← Crime & Justice with Donna Rotunno
Loading summary
Transcript37 lines
- [00:02]
A
What they did to your family. You're lucky to make it out alive. Streaming on Peacock.
- [00:07]
B
These men are going to come after me. Taking them out.
- [00:10]
A
It's my only chance. Put a bullet in her head.
- [00:13]
B
From the co creator of Ozark. Looks like a family was running drugs.
- [00:17]
A
Execution style killing. It's rare for the Keys.
- [00:20]
B
Any leads on who they might have been running for? The cartel killed my family. I'm gonna kill them. All of them. MIA Streaming now only on Peacock.
- [00:31]
A
This is Crime and Justice. I'm Donna Rotuno. A political earthquake ends with Congressman Eric Swalwell facing a sex crime probe. His lawyer just released a statement saying he unequivocally denies each and every allegation of sexual misconduct and assault levied against him. Let's look at that statement in part. The timing, nature and coordinated rollout of these vile and heinous allegations speak for themselves. This is neither about justice nor the truth. This is a ruthless and shameless attempt to smear Congressman Swalwell. That is a statement in part from his lawyer, Sarah Azari. Before we dive in to today's show, if you're enjoying, go ahead and tap the follow button. It's the easiest way to make sure all of our episodes show up right at the top of your feedback. Joining me today is California based criminal defense attorney Jacqueline Goodman.
- [01:28]
B
Oh, it's a pleasure to be with you again, Donna.
- [01:32]
A
So, Jacqueline, let's talk about what is going on in the great state of California and the big shake up in not only the governor's race this week, but also in Congress. So we have Eric Swalwell who has suspended his campaign for governor and has resigned from his seat in Congress. So let's, let's talk about the allegations that brought us here. Let's talk about how quickly this fall from grace seemed to happen. And tell me, I know you're in the state of California, so tell me a little bit about what you know is going on here so far.
- [02:05]
B
Well, you know, you hit the nail on the head. I mean, what a, what a fall from grace. Rarely seen, but someone like Eric Swalwell, who was really the leading candidate for governor of California, the fifth largest economy in the world, and now, you know, dropping out of the race and resigning from Congress ahead of what was thought by everyone to be an expulsion vote that he was likely to lose. So he resigned as of today, Tuesday, the 14th of April. But, you know, we have to keep clear that that political reality is different from a legal reality. And the allegations against him as to some criminal conduct and I think those might be a lot less clear. Ethical violations, maybe, but the crimes that he's being accused of, and particularly in light of today's press conference, really pretty shocking. But I have my own suspicions about them or concerns about those allegations myself.
- [03:08]
A
Sure, sure. And I think that's really the purpose of what we're going to do here today. Right. And what we're going to talk about. Obviously, you and I are both attorneys, both defense attorneys. I'm a former prosecutor as well. We've both handled like this. We've seen these types of allegations. And what's interesting here, of course, and what you always have to do when you look at these things, and a very smart person said to me one time, we must hear all women, all women should be heard. That doesn't mean they have to be believed. And so, you know, we have to hear what these people are saying. These allegations have to be vetted. Law enforcement is going to determine the credibility of them. State attorneys and prosecutors offices are going to determine how these cases move forward. But I think what's interesting to talk about here today, say, is, okay, the timing is one aspect, but the timing of it can be suspect and the allegations also can be true. Right. Both, both of those things can exist in the same universe. So we can't say just because the political timing of it is suspect, that means it didn't happen. Right. I think we have to, to look at it and, and vet those things in two different ways. And obviously, anytime there's a political race, I think it kind of goes twofold. Right. One, you're always going to be under a stronger magnifying glass than you were when you weren't part of a race. But two, you know, why, why come out now? Was there somebody, you know, kind of motivating? It was there, you know, what was, what was sort of the, the motive behind coming forward. But again, what, whatever that motive is also doesn't mean that the allegations aren't necessarily true. So I think we have to look at it separately. It's really easy for people to say, oh, it's suspect, therefore they can't be believed. Have to, to look at it in, under, under two different microscopes, frankly. Let's kind of talk about what got us here. So the first set of allegations came out over the weekend or late last week, and it was a, a woman who worked for Eric claiming that he had sexually assaulted her on one occasion after they had kind of been flirty and, and then she left the Post and then went back and saw him Again, so, you know, from. From attorney standpoints, obviously, we look at those and, you know, what's the first thing you think of when. When you hear that? That set of facts.
