Loading summary
Transcript53 lines
- [00:00]
Podcast Host/Advertiser
The Hulu original series Furious is coming to Hulu and hulu on Disney July 27th.
- [00:06]
Trey Lovell (Defense Attorney)
There are three victims we know of.
- [00:08]
Donna Rotuno (Crime and Justice Host)
The suspect is female, white, late twenties, female. Serial killers kill for power, control. I believe there is a deeper motivation here.
- [00:16]
Trey Lovell (Defense Attorney)
You have no idea who you're dealing with and you are going to end up dead.
- [00:21]
Donna Rotuno (Crime and Justice Host)
I've been waiting for you.
- [00:22]
Podcast Host/Advertiser
Watch the Hulu original series Furious on July 27, streaming on Hulu and Hulu on Disney for bundle subscribers. Terms apply.
- [00:33]
Donna Rotuno (Crime and Justice Host)
This is crime and justice. I'm Donna Rotuno. The highly anticipated preliminary hearing against TikTok music star David is underway in Los Angeles. It's a grisly murder case involving a victim who was just 14 years old at the time of her death. Celeste Rivas Hernandez. We want you to know that the testimony and evidence in this case we are going to discuss is very difficult to hear. If you love breaking down these cases with me, send an email with your thoughts, theories and questions to skdanaox.com and I will answer them here each week.
- [01:12]
Podcast Host/Advertiser
Cheers to America's 250th birthday. Get 20% off your first purchase at foxnewswineshop.com with code FNRADIO 2020% discount excludes wine club offers and cannot be combined with any other promotion. Expires July 31, 2026. Must be 21 or older to order. Please drink responsibly.
- [01:28]
Donna Rotuno (Crime and Justice Host)
First, let's go to FOX News radio reporter Kristin Goodwin. Kristen, thank you for joining me today.
- [01:35]
Kristin Goodwin (FOX News Radio Reporter)
Yeah, Donna, I mean, I have to tell you, thank you for having me. What really stood out to me being at the courthouse at the start of this preliminary hearing was aside from the media, there were a number of online content creators who have been following this case in the lobby who entered a lottery for one of the very limited seats to be in the courtroom, all hoping for a chance to witness this hearing. There seems to be a lot more of an interest in the online community because the defendant, David Anthony Burke, or David D4VD as he goes by, really rose to fame online. I mean, this is a singer who had a large following on TikTok and on streaming platforms like Spotify. He performed at Coachella Music festival both weekends weeks before. He's alleged to have killed Celeste Rivas Hernandez in April of last year. And that's what prosecutors allege drove him to kill her to protect his music career because he was threatened by the exposure of years of alleged sexual abuse. And there are also no cameras allowed in the court during this hearing. And while there's no official ban on cell phones for the media. Court staff has been really stern about keeping cell phones out of sight. I saw a number of local reporters rushing to find a pen and paper to be able to take notes instead of using their devices.
- [03:04]
Donna Rotuno (Crime and Justice Host)
Yeah, because when you can bring your phone in, you think you're going to be able to use it. And then if they're placing restrictions on it, that makes it quite difficult to get all the notes down and everything that you're going to need to talk about later on. Tell me what the mood of the courtroom has been like, what you've seen in terms of how DAV has reacted. I know I saw some reports that he seemed to be fairly nonchalant, and some of the evidence we've seen up to this point is fairly damaging. So tell me, you know, how he has been reacting.
