Videos

In this case, CNN contacted Attorney Page Pate to discuss the possible charges against an Atlanta Police Department Officer in the June 2020 shooting of Rayshard Brooks in the parking lot of a Wendy’s on University Avenue in Atlanta, Georgia. Page is recognized as a legal analyst and criminal defense attorney and is often asked by the media to provide opinions and analysis of high-profile cases appearing in the news.

Page is asked for his opinion on the situation, and he explains that he thinks the charge will be murder because the shooting wasn’t “an attempt to shoot him in the leg, shoot him in the arm, fire off a warning shot,” and therefore, the officer intended to kill Mr. Brooks. Page further comments that “Now, the only question’s going to be, “Was that justified? Was he in reasonable fear that he was about to be killed himself?” and at that point, a risk of death or serious violent injury to the officer or someone else close by? If he is not, then you have no right to take his life.”

When asked how the officer’s exclamation that he “got him” after shooting Mr. Brooks might assist the prosecution’s case, Page responds that it clearly “shows that the intent was there. I intended to shoot him. I intended to kill him. Now, again, the officer, I’m sure, is gonna say, “My actions were justified.” And I will promise you this, but for those videos that were made on the scene, we wouldn’t be talking about this. There wouldn’t be any considered prosecution of this officer because there was at least some attempt by the individual to pull some sort of weapon and aim it towards an officer. Last year, 5 years ago, 10 years ago, that would have been the end of the story. But now, we’ve been able to see it play out in real time and to see that that officer did have other options. There was no reason to shoot to kill when the officer absolutely knew that the only weapon the man had was a TASER. And he wasn’t even firing it in any way that could have harmed the officer at that time. So I think it shows the intent. The question’s gonna be, “Is there a defense? Was the shooting justified?” Ultimately, that may be up to a jury.”

Officer Garrett Rolfe was ultimately charged with murder, aggravated assault, violation of oath and criminal damage to property in the Superior Court of Fulton County and was released on a $500,000 bond. He is awaiting trial.

TRANSCRIPT:

Fred: Page, how do you see all this?

Page: Well, Fred, I think it’s either murder or it’s nothing because there’s no question that when he fired his service weapon, he intended to kill Mr. Taylor. There’s no doubt about it. It wasn’t an attempt to shoot him in the leg, shoot him in the arm, fire off a warning shot. So he intended to kill him. Now, the only question’s going to be, “Was that justified? Was he in reasonable fear that he was about to be killed himself?” It is not just, I think this gets [inaudible 00:00:30] hurt someone else. Is Mr. Taylor, at that point, a risk of death or serious violent injury to the officer or someone else close by? If he is not, then you have no right to take his life.

Fred: So not only are the actions being evaluated, but you heard Paul Howard, if you listened to my interview with him earlier, he also said he is listening to the words and he heard in that videotape, the officer, Mr. Rolfe say, “I got him,” after the, you know, lethal fatal shot was fired. So Page, how does that assist prosecutors going after this officer?

Page: Well, clearly, Fred, it shows that the intent was there. I intended to shoot him. I intended to kill him. Now, again, the officer, I’m sure, is gonna say, “My actions were justified.” And I will promise you this, but for those videos that were made on the scene, we wouldn’t be talking about this. There wouldn’t be any considered prosecution of this officer because there was at least some attempt by the individual to pull some sort of weapon and aim it towards an officer. Last year, 5 years ago, 10 years ago, that would have been the end of the story. But now, we’ve been able to see it play out in real time and to see that that officer did have other options. There was no reason to shoot to kill when the officer absolutely knew that the only weapon the man had was a TASER. And he wasn’t even firing it in any way that could have harmed the officer at that time. So I think it shows the intent. The question’s gonna be, “Is there a defense? Was the shooting justified?” Ultimately, that may be up to a jury.

Pate, Johnson & Church has been representing people charged in serious criminal cases in the State of Georgia for over 25 years. Attorney Page Pate, who is recognized as a legal analyst and a criminal defense lawyer, is often asked by the media to provide opinions and analysis of high-profile cases appearing in the news.

