Law&Crime Sidebar - 'Law & Order' Crew Member Shot Dead, Musk Loses Fight to Delay Twitter Trial, Cardi B 'Sexual' Cover Art Trial

Episode Date: July 19, 2022

A shooting death by the set of Law & Order…what we know, how could this have happened and what role does NBC have in all this? Law&Crime analyst Julie Rendelman joins. Plus, the legal showdown between Twitter & Elon Musk heats up. Law professor Anat Alon-Beck explains. Cardi B is apparently ready to testify in a $5 million lawsuit over 'sexual' cover art! Entertainment Attorney Jonathan Handel breaks it down.GUESTS:Julie Rendelman, Criminal Defense AttorneyAnat Alon-Beck, Law Professor Jonathan Handel, 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 shooting death by the set of law and order. What we know, how could this have happened, and what role does NBC have in all this? Long Crime analyst Julie Rendleman joins. Plus, the future of the legal showdown between Twitter and Elon Musk. Musk is preparing to fight back and Twitter is asking for this trial to start up very soon. Law professor Anott Alan Beck explains. And Cardi B is apparently ready to testify in a $5 million lawsuit.

Entertainment attorney Jonathan Handel breaks it down. Welcome to Sidebar, presented by Law and Crime. I'm Jesse Weber. We have news out of New York that a crew member of Law and Order organized crime has been shot and killed. Now, this person has not been identified as if yet. He's someone who apparently managed parking enforcement for the show. So it's also not 100% clear if he was affiliated with the show, if he was just doing parking enforcement. And it's not even clear if the set was active when this shooting ultimately occurred. It is being reported that he was sitting in the seat of a car on the Brooklyn set when another man approached and opened fire, shooting him multiple times. A co-worker told the New York Post that he had no idea what started this shooting. He says, quote, I don't even know who would do this or why. I didn't hear an argument or nothing. It was quiet. Early morning, it was just a pop and the dune ran up towards NASA Avenue. I only heard one bang, but I don't know how many shots. Now, it's not clear. Also, at this point, if this shooting was targeted or resulted perhaps from a fight, maybe even

over a parking spot, but right now it's pure speculation. It is interesting, though, to think about what role NBC who produces the show might have in this. So I'm joined right now by criminal defense attorney and long crime legal analyst, Julie, Rindman, Julie. Great to see you. And thanks so much for coming on the show. Good to see you.

Thanks for having me on. This is a strange one, right? I mean, it's kind of broke out. at this point, we don't really know what was behind it. Based on the circumstances you see, does this feel more targeted? Does this feel maybe it happened as a result of a fight? It's not clear, but what are you thinking? It's a great question. Look, I was a homicide prosecutor in Brooklyn for most of my career. People got shot because they looked at someone the wrong way. So we don't know what happened. Parking spots can be a bone of contention in anywhere, including Brooklyn.

And one of this, the jobs of the victim was, was to guard the spots. Could that have been a motivation why someone killed him? Maybe could they have targeted the wrong person? We don't know yet. It seems to be a little too early to tell. It feels like the set or even outside of the set, if you have somebody who's helping working cars for the production, it feels like a very guarded place. And you feel like there's always security.

So it makes me wonder, how could someone just be gunned down right there? Well, you know, it's a good question. You know, I see Law & Order. I don't know if you've ever been around downtown Brooklyn. Law & Order is filmed there all the time. There's not guards. There's cameras so that there seems to be a lot of people in the area. So it would be hard to commit a crime.

But there's not really guards that are blocking the area to make sure people don't come through. Now, keep in mind, this was, I think, 5.5.30 in the morning. So one would assume that they may have been preparing for the set for later. Again, I don't know. but it might have been earlier and perhaps not as many people were there. It's a good point. I should tell you, actually, I was an extra once on Blue Bloods, which filmed here in New York City.

And that call time can be, you know, 6 a.m. It could be 7 a.m. So there is a pre-production crew that sets up. There are usually people in the early morning hours who say I've been up since 1 a.m. trying to set up. I should tell you that NBC, New York is reporting that no members of the city's movie and TV unit were on the scene at the time. So it becomes a question of who was there.

but clearly there is a statement from somebody who was an eyewitness to what happened. I guess the question is, does NBC or the various production companies that are associated with this, do they have any responsibility here? I don't think so. I mean, look, I hate to keep saying it's too early to tell. But, you know, unless there's some causal connection between anything that NBC did and the shooting, it seems like a random act of violence. A random act of violence is not something that NBC would be responsible for.