- [03:34]
Kristin Goodwin (FOX News Radio Reporter)
Yeah, there's a lot of chatter about that, I can say in the courtroom. Initially, there was a lot of chatter until he came in. When he first came in, he was smiling at his defense team. He greeted the judge, you know, good morning and that sort of thing. And the judge denied his motion to wear a suit and to the hearing. So when he came in, in the courtroom, he was in his orange jumpsuit. His attorney initially asked if he could have his handcuffs and shackles removed. They suggested this was inhumane. The judge allowed the cuffs to come off, but not the shackles. So David stayed shackled to a chair at his wrists and his ankles for the hearing. And when he first came in, like I said, he smiled, smiled at his defense team. But there has been a lot of discussion about him being really emotionless during this gruesome testimony and those photos. Rivas Hernandez's parents, Mercedes and Jesus, were in court when the prosecution started showing those gruesome photos of the teen's decomposed body. The prosecutor, Beth Silverman, warning them several times about the images, letting them know they are more than welcome to look away or to step away. The parents were visibly emotional, but they stayed. They watched. At one point, Mercedes, the mother, was sort of being comforted by a supporter or another family member in court. And an LAPD detective testified about finding the remains in the trunk of a Tesla registered to Burke in Hollywood in a tow yard in September. He. He said arms and legs had been severed and that the remains, including a head and a torso, were in bags. Pretty graphic. Spoke about finding flies and maggots inside of the trunk and how the victim's face was unrecognizable because of as he described skin slippage. So really the stuff of nightmares. And to have this online discussion about how the defendant is just not reacting or seemingly emotionless, it's hard to watch.
- [05:42]
Donna Rotuno (Crime and Justice Host)
Yeah. Especially given the fact that there's all of this evidence and all these allegations that she did have a relationship with him. So the fact that he is showing no emotion is pretty staggering. But when you see the type of evidence here and you look at the case the prosecution is building against him, maybe it's not so surprising because anyone capable of doing any of these things he's alleged of doing, I mean, my goodness, that really. That has to put into question whether or not you have a soul. So I think this will be interesting. Talk to me a little bit about the influencers and people that you have seen and the supporters that you've seen. Are you getting the sense that the supporters or the influencers are there because they just want to know and they want to be a part of it or that they are kind of doing the same thing that they're doing in New York with Luigi Mangione, with the free, you know, free Luigi. Are they doing that type of. Is it that type of support or is this more of a we just want to be here to see what's happening and follow this through?
- [06:41]
Kristin Goodwin (FOX News Radio Reporter)
I think it's the latter. I think not similar to the case going on in New York with Mangione. I think it's. They want to be in the know and they want to make sure that they can build a following discussing this case. Because, like I said, there is such a discussion online from those. The online community about the case. David rose to fame on TikTok and on Spotify. And then there's a lot of conspiracy theories online as well, or just discussions about how he was sharing a song while he's been in prison since April he's been jailed. A song that went up on his Spotify page that sort of sparked a lot of questions. It's been taken down. But, yeah, there's just a lot of chatter and a lot of interest online about this case.
- [07:30]
Donna Rotuno (Crime and Justice Host)
Well, interest is one thing I'm happy to see there's not a contingent of people running out there saying, you know, we think he did it, but we don't really care. So at least that's good. That gives us a little bit more faith because this is a just horrific crime. Kristen, thank you so much for joining me and letting us know what's going on. I know court is continuing into today and throughout this week. Potentially this hearing can go So I know we'll definitely come back to you when we are continuing to cover this case. So thank you so much.
- [08:00]
Kristin Goodwin (FOX News Radio Reporter)
Thank you.
- [08:01]
Donna Rotuno (Crime and Justice Host)
I'm going to bring in our next guest today, Trey Lovell. Trey, thank you for joining me today.
- [08:07]
Trey Lovell (Defense Attorney)
Thank you for having me.
- [08:09]
Donna Rotuno (Crime and Justice Host)
So, Trey, let's get into this. I mean, obviously we just heard how horrific of a, of a crime this is, and we're going to get into a lot of the evidence that we heard come out in the preliminary hearing. But before we get into what happened in court, talk to me about the legal standard of a preliminary hearing. I know we, we talked about it a lot during Tyler Robinson recently. But for people who are listening in regard to this podcast and interested in this topic, let's go through it a little bit just so people understand what the legal standard is at this point.
