Law&Crime Sidebar - Top 6 Most Heated Cross-Examination Moments in High-Profile Trials

Episode Date: September 4, 2023

Taking the stand allows defendants and witnesses to tell their story, but also gives prosecutors the ability to grill the accused and untruthful testifiers. The most intense moments in court often happen under cross-examination. The Law&Crime Network’s Jesse Weber the top six most heated moments from cross-examinations in high-profile trials.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. I've already said I'm sorry hundreds of times, and I'm done saying I'm sorry. I didn't pregenerate this. It was the first person to say it. American governor is like being blamed for this as the left did, so we rejected it mentally and said it must not be true. But I legitimately thought it might have been staged, and I stand by that and I don't apologize for it. And don't apologize, Mr. Jones.

Please don't apologize. No, I've already apologized to the parents over and over again. Because we know, I don't apologize to you. Don't apologize to you. From grilling a family murderer to breaking apart the story of a man who crashed into an acclaimed actress on a ski slope, we recap six of some of the most intense cross-examinations in recent trials. Welcome to Sidebar, presented by Law and Crime. I'm Jesse Weber.

So people, they seem to watch trials for all different sorts of reasons, right? They want to see if justice is going to be served. They want to see both sides battle it out. They're interested in the law, how it works. They're interested in finding out what is the real story here. There's a drama behind it. But I have to believe sometimes an interest in a trial also comes down to tough cross-examination moments. Those times when attorneys really grill witnesses or when witnesses fire back at the person questioning them.

So let's recap six of some of the most intense. tense cross-examinations that we have covered in relatively recent trials. You want to talk intense cross-examinations? Well, how about we start off with one that's not just intense, but incredibly awkward? It is the very disturbing case of Trevor Summers. This was out of Florida, and Summers was accused of sneaking into the home of his estranged wife, Elisa, namely manipulating his children to let him into the house. You see, Trevor and Elisa, they were separated.

They were in the process of getting a divorce. In fact, Lisa took out an injunction against Summers to keep him away. And Summers was charged in connection with tying Elisa up, sexually assaulting her, and then kidnapping her. Actually, held her captive for days and even drove around with her in the car before he was ultimately arrested. Now, keep all of that in mind, keep all the allegations in mind, because who do you think would be the worst person to cross-examine Elisa when she testified in Trevor Summers' criminal trial back in. April of 2023. Who's the worst person? Well, how about Trevor Summers himself? Yeah, that's what happened. Summers decided to represent himself at trial, which is, it is his constitutional right to do. And when he did that, he of course had the opportunity to cross-examine the government's key

witness, his wife, Elisa. Now listen to these series of exchanges. I'm asking you specifically, before we had sex, did I threaten you or force you to have sex? My answer. My answer, is yes, you forced me to have sex with you. Did I hold you down? No. Did I push you? Not at that time of having sex, but prior to having sex, you did push me, you did hold me down, you did tie me up, you did attack me, and you did break into my home when I was sleeping.

You raped me. So you're calling it rape? It is. That is the definition of rape. to come into someone's home and attack them and tie them up and then have sex with them. That is the definition of rape.

Did you know I was coming to your house? No. He placed the pillow over my face with such force until I lost consciousness and had thoughts that I was going to meet Jesus and this was my last breath. That is why reasons to believe that you were there to kill me

because I came that close to death. At one point, you said that if the police find us, if we get pulled over, you need to tell them this is all a big misunderstanding and that you agreed to go with me and that there's no foul play. Did you tell me you wanted to go with me? I begged for my life and I said I will do anything. And you said, you're going with me. So you didn't want to go with me.

No. I frankly have never seen anything like that before. An accused rapist and kidnapper, ex-husband, questioning an open court of victim, his ex-wife. And I know that was just a sampling, but it really wasn't good for Trevor Summers because that is not just some random eyewitness. This is the surviving victim of this encounter testifying directly against the defendant about what she says happened to her at his hands. And the jury, they believed her because they convicted Trevor Summers on all 11 counts, including attempted murder, and he was sentenced to life in prison. How can we talk intense cross-examinations without talking about Alex Jones?

