Law&Crime Sidebar - Defense Attorney Reacts To OnlyFans Model Not Guilty Plea

Episode Date: September 1, 2022

OnlyFans model Courtney Clenney pleads not guilty and is headed to trial, but will self-defense work? Jesse Weber sits down with Florida criminal defense attorney Bryant Camareno.GUESTS:Bryant Camareno: http://www.camarenolaw.com/LAW&CRIME SIDEBAR PRODUCTION:YouTube Management - Bobby SzokePodcasting - Sam GoldbergVideo Editing - Michael DeiningerGuest Booking - Alyssa FisherSocial Media Management - Kiera BronsonSUBSCRIBE TO OUR OTHER PODCASTS:Court JunkieObjectionsThey Walk Among AmericaCoptales and CocktailsThe Disturbing TruthSpeaking FreelyLAW&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. Only fans model Courtney Clenney has pled not guilty and her murder case is headed to trial. But the question is, the self-defense really makes sense here. I'm joined by Florida criminal defense attorney, Brian Camerono. Welcome to Saibar, presented by Law and Crime. I'm Jesse Weber. So we have some updates for you in the case of only fans model Courtney Clenney.

A trial date has officially been set for the woman charged with second degree murder in connection with the death of her boyfriend, Christian Obam Selly. Now, Courtney Clenney, who's 26 years old, she's also known online by the name Courtney Taylor. She is going to face a jury trial on December 19th at 9.30 a.m. Obviously, that could be subject to change. A lot of things can happen, but that's what's on the docket right now. Now, as you might recall, and as we have reported on sidebar, Clenny is accused of stabbing Obam Sully to death at their apartment in Miami, Florida,

back on April 3rd, but she wasn't arrested initially. No, she told police that she acted in self-defense. She said that Oban Sully was attacking her, that she was in fear for her life, and she even suggested that she threw a knife at him from 10 feet away. The only problem with that is that when investigators looked at the evidence, it didn't quite look like that. An autopsy determined that, quote, a forceful downward thrust of a knife

caused the wound about three inches deep in Obam Selly's chest. There was also a video of the couple in an elevator from a few months prior to this killing, and it was in the elevator of the apartment building, and it appears that Clennie is attacking Obam Selly, that she's hitting him, that she's the primary aggressor. Clennie was ultimately arrested in Hawaii

where she was apparently at a rehab center. She was extradited back to Florida. This week there was a hearing where her attorney, Frank Prieto, confirmed that his client is pleading not guilty to the charge. And Clennie didn't appear for the two-minute hearing, but he spoke on her behalf nonetheless. And by the way, speaking of Frank Prieta, we actually tried to get him on the show. He said he couldn't do it, given everything that's happening right now. But he did text us back saying, quote, please know we are mounting a vigorous defense for

Courtney who told us she feared for her life that day and took the actions. did in self-defense. So we thought to ourselves, who would be good to speak about this topic? Who is an expert in Florida self-defense law? Well, we have with us Florida criminal defense attorney Bryant Camerono, who knows a few things about self-defense because he represented Michael Draca in Florida in a very highly publicized self-defense case a few years back. It was a trial that we actually covered on the Law and Crime Network. Bryant, great to see you again. And thanks so much for coming on sidebar. Thank you for having.

So let's first start with the trial date. So this trial date is set for December. You think it's actually going to stay December or is this thing going to get pushed off? You know, the trial dockets here in Florida are somewhat out of control. Miami, from what I understand, it's just the same as here in Tampa. But again, the judge could get this one priority over some of the other cases. So unless there's some pretrial motions, which we can discuss shortly, it could go. It could very well go.

But if there are some pretrial motions, think about it. We got September, October, November. You know, if there are emotions to be filed, they better be filed right away because, again, December's right around the corner. Well, it seems to me, okay, and I'm just playing devil's. I'm just reading the Tee leaves here. The prosecution, I mean, obviously they want to get more evidence. They want to hear from the neighbors.

They want to understand more about the relationship. They have a lot right now. They felt they have enough to arrest her. It seems that the defense needs a little more time to mount their defense. Wouldn't you agree? Wouldn't it be not beneficial for them to go to trial immediately? Well, I would agree. I think that they need time to develop their theory. If their theory is self-defense, they're going to need their own forensic expert. You know, I heard you say that the state's medical examiner described the thrust, the angle of the knife. Well, the defense better have their own witness to say, well, our version of events, you know, our experts saying that, you know, that his findings or her findings are consistent with our theory. So I would imagine, absolutely, find that expert, list them, and then present them before the jury. You think today she can find an expert that would say, oh, because there's two ways of looking at this, right, Brian.