- [05:33]
B
Oh, clearly, if this happened in 2019 and then it happened again in 2025, how does it happen again in 2025 if you're a grown woman and didn't like what happened in 2019? But I think you're absolutely right when you're talking about the lens through which we're looking at these allegations, we have to look at, you know, why now? And when we see multiple accusers, you know, we're looking, I think as the public, as, you know, neither of us are the lawyer for Eric Swalwell, we're looking at it and just kind of consuming this information as it's coming from the news and putting it in categories of, you know, does it make it more likely than not that these allegations are true? And some things, you know, cause us to question the truth of those allegations. And I think the reality is that human memory works in strange ways. You and I are familiar with negative stereotyping. So when you hear there's suggestibility and contamination of memories. But when you hear that you worked for a guy and you had this encounter and that didn't quite sit well with you and you might have felt hurt later, you hear that he's a predator, you think, oh, me too, me too, me too, me too. So there's a whole lot. And you're absolutely right. The top timing, as he's the frontrunner of this campaign for governor of the state of California, you know, why now? And we had Cheyenne Hunt, who was breaking the story, sending it to cnn, et cetera. Those influencers make their livings on attention and grabbing the headlines. And so all of those things are going to go into questions of credibility. Not just that somebody might be lying, but maybe just literally being mistaken about what their memories of these events are and whether they're really characterizing the behaviors in a way that's fair and whether there was really the crime that is being alleged, at least in the media so far, against Eric Swalwell. Important to note that no one has actually brought criminal charges against Eric Swalwell at this point.
- [07:29]
A
Yes, and that's right. We do know that there is an open investigation in New York. We have been, you know, notified that that is happening in Alvin Bragg's office. We've also, just as of today, there was another woman who came out. She did a press conference. She made allegations. She said she was going to cooperate with law enforcement. And just before we started today, it shows that she was actually being seen walking into the West Hollywood police station. So it looks like there are going to be other complaints at least made. And whatever law enforcement does with those complaints is going to be up to law enforcement. And obviously we'll be talking about it. But I think what obviously these matters are going to come down to. It doesn't, it doesn't seem as if given the pieces of evidence that they have shown us or at least alluded to thus far, meaning text messages, outcry, witnesses seeking medical treatment. You know, those types of, those pieces of evidence are things lawyers like you and I of course are asking about if people did not do them. But here we, we seem to have those, especially with, with the first. And now also this other woman that came out today in these allegations. But what I think is interesting is so they, they have these pieces of information. So I think it's going to be difficult for Eric Swalwell to say never happened, right? I think it's going to be difficult to say, I never knew them, I didn't have any encounters with them. I think what we're going to be looking at here is whether or not these encounters were consensual. And I think that that's what this is going to come down to. And what are we looking for in cases where we're talking about consent versus non consensual sex? And how does alcohol play a role? And now one today was talking about she thought maybe she was drugs. How does that change whether or not consent actually can be a defense?
