Locked In with Ian Bick - Criminal Defense Attorney Exposes Shocking Truths About Murder Trials | Mike Riley

Episode Date: July 18, 2024

A seasoned criminal defense attorney pulls back the curtain on what really happens when taking murder cases to trial. Discover the intricate strategies, courtroom drama, and behind-the-scenes decisions that shape the outcomes of these high-stakes cases. Learn about the legal tactics used to defend the accused and the challenges faced along the way. Whether you're a law student, true crime enthusiast, or just curious about the justice system, this video offers a rare glimpse into the complex world of murder trials. Hosted, Executive Produced & Edited By Ian Bick: https://www.instagram.com/ian_bick/?hl=en https://ianbick.com/ Connect with Mike Riley: https://www.youtube.com/@RileyLawLab https://rileyup.com/ Powered by: Just Media House : https://www.justmediahouse.com/ Creative direction, design, assets, support by FWRD: https://www.fwrd.co Buy Merch: https://lockedinbrand.com Use code lockedin at checkout to get 20% off your order Timestamps: 00:00:00 - Taking a Deal vs. Going to Trial 00:03:45 - The Importance of Trial Work 00:07:17 - The Influence of Jury Experts 00:10:56 - The Toll of Being a Defense Attorney 00:14:38 - The Weight of Convicting Someone 00:18:28 - Street Feuds and Young Perpetrators 00:22:22 - The Karen Reed Case and Bias in Law Enforcement 00:26:13 - Sweet and Stupid Approach in a New Courthouse 00:29:43 - Challenging Legal Representation Fees 00:33:29 - The Importance of Real-Life Experience for Trial Lawyers 00:37:02 - The Importance of Choosing the Right Attorney 00:40:39 - AI in the Legal Industry 00:44:15 - Disadvantages of Fighting a Case from Jail 00:48:04 - Disparities in the Criminal Justice System 00:51:51 - The Difficulty of Finding a Body 00:55:37 - Hiring a Private Lawyer vs Public Defender 00:59:27 - Conclusion and Farewell Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Enjoy every day like it's the weekend at Treasure Island with special rates of only $79 midweek. Could it get any better? It does. Get free parking too at Treasure Island while staying in the center of the strip. With summer coming, enjoy all your favorites, steps away from your room, including their world-class spa, classic Vegas steakhouse, and tropical resort-style pool. It's all at Treasure Island, Las Vegas. Visit Treasure Island.com to book your room for just $79 a night. That's Treasure Island.com. America's first pledge was freedom. Jeep still carries that fighting spirit.

With the Jeep Declaration of Deals, we're pledging our allegiance to the American people with great deals on the luxurious Grand Cherokee, with available three-row seating, premium craftsmanship and tech that turns every drive into an adventure. Or Jeep Rangler with legendary 4x4 capability and open-air freedom. Because Freedom deserves the vehicle built to carry it. Jeep, there's only one. Hurry into your local dealer for the Jeep Declaration of Deals. Jeep has won more awards over its lifetime than any other SUV branch.

Chief of the Jeep of the Jeep Grill or registered trademarks of XCAUS LLC. There will always be an offer to take a deal. Like, okay, instead of trial, you could take this. But when there's a dead body involved, those numbers are huge. And people can't really wrap their heads around it. Even if you're young, even if you're 20, you know, I once had a guy who was like 18 who was facing a murder charge and they made him an offer. And I was like, hey, man, like, you know, if everything goes well, if you took this,

you'd be like my age when you get out. Like, this is like, I thought I was like kind of. look on the bright side and I was in my late 30s at the time he started crying and I was like oh shit that's not what he wanted to hear

so you found the show through Thomas I found the show through Thomas well I think I started posting the YouTube videos and I posted a thing on Instagram like hey you know I filmed it with my camera like hey I'm starting to YouTube trying to jump start the subscribers a little bit

and then he mentioned you to me he was like you should connect with my buddy Ian he's doing this really cool thing and then shortly after his episode was released, which I thought was great. I watched the whole thing. Yeah, Thomas did a really good job. And what I liked about it was it's like it still performed well without him giving crazy salacious stories. And I like that for the professional level so we can hop back and forth where it's like one episode, someone talking about murder or something really salacious. And then

the next episode is more like the professional legal standpoint on it. And sure. Yeah. And he he gives the perspective of a public defender and he's a sincere, humble guy who's doing the work he wants to do. And I think that a lot of people want to give public defenders a bad name. They do, yeah. Talk shit.

I mean, honestly, before I sat down with him, I had a very similar view on public defenders. Because when you're a defendant in the criminal system and when you're interviewing a lot of people, everyone has had a bad experience with a public defender. But when I was in the federal system, I realized that their public defenders are just, are usually like actual attorneys from major law firms.

Like my co-defendant had a public defender and he had a huge law firm. Right. So that's private lawyers taking a contract with the federal government or the state to do work on the side. But that doesn't really work on the state, Kate. No, it does. So if there's any conflict of interest, so if you and I get arrested together in a car and there's a gun in the back, the public defender's office can't. represent both of us because it might be in your best interest to say Mike Riley did it and might be in my best interest to say Ian did it. So they farm one of them out and pay an outside

lawyer to take it. So do you think that's unfair though to the defendant? Like, because that's a luck thing because you could get, say, stuck with someone that has no trial experience. Then you get farmed out to say a John Einhorn where he's got all the trial experience in the world. It cuts both ways because there are some public defenders that have more trial experience than anybody, right? I was a public defender for 10 years. I went just as hard for my clients as a public defender as I do now. It's the look of the draw. I mean, are some of them not going as hard as others?

Sure. But the same is true with the private bar. There's some private lawyers that are just phoning it in. They get your money and, okay, how do I get rid of this case now? Yeah. And I've dealt with that too. Yeah. I was going through my state cases.

And everyone looks at you crazy when you say you want to go to trial. Yeah. That's a very real thing. Yeah. Because I guess it's just not the norm. It's not the norm, especially in Connecticut. I mean, we try some very small percentage of cases in state court. It's a tremendous amount of work.

I think in the past, people tried a lot more cases. The lawyers were a lot more experience. It's harder. I mean, I know lawyers now that are well into their career who've never tried a case. And that's like the, that's what we do. That's the ultimate form of what we do is trial work. And if you don't do trial work, I don't know how you. how you how you defend a case the right way how do you know how are you prepared to defend a case if you don't know what it looks like in the end yeah you know and something i realized on the state level is i actually got called the jury duty last year

or earlier this year which was interesting because i'm i'm a felon this and that and i made it like a long but then on the last day they said um they they took a deal or whatever it got the case got concluded oh cool so i can imagine there's so many other cases like that because you don't really hear too many trials in Connecticut. And when they are, it's a big thing like the Michelle Chaconis case. Right. And cases like that, then that News Times is covering it heavily. It's usually the high stakes cases that are going to go to trial because, you know, if it's, hey, plead out and take 50 or roll the dice at a trial, many more people are going to go to a trial. If it's a case, hey, take two years, you're going to do 50 percent of it. You've been held on bond for the past four months. You're almost there. Why are you going to risk a trial, risk maybe 15, 20 years, but some people do.