One way is she wasn't telling him the truth about being 10 feet away and throwing a knife at him. And either it's because what, she panicked or she was lying to get out of trouble or can she find an expert that will say, hey, you know what? You can throw a knife from 10 feet away. And it can also cause a forceful downward thrust, although I just don't see that adding up. What do you think? You know, again, I'm not a medical expert. But yeah, I think you can find an expert, and this is sad, but I think you can find an expert to say almost anything. But, of course, they'd have to back it up.

So you're just not going to randomly find someone and say, you know, hey, I'll pay you this much to say this. They're going to have to back it up. But you brought up a good point in terms of her initial statement to law enforcement. Rule number one, I tell all my clients do not make a statement because now she's bound by that statement. That's number one. But going back to number two, as far as the medical experts, I'm sure you'll find an expert out there. But again, that expert better back up their position. otherwise the jury's going to laugh at them, but I'm sure there's an expert out there that

will say that this injury is consistent with a throw if they're going to commit to that story. Or, right, she could also say, hey, listen, my expert says this wasn't a forceful downward thrust, right, and disagrees with the medical examiner. Absolutely. And that happens all the time. There's always a dispute between experts. And that's why a lot of lawyers, I'm not a big fan of experts. You know, in the Draco case, you mentioned that we had a use of force violence expert. The state had one. And the end, I think the jury, they just canceled each other out. And in the end, the jury simply relied on the video. So I'm not a big fan of experts unless it's, like in this case, I think

you need one. But generally, most jurors, especially if you have two conflicting experts, sometimes they just cancel each other out. And they focus on other stuff like the elevator scene, neighbors, you know, who was the initial aggressor whenever there was a fight between the two of them. I think that's really what's going to be the focus for this jury. By the way, so she pled not guilty. She didn't appear for the hearing. Before I even get into the self-defense, Is it normal for her not to appear for the hearing just for her attorney to appear on her behalf? Yes, sir. Most arraignments, it's just the lawyers.

They follow the pleadings, not guilty, and they move on. Yeah, we waive most of our clients, especially if they're in custody. It's just a hardship to wake them up at 4 in the morning just for a two-minute presentation. So, yeah, it's not uncommon to waive a client's appearance. And by the way, she also voluntarily agreed to extradition from Hawaii back to Florida, seem like in her best interest. Because again, even though she's pled not guilty, I assume she's taking the position,

I have nothing to hide. I was telling the truth, not evading law enforcement. What'd you think of that? No, I think that's a smart move because ultimately she would have been extradited. It would just delay the process. That publicity, why is she fighting extradition when it's a,

you know, she's within this country. She's going to bring her back anyway. So I'm sure her lawyer's advisor and said, don't fight it, wave it, just come back and we'll fight it. Otherwise, it could look bad. It could look like you're hiding. So I think it was a smart move for her to waive extradition. Okay.

Well, now I have to tell you something. And I say this with all due respect. This case happened in Florida. And a lot of the cases that I cover on law and crime just happen to be from Florida. Florida sometimes has very unique cases. You are an expert in Florida law. You've handled self-defense cases in Florida. So somebody looking at this case from New York, someone looking at this case from California,

someone look at this case from Oklahoma, Florida self-defense. defense cases, are they any different than other self-defense cases across the country? So in the sense that we have the immunity statute to stay on your ground. So some states, I think other states have them as well. So we do have that stay-in-your-ground immunity provision, which I don't know if these lawyers are going to do that. And if they do that, again, they better file it before December. By the way, can you explain what that is? Sure. So under the statute, very controversial law, and there's been talked about changing it. But basically, the burden is on the state to show that it was not self-defense.

If they cannot rebut the presumption, the argument that it was self-defense, then she's immune from prosecution. And the judge can dismiss the charge. And that's different from self-defense. So in other words, there's a provision in the statute says, hey, if the defense presents evidence that shows that she's defending herself and the state can't rebut it, then the case can get dismissed. End of story, she can't be charged.

If the judge denies it, they can still rely on self-referenced. defense, which is just your standard self-defense that's been in existence for years. Okay. So stand your ground, though, usually, I mean, have you ever seen it in a domestic violence situation? Sure. Absolutely. In fact, there was a famous case here in Florida, I believe, where she was, this young lady shot a gun on the roof to scare off her aggressor, and she got charged. And because of the discharge, here, Florida, we have 1020 life. So she was charged a sentence to 20 years. Later, her conviction was overturned. But yeah, I've seen. domestic violence all the time where the woman or the man who's the victim of domestic violence

uses force to defend themselves. So it applies absolutely in different scenarios. Are self-defense jurors and juries and self-and, and by the way, I didn't mean to, you know, say the Florida man thing or anything like that. It just happens that we cover a lot of cases from Florida. And I'm curious, Florida juries typically do they favor self-defense or is it tough to see like those statistics about how often self-defense is successful with juries? Great question. And here's the. problem with that. See, I practiced throughout Florida. And just to just simplify, I'm Spanish, I'm Latino. And so in Osceola County, for example, Orange County, Orlando, Florida, there's a huge

