Videos

The Legal Brief is a regular feature on CNN New Day Saturday. The show is broadcast from the CNN center in Atlanta, and Trial Attorney Page Pate is a regular guest.

On this edition of the show, Page was invited to discuss the case involving the shooting of Botham Jean by his neighbor, Amber Guyger, as well as the shooting of Anthony Hill by Robert “Chip” Olson, a police officer in Georgia.

Amber Guyger, a former Dallas Police Officer, received a 10 year prison sentence for the death of Mr. Jean. At the conclusion of the case, the brother of the victim gave Ms. Guyger a hug in the courtroom. Page discusses the unusualness of this action and says “I mean, I can’t count the number of times I’ve been in a courtroom when juries come back with a verdict, the judge is going to sentence the defendant. The judge allows the victim’s family to testify for sentencing purposes. Sometimes, you’ll hear from the defendant. It tends to be a cold, methodical process. Somebody will get up and read a statement, “Well, this is how this crime has impacted my family.” The victim will say, “Well, maybe things would be different. I wish I could have my brother back, my wife back,” whatever the case may be.” Page further explains that “what we saw in this courtroom was pure, raw human emotion, and that is frankly missing from courtrooms too much, in my opinion. We do a great job of processing people through the system, but a very poor job of trying to rebuild lives, of trying to put redemption back into a victim’s family….I can see the controversy, but that is exactly the type of thing that’s missing in courtrooms — that healing, the starting of the process. Send her to prison. That’s fine. That’s where she’s going. But how is that gonna help him or his family? It’s really not. So, I applaud him for doing it.”

After Ms. Guyger’s sentencing, the Judge presiding over the case gave Ms. Guyger a bible and a hug as well. When asked about the technicality of such contact in the courtroom, and whether it is a violation of the Texas code of judicial conduct, Page says that he does not believe it is, and explains that “ a judge is not supposed to hand anything to a defendant in that situation. I know it wasn’t planned. I guess the judge — who appeared to be emotional as well, as we were listening to the brother’s testimony — just felt compelled to do this. And it wasn’t like the judge interrupted the proceedings and said, “Now, let’s all pray together.” I don’t think she brought religion into the courtroom. It was a simple act of what the judge thought was kindness, by giving her a bible and wishing her well. “

Page is also asked about the actions of a police officer in the shooting of an unarmed, naked, black man in Georgia, named Anthony Hill. Mr. Hill was shot by Robert “Chip” Olson, a Dekalb County Police Officer, and is currently on trial. Page explains that “Apparently, there were some mental health issues. But it’s also clear that the person is not armed. And so, the question for the jury is, was it appropriate? Was it reasonable for the officer to pull his firearm and shoot this individual, who was clearly not armed when he had his baton, when he had other ways perhaps to deal with the situation? The defense is saying, “Look. Maybe so, in hindsight. But he had six to seven seconds to make the decision, and you gotta give him the benefit of the doubt…Now, as we know, it is very difficult to convict police officers in cases of excessive force. But this is a close case. Now, the officer did not testify. That surprised me. He didn’t speak to the jury and say, “This is what I was thinking at the time. This is why I did what I did.” And that may come back to hurt him at the end of the day because the jury never heard his side of the story from him directly.”

TRANSCRIPT:

Christi: So, what you’re seeing there, that hug, had a lot of people talking about forgiveness, about race — a big debate going on. Remember, Guyger is a former Dallas police officer. She was sentenced to 10 years in prison for shooting his brother, Botham Jean, inside Jean’s own home. Guyger said she mistook his apartment for her.

It’s Criminal Defense and Constitutional Attorney Page Pate with us now. Why do you think… We know that Brandt Jean, by the way, was on Dr. Phil yesterday and said that he thought the cameras were off of him when he asked for that hug. His mother, who has called for a renewed focus on police training, said she was shocked by what he did. And there’s a religious group that filed a complaint against the judge in the case after she gave Guyger a bible in the courtroom and hugged her. We’re gonna get to that in a minute, but I wanna ask you why you think this hug has…it’s actually…it’s upset people.