Yeah. Some people do. A lot of the times, though, like you said, the case, did you get picked on a criminal case or a civil case? It was a criminal one. Okay. And you got seated as a juror? No. So the first, I got called for two days.

I figured I was going to be disqualified right off the bat. Otherwise, I probably would have just said, hey, I have vacation or something. But I was so curious about the process because I sat through the same thing on the defendant's side. Right. So this was a woman in Newtown who was a state's employee that allegedly stole from the government or whatever. Okay. So I was making it.

They didn't pick anyone the first day. And then the second day I was like the last to be called. And then they said the case has been resolved. Okay. But I was just curious what it's like on the courtroom behind closed doors with the judge and the jury and this and that. Yeah. It's cool to see both sides. Sure.

Because I'm in a unique position where I got to see both sides. Yeah. And the differences, I realize there's a way more, the jury process is a lot longer. jury selection in the state versus federal. For federal, we did it in two or three hours. Most states are like that. So they do jury selection in a box where you put a bunch of people in, you know, who thinks cops are more likely to tell the truth. Can I see her showing your hands? Connecticut, we have what's called individual voir dire, which is from a defense perspective, it's a beautiful thing. It is more time consuming, but I love it. People come out one at a time.

Tell me a little bit about yourself. You really get a one-on-one with this person. Sometimes you can spend 40 minutes with one person and then kick them off at the end. Yeah, I think that's great. I mean, that's how is happening in the Trump trial. It took a few days for them to see the jury or a week or whatever. And in my case, the process was so quick. Right, right. And you're going to, the more time, obviously, you spend with a potential juror,

you're going to get to know them better and you're really going to get to float as a defense attorney. You're going to float your theory of the case a little bit. Yeah. So I recently did a self-defense case. And so every juror is like, hey, if the judge gave you an individual, instruction about self-defense here, like wink, wink, could you follow that? And it's an it's an opportunity to kind of plant some seeds in their head. So I love individual voir dire,

but it's also probably, in my opinion, part of the reason why they don't try a lot of cases in Connecticut. Now, I ask all the attorneys that come on the show, do you think that the people that are like jury experts are actually legitimate where they come in and they sit and they can predict if this juror is going to convict you or not? I don't know. I guess it depends on their background. I mean, some people have, you know, can feel that stuff out. They can sense these things. I personally think a lawyer who's picked a bunch of juries, tried a bunch of jury cases is going to have a better feel for that. But sure, if you have unlimited money to spend and you want to get an expert opinion, I'm sure they, if that's all they do, I'm sure they could shed some light on

things and share some details that the lawyer might not know or anybody else might not know. Now, on the flip side of that, that's a great point about the money aspect. Do you think a jury's turned off by someone that's sitting around with like 10 lawyers and a jury expert or anything like that. Does that look like you're guilty if you're doing all of that? You know, you make me think that there's a Chris Rock quote. It's like you can't hire Johnny Cochran. You're going to look guilty. He's like, yeah, but you're going home. So I think, yeah, a jury can get turned off if there's a lot of fanfare around a defendant, something like that. But again, if you're spending all the money to have a really rock-soled,

solid legal team, I think that's going to translate in how the evidence comes out at trial. So I would not hesitate. If I had unlimited money, I was on trial, yeah, I'd bring on the team. Yeah, I think that looking, reflecting on my case, that hurt our defense because it's literally just me and John on one side. And then you have FBI agents, IRS agents, case agents, three prosecutors. Right. It's so much.

How can you win against that? How can you go up against that? You have to play that card. So again, when we're picking a jury at the beginning, the prosecutor comes out and they're like, I work with these 10 inspectors, police officers. You're going to hear from our lab, all these other lawyers. And I come up and I say, hey, my name's Mike Riley. I'm a one-man show. I'm here to defend so-and-so.

So I do like to set myself up as the underdog. Everybody loves an underdog. So I think there's something to be said about playing that angle a little bit. But yeah, we're always outgunned. Always outgunned. They have unlimited resources, unlimited cops, scientists. you know, you name it, they have it. When you're at that trial and you're doing like that opening argument or closing argument,

does it feel like you're on stage, like, in theater and like your adrenaline's going up and you're just like putting on like the show of the lifetime right then and there? Yeah, for sure. Like a closing argument, like the morning I wake up for a closing argument, it's like I'm just pumping with adrenaline the whole time. And it's almost like, let me let me out of the cage. Like, let's do this. I'm ready to do it.

I'm prepared to do it. I know what I'm going to say. Yeah, and then you get up there and sometimes it's it just flows, right? Once you get up there, all the nervousness goes away and it's almost like you're watching yourself perform. I interviewed a former Las Vegas police sergeant a couple weeks ago, and he was explaining how he would be on these crime scenes for horrific cases. And right after like the end of the crime scene, that's the next call you're on to the next one. Is that how it is when you're on trial and there's a verdict?

And right away, it's like it's on to the next case and you don't really have time to process emotions in that? In my experience, no. I know that there are lawyers that, especially public defenders where it's like, you're done, move on to the next. You're done. You're on to the next. For me personally, it does take a big emotional toll on me to try a case, especially a high stakes case. Like, hey, this guy's life is on the line. Like, I need to perform to the best of my ability because if I screw something up,

somebody else is going to suffer. So I put a lot into it. So kind of at the end, I do, I take some time off from work. I try and spend some time in the woods. Just try and, you know, come back down to earth. Because it does take you for a ride. That's awesome. And an interesting perspective because, like, from my point of view, from the defendant's

point of view, it's like, the defendant has, like, all his weight on a shoulder when you're proven guilty. And, like, you're faced with the uncertainty. And for the attorney, it's like, they're not necessarily affected physically by it in the sense where they are facing prison or they're facing whatever. They are moving on with your life and you're kind of just stuck there. Right. I mean, I tell clients sometimes, let's say I have a client who says, I'm going to trial. I'm going all the way.

I'm like, uh, maybe not on this case. Okay. There's a tremendous amount of evidence against you. And I say, I say, listen, I will do everything I can for you. I'm going to go home at the end of the day. But it doesn't mean I'm going to feel good when I go. home, you know. And maybe that's just me. I put a lot of myself into it. It takes a toll on me. And I think that angle is not really, you know, put out on TV shows and stuff. They never

show the perspective necessarily of how the lawyer feels after a win or a loss. It's always like the criminal defendant or what happens next to that person. You don't see kind of the aftermath and the effects if you say you lose a murder case or something and this guy's going to prison for the rest of his life. Yeah. Yeah. I think there's a lot of that, you know, could I've done something differently? Like, you know, what could have happened differently that would have gotten a different

result? And I've also had, you know, I've won a murder case and I've won a couple murder cases. And the end of those is also like, ah, like, you're overwhelmed. Like, you don't know what to do. It's, yeah. I mean, the first time I ever got a not guilty on a murder case, a guy was charged with several counts. He was facing 270 years.

