Verdict in the pharmacist poisoning trial. A deadly love triangle in paradise? And Bryan Kohberger is back in court.

Summary

Dateline NBC: Comprehensive Summary of Episode Released January 30, 2025

Title: Verdict in the Pharmacist Poisoning Trial. A Deadly Love Triangle in Paradise? And Bryan Kohberger is Back in Court.

Introduction

In this compelling episode of Dateline NBC, the editorial team delves into three high-profile true-crime cases: the verdict in the West Virginia pharmacist poisoning trial, the second trial of Eric Thompson in a deadly love triangle in Hawaii, and updates on Bryan Kohberger’s ongoing legal saga. Additionally, the episode features an insightful segment on the complexities of legal pleas with NBC News legal analyst Danny Savalos.

---

1. Verdict in the Pharmacist Poisoning Trial

Case Overview: The trial of Natalie Cochran, a pharmacist accused of poisoning her husband, Michael, to conceal a multimillion-dollar Ponzi scheme, concluded with a shocking verdict after 13 years of legal proceedings. The courtroom drama captivated audiences as Natalie’s defense and prosecution presented their cases.

Key Testimonies and Arguments: Natalie’s defense team aimed to dismantle the prosecution's narrative by presenting witnesses who portrayed Michael as someone with declining health and extensive use of supplements. Nicole, the couple's daughter, testified that her father’s health issues predated his death, suggesting that Michael’s demise might not have been solely due to insulin poisoning.

Notable Defense Insights: Jay Young, a Dateline producer and courtroom observer, provided an inside look into the defense's strategy:

• Jay Young (02:03): "Natalie is my mother." This personal connection underscored the emotional weight of the trial.
• Nicole’s Testimony (02:25 - 02:54): Nicole described her father as an athlete who used multiple pills daily and had noticeable health issues leading up to his death.

Prosecution’s Stance: The prosecution argued that Natalie executed the poisoning meticulously to prevent Michael from uncovering her fraudulent activities. They presented circumstantial evidence, including altered autopsy reports and suspicious financial transactions.

Forensic Evidence and Expert Testimonies: Dr. Priya Banerjee, a forensic pathologist, supported the defense by highlighting the limitations of the autopsy due to the body's decomposition:

• Dr. Priya Banerjee (06:43): "We don't practice in a black box. We always consider the circumstances... the autopsy is the gold standard."

Despite the defense's efforts to cast doubt on the manner of death, the jury deliberated for only two hours before reaching a unanimous decision.

Verdict:

• Jay Young (08:31): "The defendant is guilty of murder in the first degree."

Aftermath: Jay expressed surprise at the swift verdict, noting the absence of direct evidence:

• Jay Young (08:37): "The prosecution made it very clear... but the outcome was unexpected."

---

2. Heartbreak in Paradise: Eric Thompson’s Second Trial

Case Overview: Eric Thompson, accused of the 2022 murder of his wife's lover, John Tokuhara, faces a retrial in Honolulu after the initial jury failed to reach a verdict. The case revolves around a tangled web of infidelity and alleged premeditation.

First Trial Insights: During the first trial, prosecutors portrayed Eric as a controlling husband who meticulously planned the murder upon discovering his wife’s affair. Defense arguments focused on the police's narrow focus on Eric, suggesting alternative suspects with potential motives.

Key Developments in the Retrial: Mark Carpenter from KHNL provided updates on the new trial proceedings:

• Joyce Thompson (10:42): "They say Eric Thompson executed this murder nearly flawlessly."

Prosecution’s New Approach: In the second trial, the prosecution emphasized DNA evidence linking Eric to the crime scene, using a more reputable lab for analysis. Surveillance footage was also reintroduced to strengthen their case.

Defense’s Counterarguments: Joyce Thompson, Eric’s wife, argued that the DNA evidence was mishandled and questioned the reliability of the Honolulu Police Department’s crime lab:

• Joyce Thompson (13:06): "They say it can't be ruled out that the DNA found on the hat does not belong to Eric Thompson."