Atty. Pate: Well, it’s certainly unusual. I mean, I can’t count the number of times I’ve been in a courtroom when juries come back with a verdict, the judge is going to sentence the defendant. The judge allows the victim’s family to testify for sentencing purposes. Sometimes, you’ll hear from the defendant. It tends to be a cold, methodical process. Somebody will get up and read a statement, “Well, this is how this crime has impacted my family.” The victim will say, “Well, maybe things would be different. I wish I could have my brother back, my wife back,” whatever the case may be.

What we saw in this courtroom was pure, raw human emotion, and that is frankly missing from courtrooms too much, in my opinion. We do a great job of processing people through the system, but a very poor job of trying to rebuild lives, of trying to put redemption back into a victim’s family.

So, if he was motivated at that moment to do something out of the ordinary, I think it’s great that he did it. I understand that it’s unusual. I can see the controversy, but that is exactly the type of thing that’s missing in courtrooms — that healing, the starting of the process. Send her to prison. That’s fine. That’s where she’s going. But how is that gonna help him or his family? It’s really not. So, I applaud him for doing it.

Christi: Yeah. Yeah.

Atty. Pate: I know it was unusual. And I applaud the judge for allowing him to do it even though it was out of the ordinary.

Christi: Yeah. No doubt. And speaking of the judge, here’s the complaint that we were talking about, a part of the complaint that we were talking about that says, “We, too, believe our criminal justice system needs more compassion on judges and prosecutors, but here, compassion crossed the line into coercion. And there can be few relationships more coercive than a sentencing judge in a criminal trial, and a citizen accused and convicted of a crime.”

Is it a violation under the Texas code of judicial conduct here?

Atty. Pate: Not that I’m aware of, no. You know, a judge is not supposed to hand anything to a defendant in that situation. I know it wasn’t planned. I guess the judge — who appeared to be emotional as well, as we were listening to the brother’s testimony — just felt compelled to do this. And it wasn’t like the judge interrupted the proceedings and said, “Now, let’s all pray together.” I don’t think she brought religion into the courtroom. It was a simple act of what the judge thought was kindness, by giving her a bible and wishing her well.

Christi: All right. There’s another trial underway right now that we need to talk about. This is a case of a former police officer charged with murder for killing an unarmed black man. This happened here in Georgia.

Atty. Pate: Right.

Christi: Robert “Chip” Olsen is accused of murder for killing 26-year-old Air Force veteran, Anthony Hill. Hill was…he was naked, he was unarmed at the time when Olsen shot him in the chest, in the neck. Jury deliberations resume on Monday. They’ve already been deliberating, I think, about five hours yesterday. But I wanted to ask you about whether this was excessive force. I mean, the 911 call stated that people were calling because they saw an erratic man, who had no clothes on, knocking on doors, running around. He was running toward the officer. Should the officer have done something other than shoot him?

Atty. Pate: Well, that’s what the jury is trying to determine. This officer apparently had no prior disciplinary issues like this. He had never been accused of excessive force. He’s a, I think, six-, seven-year veteran of the…

Christi: Seven.

Atty. Pate: Seven-year veteran of DeKalb County Police Department. He arrives on the scene having heard that somebody there is acting erratically. He sees the person, who appears to be acting erratically. Apparently, there were some mental health issues. But it’s also clear that the person is not armed. And so, the question for the jury is, was it appropriate? Was it reasonable for the officer to pull his firearm and shoot this individual, who was clearly not armed when he had his baton, when he had other ways perhaps to deal with the situation? The defense is saying, “Look. Maybe so, in hindsight. But he had six to seven seconds to make the decision, and you gotta give him the benefit of the doubt.”

Now, as we know, it is very difficult to convict police officers in cases of excessive force. But this is a close case. Now, the officer did not testify. That surprised me. He didn’t speak to the jury and say, “This is what I was thinking at the time. This is why I did what I did.” And that may come back to hurt him at the end of the day because the jury never heard his side of the story from him directly.

Christi: All right. I wanna talk about, too, this gang-related murder case in Chicago. This is stomach turning. Corey Morgan and Dwright Doty were found guilty of first-degree murder for planning the killing of nine-year-old Tyshawn Lee, that little boy right there. This murder was in retaliation for the killing of Morgan’s brother, one of the suspect’s brothers. The two suspected that the gang that Tyshawn’s father belonged to, was behind the killing.