Little background for you. So the InfoWorse founder and host was in a very tricky situation. He was sued by the families of those who lost loved ones in the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, as well as a former FBI agent, for comments that he made on his InfoWars programs regarding the massacre, namely saying that the shooting was staged, that it was fake, that it was a hoax, that the parents were crisis actors, and they sued him under various legal theories, defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and Alex Jones actually automatically lost these lawsuits because he failed to abide by court-ordered discovery obligations,

default judgments were entered against him. So the trials that we covered of his on long crime, it was purely about how much he would owe the plaintiffs and damages. So he's going into these two trials out in Texas and Connecticut as a loser. It just becomes how much does he have to pay up? That's all. Now, his defense was he realized he made a mistake. It wasn't intentional. He tried to correct the record. He profusely apologized. He tried to show that the plaintiffs were overstating their damages, that he and his company, which was also sued, doesn't have a lot of money left. And Jones decided to explain a lot of this when he took the stand. However, there became a point specifically in his Connecticut trial when Jones seemed to have had enough.

of the plaintiff's attorney Christopher Maddie. Now, I should be accurate, this wasn't really cross-examination per se. The plaintiffs actually called Jones as a witness, but it sure felt like a cross-examination. Maybe he was tired of being called a liar. Maybe he was tired of defending himself. Maybe he wasn't too happy the judge, didn't let him bring up several topics during his time on the stand. Maybe it was because in a trial about a month earlier out in Texas, he was ordered to pay

$50 million in damages to the parents of a slain child. Whatever it may be, it all came to a head when Jones had this fiery back and forth with Maddie. That's Robert Parker, Mr. Jones. It is. That's the real Robbie Parker, isn't it? I mean, I said years ago, I thought San Diego had him. Robert Parker's sitting right here. He's real, isn't he?

Yes. And for years, you put a target on his back, didn't you? Objection in the form of that, Judge. Well, I mean, I didn't you? I bet. I've said his name. It's true. I haven't said other people's names when they are.

You put a target on his back, just like you did every single parent and loved one sitting in your dick. No, I didn't. No, you did. That's argumentative. There's no, they're speculative, there is no foundation for it, and it's inappropriate. Let's move on. He's a real people. You know what, Mr. Jones?

I think you just called him move on. Just like all the Iraqis, but you liberals kill and love. It's just you're unbelievable. You switch on emotions on and off what you want. It's just ambulance chasing. Why don't you show a little respect? Objection, Judge. I think that you get what you give in this court.

Objection. You have families in this courtroom here that lost children, sisters, wives, moms. This is a struggle session? Are we in China? I've already said I'm sorry hundreds of times, and I'm done saying I'm sorry. I didn't pregenerate this. It was the first person to say it. American governor is like being blamed for this as the left

did. So we rejected it mentally and said it must not be true. But I legitimately thought it might have been staged. And I stand by that. I don't apologize for it. And don't apologize, Mr. Jones. Please don't apologize. No, I've already apologized to the parents over and over again. Because we know, you're going to apologize to you. You're going to do it against you. Objection, Judge. Aren't you? No, I'm not. Objection. Objection argument. Don't apologize to you. Yeah, not great. Some wild statements. And does it really look like he's apologetic? In the end, after hearing all of the evidence, the jury can.

came back with a massive damages award against Alex Jones. The jury there awarded the plaintiffs almost $1 billion, and the judge ordered an additional $473 million in additional punitive damages. You know, when I think of heated cross-examinations, I am reminded of a very big trial that we covered here on Sidebar, Johnny Depp versus Amber Hurd. The Pirates of the Caribbean star sued his ex-wife for defamation over a Washington Post op-ed piece that she authored in,

which she claimed she was the victim of domestic abuse, implying at the hands of Johnny Depp. Now, Hurd ended up countersuing Depp for comments his attorney made, presumably on his behalf, calling Hurd's claims a hoax. This was a very, very ugly case between the two. A lot of dirty laundry was spilled. But at one point, Hurd took the stand, and she got highly emotional, recounting the disturbing accounts where she was sexually, verbally, physically abused by Depp. Depp would get on the stand.

He would say, no, no, no, he was the victim that Hurd attacked him, that he never harmed her. Well, when Herd was testifying, Depp's lawyer Camille Vasquez had the opportunity to cross-examine Herd. And it was something to watch. It really was. It lasted a long time. And honestly, it was kind of hard for me to select portions that exemplify how intense it got. But let's do a sampling of some of these moments. So I'm going to start with when Vasquez grilled Hurd on her claims of abuse.

