Loading summary
Transcript72 lines
- [00:00]
A
And we're live on matchday as Doug reaches for a buffalo wing.
- [00:04]
B
He's got it.
- [00:05]
A
Oh, and he's gone for a can of Pepsi too. What a finish. There's no doubt about it. It just tastes better.
- [00:12]
B
Match Days deserve Pepsi.
- [00:19]
A
This is crime and justice. I'm Donna Rotuno. A former Onlyfans model is set to go to trial next month for the second degree murder of her boyfriend at a Lux Miami condo. Courtney Clenney claims the stabbing of Christian Obumseli was in self defense but prosecutors contend the evidence says otherwise. If you love breaking down these cases with me each week, send me an email with your thoughts, theories and questions@askdonnaox.com and I will answer them here each week. Joining me today is Miami based criminal defense attorney Paul Kalai.
- [01:01]
B
Cheers to America's 250th birthday. Get 20% off your first purchase at Fox newswineshop.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 order to order. Please drink responsibly.
- [01:16]
A
Paul, thank you so much for joining me today.
- [01:19]
B
Pleasure's online. Thanks for having me.
- [01:21]
A
DON let's talk about the Courtney Clenney case happening down in Miami. I think there's so much to get into here. So why don't you give us a brief view of the case and then we'll really get into a lot of the nitty gritty because I think there's some really interesting facts here.
- [01:35]
B
I think it's, it lends itself to a trial lawyer's case for some incredible storytelling. I think that's going to be real critical for the defense. I kind of refer to it as a uniquely made in Miami story. Courtney was a, a, an influencer and an only fans model. I think she did quite well. She was in a, a long term relationship with with her boyfriend Christian, whose name I always last name I always mispronounce. And it was a, it was a vault. By all accounts it was a volatile relationship but, but they stayed together and it endured. Long story short, it culminated in a very violent episode where Christian, the boyfriend, the decedent was was killed and Courtney was asserted that she was defending herself. She wasn't I think immediately arrested but ultimately was and and then has been incarcerated for for, for some time. And the case is now woven its way through through motion practice and, and, and liberal discovery which we have in state criminal cases in Florida. And there's a trial date approaching maybe in August or early fall.
- [03:04]
A
So when we look at this case, Paul, I think obviously the major issue here is going to be the self defense issue. And so we know that there's a documented history of abuse between these two. Police have been called multiple times. They lived in a high rise building. The high rise building staff had a documented list of incidences between the two of them. So normally, you know, when you're looking at a self defense case, right, those are things you really want as a defense attorney. You can say, look, this is a history and it just got to a point where she needed to defend herself. And I, I think that this case lends to that. I think the problem we have here, and you know, we always tell people not to talk to the police and the problem we have here is when she spoke to police and said, you know, that she was defending herself, she basically said that she threw the knife and that the knife was embedded into his body. And so now the contention is going to be whether or not that's actually plausible. And of course the prosecutor is going to say it is not plausible and the defense is going to say it is. And we've seen that there's been experts hired and there's been reenactments of whether or not this could or couldn't take place. But I think, and you tell me what you think. I think had she not spoken to the police, I mean, she's better off saying, look, I had to defend myself and it didn't have to be. It's almost as if she put this notion of I had to throw the knife in almost to remove some of the liability, the criminal liability here. What do you think about that?
- [04:37]
B
I, I of course agree with all of your wisdom and your statements about how these, these type of statements by our clients really complicate a case and complicate the defense. I mean, I'll take it a step further in terms of the plausibility because I think some of the medical examiner testimony is that the wound was in such a way inflicted on the decedent's body, on Christian's body, that, that it couldn't possibly have been thrown. So, you know, I guess there's two ways to deal. And in my last three trials I've had similar statements that I wish had not been made by my client. And here I think there's two ways that the defense can deal with that. They can either try to support it and run with it, or they can offer an explanation that it was made in the Heat of the moment and with the rationality seeping back in after yet another incredibly violent episode in a long history of relationship with violent episodes. But whichever road they take, it's. The defense has been complicated by that statement.