In this case, News4Jax contacted Page to discuss the February 2020 shooting of Ahmaud Arbery, an unarmed African American man, in Brunswick, Georgia.

The Waycross Judicial Circuit District Attorney, George Barnhill, explained in a letter written to the Glynn County Police Department, that due to Georgia’s citizen’s arrest law there was no probable cause to arrest the alleged shooter, Travis McMichael, and his father, Greg McMichael (who is a former Investigator for the Brunswick District Attorney’s Office). Page disagreed with that application of the citizen’s arrest law to this situation and explained that “What’s critical about Georgia’s law (is that) although you are allowed to detain someone as a citizen if you think they committed a crime, you cannot use excessive force…So even if there was a crime committed and he was trying to hold onto Mr. Arbery to wait for police, you cannot then escalate it, as I think happened in this case.”

District Attorney Barnhill also said that he believed the alleged shooter, Travis McMichael, was defending himself when he shot Mr. Arbery. Based on a video released to the public of the incident, Page disagrees and says “I do not think this is a good self-defense case for Mr. McMichael. I mean, No. 1, you see Arbery running down the street, he is not approaching the McMichaels, he is not threatening them, he doesn’t present any sort of threat whatsoever. They are chasing him…And then at the point that when Travis McMichael has the gun and is pointing it at Arbery, it is totally reasonable and justified for Mr. Arbery to try to defend himself. So I don’t think Travis McMichael can say he was acting in self-defense when it appears from the video that he is the aggressor in this situation.”

Page also comments that in the police report of the incident, there is no mention of Greg McMichael saying that he and his son were trying to make a citizen’s arrest of Mr. Arbery. Page says “Citizen’s arrest was not what Mr. McMichael was saying at that time. He was saying that his son acted in self-defense…The district attorney in Waycross as part of his justification not to charge these people or recommend that they be charged came up with this citizen’s arrest defense.”

Greg and Travis McMichael have subsequently been arrested by the Georgia Bureau of Investigation and charged with murder and aggravated assault. They are being held in the Glynn County Jail without bond.

TRANSCRIPT:

Jen: Does Georgia citizen’s arrest law apply in this case? What about self-defense? Page Pate is a criminal defense attorney in Brunswick who is joining us this morning via Zoom. Mr. Pate, thank you for being here. I do appreciate it. And we also want to point out to our viewers that you’re not affiliated with this case nor are you affiliated with any of the people involved, correct?

Page: That’s correct.

Jen: So would you please explain Georgia citizen’s arrest law?

Page: Sure. Georgia has a citizen’s arrest law, like many states, to generally allow retail establishments to apprehend someone that they think may be shoplifting. That was the reason that the statute was enacted, that’s usually where you see it applied. In a situation like this, the only type of defense somebody could have, if they were in Mr. McMichael’s position, is if they saw someone committing a crime and then they tried to apprehend that person, hold onto them just long enough for the police to show up. But what’s critical about Georgia’s law, although you are allowed to detain someone as a citizen, if you think they’ve committed a crime, you cannot use excessive force. So even if there was a crime committed and he was trying to hold on to Mr. Arbery to wait for the police, you cannot then escalate it, as I think happened in this case.

Jen: So I want to unpack that a little bit because that’s a lot of information and I wanna compare it to the narrative that the McMichael’s then gave, or Greg McMichael gave to law enforcement that day in February. It specifically says that he was in his front yard and saw the suspect from the break-ins hauling…and an expletive is used, down Satilla Drive toward Burford Drive and that’s when he said he ran into his house, called to his son and said, “Travis, the guy is running down the street, let’s go.” Does that suggest to you that he actually saw a crime being committed at that moment which would then perhaps allow his defense to be this citizen’s arrest law?

