← Straight Shooter with Stephen A.
Straight Shooter with Stephen A.
Interview Only: Stephen A and Attorney Ryan Smith break down alleged claims against Jay Z.
00:21:20
Loading summary
Transcript39 lines
- [00:00]
Greg Rosenthal
What's up everyone? It's Greg Rosenthal and I'm teaming up with the king of spring, Daniel Jeremiah. He requires me to say that we're going to be bringing you 40s and free agents, the only podcast you'll need this NFL draft season. From DJs mock drafts to my top 101, free agents will have it covered for you with all new episodes every Thursday keeping you up to date as we head to the NFL Draft. Listen to 40s and free agents starting on March 6th on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
- [00:31]
Julie Swerbinks
What's up everyone? Julie Swerbinks here along with former NHL player Nate Thompson.
- [00:36]
Nate Thompson
We're doing a new podcast together. Here we go.
- [00:38]
Julie Swerbinks
The name Energy Line with Nate and jsb.
- [00:42]
Nate Thompson
Each week we'll get together and talk about hockey life. All topics are fair game, right?
- [00:47]
Julie Swerbinks
Exactly. And you'll never know who will drop by to join us.
- [00:51]
Nate Thompson
Julia's pretty well connected. She has text threads going that you wouldn't believe.
- [00:55]
Julie Swerbinks
Listen to Energy Line with Nate and JSP on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
- [01:06]
Stephen A. Smith
Joining me to discuss the legal facts of the case is ABC and ESPN legal analyst Ryan Smith, who's been on here before talking about the P. Diddy case. He always edifies us, always appreciate his time. What's up, big time? How are you?
- [01:22]
Ryan Smith
What's going on? Stephen A. I'm good.
- [01:24]
Nate Thompson
How you doing?
- [01:25]
Stephen A. Smith
I had to have you on because last time you were on, everybody wanted to see that one, so I had to have you back on. Let let's get right to it. According to the reports, Jay Z became embroiled in a puffy case after Busby sent the letter back last month that alleged Jay Z raped and drugged a 13 year old girl with combs at the 2000 VMA afterparty. My question to you with this was this. For those that don't know, he received a demand letter. Whatever. What's a demand letter? Explain what that is.
- [01:52]
Ryan Smith
A demand letter is essentially a letter a lawyer is going to send to ask somebody to take a certain action here. The demand letter sent by Tony Busby, the lawyer on behalf of the Jane Doe in this case was, hey, let's get together and have a mediation over a claim that my client has made that you assaulted her. Now, it seems once you hear that, you're alarmed, right? If you get that kind of letter. Tony Busby requested mediation, a private mediation to try to go through this. But the reason why Jay Z reacts so strongly is. It's kind of like, wait a second, this isn't a demand letter to pay a fine. This is a demand letter asking for some sort of legal action, asking for some sort of civil, civil discourse about a potential sexual assault. So for Jay Z, this demand letter would have, if he said yes, would have put him in mediation and in his mind, opened him up for a discussion about whether or not he owes damages for something he says he didn't do. So a demand letter is fairly common for lawyers to send to each other asking for a certain particular legal action. But in this case, because of the explosive natures of the. Of the claims, you can understand why Jay Z went off on Tony Busby.
- [03:01]
Stephen A. Smith
Jay Z, Jay Z's team labeled this an extortion attempt. How is that hyperbole? Is that excessive? Is that on point? How would you qualify or classify such a label? An extortion attempt by Bugsby?
- [03:15]
Ryan Smith
STEPHEN A. It depends on your perspective, right? So if you're Tony Busby, you have a client, and that's the lawyer for this Jane Doe who's accusing Jay Z of raping her when she was 13 at this after party. If you're Tony Busby, your client has made this claim, you want to try to settle it in civil suit. So essentially, you're looking for money damages. So for you, it's reaching out, saying, hey, let's settle this thing. You've been named in something I've filed, but I've kept that private. I want to have a discussion in mediation to sort this out. We can sort it out that way. The reason why Jay Z would see it as extortion is you got to start from the perspective from Jay Z of I didn't do this. So if you get a letter like that and you didn't do this, why would I do any sort of legal procedure? But when you think about the way Jay Z's looking at it, it's okay, I haven't been named in something. And if I don't do this mediation, what happens then? I'm named. I'm subject to public scrutiny. Now everybody believes that I did this thing that I said I didn't do, which, as you and I know, Stephen A. When somebody's name is put out there for a crime, a lot of times people believe it before they find out the facts. So for Jay Z, it appears to be an extortion attempt because he's saying, look, you're just trying to do this to get me for money. If I don't Come to mediation, then you're going to expose me. Which in a sense did happen. His name got out there and now in order to not do that, I've got to pay you money and go through this mediation. So from his perspective, it's an extortion attempt because if he doesn't cooperate with the mediation, then his name's out there unless he pays money in some way. That, that's what. That's why they qualify it as extortion.
