Law&Crime Sidebar - Top 6 Smoking Guns of Evidence That Sealed People’s Fate at Trial

Episode Date: July 4, 2023

From high-profile murder trials with life in prison on the line for defendants, to celebrity civil trials with millions of dollars at stake, the jury’s verdict is often influenced by one key piece of evidence. The Law&Crime Network’s Jesse Weber breaks down six smoking guns that sealed people's fate at trial. PLEASE SUPPORT THE SHOW:Save 10% on your entire POM Pepper Spray order by using code LAWCRIME10 at http://bit.ly/3IGNFxvLAW&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 JunkieObjectionsThey 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.

Wonderly Plus subscribers can binge all episodes of this Law and Crimes series ad-free right now. Join Wonderly 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. So it would be fair to say that you weren't sure. I was positive that I was positive as you. Who is you? You. I'm looking at you. A secret video catching a killer in a lie, an actress admitting to being violent on an audio tape, and eyewitnesses picking out a murderer in court. These are some bombshell pieces of evidence or smoking guns in recent trials.

Welcome to Sidebar, presented by Law and Crime. I'm Jesse Weber. Trials are a battle. They're a battle between the prosecution and the defense. evidence back and forth showing a defendant is guilty or not guilty, liable or not liable, and many times it's the totality of the evidence, the collection of it as a whole that matters, these building blocks of a case. But there are times when that one piece of evidence comes out that can arguably win the whole case or destroy the whole case. In the law, we call this

the smoking gun. And we have sure seen some examples. of that in recent trials, those pieces of evidence that have changed everything for a defendant. So here is our list of the top six smoking guns from recent trials. First up, we might as well start with the big one. It is the kennel video in the Alec Murdoch trial. Now, this was a very high-profile trial, so many people following it. Alec Murdoch, the disgraced South Carolina attorney on trial for the murders of his wife, Maggie, and son Paul. The prosecution argued that he shot his family to death to distract away from or cover up

his financial crimes of stealing from his law firm and clients, and he did it as a way to buy himself time. That's what the prosecution argued. Now, the defense argued that there was a serious lack of evidence against him, that there was no forensic material on him, suggesting that he was the shooter, that the murder weapons hadn't been recovered, that Maggie and Paul were shot with two different weapons, so it really wouldn't have made sense for him to have done it all. That he had an alibi, that he wasn't at the dog kennels on the family property where the two were killed, that instead he was visiting his mother that night and only discovered their bodies when he came back to the house. In fact, Alec Murdoch repeatedly told

law enforcement he wasn't at the kennels. What did you do once Magny and Poe left? I stayed in the house. Okay. And I was watching TV, looking at my phone, and I actually fell sleep on the couch and you didn't go back down there after dinner until he returned from visiting your mother yes sir okay makes sense he says he wasn't there but during his trial prosecutors presented the jury with a bombshell piece of evidence a video that was recorded on the phone of paul murdock it was from 8.44 p.m. on the night of the murders which was less than five minutes before prosecutors say Paul and Maggie were shot to death. And in this video, you will hear Paul at the dog kennel.

You will also hear the voice of his mother. And guess who else you will hear. Get back. Get back. Quit, cash. Come, quit. That's okay. Come here. Come in, Cash.

Shit. Come, come. Post it. Calf. Hey, he's got a bird in his mouth. Baba. Hey, Baba. That's a guinea.

This is a chicken. Come here, Papa. Come here, gosh. Come here, Bob. Cache. Quit. Did you hear that? voice of Alec Murdoch. So he was, in fact, at the crime scene right around the time of the

murders. And if you don't believe me, multiple witnesses who know the Murdox well said that that was his voice. That was it. And by the way, it wasn't just them saying it. Alec Murdoch admitted himself that that was his voice. Mr. Murdoch, is that you? On the kennel video at 8.44 p.m. on June 7th, the night Maddie and Paul were murdered. It is. Were you, in fact, at the kennels at 8.44 p.m. on the night Maggie and Paul were murdered? I was. Did you lie to Slet Agent Owen and Deputy Laura Rutland on the night of June 7th

and told them that you stayed at the house after dinner? I did lie to them. As my addiction evolved over time, I would get in these situations or circumstances where I would get paranoid thinking. He may have admitted that he lied and claimed his drug addiction caused him to make bad choices like lying to law enforcement. But in the end, you have to think he had no choice but to own up to being at that crime scene because of that video. There was really nowhere for him to go. And arguably, that kennel video was the smoking gun, the lynchpin that helped prosecutors secure conviction against Alec Murdoch because he was found guilty.

and he was sentenced to life in prison. All right, next up, let's stick with high-profile cases and move on to the Kyle Rittenhouse trial. So this was the case of the then-17-year-old who back on August 25, 2020, fired his AR-15 rifle during the Kenosha protests in Wisconsin. This was a night of civil unrest following the police shooting of Jacob Blake. So Rittenhouse ended up shooting three people killing two of them, 36-year-old Joseph Rosenbaum and 26-year-old Anthony Huber.