Holy cow. And the jury deliberated for like six days. It was a close call. And they come out and they're going, not guilty, not guilty. And I'm sitting there like, wow. And my face started twitching. And I didn't. It was like sticking your finger in electric socket.

Do you remember if they were looking at the defendant or looking at the prosecution or where they were looking when they were coming out? Because John said something interesting about how if they're looking at you, it's not guilty. if they're looking somewhere else head down, then it's a guilty verdict. So there's a lot of these efforts to kind of read the tea leaves of the jury. I've heard that, right? Oh, if they're not looking at your guy, it's going to be bad. Or if they're deliberating for more than a day or two, it's good for the defense.

Or when they, you know, jurors will come out with maybe you experience this and ask questions or ask to hear testimony played back. And of course, you're trying to read them because they're deliberating. You've done your work. You know, I've thought I had it figured out before. This one's not guilty. This one's guilty. Okay.

And you never know. You know, in my case, they came out after like two days and they said we can't reach a verdict. Oh, wow. But I guess, I don't know if it's like this in state court, but the judge was required by law to urge them to go back and give it another go. Yeah. Is that in state court too? Yeah, they send them back in. They're like, why don't you continue to think about this?

I've seen that the case I just talked about, I think twice they came out and said they couldn't reach a verdict. And the judge was like, no, go back, go back, go back. Isn't that unfair? Like, I was at, I don't know. I feel like they're kind of pressured because you have a judge, a public, one of the highest regarded officials in the United States telling you you have to go figure this out. Yeah. Well, it's better than it was. So the old instruction had something.

And I mean, don't quote me on this, but it was something along the line. of go back in to deliberate and those of you who are holding out ask yourself is the doubt that you see really a reasonable doubt like basically like convict the guy already you know which is pretty bad pretty bad so it's a lot more neutral now they say go back in deliberate more they want to push them in because these things aren't easy it's not easy to come back and acquit somebody right especially if it's a homicide case you have a dead body you know that that group of people sitting in the back that's sobbing and crying throughout the trials, the victim's family. Let's say it's self-defense, right?

Let's say there's an argument for self-defense. That's heavy to come out and say, yeah, your loved one who died, you know, it was justified. Based on their conduct, it was justified. That's heavy. So I do think it's important for a judge to push them back when they just try and come on. Be like, you know. Now, in today's world, specifically with murder cases, do you think it's even possible, for someone to get a just trial where, like, in my mind, and this is someone that's went

through the criminal justice system, if someone's charged with murder, you know, with DNA evidence and all of this, they must have the right guy. It's not like it was years ago where there could be room for error or whatnot. Do you think that gives the defendant a hard time in trial and the odds are kind of stacked against you? I mean, I've never seen the same case twice. So I have seen cases that have the gunshot residue, the cell phone towers, the DNA, caught at the scene, you know, eyewitnesses, everybody, especially in the city has, you know, home surveillance system, like a ring camera or something like that. So those police are, you know, getting tons of evidence from those. So I've seen those cases and it's like, oh, this is not going to be

a great one. But a lot of times it's, you're going to trial because, okay, you're charged with Maybe this person did kill this person. Maybe it's on video. Maybe they have the DNA, but maybe this isn't what it looks like. So in Connecticut, murders, you could get 60 years in jail for a murder. Manslaughter, this is kind of crazy. Manslaughter with a firearm, you could get 40. Manslaughter with a knife is only worth 20.

Okay? So I had a guy who's charged with murder, and we couldn't work it out. It was on video. Okay, it's not a who done it. And we couldn't work it out. The guy was willing to take something. They were, no, this is a murder, blah, blah, blah. And there was a lot of evidence to suggest it was self-defense.

If not self-defense, maybe it was a manslaughter. And we went to trial, and a jury said he's not guilty of murder, but he is guilty of manslaughter with a knife. So he ended up getting 16 when he was, you know, his pretrial offer was somewhere around 30. So you go to trial, you lose, but you kind of won, too. I mean, again, this is easier for me to say, not the guy doing 16 years, but still, hell of a lot better outcome than it could have been.

Yeah, now, are you seeing cases where the guys caught red-handed, but the prosecution doesn't want to give a plea deal because they want to just take it to trial and go all the way? And then also on the flip side, they want to give a plea deal just so they don't have to put the time and energy into that, too. I mean, there will always be an offer to take a deal, like, okay, instead of trial, you could take this. But when there's a dead body involved, those numbers are huge. And people can't really wrap their heads around it. You know, even if you're young, even if you're 20, you know, I once had a guy who's like 18 who was facing a murder charge and they made him an offer. And I was like, hey, man, like, you know, if everything goes well, if you took this, you'd be like my age when you get out.

Like this is like, I thought I was like kind of look on the bright side. And I was in my late 30s at the time. He started crying. And I was like, oh, shit. Like that's not what he wanted to hear. Are you seeing a lot of younger people being charged with murder in Connecticut or violent crimes? Or is it old? What's a demographic?

I mean, there's, again, I've never seen the same case twice, but there are a lot of these kind of street cases where there's shootings and stuff like that. A lot of times those are younger guys who are getting charged with those crimes. But, you know, I've seen older people, people in their 40s, 50s, charged with murder. But a lot of those street cases, the shooting cases, the drive-by, stuff like that. They tend to be young. What's a common factor among all of those cases? Does it have to do with like joining a gang at a young age or is it, you know, a domestic violence dispute? What's like the main reoccurring theme?

I mean, I see sometimes it's like, you know, everybody wants to talk about ops or like these street feuds or these are my enemies and then people will antagonize each other on social media. And then it's just kind of like escalates and let's see who could. be the most reckless and then somebody dies. And they're sad cases. They're really sad cases because oftentimes you have a victim who's very young and now you have somebody else who's very young who's in a lot of trouble. No, we were just talking about how cases might not seem what they look like on the outside. What's your opinion on the Idaho murder case? Because I see what they're putting out there as a defense. The stargazing? Yeah, that and the driving around. But in my eyes, from an outsider's perspective, it seems like the guy did it.

And, you know, I don't know if that's fair to say or not, but just they don't have any other suspects. They have the FBI, all of these agencies on it. And the guy was in the area with the cell phone tower. Like, how accurate is all that information? You never know, right? And so I always say, like, clients sometimes they'll get arrested in the newspaper, write about it, and they'll call me and say, the newspaper's saying, this is not accurate. I say, okay, the newspaper's job is not always to get it right.

sometimes their job is to sell newspapers, right? So I don't know. I agree with you. What I do know about the case, and I don't know a ton about it. There does seem to be compelling evidence. I mean, if the alibi I was, if the alibi is I was stargazing by myself,

I don't think that's a very good argument because who's going to corroborate that? Who's going to back that up? You know, I have a self-serving defense, and there's no other witnesses to support it. But you never know, like, I always think a lot about the O.J. Simpson trial. I don't know if you're familiar with that.

