The Solo Sidebar Criminal Defense Video Podcast With Orange County Attorney Lauren Johnson-Norris

[Speaker 1]

I mean, this is a man who has unlimited money, so his entire life and liberty is on the line. I guess if you can afford seven or eight criminal defense lawyers, why not have that? Welcome to the Solo Sidebar.

I'm Lauren Johnson-Norris, and this is officially our first episode. Well, we've had these talks over intake calls, when I'm in the parking lot after court, or just breaking down cases. So now we're going to go into the headlines.

We're going to talk about what we do and bring everybody along for the ride.

[Speaker 2]

Yeah, and now we're just making it public and have much better microphones.

[Speaker 1]

This is a good microphone. I'm excited. Me too, so let's get started.

I started the Solo Sidebar because after years in the courtroom, I realized that some of the most important conversations about justice aren't happening in public. They're happening between lawyers, behind closed doors, or quietly in your own head after a long day in court. I've seen justice and injustice.

I've seen people walk away relieved, and others walk away broken. And I've seen how viral stories and online noise often misrepresent what really happens inside a courtroom. This podcast is a way to bring these honest, unfiltered, and sometimes hilarious moments to light, not to preach, but to pull back the curtain.

Whether you love true crime, work in law, or just want to understand what happens after someone says, Your Honor, this podcast is for you. Next, we're going to start with high profile. High profile is where we break down what people don't see about the cases that they hear in the news.

We'll start off with the Karen Reid trial. And we'll talk not just about the facts, but about what's kind of happening behind the scenes in the courtroom. So the Karen Reid case is really interesting because she's accused of killing her boyfriend, of hitting him with her car.

And he's not just a boyfriend, he's a police officer. And she's accused of dumping him on the front lawn of another officer's house in the snow. Meanwhile, the defense is saying that she actually didn't know anything about that.

He was killed by another officer, and that there's a huge cover-up of the case, and that police are all conspiring in covering it up. And what's crazy about this case is that the first time they tried it, it hung. And then one of the jurors actually, after the jury, joined the defense team for the second trial.

And that juror was a lawyer who's now on Karen Reid's side, advocating the case the second time around in court. So we've been watching online, and I talked on Court TV about how the defense is approaching the case this time, and even how the prosecution's doing it differently. So one of the things they're doing differently, right out the gate, is they brought on a criminal defense attorney to be a special prosecutor to prosecute the case, which I think is really interesting.

We saw that in that Alec Baldwin case. They brought on a criminal defense attorney to be the special prosecutor. I don't know personally how someone who's a criminal defense attorney is more qualified to prosecute the case than the prosecutors who work in that office.

But in the Karen Reid case, they brought on a well-known criminal defense attorney, a former mob lawyer, to come on and prosecute her. So we're seeing sort of the different approach this time by the prosecution. Okay.

[Speaker 2]

So online, like on Reddit, it's crazy. There's tons of stories out there. People are basically thinking they solved this case on their own, right?

Because people get swept up in things and it happens, right? But how does this type of social media coverage affect the jury selection process?

[Speaker 1]

Well, we don't really know. I mean, we're kind of just seeing how cases are playing out in real time now with all of this social media impact. And what's crazy about Karen Reid's case is that there's a gag order on the lawyers.

So Karen is out there as her own PR rep. She's the one talking and doing the news interviews and presenting all of the information that she wants people to hear that may not even be admissible and may not even come into the case. So one of the interviews that I saw that I thought was so interesting was that she was out talking about how the victim, her boyfriend, was around town with all kinds of ladies suggesting that maybe there was an angry husband or spouse or boyfriend or whatever who might have killed him, right?

Like that he was out there philandering and somehow a guy was going to avenge that or avenge that and left him dead on the front lawn. So she's presenting that where a jury would never hear that because that's not a theory that the defense is even presenting. But I think by doing that, she's hoping, you know, they've already got a jury.

So those people are selected. But if she can control kind of the narrative of the case, I think she's probably thinking it can't hurt, right? Okay.

