Law&Crime Sidebar - 6 Best Ways to Prosecute YouTube Mom Ruby Franke in Child Abuse Case

Episode Date: September 29, 2023

As the case against Ruby Franke continues to heat up, prosecutors are digging into more evidence, including hospital records of the YouTube mom’s two children who are the center of the case. Franke and her business partner, Jodi Hildebrandt, both face six counts of aggravated child abuse. The Law&Crime Network’s Jesse Weber breaks down the six best ways to prosecute the duo with former Watergate prosecutor Nick Akerman.Hosts:Jesse Weber: https://twitter.com/jessecordweberAngenette Levy: https://twitter.com/Angenette5LAW&CRIME SIDEBAR PRODUCTION:YouTube Management - Bobby SzokePodcasting - Sam GoldbergVideo Editing - Michael DeiningerScript Writing - Savannah WilliamsonGuest Booking - Alyssa Fisher & Diane KayeSocial Media Management - Vanessa BeinSTAY UP-TO-DATE WITH THE LAW&CRIME NETWORK:Watch Law&Crime Network on YouTubeTV: https://bit.ly/3td2e3yWhere To Watch Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3akxLK5Sign Up For Law&Crime's Daily Newsletter: https://bit.ly/LawandCrimeNewsletterRead Fascinating Articles From Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3td2IqoLAW&CRIME NETWORK SOCIAL MEDIA:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lawandcrime/Twitter: https://twitter.com/LawCrimeNetworkFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/lawandcrimeTwitch: https://www.twitch.tv/lawandcrimenetworkTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@lawandcrimeSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Wondery Plus subscribers can binge all episodes of this Law and Crimes series ad-free right now. Join Wondry Plus in the Wondery app Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Agent Nate Russo returns in Oracle 3, Murder at the Grandview, the latest installment of the gripping Audible Original series. When a reunion at an abandoned island hotel turns deadly, Russo must untangle accident from murder. But beware, something sinister lurks in the grand. View Shadows. Joshua Jackson delivers a bone-chilling performance in this supernatural thriller

that will keep you on the edge of your seat. Don't let your fears take hold of you as you dive into this addictive series. Love thrillers with a paranormal twist? The entire Oracle trilogy is available on Audible. Listen now on Audible. What do you do when you're disciplining your kids and they make you laugh? It's frustrating. All of my kids have done it. Chad does it too. Because I never get disciplined. A now disgraced YouTube personality is still sitting behind bars in Utah, accused of hurting her own children. And as her legal team tries to figure out how to defend her,

prosecutors are gathering evidence that could potentially put her away for years. We sit down with renowned former prosecutor Nick Ackerman to discuss what he would do if he were heading up the case against Ruby Frankie. Welcome to Sidebar, presented by Law and Crime. I'm Jesse Weber. So we're continuing our discussion of Ruby Frankie. Frankie, of course, the wife and mother of six who came to fame for her now defunct YouTube channel Eight Passengers, a channel that boasted more than two million subscribers and

featured videos about her parenting techniques and her life with her husband, Kevin, and six kids. But things certainly have changed when on August 30th, one of Ruby Frankie's youngest children allegedly escaped from the home of Jody Hildebrand, Ruby's business partner. This young boy running to a neighbor for help, he was reportedly emaciated and had open wounds. That neighbor called 911, and from there, first responders found another one of Frankie's children inside of the home, her 10-year-old daughter, reportedly in similar condition. Ruby Frankie and that business partner, Jody Hildebrandt, were arrested. Each face six counts of aggravated child abuse.

I should tell you, each charge carries up to 15 years in prison, and we now know that prosecutors are seeking the medical records of these two children, which I imagine will be very helpful in their prosecution. So we've talked about how Frankie may be able to defend herself against multiple child abuse allegations. What about the prosecution? Is this a slam dunk case or is there more involved than we might know? How should prosecutors move forward with this case? Well, I have a very special guest to help me answer those questions. I'm joined right now by Nick Ackerman, A man who knows his stuff when it comes to prosecuting criminals. He is an attorney, former Watergate prosecutor and assistant U.S. attorney in the Southern District of New York with decades of legal experience.

Nick Ackerman, so good to see you. Thanks for coming here on Sidebar. Great to be here. Now let's talk, you and I haven't spoke about the Ruby Frankie case yet. What are just your overall thoughts on this case? Well, this is the kind of case that if you're on the DA's side of the fence here, you want to be certain. that you bring a case that is absolutely going to be a slam dunk and is going to end up being a conviction. And so you really want to be able to cover the waterfront on all of the evidence.