She also presented an alternative theory, suggesting that other individuals involved in similar affairs could be potential suspects, thereby casting further doubt on Eric's sole culpability.

Courtroom Dynamics: The emotional toll on the participants was palpable, especially for Joyce Thompson, who remained steadfast in supporting her husband despite the mounting evidence against him.

Future Proceedings: As the retrial progresses, observers remain keenly interested in whether the strengthened DNA evidence will sway the jury toward a guilty verdict.

---

3. DATELINE Roundup

Bryan Kohberger’s Trial Developments: Bryan Kohberger, accused of the 2022 murder of four University of Idaho students, is set to go to trial this summer. An evidentiary hearing over three days addressed defense motions challenging the prosecution’s DNA evidence and the credibility of witnesses. The defense contends that the use of genetic genealogy violated Kohberger’s privacy rights, seeking exclusion of this evidence.

Monica Sementilli’s Trial Update: Monica Sementilli, accused of orchestrating the 2017 murder of her hairstylist husband, Fabio Simon Tilli, began her trial last Friday. The prosecution highlighted her role as the mastermind, while the defense counters by presenting Robert Baker, Monica’s lover and a co-defendant who pled no contest, as a key witness asserting Monica’s non-involvement.

---

4. Understanding Legal Pleas with Danny Savalos

Exploring Plea Options: Legal analyst Danny Savalos breaks down the intricacies of different legal pleas beyond the standard guilty or not guilty options. He elucidates the Alford plea and the no contest (nolo contendere) plea, highlighting their strategic uses in complex cases.

Alford Plea:

• Danny Savalos (22:19): "In an Alford plea, the defendant is pleading guilty but maintaining their innocence."

  Examples:

  • Michael Peterson: Took an Alford plea to avoid a potential second trial after his conviction was vacated.
  • Pam Hupp: Entered an Alford plea to circumvent the death penalty charges against her.

No Contest Plea:

• Danny Savalos (22:07): "In a no contest plea, you're essentially not pleading guilty, you're not pleading anything, and you're sort of going limp and allowing the government or the court to find you guilty."

Implications and Controversies: Mark Carpenter adds perspective on the real-world consequences of these pleas:

• Mark Carpenter (24:34): "There is a real-world consequence of pleading no contest because you can later on dispute your liability if you're sued in civil court for the same conduct."

Judicial Reception: Alford pleas are controversial and not favored by many courts, as they allow defendants to accept punishment without taking responsibility:

• Mark Carpenter (25:08): "They are controversial because for people like victims, families who come to court, they want to see someone take accountability for their actions."

Conclusion of the Segment: Danny emphasizes the emotional and strategic complexities defendants face when choosing their plea, especially when innocence is a contested matter.

---

Conclusion

This episode of Dateline NBC offers a deep dive into intricate legal battles and the nuanced decisions that define the criminal justice system. From a long-awaited verdict in a high-stakes poisoning case to the renewed trial of a man ensnared in a deadly love triangle, and updates on other significant cases, the episode underscores the persistent quest for justice. Additionally, the segment on legal pleas provides valuable insights into the strategic considerations within courtroom proceedings, enriching listeners' understanding of the law's multifaceted nature.

---

For more detailed coverage of these cases and other true-crime stories, visit Dateline True Crime Weekly.

Transcript

[Andrea Canning]

Happy New Year.

[Danny Savalos]

Year of the Snake.

[Andrea Canning]

You're listening in to Dateline's morning meeting in 30 Rockefeller Center. So this story, it took 13 years.

[Danny Savalos]

For this to get to trial.

[Andrea Canning]

Our editorial team is catching up on breaking crime news around the country. We're totally following it and we're trying to work through the.

[Jay Young]

Well, why don't you go, why don't you try to talk to her?

