Law&Crime Sidebar - ‘Possessed’ TikToker Goes on Bizarre Rant After Killing Kids in Crosswalk: Cops

Episode Date: April 21, 2025

Miriam Yarimi, 32, entered a not guilty plea to twenty charges this week in a Brooklyn courtroom, after police say she blew through a red light, slamming her Audi into a mother and three children in the crosswalk. According to first responders and investigators, Yarimi made several bizarre statements following the crash. Law&Crime’s Jesse Weber takes a closer look with criminal defense attorney Paul Townsend.PLEASE SUPPORT THE SHOW: If your child, under 21, has been diagnosed with type 2 diabetes or fatty liver disease, visit https://forthepeople.com/food to start a claim now! HOST:Jesse Weber: https://twitter.com/jessecordweberLAW&CRIME SIDEBAR PRODUCTION:YouTube Management - Bobby SzokeVideo Editing - Michael Deininger, Christina O'Shea & Jay CruzScript Writing & Producing - Savannah Williamson & Juliana BattagliaGuest 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. 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 York TikTok personality known for showing off her latest wig products is going to remain behind bars for now after her arraignment on 20 charges related to an absolutely devastating and deadly crash. Miriam Uremy is accused of running red lights and hitting a mother and her three children in a crosswalk. We're learning more about what she allegedly said to police on the scene and what's next in the legal process. Welcome to Sidebar, presented by law and crime. I'm Jesse Weber. We told you a few weeks ago about

Miriam Yeremi, the 32-year-old wigmaker from Brooklyn, who was allegedly driving very recklessly when she allegedly slammed into Natasha Sada and her three children. The mother, two daughters, they died from these catastrophic injuries. The youngest, a four-year-old boy, had to be rushed to a hospital in critical condition. The Brooklyn DA, the district attorney, now says that that little boy has recovered slightly, but he still has a long road ahead of him. And for Yerimi, her journey saw her move from her wrecked car. to an ambulance, to a psychiatric hospital, and eventually to jail.

And according to documents that were filed in court, Uremy apparently went on this strange rant at the time of her arrest. A lot of details going on here. I want to give you the background on this case. It is a warning right now. This is such a sad case. On March 29th, Natasha and her three children were walking home from services at their synagogue in Brooklyn, and they were crossing Ocean Parkway when an Audi came flying.

through the red light, hitting an Uber waiting to turn, and violently crashing into the family. A separate family, by the way, in the ride chair, they had minor injuries, but there was another family there. But the impact, as I mentioned, obliterated Natasha and her kids. The Audi, allegedly driven by Miriam Yerimi, rolled, ended up on its hood more than 100 feet away from the crash, according to investigators. Eight-year-old Diana, five-year-old Deborah.

They were killed along with their mother, and as I mentioned, Natasha's four-year-old son was hospitalized. And after being cut out of her outy, Uremy, the suspect in this case, the defendant, who had just minor physical injuries, was allegedly rambling at the scene about how agents from the CIA were out to get her and how she had the devil in her. This is according to first responders. So they take her to Bellevue Hospital for a psychiatric assessment, okay? So to talk more about Yerimi's parent wild rant, her arraignment this week, the case, her history, which is very important. I want to bring in criminal defense attorney, Paul Townsend to talk more about this. Paul, thanks so much for coming on. We're both from New York.

This is such a sad case. I know exactly where this is. What was your initial reaction to this story? I think everyone's initial reaction to this story is just to say, wow, what a tragedy. I mean, it's so sad. family walking home from services just crossing a street a car comes out of nowhere blows a red light hits another car goes careening into them and then you have three innocent bystanders dead and another one critically injured in the hospital just such a such a senseless

and avoidable act just it's really just heartbreaking to hear about do you see a lot of cases like this I've actually handled a couple cases like this. Usually, when we see something like this, at least in my experience, there's alcohol involved. But that doesn't seem to be the case here. If you look at the indictment that Euremi is facing, driving under the influence is not there. She was taken to the hospital. Presumably they would have done some blood work. So if she had alcohol in her system, they would have charged her with it.