But Rittenhouse also shot and injured 26-year-old Gage Grosskroits. Rittenhouse was charged with five crimes, first-degree intentional homicide, first-degree reckless homicide, first-degree attempted intentional homicide, and two counts of first-degree reckless endangerment. Very serious charges here. And prosecutors painted a picture of a young vigilante that he was armed, he was ready to cause trouble. Rittenhouse claimed that that wasn't the fact that he was merely there to maintain order on a night of civil unrest. he was there to act as a medic and he argued that he acted in self-defense with respect to all three shootings that he felt he was going to die that he was being chased that he was being threatened and that he was being attacked so gauge gross croix the only surviving victim

of this takes the stand okay and while he portrays himself as being the victim and he says that Kyle Rittenhouse was armed he tried to kill him and he was shot shot in the bicep, listen to what happened under cross-examination and what he admitted. Your original statement then to the police was I tried telling the guy to stop hitting him with a skateboard. The guy on the ground then turned over, racked the weapon, and pointed his gun at me and shot me, right? That is correct, yes. Um, you all. You all, omitted the idea, you omitted the fact that you ran up on him and had a glott pistol in your hand, right? You left that out.

Correct. After the defendant had shot me, I had just gotten out of surgery when the Kenosha police officers had arrived and just gone through one of the most traumatic experiences in my life, both emotionally and physically. I had just gotten out of surgery. I had just been sedated. I was on pain meds. It wouldn't have been a purposeful omission. And you understand it's the only information that you appear to have forgotten

that puts you with a gun directly in front of him, right? That is correct. At this point, you're holding a loaded chambered Glock 27 in your right hand. Yes? That is correct, yes. You are advancing on Mr. Rittenhouse who is seated on his butt, right? That is correct. That's a photo of you, yes?

Yes. Okay. That's Mr. Rittenhouse? Correct. Okay. Now, you agree your firearm is pointed at Mr. Rittenhouse, correct? Yes. Okay.

And once your firearm is pointed at Mr. Rittenhouse, that's when he fires his gun. Yes? No. Sir, look, I don't want to... Does this look like right now your arm is being shot? That looks like my bicep being vaporized, yes. Okay. And it's being vaporized as you're pointing your gun directly at him.

Yes? Yes. Okay, so... when you were standing three to five feet from him with your arms up in the air he never fired right correct it wasn't until you pointed your gun at him advanced on him with your gun now your hands down pointed at him then he fired right correct yeah so that certainly looks like mr written house only opened fire once gross Croix pointed his gun at him and he was defending himself from a perceived threat. And also, Grosskroits maybe was hiding this bad fact from law enforcement.

And you have to believe that the jury hearing this from the only surviving victim wasn't good for the prosecution because in the end, Kyle Rittenhouse was acquitted of all charges. Introducing the next generation of pepper spray. Meet Palm, a new maximum strength self-defense product with a patented modular design. The solutionizing the self-defense industry, whether you're carrying the unit on your keys, snapping the unit on your backpack, your keychain, or carrying the unit in your pocket. Palm is the perfect everyday carry accessory. Palm's patented flip-top safety prevents any accidental misfire, and its maximum strength formula provides you with the necessary range and capacity to bring peace of mind to you and your loved ones. Quality, safety, performance, peace of mind.

Learn more at Palmpeper spray.com. sticking with wisconsin let's go to walk ashaw wisconsin now let's talk about the darrell brooks trial which we covered extensively here on sidebar this was the case about the man charged with 76 criminal counts for driving a red SUV into a group of holiday parade goers back in november of 2021 killing six people injuring dozens of others it was a wild trial where the defendant chose to represent himself he made a mockery of the courtroom there were outbursts he was kicked out of the court he took a shirt off At one point, he yelled at the judge. He even frightened her.

Criminal trespassed the dwelling from 2006. I need to take a break. This man right now is having a stare down with me. It's very disrespectful. He pounded his fist. Frankly, it makes me scared. But on to the central question. Was Dorel Brooks driving that SUV that ran into those spectators?