[Andrea Canning]

But we've got, you know, these big attacks on the DNA. Welcome to DATELINE, True Crime Weekly. I'm Andrea Canning. It's January 30th, and here's what's on our docket. In Oahu, Hawaii, opening statements in the sensational second trial of a husband accused of murdering his wife's acupuncturist turned lover. Eric Thompson executed this murder nearly flawlessly in DATELINE roundup. Bryan Kohberger, the man accused of murdering four University of Idaho students in their beds, is back in court as his defense team cries foul. She said things that were just absolutely untrue and couldn't have been true. Law enforcement knew that plain. Plus, you've definitely heard about defendants pleading guilty or not guilty. But did you know there are some other kinds of pleas defendants sometimes make. NBC News legal analyst Danny Savalos will be here to give us the basics.

[Mark Carpenter]

Many judges, many courts, many states will not allow. Alford, please. They are controversial.

[Andrea Canning]

But before all that, we're heading back to West Virginia and the trial of Natalie Cochran, the pharmacist accused of poisoning her husband Michael to cover up a multimillion dollar Ponzi scheme. Nearly six years after Michael's death, we finally have a verdict. We've been bringing you inside the courtroom for the trial of Natalie Cochran over the last few episodes. Last week, we finally got more insight into Natalie Cochran's defense as her attorneys began to make their case, calling to the stand friends of the couple, medical experts and family, including both of the Cochrans children. Do you know the defendant, Natalie Cochran?

[Jay Young]

Yes, she is my mother.

[Andrea Canning]

DATELINE producer Jay Young was in the courtroom and joins us now to tell us all about the dramatic testimony and what the jury decided. Jay, thanks for joining us again.

[Jay Young]

Thanks for having me.

[Andrea Canning]

Yeah. So let's start with one of the first witnesses. The defense called Natalie and Michael's daughter Nicole. What was the reaction like in the courtroom when she took the stand?

[Jay Young]

It was palpable. You know, she took the stand, she was very quiet, very reserved in how she started off and how she described her father. And she painted quite a picture.

[Andrea Canning]

So the prosecution argued Michael Died from an overdose by insulin injection given to him by his wife. But Nicole's testimony pointed to other potential sources of his health problems which had started in the years leading up to his death.

[Jay Young]

Well, she, you know, she testified Michael was really into bodybuilding and, and how he appeared. And so he was an athlete and he took supplements to increase his muscle mass. And so she talked about how she would see her dad put a. Basically a plate out and just dump a bunch of pills onto the plate and then take them every morning. She also talked about how toward 2017, this was a couple of years before he passed, that his health wasn't great and that his health was in decline. And she painted a picture of her, her dad as someone who wasn't his robust self.

[Andrea Canning]

Nicole spoke about Michael spending time in hospitals and she mentioned how his poor health was affecting him.

[Jay Young]

She noticed a big difference in his. His demeanor. She did testify about visiting him in the hospital. And this was in the fall of 2018, prior to his passing in February of 2019.

[Danny Savalos]

He said some kind things to my brother and I. Cause he didn't think he would get another chance to.

[Joyce Thompson]

Is that what he told you?

[Danny Savalos]

He told me that he always appreciated my intelligence and that he never told me that, but he wanted me to know it now just in case he never got to say it again.

[Joyce Thompson]

Did you take it as a farewell to life?

[Danny Savalos]

I've always considered that to be kind of like my goodbye.

[Andrea Canning]

Natalie's son also took the stand. He talked about his parents business and about who was in charge and who wasn't.

[Jay Young]

That's right. He actually testified very specifically about a time he remembers his. His mom was watching something on television and his father was on a computer. And he asked his dad what he was doing. And according to the son, he said his dad told him he was working on some contracts with the company that he and Natalie had started. So that was all to indicate that his, his dad was very involved in the minutia of the company.

[Joyce Thompson]

I think we all know who wore the pants and the situation. He definitely ran it way more right.

[Andrea Canning]

Because the prosecution had said that it was Natalie who was in charge, correct?

[Jay Young]

That's right. That's right. All along, the prosecution said the Ponzi scheme that ultimately was revealed was all Natalie's doing and Michael had no idea what was going on.