- [04:53]
Stephen A. Smith
His response was swift, no question about that. And a strongly worded statement. He categorically denied any truth to these allegations that have been levied against him and said he wouldn't give Busby one red penny, quote, unquote, and challenged Busby to file a criminal lawsuit rather than a civil one. What are we to make of that point that Jay Z made? Because it resonated with me, Ryan, from the standpoint that he was saying, listen, if this is a crime that happened and this is so hein. This, you know, where's the criminal charges? Bring it on. That's basically was what Jay Z was saying.
- [05:26]
Ryan Smith
Yeah. Stephen A. It's like he's saying, hey, look, I'm innocent, so bring it all at me. If you think it's that, if you think I committed a crime, file a criminal charge. A couple things there. First, Tony Busby said in response to that, hey, I'm considering that it's up to my client. I'm going to leave that to her. There's a lot of different complications in this. The first thing is somebody might be able to file a criminal complaint in this case or let's say tomorrow. Tony Busby could in some ways, but it's up to prosecutors to prosecute that case. So it's not as if you just go in and say, hey, I'm going to file a criminal charge against you. Not how it works. Prosecutor would have to be able to take up the case. The other thing is, in the case like this, this all happened all the way back in 2000, right? So this is over 20 years ago. And if a prosecutor is looking at a case like this, they're looking at what's the evidence? Like, who are the witnesses? This is one of the reasons why Jay Z is actually requesting right now in a filing that the name be revealed of the Jane Doe here. He's trying to figure out, okay, if you've made this claim, let's hear some witnesses. Let's try to see the evidence here. Let's try to. Let me try to get a sense of what my case would be here. But the real difficult part of this is the statute of limitations for first degree rape in New York State. If this is a New York State case that right now is doesn't have a statute of limitations back then, depending on the charge, there could be a statute of limitations. So it gets a little complicated there. But if this is a first degree forcible rape kind of case that Tony Busby seems to be saying it is here, at least in these filings, charges could be a possibility. But filing a criminal complaint is different from prosecutors taking up that case and making a criminal charge happen. If the allegations are true, the alleged.
- [07:11]
Stephen A. Smith
Victim is was 13 at the time, which means she's now grown. So how likely is it that she will be named?
- [07:19]
Ryan Smith
It's a tough scenario. They're asking the judge to talk about it. We can't know for sure. There's a couple different reasons. First, you name a client, you name a Jane Doe. In a case of this, the argument is generally this. You weigh the public need to have the information and the defendants right in some ways to have the information with the needs of. Of the particular Jane Doe involved in here. What do I mean by that? Well, there's another side of this. If you look at it from the Jane Doe's perspective of is there the possibility for Rep. Retribution, what would happen to that person if their name was revealed? That's one thing a judge would weigh on Jay Z side. They're going to weigh the public interest of it is, is there something that requires this to be out there? Does it in some way help the defendant build their case? So right now I look at a case like this and I say it's an unknown because you just don't know how a judge is going to decide in this case. And we also. Here's the big thing, Stephen A. We don't know the evidence and the details here. What we have right now is a claim from someone from over 20 years ago that this happened. Not saying it's not true, not saying the allegations aren't to be believed, just saying it's hard to know what's happening here until you have more evidence and more information out there.
- [08:28]
Stephen A. Smith
But he has a right to know who she is. Now, it might not be revealed to the public, but if he's being accused, he has a right to know who he is being accused by. If not now, then obviously def. At some point that is expected to be the case. Right?