Funny you brought that up because my friend Johnny Mitchell has a podcast. Huge. Over a million subscribers on YouTube. And he just interviewed an investigator who's claiming that there was an accomplice, a second killer. So I'm interested to hear your perspective on the OJ case. I think it's a fascinating case. I remember when it happened and it's like overwhelming evidence, right? oh, like who else would have been?

There's the history of domestic violence. There's the glove. There's the blood everywhere. It's like, how did they beat that case? How did they beat that case? No one going into that trial thought the defense was going to pull that off. And what they did is they found a problem in the case. They found this one detective, Mark Furman, who had all of these credibility issues.

And then said all the evidence came through this one guy. So made him the trunk of the tree and then go chop him down and the whole case falls with it. So you never know. You never know. There could be some fatal error in that case that could explain it away. I mean, I've seen good defense lawyers work wonders and do magic in certain cases. Do you think law enforcement has learned from the OJ case where they're not putting all their eggs on one detective like that? Are there precautions?

Because I've never seen that side of the law enforcement field. I mean, you'd think some would, but, you know, I recently was doing some research on this Karen Reed case. I don't know if you're familiar with this. It's pending in Boston, this police officer who got run over, and they've accused his girlfriend of running him over. And the police officer, the lead detective there, they got his text messages, and he's allegedly saying that he hopes she kills herself. He's trying to find nudes in her phone. And now it's the same thing, right? So now that's your lead detective.

So he's shown bias, said these kind of nasty things about the defendant. And now all the evidence comes through him. So you're going to say, you can't trust this. Basically, everything is tinted by him, you know? And so if you could do that, you can pull something off. And you could do it with a witness too. I once did a case and there was a witness who said she saw my guy shooting. I knew it was him.

I grew up with him. It was definitely him. And so we, you know, we nailed her down at trial. This is where he was. There were no shell casings within 150 feet of where she said he was. So it's like, boom, she's lying. And the other witness had read her testimony and then came in and testified. So you tie him to her.

She's lying. Boom. Not guilty. Wow. Yeah. So, Mike, you're from Connecticut. You grew up in Connecticut? I grew up in Thomaston, Connecticut.

Thomas. How far is that from here? Probably about 45 minutes. Was your family attorneys, too? What inspired you to get into it? It's just always, no. My grandfather was. My mother's father was a lawyer and then he was a judge.

He died before I was born. I've always wanted to fight for the underdog. I've always been indignant and gotten fired up about things that I didn't think were right. I remember being a little kid. And I remember my mother saying to me like, oh, when you grow up, you're going to help poor people when they get accused of crimes. And I was like, no, I'm not. Like, I'm not doing it. And it's like, oh, it ended up happening.

Yeah, you ended up becoming a public defender. Yeah. So I got out of law school and I wanted my own case law. I wanted to try cases. So I applied to two jobs, the Air Force and the Public Defender's Office. And I was not cut out for the Air Force. So I went to the Public Defender's Office. And I was there for seven years.

Did you try boot camp? or you didn't even get that far? No, no, it would not have worked out. It would not have worked out. What's something that you learned in the public defender's office that carried over to the private side of law? Everything I learned in the public defender's office carried over. You learn that you really need to get to know your clients,

that your clients matter, that it's about your clients, it's not about you. I learned that the lawyers that are in this business because they're passionate about the work are going to get better results than the lawyers that are in this business to make money, because if that's your goal, it's going to translate in the work that you do.

I learned how to try a case. I learned from a lot of really great lawyers. I got to have an office in the courthouse, I had an office in the courthouse, so I would get to go watch trials. I learned the whole process from soup to nuts. I did all the arraiments. You learned all the different programs.

And then what's really important is you meet everybody. You meet all the problems. prosecutors, the judges, the other defense lawyers, the marshals, the bail commissioners, the probation officers. And now 17 years later, there's not a courthouse in the state I can't go to where I don't have a friend, which is great. That's very valuable. Yeah. I've noticed that with my attorney, he knew all the marshals, he knew the judges, he knew the prosecutors. It's huge. Yeah. The connections. Like, I couldn't imagine being a new attorney and not having those going up against a seasoned attorney that has all of that and knows a judge and everything. It's a different disadvantage.

Oh, yeah. And if they don't know you, they do treat you differently. So when I left the public defender's office, I just said, okay, I work for myself now. So I quit and I showed up to the same courthouse the next day just with business cards. It was like, okay, I work for myself. You can hire me. And then I, you know, it picked up pretty quickly, but I'd start getting hired at courthouses I'd never been to. And you go to some of them and they're like, who are you? Like, they just make the worst assumptions about you. And you kind of have to prove otherwise. So my approach is always be. sweet and stupid when you go to a new courthouse. Like, I'm sorry. My fault. Oh, I'm standing in the wrong place. You know, whatever. Now, on that topic, how do you feel about prosecutors that go into private practice and become criminal defense attorneys? Do you think that gives defendants an advantage?

Because I see a lot of these big New York City attorneys for federal and state cases are former prosecutors. Yeah. I think about this sometimes. It's interesting to me because when you got in. to the business, you went into the business of locking people up, right? So you got a law degree and then you wanted to be a prosecutor. I guess it just, I raised an eyebrow like, now you want to help people out. You want to help people out of jail? I thought you want to put people in jail.

Not to say that the connections don't matter. And I know, especially like federal prosecutors, they know that system inside and out. And so some federal prosecutors charge a fortune now that they're in private practice. I've seen a few state prosecutors do it. Not many. Most people, nowadays, public defenders and prosecutors, they get in the system, they're happy to have their salary, their pension, and they don't ever leave. Yeah, I mean, I feel like having a federal prosecutor as your criminal defense attorney is a huge advantage, especially in federal court, and to cut any deals with former colleagues or anything like that. If you're, yeah, I think yes and no. I think yes and no, I, if it's up to me and I'm choosing between a former federal prosecutor

who's now a defense attorney and some bulldog who's been in the trench, is fighting since day one, who's a proven trial lawyer, who I know knows what he or she is doing, I'm going with that one. Yeah, it depends on the situation, I guess. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Because I would rather have the bulldog then because you don't know what the other guy could just be in it for the money, too. Right, right.

Do you feel like a lot of attorneys are in it for the money that do that switch like that? I would just say are a lot of attorneys in it for the money, yes. I think they are in it for the money. I think they are in it for the money. And again, like I said earlier, I think it shows in the quality of the work that they do. If your priority is making money not helping people out who are charged with crimes, you're going to see it. You're going to because you're not going to care. Criminal case, you're generally getting paid up front, right?

So, cool, I made my money. Now this case is just a liability, right? Unless I care about the work, now I got to get rid of this case. I already got paid. I just got to get rid of this case. That's a great topic because in my business and stuff, I normally have clients pay for the most part afterwards, and that keeps you motivated to do the job, perfect it. But in the legal system, everything's retainer this, retainer this, upfront.