Page: It really doesn’t. I mean, let’s first assume that there was a crime committed and I think there is a dispute over that. They’re talking about some surveillance video they may have had. There’s only one burglary reported in that area within the month before this happened and it was from Travis McMichael’s truck apparently. But assuming that there was a burglary and assuming they had sufficient evidence to believe that it was Mr. Arbery, all they could have done at that point was simply follow him, get his location, notify the police and then try to detain him if possible. That does not give them the right to use deadly force.

Jen: That said, then why do you suppose, you know, this statute has been raised as a possible defense and excuse as to why these two men have not been charged?

Page: That’s a great question and I think if you look at the police report, it wasn’t the McMichael’s who were raising this as a defense, it was the district attorney in Waycross. Citizen’s arrest was not what Mr. McMichael was saying at the time. He was saying that his son was acting in self-defense. He got out of the truck, he had a shotgun, Mr. Arbery was trying to take it away, he was defending himself. The district attorney in Waycross, as part of his justification not to charge these people, or recommend that they be charged, came up with this citizen’s arrest defense. So, I understand why they’re doing it. If I was Mr. McMichael’s lawyer, it’s the defense I would probably raise, but I think at the end of the day it does not justify the use of deadly force in this case.

Jen: Let’s talk about self-defense here if we could. Looking at this video, as I have many times, and I’m sure you have as well, I’d like to call up specifically as you see Arbery running down the street and this white pickup truck is parked in front. We’re showing right now that you see Arbery was running in the middle of the street and then veers to the right, perhaps to avoid the man standing in front of him holding the shotgun and then does come around and there is a confrontation. Could the argument be made that Arbery was not in fact the aggressor, considering the fact that he had pivoted as if to perhaps get away from the man holding the shotgun?

Page: Oh, absolutely. I don’t think this is a good self-defense case for Mr. McMichael. I mean, number one, you see Arbery running down the street. He is not approaching the McMichael’s, he’s not threatening them, he doesn’t present any sort of threat whatsoever. They are chasing him and then at the point where Travis McMichael has the gun and is pointing is at Arbery, it is totally reasonable and justified for Mr. Arbery to try to defend himself. So, I don’t think that Travis McMichael can say, “I was acting in self-defense” when it appears from the video that he was the aggressor in the situation.

Jen: So let me fast forward here. So, we interviewed Arbery’s mother yesterday and she said that on the day that her son was shot and killed, that a Glynn county police officer knocked on her door and told her that her son had been killed by a homeowner who had confronted her son about a burglary, that they tussled over a handgun and her son was shot and killed. Yet, the narrative from this police report, as you and I just discussed, makes no mention of the fact that either of the McMichael’s were in fact burglarized, nor does, based on the video that we’re seeing, did this confrontation happen on anyone’s property. Given that, how do you, as a criminal defense attorney in Brunswick, wrestle with the fact that it appears there are two different scenarios that are coming from law enforcement?

Page: Yeah, you know, it’s really concerning to the people in this community that the case was at a least, initially, not going to get a proper investigation. I think it’s clear that the Glynn County police department should not have been assigned to investigate this case. The good news is, as of yesterday, the GBI, Georgia Bureau of Investigation has taken over the investigation. And I think that’s given a lot of people in this community some relief and some hope that we’ll get a thorough and independent look into exactly what happened.

Jen: Page Pate is a criminal defense attorney in Brunswick. Thank you for joining us this morning. I do appreciate it and we’ll be right back.

Page: Thank you, Jen.

Attorney Page Pate, who is nationally recognized as a criminal defense attorney and legal analyst, is frequently contacted by the media to discuss legal issues that appear in the news. In this case, CNN contacted Page to discuss the US Department of Justice dropping their investigation of former FBI Official Andrew McCabe and the involvement of Attorney General William Barr in high-profile cases.