- [09:24]
B
You know, there's so much to say about that alcohol. First of all, we know alcohol is a disinhibitor. We know that the allegation that came out today talked a little bit about blackouts. And we know that the way human memory works is really fascinating. And the way alcohol and other chemicals work on that mechanism is also quite fascinating. Women have blackouts earlier than men do, generally speaking. And it's very hard to say at what blood alcohol level you're going to be having a blackout. The same person can have a blackout at a very low level of alcohol after one drink and then not blackout after several drinks. But blacked out is not passed out. Blacked out is a function of the recording device in your brain. And people can have political conversations. They can win arguments while they are intoxicated and not be impaired. They can make decisions, they're just not recording it. And so how our brains will allow us to remember Something that we don't like if we think, oh, I wish I hadn't done that. And one of the things that happens in our brains naturally, and we know this happens in every context, not just in this context that I'm talking about, is that we do something called confabulation, where the memory is really like dots, it's like a mosaic. And so we put that together in a story. That's how our brains work. And we make the stories favor us going forward all the time. That's how our brains work in every context. So when we think we remember something, if you're driving along the freeway and you think you hear and you see an accident next to you, if you could really go back to the videotape of your brain, you'd see, you look in your rearview mirror, you look over, you hear the screeching, you look in front of you again, make sure you're not in it. And if you could see that, it would be incomprehensible. But we remember it just like seeing the accident. And the same thing is going on every day, all day long with these shortcuts in our brains. When you add alcohol to that, then really our memories are very, very subject to contamination, which is bringing in other information. When you have other accusers saying something bad happened to you, or he's got all this power and that's not fair and that's not good, or when you have, you know, what you think is your own relationship with this powerful, young, good looking congressman, and then suddenly he's onto the next one, you might feel very bad about yourself if you let something happen. That's an explanation maybe for why something happens again in 2025, because you come back in something that's in more of a gray area than an actual rate. I think what you were bringing up as well, when we talk about these text messages, it's important to know what was the context of those text messages and was there alcohol involved with either one of them? We know alcohol is a disinhibitor as well as acting negatively on your memory and your ability to recall or even store the information and later recall it. So all of these things, I think are going to be important in not only in the prosecution's assessment of these witnesses in the context of other things, but also, you know, it's going to be something that if he is charged, is going to be central, I think, to the defense on these cases.
- [12:31]
A
Yeah. And I think what's interesting, and we see a lot of jurisdictions have these statutes that say Someone is too intoxicated to consent. So it takes away this ability to defend yourself with a consent defense. But really, the issue is, what did the other person believe you could consent to? Right? Because again, like you said, you may not. You may say later on, I don't remember. I don't remember anything that happened. We're hearing a little bit about that. Blacked out, hazy, unsure. That's why I didn't come forward. I wasn't sure what my role was here. But as you were talking about, in terms of memory, I mean, there are memory experts who will testify, and I just tried a case in Florida where we used one where they will testify that you can consent to something and not remember consenting to it. And it's really interesting. And. And the example used, which I think resonates very much with the public, with juries, is the person who either drives home or takes an Uber home from the bar and says, I don't remember how I got here. Now, if you drove yourself home, you don't remember how you got there. You voluntarily got behind the wheel of that car. You voluntarily went on your phone and ordered that Uber. It was not. You weren't forced to do it. You didn't. You consented to getting in that Uber. You just don't remember the fact that you did. Or the person who sends the drunk text or the drunk dial and looks at their phone the next day and says, oh, I don't remember doing that. And it's. I think it really does resonate with people because most people have found themselves in a situation where the next morning they wake up and they may say, I don't remember doing that. I just don't have a recollection. Which. Does it mean you didn't consent?
- [14:14]
B
And how many times have we had witnesses on the stand who say, I would have never done that. I didn't remember it, but he must have drugged me. I must have been unconscious, because I would have never done that. But that's why they call them beer goggles, you know, because it's a disinhibitor, I think. You know, in my trials, I always. I think I always call these memory experts because it's just not what we think of when we think about our own memory. We don't think about the fallibility of our memory until you start, you know, reminding people of things you've done, like not just driving home or calling an Uber. But, you know, I've had friends who've said, yeah, I call. I ordered Uber Eats, and I had food delivered to me. I don't remember doing that. Because, you know, you're capable of doing things, but your memory might not be recording accurately. And yes, they, they do tend to assume that they would have never done something, but they're not taking into account the disinhibition, the fact that they're so disinhibited at the time. And so when you remember back to your regular self, you're thinking, well, my regular sober self would never do that with him. But you're not thinking, would my completely disinhibited self do that in a moment at that time? And, you know, I think it's really important to remember that when they don't have a memory, when they're talking about their memories being so flawed, it's like saying, Donna, you tell me whether he had sex, a non consensual sex with this particular person. You don't know because you weren't there. I