Right. I wonder what would happen if that was flipped and you had to earn that money. And like you got paid afterwards after it, like put in escrow or something. Like you don't get that money until the job's completed. It would be interesting. I mean, there's a saying criminal defense work, private criminal defense work, like, get your money up front because you're not going to get it otherwise. Yeah, I get that aspect too.

Yeah, yeah. But it's just so, like I remember for my state cases, five grand up front. Yeah. And then I'm just another person on the list. And that sucks when you have these lawyers that are charging cheaper because that was a fair deal to handle two misdemeanors. Yeah. But they have 100 cases. Right.

At one time, they're going to court with a giant stack of documents. Yeah. And just they sit there all day and then they just switch out whoever's next. Yeah. I think this is a very valuable lesson I learned in the public. office. I wake up every morning I go to court. Some days I have more cases. Some days I have less cases. My caseload will never touch what it was as a public defender. I remember, I think my record as a public defender was 27 clients in a day, which is insane, right? But I've heard private

lawyers say, ah, I'm not going to say who, but I got this case a year ago. I've been to court 12 times. Like, I need to get rid of this because I'm averaging out what I got paid and how much time I put on and it doesn't make sense. I think that that's a really stupid way to look at it. You get up every morning, you go to court, you charge what you charge. Sometimes, wow, I should have charged a lot more than I did. And other times, well, you know, this ended up... Tires matter. They're the only part of your vehicle that touches the road. Tread confidently with new tires from Tire Rack. Whether you're looking for expert recommendations or know exactly what you want, Tire Rack makes it easy. Fast, free shipping, free road hazard protection, convenient installation options, and the best selection of Kumo Tires. Go to

Tyraq.com to see their Kumo test results, tire ratings, and reviews, and be sure to check out all the special offers. Tyraq.com, the way tire buying should be. Getting a lot sooner than I thought it would. Do you think that there is a talent that is needed for a trial attorney? Because if you have multiple cases going on, there's memory, there's what you're going to say, there's case law and all that. I feel like I was talking to someone recently, they said kind of podcasting is a talent. And for me, it's like kind of natural now that I'm a customer. to it. Is it like that in your field of work?

100%. I think so. You see some lawyers, and they tend to be the ones that try more cases, in part because they want to try cases. They come alive in the courtroom. They thrive in the courtroom. They're meant to do it. You see other ones that they can do it. Maybe they have their notes that they're going back to. They're nervous. There's some that are just cut out for this type of work, and it is not for everybody. This type of work is definitely not for everybody, but those of us that do gravitate towards it, I mean, there's some that are definitely naturals. Now, in the public defender's office, is it more widespread where, say, you have one type of criminal case, like a sexual assault versus a murder? Does that go to the same public

defender or are there different categories? So in Connecticut, we have the state courts, the state criminal courts are split into part A and part B. So part B, well, part A is homicides, bank robbery, sex assaults, you know, burglary, home invasion type things, like the more serious stuff. Everything else goes to part B or they call it the GA. Somewhere like D.M. Berry, they're combined in one courthouse. So, yeah, so if you're in part B or in GA, you're going to see domestics. You're going to see DUIs.

You're going to see larcenies, drug cases. maybe low-level street robbery, stuff like that. And then in Part A, in the High Court, you're going to do the whole gambit there, murders, robberies, everything. Now, when you're in law school, are they teaching you everything widespread? Are you focusing on one specific field if you know you're going into criminal law? So I knew I was going into criminal law. So there's a lot of electives in law school. And I gravitated towards the ones that were criminal law, criminal procedure, evidentiary, you know, classes on the evidence code.

But what law school really, I think, what law school is really about is learning how to spot issues. So here's your overview of contracts. Here's your overview of torts. So you could go in when you get a case and be like, especially in a criminal case. Wait a second. The police just rolled up and stopped him for no reason and searched his car. That's something. So you spot the issue.

Then you go do your legal research and follow up on it. That's a lot of what defense work is, spotting issues. Do you feel like there's a lot of attorneys that make it, through law school and Excel because they're text book savvy. They're great with that. But then when it comes to the actual courtroom law school might not prepare you for that aspect, the real life experience. Absolutely.

Like I think that, again, the best trialers that I see are usually people that have lived lives that are a little bit unorthodox, right? You need to be a little bit, I don't want to say off, but you need to be thinking outside the box to want to be a criminal defense lawyer in the first place. but the ones that are just academics that kind of want to work in a vacuum, I don't know that that's going to translate as well, at least not in the work that I do, which is kind of like a brawl, right?

I mean, you have these crazy cases, witnesses from all different walks of life. You need to be able to talk to different people. You need to be able to communicate with a judge, a juror, a guy who's, you know, grew up in poverty and, you know, maybe is homeless. You need to be able to deal with all these people. and not everybody's cut out for that. Yeah, I mean, suits is a great example. Have you seen suits though?

I didn't watch it. So there's a couple attorneys in there where they're great in, you know, top of Harvard, this and that. But when it comes to an actual trial or in the courtroom, they can't handle themselves. And I wonder how many people, defendants have been kind of hurt by that because I'm sure that happens in real life. That's based on something. Yeah, no, it definitely does happen in real life. Yeah. it's not always the best law schools

that put out the best trial lawyers at least in my experience. Well, I mean, you didn't necessarily go to Harvard, Richard, who we were just talking to? Like, do you need, is that degree matter in today's world? Maybe it did years ago,

but does a Harvard degree matter to win cases? To win cases, no, because the jury doesn't know, right? For me, I applied to one law school in Rhode Island, where I was living at the time.

I didn't think there was a chance in hell that they let me in. I couldn't believe they let me in, but it unlocked this career for me, which is always what I felt like I was supposed to do. So, yeah, it was not a top-tier law school at all, but I think I do good work in the courtroom. Could there be somebody who goes to Harvard law and comes out and is a beast of a trial lawyer? Absolutely. I'm not trying to say that they couldn't, but just because you went to a top-tier law school,

that does not mean you're going to be a great trial lawyer. Yeah, and I think just the real-life experience is so important. I never went to college and I gained so much experience on business and everything just through what I went through. Sure. Like now I conduct things so much differently because I learned and you learned through failing. I mean, I wouldn't want anyone to go to prison to have to learn. But I just learned so many real life skills about everything. Yeah, and that's the best way to learn.

And you learn from falling down and getting back up, right? And then so as a defense lawyer, you see people who are maybe bottoming out. They're at their lowest. They've gone through some stuff. And if you could relate to that a little bit, if you say, you know, maybe I'm not in their situation, right? Maybe I've been more fortunate than this person. But I know what it feels like to be down and out. That's a tremendous perspective.