Page is asked for his reaction to the news of the dropping of this case and explains that he is surprised because President Trump had always expressed interested in having Agent McCabe prosecuted. Page says “We know the Department of Justice took a very long time with the case. They actually took it to a grand jury on one occasion. So I think the decision not to bring formal criminal charges was a surprise. Clearly, a surprise to President Trump. Now, the question is, now, what’s he gonna do about it? Is there gonna be another reversal from the Department of Justice just simply because Trump thinks it was the wrong decision? We’ll see.”

When discussing Attorney General William Barr’s recent assertion that he will not be bullied and has ordered a review of the Michael Flynn case, CNN asks Page if he sees a direct contradiction in the Attorney General’s positions. Page responds that he sees a lot of contradictions and explains that “…I’m trying to figure out what exactly are they going to review about the Michael Flynn case? He was prosecuted. He pled guilty. The case was set for sentencing. His cooperation didn’t turn out maybe as well as the government had expected, so they were gonna recommend some prison time. That’s fine. Happens all the time…What does not happen is what we saw in the Stone case, where main justice, the attorney general, comes in and says, “Look, I understand you’re handling the case, you’re the front-line prosecutor. I don’t agree with what you’re doing anymore.” So I really don’t understand that attorney general’s involvement in the Flynn case by picking some prosecutor from outside of the district, having him come in and review a case that’s already been handled. It’s already been completed.”

Further discussing Attorney General Barr and his recent statement that the President’s tweeting makes it impossible to do his job, Page says “It is impossible for Barr to do his job the right way as long as the president continues to interfere with these investigations and these cases. But I think it’s clear that Barr is not going to do the job the right way. What happened in the Stone case…and I don’t know that everyone appreciates how extraordinary that is. I’ve been handling federal criminal cases for over 25 years now. And to have the Department of Justice step in after a sentencing recommendation has been made by the front-line prosecutors and say, “No, no. No, we’ve changed our mind. That’s not our recommendation.” That’s extraordinary because that initial recommendation had to be approved to begin with. So what I know happened here, even though there’s no, you know, trail of it, the president probably didn’t pick up the phone and talk to Barr, was that the decision to reduce the sentencing recommendation for Stone was made because of Trump’s involvement. There’s no question about that. And that’s highly extraordinary and it leads to a lack of confidence in the Justice Department.”

TRANSCRIPTION:

Female anchor: According to transcripts, the federal judge who was appointed by Republican president George W. Bush told prosecutors last year that the involvement of the White House in the case gives the appearance of a government run like a Banana Republic.

Victor: With me now to discuss is Page Pate, criminal defense and constitutional attorney. Page, welcome. Thanks for being here. Let me start with McCabe. I mean, it was a hell of a week for DOJ, but let’s start here. Because back in September, you had attorneys…DOJ attorneys saying, “Listen, we’re just a couple of days out. Just give us a little more time.” That was in the summer. And to go this long and nothing, what’s your reaction to the drop in this case?

Page: Well, I’m surprise by it. Because we know that the president was always interested in having McCabe prosecuted. We know the Department of Justice took a very long time with the case. They actually took it to a grand jury on one occasion. So I think the decision not to bring formal criminal charges was a surprise. Clearly, a surprise to President Trump. Now, the question is, now, what’s he gonna do about it? Is there gonna be another reversal from the Department of Justice just simply because Trump thinks it was the wrong decision? We’ll see.

Victor: Yeah, that was a headline every day. Let’s go to Thursday when the attorney general essentially asserts his independence and says he will not be bullied. Then, on Friday, we learn that he has ordered this review of the Michael Flynn investigation. Optics are terrible if you’re trying to assert your independence. Do you see a direct contradiction, though?

Page: I see a lot of contradictions. First, I’m trying to figure out what exactly are they going to review about the Michael Flynn case? He was prosecuted. He pled guilty. The case was set for sentencing. His cooperation didn’t turn out maybe as well as the government had expected, so they were gonna recommend some prison time. That’s fine. Happens all the time.