Obviously, there's the evidence from the children and the one situation where the police came into this scene, but there's also a past history that you really need to prove here that really makes this case an impossibility. for the defense to get around. And that is if you can show all of the prior actions. And certainly one way to do it is to get a hold of any kind of doctor's records or hospital records where these kids had to be treated at some prior point in time that would reflect that the kinds of issues they had came as a result of parent neglect and something that the parents did to these children.

Let's focus on that because that's some of the more the latest news, is that prosecutors have been trying to obtain the medical records of these two children, the son and the daughter, around August 30th, when all of this came to light. Is it the idea that they want these records to not only back up the claims of abuse or is it to have it prepared in case the children decide not to testify? Oh, I think it's both. I mean, I think even if the children do testify, you would want this kind of documentary evidence because it would corroborate what the children are saying and would take away any defense that this was some kind of made up imagination in the eyes of the children. I mean, I think it's really important that they have these records because records don't lie. And my sense is these records, would go back a good period of time. And you say the records don't lie.

I guess one of the limitations or one of the issues could be when were the wounds inflicted or how they were inflicted. How accurate are these records in determining those issues for prosecutors? Well, we're not going to know, obviously, until we actually see the records. But they would be admissible in the court of law as business records, regularly conducted activity, entries that were made at or about the time that these incidents occurred and would carry a lot of weight because this would be what the doctors observed at the time and what the children said. All of that normally might be considered

hearsay but would be admissible under the business record exception. I was thinking, should we go into this? And then I was like, do my, do the listeners want to get into hearsay? Real quick, real quick, explain that really, really quick what you mean by that. Really quickly, hearsay is just an out-of-court statement. Right. It's what somebody else says out of court that the defense doesn't get an opportunity to cross-examine at the time. What the rules allow is an exception for a business record. Right. Because it's considered that those are reliable and that it gets around the hearsay rule. Let's talk about the kids for a second. Let's talk about the kids for a second. So I imagine this would be ideal for prosecutors to have these children

on the stand to explain what happened to them, allegedly at the hands of Ruby, Frankie, and Jody Hildebrand. Walk us through how that works in terms of whether prosecutors, how they have that conversation with the kids, to be potential witnesses, because we don't even know when this trial would happen. And whether or not they, being on the stand is tough. Walk us through what that's about and how to have actually the kids as witnesses yeah it's extremely tough um because you're actually asking the kids um to relive what they went through before uh through a traumatized situation um you're also dealing with children minors who aren't necessarily the most reliable witnesses in terms of memory uh and it's really a matter of sitting down with them going through it

step by step. It is going to be a long, laborious process. And you really don't know how it's going to come out because they're not adults. They're not people that you normally can deal with in the same way that will have a much better memory. Some of this they may have blocked out just because it was so traumatic. So it's not the easiest situation to be in if you're in the DA's office, which is why having records are so important. But we do know that based on some recently obtained documents that the son told investigators that Jody tied him to the floor and that there was cayenne pepper and honey that was used to treat his wounds and they found those products in the house. So it seems to corroborate what the son said. Would it be ideal to have the kids on the stand as witnesses? I mean, because if juries hear that and they hear from the, if a jury hears that and they hear from the victims themselves, I'm sure that's. ideal for prosecutors oh no question about it but again when you're dealing with children it's very important to have exactly what you just said that is corroborating evidence whether it's what the investigators found on the scene

whether it's what doctors observed at the hospital what the kids said to other people at or about the time these events occurred all of that is critical because the defense is going to try and say that you can't believe children, that this was made up, this was in their imaginations, and you've got to get around that by corroborating what they're saying through independent evidence, whether it's documents or actual evidence found at the scene at the time or through other people that had contact with the children over that period of time. Would you want the other kids to testify, not necessarily the victims in this case, but I know that at least one of Ruby Frankie's children has been

quite vocal against her and when she was arrested basically you know had a social media post finally like it was time that she was arrested would you want those other kids to be witnesses for the state um other kids meaning people that these kids children children because some of them are not they're not under the yes as for not when i say kids i mean they're children yeah yeah i think it depends. I mean, you're talking about a prior consistent statement, which is, again, something that is an exception to the hearsay rule. If, in fact, the defense is attacking these kids and their credibility, the one way you can get those statements in is if that happens to show that what they're saying on the witness stand was also said by them at or about the time

these events. So some of that stuff would definitely be admissible under those circumstances. And of course you'd want to get that in. I guess the question I'm having is there's what happened to these kids at that moment in time. And then there's everything that happened in the past because as you and I know, Ruby Frankie was facing a ton of criticism over videos that were posted about her parenting techniques. There's one video where she basically says it's her six-year-old daughter's fault for going hungry at school because she refused to pack her own lunch. I know that her teacher is uncomfortable with her being hungry and not having a lunch and it would ease her discomfort if I came to the school with lunch. But I responded and just said Eve is responsible for making her lunches in the morning and she actually told me she did pack a lunch.