[Andrea Canning]

So the defense also challenged another key part of the prosecution's case, that Natalie poisoned Michael with insulin. And remember, investigators exhumed Michael's body twice to examine the first time the manner of death was undetermined. And then the second they found it was homicide. The defense argued in court that the body was simply too decomposed to make a determination. And they showed photos from the first autopsy in court in a very emotional moment.

[Joyce Thompson]

These are photographs, and they're somewhat gruesome.

[Jay Young]

It was. It was pretty hard to take. You know, I've seen a fair amount of crime scene photos over the years. And you heard Michael's mother sobbing after looking at the photographs. And it was a very disturbing moment, I think, for everyone in the courtroom.

[Andrea Canning]

What did the defense's experts have to say about the findings from the autopsy?

[Jay Young]

They concluded that the first autopsy done seven months after Michael's passing was, in fact, the correct ruling that the manner and cause of death could not be determined.

[Andrea Canning]

Yeah, and we have some sound from Dr. Priya Banerjee, a forensic pathologist, speaking about that.

[Dr. Priya Banerjee]

Unfortunately, embalming and burial does not keep the body in the same state as when one passes away. So even though the procedure is supposed to, it's still not perfect.

[Andrea Canning]

The prosecution took an opportunity, you know, to. To cross Dr. Banerjee. She really. She stood her ground with her. Her findings.

[Jay Young]

Yeah, she did. She basically said, look, there's very little that we can determine from Michael's autopsy.

[Dr. Priya Banerjee]

We don't practice in a black box. We always consider the circumstances. We consider whatever records we have made available. But the autopsy is the gold standard. Okay. His body's too decomposed. And in our field, it is acceptable to use undetermined as a cause of death and undetermined as a manner of death.

[Andrea Canning]

So we move on, Jay, to closing statements. What were the arguments both the prosecution and the defense each wanted to leave the jury with?

[Jay Young]

Well, I think on the part of the prosecution, they wanted to demonstrate that Natalie had a motive. And Natalie's motive was that Michael was about to uncover the Ponzi scheme that she had created. And so what she decided to do was to kill her husband. And so the defense tried to take the wind out of the prosecution sale by saying Michael knew it was a Ponzi scheme, so Natalie had no motive to kill him. And if you believe that Natalie didn't have motive, then the prosecution's case collapses.

[Andrea Canning]

So the jury started deliberating Wednesday morning, and they came back with a verdict about only two hours later. We, the jury on the issues, joined unanimously find the following.

[Jay Young]

The defendant is guilty of murder in the first degree.

[Andrea Canning]

Was that a surprise to you?

[Jay Young]

Yeah. I mean, I think no one knew what was going to happen. The prosecution made it Very clear. They had no direct evidence in this case. It was a circumstantial case. Now, they said that they had a mountain of circumstantial evidence, a blizzard of circumstantial evidence, but that was still going to be a stone that they had to get up the mountain. I think everybody was surprised at the outcome.

[Andrea Canning]

All right, Jay, thanks so much for coming on and keeping us up to date on this case.

[Jay Young]

Thanks for having me, Andrea.

[Andrea Canning]

Up next, heartbreak in paradise. We've got details from inside a Hawaii courtroom as a man accused of shooting his wife's lover is tried for the second time. Three years ago, 47 year old John Tokuhara, an acupuncturist in Honolulu, Hawaii, didn't show up for dinner with his mom. The next morning, she went to open the clinic their family owned and found him dead on the floor. He'd been shot in the face three times. A month later, our affiliate KHNL reported that a contractor named Eric Thompson had been arrested.

[Mark Carpenter]

Prosecutors say Eric Thompson shot and killed Tokuhara after he discovered that the acupuncturist was having an affair with his wife.

[Andrea Canning]

But Eric's wife, Joyce wasn't the only one having an affair with John Tokuhara. There were other love triangles, other angry husbands.

[Joyce Thompson]

Thompson's defense team has argued that police zeroed in on him and didn't thoroughly vet or consider other suspects.