So, here’s what is part of so disturbing…is so disturbing. There are recordings of Boone-Doty, who pulled the trigger here, allegedly confessing. He boasted about the killing. He’s described as laughing as he shot him. He wrote a rap song about it. When he was asked if he ever thinks he shouldn’t have done it, Boone-Doty responds, “No. I don’t got that in my head, not even a little bit. Ain’t no age, period. Age 8 to 80.” Essentially saying, “You know what? I’d kill them all.”

Atty. Pate: Yeah.

Christi: So, he gets first-degree murder because he’s the one that pulled the trigger.

Atty. Pate: Pulled the trigger. Right.

Christi: Morgan sat in a car the whole time. He got first-degree murder as well.

Atty. Pate: And potentially facing the same punishment because…

Christi: Punishment. So, people… And is that because he planned the killing?

Atty. Pate: He was involved in the killing in some material way. I mean, there have been people, even here in Georgia, who have been executed, who never pulled the trigger, never actually killed anyone, but were involved in the planning, were involved in allowing it to go forward.

And so, first-degree murder, although people may think, what’s gotta be more serious if you’re the actual person that pulls the trigger, if you’re the gunman?

Christi: Right.

Atty. Pate: Not necessarily, not under the law. And I will tell you, Illinois state cases, there’s no death penalty anymore there. If that case were tried here, it almost certainly would have been a death penalty.

Christi: For both of them.

Atty. Pate: I think so. Yeah.

Christi: Wow. All right. Page Pate, we appreciate it so much.

Atty. Pate: Thank you, Christi.

Christi: Thank you. Always good to have you here.

Atty. Pate: Good to be here.

Christi: Absolutely.

Our firm has been representing clients in serious federal criminal cases for over 20 years. Often, the media will contact Attorney Page Pate for his opinion and analysis of these types of cases that appear in the media, sometimes involving celebrities or other well-known people.

In this case, Felicity Huffman, an actress, has pleaded guilty in federal court in the highly publicized college admissions scandal. CNN contacted Page to discuss Ms. Huffman’s upcoming sentencing hearing and the likely sentence she may receive as a result of her guilty plea. Her attorneys have requested a one-year probation sentence, with 250 hours of community service.

Page says that he does not believe Ms. Huffman should go to prison and explains the sentencing process. He says “In federal court, it’s pretty simple how the sentencing process works. She entered a plea agreement with the government. And you calculate her potential sentence based on the sentencing guidelines. In her case, like with most of the parents, she’s looking at a few months in prison under the guidelines. But then, before you go to the judge, each side, the defense team and the prosecution, they submit their recommendations to the court. Is a guideline sentence appropriate? Should it be less? Should it be more? In this case, the government is saying, “It should be less than the guidelines, but we still think she should go to prison, at least for a month.” Her lawyers say, “No, this is a probation case.” This particular judge has already sentenced the sailing coach at Stanford to one day in jail, which was effectively time served, and his case involved a lot more money than her case. So I think if you put aside the fact that she’s a celebrity, makes a lot of money, certainly did something illegal, I still don’t think this is a prison case under federal law.”

When asked how much of an impact character witnesses statements may have on a person’s sentence, Page explains that “it depends on the judge. The federal sentencing guidelines, and the law, specifically says that a judge can take into account a defendant’s character. What have you done in the past? What’s your life been like? We know she doesn’t have any criminal history. But the court wants to see what she’s done in the community. Have you helped people? Have you made a difference? Or, is it all about your money and your kids?…And so, a good defense lawyer, and she’s well-represented, will file this paper that he’s done, the memorandum requesting the lower sentence, put in as many character letters as he can. I think they had 27 or something…”

Page also explains that the judge may review the memorandum many times, and that ultimately “the judge has got to say, “Look, why do I need to send you to prison if you’re not a danger to the community, if you’re already going to be deterred from doing anything like this in the future, and I’m sending a message to every other parent not to do it as well,” simply because of the felony conviction and all of the other consequences that she’s had to incur as a result of this case.”

TRANSCRIPT

Christi: Twenty minutes after the hour right now, and topping this morning’s legal brief, Oscar nominated actress Felicity Huffman could spend a month in jail for her part in the college admissions scandal. Huffman pleaded guilty, remember, to paying $15,000 to have a test proctor help her daughter with the SAT. Now, her lawyers have asked for a year probation and 250 hours of community service. Criminal defense attorney Page Pate with us now. So, what, first of all, do you think should happen?