Puerto Rican community there. And so I had a jury trial once, and they were made up of 90% Latinos, Puerto Ricans, in Miami, Cubans, okay? So that diversity is what makes that question so complex, because not all, you know, Puerto Ricans think the same as other non-Latinos, for example, in Cuban. So it's hard to say because I've had same case, almost same facts, but in different counties with different verdicts. So in a rural county, let's say Polk County, predominantly white county, a famous sheriff of Grady Judd, for example. There, they're big advocates of, you know, guns. And so there, I think I'd have a better chance in Florida. I'm sorry, in Polk County with a stand-your-ground, then perhaps in some other jurisdiction where people don't believe in guns, you know,

some, not all Latinos support guns, you know, or have guns. And so it's interesting that you asked that question, but because Florida is so diverse. I don't if you remember, again, there was an Uber driver who shot, I think he shot and killed someone because his passenger, boyfriend was upset. And Brady Judge said, we're not even charging him. And it happened at the same time as the Draca case. So in Pinellas, Draca gets charged. But in Polk, he walked. He didn't even get arrested. So again, that diversity is what makes that question not so easy to answer. Right. No, and that makes sense. You know what's interesting. I mentioned what her attorney's response was to us. And there's a line that there's a point where he says,

Courtney, who told us she feared for her life. This self-defense is very subjective in a way, right? So it makes it seem Courtney Clennie, if this goes to trial and she doesn't plead guilty, then she is going to have to take the stand, right? Well, okay, not necessarily because in Draca, just because you mentioned it, he didn't take the stand, but there was enough evidence on the video to support a self-defense claim. But you're right. And just to make that clear, it was a police video, a police interrogation where he literally

went through the whole events as they happened the day of. True, exactly. And there was the convenience store video exactly. So, but in her case, if there's no evidence to support self-defense, then she does going to, she is going to have to take the stand because the law requires you in Florida that at least you have to have some evidence to suggest your defense. So before the judge can instruct a jury on your defense, you might, you have to present some evidence to support that, even if it's minuscule amount of evidence.

So in this case, if it's just, there's no one there, then yes, she better take that stand and say, I felt inferior in my life, and here's why. Otherwise, she may not get a self-defense instruction. But she has to prove, I guess, in a way that she was the victim of domestic violence at the hands of her boyfriend for not just that moment in time, but she would try to show it happened for, you know, not that day, but also just the months in advance or the weeks leading up to it. How much does she have to show that? Okay, so a pattern, absolutely. The more evidence of any domestic violence on her end, as a victim, the better for her. But you better support that with witnesses, photographs, without that, and then, you know, the jury may not

believe her, you know, especially if there's a video to rebut that where she's the aggressor inside in an elevator. And then, you know, character evidence here in Florida, very difficult to get in character evidence. So, for example, if they, if she puts in evidence that she is a peaceful person, well, then that opens the door to other violence acts. So they could bring in ex-boyfriends, for example, ex-neighors that she may have fought with. So you have to be very careful. If she's can present herself as a peaceful person. It opens a door to say, well, wait a minute, we got 10 people. They're going to say, she wasn't always so peaceful. She was a bullying high school. As an example, or she always fought with her neighbor. So, you know, you start to go into peacefulness.

It opens a door. And it works both ways. If you show that he is an aggressor, then it opens the door to say to show no. Look, there's evidence to show how peaceful he was. So character evidence is also an important aspect of this case. And there's the video. The video of them in this elevator, a few months before. You look at it. It looks like she's a attacking him, right? I mean, he tries to push her off a little bit. There are two things I look at at that. One, you could look at it and say, oh, my goodness, she's the aggressor. She's attacking him. But the other way of looking at it is if he is so much bigger, he's able to push her off so easily, then maybe she really had to use a knife in order to stop him, right? Isn't that another

way of looking at it? That's a great argument. Absolutely. And I think the defense needs to explain, you're right. They're going to have to explain that the state is allowed. which I'm sure they will be allowed to introduce that video take, the defense, I'm sorry, better explain to that jury. Well, wait a minute. This video is only a snapshot of what happened before, it doesn't include what happened before or after. And so I agree. So you can, you know, that reverse judo type of technique where he's the aggressor. So use it as a defense to show, yeah, look, you know, he was able to push her off. That's just to show you how strong he is. And you don't see what happened afterwards. And so somebody better fill in the gaps what happened before and after.

Otherwise, the jury is just going to rely on that video and say, she's a tough little bird there. And she could take it, you know, she had no fear for him at that moment, but there was more. And again, that would be my argument if I was her lawyer. You think that video is even going to be allowed in? Again, it's not from the day in question. It's from a different point in time. You think it's even going to be allowed in? I would imagine the judge would allow it in.