And you're going to fight for that person more than if you've kind of been in this ivory tower your whole life. Something that I realized from my perspective, and I got lucky in my situation where John was the first attorney I called and it was a click. Like it was great, perfect. I didn't go through the list. Yeah. Right off the back. But I'm wondering, should defendants be treating their attorneys more like a therapist where they're interviewing others kind of finding the right match rather than call the first one on Google? Because I know it after meeting other attorneys and seeing what goes on in the criminal justice system, a lot of attorneys wouldn't have taken my case to trial or wanted to do it.

But John was gun ho and he was firing me up and it was me and him in the trenches battling it out every day, like working all the time. I don't know if I would have gotten that with some of the others that are in that city in New Haven doing that kind of work. I don't know seeing how things have played out. Yeah. I mean, to answer your question, I think, yeah, you need to talk to multiple lawyers. You were very lucky, right? You're very lucky. You picked up the phone.

You called the right guy. I encourage people, even when they call me, right? And their tire kicking, we say. They're calling, what would you charge me? The question I always get is, well, if I hire you, what can you guarantee me? And there's only, the only honest answer a lawyer could give, I'll work hard, and I'll be honest with you, right? But you should ask people who've hired this lawyer if you know anybody who's used a lawyer. Even if like, let's say you need a criminal lawyer and you only know a real estate lawyer that you trust, call the real estate lawyer.

What criminal lawyer do you trust and call a few of them, ask them all, what can you promise me? And the ones that are saying, oh, if you hire me, you're definitely not going to go to jail. I'm out of favor, whatever. those ones are lying to you and like run away from them. How do you feel about this modern world of attorneys that are now like the social media attorneys where they're not, I don't even know if they're actually practicing law legitimately. They're just they're making content now where it's they're putting out this is what you do when you get pulled over this and that and they're becoming famous.

I'm sure they're making money off of it. Right. But that's a whole new world of law that's the world hasn't really experienced before. It's, so I'm doing it myself, right? I started a YouTube channel and. The plug of the name of it too. So people. Riley law.

Lab is the YouTube channel. I just started it this year. I'm having a lot of fun with it. One thing is you got to be a little careful, right? You don't want to give people legal advice on YouTube and they say, well, Mike Riley said in his video this, so you have to be careful how deep you go. In terms of like the lawyer influencers or social media people, I think some have credibility and some don't. Like did you do the work? Were you a trial lawyer? Did you take cases from arraignment all the way through trial? If you did, if you actually, you actually, you did, if you actually did the work, sure, I'll listen to you, right? Because you actually have the perspective. There's too many of them out there that are like, well, I went to law school and I practiced for

six months doing motions or something like, okay, cool, you're a lawyer. You can go on YouTube, say you're a lawyer, but you don't really have any practical experience, you know? So I want to hear from the people that actually know what they're talking about. No, I don't think technology will ever phase out like the criminal defense attorney because I've seen people that have represented themselves and never necessarily goes well. And you can read all the briefs you want in prison or books or whatever, it's just not the same as hiring, say, a you. Right. But what I have found is, like, simple contracts that you would pay hundreds of dollars for on

legal Zoom or an attorney, like when I needed contracts drafted up, I'd get a two or three thousand dollar bill when I was a kid. Right. Now you go on, I needed a, like a license agreement or an agreement for a release form or anything. I go on chat GPT for 20 bucks a month. Yeah. And then that thing's perfect.

And I'm also, after everything I've been through, I believe in a contract is only as good as the person signing it too. Because someone will find a way out of a contract. Sure. I feel like your word's a part of it. So do you think that that is phasing out a lot of attorneys' work in today's world because of AI and because of technology? I think that AI is going to help lawyers more than it hurts lawyers. I think that AI is going to help lawyers streamline some of the processes, like, hey, write me a brief, tell me about the law. this stuff. Sure, like simple contract, stuff like that, you could, I mean, there is a certain

there's a little bit of a gamble because let's say you have chatGBT, write your contract, and it goes horribly wrong, the thing falls apart, you get screwed for all this money, you go to court, the judge is like, are you kidding me, this? You have no remedy, right? As opposed to if I wrote your contract, which I never would, because I would never do contracts, but if I wrote your contract and screwed the whole thing up, you could turn around and be like, you, Mike Riley, like, I'm suing you now because you cost me all this money. So there's no accountability with the chat GPT. True.

And then, you know, back to trial work, I'm not worried about it at all. Yeah, I don't think it would ever replace that because you need that physical person. Right. I have, when I was in prison, I saw a ton of guys writing the legal documents all day, like the jailhouse attorneys. Yeah, what is your opinion on jailhouse attorneys? I mean, I'm all for people being proactive, right? If you're in jail, like, what else? you're going to do, right? I would do the same thing. I would spend time. What frustrates me

is when I have a client, I'm like, okay, this is what we're going to do, this is the best motion. Then they go to jail and they come back a month later and some very persuasive jailhouse lawyer was like, nah, dude, like your lawyer's crazy. They have no jurisdiction over you or whatever. File this secret motion and the judge is going to like turn red and drop your case. And sometimes my clients have been hijacked by people like that. And it's real, it's like, no. It's like, no. No, dude, like this is not the way it is. This is not what we're doing. And I think clients like file stuff on their own.

I mean, this happened more when I was a public defender than it did now, than it does now. It can be annoying. Yeah. And I also, from my perspective, I feel like it's worth paying the attorney 500 bucks to file you an emotion or whatever the prices. Like I hired John just to get my passport back where he literally wrote a one statement, charged me X amount of dollars, which I could have done myself. But just to have him taken care of it. Sure. It was a simple approved.

Here's your passport back. Streamline the process. Yeah. But I've seen in prison guys are sitting there paying, you know, a couple hundred bucks to jailhouse lawyers who have done stuff in completely different states. So it's very different. Oh, interesting. I didn't know that they were making money on.

Oh, they're all charging. You don't get a jailhouse lawyer for free unless he believes in your case. Wow. I mean, it's cheap, you know. It's maybe a hundred bucks rather than paying an attorney a thousand. Yeah. And here's the problem. What happens is the jailhouse lawyer gets lucky.

once and get someone off for something that might have been so obvious. So word goes around. He's the guy to help you. The guys that just got sentenced to 20 years, fire their attorney, and they're now meeting with this guy. Yeah. I mean, I don't want to, I will say I have seen some people from jail like do incredible things, like some bright minds in the law library so I don't want to knock it.

Yeah. Have you seen that 50 cent show for life? I have not. About Aaron, something in New York. He got like life in prison. he became a lawyer in prison and then got his case overturned. Wow. You should check that out.

That was an incredible show. Yeah. Yeah, that was really interesting. I saw it last year. There was only a few seasons of it and whatnot. Do you go into a lot of prisons to meet with clients? Yeah. Yeah, for sure.

In the state? Yeah. Do you ever walk in there and you're like, this is, you know, just wild, like, outrageous. It's just like the facility itself. You know what bothers me about them is they remind me of, like, my grammar school. because it's the same like municipal construction. So it's like kind of built the same way as a school, but obviously very different.