- [05:56]
A
Yeah, I agree. And I think that if I'm running this case, the latter seems to be a better route. I think that especially she's a woman. And whether people like it or not, women are treated a little bit softer in the criminal justice system. And I don't necessarily mean by judges or prosecutors, but I think juries, I think juries look at women a little bit differently. I think jurors understand a battered woman situation. And I think that if she were to get up and testify and say, look, I was very afraid, right? We had this long history. The police were there. I was afraid that if I said what really happened that I would be arrested. And I just was, I spoke out of fear, but really, you know, he was attacking me, and I felt that this was my only way out and I was in fear of my life. I almost feel like that comes across as more authentic, more believable. And maybe the jury says, you know what? I get that right? The fear somebody would feel when police are investigating a murder. And I almost think that will sit better than this notion of, you know, let's try to double down on the throwing of this knife. That just especially I, I think the throwing of the knife may be plausible. I think the throwing of the knife and having it hit him may be plausible. I think the problem comes in when, as you said, we're talking about the medical examiner and the depth of that wound and what would have needed to truly happen for that to basically embed itself the way that it did.
- [07:21]
B
I agree that it, it, it just flows better that it's going to be more plausible to go with that ex. With the explanation of, I, I was, I, I, I was, I was terrified. Of course, the prosecutor will argue in its closing or on cross examination that she was covering her tracks, that she acted rationally in that she knew she had done something for which she might be considered criminally culpable. But, but I think, I think the defense just has to let that roll off its back because as you've mentioned a couple times in your comments, the jury selection, as in every case, but, but jury selection is going to be critical here because it's not just self defense. It's going to be a battered woman's syndrome defense. And these defense lawyers are going to have to draw the jurors into the into the relationship and the life that Courtney and Christian shared, as volatile as it was. And they're gonna. The defense lawyers are. And I. And I have worked closely with Sabrina Puglisi, who in the past on. On matters, and have known her for decades. And. And, you know, she's the. The juries, the jurors, I think, regard for female defendants or witnesses or even, as you've commented yourself on some of your success and some of your difficult cross examinations, they treat female attorneys perhaps in a different way, not an easier way, but in a slightly different way. And so much like your cross examinations in your difficult cases involving sexual abuse have. I think the term you used was men would have been vilified. Male attorneys and jurors didn't bat eyelash when you had to go hard. I think Sabrina will enjoy. Ms. Puglisi will enjoy some of that in this case as well. But they have to tell the story of the battered women syndrome, because I think doing that will. Will. Will get them across the goal line of explaining why Courtney made that statement in the heat of the moment with. When. When it. When it wasn't. When it wasn't true.
- [09:43]
A
Sure.
- [09:43]
B
And I think that'll help.
- [09:45]
A
Yeah. I think that if you set up this notion of, you know, she lived under this umbrella of fear for as long as she did and then finally acts, it's almost as if you're in this state of, you know, you're numb, you are sort of confused. You can't believe that this actually happened. And so I think that, as you said, the heat of the moment, I think that really makes sense. Talk to me a little bit about the second degree murder charge. What is she facing in Florida on the second degree? Because she wasn't charged with first degree. So tell me about what she's. She's looking at on the second degree.
- [10:18]
B
The sentencing consequences are going to be significant and severe. You know, she's. She's not looking at the remainder of her days in being incarcerated, but she's looking at, you know, a couple decades and so. And the Dade County State Attorney's office is going to go hard at her because the defense lawyers, as you know from. From being familiar with the case, had moved to disqualify the entire Dade State Attorney's office because it does what you and I perhaps often see federal prosecutors do with impunity, which is to. Which is to invade the defense camp and peek at materials they're not supposed to see and then say, oh, shucks, we shouldn't have done that. And. And get away with it. And in this case the defense team went hard because the government had seized some computers that involve Courtney's parents communications in a privileged manner with the defense, with Courtney's defense lawyers. And so ultimately what happened there is that the, the lead prosecutor relinquished himself from the case. And so that's a long kind of extraneous way to say that's going to factor into a request for, for the most severe penalty permissible under Florida law for a conviction on second degree murder.
- [11:44]
A
And what's the, what's the Florida self defense standard? What does the defense have to be able to prove essentially to say look, yes, she killed him, but the killing was justifiable.