This looks like a case of just real reckless driving that resulted in three homicides and one, you know, very severe hospitalization. So, yeah, I mean, this is unfortunately when you live in a city like New York, this is not a once-in-a-lifetime occurrence. It's not common, but it is something that we do unfortunately see here. Hey, everybody, this is a law and crime legal alert. Did you know that children are being diagnosed with serious conditions like type 2 diabetes? a non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, and the research is potentially linking ultra-processed foods to all this? Yeah, well, Morgan Morgan is stepping in to fight to hold these food companies accountable.

With decades of experience fighting large corporations, they are ready to stand up for families who deserve justice. So if your child, under 21, has been diagnosed with type 2 diabetes or fatty liver disease, then visit www.4thepeople.com slash food or scan the QR code on screen to learn more. Yeah, let me talk about these charges. So on Thursday, Uremy was arraigned in Brooklyn Supreme Court. She entered not guilty pleas to 20 counts, the most serious of which are manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide. But she also faces assault charges for the injuries to the family and the Uber, the one I mentioned before.

She also has accusations of speeding, running red lights, driving without a license. In fact, let's talk about that. Eurie's license, big factor in this case, suspended at the time of the crash, meaning she shouldn't have been behind the wheel, okay? Let's make that clear. And we learned from the Brooklyn DA that Yerimi not only ran the red light, according to authorities at the intersection where Natasha and her children were, but also allegedly ran the light at the intersection before that, where she also nearly caused a crash. Paul, how's that going to factor into here? Every piece of evidence that goes towards her driving and even her legal ability to drive

is going to be in the forefront. You know, this is a big media case. This has gotten a lot of coverage. A lot of people are interested in it. And it certainly is probative to the question of whether or not she recklessly caused these deaths. Because that's what we're talking about. What we're talking about manslaughter is was she reckless in her actions that caused the death? So when the prosecutor can show not only did she run through the red light in the intersection

before that one, she ran the red light in that intersection. And it also, the black box from her car apparently shows that she was doing 63 and a 25. So that in and of itself is going to give the average person pause to say, okay, she was a time bomb waiting to go off on the road. And there's been news coverage showing that she had something like almost a hundred different infractions on her license that resulted in it being suspended. So New York State even told her, you are a liability, you cannot drive, and she was driving anyway. I want to get to that. But going back to what you just mentioned, the black box, look, I think, you know, a crime like this, right, where you're in a city environment, you're in a environment where there's surveillance cameras, there's probably traffic cameras, there's potentially, you know, eyewitnesses, particularly if you're thinking about the people in the Uber as well or people who are on the street, it seems like the evidence. is mounting and mounting and mounting against her. You talked about the black box.

How accurate is that data? Black boxes are very, very, very accurate. They record almost moment to moment variations of certain specific information. So through the black box, they will know, was she pressing the accelerator? Was she pressing the brake? How hard was the wheel turning? Not only was she pressing the brake, but what? amounts of force was being pushed on any particular pedal, was she, what was her rate of

acceleration? What was her top speed? So you can see if somebody is slamming on the brakes to avoid an accident or if their foot's on the accelerator and they're causing it. Now in a press release following her arraignment, the DA's office said, quote, when the family was a step or two from the sidewalk, the Audi driven by the defendant sped through the intersection against the light, smashed into the back of the turning Toyota, and plowed through the victims with their car, continuing to roll over, stopping about 130 feet away. You can't have visualize just the horror of this. According to evidence obtained from the black box, as we just talked about, the Audi was traveling at about 68 miles per hour in a 25 mile per hour zone, was at full

throttle, suggesting the gas pedal, was floored, and zero brake was applied. Now, according to the DA, Natasha's four-year-old son suffered skull fractures, brain bleeding, had to have a kidney removed. He's reportedly in some sort of medically induced coma, and I can't say this enough. Our hearts and our prayers are going towards him and the family, including the father and the husband, who's now left to pick up the pieces of what's going on here. And the Brooklyn DA, Eric Gonzalez, told reporters this horrific fatal crash was one of the worst I've seen in over 25 years as a prosecutor. It wasn't an accident. This defendant's unconstitutional. This defendant's conscientably dangerous driving wiped out a family. The consequences of her flouting traffic laws