What does not happen is what we saw in the Stone case, where main justice, the attorney general, comes in and says, “Look, I understand you’re handling the case, you’re the front-line prosecutor. I don’t agree with what you’re doing anymore.” So I really don’t understand that attorney general’s involvement in the Flynn case by picking some prosecutor from outside of the district, having him come in and review a case that’s already been handled. It’s already been completed.

Victor: What did you make of the interview with the attorney general this week, where he says the president makes it impossible to do his job if he continues to tweet, and then the president tweeted? I mean, no one expects that Barr is now going to resign because the president is still tweeting. What was the practical fruit of saying that?

Page: It is impossible for Barr to do his job the right way as long as the president continues to interfere with these investigations and these cases. But I think it’s clear that Barr is not going to do the job the right way. What happened in the Stone case…and I don’t know that everyone appreciates how extraordinary that is. I’ve been handling federal criminal cases for over 25 years now.

And to have the Department of Justice step in after a sentencing recommendation has been made by the front-line prosecutors and say, “No, no. No, we’ve changed our mind. That’s not our recommendation.” That’s extraordinary because that initial recommendation had to be approved to begin with.

So what I know happened here, even though there’s no, you know, trail of it, the president probably didn’t pick up the phone and talk to Barr, was that the decision to reduce the sentencing recommendation for Stone was made because of Trump’s involvement. There’s no question about that. And that’s highly extraordinary and it leads to a lack of confidence in the Justice Department.

Victor: Yeah.

Page: Because we’re all watching this unfold before our eyes.

Victor: Yeah, what’s interesting is that two days after we learned that the judge had denied Roger Stone’s request for a new trial, he’s now requesting a new trial again.

Page: Exactly.

Victor: And we’ll see where that goes now that there’s this degree of intervention. Page Pate, good to have you.

Page: Thank you, Victor.

Victor: All right.

Recognized as an international criminal lawyer and legal analyst, Attorney Page Pate is often contacted by the media to discuss important cases appearing in the news.

In this case, the former Chairman of Nissan, Carlos Ghosn, was charged with financial misconduct and breach of trust in Japan. His trial was scheduled in April 2020, but he recently secretly fled Japan and returned to his home country of Lebanon. There are many questions surrounding Mr. Ghosn’s escape from Japan and what options Japan may have to get him back, since there is not an extradition treaty between Lebanon and Japan.

Seeking an expert opinion, CNBC contacted Page to discuss the case. Page is asked about the likely future of the scheduled trial of Mr. Ghosn, since he is no longer in Japan. Page responds “The trial was set for later next year. However, at this point, since he is considered a fugitive by Japan, the trial will obviously not go forward. The case will remain pending against him in the event that Japan is ever able to bring him back within their jurisdiction to try him. Now, it is also possible that Japan can seek the assistance of Lebanon, not just in returning Mr. Ghosn but actually pursuing criminal charges against him in that country. That’s also a possibility.”

Page says that he does not think that Lebanon would comply with an attempt by Japan to go through Interpol to locate Mr. Ghosn, and that “As everyone knows, Interpol certainly will notify a country that another country is requesting the arrest and detention of somebody who’s either a suspect or facing sentence… Interpol cannot force Lebanon to arrest Mr. Ghosn, and Mr. Ghosn has substantial ties and citizenship in Lebanon. So they’re probably going to accept the notice, but they’re not going to act on it.”

When asked what Japan can do next, Page explains that “…Japan can do a couple of things. First, they can continue to try to negotiate with Lebanon for a diplomatic solution here. Even though there is no extradition treaty and Lebanon is not required to arrest Mr. Ghosn, they can do it voluntarily. They can agree to help Japan in this situation, either for economic reasons or diplomatic reasons. The other thing that Japan can do, and they’ve done this already, is notify other countries around the world that in the event Mr. Ghosn travels outside of Lebanon, he could be arrested and subject to detention and eventual return to Japan. So their options are limited, but I do expect they’re gonna continue to pursue the case.”