don't know because I wasn't there. But neither were they. Basically, they just don't have any of the data anymore to be able to say I was there. And here's what happened. I was there and he tried this and I expressed my lack of consent. Even though I was in the hotel room with him and drinking a drink with him. I made it clear that I did not consent to this particular behavior. And so I think, you know, some of these bits of information, like when you talk about the text messages, for example, and you know, explicit pictures that are being exchanged back and forth, my question is always, well, what happened when he sent this picture or you sent a picture? He asked for a picture. What was your response? And what was it that both of you were thinking when later you found yourselves in a hotel room? I mean, I'm not hearing allegations that someone had a gun to their head on the way to the hotel room. So some of those mixed messages. And yes, we can talk. I'm going to get hate mail, but yes, we can talk about the propriety of that, the relative power and all of the things that go into it. It's totally wrong to be in those situations, perhaps with power dynamics as they might be, and we can agree on those things. But the question that we're having or the question I'm having as a defense lawyer is does it cross the line into criminal behavior where he's knowingly engaging in sex against the will of another person? And that is a horse of a different color. That's not. Is it appropriate? Is it really wrong? Is it ethical? This is a crime and so I think the fact that there's these text messages, that's almost, to me, kind of a treasure trove of potentially defense oriented material. Because how did they respond to that? Did they continue on with their conversations? Giggle I mean, I know that I've been the recipient of those from time to time and probably didn't behave like I should or like I wish I had when I got them, because it's awkward, you know, But I also realized that it's sending mixed messages. So, yeah, I think that all of these things are going to be very interesting and certainly fodder for whichever side you're on in that litigation, should there be one.
- [17:33]
A
And how about the. The idea. And, you know, the one woman, the original accuser said, I remember getting up and pushing him off of me and saying no. Right. So again, these are these pieces of memory, right, that we're talking about, and this is a snippet that either she, you know, does really remember or she's, you know, making it up because she understands that you actually will need that in order to, you know, combat. Combat this whole idea of was it consensual or not? And, you know, I'm not in any way claiming that she's a liar, but I'm saying that we've both tried these cases where we have been able to prove that people have lied. So in talking about possibilities here, of course, this is a possibility we have to discuss, especially in the context of not remembering other aspects of what took place. So this idea that I have this hazy memory, you know, of saying no, how do you think that plays in? And what's the best way for the prosecutors to use that? And what's the best way for the defense to argue that it's not great evidence?
- [18:38]
B
I think just, you know, speaking from my own experience, what you have to do, and it's so great to talk to you because you are such a. A learned lawyer, defense lawyer in this area. So it's really great to talk to you about this because.
- [18:51]
A
Thank you.
- [18:51]
B
We get each other.
- [18:52]
A
I know we could talk. We could talk about it all day.
- [18:56]
B
Right. Well, what I do, and everybody does it differently, but what I do is I don't fight with the accuser so much because I don't want the jury to feel like they want to protect the underdog. So what I do is I elicit this information from the accusers and I just really lay a record down of what do you remember? What do you not remember? And then I put on my experts to talk about how Unlikely it is that, you know, you have, in all this time, you have three frames, and one of those frames happens to be, you know, in all this video, that the, one of the frames that you do remember is the saying no. And, you know, the reality is that you could have remembered that or you could be believing that you remember it because you think you would have done that. And that's really what we do. Our, our memories are like a Wikipedia page. You put information in and that's really our memory, but it isn't accurate in terms of what actually took place. So you don't have to be lying. In fact, most of the time people are not lying and they believe it, and that is their actual memory, but it's been placed there by other information that they got after the event. It is very, very unlikely that the very little bit of information they have is coincidentally the crux of the case. It's the, he did it, even though I was saying no, but I just didn't have the strength. And how often is it that you can have enough of an understanding of what's happening and a memory, an ability to lay down those memories, the recording of that, that memory, and to be able to retrieve those memories, but you're unable to articulate or push him off that physically you just can't move. You know, the experts will tell you that mental impairment comes before physical impairment. If you have physical impairment as a result of alcohol consumption, it is probably from some other source. We see that in DUIs, for example, if people can't walk a straight line, they usually can't walk a straight line because they're drunk. But if they were just in an accident and they're capable of talking to you and answering questions, doing divided attention tasks, but they can't walk a straight line, we know that's because they were injured in the accident. It's not because of alcohol impairment. I mean, there's a lot that we know about how alcohol affects your brain and your impairment and mental impairment comes before physical impairment. So how is it, you know, is it likely that they're remembering accurately that, that critical fact, but that they can't physically push him off or make a call or do these other things? So their own description of what the impairment does to them, I think is that fatal flaw when these witnesses testify. But you can't, you can't fight that out of them. You just have to let them tell us everything as they remember it and, and put on the experts where it's not really all that controversial. This is pretty settled science that this isn't really how alcohol affects your brain and your ability to. To move and to act.