If she's going to start relying on self-defense, I think the state has good, solid grounds to introduce this prior incident to show either lack of fear or that she's the initial aggressor. evidence of that. So it's relevant for those purposes. So I can't see how a judge would keep it out. I can't see how it's too unduly prejudicial. You know, it's not like she, you know, if it was her doing drugs, for example, or killing a puppy, then yeah, that might be unduly prejudicial. But here attacking the same victim she ended up dying, I can't see how a judge will keep that out. Do you think it's going to be tough for the prosecution to reverse a narrative in a way because you have a larger individual, a larger victim in this case, or alleged victim in this Right? So you have a larger person. It's man versus woman. Usually you would see it the opposite way around, but you have a girlfriend killing a boyfriend. Do you think it's going to be hard for prosecute, for, excuse me, for defense attorneys to reverse the narrative and say that she was acting in self, no, let me rephrase that. I'm sorry. Do you think it's going to be difficult for the prosecution to say that she's the killer, that she wasn't acting in self-defense? Because on the other hand, is they felt that they had enough probable cause to ultimately arrest her. They think.

that she's being inconsistent. The physical evidence is not looking good against her. And there's also testimony, or at least there's reports from neighbors who said that they had a very tumultuous relationship, which I think is going to come in. So do you think it's different for optics-wise prosecutors trying to convince a jury that this is not the story that you hear in the news and movies every day? My initial reaction is I don't think they're going to have a hard time because of the video in the elevator, because of their medical examiner,

testimony. Neighbors that are to say, listen, these guys were in his volatile relationship, and then any other evidence they may have. No, I think society now, we're much more progressive now where we know that victims of domestic violence is not just men on women. It's men on men, women on men. So, no, I think society can see through that and say, no, it's, you know, it's not always a guy versus a girl. It can be the other way around. You know, in the Johnny Depp case, even though not domestic, you know, obviously domestic related, but even though it's a civil suit, the jurors favored Johnny Depp, you know.

So that's an example of how the jurors look beyond her gender and said, you know, we believe Johnny, you know, in this case. So I think society has, for the most part, progressed where they know that it's not just the one-way street guys on girls that can be the other way around as well. Brian, would you want to defend her? You know, I tell you, I love litigating cases, okay? So this would be a case.

I'm not saying I would win it, But I would love to take the case because I think there's so much, it's not the publicity, but there's so much potential. I love the challenge. So I can see why a lot of defense attorneys would want to take the case because of the challenge, you know. But I will say this, though, that if they made her a reasonable offer, my first suggestion would be take or consider the offer.

And by that, for example, if she's looking at, you know, 25 years to life, I would say in the offer of her 10. And again, as an example, I would say, look, if you were my family member, I'd say take the 10. I'd rather you home in eight years than 25 to life. So, but yeah, I would love to take a case like that. But, you know, but again, I'm more conservative protecting my client's rights and their understanding. If there's no offer, she has no choice but to take it to trial. So I think it would be a good challenge.

You think that an offer would be put on the table? And by the way, you said, so let's say she'd get to 10 years, she would get out in eight because of parole, right? Yeah, right, exactly. Gain time would be behavior? Would it be, would it be downgraded at all? I mean, could you try to get a manslaughter? order charge? You could. I mean, that could be part of the plea deal. The state could charge her keep it as charged and make her a reduced sentence offer, or they could reduce a charge and

still make her a reduced sentence offer. Because it's a knife and not a gun, there's no minimum mandatories. So there's a lot of discretion there. So they can keep it as charged and still offer them her whatever they want. But because of the publicity of this case, I can't see the state attorney's office in South Florida making her an offer anything less than 20 years because I'm sure the victim's family are outraged and they want justice. And I think, so I can't see them making any offers. This could be one of those cases where the state will say, no offers, you know, 20, 20, 25, take it or leave it. Otherwise, go to trial.

Brian Camerono, great to have you on. This has been an excellent discussion. Thank you for taking the time. No, any time. Again, this is a fascinating case. So let's see how it plays out in the next few months. Yeah, I definitely want to keep you in touch with this because, again, you are our expert, our new resident expert about Florida self-defense law. Thank you so much, sir.

Thank you, sir. Take care. And everyone out there, thanks for joining us here on Sidebar. Please subscribe on Apple Podcasts, YouTube, Spotify, wherever you get your podcast. Sidebar is produced by Sam Goldberg, YouTube manager Robert Zoki, Alyssa Fisher as our booking producer, and video editor Logan Harris. I'm Jesse Weber. I'll speak to you next time.

You can binge all episodes of this Law and Crime series, ad free right now on Wonderry Plus. Join Wondery Plus in the Wondery app, Apple Podcasts, or Spotify.