TRANSCRIPT:

Becky: Also, some new details this morning on Carlos Ghosn’s escape from house arrest in Japan. Joining us right now, international criminal lawyer Page Pate of the Pate, Johnson & Church law firm. Also, Phil LeBeau. And Phil, let’s start with you. What do we know this morning?

Phil: Well, Becky, the private jet company, which is based out of Turkey, has filed a criminal complaint against one of its employees because, remember, there were two private jets that got Carlos going from Japan, then to Turkey, then on to Lebanon. And the company, MNG Jets, out with a statement today saying that it has filed a criminal complaint against one of its employees because it did not know that one of its jets would be used going from Osaka, Japan to Turkey to ferry Mr. Ghosn, who was not on the manifest.

So this is the beginning of getting a few more details about how Carlos Ghosn got out of Japan and eventually to Lebanon. Because right now, we don’t have a whole lot to go on, aside from a few things like this.

Becky: Page, let’s talk more about what happens next. Now that he is in Lebanon, what happens to the trial in Japan, which, by the way, it looked like it was going to be postponed until next year, anyway, 2021? What happens?

Page: Right. That’s my understanding. The trial was set for later next year. However, at this point, since he is considered a fugitive by Japan, the trial will obviously not go forward. The case will remain pending against him in the event that Japan is ever able to bring him back within their jurisdiction to try him. Now, it is also possible that Japan can seek the assistance of Lebanon, not just in returning Mr. Ghosn but actually pursuing criminal charges against him in that country. That’s also a possibility.

Becky: You think Lebanon would actually go ahead with that? Yesterday, it looked like they would not respond to the Interpol notice of trying to find and locate him.

Page: Right. No, I don’t think they’re gonna go along with that. As everyone knows, Interpol certainly will notify a country that another country is requesting the arrest and detention of somebody who’s either a suspect or facing sentence, but I do not think Lebanon’s gonna go along with that. Interpol cannot force Lebanon to arrest Mr. Ghosn, and Mr. Ghosn has substantial ties and citizenship in Lebanon. So they’re probably going to accept the notice, but they’re not going to act on it.

Becky: So what is Japan’s next move?

Page: Well, Japan can do a couple of things. First, they can continue to try to negotiate with Lebanon for a diplomatic solution here. Even though there is no extradition treaty and Lebanon is not required to arrest Mr. Ghosn, they can do it voluntarily. They can agree to help Japan in this situation, either for economic reasons or diplomatic reasons.

The other thing that Japan can do, and they’ve done this already, is notify other countries around the world that in the event Mr. Ghosn travels outside of Lebanon, he could be arrested and subject to detention and eventual return to Japan. So their options are limited, but I do expect they’re gonna continue to pursue the case.

Becky: Phil, what happens next for Carlos Ghosn? Quick answer.

Phil: Well, Carlos Ghosn, he plans to talk next week, and he says this is the beginning of getting his story out, about how he was wrongly accused of crimes that he did not commit. The problem with that strategy, Becky, is while he wants that to be the focus, the focus right now, for most of the people in the world when they look at Carlos Ghosn, is how did you get out of this country? It’s a great mystery.

And until those questions are answered, it’s gonna be tough for him to change the storyline into, “Hey, here are the crimes that I was accused of. Here’s why I didn’t commit them.” He may wanna talk about that. People wanna find out, how did you get out of the country?

Attorney Page Pate, a criminal defense and constitutional attorney, is frequently contacted by the media to discuss important legal issues appearing in the news. Here, CNN contacted Page for an expert opinion about the top legal news of the week.

CNN discusses the case of Rodney Reed, who was convicted of murdering Stacey Stites, a 19 year old girl, in 1996 in Bastrop, Texas. His attorneys argue that he did not receive a fair trial, and he was also convicted by an all white jury (Mr. Reed is African American). Many celebrities, lawmakers, and over two million online petition signers have supported stopping the execution of Mr. Reed, which was scheduled for November 20, 2019.