- [21:41]
A
I agree 100%. And when we're looking at the fact that, you know, the. The staffer that worked for him and said that there was a claim in 2019 and then again now a claim in 2024, does that original claim have any bearing on the way the police or law enforcement will treat the 2024 claim in terms of, you know, her veracity? Whether or not, you know, the two different instances affect law enforcement's decision to move forward with. With charging at all?
- [22:14]
B
I think it's important to keep in mind that the behavioral sciences will tell us that victims of sex crimes behave sometimes in ways that are not intuitive. And so they may not clearly say, oh, that was a crime. Get away from me and never come back again. And that's fair. But it also doesn't comport with guilt. It doesn't require guilt. It just means that sometimes people act in a way that's kind of counterintuitive. But these counterintuitive responses are not evidence of guilt. And so we are. If we're looking at whether he's actually guilty, it is really a difficult thing to believe that an empowered woman in this day and age would be assaulted in 2019 and then come back for more in 2025. But we have to at least recognize that there is some inconsistency in those claims. We don't know all of the details, and it's not that it's not possible, but certainly it's going to raise eyebrows. And I think law enforcement is going to have to really settle that apparent inconsistency in that story? Why is it that they came back and under what circumstances, and how did they get back into a situation where they were able to have been victimized yet another time? Six years later?
- [23:27]
A
I'll push back on that a little bit just because I sat through a bazillion rape trials where the experts get up and the experts say a lot of times victims want to become friends with their accusers. I know this is very hard for all of us to understand or believe. Still, still for me, after listening to expert after expert talk about it, but that there's almost this way that you, as a victim, you make yourself feel better by keeping the person in your life. It doesn't make it seem like it was as bad. And so I think that as the rules have changed. Right. And one of the things that I've continued to say about this area of the law. And what bothers me most is when we take very old allegations, right? Allegations that happened 10, 15, 20, 30 years ago, where there are no statutes of limitations on a lot of these types of crimes. And we take these new rules and we apply them to past behavior. And I have a really hard time with that. But these are more current things like you're talking about. We have women who are more empowered. This is not something that, you know, is as taboo as it was 10, 15, 20 years ago. And the world has changed dramatically even since 2020. Really. And so, you know, you look at this and you think, okay, so you. You have these choices. You make a choice to go to the hotel room. And what I would love to talk about, especially for the young women listening and as two women lawyers talking about this here, there is a lot of real estate between these types of decisions and criminal charges. And I think the problem comes in here, where we have allowed these types of circumstances to be charged too easily. Right. I think we have become so. So hyperly aware, so hyperly sensitive, and wanted the pendulum to swing so far away from the world where women were never believed, right. That we wanted this pendulum to swing so far that now it has swung so far. And law enforcement's reaction, I think, is to charge more often than not. Rather than look at these cases and say, you know what? Let's. Let's really play this out. Let's really talk about the likelihood of winning. Let's really talk about if this was the intent of these statutes when they were written. You know, I just have a hard time with people who know each other that are involved in. In some type of a relationship. They're out drinking together. They. And then one person's charged with the crime and the other one is a victim. Like, to me, that's not really the intent of these laws, especially when we're talking about too intoxicated to consent. So I think that it's helpful to.
- [26:22]
B
Yeah, right.
- [26:23]
A
I mean, it's helpful to have that conversation. And in a way that is not, you know, you don't. You don't have to come after me for saying, you know, how dare you talk about, you know, women in that context? But I also think I was raked over the coals for saying, you know, if you go to the hotel room, like, don't act like you don't know what may happen. But at the same time, we still have to make good decisions. You get in the car, you put a seatbelt on to protect yourself during COVID you put a Mask on to protect yourself. You walk out on the streets, maybe you carry a mace or you have a concealed carry, depending on where you live. You do these things to protect yourself. You have to make those calls in deciding to go to someone's hotel room after a night of drinking. So I feel like that's a reasonable conversation to have.