- [11:59]
B
This relates back to what we were discussing a moment ago. And one thing you left out of explaining about, about the statement is you also have to bear in mind that these, they were still in love. I mean, you know, this is not, this is not a stabbing on this of a, of, of a stranger or
- [12:22]
A
the midst of a divorce or something like that.
- [12:24]
B
Yeah, correct, correct. And so you know, the, the difficulty that. I don't think that the defense is going to have much difficulty on meeting Florida's standard of self defense in this regard. I think that the big focus is going to, the prosecution's going to place the onus and the spotlight on Courtney's actions. And you see that in all of the, the video and audio and text messages of, of Christian, the decedent that are being played. And I think that's kind of an insight into how the government's going to go about trying to undermine this self defense standard because it's all, it's all Courtney's, it's video and audio of Courtney sounding, for lack of a better term, irrational, angry, caustic, bombastic. And then Christian texting her, you know, you hurt me, you hit, locked me out, you bit me, all these things. And of course the media just runs with that. But one thing I've not heard any journalist or any media outlet probe is that those, those text messages from Christian to her sound really self serving.
- [13:44]
A
Yes.
- [13:44]
B
You know, they sound like we're sitting here talking about Courtney saying I threw the knife at him, but it's almost like he's covering his tracks, his share of the abuse in the relationship. And, and this is why I talk about the storytelling Donna, because you know, look, I wouldn't call her an only fans model. I would refer to her if I were her defense lawyer in this trial as a sex worker. Because being in a relationship, if you've ever Read about that sort of thing. It, it requires supreme confidence and trust and understanding. And most guys are not trusting and young guys. And insecure. Right. She's earning high six figures, maybe into the seven figures. She's, she's a sex worker, yet she's in love and in a relationship with this guy. And I have zero doubt, zero doubt that that contributed to his abuse of her through her, through his insecurity and the jealousy.
- [14:49]
A
The insecurity. I'm sure there were constant conversations between the two of them of, what are you doing? What's going on? Who's responding to you? How are you interacting with them?
- [14:59]
B
Right there, there. There's little doubt about it. And that's why I think these, these text messages from him that have been blasted. I mean, you do this in, in your practice. I, I've watched you from afar. You have to embrace the things that seemingly are the most difficult in your case.
- [15:15]
A
Sure.
- [15:15]
B
And you have to try to find the positive and try to make them your own.
- [15:19]
A
So we've heard now and you know, to counter some of these messages that we're going to see from the state, and obviously they're going to put their narrative up and the defense is going to counter it. But the defense is asking to introduce text messages that show the alleged history of violence and reports of animal abuse. So let's talk about that. We've heard about the fact that a dog was dead in a cage. And so do you think that that's something that's going to be admissible? I don't know what you call it in Florida. I know for us it's kind of like lynch material. Right. If you have information that shows the violent nature of the abuser or the, the decedent, you can, you can bring that in. So talk to me about how that works in Florida.
- [16:03]
B
I think if you look, first of all, to, to, to use a pun, I think on its face, substantively, the, the allegation of the dog abuse, I don't think that dog hunts. I think that's a really fine needle to thread. However, having said that, if you look at the timing of this disclosure by the defense and the motion seeking to admit this information, it's fairly recent. And so what that tells me is that the defense has sort of used this at this time to try and educate the judge, Judge Andrea Wolfson, to, to, to try and put in the record that he has this history, because so far the media has kind of championed him as this loving, doting, you know, boyfriend who endured this harassment at the hands of this irrational woman, you know, and, and, and that's, that's not the case. I mean it can't, the stories are never that one sided. Right, sure. And so I think this dog, I think this dog issue is sort of used to, not only to educate about the fact that this is Christian was, was not a choir boy, but, but also, as you said, it's going to rein in the prosecution because now I don't think it's admissible as we sit here today under Florida law. However, if the prosecutor starts in jury selection and opening argument to say we have a choir boy, this was a one way relationship, he should have received, you know, some kind of anointment for being in a relationship with this woman, then it's going to probably come in. And you know, people don't like animal abusers and people have certain, you know, there's a lot of, of empirical data about if you're going to abuse an animal, you know, that gets a little, raises some significant questions about how you treat human beings and what you're capable of you in a relationship with another human being. So it's a wisely timed dipping the toe into the waters in that regard for those two reasons.