[Speaker 2]

So based off of what you just said, I have a question, right? So this is a small town where this is taking place. And jury selection is supposed to be based off of your peers, right?

So in a small town like this, especially on a case that is so well-known, so public, like I said, the Reddit stories are everywhere, right? It's all over TikTok. It's all over all kinds of social media things.

And then we have Karen Reid, the accused, out there doing all of her own stuff, too. So with that being said, how does the jury selection take, like, how do they go ahead and get this together without having, like, all these people be already influenced by the news and everything else that's going on?

[Speaker 1]

Well, I mean, like, can you imagine the jurors are like, oh, I followed that case. Right. I'm reading Reddit.

Like, I saw it on TikTok. And you're right. Like, that could be a problem if every person already thinks they solved the case before they've even heard a single witness testify.

Also, because they did the trial already once before. So the second time is going to be even harder because that evidence, I mean, they're live streaming this on court TV all day long. So all those witnesses have already testified.

I think people probably, some people have made up their mind. And so what happens is they'll have to bring in, like, dozens and dozens or hundreds of people, potentially based on the responses of the potential jurors. They'll fill the box with jurors and be like, who knows who this defendant is?

Right. Who's heard about this case? Right.

Have you already formed an opinion about the case? And I imagine you're going to have a number of people who are saying, I have. Right.

That would be interesting. If I'm the defense lawyer, I'm like, and what's your opinion? Right.

I want to either strike them or I want to take the jury, which is not guilty. Right. But I think they're going to have to go through a lot of folks.

And you're right. I mean, this is a town where everybody knows who she is now because she's been in the press and she's doing her own PR. And also, this involves police officers.

And so that's a community where people know each other. Right. So if they didn't know her to begin with, they might have known him or some of the other witnesses that are testifying.

So yeah, I think it's a challenge for everybody involved. But they did pick a jury the second time around. So somehow they pulled it off.

We're going to go on to Diddy because that's our next high profile case. So let's talk about Diddy. His trial starts today.

I jumped on CTV, which is the Canadian news, National News Network this morning, where they want to know about jury selection in that case. So if you think picking a jury in the Karen Reid case is hard, think about picking a jury for the Diddy case. The bad boy for life.

Everybody knows his brand. They know his companies. And now they've got to pick people who are going to be fair and impartial and give a fair shake and make sure that the prosecutor proves everything beyond a reasonable doubt.

And the challenge here is like if they don't, it's like all or nothing. Right. He's looking at life in prison for these acts or nothing.

So somebody's got to figure it out along the way to make sure they get the right jurors.

[Speaker 2]

Yeah.

[Speaker 1]

Have you followed that case?

[Speaker 2]

I have a little, you know, so it's it's interesting to me, like because like how we were talking about the country, like everything's so convoluted with this one as well. When it comes to picking a jury, I don't. Everyone is so set in their ways on like what they think the outcome of this case should be, you know, like it's been going on.

It's been very public. And so people have formed opinions on it super early.

[Speaker 1]

Absolutely. And I think that people have decided like they think he's guilty or like they don't care. Yeah.

Which is the weirdest part, right? I haven't heard anybody that's like, I don't think he.

[Speaker 2]

No, I haven't.

[Speaker 1]

I haven't heard that. But I think part of that is because they they did show in the news that he had all these weapons. They did show in the news that he had a thousand bottles of baby oil or whatever in his house.

Right. The circumstantial evidence that will come into the trial is already out there. So I think people are hearing about it.

I think that is weird about the case is that the witnesses are all confidential right now.

[Speaker 2]

Right.

[Speaker 1]

There's four main complaining witness, the main alleged victim. And we are led to believe that they are all people he was in relationships with. So we know one of them is Cassie.

Right. And so we expect that she'll testify because she had a civil suit and she sued him for the same conduct, but for civil damages. And that case settled in like one day.

