said, he said, if I tell you any of the names of these Colombians, it's I'm dead and my entire family's dead. He's like, my daughter and my mother and everyone in my family would be murdered. Like, do you understand that? Like, if I tell you the names of these. Colombians, it's basically a death warrant for me and my whole family.

Right. And somehow he was able to only get four years, I think. Right. So my guess is he probably did provide the names of the Colombians. I know. I mean, you know. You would say, I'm going to tell any of my clients who might be doing

that to tell people you didn't do it. Okay. Right? But it doesn't make it out. You don't broadcast that kind of information. Right. Right, but if I, doesn't it happen in cases where people do cooperate against people, the prosecutors will take this to somebody else and be like, this guy gave you up. They don't even honor it.

They don't honor that. No, that's not how it works. In federal court, that's not how it works. It's not. No. So in federal court, so in state court, we get what's called discovery, which will have the names of all the witnesses that are against you, right? Right. in federal court you get some discovery you don't get the names of the witnesses all right you don't get

the names of the witnesses until the day something maybe a week or or the day that your trial starts all right so you never really know unless you actually decide to go the trial which 97% chooses is not to go to the trial, you never really know. So if you're on the outside and you're involved in drug trafficking, you're going to assume that whoever is arrested is providing you the government information, right? That's what happens. You have to be prepared for that.

That's what you assume, right? And so for the person who's on the inside or the person who's been charged, even if that person is not providing information, the people that are on the outside are going to assume that you provide information, right? Right. So, you know, the potential for danger is there regardless. I mean, I had a client who did not provide information years ago

who actually was killed shortly after he was released from jail because his sentence was so low that they assumed wrongfully. wrongfully, you know, that he had provided information. Oh, my God. But in the federal level, generally, people are never going to know who provided information. Generally. There's still a chance. There's always exceptions.

It's always exceptions. Okay. Yeah. So for this guy to only get four years, that's extremely lucky if he didn't cooperate. I don't know all the details about him specifically, but. you know yeah it's a stigma snitching it's a there's a stigma attached to it absolutely it's frowned upon absolutely you know there's the saying that um people who are in federal prison uh are either people who snitched or provided information right or people who wish they snitched or provided information

and the reason for that is the biggest reason for sentence reductions is providing information or snitching. But at the same time, everyone who's in prison will maintain that they did not snitch, that they did not provide information. So frequently, I'll get calls where the client wants paperwork to show that their plea agreement does not reflect that they. were cooperating for example okay so if they're in like because because others in prison may say i want to see your paperwork yes i've heard that happening a lot yeah and if right right is your neighbor again with the end that's probably Shane actually going to the mini mart um yeah i've heard a lot of stories about that happening about people trying to survive in prison and when you first go there a lot of people they want to see your paperwork to see if you're a rat or see if you're a rat or see if you're a

child molester or whatever the case may be. So that could be a reason that someone would not snitch because if they know they're going to go in, they don't want to have to give up that paperwork. Or they make sure that the paperwork that on the official record doesn't reflect. Doesn't reflect that they told. Yeah. Wow. That's incredible.

I had another guy on here who he got sentenced to 27 years and he would live. listen to other inmates confess to him about stuff that they did or where they hid money. And he would go take that to people, take that to, you know, prosecutors and try to get his Yeah. And he probably got overdue. He said, I cut every throat I possibly could to save my own life. He's like, because that's what everyone else does. That's what he's right.

That's what everyone does. You know, I mean, it's wild. The, the typical scenario in the local jail for people that are sitting awaiting serious charges, is someone will tell them, hey, listen, let me see your discovery. Let me look at your police reports. You know, I know a lot about the law. You know, never mind the fact that they're sitting in jail, but, you know, and I can help you out. Well, the real reason that they want to look at it is they want to be able to have facts that are not generally available to the public.

So that they can go to the prosecutor and say, he told me X, Y, and C, the only way that I know that is a because he told me because it's not available in the news media. It's not available in the general public. Oh, okay. But, of course, the other way he can know it is because he looked at the guy's discovered. Right, right. Wow. How many people have you represented that have received the death penalty?

Or how, I phrased that wrong. How many people have you represented that got the death penalty? And are any of them, none of them are drug cases, right? No, no. The death penalty is only if you committed murder. So currently, I have less than a handful of individuals who are on death row, who were sentenced to death that I represented. A handful.

Yeah, less than five. Less than five. How many of those people do you believe were either not guilty or innocent or were wrongly convicted? I mean obviously you're the attorney so you probably believe all of them were wrongly convicted because you represented them but do you think there's any of them that are that were innocent or not guilty? I've had I've had clients who were sentenced to death that that I believe were innocent. Fortunately, they have been vindicated in the appellate process that they're not. no longer on death row, no longer in prison. They walked free?