- [08:44]
Trey Lovell (Defense Attorney)
Sure. So the legal standard for a preliminary hearing is probable cause, and that's a relatively low standard. We need to remember that at trial, it's the high standard of beyond a reasonable doubt, which the prosecution has to fulfill in order to get a conviction. For a preliminary hearing, it's probable cause, which just means, you know, there's a strong suspicion that a crime may have been committed and that Burke may have done it. And that's really it. It's not a high threshold, just enough that, that the prosecution has the right to prove their case at trial and that they're not filing frivolous cases or meritless cases or bringing in innocent people. So it's a relatively low standard. It's even a lower standard than the preponderance of the evidence standard in civil cases. And so it's not hard to beat. But we need to remember here the prosecution is going for the ultimate charges, you know, first degree murder, special circumstances, potential death penalty. So they're going to want to put on enough case, enough evidence to make sure that they satisfy all the elements, premeditation, mode of means, opportunity, things like that. And so even though it's a relatively low standard, we are going to get probably more evidence than we need just to make sure.
- [09:59]
Donna Rotuno (Crime and Justice Host)
And are you anticipating that the defense is going to put on any evidence at this hearing or do you just anticipate that they're going to do, you know, masterful cross examination? He has hired a, you know, high profile defense team here. These are lawyers who are very good. They know what they're doing. Do you anticipate any evidence on their end or are they just going to cross examine the death out of these witnesses?
- [10:24]
Trey Lovell (Defense Attorney)
I don't anticipate them putting on any of their own evidence, you know, unless it's exculpatory, something that could actually defeat, you know, the, the, the, the prosecution and the preliminary hearing process. There's no need to do that and subject any witnesses to cross examination and, and to give their tell or to show their side. So they're going to rely on strong crosses, cross examination. They're going to be challenging the evidence, the collection, the reliability, the testing, things like that. But I don't think they're going to take the next step of putting on their, on their own case because they don't. It's not really going to, going to do any good unless it's something that could really, as I said, be exculpatory. But we are going to see some very dead fast, dead fast, hard cross examination.
- [11:08]
Donna Rotuno (Crime and Justice Host)
And for people listening, exculpatory evidence is evidence that would exist to exonerate David of this crime. Right. To be able to say, well, he was out of the country during this entire period, it couldn't have been him for a variety of reasons. So that's the type of evidence that maybe the defense would put on at this point. I don't think there's any of that available here. I think there's a, a very strong circumstantial case which we will get into. Let's talk about the fact that, you know, they, they did do this in Tyler Robinson. Right. The defense put on witnesses that I think didn't help their case at all, frankly. I mean, I know the judge has not ruled on probable cause and I think it goes to your point that unless it's going to be evidence that's so explosive and goes to whether or not the crime could have been committed. That's not what happened in Robinson. Right. They put a bunch of evidence up there that's that you may put up at a trial to try to garner some reasonable doubt, but, but that was definitely not evidence in any way, shape or form that I think helped their cause at a preliminary hearing.
- [12:16]
Trey Lovell (Defense Attorney)
No, I totally agree. You know, and, and we need to remember, you know, this is the defense's opportunity to really see a lot of the prosecution' to do their cross examination, to challenge the testing and the evidence collection, you know, etc. And to prepare them for the trial. Because I think they know this is going to go, this is going to, going to get, they're going to find probable cause and this will go to trial. So this is an opportunity. They want to vet these witnesses, they want to vet this evidence, see what sticks, see what doesn't stick, and then really just use that to prepare their case for trial. On the same time, they want to be stealth. They don't want to put on their case, let the prosecution do the same to them or their witnesses. They want the element of surprise, the element of, you know, first time cross examination at trial, not at preliminary hearing. A prosecution witnesses, so, or defense witnesses. So, you know, it's really an opportunity for the defense to see the prosecution's case. On the flip side, it's the prosecution. They have to present enough evidence to make sure it goes forward on all charges. Because remember, there's three separate charges here and they have to fulfill the elements of all of them. And if one or two fail, then the judge will allow only those charges to go forward, which, which fulfilled the probable cause requirement and not the other. So they need to make sure they hit all three charges, which is why we're going to see a fair amount of their evidence.