[Andrea Canning]

Eric Thompson pleaded not guilty to murder in the second degree and went to trial in the summer of 2023. A jury deliberated for more than three days but could not reach a verdict. Earlier this month, a new jury was sworn in and Eric Thompson's retrial began. Mark Carpenter from KHNL covered Eric's first trial, and now he's on his second. He's here to tell us what is new this time around. Mark, thanks for making the time.

[Joyce Thompson]

Thank you so much. I really appreciate you having me.

[Andrea Canning]

Mark, what happened here?

[Joyce Thompson]

So Eric and Joyce are high school sweethearts that have been, you know, having a hard time having a baby. And so Joyce had been going to Tokohara's clinic for fertility treatment for acupuncture. What we learned in trial is that over time, the relationship turned into something more. 5600 direct messages exchanged between the two of them on Instagram. They say it was a sexual relationship. They say it was romantic relationship.

[Andrea Canning]

Yeah. And even after she had the baby, not only did they keep seeing each other, but she kept going to the clinic to get treated.

[Joyce Thompson]

Yeah, that's kind of how it all came out that summer of 2021, Eric was on another island for a business trip. And he got a notification that the door was open. And he looked at the cameras, and he saw that Joyce was meeting somebody. And then. So when he came back from the island, he confronted her about it.

[Andrea Canning]

And she admitted it.

[Joyce Thompson]

She admitted it. And from our understanding, the relationship ended right after. Six months later, Tokuhara was found dead at his clinic.

[Andrea Canning]

What does the prosecution think the motive was then, if the affair had ended?

[Joyce Thompson]

They're trying to portray Eric Thompson as a controlling husband. He liked to keep tabs on her at all times. And that when he found out of the affair, especially with somebody that they had gone to for something so personal, he was incensed. And he had spent six months carefully trying to plan this and make it as perfect as possible.

[Andrea Canning]

So lay out what prosecutors say happened. This. This is the middle of January, 2022.

[Joyce Thompson]

They say that they have video surveillance that Derek Thompson parked maybe a few streets down, had walked to John Tokohara's clinic. You never see him actually going into the clinic, but in the area of completely disguised, he's wearing a white bucket hat, sunglasses, a mask, even one of those masks that you see during the time of COVID Gloves and long sleeves. They say he brought in a handgun. There was no fight. Shot Tokohara three times in the face, and walked right out back to his car. Now, the whole crux with all this is that the white hat that this individual was seen wearing had fallen off his head and was picked up by a homeless person. Police in the area ended up recovering this bucket hat. Its hat was then tested, and they say it can't be ruled out that the DNA found on there does not belong to Eric Thompson.

[Andrea Canning]

The prosecution says DNA evidence is pointing straight to Eric. This is like the smoking hat.

[Joyce Thompson]

Yeah, precisely.

[Andrea Canning]

Or could be, because the defense has a counter to that. They say the hat was mishandled by the police, and this summer, their lab came under scrutiny.

[Joyce Thompson]

Honolulu Police Department's crime lab was audited by the FBI, saying that it had outdated technology. This is equipment that is obsolete. This lab is said to be subpar in an FBI review of it.

[Andrea Canning]

Okay, and the defense's theory, how does it differ from the prosecution's?

[Joyce Thompson]

They say that Eric wasn't even there at all. They say that surveillance video will show that. They claim that he was actually on the other side of the island dumping construction material because of his work as a contractor. They also point to a theory that police only honed in on Eric because he was the convenient suspect, the most recent affair. There could have been other people out there who had motivation to attack him. John Tokuhara was seeing other women who had been in relationships. Some of them had been married. They brought up the ex husbands. They brought up the ex boyfriends of these women. They say the men themselves say that. Hpd. Yeah. While they did question them, they didn't question them and investigate them so thoroughly as Eric Thompson was.

[Andrea Canning]

How are things going to play out differently for the prosecution with this second trial? Because, you know, whatever they were doing the first time didn't work if it ended in a deadlock.