Page is asked about the possibility of the execution of Mr. Reed being stopped, and the added issue of DNA evidence in Mr. Reed’s case. Page explains that “There is not a lot of evidence that he committed this crime. There’s a lot of evidence that he had a consensual relationship with her. The DNA evidence only points to that. It does not point to him as the actual murderer…Governor Abbott of Texas does have the opportunity, under Texas law, to stop it, to say, “Look, for 30 days I’m gonna put a hold on this execution, I’m gonna stay it, allow the Board of Pardons and Parole,” the clemency folks in Texas, “to look at the case and decide if we want to grant him clemency.” To move forward with the execution at this point, with all of these questions out there, with all of this new evidence, just seems really irresponsible.”

Page states that he doesn’t think there is an DNA evidence that would prove Mr. Reed innocence, but says he does “think what we have in this case is clear evidence that someone else committed the crime. Apparently, there was an individual who had a relationship with this woman at the time. He was upset that she had a relationship with Mr. Reed. He had, after that point, been convicted of another sexual assault, sentenced to 10 years in prison. All of that evidence pointed to him as the initial suspect, but that didn’t come out during the trial.

And so, people have said, “Look, for him to have a fair trial, for Mr. Reed to actually have the opportunity to show that there is evidence that someone else did this, we need to put a hold on this and allow him to go back to court.”

Also a top legal matter in the news are the allegations of sexual misconduct against an Ohio State athletic department doctor, Dr. Richard Strauss, and the resulting lawsuits. Congressman Jim Jordan was an assistant coach at Ohio State at the time of the alleged sexual misconduct but denies any knowledge of the allegations. CNN asks Page if it means anything for Congressman Jordan that he isn’t listed in the lawsuits as an employee at Ohio State who could take corrective action regarding the allegations. Page says he doesn’t think so and says “I mean, hundreds of people have now come forward and said that they were abused by Dr. Strauss. It is unimaginable that the people who were close to the athletic department, including someone like Mr. Jordan who was an assistant wrestling coach, just didn’t know about it. I mean, it’s just hard to believe. And in fact, Ohio State had an independent investigation done, and that investigation found that people within the administration should have known about it, should have done something about it. So there are a number of lawsuits that eventually will work their way through the courts…”

Lastly, Page is asked for his thoughts on the 10 year prison sentence and $270,000 restitution order imposed on Bobby Paul Edwards, a South Carolina restaurant manager convicted of beating and torturing a black, intellectually disabled employee and forcing him to work more than 100 hours a week without pay. Page comments that “Well, I mean, the judge certainly had the discretion to give that sentence. That was a sentence that was legal in the case. But appropriate, I think given these facts, I mean, it sounds like slavery. It sounds like a horrible crime. In South Carolina, a crime like this, aggravated assault, can carry a much tougher sentence than what he received. So I am somewhat surprised by that. Many people will say this is the type of case where we should support jury sentencing. Have the case go to trial. Then let a group of jurors, people from the community, decide what the sentence should be. That still happens in Texas. Not in South Carolina.”

TRANSCRIPT:

Christi: Thirty-five minutes past the hour now. We have several big stories for you in today’s legal brief, including growing calls to spare the life of a Texas death row inmate. Now, here’s the thing. Rodney Reed has been on death row for more than 20 years. He’s scheduled to die on November 20th, but lawmakers and celebrities are calling for a second look at his case.

Prosecutors say the evidence is overwhelming that he murdered 19-year old Stacey Stites, but Reed’s advocates argue he didn’t get a fair trial, pointing out that he was convicted by an all-white jury. Kim Kardashian West and Rihanna are among the celebrities calling for the governor of Texas to spare his life. And more than two million people have signed a petition online.

Criminal defense and constitutional attorney Page Pate with us here. And I understand there’s this bipartisan of 26 Texas lawmakers that’s asking the governor to delay the execution.

Page: Right.

Christi: Do you expect that to happen based on what they’re saying? Because there’s DNA questions here, too, right?