- [13:43]
Donna Rotuno (Crime and Justice Host)
And when, when we look at that evidence, let's kind of go through some of it. I mean, they have surveillance video evidence. They have the fact that he ordered a shovel, chainsaws or someone who they believe to be him, shovel chainsaws, body bags and an inflatable pool. So let's talk about that evidence and how that evidence goes to not only premeditation. Right. But the heinousness of this crime, the potential special circumstances of this crime. So kind of walk me through the special circumstances in la. I think in this case they're kind of calling it like a lying in wait type of a situation, if I'm correct. So talk to me about that a little bit and how this evidence fits into the elements that the state has to prove.
- [14:31]
Trey Lovell (Defense Attorney)
Sure. So yeah, so remember, it's a first degree murder charge with special circumstances. And, and the special circumstances they're alleging are lying in wait, murder for financial gain and murder of a witness to an alleged crime. And the state has to prove these special circumstances in order to get to a potential seek of the death penalty or life without the possibility of parole. So it's very important that they prove this. And, and it's, it's not easy. You know, it can be very difficult. So the way they're going to prove this is that he had a motive to kill her to either to protect his career, which could be, you know, for financial gain, or when he lured her to his house on an Uber, you know, he was planning on killing her and that's lying in wait, you know, and then the fact that they were having a sexual relationship when she was underage, which is a crime. The fact that he killed her would be killing a witness to a crime. So, you know, they need to find evidence that fulfills those three prongs of the special circumstances. And so certainly the evidence of the text messages where she's threatening him to either be in a serious relationship or she's going to go public and then him saying, telling her to come to his house, to the Uber and then her, her doing that. And so, so these kind of go to, to the mental element side of it of something he's got to lose. He's got a reason to kill her. And then we have the evidence of, of the, of the chainsaws and the, and the, and the inflatable pool and things like that, which, which, which corroborate having committed a murder and then trying to cover it up. You know, so the prosecution has to go from A to Z. They've got to get, you know, the motive, the intent that, the premeditation and the deliberation to kill her. And then, you know, everything else kind of flows in terms of that makes sense. He's trying to cover up this supports, you know, those, those allegations.
- [16:28]
Donna Rotuno (Crime and Justice Host)
Well, and when you look at the financial motive, Right. They put a business manager on the stand yesterday in court, and the business manager testified that he made about $10 million leading up to this. He had a album coming out, he was about to go on tour, and then she starts threatening him. So I think they called that witness in order to establish the fact that he had a lot to lose.
- [16:53]
Trey Lovell (Defense Attorney)
Yes. I mean, it's compelling evidence. And he, he's at, at the precipice, the forefront of his career. He's already making millions of dollars. He's about to release an album, he's going on tour. He's a young kid. You know, he has his whole life at him. This is, this is going to, you know, could spur into a very lucrative career. And he's right at the beginning of it. And for her to come out and threaten that and certainly coming out with that relationship and would leave to even an arrest based on having relationship with a minor that would ruin his career. And so the timing of when all this is going to happen, the timing of the threats and the timing of when she's, she's murdered certainly goes into, you know, him doing it and him having a motive to do it and a means to do it and, and the ability to do it. So it's, it's very compelling evidence.
- [17:45]
Donna Rotuno (Crime and Justice Host)
And you also look at the fact that police came to see him. Her parents had reported her missing more than once. And prior to her being lured over to his home in an Uber in April, the police had been at that house that February. And, you know, he said, I thought she was 18 and I only met her once. And they said, well, no, she's actually 13. And they were discussing. So he was put on notice of her age prior to her threatening to come out with that relationship. And I think that timeline is really important, too, because the fact that the police went there. Now, this is not only a relationship that she's threatening to expose, but it's an illegal relationship. And that really shows, I think, what potentially goes to his state of mind and what he has to lose. And he knew that back in February and continued to see her.