I don't like going. I mean, it's part of the job. I do go, especially if we're preparing for a trial, the clients want to be involved. And I want the clients involved, right? Two heads are better than one. So I spend a lot of time in there. But there's bad vibes in a jail.

You know, it's not a fun place to go. What's your opinion on defendants who are on bail in trial versus in prison and on trial. Is there a direct disadvantage with that? So the saying is you've probably heard this. It's easier to fight a case from the outside. And it's true. It's absolutely true.

Because I could say, hey, come to my office. Or I could call the client. What about this? They could call me. They can, you know, hey, I found that, you know, I heard from that witness that we couldn't find. They called me, stuff like that. The client could be more involved.

So, yeah, it is easier to fight a case. from the outside. But nowadays, especially on the big bond cases, like, I had, past couple years, I had two guys bond out on murders, and they slap a bracelet on them. They're not allowed to leave the house. They can't come to my office. They go to, like, doctor's

office, lawyer's office, and church. So they can come to your office? They can come to my office. But, like, they're being tracked the whole time, and I'm like, just come straight here. Do not, like, stop at Burger King on the way home. Like, do not do anything crazy. Yeah. I mean, when I got my bond revoked after,

trial, like a month before sentencing, I saw the reality of the system, all of these guys in the detention. I was at Wyatt and Rhode Island and all of these guys just trying to fight their case from there, trying to get a hold of their attorneys, trying to, it's near impossible. And then you look at all these people, this is where the state system, I believe, fails because it's based on money, where in the feds, it's not money based. So when you look at that, it's like, wow, there's all these individuals who are locked up, not because they're a violent offender or a flight risk. They literally didn't have the money to pay. Yeah.

And it's not fair. In the state of Connecticut, at least, I imagine this is happening everywhere. Are you talking about the bail and bond system? Yeah, the bail and bond in the state system because in the feds, they just look at it as, are you a flight risk? Are you a danger to the community? You're detained. You're not.

Yeah. I mean, that's more fair, right? So if I'm a millionaire and I go kill a bunch of people and I'm like, sweet, I'm out. Like, how is that fair to the guy who shoplifts and has no resources and sits in jail? Like, how is that fair? It's the people who have the money have an advantage. So they are slowly starting to make changes to the bail system. They're making efforts to phase out bondsmen or bonds people.

So now you could post more bonds at the state courthouse and get out. that way, but there needs to be a more equitable way of doing it. But then when you have the rich people whose kid gets a DUI and the judge is like, nope, you're in jail. My grandmother slept on a futon her whole life. Lived to 96, walked every day. I thought that wisdom was lost. Then I found air weave.

The Japanese futon reimagined. Extra firm support that honors tradition, but answers to science. My mornings feel different now. It's like I'm connected to something that understands my body and lets me customize its features. AirWeave is where ancient wisdom meets state-of-the-art technology. Discover more at airweave.com. And they have all the resources.

They're going to go nuts. Yeah, I mean, I look at the Fotis-Dulose case in Connecticut. He's a guy that, you know, accused of murdering his wife or ex-wife, and he got Bond. And then when they arrested him for the murder charge, he got Bond again. And there's so many people in prison for the same charge or a lesser charge. in the state that can't get out. How do you say that's fair? Sex offenders are a great example.

I read the news every day. I hate the news times, but I read the news times because that's like the main source of information. There's so many cases I see go through Danbury Court where they're getting two years or three years for a sexual assault case. Yeah. And I'm looking at it.

I got three years in federal prison. I know. And these guys are getting 18 months, 20 months. It's insane. It's, I, people come to me with these arguments. They're like, you know, or I saw a guy, you know, in a, I'm in Bridgeport. I saw a guy in Hartford. He had the same case as me.

He got a, you know, way more than me or way less than me. I'm like, I'm not here to defend the system. Like, I don't defend the system. It's got plenty of problems. Even if you go, like, one corner of the state to the other, in this state, small state. What are we the third smallest state in the country? Is it? It's pretty small.

Yeah. You find, like, huge disparities in the way they treat cases. depending on who your judge is, like depending on who the prosecutor is, depending on who called out sick that day. It's like there's so much luck in randomness that goes into it. But what's the alternative? Like a menu, like if you get caught with a gun, you do one year. If you get, there has to be that room for a judge to consider who the person is, the circumstances of the crime. You know, things like that, which creates the flexibility, but the flexibility then creates, you know, inbound.

Yeah, and we brought it up earlier, the Michelle Traconis case. I've just been fascinated with that case from the get-go and a lot of Connecticut has. Were you surprised by the verdict? I was talking to John about it. He was a little surprised in the federal attorney group in Connecticut. Just, you know, they thought that it was a hard case to kind of convict on. I thought it was, I felt like she was almost a sacrificial lamb at first, right, before I kind of dove into it. And then I did dive into it a little bit.

I went through the warrant and watched some of the videos. The problem was, and there's a lesson to be learned here, don't talk to the cops when they ask you to come in. Because she kept going in and talking, and her story kept changing. She, you know, from day one to day two, like her story was evolving and it was changing. And when I saw that, I was like, oh, she's got a problem. Because they're going to think she had something to do with it. And that's what the state argued.

And ultimately she was convicted. Is it easier to defend in court that you didn't talk to the cops and the cops are trying to say that you're guilty because you didn't talk versus you talk to the cops and they're giving that angle like we saw in Michelle's case? So they can't argue this person didn't talk. They're guilty. It's your Fifth Amendment right. If you exercise that right, they cannot argue that that's some consciousness of guilt or evidence of guilt. So if a prosecutor gets up at a closing and says, you know, Ian Bick didn't talk.

He could have talked and he didn't. He must be guilty. Boom, mistrial, right? They can't use that against you because it's your constitutional right. So it's always smarter to not talk. Yeah, the prosecutor in my case kept saying at trial, like he isn't owning up or whatnot to it. And the judge kept scolding him just saying, I thought he handled it well. He was just saying that it's his right to go to trial.

That's the basis of the American justice system to go to trial. Yeah. You see, I don't know. I don't know if you watch these old Law and Order episodes. I used to watch it years ago. So you see, like, somebody gets in trouble. They call the lawyer, like, the cops want to talk to me. The lawyer is like, I'll be right there.

Let's go. And then they walk their client into the police precinct. And then the police just beat them over the head. The client answers questions. Like, if they could catch you in one little lie, you're in trouble. I once represented a guy who was a suspect in a homicide, talked to the police, came to me after he talked to the police. He was a suspect in a homicide and the police said, where were you on such and such a day

and such and such a time when this homicide occurred? Oh, I was actually over my friend's house over on this side of town. And the police were like, yeah? Okay, cool. You could leave. Then they go. They knock on everybody's door.

Hi, you have home surveillance. You have home surveillance. He told them what kind of car he was driving, what he was wearing. He wasn't where he told them he was. So it's like, boom, they got you. You're lying about where you were at the time of a homicide. Like, that's pretty bad.

