Law&Crime Sidebar - Kobe Bryant Photo Evidence Destroyed, R. Kelly Manager Stalks Victim, Britney Spears Bashes Mom

Episode Date: July 27, 2022

A federal judge sanctioned the Los Angeles County for deleting graphic photos of the scene where Kobe Bryant’s helicopter crashed in 2020 as Bryant’s widow, Vanessa, sues. An associate of disgraced R&B singer R. Kelly pleads guilty to stalking one of Kelly’s victims and her mother. And, Britney Spears lashes out at her mom, Lynne, on instagram as her lawyer fights to depose her former managers over their alleged role in her conservatorship.GUESTS:Meghann Cuniff, Law&Crime Senior Reporter on the West Coast. Steve Greenberg, R. Kelly Attorney Tisha Morris, Entertainment Attorney 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 CocktailsSpeaking 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. views 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. A new wrinkle in Vanessa Bryant's ongoing legal battle against Los Angeles County following the death of her husband, Lakers Great, Kobe Bryant. This time, the judge is sanctioning the county. I'm Ann Jeanette Levy, and welcome to Law and Crimes Sidebar Podcast. This is a big story, of course. Vanessa Bryant has a pending lawsuit against Los Angeles County over photographs of her late

husband Kobe and her daughter, Gianna, who were both killed in that awful helicopter crash. The sheriff ordered that they be deleted, and the judge is sanctioning the county for that. And joining us to talk about this as someone who's been covering the case and knows quite about quite a bit about this and wrote about it for law and crime.com is Megan Cuniff. She is a writer with law and crime.com specializing in the West Coast. So Megan, welcome to Sidebar. Thanks for coming on. Thank you for having me. Exactly what the judge in the case did. We know that he sanctioned LA County. Yeah. And this was a significant evidentiary sanctions. I think when a lot of people hear about court sanctions, they think about money and fines imposed on attorneys. And that's usually

what happens for violating the rules. But here, they're talking about actual actions by the county really before the lawyers were involved in looking at how the photos were actually deleted and the decisions that went into that. Vanessa Bryant's attorneys had asked a few months ago for some sanctions to be implemented here. And what the judge did was actually rule that the attorneys will be allowed to question witnesses about these photos being deleted during the trial. They'll be able to ask questions about it. And then there's going to be a jury instruction at the end instructing the jury that they can consider what they heard about these photos being deleted. And if they conclude that there was some kind of evidence being intentionally destroyed,

that they can actually factor that into their verdict. So that's going to be a significant that's going to be a significant factor in trial now. Evidentiary sanctions can add or take away things from the trial. And here they're adding something that on its face looks like a big benefit for Vanessa Bryant and then also Christopher Chester, whose lawsuit was combined with Vanessa's. He lost his wife and daughter in the crash. It just seems stunning to me that this would even happen. You know, anything, any piece of paper document photograph that's really produced as part of an investigation is a record, even if it is disturbing, you know, there are rules governing this type of thing.

So the fact that these were deleted at all at the behest of the sheriff seems concerning to say the least. I'm sure there could have been some measures taken other than deleting them. And the county, of course, argues that what the sheriff was doing was trying to help the soon-to-be plaintiffs here. he was trying to prevent these photos from ever getting out. So the order to delete them had nothing to do with any kind of evidencing other than just kind of trying to prevent what Vanessa Bryant says she's so afraid of happening. And the dates of when this happened are going to be significant because the judge ruled that the official notice of litigation was March 2nd 2020. So some of these decisions by the sheriff, especially his order to delete the photos, occurred earlier than that. The

sheriff actually ordered the photos deleted on January 31st, 2020. So the article in the Los Angeles Times, which broke the news, published on February 27th, 2020. And while the judge ruled that March 2nd is the notice date, the Times article publication is going to be significant because there's a fire captain who admits to photographing every body, but says that he deleted the photos, except he doesn't remember the exact date. However, he says it was sometime between late February and early March. So obviously the February 27th versus March 2nd is going to become a legal factor for the plaintiff's attorneys here because they're going to argue while the exact notice date was March 2nd. The February 27th publication of the LA Times article is actually what

legally should trigger the duty to preserve evidence because any reasonable person would have seen that article in anticipated litigation. And I think they're going to be able to take that a step further with the sheriff's personnel and say that they had noticed before February 27th that this article was coming. So as soon as they were being contacted by the LA Times and knew that the LA Times was going to be publishing a story about this, they're probably going to argue that that is the official notice of litigation, not March 2nd. So that whole kind of two week period is, I think, going to be a key. I mean, some of these photos were shared. I mean, I certainly haven't seen. that they were shared yeah they there's definitely documentation of somebody who took photos then

sending a series of text messages to other people that also included photos and there's deposition testimony about that too however the the county is adamant and they said this again at the hearing yesterday that none of these photos have ever surfaced publicly you cannot the a random person cannot find these photos no one no family members have ever seen them they've they've been very contained and limited to a strict number of people. However, I think there's going to be a lot of stuff coming out in trial saying that we actually just don't know that, that there is testimony and records showing that some of these were texted to friends through a fortnight video game that they knew each other for.