- [18:38]
Trey Lovell (Defense Attorney)
Absolutely. I think that, you know, that evidence really, there's. There's two big facets to that. First of all, you're right, it really supports the motive that, that, that she's going to come out, you know, with. With. With the relationship and he needs to do something about it. But also it goes to, you know, his credibility. You know, he's already trying to hide things from the police, assuming that, you know, we didn't believe, you know, what he was telling the police, and that's going to taint him, and it's going to taint his side. You know, as, you know, you know better than most, credibility to a jury is everything. If they don't believe you, your witnesses, your side, you're done. And even though he may not testify, and I'm sure he won't in this case at the trial, assuming this goes to trial, which I think it will, the fact that he's lying early on, if the jury believes he's lying, that's going to taint a lot of his case. The defense puts it on. So, you know, defense is kind of, you know, starting from a little bit behind here with that. But yes, that. That's very compelling testimony. The fact that he lied about her age and. Or certainly at that point, he was enlightened to our age and continued after that falls right into the motive of, hey, you know, she's about to expose me. I've got to do something.
- [19:52]
Donna Rotuno (Crime and Justice Host)
Yeah, you know, you know, Trey, we always start these cases down, I don't know, 14 to nothing. And I think this one, it may be like a 28 to nothing, because this is. This is a tough one. I mean, my goodness. So let's talk about the evidence, about the Tattoos. Okay. So this to me is also extremely compelling. So they had these, each of them on their finger had these matching tattoos that said shhh. Like you know, like the emoji with the finger over the mouth. Right. Like this is supposed to be some kind of a secret. And that just goes to not only again the relationship, so the fact that he lied about the nature of the relationship, but the fact that obviously he knew that she was younger just with this, let's keep it a secret mentality. Right. And so the fact that when her body was found and it was dismembered, what they found was the, this tattoo, the finger with the tattoo was cut off and they never found that finger. So how compelling is that?
- [20:58]
Trey Lovell (Defense Attorney)
Oh, that's very compelling. First of all, those tattoos linked them together. They showed they had a relationship, that they were together. And you're right, they, the inference of the shape, you know, shows something. Hey, we're doing something, you know, we don't want to tell anybody about, which goes, falls right into the prosecution's theories. And the fact that when they found the body that the fingers were gone shows an intent to hide that. And why would you want to hide that? You know, unless you don't want to, you know, announce that you're the one doing it or you're the one.
- [21:31]
Donna Rotuno (Crime and Justice Host)
You don't want to link yourself, you don't want to link yourself to her because he's got the tattoo and that links him to her.
- [21:38]
Trey Lovell (Defense Attorney)
Absolutely. So he wanted to get rid of that, you know, separate himself as much as he can from her and the relationship. So he knew early on, you know, that, that he needed to do that and probably what it would look like. But, but absolutely that. I think that's very compelling testimony because it falls right into the prosecution's theories. This was an illegal relationship, it was, you know, behind the scenes relationship, but it was the relationship they were together enough to where they were, you know, that tattoo. And I even think she may have had his name on one of her fingers. Some of the reporting is. And the fact that that is gone. I mean, if it were somebody else killing her, why would they want to do that? Why would they matter of fact, they would leave that on the body to, to make it seem like he did it, you know, so absolutely, only somebody that that is, has that relationship would, would make that effort to hide it.
- [22:32]
Donna Rotuno (Crime and Justice Host)
Yeah. And I also think too that if you look at that evidence and you know, of course that's going to be what the defense is trying to do here. Right? The defense is going to try to say, yeah, okay, she died. And, yeah, okay, you can link them together. But the one thing that you can't do is prove that he actually killed her. Right. You might be able to prove that he got rid of the body. You might be able to prove that, you know, he dismembered the body. And how can the prosecution do that? Well, I don't know. These. They bought more than one chainsaw. They bought two. So I guess they can argue that there were other people involved and that you can't prove that he was involved. And so there's a lot of arguments that I think that they will make once this case goes to trial. But I think the. They're going to have a very difficult time when it comes to the gruesome nature at which this body was. Was not only decomposing, but the way it was dismembered. And I can't imagine that that happens from someone that has no real connection to this person. That seems like three steps too far if you're just talking about a random murder of a young girl.