and common sense were disastrous, and we will now seek to hold her fully accountable for this criminally reckless behavior. By the way, we talked about this a little bit. Let's expand upon it. According to a New York website that aggregates public information about traffic violations connected to license plates, Ms. Yerimi has racked up almost 100 traffic tickets in just the past three years. Quite an achievement. As Rimi showed off in a TikTok video, her license plate is quite memorable. Guys, I just got my new license plate. It's official. I'm officially a wig maker by law. Ah! Oh my God. It's so good. Wigmaker, bha-hook hit me up. Oh, my God, just pull me over. Like, get at me. Now, in 2023, records show that Ureem.

got a personalized license plate that said wig maker, and not long after, she updated her plate for unknown reasons to say wig maker with an eight in place of the A. According to the website, How's My Driving, N.Y? That plate had nearly 100 traffic violations connected to it between September 2023 and March 2025 when Yerimi was arrested for this crash. And the site shows that Yerimi's wig maker, again with an eight, that license plate has been associated with 70 parking violations and 21 speeding tickets. And she's been caught on camera running red lights at least five times. And the DA, by the way, talked about Uremy's criminal traffic history after the arraignment. One thing is very clear. This car had many, many violations, right? Speeding tickets,

running red light tickets, the driver, the vehicle has been ticketed so many times. The driver, the allegation you heard it in court has a suspended license as well. What's very clear is that she should not have been on the road that day. Had she not been on the road driving that Audi on that day, this family would have survived this terrible incident. In terms of her psychiatric history of defense, we heard nothing from her lawyer today about that. So I'm not going to speculate about what those conditions are, if any. So according to ABC 7, Uremi's attorney, Joe Amzel argued for bail. The request, maybe not surprisingly, was denied,

and he told reporters outside the courthouse the statements that have been made in the press about her being a scoff law and having a number of traffic and moving violations, that is unfounded, and I've never seen any evidence that she's even been pulled over by a cop and ticketed. Amzel claims that if Uremy was cited

via red light cameras or speed cameras, the state would have to prove that she actually received the tickets in the mail. But didn't she, right? Because if you go back to, how's my driving and why that website, it indicates that since 23, Uremy has paid more than $9,000 in traffic fines. Paul, what do you make of this argument? Yeah, that's really the most conclusive piece of evidence that I think the prosecution can

rely on because when you run a red light, when you speed and you get picked up on one of those cameras, what it does is it automatically generates. the fine that you get and then they mail it to the address that's listed on your driver's license. Now, in New York, people are constantly moving. That's just part of living in the city. So some people, you know, get a driver's license. It's good for 10 years and they're, you know, two or three addresses away. So you could make the claim like, oh, you know, I don't live at that address, but my license is still good. I never got a renewed. So I never got any of these of these fines. She's going to have problems with that because she's paid the fines. So in order

for her to pay the fine, she must have been aware of their existence. So it's going to be very, very difficult, I think, for Joseph Amsel to sell a judge on when she didn't know her license was suspended when she's paid $9,000 in fines, which have racked up over a couple years at this point. So I think it's a hard thing to argue that there's just no evidence that she knew that her license was suspended or anything like that because she's been, you know, paying the fine. She still owes, I think, what, like $1,500 or something close to that, left on various outstanding traffic violations. But the fact that she has paid so much, you know, anybody would know at that point that you have incurred all of these different

violations. Can all that come into evidence at a criminal trial? And would a defense attorney say it's highly prejudicial? It's, you know, it's irrelevant to the case at hand. Because, and how And how do you introduce it? Who comes up to testify about all these infractions or tickets? How does it work? Okay, a lot of questions. Let's break this down. So the answer is it is relevant and relevant evidence is admissible at court. Now, there's going to have to be some balancing between the unduly prejudicial nature of all of these different violations in versus the relevant aspect of it.