And while those people supposedly have deleted them, we just don't know that while they're not out in the public realm yet, part of Vanessa's case is that she's always going to basically live in fear that someday they're going. I don't think any of us can imagine being in that position where gruesome, horrible photos of your loved ones exist as they're deceased. You know, this is part of a crime scene investigation basically or to determine what happened. And you have to have that concern that these things may, even though they may not be out in the public domain per se, they could surface later on. You just never know. One thing the judge has questioned is, you know, what is the point of this lawsuit?

And he said that, you know, he can't do anything other than preside over a trial where the jury delivers money as a verdict. And some people have kind of questioned with the record that's being put out there, including some public filings with really gruesome death deal, death details. Is there a bit of a Streisand effect going on here? But I think Vanessa's attorneys are saying that she wants accountability. And I think the big factor they're looking for here is punitive damages. Because punitive damages send a message to the community in their, you know, personally punishing to the defendants. And the county's lawyer even said at a hearing that the county isn't necessarily on the hook to pay those punitive damages, that that is a personal

damage award against the defendants, the individual deputies here. So especially with these questions about the deletion of the photos and some of the evidence that we've heard already that the judge is reviewed and just the comments that he's made, I think the evidentiary sanctions could be a significant step toward a big punitive damage award that Vanessa really wants here. It'll be interesting to watch, and the trial is scheduled for next month, right? Yes, the judge is looking at a start date for jury selection of either August 10th or August 11th. Well, and I'm sure you'll be following it closely and keeping everybody up to date on what happens. Megan Cunna, thank you so much for joining us, writer at law and crime.com on the West Coast.

We really appreciate your time. Thanks for having me. R. Kelly, the famous R&B singer, who's currently serving a 30-year federal prison sentence for racketeer. and serving a sentence for transporting young girls, women across state lines for sex. He is appealing, maintains his innocence, but he's serving a 30-year prison sentence. His manager and advisor pleaded guilty on Tuesday to stalking one of R. Kelly's victims and her mother. This man is named Donnell Russell. He's 47 years old and faces up to five years in prison and has admitted to these crimes.

So joining us to talk about that is Steve Greenberg. He represents R. Kelly in a state case in Illinois. He used to represent him on the federal case in Brooklyn, New York, but withdrew as counsel from that case. So Steve, welcome to Sidebar. We appreciate you coming on. Tell us your reaction to Don L. Russell, basically pleading guilty to stalking one of these women and her mother. Well, whatever Russell did, I think what's important from the R. Kelly perspective is he did it on his own. Russell was not his manager. He was someone whose family knew Robert. Russell's mother knows Robert and has known him for years and years. And I think Dinell Russell tried to insert himself into the situation, maybe thought he was helping Robert out. But what's important is that there's absolutely zero evidence that would show any connection between Kelly and, you know, Russell, when it comes to any of the wrongdoing that he's been

alleged to have engaged him. That's interesting because I just, I understand what you're saying, that you're saying this guy took it upon himself, Donnell Russell, to do these things, and he's admitted to doing these things. But why would you do that? You're saying he inserted himself. I mean, this is a pretty terrible thing to do. He's admitted to stalking these people. you wouldn't do that unless you were trying to do it on behalf of R. Kelly or to curry favor with him. Well, and that could be his purpose. That doesn't mean that R. Kelly asked him to do it. That doesn't mean that R. Kelly knew he was going to do it.

That doesn't mean that R. Kelly approved of him doing it. And I think that's the important distinction. You know, anyone can do anything. We're seeing it now. I don't really want to delve into politics. But the January 6th stuff, they're trying to show, were these people acting independently who stormed the capital? or are they doing it with the encouragement and at the behest of the president?