Why do you think that they were not able to find the body of Jennifer Dullis? Like in today's world, this isn't something that happened 10 years ago. This is technology, GPS, the car, all the resources. Do you think they'll ever find it? I hope they do for the family's sake, but I don't think so. I think he just, I mean, for lack of a better term, did a good job hiding it. Like cement or something? Cement or something like that, or not to be gruesome, but maybe chopped it up.

You know, I just finished watching the Jinks part two. Did you watch that on HBO? No, what is that about? It's Robert Durst, who is this like millionaire from New York who's accused of all these murders. He's convicted of one. And he was a suspect in the murder of his first wife in like 1981 and they never found her. Do you remember the, you know, Tuxedo Junction we were talking about? You were there.

The restaurant next to it, the Albanians, I think, chopped someone up downstairs his uncle. This was a big case. No kidding. In, like, 2005, 2006, and threw it over a river in New York, they found the body, but the guy got arrested, the owner of that restaurant because it used to be called Gustavos or something. And the old owner of the club had to, like, show the police where, like, the carpet was cut out. Wow. Because he replaced the carpet the next day. Yeah.

It was crazy. And people were eating at that restaurant. Oh, brutal. Yeah. Brutal. I don't know if he actually got chopped up inside, but they showed that the carpet was, the guy was at least the body was there at some point. Yeah. It really is crazy.

What advice would you give to someone that just got arrested? I thought you're going to say who wants to chop up about it. No, no, no, no. Even though Connecticut has that crazy ones, like the Woodchipper guy and some insane stuff. I'll never go on Lake Soar, man. That actually went into. Yes. Oh, I didn't know that.

Yes. Don't go in there. Holy cow. But yeah, what advice would you give to someone that just got arrested in any type of case? I think the number one thing is don't talk to the police, at least in. until you talk to a lawyer, right? Go to, don't talk to the police because anything you say can and will be used against you, and that is very strong evidence at trial.

It's not hearsay. Your statements could come in. They could be used against you. The next thing you need to do is you need to find a good lawyer. And like we said earlier, go to a few of them, ask them all, what can you promise me, right? That's that trick question. If they promise you, you know, these lofty goals, maybe you want to hesitate to go with that lawyer. But that's it, you know, but you need to make sure you have a lawyer that you can trust.

If you have a story to tell, if you're like, but I need to tell the police, I wasn't there, go to your lawyer first. Because if somebody comes to me and they say, I wasn't there, I could go to the police and say, listen, he's telling me he wasn't there. They can't use that against the client, right? So that's the way to do it. Now, you're someone that's uniquely worked in the public defender's office and private for criminal defense. Say tomorrow, you got arrested, God forbid, and you have limited resources.

Are you hiring the public defender or are you scraping it together to hire the paid attorney? And I know it's a tough question. So it's really like for me, it's who is the individual lawyer? Like those categories don't matter as much to me because I was in both. I wore both hats. So when I was a public defender, people would be like, oh man, public pretender, right? I'm hiring a real lawyer. I got that stuff.

And then now I have people would be like, oh, no, I have a public defender. I can't, I can't risk my life like that. I'm going to hire you. I do the same job one way or the other. The other answer is if you can afford to hire private lawyer, technically you have to. Like public defenders are only supposed to be there for people who are, you know, really indigent, don't have the resources to hire a lawyer. So if you can't afford a lawyer, you're supposed to. But here's, I guess here's the real advantage to hiring a private lawyer. You get to vet that person and you get to pick somebody you're comfortable with. If you get a public defender, it is the luck of the draw.

Right. And like I'm saying across the spectrum of lawyers, not all of them are created equally. There are some amazing public defenders. There's some terrible private lawyers. I've seen people fire fantastic, five-star world-class public defenders and go hire like an absolute scumbag, bottom feeder lawyer. But I think the advantage of hiring a lawyer is you could go. You could interview a few people and say, oh, that's the one. Right? It's like anything.

Any, you know, maybe your doctor or your mechanic. Like, if you trust that person, if you like the way they talk to you, if you think you could work with them, that's who you want to be with. No, you see firsthand the costs that come through going with the criminal justice system, the emotional, the possibly loss of freedom. Why do you think there's still so much crime when people see that? I mean, like, I have people on the show that have served years in prison, gone through the absolute worst.

And yet there's still so many people in the world that are still committing crimes. that are still actively in gangs or actively doing stuff that these individuals did. How do we change that? And why do you think that still happens? I think that there will always be crime. I do think underlying a lot of it is poverty. I think that poverty is kind of the foundation for most of what you're seeing. From poverty comes a lot of people in hopeless, desperate places turn to substance abuse,

which leads to other criminal, you know, leads to other criminal activity. because they want to get their fix or whatever. I also see people that are raised in poverty who want to transcend that poverty desperately. Maybe it's like the third or fourth generation who grew up in a housing project and they want to do better. And well, that guy over there is driving a really nice car and he's got a lot of chicks. What is he doing to make money? He's selling drugs or doing something like that. So it's a way to transcend poverty.

but I think if we address those issues and, you know, in education too, like I think it's now 50 or 60 grand a year to lock somebody up in the state of Connecticut. It's like, couldn't we do better with that? Couldn't we find, like, better ways to spend that money? And they don't, like, I would love to see judges just have to look at the number

before they sentence somebody. Just look at it. You don't have to let it, like, affect you, but just look at, look at how much money you're spending, putting this person in, let's say it's a nine, nonviolent crime. Nobody's hurt. This person's doing rehab or something. You want to spend, you know, $180,000 on this? Is that, you know. But on the flip side, it's not their money. So that could be, like, I think there's a difference when it's your money coming out of your pocket

versus, like, then maybe you apply that and it says for every person you sentence the tax rates going up, which ultimately affects your money. Well, right. I mean, and this is with, you know, government spending in general. Like, it's like, oh, it's free money. We just, we spend it. But there's no regard for it. There's no regard for how much money they spend and they just they spend endless endless amounts of dollars on these cases. And that fit, it doesn't cost like an inmate's not getting 60 grand worth of stuff that I mean a food. Like if it's 60, where's that buddy going? The 60,000 per inmate. Yeah. Like they don't have one guard per inmate so you can't say it's all the salaries. Right. The food, you're not eating 60 grand worth of food in a year. It just makes you think about

things when you look at that perspective. Yeah. They spend a ton of money on it. I think we could do better. Absolutely. Yeah. Well, Mike, thank you so much for coming on the show today. Awesome conversation. You have such great energy.

I think you'll definitely do well with your YouTube stuff. Thank you. Consistency, though. Yeah, yeah. Thanks for the tip, man. It was great to be here. Thanks for having me. Yeah, and if you need anything, you know, with social media and whatnot and content

or the studio at all, if you want to start interviewing other attorneys and stuff. We have another one down the hall you can use. We'll be in touch. Sounds good. Yeah. Cool, man.