If there's something more related to NBC that comes out later that indicates, first of all, that they knew that there was danger for this guy and yet they sent him out to that location, that might be a bit different. I don't see that happening in the future, though. But if there's, I mean, I don't suspect, but if there was recording equipment, you know, we're talking about a set, we're talking about cameras, there could be a chance that they might have material that's actually beneficial to the investigation, right? Oh, absolutely. And then we go down the road of it. Are they going to give access to it? I'm betting they don't, especially because a lot of the crew wasn't there yet. I'm betting that there was no filming done, especially because a lot of these blockages for parking are done way earlier in the morning before anyone gets there so that they can secure the area. Julie Renderman, thank you so much. And maybe as we learn more details of this investigation, you can come back on and break it down with me. Thank you. And I'm looking forward to checking out the blue blood. Is it blue blubes?

It was blue buds. You can see me. Just making sure, making sure. Quick story about that. So I was an extra. This is my early days when I was actually trying to be a TV actor. I thought I was very important being an extra. And I spoke to the director who doesn't, I mean, by the way, you know, outside extras really aren't paid much attention. They don't have a big responsibility. I said, excuse me, which way do I walk left, the right?

He goes, how should I know? Talk to somebody about it. So in the scene, I'm actually, I was supposed to walk the opposite side so you wouldn't see me in the frame. I purposely walked towards the camera so you would see me. Didn't really start my whole movie career, but it was something nonetheless. Talk soon. Talk soon. Thanks, Julie.

The legal drama continues with Elon Musk. As we've reported here on Sidebar, Twitter has sued the Tesla founder over his decision to back out of buying the social media company. They said that he argued that he engaged in bad faith when he backed out of this $44 billion deal. But Musk has defended his actions. saying it was Twitter's fault. It was Twitter who actually didn't disclose to him all this information about fake bot accounts, that they fired two managers without his knowledge. And it is being reported at this point that Musk is ready to counter sue Twitter. And he's also arguing that

Twitter shouldn't have an expedited trial. He kind of wants to push back the date. He says this is going to be a long discovery process. Well, this is all in the hands of Delaware Court of Chancery Chancellor Kathleen McCormick. She is overseeing the case. She would also hear these counter arguments or these counterclaims filed by Musk, and he actually has 20 days from when Twitter filed its suit in order for him to file his counterclaim. So there's a lot going on right now. And to make sense of it, joining me is Anath Alombeck, who's an assistant professor of law at Case Western Reserve University, and she focuses on business and corporate law. Professor, it's great to see you. And I know this is your bread and butter. You've been following

this case. Oh, I have been definitely. And I have to say, I called it, you know, especially what was going on today, I'm pretty excited about the decision. Yeah, because we were waiting to see if the chancellor would actually grant an expedited trial in September. So what has she decided? So she decided in October. So let me just explain it quickly. Twitter wanted her to hear the trial in September. Musk wanted a later day in February.

And there's a reason for that, okay, because at a certain point, the financing has a deadline. If he doesn't close the deal, and that is, by the way, before February. So, of course, that's why his lawyers are trying to go for the February day. Then he wouldn't be able to secure financing, and then he will have another excuse to try to back out of the deal. But Delaware, you know, sophisticated court chancellor McCormick is amazing. And that's why she decided correctly to expedite the case. But isn't this, this is a disadvantage for Musk, right?

because now it feels like everything has to be rushed. There's a discovery process. He's not going to have enough time maybe to mount the defense or even counterclaims. I think they have time. Okay. And I think the court's going to work with the parties on the dates. And one more thing, that is Twitter wanted to do the trial in four days. Justice McCormick decided it's going to be longer.

It's going to be five days. She definitely wants to give West side also an opportunity to do the due diligence. But again, I really think that this due diligence issue is kind of an excuse because think about it. He signed a deal. He signed a contract without doing any due diligence. This wasn't even an issue until he decided he doesn't want to buy the company. Well, in his defense, right? And I guess it's part of the counterclaims and whether you think he has successful counterclaims.

If he's saying Twitter didn't disclose information that they had to disclose to him, which was part of their duties and responsibilities with him buying the company, he doesn't have a strong defense? well they did give him the information right his attorneys asked for information he got the information with two days of getting the information he tweeted and he doesn't want to go through the deal was he done with the due diligence in two days i mean why does he need uh until february for if after two days he decided okay i don't want to buy this company based on the amount of information that he got and so i think that one it's not uncommon to see the trials taking place in such a short and also to expedite, especially when we're talking about merges and acquisitions. We've seen it a lot during the pandemic.