That either he has the bottle before or after. He's holding you by the neck on the counter. Is that your testimony? He held me by the neck on the counter. Where's the bottle that he assaulted with? At what point. While holding you down by your neck. When he was assaulting me with the bottle, it was in his hand.

Was it in his hand before or after he holds you down by your neck? I was being held down while he assaulted me with the bottle. When he puts you on the counter, Does he have the bottle in his hand, yes or no? As I have always said, I don't remember exactly what happened first, or I don't remember the sequence. I just remember being aware that I was being assaulted by a bottle while I was on the countertop. So he penetrates you with this bottle. But you don't know how he got the bottle, right?

That is correct. And he did that right after he lost the tip of his right middle finger. Again, I don't remember the exact sequence of those events. We'll get to the sequence. and while he was on 8 to 10 MDMA pills, right? Yes. You testified that this is a picture you took after that incident, right, Ms. Heard? Yes, that was one where he grabbed me.

And hit you in the face so many times that you don't remember. Isn't that correct? That's correct. And there's no injuries to your face in this picture, are there? Not that this picture shows. And there's no medical records reflecting that you sought treatment after this alleged incident either. I did not seek medical treatment at this time. So there's no medical records reflecting any injuries to your face after he hit you several times? I did not need to go to the doctor at the time.

Despite hitting you several times that you lost count with rings on his fingers. That's correct. I did not seek medical attention. Your nose doesn't appear to be injured in any of these pictures, does it, Ms. Heard. I'm wearing makeup. Your nose doesn't appear to be injured in any of of these pictures, does it misheard? That's why I'm wearing makeup. Right. And makeup covers up swelling, right? Makeup will not cover up swelling.

Ice will, though. Ice will cover up swelling? Ice reduces swelling. Normally the swelling after that kind of injury is not as bad as you might imagine. And for me, it wasn't that bad. I have a picture of it underneath the makeup. That's how I know how to reference it. A picture you haven't produced or shown to this jury, right, Ms. Heard?

I have produced everything. But you haven't shown it to this jury. I would very much like to. It's not my job. Then she questioned her about if she doctored and linked a video of Johnny Depp drunk. I thought you testified earlier in this trial that you didn't know how to leak things.

I don't. Right. You edited that video before you gave it to TMZ so that only Mr. Depp would look bad. Yes? That's absurd. Right in the middle of your divorce proceedings. Again, you're very wrong.

There was also, when she questioned if Amber Hurd donated her settlement money to charity as she promised or kept it. You said that you had, quote, donated, end quote, your entire divorce settlement to charity, right? That's correct. Then Vasquez questioned Hurd if she cheated on Depp with actor James Franco. That's you and Mr. Franco on May 22nd, 2016, right, Ms. Hurd? That's correct. And you're taking him up to the penthouses, aren't you? That's where I lived, yes.

And it's past 11 p.m. at night. Isn't that right? I'm not quite sure of the time it looked like that. You knew Mr. Depp was out of town the week of May 21, 2016, didn't you? I don't know what I knew of his schedule at the time. Nasty. It was nasty. And I'll tell you what, Camille Vasquez actually became a nationally recognized figure for this case, particularly the way she handled this cross-examination. She was promoted to a partner at her law firm.

She became an NBC legal analyst. But for Amber Heard, the jury found her lie. for defamation for each of the three statements in the op-ed piece, although they did find debt liable to her with respect to one statement from his lawyer, but she really lost this case when you think about it. The jury awarded debt $10 million in compensatory damages, $5 million in punitives, and awarded her $2 million. I have to wonder if that cross-examination played a factor.

I got to tell you, I may not have been looking forward to a cross-examination more in recent memory than in the Alec Murdoch trial. And when we talk about some of the most intense cross-examination moments in recent trials, this is one. Now, you might recall this incredibly high-profile case from 2023, Alec Murdoch, the disgraced South Carolina attorney who went on trial for the murders of his wife, Maggie, and son Paul, who were executed in June of 2021. They were gunned down on their family property, specifically by the dog kennels.