And how do we know it's relevant? because she's charged with driving with the suspended license. If she wasn't charged with the suspended license, then arguably all of those, you know, infractions would be irrelevant because she's not being put on trial for incurring past infractions, except that they are the foundation for her suspended license. And therefore, the prosecutor is entitled to bring up the fact that, yes, her license was suspended, and here's why. Here are the 99 different infractions that she had that led to her license.

license being suspended. Now, how do you get that in? So there's a couple different ways. So you can get what's called a certified driver's abstract. That's a New York State document that is certified by the DMV, making it a business record, and therefore it is admissible in court. And it will lay out each of the different infractions, what the fine was, whether or not it was paid, it'll have the date, that'll have all the identifying information. For something like this, I think it's very likely that they will have a representative from the DMV, who is a quote unquote custodian of records there, who can come testify about the contents of the abstract and can testify to the fact that a suspension notice was sent to her at the address that the

fines were going to. And so if the fines were going there and they were getting paid, reasonable to assume that she was getting those letters. So I think you're going to have at least some testimony or production of documentary evidence to show that, yes, she did have this history. And you're probably going to get a curative instruction from the judge, if this case goes to trial, to the jury, you know, not to consider her past driving as evidence that she, you know, is just a bad driver per se and therefore is guilty of this crime. It's going to be limited for what they can consider it, which is simply evidence of her license being suspended. Hmm. That's the question I have. The biggest question I have. Paul, she shouldn't have been behind the wheel.

Legally, she wasn't allowed behind the wheel. How was it that that happened? How is it that she can actually practically be behind the wheel? There are not enough safeguards in place to ensure that someone doesn't get behind the wheel or if they do get behind the wheel, they're immediate, the law enforcement's immediately alerted. There's nothing like that right now, right? No, and to be honest, this really is more or less a question of resources. You know, having started my legal career as a prosecutor in Brooklyn, I can tell you this, this situation, an accident causing the death of three people and critically injuring a fourth is not terribly common. It does happen, but it's not a regular occurrence. But people being arrested for driving with a suspended or a revoked license, that's an everyday thing.

This is something that happens all the time in Brooklyn in in the city at large and normally it's you know somebody runs a red light. They get pulled over the officer runs their license and finds out it's suspended. And so they then get arrested for driving with the suspended license. But there is just no way that any law enforcement entity could monitor every single person whose license is suspended or revoked in New York City and come up with a way to ensure that they don't then go and get behind the wheel of a car again. It's just not feasible. It's really more or less an honor system of people who get a suspension notice and then have to go down to the DMV and clear whatever tickets they have and pay the fee to get their license reinstated

so they can be back in the good graces of New York State. But there's just no real way that the police or the DMV can really monitor all of the people who have suspended or revoked licenses. It's unfortunate. It's very, really, really unfortunate. I want to talk to you about this. I want to talk about this alleged rant that Yerimi went on when she was arrested.

So according to the New York Post, a criminal complaint states that Yerimi told the police, quote, the devil's in my eyes, I'm haunted inside, I didn't kill anyone, I didn't hurt anyone, show me proof. And here are a few of the other comments that she allegedly made at the scene and at the hospital. Take me out of these cuffs. Why can't you uncuff me? I am a wig maker. Where's my daughter? My daughter is always in my heart.

My daughter is in New Jersey right now. What the F is taking so long, mother F, her. Get me the F out of here. Either know you want a minute or know you wait a minute. No, you F and wait a minute. Where's my phone? My phone was left in the car. My phone is still on scene.

I need CT scans in my eyes. I need to get scanning done now. I need to get my eyes scanned again. The devil is in my eyes. F.U. I need a whole workup to get whatever is in my body out of it. She also allegedly told a detective, I do not want to put my breath on something that is going to contain my DNA. No, I'm good.

Want to smell my breath. There's no alcohol on my breath. You want to take a breathalyzer. Sure, go for it. I'm just saying I don't like my DNA on things. Okay, Paul, when I was thinking about this, I said, hmm, if there really is a mental health issue at play here, could it have been caused by the crash? Right. There's one thing to say, right, why on earth, if these allegations are true and she didn't have anything in her system, why was she speeding at this rate?

Why was she acting recklessly? And then I think she's in this crash. Who knows what might have affected her? Is that complicate things now? So does it complicate things? The ATS here is kind of yes and no. So you hear those statements that she makes. And most people's first thought is going to be, okay, she sounds a little bit crazy, right?