- [27:07]
B
Yeah, 100%. And I'll tell you that I find it ironic that what we're talking about are these accommodation syndromes. Right, that's what they call them. And it's the fact that victims of sexual assault, children and adults will not behave necessarily in ways that are intuitive or they would behave in these counterintuitive ways. That is true, but it's only really relevant in the context of like psychological clinical settings. It's not something that we're going to use forensically to determine did it happen or didn't it happen. But I think beyond that, what you're talking about is something I think culturally more important, which is, you know, I think it's. I don't think that it's empowering to women to say that in every situation they must have had their free will overcome by a man. And I think it's more empowering to require something, to recognize that women have agency and they can decide whether to put themselves in positions. That's not to say that if you go there you're going to be raped or that you ask for it or anything like that. So it's very difficult to talk about it because it's so charged. But the fact is that we all know what context we're going into. And if we have a situation where we're drinking and we're going to a hotel room, you know, that there's some possibility that it's going to lead to something else. And so I think it's, it's a recognition of women's agency and women's empowerment to say that we do expect and we know that we have the right to say, no, I'm not going to go to that hotel room or I'm not going to put myself in that position. And also to recognize that if I do, I might be open to something. And if I'm not, I better be very clear about that or better be very clear eyed about things there. Because what happens is that in these courtship rituals things start to get gray and communication, both sides are drinking. It wasn't as if one side is thought to have been intoxicated and the other party, the male, was sober. So I think understanding that there are Coded communications in courtship all the time. And then when you add all the other stuff, the drinking and all of the other things, that can get really confusing for both parties. And I think recognizing them as equals is more of a statement of women's power than it is to think the opposite, that in every situation, the woman is not powerful enough.
- [29:26]
A
Let's get into quickly, because I really want to talk about this, because I think it's really important. So if you're part of Swalwell's camp, okay, he's obviously come out. He's obviously denied allegations. He has vowed to fight. He has had lawyers sent cease and desist letters, which I think is probably a bad look. And I know that one of the women actually said the cease and desist letters is what caused her to come out and speak more. So I think that that may be backfiring. Let's say that you're part of this camp. He's in a tough situation because here he is, this political figure, and people are expecting him or someone to speak on his behalf. But yet lawyers like you and I, once these types of allegations are being made, are saying, say nothing. You shouldn't be making any statements at all. So how does he balance that? Because I think so far, what he's done isn't the right thing. So if you're advising Eric Swalwell, how do you tell him to handle the media and handle these criminal charges?
- [30:28]
B
You know, there are a couple of very distinct questions that he's got that most of my clients wouldn't have, and that is that he's got a public image that he's got to preserve or he feels he needs to preserve. He had the question of whether he had a political career continuing. He'd been in Congress and 2012, and then there was the question of the criminal liability. And I think in their efforts to probably try to be all things to all of these contexts, there might have been a little bit of misstep, as you label or as you describe. I don't know. I mean, I'm not ready to say that any of these things were a mistake per se. But, no, I've never issued a cease and desist letter myself. And you also have to be thinking about these are potential jurors everywhere. And I want to make sure that we're making the right moves for these potential jurors if, God forbid, someday we have to be going to them for their ruling on this case. So I think less is more. I actually do think that it's important in these cases to make a statement. And I think, quite honestly, we can always take potshots. And I really hesitate criticizing defense lawyers when they are in the midst, in the thick of it. I know what that's like. You know what that's like. So I wouldn't so much criticize, but I would say that I thought, to put it a different way, I think that Eric Swalwell's initial statement that he was. And he's apologetic, he's apologizing to his wife, apologizing to his family, apologizing for bad judgment. You know, look, I would have written it slightly differently, but the point of it is fine. The point of it is kind of in line with what we all probably think, and that is that, you know, these things go to your head. Look at John Edwards. I mean, sometimes your rise to political stardom is so overwhelming that you and everyone around you are captivated, and you lose your head, you know, and it can happen. It doesn't engender much sympathy, but I think that it's understandable. And so to say I made bad decisions, I used bad judgment. I'm sorry for that. I'm gonna step aside, is the wise thing to do. And it also leaves room for. I sent a picture. I sent. You know, I had affairs. I let my guard down. I did these things. I sent inappropriate text messages. But to take the next step that I committed a crime is just, you know, well beyond the pale. And so I think it's good that they're firm that there was no crime committed. And also, it's probably smart to say I did some bad things. So. And I think that's a good thing to do and then stop. Because the more they talk, the more it keeps this information in front of the cameras, and it keeps people talking. It's not like it's going to go away right away, but you do want to throw cold water on the press and so on the. On the news story. So I think it is probably the smart thing to do for him. Some of the things, yeah, I wouldn't have done. You don't really want to rattle the hornet's nest, so to speak. And you don't want to send out allegations that would make accusers more inclined to come out and speak their truth, or at least the truth that they understand it to be. So you don't really want to do that either. And so I'd like to see less of that from his lawyer. Yeah, I agree.