[Joyce Thompson]

Yeah. The prosecution was shocked that there was no unanimous guilty verdict the first time around. Our understanding is going into this second round here is that they're really going to ramp up the DNA evidence. What we're hearing in opening statements is that this time around, this white bucket hat was taken to a very reputable lab on the continental U.S. which the prosecution, they say, is much more accurate and zeroes in on Thompson even more so.

[Andrea Canning]

Eric's second trial began last week, and the first witness the prosecution called was John's mother. This is actually her second time having to testify in 18 months. That can't be easy.

[Joyce Thompson]

Yes, and completely awful.

[Andrea Canning]

As I entered, I saw John on the floor. He was in a prone position. Yeah. And she's suing Eric for wrongful death.

[Veronica Mazzaika]

Mm.

[Joyce Thompson]

Yes.

[Andrea Canning]

The prosecution also called witnesses to set up the surveillance video they say shows Eric near the clinic that day. And they're arguing. If you can't tell it's Eric, that's because he went to great lengths to conceal his identity. Eric Thompson executed this murder nearly flawlessly.

[Joyce Thompson]

They say that he disguised himself. He disguised his truck, whereas the defense said there are so many of these trucks out there in Hawaii. The white Chevy Silverado. That is a very vague description right there. Also, too, they say when he found out about the affair, there was no confrontation, no contact with John Tokuhara. Calls, texts, nothing direct or indirect. No threats or anger directed at John Tokuhara.

[Andrea Canning]

Eric Thompson testified in his own defense in his first trial. I came to the realization that, you.

[Mark Carpenter]

Know, the problem was with me and Joyce, it wasn't. I mean, she cut him off. Did you kill John Tokuhara?

[Joyce Thompson]

No, I didn't.

[Andrea Canning]

Do you think you'll see him take the stand again?

[Joyce Thompson]

Absolutely. I think for the jury, they want to see, like, can we believe this guy?

[Andrea Canning]

Joyce is standing by her husband. Has she been appearing in court this time around?

[Joyce Thompson]

Yes, she has. Yep. She's been right behind him in the first row.

[Andrea Canning]

All right, Mark, we'll keep an eye on this one. Thank you so much.

[Joyce Thompson]

Yeah. Very fascinating. Thank you so much.

[Andrea Canning]

Coming up, we've got two big stories to talk about in DATELINE Roundup. New information from the courtroom about the roommate who was inside the house and survived when four University of Idaho students were murdered. And updates from the trial of Monica Sementilli, the woman accused of plotting to kill her hairstylist husband. Plus, did you know there are lots of different ways to plead guilty? NBC News legal analyst Danny Savalos will be here to break it down for us. Welcome back. Joining us for this week's DATELINE roundup is DATELINE Digital producer Veronica Mazzaika. Hey, Veronic.

[Veronica Mazzaika]

Hi, Andrea.

[Andrea Canning]

So for our first story, we're off to Boise, Idaho, where there was an important hearing last week in the case of Bryan Kohberger. He is the man accused of the 2022 fatal stabbings of four University of Idaho students. Bryan Kohberger has pleaded not guilty and as of now is set to go to trial this summer. Veronica, bring us up to speed on this latest hearing.

[Veronica Mazzaika]

Yeah, so there was an evidentiary hearing that took place over the span of three days last week. It was basically just for the jud to consider some of the defense motions attacking the prosecution's case, anything from how they collected evidence to the credibility of their witnesses. And their arguments focused a lot on the investigator's DNA analysis.

[Andrea Canning]

Yeah. And for people who don't remember, law enforcement initially connected Kohberger to the crimes through DNA on a knife sheath found at the crime scene. They used genetic genealogy to connect that DNA to Kohberger by finding relatives of his in public, online and ancestry databases, which we're seeing so much of these days.

[Veronica Mazzaika]

Coburger's defense, they basically are saying that this violated Coburger's privacy. They really just want that evidence excluded from trial. They said that the police should have had a more specific search warrant before they analyzed the DNA from the crime scene.