So the natural outcome is she's just going to need to be hungry. those videos about all of her you know that were on her YouTube channel the videos that she made with Jody Hildebrand is that important evidence for prosecutors are they going to try to get that in I think it depends how powerful it is yes if she was just refusing to give her child lunch and the child couldn't eat lunch because of that sure that might go into evidence it all depends what's in that video how much of it helps the prosecution and how much of it hurts it really is that video by video decision um that the prosecutors have to make because once you put in a piece of the video you have to under the rule of completeness put in

the entire video this is again getting into lots of rules of evidence no it's important but that's what a lot of this comes down to i think yeah what i was curious about if you have one of the children say let me tell you what happened five years ago uh what ruby did to me what my mom did to me. Is that relevant? Is that relevant to the case at hand? Of course. Of course, because it would, all of that would be relevant because it would go into showing, you know, a pattern of abuse that occurred over a period of time. Right. And all of that could be admissible. But the DA would have to be awfully careful about it because any of that you put in, you want to make sure that it jives with the rest of the case and that there is some corroboration out there

that basically supports what that witness is saying. So Kevin Frankie is Ruby Frankie's husband. He hasn't been criminally charged. We interviewed his attorney on here. Claims that he has absolutely no idea this abuse was occurring. He was separated from Ruby for over a year. Do you think he would play a witness for the prosecution? And if so, what role would he play?

Because, again, there are people who suspect that he was a part of, or not even suspect, there are people who have wondered what his role is in all of this. And so, again, he hasn't been criminally charged. He hasn't been facing any kind of accusations like this. But I do wonder if he would play a role some sort for the prosecution. Oh, I would think it's very possible. I mean, it really depends what he knew, what the kids said to him over a period of time,

and really kind of what he knew and did at the time. I mean, it's, the question is, if he's put into a grand jury beforehand, is he going to take the fifth or is he going to cooperate with the district attorney? We just don't know that. I mean, there's a lot of unknowns here, obviously. And so the proof in the pudding will be interview him, see if he takes the fifth, put him in the grand jury, see if he cooperates or takes the fifth. That'll be the proof in terms of whether he's willing to come forward in, and, and, you know, talk about this. How important is the 911 phone call to the prosecution? Because that's like what started everything. You have this young boy, escapes Jody, allegedly escapes Jody Hildebrand's

house, goes to the neighbor. The neighbor, in my opinion, seems choked up. He's talking about what he's observing from this boy, talking about he, you know, he's begging for food and water and said that he always felt like something weird was going on in the house and said it's, you know, bad. How important is that 911 phone call for prosecutors in a case like this? Extremely important. Again, this goes to it being a prior consistent statement. I mean, he would testify and testify all of this. The moment the defense tried to impugn his credibility, that 911 call would come in in a nanosecond.

So it's extremely important, and it really puts the defense in a bind because if you start going after the child witness, the prosecution will immediately be able to put in that 9-1-1 recording. I wanted to talk to you about the charges themselves, these six counts of aggravated child abuse. They're quite broad in terms of what abuse constitutes. It has to be some sort of injury, but then it could be an injury that causes, you know, or constitutes torture or malnourishment or that causes a severe developmental delay. And the fact that they are so broad, that's helpful for prosecutors, I imagine. I mean, I guess it doesn't mean necessarily that a jury would say every instance of this is aggravated child abuse.

But I imagine the more broad it is is beneficial to prosecutors. Well, sure. But again, it all depends on the facts that the prosecution proved. The more they can show that this was what everybody would consider to be child abuse, is extremely helpful to the prosecution and harmful to the defense. And it would seem to me that you would not try and bring something in that is just borderline. It sounds like what's being alleged here and the facts here are pretty over the top. And there shouldn't be any question that if proven that this would constitute child abuse.

And just going back to the language, they talk about how child abuse is if the defendant, so let's say Ruby, intentionally or knowingly inflicted upon a child a serious physical injury, then it says or caused or permitted another to inflict serious physical injury upon the child. So that idea of Ruby placing the blame at Jody or Jody placing the blame at Ruby when again, I think police said that they had filmed a video together two days before all this happened. So how would you not know about the abuse in that home? that idea of either one of them putting the blame on the other, how as a prosecutor would you fight against that? Well, you really couldn't do it because under the statute, it still shows that one knows knowledge about what's going on.