People can make their own decisions. Here, there's no evidence at all from which anyone can even infer that this was done at the behest or request of R. Kelly. Have you talked to R. Kelly recently since he's been back in Illinois? Well, I mean, periodically I'll speak with him, but I'm not going to get into what those conversations are. You know, we still represent him actually on four cases here in state court. So we need to know what's going on with them.

Oh, of course. And, you know, how is he doing? I mean, the last time I spoke with you, the day he was sentenced in federal court in Brooklyn, we had you on. And you said he was doing terribly. And but you said he's appealing. Do you think that he can be successful on that appeal in Brooklyn? Well, I think he should win his appeal. I thought he should have won his trial.

I think he should win the appeal. I think it's an abuse of the RICO laws. I think it's an abuse of the other statutes that they used, one of which I think I've explained before, had never been used even though it was first enacted in the 1940s, and no one had ever been prosecuted under that statute before. There was a reason for that because it's a ridiculous law. He's, you know, his whole life has been turned upside down. He went from being a major star living a nice lifestyle. He's been in prison now for more. than two years, more than three years, you know, I think now. It's a terrible way to live,

and he's looking at the potential of spending the rest of his life in jail if he doesn't win his appeal from the Eastern District of New York. I think anyone would be despondent in that situation. You know, what we forget is we forget that we're dealing with a human being here. were dealing with someone who has feelings, someone who cares for others and someone who others care about. And it's very upsetting. And, you know, I know you've said before that he didn't break any laws, but, I mean, there are videotapes out there. There are all kinds of things out there, evidence that was produced. Well, you're conflating different things. What I've said is that he never violated the law, in my opinion, in relation to the things he's been convicted

of in New York. Now, if you look at the Chicago case and much of the evidence is protected by a protective order, I think it's more problematic, the Chicago case. But again, these are events that took place two decades ago. And everyone thinks, you know, they've got this obstruction against him, R. Kelly sat through a three-week trial in Chicago on virtually these same allegations back in 2008. He was charged with it in the early 2000s. So 14, 15 years ago, he sat through a trial where jurors had to decide the case. He was put in peril already for these. Now, what's really going on now is buyer's remorse. People disagree with the result of that jury trial, and the federal government has taken the unprecedented step of indicting him for something that he's already been

acquitted of. I want to go back to Donnell Russell. He faces five years in prison for admitting to stalking this woman and her mother, making interstate threats. He's facing another five years in another case. You're saying, though, that he was not R. Kelly's manager? He was not R. Kelly's manager, you're not going to find any documents that say he's R. Kelly's manager. He was holding himself out for a period of time. He was trying to get gigs. He was trying to do so. But he was an independent guy. R. Kelly wasn't working with him. You know, and there's another case out there where someone blew up a car to send a message to a witness in R. Kelly's case. There's no evidence that he had any connection to that. These are people who were

were frankly a little bit fanatical and you know took extreme steps nowhere in any of the discovery that I saw in any of the cases was there the suggestion that R. Kelly ever engaged in any of this kind of conduct. So what's next for R. Kelly? We know that that Illinois federal trial starts next month. Right. Yeah, that's what's next is he's going to trial in a little over two weeks. I expect that trial is going to take at least a month, and they'll see what happens. If he's found guilty on that case, he's looking at another significant sentence. The judge in that case can make it concurrent with the sentence in New York, or he could, in theory, make it consecutive to that sentence. And that involves an allegation of pornography. It's my understanding,

some type of child pornography. Right. It involves the same tape from the state case from years ago, and then there's allegations that he and others conspired to obstruct justice in that case, that essentially they paid off witnesses or coerced witnesses in relation to that case, and that's why he was found not guilty. That's what they have to prove. Well, we will see what happens in that case. Steve Greenberg, thank you so much for coming on and talking with us about Don L. Russell and R. Kelly, we appreciate it. Thank you. It seems like the story of Britney Spears' conservatorship battle will never end, even though the conservatorship was terminated. And right now, Brittany Spears has been kind of lashing out at her

mom, Lynn. Lynn has been a central figure in all of this. And there are some text messages that have come out that have really upset Brittany after Lynn put them out there. And this had to do with her being in some type of mental health hospital in 2019, Brittany claims against her will. And Britney is firing back at her mom saying she knew everything about the conservatorship and was a part of it. And joining us to talk about this is Tisha Morris.

She is an entertainment attorney in California. Tisha, welcome to Sidebar. Thanks for coming on. It's a pleasure. Thank you. What is the word out there in California about this latest kind of issue? you have Brittany writing on Instagram.