Correct. The ones that I have there now, I mean, because they're on death row and because, you know, their sentences are still being appealed and what have you, you know, it wouldn't be appropriate for me to talk about the specifics of their cases. But, I mean, there's no doubt that, you know,

innocent people are convicted. There's no doubt that people have been sentenced to death and then been vindicated through DNA evidence or otherwise. And, you know, the sad thing about, so I can think with two people in particular that I represented who basically had their convictions vacated by the Supreme Court. And it was based on a rule that basically said that if, you know, you know, you know, You know, people that were charged with a crime are presumed innocent. And so if there was a reasonable hypothesis of innocence that I had argued, right,

a reasonable scenario that would be consistent with innocence and inconsistent with guilt. And the evidence did not rebut that, right? So it's a heresy scenario that we're saying, this is what happened. and the evidence doesn't rebut that. The law basically, in the circumstantial evidence case, if the jury found the person guilty, would basically say the evidence is insufficient. And so therefore, they had to be set free.

That particular provision has changed. And so both of the individuals that I can think of that I represented who were set free, who were released from death row, under the current law today would not be released. Really? Right. Because they changed the circumstantial evidence rule. Okay.

Yeah. So it's just because there's a reasonable hypothesis that's not been rebutted, if the evidence is otherwise, you know, compelling enough as to guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, they're basically saying we're not going to change the verdict. Why would they change a law like that? I think it's crazy. I think it's sad. crazy it makes no sense to me but but why like who because because politicians feel like you know

people are getting off for stuff they shouldn't get off for it like they're winning votes by doing that yeah probably you know i mean their argument's going to be that guilty people are walking because of this instead of protecting the innocent it's it's it's letting guilty people walk um you know i mean one of one of the questions that's been raised throughout the time that I've been here, and I'm sure you've heard it before, is whether or not it's, is it better that 10 guilty people,

go free in order to protect one innocent person? And in my opinion, it's always better that 10 guilty people walk free if it's going to protect that one innocent person, right? And so that's the balancing act, right? And so their argument is that there's too many guilty people walking free so we want to tighten up the loss and not you know allow that escape out to be present it's insane to think that guilty people could walk

free from death row i mean really is crazy i mean i mean the the standard of proof is high right to you know proof beyond a reasonable doubt so you know i guess it's it's it's scary to think that people would be sentenced to death row to begin with, right? Right. But we make mistakes. I mean, we, and that's why we have to have all, you know, that's what we need all the protections to make sure that if we do make a mistake, that hopefully it will be uncovered and the person will be released and not executed.

How, what happens to somebody once they're on death row and they're fully exonerated? Oh, by the way, I wanted to bring up that stat that I'd mentioned to you before. I saw that Florida leads the country in death row exonerations. Right. Right. So that means more people are let free because they were wrongly convicted

when they were on death row than any than any state in the country. Right. That's wild. Yeah. No, it's scary. You know, the sad thing about when people are generally

people who are charged with murder, or incarcerated for the whole time period that their case is pending trial, right? And then if they're convicted and sentenced to death, they're going to be in prison on death row for many years, usually before they're set free either by the Supreme Court on direct appeal or in post-conviction hearings later on.

And we're terrible about compensating or helping those people out when their cases are reversed. So when, you know, when it's determined that the person should not be on that throat, that the person is most likely innocent and the person gets a new trial and is released and what have you, there's no compensation. There's no, so you can spend 20, 30 years in jail or prison. and there's no mechanism to like, you know, there is a mechanism, but it's extremely limited.

So basically the burden then is on the person who has been released to prove that he was actually innocent and that they were aware of evidence of his actual innocence at the time. I mean, it's... That the prosecutors were aware of the evidence, but what held it? And the enforcement and prosecutors, right? And that's the process. They have to do that in order to be paid once they're released. Right, which is next to impossible.

I mean, really? Yeah. I mean, it happens. Yeah, I've heard of people getting paid. But it's the exception and not the rule. Some people have received, you know, significant sums, you know, ranging from, you know, maybe 100,000, you know, into the millions. But it's the exception, not the rule.

And to me, I mean, if you've been wrongfully convicted and served years in custody, I mean, we should be helping those people out to get back on their feet, to be able to have a chance of being a law-abiding citizen, right? Right. And the question is, how much is enough? Right. Well, I think the best answer to that is ask the person who put him in jail, how much would be enough for you to do 20 years.

Right. Right. With $2 million, would you like to do 20? Would you be willing to go to prison for 20 years for $2 million? No, of course not. I don't think anybody would. No, no. But we don't want to spend money on that.

We love to spend money on, like, putting people on death row. But we don't like to spend money on, you know, when we make a mistake, we don't want to spend any money on making them whole. Right. I mean, that's, to me, that is the craziest argument against the death penalty is how often it's fucked up. how many mistakes are made and how many people are wrongly convicted of those crimes. And a lot of, I mean, do you, when it comes to like state prosecutors or federal prosecutors on these cases, do you think there's a problem with confirmation bias with those people and them not wanting to actually be objective and inspect all the evidence? And like, when you think about something and you have a theory, you have a hypothesis, the way to make it.

stronger is to test it against other things and try to prove it wrong. Try to prove it wrong as many possible ways as you can, the scientific method. And if you can't prove it wrong, it becomes stronger. Do you feel like these prosecutors aren't operating that way? They kind of get an idea in their head in the beginning and they do everything they can to prove that idea right or to prove that argument right no matter what it is? you know, I think most prosecutors are good prosecutors. They have good intentions, and they work hard towards their goal of seeking justice,

but we're humans, and we make mistakes. And sometimes when we have a strongly held belief that someone is guilty, we sometimes have a hard time seeing other alternatives, right? So, you know, it's, I think we talked about a case that I had in federal court where my client was found not guilty of murder. It was a big multi-defendant case, drug conspiracy, and multiple murder charges. So my client was charged with murder. He was found not guilty of the murder.