- [08:43]
Ryan Smith
Definitely that will happen eventually. And you look at a case like this, even what Becomes really interesting is this is a civil case. So I mentioned before, that's for money damages. But if this goes ahead as a civil case. So right now Jay Z is asking that it be thrown out. Either reveal the name or throw it out. If they don't throw it out and it goes forward. So if it's not dismissed, then you have things like depositions that happen. In those depositions, Jay Z is interviewed. The, the accuser, the, the person who's accusing him of the crime is interviewed. And that's where things get very interesting. See, I look at a case like this, and I think back to what we saw in the P. Diddy case, the allegations that came out there. And I look back to what happened in that case. Allegations. Investigators started interviewing people, started talking about different things, and eventually RICO charges were filed. Not saying Jay Z is related to that in any way, but one thing I think Jay Z has got to be concerned about is if this case goes forward, those depositions, he's got to answer all kinds of questions under oath. If you lie in depositions, you face the threat of perjury, which is an offense, which is a criminal offense. So in those instances, what becomes interesting is what's revealed. There's. This is one of the reasons why he has a criminal lawyer. Not because we're saying, hey, he did something wrong, but you get a criminal lawyer in a civil case like this because of what could happen, of where an investigation could lead. You process a civil case, you never know if authorities might be looking at that in some way, investigating that in some way to see if there's some other charge, to see if there's some charge that might need to be brought. So that's where this thing gets very complicated. Yes, at some point he will learn the identity, but the question is, once he learns that identity and those depositions happen, what happens next?
- [10:27]
Stephen A. Smith
Could you illustrate? Because one of the things that I've been making a point of is that, you know, listen, I don't know what happened, and I'm certainly not going to pretend to know what happened. I've known him for 25 years. So I've been on the record saying I can't believe that the person that I've known for 25 years would be capable of such a thing. I don't believe it. But that's as far as anybody, any human being, as far as far as I'm concerned, can go. To go any, any further than that would be utterly irresponsible. But what I want to also do is highlight the difference right now, people are acting like to me, when you bring up P. Diddy, people bring up him and they bring up P. Diddy in the same sentence for obvious reasons. And I'm like, well, Homeland Security showed up to P. Diddy's properties in Miami and Los Angeles ultimately, and an arrest was forthcoming, which he knew, which is why he came to New York. And ultimately he was arrested and he has been incarcerated and denied B. Not one, not two, but three different times. That clearly is not the case here. Should Jay Z be fearful that it could be the case? Is this the kind of thing that we're looking at down the line potentially?
- [11:34]
Ryan Smith
I'm glad you asked that question because I want to distinguish between what we're seeing right now, Stephen A. With the Jay Z situation and what we saw in the Diddy situation there, as you mentioned, raid on his home, lengthy investigation, going, even the charges, talking about a criminal enterprise, his companies and all that. Not only. And him not only involved in making records, but having this criminal enterprise with these freak offs. I would not connect. I'd be loath right now to connect the P. Diddy case with Jay Z. And for one really big reason and then other smaller reasons. The big reason is in the Diddy Combs case, they're arguing that he set up this entire criminal enterprise and part of this enterprise were these freak offs. That's not being suggested in the Jay Z case. The Jay Z case is suggesting, at least the accusation is he was at this party that P. Diddy was throwing and that there was a sexual assault that occurred and that Jay Z committed it. Completely different circumstances, completely different situation. Do I know if it could go there and something could happen? We don't know at this point. As you said, we don't know enough information about that right now. But that's a big difference. The other difference is here you talked about, should he be fearful? I would say there has to be concern. And the reason there has to be concern is. And we talked about this when we talked about the Diddy case. We talked about the idea that there were all these people involved. Even in the Jane Doe's case with Jay Z, she claims that she runs out and nobody did anything. One of the things US Attorneys said when they were doing the Diddy case was when they, when they made that big announcement, P. Diddy has been arrested. They made. The point of our investigation is ongoing. They are not stopping. That was not the end of it. So why I think Jay Z should be concerned. He's saying he didn't do anything but. And on its face, let's assume that's the case. Why he should be concerned is being involved in the orbit that is P. Diddy being involved in the orbit of the situation. Being involved in the orbit of the claims that Jane Doe made piques the attention of investigators. This is just how investigators think when they. When they file a claim, when they see a claim like P. Diddy, and as expansive as that was, and they think about all the people that might have been involved or seen something or been there, they're trained to look at this and say who else might have been involved. Are there any other cases out there? So when they see this, if I'm his lawyer, I'm thinking, okay, I've got to at least make sure he's not tied into that in any way. And I've got to at least expect investigators to maybe look at, keep an ear, keep an eye on, and maybe ask questions about whether there's any intersection in this case to that case. See, it's an interesting difference there, because it's not to say, oh, there's going to be a concern that he'll be involved in the Diddy criminal enterprise. It's more a concern of investigators follow the trail of whatever evidence they find and whatever they hear and whatever they see. And what you have to wonder about and worry about, I think, be concerned about if you're Jay Z, is are investigators eventually going to ask questions in some way of me because of this case that's been filed against me?