So is there potentially a mental disease defense? Is there a mental defect defense? Is that something that, you know, we can do? Maybe she's schizophrenic. Maybe she's bipolar. Maybe she has some sort of, you know, real serious personality disorder that is causing delusions and hallucinations. And is that potentially a viable defense? And the answer is probably not because there is a wide spectrum of mental diseases

and even mental diseases that can cause hallucinations and delusions. But there's a very narrow subset of those that actually work as a viable criminal defense that will negate liability. You have to show that due to your mental disease or defect, you're unable to appreciate the nature and character of your actions or that what you're doing is wrong. So you can be in the throes of a terrible delusion and be hallucinating, but if you still shoot somebody and you know that you're shooting a person, you know that shooting people is wrong, it doesn't really matter from a legal perspective if you're doing it, you know, under a delusion.

You're still responsible for your actions. So in her particular case, it's unclear as to whether this is a result of shock. You know, she's just been in a really horrific accident. I mean, if you see the car, it's flipped over when 130 feet, it's a really traumatic event. She is very likely experiencing, you know, the mind-altering shock of being involved in that. So it's possible that that feet fed into this. It's possible that she really does have, you know, some mental disease that was feeding into this. She may be paranoid.

She may be delusional. We don't really know. But whether or not that is in any way going to help her from a criminal defense perspective, I think it's unlikely. She's due back in court, by the way, on June 11th, and she faces 15 to 45 years in prison if she's convicted. Look, I will tell you, Paul, if she is found guilty of this, well, first of all, do you think that she would take a plea here and what would a plea look like? Because this is an awful, awful, awful crime. And it makes me wonder, would the prosecutors even be open to putting a deal on the table? What would a deal look like?

I mean, there's almost always an avenue to resolve a case before a trial if both parties genuinely want that to happen. It's very rare that a prosecutor will come back and say, we are offering you absolutely nothing, plead to the top count and agree to the max. That is rare. Given this is a media case, there's a lot of scrutiny on it. there's going to be a lot of external pressure being put on Eric Gonzalez and the Brooklyn VA's office because of the outrage associated with the behavior that led to the death of three people and the serious injury to the fourth. The fact that kids were killed and really, really hurt is also a factor that weighs into a prosecutor. So they may be willing to make an offer.

it's probably not going to be terribly favorable to Ms. Yorimi, but, you know, they're also going to be mindful of the fact that going to trial on this could be exceptionally emotionally difficult for the widow and the father now of one child instead of three. And so to, you know, they will be speaking with him about kind of what his thoughts are. And if he really, really, really wants them to resolve the case with a plea deal rather than have the publicity of a trial, then they will take that into account and they're more likely to find a way to make that happen. If this goes to trial, she's convicted, do you think she would get 45 years in prison? You think that she could potentially spend the rest of her life in prison for this?

You think the prosecutors will want the maximum on these charges? If it goes to trial and she's convicted, it's decently likely that the prosecution will ask her something at or around the max. So she's charged with a top count of manslaughter at the second degree, which is a seen nonviolent felony, which means she will get an indeterminate sentence. And that means that her sentence, rather than say 20 years, 40 years, 45 years, will be a time span.

So it'll be 5 to 15, 10 to 30, which will mean she will be parole eligible at the time the first number ticks, while the second number will be her max sentence. Is it possible that she could get 15 to 45 years? It's absolutely possible because, you know, a judge who's going to sit and hear all the evidence in the case, he's going to be so, you know, emotionally troubled by her behavior and the callous disregard for life that she exhibited in driving in that manner

that I think it's fairly likely that a sentencing judge after a trial would throw the book at her. Paul Townsend, thank you so much for coming on. I know this is a difficult case, but I can't thank you enough for breaking down all the aspects of it with me. That's my pleasure. Thank you for having me. All right, everybody.

Thank you so much for joining us. And as always, please subscribe on YouTube, Apple, Podcast, Spotify, wherever you should get your podcasts. I'm Jesse Weber. I'll speak to you next time. You can binge all episodes of this long crime series ad free right now on Wondery Plus. Join Wondery Plus in the Wondery app, Apple Podcasts, or Spotify.