The motive laid out by prosecutors was that Murdoch was a criminal. He was engaging in a number of financial crimes, stealing from his law firm clients, and as a way to distract from that, to buy himself time, to gain sympathy, they say he killed his family and made it look like he was the victim in all of this. Well, Alec Murdoch gets on the stand and admits that he lied to police. He said he lied about being down at the kennels that night. First time he had ever said that, I mean, he really had no choice but to own up to it

because at trial, there was a cell phone video from Paul's phone that was presented to the jury showing he was at the kennels, only minutes before investigators believe the shootings happened. But Murdoch says, listen, I was there, but then I left before the shootings occurred. He said he originally lied because he was paranoid and a drug addict, but he swears he didn't kill his wife and son. He says after leaving the kennels, he went back up to his house, and then he left to see his sick mom that night. Well, prosecutor Creighton Waters really went in on Alec Murdoch.

The reality is, Mr. Murdoch, is the reason why no one's ever heard that before is because you had to sit in this courtroom and hear your family and your friends one after the other come in and testify that you were on that kennel video so you like you've done so many times over the course of your life had to back up and make a new story that kind of fit with the facts that can't be denied isn't that true sir no sir that's not true before you said you'd been napping for an hour or so we're napping that entire time and now you you lay down on the couch that's correct all right and maybe does for a second Maybe.

According to your new story? How long did you doze? I dozed extremely short time. Extremely short time? Because you would agree with me that at 902 you're up and moving? I was preparing to leave. Doing what? I don't know if I got up, went to the bathroom.

I don't know. I can't tell you exactly what I was doing. That's far more steps in a shorter time period than any time prior, as you've seen from the testimony in this case. in this case. So what were you so busy doing? Going to the bathroom? No, I don't think that I... Get on a treadmill? No, I didn't get on a treadmill.

Jogging place? No, I didn't jogging place. No, sir, I did not do Jumba Jax. What were you doing, Mr. Murdoch for those four months? Preparing to leave for my mom's house. What? What does that mean? I mean, you're in the front room on that couch where you say you laid down. The suburban's just right outside.

What all are you doing? I don't know if I got up in one. went to my room, went to the gun room, went back in that. Doing what? You've been so clear in your new story about everything. What were you doing during these four minutes? I disagree with your assertion about every detail. I don't recall. Yeah, the evidence showed that Alec Murdoch's phone was off conveniently for about an hour and then suddenly turns back on. Very suspicious because this was right at the time his family

was killed or right after. And the jury, didn't believe Alec Murdoch. He was convicted of the murders of Paul and Maggie and sentenced to life in prison. All right, let's go over now to the Florida case of Anthony Tote, a 46-year-old physical therapist who was on trial for the brutal murders of his wife, 42-year-old Megan, and three children, four-year-old Zoe, 13-year-old Alec, and 11-year-old Tyler. Really disturbing case. He was even charged with killing the family dog. Now, here was the problem for Anthony Tote. Authorities found their decomposing bodies in the family home, and Tote was living there for weeks. Authorities were serving him with an arrest warrant for unrelated insurance fraud

charges, and they found the bodies. Tote sits down for an interview with investigators, and he admits that he killed his family as part of some weird pact with his wife that they would all die together and escape to the other side before the apocalypse. It was a combination of stabbing, suffocating, even drugging with Benadryl. But then before the trial, he speaks. with his sister on the phone from jail and does a 180 and says, no, no, no, no, I didn't have anything to do with this. It was Megan who killed the kids and herself, and he just found them dead. He doesn't really know what he said to investigators because he was stoned and he was out of it. And he doubles down on that defense at trial that Megan is the killer. But the

prosecution wasn't having any of it and really held his feet to the fire. You told law enforcement on multiple occasions that you went into Alex's room and you stabbed Alec and you suffocated out. Isn't that correct? That's partially correct. And isn't it true that you also told law enforcement that Megan took part in the killing? That's what the video showed. That's correct. And that in fact Megan held Alex legs down while you suffocated Alex.

That's what the video showed. That's correct. And your testimony today is that that is not true. My testimony today is the fact that Megan killed her kids and killed herself. Okay. 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 had been proven incorrect. That's not. response 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? I don't remember anything after I left the house until I got to jail. So 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. It's quite the back and forth. But unfortunately for Anthony Tote, the jury did not believe his story. And he was convicted for the murders of his family and for killing the family dog. He was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. All right. Let's close out this discussion on cross-examinations with Gwyneth Poutro.