They're both the parents. So it really puts them in a bind that they can't be in a position to put the blame on the other. Their only position can be it didn't happen. and that really puts them in a pretty strict bind here considering what the evidence appears to be. They can't argue that it's not abuse. I mean, maybe that's what they would say is that nothing they did to them was abuse. I know there's been talk about, well, you know, if there was a pie and pepper and honey can be used to treat wounds, but then I'm saying, well, why were the wounds there in the first place?

Is there best avenue to say it's not abuse and try to convince a jury of that? And how would you say it is abuse? Well, it all comes down to a factual question of showing how it was abuse, how certain items were kept from them, how they were, harm was inflicted upon them. It really comes down to what is all the evidence show and the jury has to determine was this abuse or was it not abuse. That is the key question for the jury here. And that'll be part of the factual basis that's going to be fought out in front of court if they should decide. to actually contest this in the trial. If you went to trial, if you were prosecuting this case,

what would you say in an opening statement, first thing the jury hears about everything? Oh, I think the first thing you would say is, ladies and gentlemen, the jury, this is a simple case about two parents who over a period of time. By the way, I should be clear. Jody Hildebrandt was not a parent of these children, but she was Ruby Frankie's business partner.

Having said that, it seemed at a certain point these kids were at her house. and they were living there so just wanted to clarify right and so you're talking about two people who inflicted serious abuse and two children that basically caused them physical and emotional harm I mean that that's the first thing out of the prosecutor's mouth to just drive that home with the period of time that occurred and the type of things that they did that amounted to this abuse I mean this is not a very difficult opening statement you would you focus a lot on the actual injuries and what these children went through? Absolutely.

That's what you would focus on for sure, because that's what would hit home with the jury. I mean, everybody in the jury was either a child at some point or they have children. And what you'd want to do is bring that emotional appeal to them right out of the box. By the way, what kind of jury would you want in a case like this? Um, to pick, I mean, if I were the prosecutor, I think I'd look for people that, um, were, that had kids. I think that would be an important thing. People that can identify with this, the heinousness of this kind of, um, act and what they did. Um, I mean, I think that's what you'd be looking for.

There aren't too many people you'd wind up putting off a jury like this. I mean, it's the more you can get people. who actually have had children of their own and have brought up children, they're going to appreciate what is abuse and what isn't. How strong do you think the case against Jody Hildebrand and Ruby Frankie is? It appears to be pretty strong based on just what happens

with their children and what they've said and what was found at the scene of the crime, basically, and what these children are saying. I think it seems like the kind of case where I don't see either of these people going to trial on it. I just don't see how you could risk being convicted when you might be able to make some kind of deal with the prosecution. Let me just circle back to one last thing.

Obviously, we're hearing reports about what the 12-year-old boy has said to law enforcement. But let's say these children decide to no longer cooperate for a number of different reasons. They say, we don't want to talk about this anymore. I don't remember what happened, blacked it out. If you don't have their testimony, if you don't have their account, how difficult is it to prove these cases? Because I will tell you, one of the aggravated abuse charges says that, you know, any of this physical injury includes any combination of two or more physical injuries inflicted by the same person, either at the same time or on a different occasion. And if you don't have, you know, necessarily medical records that can talk about what happened three weeks, three weeks before or a month before, it feels like it all comes down to the word of these two children. And if you don't have the cooperation of these children, how difficult is it to prove this case against both women?

I guess it depends with the hospital records show. Right. I mean, I think that's really the answer here. But yes, it does make it more difficult. Now, whether it makes it impossible is a totally different issue, and that would depend on what you have in terms of hospital records, what neighbors might have observed or seen. It really depends on the rest of the evidence, but it does make it more difficult for sure. Nick Ackerman, thanks so much for coming here on Sidebar, breaking this down for us. We really do appreciate it because we do want to present both sides.

We talked about what a potential defense could be. Now we hear what a potential prosecution could be like. Appreciate it, sir. Okay, thank you. All right, everybody. That's all we have for you here on Sidebar. Thank you so much for joining us. Please subscribe on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, wherever you get your podcast.

I'm Jesse Weber. I'll speak to next time. crime series, ad free right now on Wondery Plus. Join Wondery Plus in the Wondery app, Apple Podcasts, or Spotify.