- [23:43]
Trey Lovell (Defense Attorney)
Yeah, absolutely. You know, what the defense is going to try to do is really separate the murder from the mutilation. They can say, yes, it's gruesome, yes, you know, he had ordered, potentially it was him, although it was under a false name. Another name may have ordered. Ordered this up to. To mutilate the body, maybe even hide a crime, but that doesn't mean he killed her. And they're going to try to separate that. And that's huge because the difference between, you know, a conviction on mutilation of a human, of human remains, or even. Even aiding, abetting or hiding a crime that may be three to six years versus the death penalty. So it's huge. And they're going to separate that.
- [24:27]
Donna Rotuno (Crime and Justice Host)
It is huge. And I feel like, you know, I always talk about these cases and I say, okay, as defense attorneys, we have to talk to the jury and not try to convince them that the world is flat. Right. Our job is to gain credibility from jurors, and you're not going to gain credibility. I think if you walk in and act like he had zero to do with any of this. I think that if you do that, you're going to lose the jurors, and they're almost going to listen to nothing that you have to say. You almost have to take some water into the boat here. Right? You have to say, look, yes, they had a relationship. Yes, they knew each other, and these are the things they can prove. But here's all the things they can't. And I think that in that way jurors may listen, you know, because I'm figuring there's finding a probable cause and we're going to move past that. But if we're talking about what the defense does with all of this, I think that's really their only option.
- [25:20]
Kristin Goodwin (FOX News Radio Reporter)
I don't know.
- [25:21]
Donna Rotuno (Crime and Justice Host)
What do you think?
- [25:23]
Trey Lovell (Defense Attorney)
Absolutely, I think to come in and deny everything is only going to hurt them. They're going to rely on, hey, you know, they, they're going to focus on the prosecution's burden and say they did not prove and fulfill their burden beyond a reasonable doubt. There are potential other things that could have happened, maybe potential perpetrators, but either way, as long as it's a possibility somebody else did this, you can't convict. And they're also really going to focus on that, on the killing in terms of, you know, how do you know it was premeditated, you know, special circumstances, you know, he could have invited her over and they got into an argument. He just, they just want to talk. It was heat of passion. That's voluntary manslaughter once again. You know, a voluntary manslaughter conviction is three to 11 years versus the death penalty, life without possibility of parole. So that's huge too. And so they're going to focus on, on even the means that, that, that, that they're claiming that, that she had been killed. So, you know, you're right, you have to it. It's a tough walk for the defense because like you said, you want to maintain your credibility and by walking and says, oh my God, our guy's innocent, he's being framed, that's just not going to do it. But that's why you, you just focus and pound they're not fulfilling their burden. There's too many holes, you know, the way they collected the evidence, other evidence that they didn't collect that they should have done testing that may have revealed third parties or other fingerprints, you know, for example, the body bag and things like that, that, that supposedly that they didn't test. That's, that's what you focus in on. So you're keeping your credibility with the jury, but you're pounding at the prosecution.
- [26:59]
Donna Rotuno (Crime and Justice Host)
And I think that's what happened in court yesterday. I think that the police were, were definitely on the hot seat and they were being cross examined about things that they did not do. And when you're trying to solve a crime, especially where there's probably a mountain of evidence, right. I mean, like you said on the Body bags. I mean, this body was dismembered the way it was. The fact that there's certain aspects of not doing testing of certain things I think definitely opens up the question. If you are going to raise the theory that maybe someone else killed her, then those are things that a jury may be wanting answers to.