Which case was this? His name was Corey Harris, United States versus Corey Harris. So I think I remember that one. Well, so basically he's found not guilty of murder, right? Right. And he's found not guilty of the RICO conspiracy. Okay. And he also had a drug conspiracy charge.

And as charged, he would have had a mandatory life sentence if he was convicted. But there are lesser included drug conspiracies. And so the jury found him guilty of the least amount of drugs so that he had no minimum mandatory sentences, right? So basically, he was held responsible for a small amount of drugs. The judge ended up sentencing him to 120 years for basically nonviolent drug offense, right? and the reason is the judge believed that he was involved in the murder, right? Despite the fact that the evidence was overwhelming that he was not involved in the murder,

and despite the fact that the jury agreed that the evidence did not support him being involved in the murder. Fortunately, it was appeal, we won the appeal, and we recently went back, and he was re-sentenced to 11 years, three months. Whoa. But my point is that in that particular case, so a murder takes place in Manatee County, my client had been in Manatee County earlier that day. And we knew that because there was evidence of him driving through the toll booth of the Skyway. And there was the toll booth photo, which, you know, you couldn't really identify him,

but the car tag matched the car that he had rented. It was him driving his car down there. The other thing that they had is they had his cell phone pinging on cell phone towers in Manatee County earlier in the day, right? So that was the government's evidence connecting him to this murder. Plus there were other evidence, but that sort of brings him down in there. So he was there. We know that.

He was there earlier in the day. Early in the day. At the time of the murder, which is in the evening, my client's cell phone is being used and is pinging at the towers of his home. His home was in North St. Pete. So 30-minute drive away from the scene of the murder, right? The government basically, in my opinion, had blinders on in the sense that they refused to accept. They wanted to use the cell tower information earlier to prove that he was in Manatee County,

but they refused the idea that the fact that he now is Pingin in Pinellas County shows that he is in fact. not part of this murder, right? Right. And so their theory was he drives down there, and there's nothing to support it, but, and he gives someone else his phone, tells them to go to his house, use my phone at my house, while this murder is taking place, which doesn't really make any sense, right? But do I think that any of the agents or the prosecutors did anything,

thing, you know, with ill will or bad intentions? No. No, they did their job and they did what they thought was the right thing to do. But I think we all have a tendency to have blinders on, you know, you watch a football. Right. That's human. Yeah, you watch a football game and, and if it's a close call, you're going to call it in favor of your team, right? That's just the way it is. And it's the same, I think, in the criminal justice system. It's, prosecutors are supposed to to seek justice, you know, and as defense lawyers, we're supposed to fight for our client's rights and to make sure that they get a fair trial and challenge the evidence, right? So it's a different standard. But it's an adversary system, and sometimes some prosecutors

lose sight of that, right? But the great majority do not. The great majority of prosecutors are are awesome. They're good people. They tried to do the best they can. And I think the majority of cases where mistakes are made, it's not because the prosecutor didn't care. It's just because how they viewed the evidence and they sincerely believed that they had looked at everything

and done everything right. I had no idea that the judge could go against the jury. Oh, I mean, so the judge in federal court, a judge can consider acquitted conduct as aggravation for sentencing purposes. Consider acquitted conduct as aggravation? Correct. What does that even mean? So that means it means that even though the jury said not guilty.

Right. And even though the court then has to recognize the jury a verdict and adjudicate the person not guilty, The court can say, I still believe that he committed that crime, and therefore, and I believe that there is some evidence to support that, and therefore I'm going to sentence him harsher than I otherwise would. So the Supreme Court has recognized that that's lawful. But the analogy is that the acquitted conduct cannot be the tail wagging the dog. Right. Right.

So it cannot become. the primary focus of the sentencing. And so the appellate court, basically in the oral argument, when we did the appeal, their question to the prosecutor who handled the appeal was, how is this case not the tail wagging the dog? How is 120 years for a small amount of drugs, how is that not the tail wagging the dog?

Right. And that's why I got reversed. and now I've got a just sentence. Down to 11 years. Yeah. Wow. That's incredible, man. I could, listen, I could sit here for three hours and talk to you about these stories,

but I know the time is limited. Time is limited. But I appreciate you very much coming on here. Yeah. And we should definitely do it more often. Absolutely. Absolutely. Where can people find you on the internet and get in contact with you?

I'll put it below, obviously. www, acquittor.com, A-C-Q-U-I-T-T-E-R.com. The acquitter. The acquitter. Cool. I appreciate it very much, Bjorn.

All right. All right. All right. Goodbye, world. Thank you.