[Andrea Canning]

Someone we haven't heard much about until these hearings was a surviving roommate who was in the house at the time of the murder. She's expected to be a witness for the prosecution, but the defense said had questions about her.

[Veronica Mazzaika]

So the defense is arguing that the surviving roommate isn't a credible witness. They allege that what the police reported in their affidavit to get the search warrants of CO Burger's DNA and property isn't actually the story that the roommate told police. The defense also says that the police withheld information about the witness's possible memory problems or impairment on the night of the murder.

[Andrea Canning]

She's not sure what she heard or saw was real or whether it was a dream. And she said things that were just absolutely untrue and couldn't have been true.

[Veronica Mazzaika]

But the prosecution really pushed back on that.

[Andrea Canning]

We know it wasn't a dream because they found the evidence discovered the next morning. How did the judge react?

[Veronica Mazzaika]

The judge has not made an official ruling yet, but seemed skeptical of these arguments.

[Joyce Thompson]

I can't find any case law that would support that idea, that somehow a warrant would be needed for DNA left.

[Andrea Canning]

At a crime scene. Okay. We'll keep an eye on what the judge decides on these various motions. For our next story, we're off to Los Angeles for an update on a case we first told you about last week. Monica Cementilli is on trial for allegedly orchestrating the 2017 murder of her husband, respected Hollywood hairstylist Fabio Simon Tilli. Monica's trial got started last Friday. How's it going?

[Veronica Mazzaika]

So the prosecution gave its opening statements on Friday, and they really laid out their case against Monica. She was wiping away her tears as they called her the mastermind of the plot to kill Fabio. The defense, on the other hand, they are calling Robert Baker as their star witness. He was Monica's lover, and in 2023, he pleaded no contest to Fabio's murder and is currently serving a life sentence.

[Andrea Canning]

Yeah, and. And Robert Baker, you know, isn't trying to trade favors or anything. He maintains that Monica was never involved in the plot. How does the prosecution plan to dispute that?

[Veronica Mazzaika]

Right. So they said in their opening statements that he's changed over the years and therefore he's an unreliable witness.

[Andrea Canning]

Okay, lots of updates. Thank you so much, Veronica.

[Veronica Mazzaika]

Thank you.

[Andrea Canning]

Most of the cases we cover on Dateline end up with a defendant in court having to make a decision how to plead to the charges against them. And it probably seems obvious they can plead guilty or not guilty. But covering the case of murdered Hollywood hairstylist Fabio Simmentelli these past few weeks, where one of the defendants pleaded no contest to the murder charge against him, it reminded us there are some special kinds of pleas you can make Here to walk us through it is NBC legal analyst Danny Savalos. Hey, Danny.

[Mark Carpenter]

Hi, Andrea.

[Andrea Canning]

So good to have you back. So to start, defendants, of course, have that choice. As we mentioned, guilty or not guilty, which seems like the obvious two choices.

[Mark Carpenter]

Yes. And there are actually some other pleas that are much more rare, and those are the Alford plea and the no Contest or nolo contendre plea.

[Andrea Canning]

So what is the difference between the two?

[Mark Carpenter]

In a no contest plea, you're basically not pleading guilty, you're not pleading anything, and you're sort of going limp and allowing the government or the court to find you guilty. In an Alford plea, the defendant is pleading guilty but maintaining their innocence. And they enter an Alford plea because they believe in their heart of hearts they're innocent. But the evidence is just so overwhelming.

[Andrea Canning]

Right, and some of our listeners might recognize that term Alford plea from two big cases. One of them is Michael Peterson, famously accused of murdering his second wife Kathleen. After her body was found at the bottom of a staircase, he took an Alford plea. And then there was Pam Hupp, who our listeners might recognize from Keith's podcast. The thing about Pam, she was accused of killing a man she'd lured to her home. And before facing trial, she took an Alford plea too. So why was an Alford plea right for them? Danny?