- [14:44]
Stephen A. Smith
As you well know, ROC Nation has a partnership deal with the National Football League to produce a Super bowl halftime show. And so naturally, when these allegations get got aimed at Jay Z, a lot of people were waiting to hear from the National Football League to see what it was going to do. And NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell had this to say this week when asked about the suit. Quote, we are aware of the civil allegations and Jay Z's really strong response to that. We know obviously that litigation is happening, but from our standpoint, our relationship is not changing with them, including our preparations for the next Super Bowl. End quote. Number one, from a legal perspective, how common of a position was that to receive from an entity like the NFL? And number two, what kind of effect, if any at all, do you think we'll have on this ongoing situation?
- [15:39]
Ryan Smith
So, number one, I'll admit, Stephen A. I was surprised to see that only because my sense usually when you talk about organizations like the NFL and claims against partners who have been accused of really heinous situations is basically no comment, or we're waiting to see what happens with the evidence. That would be the first thought. Perhaps there was some sort of discussion that happened after these claims surfaced and Roger Goodell was made to feel that, hey, there's nothing to see here. This is something that's going to go away. So maybe that was why they felt comfortable making that response, saying, we're going to stand by Jay Z and keep working with Roc Nation. But I got to say, I was surprised just because usually we're used to seeing the NFL say, hey, if there's anything, even a semblance of something that could tarnish our name and our brand in any way, we're going to at least say, let's wait and see what happens here. We're going to at least say, no comment. We'll see as it comes. We'll just. We're just following whatever happens. Tell me your second question again.
- [16:34]
Stephen A. Smith
I said, how will this affect it? How do you think this will affect the NFL's position with Jay Z at this particular moment in time, affect things moving forward, whether it be their relationship with him or this overall case?
- [16:46]
Ryan Smith
I think it's interesting when I look at this, will the NFL's relationship with him affect the processing of the case? I don't think it will affect what authorities do or what a judge might do. I think what becomes interesting in all of this is how does this case process based on that relationship he has with the NFL and based on what Jay Z does and has. One thing we know about Jay Z is he has a deep pocket. So. And that was part of what he brought up here. Hey, just because I have money doesn't mean you can come at me for something that I'm saying I'm innocent for. But if. If you think about where maybe the Jane does lawyer is coming from, if you think about it of, hey, you've got finances. You did something, I'm coming after you. Maybe that makes him continue to press the case. Maybe that makes him continue to say, hey, I'm not giving up on this. Not just for money, but more from the sense of. Especially when you talk about Tony Busby, more from the sense of this is a person who says, hey, I'm fighting on behalf of the unknowns against the superstars who think they can do things and just get away with it. I'm the person who's going to bring those people to justice. So the more that Jay Z has, people stand by him, obviously for him, that's a good thing. That bolsters his claim of, hey, I've done nothing wrong in the court of public opinion. But I think for Jane Doe and her attorney, the sense is, hey, this is a person in our opinion, because we believe the allegations are true. This is a person who thinks he can do what he wants and won't be held accountable. And we're not going to stop until there's accountability. I tell you, this is a complicated case where we got to wait for a lot of information to come out.
- [18:27]
Stephen A. Smith
It's 24 years after the fact. A lot of people have made noise about that doesn't mean anything because we know how often women have been victimized and how they've been reluctant to come forward. The laws have changed, society has changed. Our heightened level of sensitivity has really kicked up as well. Even in these times where I think that people are far more understanding and men have no choice but to be far more receptive to these things that women have been telling us that they have been enduring and experiencing for quite a long time. What are we to make of it being coming to light 24 years later.