So the actresses. entrepreneur was sued by a retired eye doctor named Terry Sanderson. Sanderson argued that back in 2016, while the two were both skiing at Deer Valley Resort in Utah, Paltrow negligently slammed into him from behind, severely injuring him. He claimed he suffered broken ribs, brain injuries, that his life has never been the same, and he sued for over $300,000. Paltrow not only defended herself from this, but actually filed a countersuit, a counterclaim, for $1 and her attorney's fees.

her argument was that Sanderson hit into her from behind, that she was the victim. This was literally the complete opposite story of what Sanders had said. And it really became a case of negligence. Someone failed to act as a reasonable skier would under the circumstances. Who was at fault? Now, Terry Sanderson took the stand, and he went through how he was hit, how his life fell apart, because of all these injuries, and he has really said he's a shell of a man since the crash. Okay.

Well, then he faced some really tough. questioning by Paltrow's attorney Stephen Owens. First, by saying how he made inappropriate and outlandish claims about his client and the incident. Upon filing your lawsuit in a press conference, compare my client to King Kong coming out of the jungle. Yes or no? That was not my intention.

Did you do that? Did I make up those words or those your words to the press? I'm not sure, but probably sounds familiar. Do you dispute it? I dispute my intentions. That's all I... Did you say those words about my client? I meant to say King Kong, just chase someone out of the jungle.

That's what I meant. Did you refer to her as Godzilla to your daughter? I did not. I don't remember that. She testified to that. I don't remember that. It's gone. Sorry.

Also, Owens questioned Sanderson's credibility, namely what he remembered of the crash and about his prior statements. We talked about you being unconscious, and do you agree that? someone who's unconscious doesn't have a stopwatch to figure out how long they were actually unconscious. I agree, that's true. And yet you did tell people, it varied over time, first a few seconds, then five minutes, then ten minutes. You did that, right? Do you disagree? Yes, it did vary. And why did you do that? Why would you say, I don't know, then it's a few seconds, then it's five minutes and then you told your psychiatrist at the VA it was up to 10 minutes long why did you

change i had no idea and i was searching i i really had no idea and i was trying to answer i sometimes make that mistake guessing but i really didn't know hmm then owens questioned whether sanderson over exaggerated his injuries from the ski collision and he did that by showing that sanderson was living quite an adventurous life as evidenced by photos of him traveling around the world. Post-incident travel by Dr. Sanderson, Mr. Sanderson. Did you go to Peru? Yes.

After the collision. All of these are after the collision, okay? Yes. Visit Matu-Pichu? Costa Rica, yes. Walk the Golden Trail. Yes. Montupeachu is in Peru.

Yes. Floated down the Amazon? Yes, I guess so. Costa Rica. Did you do a zip line? Same trip, yes. Did you go to Europe, visit Netherlands, Germany, Switzerland, Italy, France, Belgium. With my daughter, Jenny, yes.

Bottom half, James, please. Did you go to the Netherlands three times? I don't remember. Well, if you're disputing it, then we pull it out of your deposition. I don't remember. I have no reason to dispute it or agree. Okay. Morocco twice? True?

likely, very likely. Canary Islands, I need to know if you're disputing these things. I can't dispute it, no. I personally think that was some of the worst evidence against Mr. Sanderson. And then Owens seemed to try to play up the fact that Sanderson was only suing Paltrow, only doing this, to go after her because she's a famous, wealthy celebrity. I wrote, I'm famous because it's cool that I had a collision with a celebrity. was that your thinking at the time and you said yes do you deny it i not if you have it on record

no i don't deny it i don't remember it i've never thought it was cool that i had a collision with a celebrity did you recall that yes i guess i did say that absolutely and that's not a true statement is it you have you have said this in your deposition true honestly i don't never remember saying it bring it up but but i don't just i don't doubt you i misspeak a lot okay this is page 15 line five through eight so the words i'm famous this is meant my question seemed to say i think it's cool that i had a collision with a celebrity was that your thinking at the time and your answer was yes i guess yes yes so he made it look like sanderson wasn't being that he wasn't reliable, that he was only out to get Paltrow because she was Gwyneth Paltrow,

that he overstated the degree of his injuries, because he was active and traveling all over the place. And it seemed to work because the jury came back and said that Terry Sanderson was 100% at fault for what happened on that ski slope, not Winneth Paltrow. Well, cross-examinations, as you can see, they can be quite intense, they can be heated, they're revealing, and they can change the course of a whole case. All right, everybody, that's all we have for you here on Sidebar. Thank you so much for joining us. Please subscribe on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, wherever you get your podcast.

I'm Jesse Weber. I'll speak to you next time. or Spotify.