OK, so we know something settled there. And I just think like, you know, listen, the government is bringing the case. She's going to have to be cooperative because they're going to compel her to come to court.

But the question is, if she was just doing it for the money, like she's already got them.

[Speaker 2]

Right.

[Speaker 1]

Right. So there's not much of a motive there to come out against him, your ex partner, and accuse him of things unless they're true. And that video, did you see that video?

[Speaker 2]

I didn't.

[Speaker 1]

OK, so the video is of her in the hotel where he's dragging her by her hair, throwing like a vase at her in the hotel and trying to get her not to. And part of the government's case and what they're alleging is that he used force, he used threats, he pulled people by the hair, beat them up, all kinds of violence to sustain this sort of. Like gross sexual escapade.

[Speaker 3]

Yeah.

[Speaker 2]

Does the civil case and how that outcome was like, is that going to have any type of impact on the criminal matter?

[Speaker 1]

Yeah, so that won't come in. Right. That won't come in.

It's not an admission of guilt. There's no admission that was made as part of the civil settlement. And generally, settlements don't.

OK. So really, the jury won't know about that, but they may have heard about it if they've already read about it in the news or they've seen it on TV.

[Speaker 2]

So it sounds like there's quite a bit of evidence that the prosecution has against him from like things, you know, that we've all seen, that you've talked about, you've seen as a criminal defense attorney. How would you go about that?

[Speaker 1]

Well, that's a great question. How do you defend it? And what's going to happen is the defense really only has one defense.

It's that it's consensual, like everything that happened was consensual. In a case like this, the options are it didn't happen. Or when sexual assault and abuse is, you know, as part of the charge, that it was consensual.

So if it was consensual sex, let's say folks were really just engaging in this because they all were voluntary and willing participants. Well, then none of the other parts really stick. Right.

It's not a conspiracy if it's not a crime. Right. It's not racketeering if the actions are not illegal.

And so what they've alleged from the prosecutor's side is that he's moved people across state lines for the purpose of committing these sexual assaults. But if they're not sexual assaults, then it's not criminal. We know he had prostitutes and all kinds of things like that.

But this case wouldn't be in federal court over, you know, him hiring a couple of prostitutes. Right. It's a case where it's really about using his criminal enterprise, rather his business enterprise, to turn it into a criminal.

OK. The other thing that's interesting about this case is that there's like seven or eight criminal defense lawyers. Why?

Well, I don't know. I guess the hope is that they'll all put their like brain trust together and come up with all the best theories of the defense strategize together. I mean, this is a man who has unlimited money.

Right. So his entire life and liberty is on the line. I guess if you can afford seven or eight criminal defense lawyers, why not have them?

But I don't know if that's going to save the day.

[Speaker 2]

With that many criminal defense attorneys, doesn't that almost kind of scream like, hey, I kind of did this stuff and I need everyone to do their job so that I can get out of this?

[Speaker 1]

It cuts both ways. Right. Like you're like, why do you need such a robust defense?

But at the same time, we're entitled to a robust defense. Right. That's the kind of thing that I don't know if you want to voir dire on that in jury selection.

Like, are you bothered by there being eight criminal defense lawyers? I think jurors are used to seeing a team when it comes to high profile cases. And maybe everybody won't be there all the time.

Maybe they'll rotate them out.

[Speaker 2]

I'm not really sure. Right.

[Speaker 1]

They'll like have them waiting in the wings or sitting, you know, in the audience. I'm not really sure. It's halftime.

It's halftime.

[Speaker 3]

Switch them out. Right.

[Speaker 1]

I don't know how they're going to do that. But I think he's hoping that just like putting together this dream team of the best and the brightest criminal defense lawyers will help him. And I understand why.

I just haven't seen that. Like that's so many lawyers. And the other thing is, with every lawyer, you get like a ton of opinion.

So you really hope that all these folks can work well together. Because what if they disagree? Don't want tensions flying high.

You don't want extra tensions flying high or you don't want lawyers then having a conflict. We have enough drama in that case.