That's really how she communicates, it seems. She puts her feelings out there. She wears her heart on her sleeve on Instagram. So what's the latest kind of scuttlebutt about this? Well, you know, the conservatorship, you know, obviously has been the big attention grabber for a while, you know, bridging the entertainment world with a family law world, a very odd place except for in these high profile cases. And now, you know, like you said, her main mode of community. communication is through Instagram and, you know, bringing forth these texts, you know, from a legal mind, I'm like, okay, is there a, you know, is there a possible, you know, invasion of privacy issue here? Our text messages, you know, public, in the public, a reasonable expression of privacy. But, you know, her and her mom, you know, imagine you, you know, airing your grievances towards your mom in public, a very difficult thing for both parties.

Yeah, I would say so, very difficult. And, you know, this has been going on for years, obviously. And Britney Spears obviously has a lot of anger at her parents, not only her father, Jamie, but her mother Lynn. And even, you know, in some cases, her sister, Jamie. So I feel like she puts it all out there. You know, as far as Brittany's career goes, we haven't seen her since the conservatorship ended. We haven't seen her. branching out. It sounded like she wanted to take care of herself. She got she got married. She got pregnant and then unfortunately miscarried a child. So what is next for Brittany career-wise? I mean, does she return to the stage? Do you see that happening or what do you see happening with her? I think that's something everyone's wondering. You know, it looks like she's kind of focusing on her family life with the marriage and and with the parent path, perhaps. of her being a parent herself, you know, she's used to being in the spotlight. And unfortunately, we're seeing it in these grievances on Instagram as opposed to her on the

stage. And I think we'd all rather see her on the stage, whether she's ready for that yet or not. It sounds like this whole family drama has to play out before she can, before she's ready to go back on stage in a real way. Do you think that, you know, promoters and, you know, music company executives, I understand there's a lot of money to be made should she return to the stage. And I feel like money controls a lot of things in this world. But does this whole thing make them shy away from wanting to put her out there again? What are your thoughts on that?

Yeah, that's a great question. I think it's going to be on a label by label basis of, you know, who, who is, you know, wants to make, who wants to make the money they can from her and or those who are going to shy way from from something that's just drama, drama filled. But I think if she can actually deliver some great music and performances, then I think that's, you know, she's off to the races and can pretty much call the shots and what she wants. Yeah, Ms. Definitely because there is a, I mean, she has a lot of support. When you look at her Instagram page, it is actually fairly stunning the number of people who follow her and like her posts and stuff like that. And some of them,

she is barely wearing any clothing, which kind of shocks me every time I see it pop up on my phone. So, but she is lashing out at her mom and saying basically in this Instagram post and I'm pulling it up so we can take a look at it. But she's basically saying, you know, yo mom, this is like basically the only time you ever responded to me and things like that. So there's a lot of anger there. And I'm not sure when that is going to dissipate. Yeah. I think we'd all love to see, Britney reinvent herself, you know, get past this family drama, albeit understanding that there'd be a lot of hard feelings and that's going to take a while, but completely reinvent, reinvent herself, get back to the music that she's so good at. And everyone loves, you know, to root for the underdog story. And she could really, I feel like she will at some point kind of do that. But I think it's going to take a while. This was a very dramatic 10 years or so that she's been, been a part of. And, you know, family drama, we all know, like, it takes takes years to get through anything family related. So I hope she gives herself some room for healing and then eventually

gets back. Yeah, definitely. And the conservatorship, just to let the listeners and viewers know, you know, this battle is not over. There's a court date on Wednesday in Los Angeles where Brittany's attorney, Matthew Rosengart, who is a very, you know, a big power player in Hollywood, as far as attorneys go, former federal prosecutor, he came in and wrapped this conservatorship thing up, got it terminated, and now they're trying to determine whether or not, and the judge will determine whether her former business managers should be deposed. Matthew Rosengart and Brittany Spears claimed that they knew about the conservatorship and were part of maintaining it and made $18 million off of it, and he wants to depose them,

and Judge Penny will be making a decision on that on Wednesday. So Tisha Morris, Entertainment Lawyer in Los Angeles, thanks so much for joining us. Thank you. And that's it for this edition of Law and Crime Sidebar podcast. It is produced by Michael Dininger and Sam Goldberg. Bobby Zoki is our YouTube manager. Alyssa Fisher is our booking producer. And Kiera Bronson handles our social media.

You can find Sidebar on Apple, Spotify, Google, and wherever else you get your podcast. And of course, you can always watch and listen on our YouTube channel. I'm Ann Jeanette Levy. Thanks for listening, and we will see you next time.