You want to talk about a smoking gun? How about eyewitnesses that pointed him out? I saw directly through the driver. window. What did you see? I saw a man focused on the group ahead of him. Is that Daryl Brooks that you saw? Yes. Mr. Brooks, please remove your mask. Thank you. Officer Schneider is the driver of the red SUV that you've just described for this jury present in this courtroom today? Yes. Can you please point him out by where he's seated in what he's wearing. He is seated over here at the table wearing a gray

suit. That's the man you saw driving the red SUV as it sped past you? Yes it is. Do you know for sure if the driver of the vehicle you observed was in fact angry? I assume that he was. So it would be fair to say you don't know for sure. I do not know for sure but that's is my opinion, is that he was angry. And at that time, you had no knowledge who the driver was. Would that be fair to say? Well, I had knowledge because I saw your face.

Also, it sure didn't help that a close-up photograph of Dorel Brooks behind the wheel of the car was taken as well. Yeah, that's never great. Eyewitnesses, photographic proof, that's bad. You want to guess what happened? He was convicted of every charge and sentenced to six life sentences plus over 700 additional years. As we talk about smoking guns, those key pieces of evidence that basically won a case for a side, we got to talk about some celebrity trials.

And I want to start with Gwyneth Paltrow. The actress, an entrepreneur, was sued by a retired eye doctor named Terry Sanderson. Sanderson argued that back in 2016, while the two were both, both skiing at Deer Valley Resort in Utah, Paltrow negligently slammed into him from behind, severely injuring him. He claimed he suffered broken ribs, a brain injury, that his life has really never been the same. 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 hid into her from behind, that she was the victim. This was literally the complete opposite story of Sanderson. account, and it really came down to negligence. Did someone fail to act as a reasonable skier would under the circumstances and therefore was at fault for what happened? Now, Terry Sanderson took the stand, and he went through how he was hit, how his life fell apart because of his injuries, he's been a shell of a man since the crash.

Okay. But in arguably one of the worst pieces of evidence for him, Paltrow's side hit him with some really damning pitchers. 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. Matu-Petu 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 now. Thailand. Did you go to Thailand after the collision?

Yes. Did you visit at least the states of Washington, Oregon, Montana, and Idaho? After the collision? Probably, yes. You're a Facebooker, right? At least you were at the time. you posted a lot on social media relative to other people

didn't seem like I did very little all of these pictures are from your personal Facebook after the collision okay does this seem like the guy that Sanderson and his team portrayed or does this fall into

a Paltros team argued that Sanderson is not telling the truth that he over-exaggerated his injuries and maybe whatever changes to his personality or deficits he had was the result of him getting older, and not from anything Paltrow did to him. And you know what? The jury agreed.

They didn't believe Sanderson. In fact, it only took them a few hours to come back with a unanimous verdict. They determined he was 100% at fault for what happened that day, and Paltrow won her case and cleared her name. In fact, after the trial, a juror spoke with ABC News and said, quote, you know, I wouldn't have thought he was capable of those things based on the picture he painted. Okay, let's stick with high-profile celebrity trials and move on to Alex Jones. How could I talk about a defendant's case blowing up without talking about Alex Jones?

So the Infowars 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 regarding that massacre, namely when he said that it was staged and fake and a hoax. He did that on his program. Now, they sued him under various legal theories, such as defamation and intentional infliction. of emotional distress, and Alex Jones actually automatically lost those lawsuits because he failed to abide by court-ordered discovery obligations. The trials we covered on law and crime, and we talked

about on Cybor, were purely about how much would he have to owe the plaintiffs in damages, not that he's liable, but how much would he have to owe? So he's going into these two trials as a loser, and it just becomes a matter of how much he has to pay. Now, his defense was he realized he made a mistake. He tried to correct the record, that the plaintiffs were overstating their damages, and that 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. But focusing on his first trial in Texas, there was one moment that you could say changed everything for Alex Jones. See, Mr. Jones, while under oath, he said he couldn't find any text messages from him talking about Sandy Hook. But when cross-examined by plaintiff's attorney Mark Bankston, he was presented with evidence to the contrary.