- [27:38]
Trey Lovell (Defense Attorney)
Absolutely. You got to remember, I think in defending, it's not the macrocosm, it's the microcosm. They're, you know, you have a mountain of evidence. So what defense lawyers do is they take it down bit by bit. You, you challenge every, every collection, you challenge every testing, you challenge the, the, the perception, memories of the witnesses. You, you don't do a huge big picture. You do it. You do it frame by frame by frame. And by, by challenging, you know, this test or that test or this collection, you know, they're chipping away and they're, and they're suggesting, hey, you know, even though they provided these results and had this evidence, it wasn't properly collected or it's not reliable. They don't have, you know, a chain of possession, chain of title type thing. And so that's how they start to dismantle it it. And certainly if at the same time they can propose some alternative theories, maybe what could have happened, somebody else may have done it or other circumstances, that helps. But, but even though it's a mountain of evidence, you know, you know, defense lawyers take a step back, they look at it and they, and they chip away at it. And then at the end you can say, you know, remember what so and so said? They couldn't substantiate this, they couldn't substantiate that. They failed to test this, which could have revealed different results. All of a sudden that starts building up in the jurors minds and they start thinking, wait a minute, you know, maybe, maybe something is a right here. Maybe, you know, maybe we don't know all the facts. And to send this guy to the death penalty, you know, you know, that's a big burden. So that's what defense lawyers do, you
- [29:10]
Donna Rotuno (Crime and Justice Host)
know, and I look at these cases and I always, you know, I'm still a practicing trial lawyer, I still try juries. And the one thing I always say is you have to be able to answer questions that the jurors are going to have. And if you can't answer the questions, you will lose. And the one question here that I think they will have a very difficult time answering is even if he only disposed of the body or dismembered the body or Whatever. If he didn't kill her, why, why do that then? If he did not kill her, why not pick up the phone, call law enforcement or leave the body as is where it was, what. Whatever the situation was. But I think the question is, if he didn't do it, why go to those lengths? And so I think that's the one question that they're going to have a hard time answering, that the jury will absolutely have. And when they go back in that jury box, if they can't somehow give a plausible answer for that, I think that's going to be the biggest problem with the theory that maybe he didn't kill her, he was just involved later on.
- [30:16]
Trey Lovell (Defense Attorney)
I agree. 100. Are you. That that is a huge problem. And assuming they can't dispel the. The that he dismembered her, why do it? If he didn't kill her and if they had a relationship, you know, why and somebody else did it, why isn't he, you know, going to the police or trying to catch a person or what have you? So, yes, that is a, a chasm that they're going to. With, you know, they're going to have to show that other people in his group may have had a motive and that maybe he was trying to help them and it was reluctant or what have you. I mean, there's a couple different avenues they can go to try to, you know, bridge that, but it's going to be a very difficult question to answer. They're going to have to have evidence put in to try to answer that. I don't think that's going to come just on the cross examinations. But yes, that. I think that's the number one, number two big hurdles for them.
- [31:15]
Donna Rotuno (Crime and Justice Host)
Yeah. And maybe, you know, maybe other people in his life, as you said, could have been involved in this. And somehow maybe there was people in his life who didn't like the fact that she was involved in his life. And, you know, they had motives, too. But I think the next question we have to ask is, how did this ever get to this point? Okay, these people traveled together, they got tattoos together. I mean, I get that he's a younger person, but she was very young. And how are these two out in public together, seen together? Police know that they have a connection. Parents have reported her missing. How does this get to this point where this girl could not have been protected from this guy prior to going to that house in April?
- [32:00]
Trey Lovell (Defense Attorney)
I think that's a $64,000 question. I mean, you know, there's so many aspects to this case that are baffling, you know, everything from, you know, cutting up the body and leaving it in the car when it's going to be flagged at some point by the city and toad. I mean, you're setting it up. I mean, why, if they wanted to hide the body, why didn't they, you know, why didn't dismember it and take it out in the woods somewhere, at least make that effort? You know, that's baffling to me. But you're right. This was a relationship that everybody knew about and it was documented. And even when they tried to separate them, I think he was trying to give her a cell phone at her school so she could still talk to him. There's so many aspects and even how it got to this level where there was a killing. There's so many unanswered questions in this case everywhere from the way they found the body to why, to that length, you know, of dismember is just disposing the, the body in whole. I mean, you know, and how it got to, to the point it did. I, I agree and, and I think that's going to be very illuminating. I think we're going to learn a lot obviously as this case progresses and we start fleshing out the evidence.