[Mark Carpenter]

Yeah, for Peterson, he'd been convicted of murdering his wife Kathleen. In 2003, he was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. In 2011, a new trial is ordered after a judge vacates his conviction. And then in 2017, he takes an Alford plea instead of going to face a second trial. So you can see the benefit to the state is that they get their guilty verdict. He's sentenced to time served, he's able to leave prison, and he can tell himself that the nature of my plea was that I am innocent, even though as far as the government and the paperwork and the courts are concerned, I am guilty.

[Andrea Canning]

And Pam Hupp.

[Mark Carpenter]

Yeah, Pam Hupp had entered an Alford plea to avoid the death penalty.

[Andrea Canning]

Who does it favor more then? Does it favor the defendant more? Cuz they're still gonna face some consequences.

[Mark Carpenter]

Absolutely. There is a real world consequence of pleading no contest because you can later on dispute your liability if you're sued in civil court for the same conduct. That is not the case. With an Alford plea, you're essentially foreclosed from even arguing against your guilt or liability in a later court proceeding. But other than that, there really isn't a whole lot that differentiates either an Alford plea or a no contest plea from a straight up guilty plea.

[Andrea Canning]

Yeah. I'm assuming you can't appeal this plea deal later on, is that true?

[Mark Carpenter]

Yes, for the most part, you'll go to sentencing, you will be sentenced, and in fact, you might get a worse sentence because you haven't accepted responsibility. And one of the key factors in sentencing at the state and federal level is whether or not the defendant is accepting responsibility after they've pleaded guilty.

[Andrea Canning]

So why does a judge allow it then if they don't like it? Is it because the person just won't budge and, you know, plead straight up guilty?

[Joyce Thompson]

Yeah.

[Mark Carpenter]

You know, we've all sort of grown up with the idea of plea bargaining, but this is not something that courts are required to accept. And the federal rules, for example, expressly disfavor the idea of an Alford plea. Many judges, many courts, many states will not allow them. They are controversial because for people like victims, families who come to court, they want to see someone take accountability for their actions. It's understandable that they're frustrated because the person is not taking responsibility, even though they may be, at least on paper, pleading guilty.

[Andrea Canning]

And Danny, you are not just a defense attorney who plays one on tv, you are actually a defense attorney. I always think about when a defendant has to make that decision if a plea deal is being offered. I can't even imagine being an attorney with a defendant sitting in the room mulling over that life changing choice.

[Mark Carpenter]

It's one of the most terrifying things for me. And I'm the attorney. I don't even have to make the choice. I have to deliver those options to a client, go to trial where the evidence is very strong, spend a lot of money and then at the end you roll the dice. And if you're convicted, you will get a much worse sentence than if you plead guilty and enter into a plea bargain.

[Andrea Canning]

And imagine if you're innocent and you have to make that choice.

[Mark Carpenter]

Absolutely.

[Andrea Canning]

Just very complex. Thank you so much, Danny, for breaking it down for us.

[Mark Carpenter]

Thank you.

[Andrea Canning]

That's it for this episode of Dateline True Crime Weekly. If you want to learn more about the cases discussed in this and other episodes, head to our [e-mail] and coming up this Friday on Dateline, Keith has an all new two hour mystery. She was a criminal mastermind on a deadly crime spree. She was also a mother. The inside story of Sante Kimes and her two very different sons. He could not believe what had happened because hadn't his mother told him a thousand times, we're innocent. We're innocent. Watch the Devil Wore White airing this Friday at 9, 8 Central on NBC or stream it starting Saturday on Peacock. To get ad free listening for all of our podcasts, subscribe to Dateline Premium. Thanks for listening. DATELINE True Crime Weekly is produced by Franny Kelly and Katie Ferguson. Our associate producers are Carson Cummins and Caroline Casey. Our senior producer is Liz Brown. Perloff production and fact checking helped by Sara Kadir. Veronica Mazeka is our digital producer. Rick Kwan is our sound designer. Original Music by Jesse McGinty. Bryson Barnes is head of audio production. Paul Ryan is executive producer and Liz Cole is senior executive producer of Dateline. Anything else, anyone? All right, thanks so much.