- [18:21]
A
Yeah, I think so too. And like you said, people don't like animal abusers. And if you get a few people on the jury that really love their animals and animals are really defenseless against humans in a lot of circumstances, especially house pets. So I think that that really would ring true in terms of somebody's likelihood or their propensity for violence. Right. And I think that that's something that's obviously going to be important here. Talk to me about the Williams Rule and how it applies to this case.
- [18:52]
B
You're asking me all the difficult questions.
- [18:55]
A
We try to make this, we try to make this podcast, you know, very different and very legal. Right. We want, we want to add some things in that most people don't know
- [19:04]
B
that this is such a salacious case with such marvelous facts that, pinning me down to, to, to, to these legal theories in state court in Florida.
- [19:16]
A
I only ask those that are, that are qualified to give me the.
- [19:20]
B
Well, that's true, but it's been some time since I've dealt with the Williams Rule. But you know, it's not dissimilar from federal court and other, other, you know, crimes, wrongs and bad acts and things like that. And there's evidentiary standards about what you have to show. I mean, that's the thing about the, the dog issue. It's it's like 20 years ago. So it's not, it's not, it doesn't necessarily meet that admissibility standard of being more recent and, and not, not offer to, to impugn the character of, of, of the person against whom it's being offered. And, and that's another difficult thing. You know, he's there. It's not testimonial. Right. He's, he's, he's not in the courtroom. I think that the Williams rule is going to relate to the difficulty in getting that in. Unless the prosecutor makes the fatal mistake of saying that he's a great guy and had no contributing factors in the abuse of this relationship.
- [20:18]
A
Let's go back to the issue regarding her parents, because I think this is interesting. So there was a point in the way that the state got to the parents computers and their information was that they were actually looking to charge her parents, is that correct?
- [20:35]
B
That's my understanding.
- [20:37]
A
And they were looking to charge her parents for what?
- [20:41]
B
I think it was helping her get to Hawaii.
- [20:43]
A
Yeah. Eating and abetting or something in some way. And when they ended up finding this, you know, attorney client information, you know, that's a fine line, right, that the prosecutors walk because they, of course, have a right to investigate if they believe that the parents were the ones that helped her flee the jurisdiction. But at the same time, then once they find things that they don't have a right to look at, what do they do? What should they have done differently than the way that they did it here? Because if you come across something, you come across it. What are you supposed to do? It's just like if you're listening to jail phone calls and you realize, oh, this is an attorney call. You have to shut the, the recorder off. How do they, you know, how do they know to turn that spigot off?
- [21:28]
B
Look, you and I have never worked together, but I have zero doubt that we're the same in our practices in this regard. If we get, if we receive something from the opposing counsel in some way, or if we're offered something, first, we would refuse it if we knew we weren't supposed to be in possession of it. And second, the moment you or I realized we were looking at something that pierce the attorney client privilege, we would stop looking at it. We would deliberately strategize how to make this disclosure and to whom, the court, in a way that doesn't compromise our client's defense. And if you, if you put on your prosecutor's hat, you would, if you were ethical, you would stop Looking at it. And you would figure out a way to, to ex parte, inform the judge of it so it doesn't compromise your investigation of potential aiding, embedding a charge against, against the, the parents. And by not doing that, by charging ahead with impunity, they created the prosecutor, created the motion to disqualify the entire office, lost the lead prosecutor, and wound up not prosecuting the parents for what the state wanted to. So it's, it's, it's. If I had a nickel for every time prosecutors didn't do what your parents raised you to do in the right way, I wouldn't be practicing any. Right. That's what they should have done. They should have stopped and alerted the court under seal. The court would have reviewed the information, decided what was privileged and what was not. And, and, and the court would have decided how to alert the defense so it could potentially have a review of it. And the opposite happened. And that's, you know, look, as a defense lawyer, it takes a career to build a reputation. And it takes one instance of something like that to destroy your reputation. And for that reason, you and I never make that mistake.
- [23:31]
A
That's right.