And then he was hit with this bombshell. Do you know where I got this? No. Mr. Jones, did you know that 12 days ago, 12 days ago, your attorney's messed up and sent me an entire digital copy of your entire cell phone with every text message you've sent for the past two years and when informed did not take any steps to identify it as privileged or protected in any way and as of two days ago it fell free and clear into my possession and that is how i know you lied to me when you said you didn't have text message about saying you did you know that i see i told you the truth this is your peri mason moment i gave them my phone and then mr jones you need

to answer the question no i don't know this happened but i mean i told you i gave him the phone over you said in your deposition you searched your phone you said you pulled down the text did the search function for sandy hook that's what you said mr jones correct and i had several several different phones with this number but i did yeah well of course i mean that's why you got it no mr jones that's not why i have my lawyer sent it to you but i'm hiding it okay mr jones just answer questions there's no question mr bengson also only asked questions sure mr jones in discovery you were asked do you have sandy hook text messages on your phone and you said no correct you said that under oath didn't you i mean i was mistaken i was mistaken but you you got the

messages right there you know what purger is right i just want to make sure you know before we go any you know what it is yes I do I mean I'm not a tech guy I told you I gave in my testimony the phone to the lawyers before whatever and and so you've got my phone but we didn't give it to you no mr. Jones one more time please remember if you need to assert the amendment you can't I need to know you can do that but you testified under oath previously that you personally searched your phone for the phrase Sandy vote and there were no messages you said that under oath Yes.

And you're lying when you said it. No, I did not lie. So that was really bad. That's basically being caught red-handed, right? If you aren't being truthful about that, what are you being truthful about? And in the end, the jury came back with a massive damages award against Jones for almost $50 million. And it really only got worse for him because in his second trial out in Connecticut, the jury there awarded the plaintiffs almost $1 billion.

And the judge ordered an additional $470. $33 million in additional punitive damages. Let's close this out with arguably one of the biggest trials in the past few years, maybe even in the last 10 years, 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 Johnny Depp for comments that his attorney made,

presumably on his behalf, calling Hurd's claims a hoax. This was an ugly case, a really, really ugly case. Heard took the stand. She would get 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, no, that he was the victim that Hurd attacked him. So it was a question of who do you believe?

Well, there is one thing for Depp and Hurd to testify in 22 about what happened in the past and for jurors to weigh their credibility. And then there is something entirely different about hearing something in real time. And that is one of the most damning pieces of evidence in this case, arguably the smoking gun, and I am referring to the infamous audio recordings. You see, the couple would actually tape their fights,

and although at times Johnny Depp said he didn't know it was happening, it was important. And in possibly a very candid moment, listen to what Amber Heard said. It's not to get you mad. It's just to get out of a bad situation while it's happening before it gets worse. In Australia, when we had the big fight where I lost the tip of my finger, at least five bathrooms and two bedrooms I went to.

To avoid talking to me, to work me out. That's the problem. You don't escape the fight. You escape the solution. You escape the solution. You escape figuring it out. We cannot work it out if you run away to the bathroom every time. I said to you, I said, no, I said to you, hey, tell Travis what just happened. Oh, you told me to do it. You told me to. You said, go do that. I said, no, tell him what just happened. And I lied. And that you punched me in the thing. You figured it off. And you said, no, I didn't. What the fuck I was talking about? about and I watched you lie and then I didn't punch you by the way you I'm sorry that I didn't

uh hit you across the face in a proper slap but I was hitting you it was not punching you babe you're not punched don't tell me what it feels like to be punched you know even a lot of fights been around a long time no yeah no you didn't get punched you got hit I'm sorry I hit you like this but I did not punch you I did not deck you I was hitting you I don't I don't know what the boat motion of my actual hand was. But you're fine. I did not hurt you. I did not punch you.

I was hitting you. How are you tough? What am I supposed to do? Do this? I'm not sitting here bitching about it, am I? You are. That's the difference between me and you. You're a baby.

You are such a baby. Grow all the fuck up, Johnny. Because you started physical fights? I did start a physical fight. Yeah, you did. So I had to get out of there. Yes, you did. So you did the right thing, the big thing.

You know what? You are admirable. That was really powerful. You have heard on tape admitting that she hit Johnny Depp. And not only that, but that Depp didn't necessarily fight back but ran away. Well, you have to imagine that really hurt Amber Heard because the jury found her liable for defamation for each of the three statements in that op-ed piece. Although they did find Depp liable to Heard 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 herd only $2 million. Smoking gun, that's what that was. And smoking guns, they can literally change the course of a case. We'll be on the lookout for future bombshell pieces of testimony and evidence as we continue to cover major trials across the country. That's all we have for you here on Sidebar, everybody. Thank you so much for joining us. Please subscribe on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,

at YouTube, wherever you get your podcast. I'm Jesse Weber. I'll speak to you next time.