Page: I don’t think she should go to prison at this point. In federal court, it’s pretty simple how the sentencing process works. She entered a plea agreement with the government. And you calculate her potential sentence based on the sentencing guidelines. In her case, like with most of the parents, she’s looking at a few months in prison under the guidelines. But then, before you go to the judge, each side, the defense team and the prosecution, they submit their recommendations to the court. Is a guideline sentence appropriate? Should it be less? Should it be more? In this case, the government is saying, “It should be less than the guidelines, but we still think she should go to prison, at least for a month.” Her lawyers say, “No, this is a probation case.” This particular judge has already sentenced the sailing coach at Stanford to one day in jail, which was effectively time served, and his case involved a lot more money than her case. So I think if you put aside the fact that she’s a celebrity, makes a lot of money, certainly did something illegal, I still don’t think this is a prison case under federal law.

Christi: Let me ask you this, because this is something that just came out. There are some statements that are being made on her behalf, one from her husband William Macy. And in part, it reads this, “Watching Felicity become a mother is a wonderful thing to see. My wife has an amazing ability to see our kids. She sees them not as we wish they were or what we hope they might become, but who they actually are.”

So, really, upping her character as a mother. And then, Eva Longoria, her former castmate on “Desperate Housewives,” said this. “There was a time when I was being bullied at work by a coworker. Until one day, Felicity told the bully, ‘Enough,’ and it all stopped. I know I would not have survived those 10 years if it wasn’t for the friendship of Felicity. Her gentle character and kind heart immediately opened up to me.”

Page: Right.

Christi: How much impact do statements like this have?

Page: Well, it depends on the judge. The federal sentencing guidelines, and the law, specifically says that a judge can take into account a defendant’s character. What have you done in the past? What’s your life been like? We know she doesn’t have any criminal history. But the court wants to see what she’s done in the community. Have you helped people? Have you made a difference? Or, is it all about your money and your kids?

And so, a good defense lawyer, and she’s well-represented, will file this paper that he’s done, the memorandum requesting the lower sentence, put in as many character letters as he can. I think they had 27 or something…

Christi: Yeah.

Page: …in this submission.

Christi: Yeah, they had a good amount.

Page: And the judge will go through it. And many times, that will make the difference. Because the judge has got to say, “Look, why do I need to send you to prison if you’re not a danger to the community, if you’re already going to be deterred from doing anything like this in the future, and I’m sending a message to every other parent not to do it as well,” simply because of the felony conviction and all of the other consequences that she’s had to incur as a result of this case.

Christi: All righty.

Page: Prison is just not necessary.

Christi: It’s just not necessary.

Trial Attorney Page Pate joins Court TV to discuss trial strategy in the Eric Boyd murder case in Knoxville, Tennessee. Boyd is charged with murder and other serious crimes for his involvement in the brutal death of a local couple in 2007. Our firm has many years of experience in representing people in serious criminal cases, such as murder and other violent crimes. When high-profile cases are covered by the news, the media will often ask Attorney Page Pate for an analysis of the case.

In this case, Eric Boyd is charged with murder and other serious crimes in Knoxville, Tennessee involving the murder of a couple in 2007. Court TV interviewed Page for an analysis of the strength of the case against Mr. Boyd and the trial strategies used by the lawyers.

Several other people have already been charged and convicted for their involvement in this case. Mr. Boyd is currently serving an 18 year federal prison sentence for other charges related to this crime. When asked about his thoughts on the State bringing the charges against Mr. Boyd twelve years after the crime was committed, Page says “It’s a mistake. But I understand why they are doing it. Knoxville is a very small community. It’s a city, has a big college in it but, basically, it’s a small, tight-knit community. There is a lot of pressure on the district attorney’s office from the family, other people in the community, saying, “Look, this guy may have been convicted of his involvement way back when, in a federal case, but he’s about to get out of prison and that ain’t right. So we want you guys to get everything together again, play your case out in front of the jury, use whatever new evidence you have, as shaky as it may be,” and it is very shaky in this case, “and try to get this guy held responsible for the deaths of these two people.” So, I think the DA’s office was put into a corner. They felt like they had to try the case. They’re doing the best they can, but I don’t see a guilty verdict here.”