- [23:31]
B
Prosecutors get a little slap on the wrist and then a finger wag from the bench and then there's a lecture on civility when the defense lawyer goes hard case, because we're supposed to be civil and countenance that. But, you know, that's it. That's. The prosecutor made their bed with that. It was, it's very simple to, very simple not to get into those problems. Just don't do the right thing.
- [23:55]
A
And you know, granted, they didn't charge the parents, okay, fine, you can look at that and say that's, that's part of a remedy. But given the fact that this also affects Courtney. Right. And her defense, and obviously they won't be able to use any of this at trial. But if, and okay, the prosecutor, the main prosecutor's been disqualified, is that enough? I guess. Is that an issue that possibly opens this case up on appeal if she were to be convicted? I mean, I, you know, normally, I think a lot of times defense attorneys make motions to disqualify prosecutors that I think don't have a lot of merit. We're watching it in Utah with Tyler Robinson. We've watched it in other high profile cases as of late. And normally I think, okay, this is, is really pushing it a step too far. But in this case, I mean, they had a very bonafide reason here to make the request. So is it enough? To say the head guy is tossed off?
- [24:52]
B
Of course not. I mean, you know, all of the adverse consequences to Courtney that you mentioned, you know, in terms of the fairness of the trial exist, but in a larger view, what happens is there's, there's no consequences. There's, there's never consequences. And so what message does that send to the prosecutors who made that perversion of, of, of, of practice, who perverted the, the fair receiving.
- [25:21]
A
Yeah.
- [25:21]
B
Tells them they can do it with impunity. And so next time they're confronted with it, what are they going to do? Are they going to look at it or are they going to figure out a way to look at it without letting anybody know? I don't, I don't. You know, I think there should be this, the same kind of sanctions to the, to those who carry the, the tin badge and, and prosecute cases when, when, when those kind of ethical violations are, are committed, because it, it, it cuts at the bedrock of the fairness to the accused and it's, and it's, it's cheating.
- [25:50]
A
Yeah, I, I agree. Now, let's say if you and I, Paul, we're gonna pick this jury. Let's talk about for the defense. Who do you think are the best jurors in a perfect world? Now, is this going to be six or 12 down in Florida?
- [26:05]
B
I, you know, that's another question where
- [26:09]
A
you're hanging me up.
- [26:11]
B
Say six. But if it's second degree murder, it's.
- [26:16]
A
It, it.
- [26:16]
B
No, I don't, I actually don't know.
- [26:19]
A
I tried a rape case in Palm beach not that long ago, and it was, it was six. And you know, as somebody who's used to 12, it was very strange for me, but it was six. So whether it's six or 12, whether it's six or 12, who are we picking?
- [26:32]
B
The last second degree murder case I tried in state court two decades ago was six.
- [26:37]
A
Okay, so whatever the number is, who, who are we picking? Who are the best jurors? If you're on the defense side of this.
- [26:43]
B
Boy, oh boy. I mean, this is back to statement. Your statement, your statement, not mine, about how jurors can, can, can, can view or treat male or female witnesses, defendants or lawyers differently. My experience in court, which, which I've had a couple times, is that, and I'll stand by this, women are very, very, very difficult on female defendants.
- [27:18]
A
Yes, they are.
- [27:19]
B
And I maybe, you know, I've been practicing 33 years, maybe 18 years in. I picked an 11 member female juror in federal court, and my client Was, was female and the one male hung the jury and the judge allowed the jurors to speak to us afterward. And the women were incredibly severe. So I think I, I think the defense better be very careful in, in the, in the number of men versus women on the panel and on the ultimate jury. And, and then they have to really scrutinize. They have to really scrutinize the people they put on. I mean, look, there, there are going to be, there are going to be men who were on the panel subject to, to void here that maybe were accused of domestic violence at some point and are going to have strong views about whether that occurred or whether it was false allegations. I mean, these are volatile, volatile things that people are going to. Which is why I wasn't expecting Williams rule and life because we talk about all the jury selection issues. I'm teasing you. That's on me. You know, and there may be women who were in, who were in abusive relationships, and you don't really know how that individual, how that woman who was in an abusive relationship may apply her own experience in a way either favorable or adverse to Courtney. So this is the jury selection in this case is going to be, my view, as tricky as it gets because sort of every issue cuts both ways.