[Speaker 2]

Right.

[Speaker 1]

So they don't need more. All right, Ashley, you ready to talk about myth of the week?

[Speaker 2]

Yeah. So if the jury can't make a decision, the case is over. Not true.

[Speaker 1]

Not true. You know, people think that's the case. They think, oh, a hung jury.

That means the whole thing is over. But the reality is it really depends on how the jury splits. Right.

If let's say, for example, you have 11 jurors for guilty and one for not guilty. Well, what's going to happen is there'll be a mistrial and the court will declare that mistrial. But the prosecution gets a chance to do it all over again.

In fact, every time there's a mistrial or a hung jury, prosecution can do it again. It's just a question of whether or not they decide at some point, OK, we can't prove this case, there's no jury on earth that's going to convict this person. And like I said, that usually comes down to the split.

So let's say it's half and half. That's going to be a really different strategy than 11 to one. Either way, like let's say it's 11 for not guilty and one for guilty.

Well, prosecutors probably not going to try that case again, because now that the defense has already seen the way the case is going to go down, they're going to do everything they can to get all 12. And it's just a lot of resources to do it over and over again if you don't think you're going to win. Right.

And I mean, at that point, it's the majority. Right. So, right.

Yeah, it is. Yeah. And you never know somebody back there can be really persuasive and kind of throw off the thing or in the alternative, you can have one person who's just never going to convict anybody or never going to acquit anybody.

[Speaker 2]

Yeah. So question, is there a difference between a mistrial and a hung jury or are those the same things?

[Speaker 1]

Well, the mistrial is the legal term. So they mistry the case, meaning the judge is going to say that this case couldn't reach a verdict. There wasn't consensus on a verdict.

And they call that mistrying a case. A hung jury is really the composition of the jury, right? The jury couldn't reach a verdict.

So it's really the same thing. We just talk about mistrials when we talk about it at court. Got it.

Same thing. You got it. Exactly.

So, yeah, that's why I think our clients really need to know that even if we go to trial, unless we get that unanimous verdict, we could be doing it all over.

[Speaker 2]

OK. Have you ever experienced a case? Have you been part of a case where it was a hung jury and it had to start over or have you come in on a case where it was a hung jury and and then stepped in for the second trial?

[Speaker 1]

Absolutely. So even my first case that I tried as a law student in New York resulted in a mistrial. There were four counts.

One of the counts was a conviction. One was not guilty. And two of the counts they hung on.

And so it was a real mixed bag. And the prosecutor ended up not trying the case again because they got a conviction on one of the counts. But people don't always agree.

They go back there. You know, there can be strong personalities, different world outlooks, different sense of the evidence. And unless they agree, you know, it's not going to result one way or the other.

But as defense lawyers, we're kind of always hoping if we're not going to walk our client out the door with an acquittal that maybe we get a hung jury because it just puts the burden back on the prosecution to do it all over again. And we got to preview the case if we do it again. So, you know, who's caught in myth of the week?

Who? Karen Reed. OK, because she had her hung jury.

[Speaker 2]

Yeah.

[Speaker 1]

Right. And now she's back doing her trial again. And you know who else had their myth of the week?

Who? Judge Jeff Ferguson. You know that case, right?

No, I haven't. Can you tell me a little bit about that? Yeah.

So Jeff Ferguson or Jeffrey Ferguson was a prosecutor here in Orange County for many years, and then he became a judge. And he was accused and ultimately convicted second time around of second degree murder of his wife. Oh, so he said it was an accident that the gun went off in the first trial.

Only one juror couldn't reach the guilt. The judge just put them right back to trial again within like a month and a half. And the second time around, he was convicted.

And that's really common. I think that if you only have one juror who's a holdout is a good chance you're going to end up with a conviction the second time around.

[Speaker 2]

Is that typical, that fast of a process right there? You said like it was within like a month and a half. They had them back in the rooms.

You know, is that definitely not?