Page also discusses the strength of the case against Mr. Boyd and the fact that the prosecution is playing to the jury’s emotions, despite the fact they don’t appear to be proving their case beyond a reasonable doubt. He explains that he believes “that’s the biggest problem for the defense. I mean, this…you can’t imagine a more serious, horrible, tragic crime than the one that’s played out in court. The one that everyone was convicted of who was directly involved so many years ago. What is possible here, is that the jury is thinking, “Wait a minute. This guy was clearly at least involved to some extent. Maybe it was just helping after the fact, but he knew what went on and he didn’t do what he should have done. He needs to be held responsible.” And if they are not aware of the fact that he was convicted in federal court, that he is currently serving prison time, there may be a strong desire on behalf of the jury to at least get him now. “Let’s make sure he has some responsibility for what happened to these folks.””

An important witness in this case made some inconsistent and false statements to law enforcement about what she saw the night of the murder. When Page is asked for his thoughts on the strategy of the prosecution questioning the witness about these inaccurate statements, he comments that “Well, it’s not a good strategy, but I suppose it makes some sense to let the jury know that this individual made some false statements, had some involvement or knowledge of what went on, and appear to not have been prosecuted. So maybe you’re pointing out to the jury, you know, “She also was there. She also said things that were inaccurate to the police. Maybe she should be culpable and they’re not holding her culpable, apparently, at least like they’re trying to do to my client.” I don’t think it’s a good strategy, but we’re searching here trying to figure out why.”

TRANSCRIPT:

Yodit: What are your thoughts about the state bringing this case 12 years later and the only difference, the only evidence new linking Eric Boyd to the crimes, is their key witness, a co-defendant, George Thomas?

Page: It’s a mistake. But I understand why they are doing it. Knoxville is a very small community. It’s a city, has a big college in it but, basically, it’s a small, tight-knit community. There is a lot of pressure on the district attorney’s office from the family, other people in the community, saying, “Look, this guy may have been convicted of his involvement way back when, in a federal case, but he’s about to get out of prison and that ain’t right.

So we want you guys to get everything together again, play your case out in front of the jury, use whatever new evidence you have, as shaky as it may be,” and it is very shaky in this case, “and try to get this guy held responsible for the deaths of these two people.” So, I think the DA’s office was put into a corner. They felt like they had to try the case. They’re doing the best they can, but I don’t see a guilty verdict here.

Yodit: I’ve been reading some comments from our viewers. And a lot of them are driven emotionally by this case. Of course, the details are extremely horrific. Gruesome, right? And I think a lot of that is what the state’s trying to do. They’re trying to pull this jury in emotionally. However, there was one particular comment that really bothered me, and I’m hoping that that’s not sort of the mindset that these jurors are in. And it was, “We know Boyd was involved. We know he was there.” This whole we know. No, we don’t know, right?

Page: Right.

Yodit: We don’t convict people off of gut instincts, gut feelings, right? It’s not about what you know, but what you can prove. And right now, the state isn’t proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Eric Boyd was present. Do you think that that’s going to be problematic for the defense, with regards to the jury having that same mindset?

Page: Yes. I think that’s the biggest problem for the defense. I mean, this…you can’t imagine a more serious, horrible, tragic crime than the one that’s played out in court. The one that everyone was convicted of who was directly involved so many years ago. What is possible here, is that the jury is thinking, “Wait a minute. This guy was clearly at least involved to some extent. Maybe it was just helping after the fact, but he knew what went on and he didn’t do what he should have done. He needs to be held responsible.”

And if they are not aware of the fact that he was convicted in federal court, that he is currently serving prison time, there may be a strong desire on behalf of the jury to at least get him now. “Let’s make sure he has some responsibility for what happened to these folks.”

Yodit: What he said in his opening statement, the attorney for the defense, “Basically, what they’ve done, the state, is they’ve reprinted the indictments they used to convict the murderers and they’ve used it to charge Mr. Boyd.” Do you think that that was gonna be effective, or is going to be effective? Because I think he will reiterate that point in his closing.

Page: Yes, but I could also see a compromised verdict. If you get some of the jury saying, “This guy needs to pay. He needs to be held responsible.” Others saying, “Well, there’s not sufficient evidence to show he was directly involved in the murder.” “Well, let’s pick a charge, maybe something less serious than the actual murder charge. Let’s convict him of something before we go home. We owe it to the families. We owe it to the community.”