- [33:13]
Donna Rotuno (Crime and Justice Host)
And that question not only comes from me, but it comes from our audience. So we have the option for our listeners and viewers to write in and ask me questions. And that' came up many times and they asked specifically how this went undetected by police flights, tattoo shop and why anyone didn't say anything. And so I think this case is just a huge wake up call to people out there. I mean if you see a young girl, the photo they showed him when they went to the house was a photo of a 13 year old girl. And they showed that photo in court yesterday. She looked like a baby. I mean that's not, you know, there, that should, red flag should have been raised when these two are hanging out together. And I think it's important for everybody in the, in the sphere that's listening to this to say, you know what, if you see something like this, you have to say something because this is such a horrible ending to a story that probably could have been avoided.
- [34:12]
Trey Lovell (Defense Attorney)
Absolutely. You know, and that certainly put the police on notice. You know, they're going to him, he admits that he knows her, thinks he's, she's older, she's not, but there is some relationship there. And even though he's, he's, you know, diminishing it now the police know about it. And then if she's missing again or, you know, certainly high profile on social media, if they're traveling. You know, I, I'm a little surprised why this wasn't more on the police's radar. I know they got, they got a lot of, you know, things that they're dealing with. But you're right, I mean, you know, this is clearly a, an illegal relationship because of the age. It's not, not many attempts to, to hide it because they're out there on social media. The police have already, you know, inquired about it. He's giving responses that are questionable and, and, and it continues. So I, I would agree there may have been some mistakes made and, and some, some things, you know, slipped through the cracks. But I'm a little surprised too, how this got to the point where somebody didn't pull the trigger earlier and stop what was ultimately going to be what happened, which was the murder.
- [35:23]
Donna Rotuno (Crime and Justice Host)
Yeah, absolutely. Well, we're obviously going to be following this one from now until there's a conclusion here. The penalty for him is stiff if convicted. And if they can prove the special circumstances, I'm not so sure LA will ask for the death penalty. And even if they ask for it, it doesn't mean he's ever going to be put death. So what are your thoughts on that?
- [35:45]
Trey Lovell (Defense Attorney)
Yeah, that's true. I mean, the practical effect of the death penalty being posed is very small. There's a moratorium on it right now as of 2019 through Governor Newsom. So they couldn't do it now. They'd have to have a new governor come in. That would lift it, I don't think. There's been an execution in California for two decades. So the practical effect of it happening is small, but it's a big chip to hang over his shoulder. And ultimately, you know, they may try to get a plea out of this, you know, who knows? I mean, there's a lot of evidence. They may want to go for broke on it, respect the prosecution. But by hanging that over his head and get, and there being a chance that the death and death penalty could be imposed, it's a lot to think about, you know, for the defendant and his team, you know, in terms of taking his life away. And so they're not going to take away that chip, they're going to keep that up there. And I would not be surprised if, you know, it's a ways down the road if Hoffman goes for it just because, you know, he's an aggressive prosecutor, he wants to set a standard and really deter crime. And, you know, this is a high profile crime. This is a heinous crime. This is a horrendous crime. It's a sad crime. And this is a perfect crime to, to put the death penalty label on it to make, you know, to try to deter future conduct. So they're definitely not going to take it away. And I would not be shocked if he actually goes for it.
- [37:13]
Donna Rotuno (Crime and Justice Host)
Yeah. Especially to show no one's above the law, no matter, you know, how many songs you're writing or how much money you're making. But what I will say is, as somebody who has been very tough on the Utah courts, I am going to give a little gold star today to the LA courts for moving this along. So the fact that we are already at a preliminary hearing, I'm pretty confident that the judge will probably rule on this prior to the judge and Tyler Robinson. So we are looking forward to the finding a probable cause and we will follow this through to the end. Trey, thank you so much for joining me. Your expertise has been invaluable today.
- [37:48]
Trey Lovell (Defense Attorney)
Oh, thank you so much for having me.
- [37:51]
Donna Rotuno (Crime and Justice Host)
Thank you for joining me for another episode of Crime and Justice. Remember, we want to hear from you. Send us your thoughts, questions or theories and we will answer them on air.