[Speaker 1]

It's definitely atypical. But that case, there was nothing that was really typical about that case. First of all, you have a judge on trial for for murder of his spouse.

You've got a judge who the police came and raided his house and found like an arsenal of guns and bullets in his house. It came out during that case that he had been abusing alcohol while serving as a judge and potentially while he was a prosecutor for many, many years, sitting in judgment of other alcoholics and drug addicts. And then on top of that, you have a high profile case that after the jury hung, he went on TV and was pitching like his version of what happened.

So read. Right. Karen Reid.

So what really upset the judge in that case was that she knew as a judge, he shouldn't be doing that. Right. Because he could potentially prejudice the jury.

Was he trying to prejudice the jury? I think there's a good question because he was also out in the hallway, apparently talking about the case and talking about being acquitted in the case in front of jurors. And right before that verdict came back, there was even a hearing about whether to hold him in contempt.

But before they even got to that point, the jurors came back and convicted him. So it wasn't even necessary. I mean, he's looking at life and he's an older guy, so he's looking at dying in prison as a result of that conviction.

And I think it's so astounding that that's somebody in the legal community who many of us knew we appeared in front of and our clients appeared in front of. And now the public is sitting in judgment of him.

[Speaker 3]

Yeah.

[Speaker 1]

So no, it's not typical for that trial to be heard again so quickly. But that just just wasn't happening. She wasn't having it with him.

She even told him, you need to stop crying on the jury stand. You're trying to manipulate and control this whole process. And I'm sure he'll raise those issues on appeal.

I mean, I've never heard a judge tell a witness, let alone a defendant, to stop crying. But I wasn't in the courtroom. I didn't see how much he actually cried.

[Speaker 2]

Got it. So sounds like it's going to be kind of some similarities between that and the Karen Reed case as far as how he was out, you know, talking about the case publicly. And, you know, that kind of just brings it back to our first segment where I was like, this case is just so huge all over social media in a small town.

And with her out there talking about everything. I'm curious to see how this goes.

[Speaker 1]

I think it'll be interesting. And I also think it's interesting that we've got people who are really part of the law as part of these cases. Karen Reed's fiance, your boyfriend, being law enforcement and Jeff Ferguson being a judge here in Orange County and a former prosecutor.

I mean, these are people that we don't expect to be themselves involved in the criminal justice system as defendants or as victims. So I think that the public really cares about these cases because they're really unusual in that way.

[Speaker 2]

We don't see that every day. There's even more with the Karen Reed, you know, as far as law enforcement, the home, the residence where his body was found was also an officer.

[Speaker 1]

And I think that in her case, it's interesting because her defense theory is that there's a police conspiracy, right? That law enforcement may have been involved in his death. And as a result of that, she's basically blaming the entire police force of that city for being a part of a cover up.

And I think those questions are interesting right now because the public is seeing that, you know, there's been a perception of law enforcement and those who are on that side of the law being righteous, being on the right side of everything. And I think after George Floyd and some of the reckoning that dealt with racial justice over the last several years, people are starting to look at law enforcement in a different way.

[Speaker 2]

Yeah.

[Speaker 1]

When you see that people are just people entirely capable of doing the wrong things, even if they have a job where they're supposed to do the right thing.

[Speaker 2]

Yeah. I mean, even to go a little bit deeper into like one of the people who were involved in leading part of the investigation, I believe he was just terminated because of his text that he was sending in the way he was talking about Reid. And it's just like, OK, you've got a job to do.

Let's keep it professional.

[Speaker 1]

That's the mess. Yeah.

[Speaker 2]

Focused on the outcome instead of everything else that's going on.

[Speaker 1]

Yeah, I saw that where he was texting like about the way she looked. Things like that. But one of the questions I heard the prosecutor ask one of the witnesses was, did you expect that your text messages would be made part of this case?

It was one of the the witnesses whose partner was also law enforcement and they were on a text thread. And everybody's text messages got read into that case. Talking about what happened, talking about Karen Reid's testimony.