That’s always dangerous for a defense lawyer, when the jury decides, “I’m not gonna sit here and weight the evidence like the judge is telling me. Somebody has to pay, and this is the only guy in front of us today.”

Woman: You know, it would be interesting if the defense attorney actually has Boyd testify.

Page: Oh, yeah.

Woman: And then, Boyd could say…

Yodit: That…exactly.

Woman: Yeah.

Yodit: And I was…

Woman: Not that they will do that.

Yodit: Not a good idea, Page?

Page: Well, I don’t think so, but you’re right, that that is one way…

Yodit: That’s one way. That’s one way.

Page: …you can get the federal conviction in. Because at that point, he’s a witness, he would be able to testify that, “I have this conviction. It could affect whether you believe me or not.” But it also helps.

Woman: And it may help.

Page: Exactly.

Woman: It may help if he’s remorseful.

Page: You’re right.

Yodit: So don’t need it right now, because the state…

Page: Right, and you were saying earlier, too, in a way, the state has not proven their case.

Yodit: Has not proven, right.

Page: Now, if they had really incredible evidence, it was overwhelming, their witnesses came off perfectly, then maybe you go to that, you know, plan B, plan C, whatever you wanna call it.

Woman: Plan D.

Page: Plan D.

Woman: Or Z, really.

Page: Plan F, I think, in this case. But you don’t do it, I don’t think, at this stage.

Yodit: How much pressure do you think there is on the jury when you’ve got the family of these victims in there every single day, and knowing that they’ve been there on more than one occasion? Twelve years later, how much of an impact do you think that has on their decision, Page?

Page: Well, it depends on where we are. An in Knoxville, I think it has a big impact. And it’s not so much the family of the victims. Obviously, the people there in the community wanna do whatever they can to help them to get past it and get some closure here. But it’s also your friends and your neighbors. I mean, everybody in Knoxville knows about this case. And it’s not something that’s gonna go away once this trial is over with.

So people that they go to church with, they go to school with, they go to work with will remember that they served on this jury and, perhaps, were the ones that let the last guy get away. So, that’s gonna weigh in their minds. And that’s why we were talking earlier, you know, where is the balance between following the jury instructions that the judge is gonna give them, following the law, and then trying to do something that they feel they may need to do for the community?

Yodit: And I think it’s telling, too, in terms of how tight-knit this community is, because the judge would always ask the jury at the start of every trial day if they’ve felt any undue pressure, if they’ve come up on news, or anybody tell them things about this case, which I find very odd that he does it every day versus just one admonishment and say, “Hey, if you ever were to… Don’t do this, don’t do that, and if it does happen let the court know.” So, do you have any thoughts about that?

Page: Well, it’s not totally uncommon, especially in a murder case. I mean, you’ve got local reporters there. There’s gonna be some coverage of it. But, yes, I do think it’s especially sensitive here, even though there hasn’t been a lot of recent coverage. And I think that’s the excuse the judge used, “Let’s go ahead and try it here. It hasn’t been covered as much now as it was back then, so maybe the people won’t remember.” Not so. Not a case like this. Not a town like Knoxville.

Yodit: Okay, so one of the, I guess, important witnesses that the state brought was Daphne Sutton, and she was the girlfriend of the ringleader Lemaricus Davidson. And she went on the stand and, essentially, she’s the only one that went into the house that came out and wasn’t indicted for any crimes. So, she was the one that, basically, said that she didn’t see Eric Boyd at all in the house. Let’s listen to a clip of her on the stand, and then I’m gonna get your thoughts.

Attorney: At least, in your initial interviews with police, you were less than forthcoming with them.

Daphne: Yes, at first.

Attorney: That’d be a nice way to put it. You…

Daphne: Yes, I lied.

Attorney: You lied to them about what you had seen and as what had occurred. For [inaudible 00:06:35], you lied about the last time you’d seen him.

Daphne: Yes.

Attorney: And then, in addition, you lied to them about what had taken place whenever you had been around Mr. Davidson.

Daphne: What do you mean?

Attorney: Whether…

Daphne: What took place?

Attorney: Whether or not he had a gun, whether you saw a gun.

Daphne: Did I lie? What are you asking me?