We've seen buyer's remorse. And what's happening is really a party is trying to get out of a deal. It's very common. If you look at the statistics now, because we have a slow economic recovery, right? After the pandemic, we're now seeing a lot of companies trying to get out of deals. Musk is not the only one. And then you're seeing lawyers trying to get out of deals, making different types of allegations. Do you think in the end he's going to be forward?

to purchase Twitter? Listen, if we look at case law in Delaware, in most of the cases, again, in most of the cases, they decided for specific performance, okay? I don't know what's going to happen here. I don't have a crystal ball, but I do know that even in cases where Chancellor McCormick presided over, she decided for specific performance. And so for Musk to get away with it, it has to be something really extreme that we're going to find during the trial, but I don't know, maybe his lawyers will come up.

something that we don't know, right? I mean, that's the whole point of having the trial. But the way I look at it now, I think the Twitter has the upper hand. All right. Professor Beck, you called it right with the judge or the Chancellor moving forward with this trial sooner rather than later. So maybe your crystal ball is going to be clear moving forward with the Twitter case. And we'll see where it goes. And we'd love to have you back on, Professor. Thank you. I would love to. Thank you so much. It's showtime. That's according to U.S. District Judge Cormac J. Carney, who announced that a trial will begin

in August for Cardi B. That's right. The singer rapper is being sued for $5 million by a man named Kevin Michael Brofey Jr. who claims that she misappropriated his likeness in a sexual context on the cover of her 2016 mixtape Gangsta Bitch Music Volume 1. Now, he argues that he suffered distress and humiliation when this cover art contained his back tattoos that were displayed on a different man seemingly performing a sex act on Cardi B. Now, Cardi B argues that she didn't know anything about this. She says that the man depicted was not Brofey Jr. but a male model. And she also says that the tattoo design is, quote, demonstrably different. Now, the judge, Judge Carney said, quote, I don't think this case is a complex case, but I think it is a very interesting case, and it's one I think

the jurors would enjoy. I'd like them to know this case before they think about whether they want to get off the case or not. Well, what will also make it interesting is that it's indicated that Cardi B will testify at this trial. So to talk a little bit more about this, I'm joined right now by Entertainment Attorney Jonathan Handel. Jonathan, great to see you. Great to be with you. So let's talk a little bit about this. I mean, this is an interesting case. Clearly, the judge wants a jury to hear it. When he says it's not a complex one, does he mean that he thinks that Cardi B might lose it? Well, I'm not sure quite what he means by that. You know, it's not just showtime, frankly, to me, this is law school exam time. This is really a case that appears to balance it on a knife's edge

because there, as reported, it was reported out, there are enough changes to the tattoo, to the apparent fact that it's a male model, it's not the original guy, that you have to ask, okay, you know, is this enough, is this transformative enough, is this different enough, that he would not have suffered, in fact, real distress?

I mean, now he's claiming, the plaintiff is claiming, that family and friends humiliated him and were aware or became aware that this was his tattoo and identified him or claimed, well, look what you're doing with Cardi and so forth. So, you know, it's on the other hand,

assuming that in fact it clearly was a male model, it's not the same guy. And so, you know, where are we left? We're left with a very interesting case and a judge who clearly is enthusiastic about running a trial. I guess it also becomes a question of damages, right? I mean, how do you quantify this distress and humiliation that you allegedly suffered? Because again, if you take his point of view, he wakes up, sees his back tattoos on the cover of this guy performing a sex act on

Cardi B. He never acknowledged that. He never consented to that. He feels he was slighted. He feel as his image was misappropriated. And so you can understand his point of view. I guess how do you quantify that? It's very hard to quantify that. And it becomes a question of how, you know, shocked the jury is if, in fact, they, they do find for the plaintiff. It is certainly true that the law finds sex and disease to be two subjects that are, you know, very sort of inherently, and there's no disease in this case, but I just simply mentioned that, to be two aspects that are very inherently invasive of one's reputation and one's privacy. So, you know, he, if he succeeds on the merits, he may be looking at a significant payout.

And what about her testifying? How do you think that will unfold? Well, I, you know, whenever a celebrity testifies, it's a high voltage moment in the courtroom. There's just no doubt about that. And she's going to have to be very well coached. You know, the witnesses often think and defendants often think they know, they know, know better than the lawyers. They know how to run this thing. And, you know, I don't know how that's going to play out. But it will be a very interesting moment for all concerned. Do you think it'd be tough to get an impartial jury in a case about Cardi B and this cover and what's being portrayed? No, I do think that you can find a jury that, you know, that will listen

impartially here. And it may not, I think it's going to be a jury of eight is what they're suggesting rather than 12, which is permitted in civil trials in federal court, but I believe may require unanimous verdict, which adds yet another interesting twist to the case. With a 12 jury, you could have a non-unanimous verdict. Well, I agree with the judge. I think it is a very interesting case, and we'll see which way it ultimately plays out if it's not settled beforehand. Jonathan Handel, thank you so much for joining us. Pleasure to be with you. And everyone out there, thanks for joining us here on Sidebar. Please subscribe on Apple Podcast. Spotify, YouTube, or wherever you get your podcast.

Sidebar is produced by Sam Goldberg, YouTube manager, Robert Zoki, and Alyssa Fisher as our booking producer. I'm Jesse Weber. Speak to you next time. or Spotify.