- [19:02]
Ryan Smith
These allegations, that they mean more to the public and to all of us now? And that's not to say they didn't mean anything before. That's to say you can even see it in the law. STEPHEN A. Based on how this we talked earlier about whether or not a case could be brought, a criminal complaint. When you talk about that, years ago there was a statute of limitation for certain degrees of rape. That was only five years. Those laws have been changed significantly. Now there's much more. But that's part of the problem of this case. It happened so long ago. Depending on if prosecutors took up a case, it could affect whether or not the statute of limitations applies. But even in the law, is what I'm saying, even in the law, our way of viewing cases like this has changed drastically. But in the public, I think, is where it really matters. STEPHEN A. We look at cases like this and we say people who are in power, who did bad things to others have to be held accountable. I want to say it again. That is not me saying anything about Jay Z. What that's saying is when you talk about authorities, there is not some sense of, hey, this happened 24 years ago, not a lot of evidence, nothing to see here. We're just going to move on and prosecute cases from today. There is a real sense on behalf of law enforcement and authorities and courts and everyone to say, hey, these cases don't go away because they're old. If the statute of limitations doesn't apply and they can be hurt. And when you talk about investigations, this is what I thought was so interesting about the Diddy case and I think resonates throughout the entertainment industry. I think investigators are now looking at cases like this, the Diddy case and beyond, and saying when we get a sense of wrongdoing, we are not letting that go. We are not just letting that pass by and keeping an eye out for it. And will there be enough evidence? No, we're going to move on. This is we are going to doggedly pursue something where we have a good faith belief that there is a crime and it doesn't matter if it's old and it doesn't matter if it might not fit in the particular context of what you might think the crime might be on its face. We're going to look deeper, see if there's some enterprise here, see if there's something else going on. STEPHEN A. I can't even tell you, haven't been a lawyer for well over two decades. It is a massive, massive shift in the way we look at survivors of sexual assault. Massive because before I think people thought, hey, if I don't say something quickly, if I don't do something quickly, I don't have a chance. And even if I do, my name's going to be dragged to the mud. I'm going to be tortured through this entire process. Even then I might not get justice. Now, we live in a different world now. These cases are being heard. There is a sense on behalf of law enforcement, judges, others, to say, let's hear the evidence. Let's see what's here. Let's try to figure out the cases. And in a sense, we are way more as a society, both in the courts and in public opinion, to say people who make claims are to be believed. Let us hear it. Let us figure it out and let us hear the full story.
- [21:59]
Stephen A. Smith
Ryan Smith, legal analyst for ESPN abc. I'm proud to call you a colleague and a contemporary. I'm really proud of the work that you're doing. I appreciate you edifying this show and this audience or every time you come on my man. Thank you so much, man. I'll talk to you soon.
- [22:15]
Ryan Smith
Anytime, man. Take care.
- [22:23]
Greg Rosenthal
What's up, everyone? It's Greg Rosenthal, and I'm teaming up with the king of spring, Daniel Jeremiah. He requires me to say that we're going to be bringing you 40s and free agents, the only podcast you'll need this NFL draft season, from DJs, mock drafts to my top 101. Free agents will have it covered for you with all new episodes every Thursday keeping you up to date as we head to the NFL Draft. Listen to 40s and free agents starting on March 6th on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts or wherever you get your podcast.
- [22:54]
Julie Swerbinks
What's up everyone? Julie swearbinks here along with former NHL player Nate Thompson.
- [22:59]
Nate Thompson
We're doing a new podcast together. Here we go.
- [23:02]
Julie Swerbinks
The name Energy Line with Nate and jsb.
- [23:05]
Nate Thompson
Each week we'll get together and talk about hockey life. All topics are fair game, right?
- [23:10]
Julie Swerbinks
Exactly. And you'll never know who will drop by to join us.
- [23:14]
Nate Thompson
Julie is pretty well connected. She has text threads going that you wouldn't believe.
- [23:19]
Julie Swerbinks
Listen to Energy Line with Nate and jsb on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts.