Law&Crime Sidebar - Top 5 Weakest Murder Trial Defenses That Ended with Convictions

Episode Date: August 16, 2023

Murder suspects who know they committed the crime will do anything to not serve the time. From ninja assassins and false alibis, to shifting blame and claiming they “don’t identify by that name,” killers have fabricated the most bizarre defenses in hopes of convincing a jury they did not murder someone. The Law&Crime Network’s Jesse Weber breaks down the top five weakest murder trial defenses that ended with convictions.LAW&CRIME SIDEBAR PRODUCTION:YouTube Management - Bobby SzokePodcasting - Sam GoldbergWriting & Video Editing - Michael DeiningerGuest Booking - Alyssa Fisher & Diane KayeSocial Media Management - Vanessa Bein & Kiera BronsonSUBSCRIBE TO OUR OTHER PODCASTS:Court JunkieThey Walk Among AmericaDevil In The DormThe 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. When I found out what happened, I puked. I cried. I was in total denial of what happened. I couldn't understand. stand. From telling juries to not believe their confessions, to blaming a wife, to tales of masked killers. We break down five of some of the weakest defenses we have seen in our criminal trials. Welcome to Sidebar, presented by Law and Crime. I'm Jesse Weber. Sometimes we don't think about it, but defending a criminal case is no easy task. Think about it. You have the resources

of the government up against you. You have a client. and accused of some terrible things, and sometimes just a mountain of evidence to try to poke holes in. But I am a legal analyst, I am an attorney, and I would be remiss if I didn't mention those times in our cases when the defense maybe didn't have the strongest arguments. So I want to break down five of arguably the weakest offenses we have seen in our criminal trials. And I want to start with Richard Merritt, the 49-year-old disgraced attorney.

who was accused of stabbing his mother to death with a kitchen knife. Now, authority said that Merritt killed his mother, 77-year-old Shirley Merritt, on the day he was supposed to report to prison for unrelated financial crimes, essentially stealing money from his clients. He was set to begin a 15-year prison sentence. So Merritt allegedly stabbed his mother multiple times in the back and face as she was cooking his last meal before being locked up. Think about that.

Now, to give you an idea of this, the force of the situation, stabbings was so intense that the handle of the knife broke off. And that's not all. Investigators also found a 35-pound dumbbell that they say he used to beat his mom's head with. Immediately after the murder, Merritt took off to Tennessee, where he lived under a new alias, he got a job at a bar, he started online dating, met a new girlfriend. But eight months later, U.S. Marshals came a knocking, and they arrested Mr. Merritt. So he's on trial a few months ago this past year, and he says he's innocent.

And this is where his defense comes in. He says he didn't kill his mother, but he was there when she was killed. Oh, yes. The defense was that while his mom was cooking for him on that day, he heard a knock on the door. So I went to the front door and I opened it. And there were two individuals there, two men, and they both were pointing pistols at me. And they told me to let them in. So what did you do?

I let him in. They said, head to the basement and don't say an effing word. And then what happened to you, my mother? It was the worst sound I've ever heard in my life. She plunged headlong into the wall. It's a sound I can hear to this day as I'm sitting here. The gentleman who pushed her down the stairs, put his pistol behind his back into the back part of his jeans. He ran down the stairs, turned the corner, and came back with the 35 pounds weight that has been seen during the course of this trial.

And where did the knife come from? Well, the knife came later. This monster took this dumbbell and proceeded to bludgeon my mother right in front of me. And then the older guy took off up the stairs. It came back a few minutes later with the kitchen knife and proceeded to stab my mother repeatedly in front of me. There's nothing I could do. I had a pistol to my back.

I couldn't believe this was happening. I had no clue who these people were. Why they were doing this to us. Ah, the classic two random strangers did it. That's basically what he argued for his defense. Testified that after the men were finished with Shirley, one of them took out a cell phone, showed Richard pictures of his ex-wife, son, and daughter, and said,

If you say a single word, they're next. And then he said, instead of calling police, he vanished. Well, on cross-examination, the prosecution pointed out holes in his story, which went along with their narrative that he's someone who consistently lied to people. And it worked. Took the jury less than an hour to convict merit on all counts, including malice and felony murder charges, and he was sentenced to life and prison.

and without the possibility of parole. In a discussion of bad defenses, there's really no one more to blame for a bad defense than Dorel Brooks Jr. Remember this guy? The 40-year-old man who went on trial for driving his red SUV through a group of holiday parade goers out in Waukesha, Wisconsin back in 2021. It ended in the deaths of six people and injuries to dozens of others. Now, what was his defense?

Well, that's where it gets a little tricky. So first, he decided to represent himself. which, I don't know, nine times out of ten is not a great decision for a defendant, usually better to have trained legal counsel represent you. But he decided to do it. And his defense was bizarre. It was a combination of a few things. First, he tried to go with his seeming sovereign citizen defense that the government

doesn't have jurisdiction over him. And he questioned the witness's relationships with the state of Wisconsin. The defense would like to call the plaintiff's state of Wisconsin. Wisconsin to the stand. Your Honor, I object. The objection is noted. It is sustained. Call your next witness, please. Reason for the sustained?

Not relevant. So is the state not present? Mr. Brooks, I'm not going to address that any further. I believe the jury deserves to know who the plaintiff is in his manner. That's very relevant to the case. How can they rule on something when they don't know who the plaintiff is? Move on. Do you even know the state of Wisconsin?

Grounds. Grounds. Sustained. That didn't work. So then he tried to question exactly what the witnesses saw that day. But... I saw directly through the driver's window. What did you see?

I saw a man focused on the group ahead of him. Is that Daryl Brooks that you saw? Yes. Yeah, not only did witnesses testify to actually seeing him drive the car, but there was a blown up photo and video showing him in the driver's seat of the car. Then it seemed, he tried to suggest, well, the driver was trying to avoid people and maybe even lost control of the car. Do you know why the vehicle was beeping his horn? I imagine that the driver was angry and wanted to get through the crowd. Do you know that for sure?

You asked me in my opinion. Yes, I did ask your opinion. Now I'm asking you, do you know for sure if the driver of the vehicle you observed was in fact angry? I assume that he was. You thought because of that sound that there had to be some mechanical problems going on with the engine. I thought that there could be. The problem with that is that there's video. of the car just straight up ramming into people and didn't stop.

And there was no problem with the car. A state inspector testified that after reviewing the steering wheel, the tires, the brakes, the gas, there was no mechanical issue that would cause the driver to lose control. So then Dorel Brooks, Jr., he tried to ask the jury, just forget the law and the facts. You have the power to nullify any law that you don't agree with. objection, move to strike misstatement. Sustain. That is what we call jury nullification.

It's basically asking the jury to decide the case based on some other reason other than what they're supposed to base it on. Totally improper. He can't ask them to do that. Well, in the end, the jury convicted Dorel Brooks Jr. of all 76 charges, including six counts of first-degree intentional homicide, and he was sentenced to multiple consecutive life terms of imprisonment without the possibility of. of parole. All right, let's go over now to Florida for the Anthony Tote case. So Tote, a 46-year-old physical therapist, was on trial for the brutal murders of his wife, 42-year-old Megan, and their three children, four-year-old Zoe, 13-year-old Alec, and 11-year-old Tyler. He was even charged

with killing the family dog, too. But here was the problem for Mr. Tote. Authorities found their decomposing bodies in the family home. And Tote was living there for weeks. They were serving him an arrest warrant for unrelated insurance fraud charges, and they caught him, and they find the bodies. So Tote sits down for an interview with investigators, and he admits that he killed his family as part of this pact with his wife, that they would all die and go to the other side to escape the apocalypse.

These killings were a combination of stabbing, suffocating, and even drugging with Benadryl. But then she rolled and started squiggling, and I put my hand over her mouth, and then put a pillow over top of it. I stabbed him, and he started kicking, was trying to get up, and I was able to get in and get the knife right in there. They got it. They started bleeding quite a bit. Now what happens? Meg wanted to go. Gave her the knife.

And she put the knife into her stomach. So I said, why don't you take some more Benadry? I'm still at least. You're not going to fight me. And I'll do it. It's pretty damning, right? But then before trial,

he speaks with his sister on the phone from jail and says it was Megan who killed the kids and herself, and he just found them dead. And he doesn't know what he really said to investigators because he was stoned and he was out of it. And he doubles down on that defense at trial, again, that Megan is the killer. I came home and my kids were dead.

It was the most horrible day in my life. And what I mean more horrible is my wife. Died in front of me also. What could have prohibited Megan from killing their children? I have no idea. We woke up that morning. She was pain free. Everything was good.

I didn't even see this coming. they say, you know, blindsided. This is a blindside by like a Mack truck filled with dynamite. But on cross-examination by the prosecution, he got a little testing. You told law enforcement that you were afraid he was going to get away, right? That's what Meg told me, yes. That's not my question. You told law enforcement multiple times that Tyler was fast and he was...

You saw the video, and you saw the video also of saying, I said things that have been proven incorrect. That's not responsive to my question. Yes or no. You didn't say yes or no, ma'am. Yes or no. Thank you. Did you tell law enforcement that you had to kill Tyler quickly because he was the fastest.

That's what I told you at law enforcement. That is correct. I don't remember anything after I left the house until I got to jail. So I'm refuted. I'm going on your premise that that, video is correct. Okay. Well, that is you in the video, right? It's a sickly version of me, yes. It's emotionally disturbed video of me, yes. And that's you talking, right? That is me talking. That's correct. Okay. Thank God I don't tell you I assassinate. There's no question.

Now look, blaming the victim who's dead, they can't speak for themselves. Sometimes that's a good defense. But here, maybe not so much. You see, for Mr. Toe, that defense really didn't make a whole lot of sense given everything else in this case. And the jury convicted him and he was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. Talking about cases that really don't add up and some of the weaker defenses we have seen in our criminal trials, we want to go over now to Robert Durst. Wild case. So the real estate Sion went to trial in 2021 for the murder of his best friend Susan Berman. She'd been shot to death in her L.A. home back in 2000. And here's the problem for Mr. Durst.

First, there was a motive. The evidence suggested that he killed his friend because he believed that she was going to talk to the police about what she knew regarding the disappearance of Durst's first wife, Kathy Durst, who vanished in 1982. So then he escapes to Texas to hide out. He actually ends up shooting and killing his neighbor and he goes on trial. He gets acquitted. That's a story for another time. But back to Susan. The evidence also established that Susan.

wouldn't have let a stranger into her house, that there was no signs of a break in. And Durst was in California at the time of her killing. But this is about the defense, right? Well, listen to what he told the prosecutor during his interview after his arrest. You agree. You did not just find Susan's body and somebody else killed her. He did not find Susan's body. Okay.

He says he didn't find the body, right? then at trial, his defense attorney admits that that is exactly what happened. Bob Durst did not kill Susan Berman and he doesn't know who did. He did find her body. Shortly after someone and shot her in the back of the head. Yeah, he walks into her home and he finds her dead. Okay. Then Durst, for years, claimed that he was not the one who wrote this chilling letter sent to the police with the word cadaver and Berman's address on it, basically alerting them to her body.

To begin with, you didn't write them, write the cadaver notes that were saying. Whoever wrote that note had to be involved in Susan's death. And what's interesting about that is that there was evidence that his handwriting, match the cadaver note. But he denied it for years. You heard him say it? The only person who wrote that had to have been involved in the murder, right? Well, listen to his defense at trial.

When Bob showed up and found her there, he panicked. He wrote the anonymous letter so her body would be found and he ran. So now, his defense is exactly the unarmed. opposite of what he had been saying, okay? He wrote the note. And Durst, at 78 years old and in his very frail state, he was quite sick at the time, he gets on the stand and doubles down on all of this. Did you kill Susan Berman? No.

Do you know who did? No, I do not. I'm shouted Susan a couple of times. Her eyes were closed. I put my hand over her face. I might have left that out to see if she was breathing, see if I could feel breath and it felt cold. If somebody had done this to Susan,

maybe he was still here. Then I walked out the front door. I got to her pay phone around where sunset just before getting to sunset. I picked up the phone, dialed 911. Then I was aware that my voice is very recognizable. So I decided that instead of calling 911, I would send the police a letter telling them that Susan was dead,

the problem of course is durst is a liar and why should the jury believe anything he has to say right well prosecutor john lewin honed in on this how many instances of perjury do you think you have committed during your testimony in this trial so now you're saying that the killer was actually in the house when you were there i believe I believe the killer was either still in the house or in the yard when I arrived. Mr. Durst, haven't you testified that Susan's body was cold? I did not testify that Susan's body was cold. Play it.

See if I could feel them wet and it felt cold. Well, what do you have to say about that? Her breath felt, her face felt cold. Her, she's dead. What do you mean her breath felt cold? Was she breathing on you when you got there? No, she was not breathing. So how can her breath be cold when she's dead?

She's a stiff. Did you kill Susan Berman? No. But if you had, you would lie about it, correct? Correct. Not a great defense. maybe a little too convenient that he just happened to stumble upon a dead body, right? Whether or not they should believe him with all this.

No way connected to this whatsoever. Well, what do you think happened? He was convicted of the murder of Susan Berman and he was sentenced to life in prison, but he actually died only a few months later in prison. For our last week defense, we want to go full circle. I started talking about the merit case and that unbelievable defense of two random people just storming into his mom's home and killing his mother. Well, we heard something very similar in the Christian Bahena Rivera trial.

The 26-year-old, who was an undocumented immigrant, was accused of murdering 20-year-old University of Iowa student Molly Tibbitts after she disappeared during a run in July of 2018. Her body was found a month later, partially naked in a field, and she had been stabbed to death. Really sad crime. But the evidence against Rivera was quite strong. There was blood found in the trunk of his car that matched Tibbets. There was surveillance footage showing his car driving where Tibbitts was running. And he even led investigators to her body and initially told them he killed her but blacked out.

Doesn't remember what happened. Now, his attorneys argued that this confession was false, that it was a result of sleep deprivation and improper pressure from police. But at trial, he takes the stand. And he speaks through a translator. He speaks Spanish. And he presents a radically new defense. In fact, a radically new story that Tibetz was killed by strangers, and he was the fall guy. After you took a shower, what did you do?

I left the bathroom. What did you see? What did you see? with sweaters and their faces covered. The bigger one, I could see that he had a knife. And the smaller one, I could see that he had a knife. We got into the car. They just told me to drive straight.

Yes, one of them told the other one of them told the other one. One of them said to the other one, something about someone running. When you followed that road, did you see anyone? Yes. Who did you see? A person jogging. Ever met Molly Tibbets before? No.

No. now do you recognize or believe that person was Molly Tibbets? That's right. One of them got out of the car. Which one? The one that was on the front. So the guy with the knife? Correct.

What did he do? He just went to put in the direction of the people. Well, he just, started going towards forward towards the town direction. How long was he gone? Around 10 to 12 minutes. The guy in the back was he doing anything? When he was to pass the time, he was to Well, when the time started going by, he started kind of whispering in the back.

Did you hear him say anything? Well, he's heard many things, but the only that was he said, come on, yeah. Well, you could hear a lot of things, but I guess what I heard him saying is, come on, Jack. Do you know who either of the people were that were in that car with you? No. No? What happened next? Around the 12 minutes, the person regress of the car.

Well, around like 12 minutes after that person comes back to the car. They asked me to continue driving. were you directed to stop at some point? Yes. First, the person that was in front got out of the car, and then the person who was behind. What happened next? I've heard them opening the trunk. What happened next?

I've just heard a movement in the caro and it's just heard a movement in the car and then that the trunk closed. They asked me to turn around. Did you do that? Yes. What did they say next? They asked me to continue driving and to go towards the gravel road. I got out of the car because I didn't have my keys.

Well, obviously, I knew there was something in the trunk. What did you see? A body. Was that the body of Molly Tibbets? Yes. At that point in time, did it look like she was alive? well at the beginning i saw like a little bit of movement but then after there was no movement did she have injuries to her body i did not look what did you do next

Well, I stayed there a couple of minutes thinking that what he did but it was when decided just back to the car Well, I stayed there a couple of minutes thinking

what to do and then I just I decided to take the body out Why didn't you call the police, sir? Because I was scared. So here's the only issue

with that story. There's really nothing backing that up. There's no evidence to support that these two masked men kidnapped him and forced him to do this. Again, how convenient for him with this story, right? Well, the jury didn't believe any of it. Bahena Rivera was convicted of the first-degree murder of Molly Tibbitts, and he was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. That's all we have for you here on Sidebar, everybody.

Thank you so much for joining us. Please subscribe on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, wherever you get your podcasts. I'm Jesse Weber. I'll speak to you next time.