- [29:09]
A
Yeah, I, I agree with you. If it's me, I'm looking for men with daughters and I'm looking for younger. If it's going to be women, I want women under 40. And normally, you know, when I'm trying sexual assault cases, I want women over 40. But in this case, you know, where this whole idea of, you know, victimhood and younger women seem to buy into that more than older women. So that's what I'm looking for. So I'll interested to see what type of jury they pick. Now, as we know, the best jurors for either side always get kicked off and you're left with people in the middle. So we will see who's left. So the judge in this case, Paul Andrea Wolfson, as we said before, ironically, I went to law school with her, so I've known Andrea for years. She has said no tele nolla. So what that means is she wants to restrict lawyers from speaking to the press about this. Talk to me about how that's playing out and if the chaos of this case and what's kind of been out in the media is going to affect what happens here.
- [30:16]
B
Well, first of all, Judge Wolfson is, has a great reputation and is a trial lawyer's trial judge. I think even in this case. She has managed it. It's volatile. The issues we've spoken about are volatile between the lawyers and she has done an incredible job keeping the thing on track and not letting it get deraile. You know, I have pretty strong views as I'm sure you do, because of the high profile nature of the cases you handle and the success you've had. You know how to video and audio and text messages from the decedent of the, of the accused of Courtney get out in the first place. Is there a statement to, you know, to the, by, by the prosecutor and the investigating agencies when the indictment is announced? Yes, of course. And that's designed to, to taint people's view. And, and as I said in some of my opening remarks to you, the press continues to play this one sided version of, of Courtney as sort of a loose cannon while child. So I think I, I think the defense, I think they're, you know, you have to stay in line with Judge Wolfson's comments and order as you you know, heavy motion practice is how I do it because prosecutor, you know the press can get their hands on the motion practice and, and run with it as we, as we saw from your observation of the dog abuse. And so you know there should be a lot of that going forward. Pre, you know, a bench memo, pre trial motions in limine. And that's where I think the lawyer should, my motto is never lose a chance to advocate. I would never put something in a pleading that wasn't warranted or merited or violative of anything. That's not what I'm doing. I'm defending my client. And so these pre trial pleadings which the, the docket's going to be watched daily by any news outlet that's interested in the case. That's where within the confines of the court system that's where the defense needs to get its theory aside so that it can begin to percolate.
- [32:27]
A
Yeah, I think you're right. I mean we saw that in Tyler Robinson. Right. The defense filed that motion regarding the ballistics and it went, you know, viral and they're not supposed to be talking to the media. And then of course the prosecution responds to that and instead of doing it in wr a court, they did it and then there were sanctions. So yes, we, we absolutely need to follow the rules of the court. And is this going to be a televised trial in, in Florida?
- [32:50]
B
Oh, oh sure. State court. State court. It we just had a sort of high profile trial with a boating, a boating crash.
- [33:02]
A
Oh, I watched it the the Beach Beach Bash or whatever that was.
- [33:06]
B
Yeah, yeah. So, so there will be, there will be cameras in the courtroom.
- [33:13]
A
Oh, good. We'll be able to watch it follow, which will be exciting. I actually, my trial that I tried in February was in front of the judge that the Beach Bash was in front of. So that was fun for me to watch that one. I don't live in Florida, but I do get down every once in a while and get to try a couple cases and it's, it's fun. I love coming down. Paul, you have been so awesome. Thank you for answering my tough questions. You really helped us kind of break this down and we're all going to watch and see what happens to Courtney.
- [33:46]
B
Thank you so much. And I look forward to seeing you.
- [33:48]
A
Thank you. You too. 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. In the US there's a break in every 26 seconds. But when intruders step near Simplisafe, home security steps up. Stop.
- [34:14]
B
This is Simplisafe. Police are on the way.
- [34:17]
A
Using AI alerts, US based live agents help deter break ins. SimpliSafe no long term contracts. Save 50% on your new system with professional monitoring at simplisafe.com/Spotify or with promo
- [34:28]
B
code Spotify Outdoor deterrence requires a Simplisafe active guard outdoor protection plan starting at 49.99amonth. Visit simplisafe.com licenses for alarm license information. Tennessee 2012.