And I think it's just kind of like a wake up call to the public. Like your text messages could be part of any case. Oh, for sure.

You know, those are stored. They're stored indefinitely, potentially. And so, yeah, you should expect that if you're having a text message conversation, it could be part of any case.

You never think like you're going to be part of one. But it could be right. Just like sort of how Jeff Ferguson, you know, people in real life, they don't plan how they're going to deal with the after effects of a crime.

Right. So Jeff Ferguson, highly intoxicated person. His wife is shot.

He shot her. OK. And then he goes outside.

And I think he called his clerk and said, I'm not going to be at work tomorrow. I just shot my wife. Right.

Like these are the kind of reactions of normal guilty people.

[Speaker 2]

Yeah.

[Speaker 1]

Right. But like, would that would he think that that's going to be used against him in the trial? Probably in that moment, he's not thinking about a trial.

[Speaker 2]

All right. Well, let's move into our next segment. This is where we're going to be talking about our usual suspects, which this week is, you know, domestic violence.

[Speaker 1]

Well, we get a lot of those calls.

[Speaker 2]

Yeah, we do.

[Speaker 1]

Tell me what those calls are like when you get them coming in.

[Speaker 2]

You know, the normal like, oh, I was arguing with my spouse and our neighbors heard and they called the cops and I got arrested. But my wife doesn't want to press charges.

[Speaker 1]

And it's almost like when they call every single person has been arrested for a felony. Right. Yes.

But they could have been arrested for a misdemeanor in a good amount of these cases.

[Speaker 2]

Yeah.

[Speaker 1]

Right. So they could either have been arrested under 273.5. The the injury count right where people are battered and they have a visible injury or under 243 one where they are battered without an injury. But we see almost everybody charged the felony.

[Speaker 2]

Yeah. I would say it's usually always a felony. And then after the first court date, that's where you kind of get to see if it's going to stick as a felony or if it's going to drop down to that.

[Speaker 1]

And it's tricky for us because we have to really figure out which one it's going to be and try to tell the client, OK, this is what you're really looking at based on the facts that you told us, not necessarily what the police officer said.

[Speaker 2]

Right. Well, I think people also get like the the thing going through their head where it's like my spouse doesn't want to press charges on me. So why are they pressing charges on me?

They said they didn't want to. But the cops still arrested me like this is pretty common.

[Speaker 1]

You know, yeah, we see it all the time. Yeah. We have folks all the time saying they don't want to press charges.

And sometimes people are even like, I don't even think this will be a case.

[Speaker 2]

Oh, yeah.

[Speaker 1]

Right. I don't know why I'm calling you, but I don't think this will be a case because they don't even want to press charges.

[Speaker 2]

Yeah. But just because they don't want to press charges doesn't mean that charges aren't going to be exactly.

[Speaker 1]

People don't understand or realize that it's the government who brings the charges, not the alleged victim. Right. They might think, oh, my spouse wants to get back together with me or this was false or it wasn't that big a deal, a misunderstanding.

But if a police officer documented injuries or said that there was something another witness saw or even that the alleged victim said happened, the D.A. might take that and go ahead and file anyway.

[Speaker 2]

Well, that's a huge thing of what, you know, as doing intake. Like I hear that all the time, like, oh, well, they reported this. But that's not really what happened.

And now they don't want to press charges.

[Speaker 1]

It's amazing how many people report that something different happened. Yeah. Right.

And what ultimately ends up in the police report, which is why it's so important that we have an investigator talk to the alleged victim and see what really did happen.

[Speaker 2]

Yeah, definitely. I think that that that's a huge thing that people don't understand, that there are steps that we can take ahead of the case being filed with the district attorney's office. I think that people, you know, call in and they think, oh, I need to hire an attorney to represent me for the case.

But the case started already. It just hasn't been filed.

[Speaker 1]

Right. They think the case starts when we get to court. But we know the case has already started.

And that's actually the perfect time for us to get involved. Yeah, because if we can get all that evidence together and put it in front of the prosecutor, they might not end up with the case.