Page: Well, there is. There is not a lot of evidence that he committed this crime. There’s a lot of evidence that he had a consensual relationship with her. The DNA evidence only points to that. It does not point to him as the actual murderer.

Governor Abbott of Texas does have the opportunity, under Texas law, to stop it, to say, “Look, for 30 days I’m gonna put a hold on this execution, I’m gonna stay it, allow the Board of Pardons and Parole,” the clemency folks in Texas, “to look at the case and decide if we want to grant him clemency.” To move forward with the execution at this point, with all of these questions out there, with all of this new evidence, just seems really irresponsible.

Christi: Yeah, because you’re not talking about keeping somebody in prison for the rest of your life. You’re talking about killing them.

Page: That’s right. You can’t undo that once that sentence is carried out.

Christi: So, is there any DNA evidence that could claim him innocent?

Page: I don’t think so. I think what we have in this case is clear evidence that someone else committed the crime. Apparently, there was an individual who had a relationship with this woman at the time. He was upset that she had a relationship with Mr. Reed. He had, after that point, been convicted of another sexual assault, sentenced to 10 years in prison. All of that evidence pointed to him as the initial suspect, but that didn’t come out during the trial.

And so, people have said, “Look, for him to have a fair trial, for Mr. Reed to actually have the opportunity to show that there is evidence that someone else did this, we need to put a hold on this and allow him to go back to court.”

Christi: All right. We’ll see what happens. Let’s talk about the college wrestling referee who now says he complained to Ohio State’s wrestling coaches about sexual misconduct by one of the athletic department’s doctors, but they did nothing about it, he says. One of the coaches at the time was current Congressman Jim Jordan. The referee is at least the second person to publicly say he directly told Jordan about alleged inappropriate behavior by Dr. Richard Strauss.

Congressman Jordan has denied knowing about any of the allegations. I know the lawsuit notes Jordan isn’t even listed, really, as one of the OSU employees with authority to take corrective action, but does that mean anything for Jordan at this point?

Page: I don’t think so. I mean, hundreds of people have now come forward and said that they were abused by Dr. Strauss. It is unimaginable that the people who were close to the athletic department, including someone like Mr. Jordan who was an assistant wrestling coach, just didn’t know about it. I mean, it’s just hard to believe.

And in fact, Ohio State had an independent investigation done, and that investigation found that people within the administration should have known about it, should have done something about it. So there are a number of lawsuits that eventually will work their way through the courts and I…

Christi: And they’re strong?

Page: Yes, absolutely. And they’ve claimed Title IX violations, which, in a sexual assault case, may seem a little odd. But Title IX protects students from sexual harassment. And that’s exactly what these allegations are about.

Christi: And we should note that the doctor actually committed suicide, I think…

Page: Yeah, 2005.

Christi: …back in 2005.

Page: Yeah.

Christi: Yeah. Let’s talk real quickly, too, about this one. Ten years and an order to pay more than $270,000 in restitution. This is the sentence handed down to a restaurant manager in South Carolina convicted of beating and torturing a black, intellectually disabled employee. Now, the cruelty didn’t end there.

Bobby Paul Edwards pleaded guilty to forcing his employee to work more than 100 hours a week without pay, as physical and verbal abuse went on. I mean, it’s a disgusting crime, Page, when you look at this and you think about what this poor person went through. Is 10 years enough? That’s the question a lot of people are asking.

Page: Well, I mean, the judge certainly had the discretion to give that sentence. That was a sentence that was legal in the case. But appropriate, I think given these facts, I mean, it sounds like slavery. It sounds like a horrible crime. In South Carolina, a crime like this, aggravated assault, can carry a much tougher sentence than what he received. So I am somewhat surprised by that.

Many people will say this is the type of case where we should support jury sentencing. Have the case go to trial. Then let a group of jurors, people from the community, decide what the sentence should be. That still happens in Texas. Not in South Carolina.

Christi: All right. Page Pate, always appreciate your insight.

Page: Thank you, Christi.

Christi: Thank you for being here.