- [33:52]
A
And I think that the lawyers that he sort of brought on at the beginning, these are not criminal defense attorneys. I don't think your people, they're. They're not people that are, like you said, thinking that criminal charges are going to come from this. Right. This becomes a. A PR. Political firestorm nightmare in the beginning, and then it sort of has morphed into this. But you know as well as I do you have that Fifth Amendment right. And it's important. And it's important to make sure that you don't. Yeah. Put yourself in a situation to compromise that. I'm going to ask last question for you. Lay out some potential charges for me, if there are any. And I will say, as somebody who defended Harvey Weinstein, this incident in the hotel room is very similar without the alcohol. And New York DA came after him. They're continuing to come after him. He has another trial starting right now on the same allegations they've tried to get him on two and three times. So, you know, if we're going to be fair, then they should be fair and they should apply the law across the board. But if there are potential charges, what are they? And is he facing any prison time?
- [34:58]
B
Well, if we take these press conferences at face value, it isn't. There are allegations probably of rape, of an unconscious person. In California, that's the same punishment as a forcible rape. And actually, quite. Quite honestly in New York, it's the same. But he's also facing charges of just forcible rape as well as allegations of assault, the. And very serious assaults. There's potentially attempted murder. There's an allegation that he had choked one of the victims. It's that she was later bloodied and bruised. I mean, these are really terrible allegations. And so that.
- [35:40]
A
Potentially drugging. Potentially drugging and putting something in her drink. Yeah.
- [35:45]
B
Yes. Actually, in California, that's another allegation as well. So all of those charges could be in the offing. I think that it's important to be really careful about. I mean, the PR part is just not important anymore. It's the. It's the part of it that is really gonna make a difference in his life from now on. And so I think that needs to be the focus for his attorneys. You know, it's hard, I think, when we represent people who. With means. And you and I have both been there, people who are scared. I mean, for good reason. Innocent people with a lot of money will clearly be afraid. And so they feel like, let me throw more money at lots of different people who have lots of different ideas about it. And the more lawyers I have, it seems like the better. And, you know, you're constantly worried, like, should I, should I add somebody else to the legal team kind of a thing? And you're, you're constantly, you know, changing strategies and things. And so it's really important to kind of keep your eye on the prize and just do what you do, get them over the finish line, get another not guilty. As a defense lawyer, and I think it's important to have people who have had that experience, experience, you know, like you've had you and I have both had trials where we've had experiences where we've learned from. And so this isn't all that different. But I think when you get lawyers like Mr. Swalwell has, as you described, who are not criminal defense lawyers, you can sort of, you can get a little bit lost in the, in the headlights pretty early on. And so it's important to keep the important part front and center.
- [37:13]
A
Well, we're definitely going to follow this story. If he is charged, those crimes carry significant jail prison time. So we will be following, we're going to be watching to see what happens. And I cannot thank you enough, Jacqueline. And if he reaches out to you to join his defense team, we'll definitely have you back on to talk about that. So thank you so much for your time, and it was great having you today.
- [37:37]
B
It was so great to see you again, Donna. Take care. Thank you.
- [37:40]
A
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.