[Speaker 2]

I want to tell them how these types of things look like when they give us a call. Right. And then I am sending them over to you because I'm like, this is a case we can totally handle.

Right. You know, they retain. What does that look like moving forward for them?

[Speaker 1]

Yeah, well, right away, I'm going to want to make sure that an investigator gets involved and see if there is evidence that's helpful for us. And then we'll want to present that to the prosecutor and see if we can stop this ball from even rolling down the hill in the first place. And I tell clients all the time, if you can intervene early and stop this from the headache and the heartache and the financial expense of going to court facing criminal charges, why wouldn't you want to do that now?

It's so worth the effort to do it. Yeah.

[Speaker 2]

Unfortunately, some people don't see it that way and we can only do our best, you know? I know.

[Speaker 1]

Let's wait and see if they're going to file it. And at that point, it's a lot harder to undo what's already happened. Oh, yeah.

[Speaker 2]

Because then at that point, too, once it's filed, then that's on your record, whether you're convicted or not. There are steps after that that you can take, but that's going to cost you more money in the long run. It's definitely way more beneficial to the person calling in that they retain right away before the case is filed.

But not everyone sees it that way.

[Speaker 1]

No, sometimes people are more concerned about the money, you know, or they're concerned. They want to see just maybe if they wait it out, if something won't happen anyway, or they're just in denial about the situation, they figure, well, maybe this won't happen. But we don't we don't like denial.

Denial is not a good legal strategy. The best legal strategy is always to get ahead of it if you can. Right.

[Speaker 2]

Well, that's a question that I get often, right, is. If the case hasn't been filed yet, how likely are they to file it?

[Speaker 1]

Right. And it's every case is different. Yeah.

I love the question. What is the likelihood or what is the percentage chance? Right.

Yeah. Every case is different. There is no calculation or formula I can plug in to tell you what the outcome is going to be.

But once I hear the facts, I might be able to say, OK, this is a case where that might sound like a self-defense or a mutual combat or there aren't any other witnesses or there's some problems with the description here. Or like recently, we had a case where both the victim and the defendant were both arrested. And I knew that was going to be a problem as a matter of proof for the DA.

So it just depends on what the facts are when I can tell people, OK, this is what I think based on my experience is going to happen.

[Speaker 2]

Yeah. Well, then also, you know, like I feel like a lot of people go to an attorney and they think like, OK, they're going to know exactly how this is going to go. But even with them giving us the facts, I don't know, we can kind of give a prediction of how we think it's going to go.

But ultimately, until we have that first court date and we're able to get the discovery and evidence, we don't know what they have on them.

[Speaker 1]

That's true. And sometimes they don't tell us. Yeah.

Believe it or not, we don't always get the full picture. Yeah. Right.

Until we get to court. And I think that is a huge concern. Right.

And it's a huge factor because it just makes it harder for us to be able to advise our clients. Yeah.

[Speaker 2]

So, you know, the whole thing behind this is make sure you're being honest with your attorney.

[Speaker 1]

It's a good idea. Yeah, it's a good idea. All right.

Well, if you made it this far, congratulations, you are now a member of the jury, which means you're like legally obligated to subscribe.

[Speaker 2]

I'm pretty sure.

[Speaker 1]

Anyways, I think they're obligated to subscribe, leave a good review or not. Follow us on social media. Come back every episode or not.

[Speaker 2]

Every episode would be great.

[Speaker 1]

I think so. And share it and send it to their friends. And if you're a lawyer or you're somebody interested in going into the law or you just like legal news, this is the place to check in regularly and make sure that you hear about the behind the scenes of the stories that you're most interested in.

[Speaker 2]

I think it's a great place to also ask questions. So if you have questions, send them in to us. We want to hear them.

We want to answer them.

[Speaker 1]

And we'll be here to answer them next time. So thanks so much for joining us at the solo sidebar. We'll see you soon.

[Speaker 3]

Next.