Attorney: Yeah, I was asking you. You didn’t tell them that information, that you had seen him, correct?

Daphne: I’m not sure…

Attorney: You don’t…

Daphne: …at first, what I told them. Honestly, I don’t remember the lies.

Attorney: And so, and then you talked to them again, a second time. Is that right?

Daphne: To who?

Attorney: The police.

Daphne: Yes.

Attorney: And in their second interview, were you totally honest with them at that point in time?

Daphne: No.

Attorney: When was it that you became totally honest with law enforcement in this case?

Daphne: Maybe the third time.

Attorney: The third time you talked to the police.

Daphne: Yes.

Attorney: And that’s when you finally told them everything that you knew about what had transpired, involving Mr. Davidson.

Daphne: I told them what I knew about where Lemaricus had been.

Attorney: Okay.

Yodit: Page, you got any thoughts?

Page: Well, it’s not a good strategy, but I suppose it makes some sense to let the jury know that this individual made some false statements, had some involvement or knowledge of what went on, and appear to not have been prosecuted. So maybe you’re pointing out to the jury, you know, “She also was there. She also said things that were inaccurate to the police. Maybe she should be culpable and they’re not holding her culpable, apparently, at least like they’re trying to do to my client.” I don’t think it’s a good strategy, but we’re searching here trying to figure out why.

Yodit: Yeah.

Page: And maybe you do say, “Look, even in these inconsistent statements that you gave, you were consistent about one thing.”

Yodit: Right.

Page: “And that is, this guy was not there.”

Yodit: And he did not do that.

Page: Right. That would have been, I think, the final question, if that was the line of questioning.

Woman: Yeah.

Yodit: Yeah.

Trial Attorney Page Pate is interviewed on CNN about the release of court documents in a defamation case related to the Jeffrey Epstein sex trafficking allegations.

Jeffrey Epstein has been indicted on many counts of sex trafficking. One of his alleged victims, Virginia Giuffre, filed a civil suit for defamation against Epstein’s former girlfriend, Ghislaine Maxwell. In connection with this civil suit, the names of many men allegedly involved in Epstein’s sex trafficking activities were released.

In this interview, Page was asked about the allegations in the Jeffrey Epstein sex trafficking case, as well as the recent release of documents in the related defamation case. With the report of the release of other men’s names who were allegedly involved, Page is asked if he would expect to see charges against some of the people named in the recently released documents. Page says “These allegations may be new to us because the court documents have just been unsealed, but they’re not new to the federal investigators. I mean, right? These allegations that were made by Miss Giuffre have been investigated before. Presumably, the investigators have met with her, they’ve met with other potential victims, they’ve taken their statements. These individuals have likely been identified, but perhaps there was no corroborating evidence to support the claims.”

In discussing the status of the criminal case, Page agrees that the case is still “a he said, she said” case, and emphasizes that it is very important to remember that. He says “In a criminal, sexual exploitation case, just like a rape case, the victim’s testimony that something happened is enough to bring a case. Now, a jury may decide, “We want more corroborating evidence. You need to prove it.” But look, when we’re talking about old allegations, especially, how do you prove things like that? I mean, maybe you have a picture, okay, that shows you were there with the guy, but it doesn’t prove sexual conduct. Page further explains that “it’s all circumstantial evidence” and says that to prove it, “it is the testimony and whether that testimony is credible. Now, the things Alan Dershowitz pointed out well, you know, “The testimony had been inconsistent. She didn’t identify me back when she identified the other people.” Those inconsistencies will be what the defense and these folks will use to attack her credibility. But it all boils down to that. Do you believe her?”

Despite the fact that Jeffrey Epstein committed suicide the day after the release of these documents, we will continue to follow this matter for any charges that may be brought against any additional individuals.

TRANSCRIPT:

Christi: I want to bring in criminal defense attorney Page Pate. I just wanna get your reaction, initially, to all of this.

Page: It’s crazy, right? I mean, there are a lot of allegations. And at this point, it is important to remember these are just allegations. They’re allegations that were made by Miss Giuffre in a deposition, in kind of an unrelated civil suit, where she actually decided to file a defamation lawsuit because Maxwell said, “You’re lying about all this. It’s not true.” That’s a bold step. I mean, that means that she was confident in her claims, thinking there may be some corroboration.

But unless there’s corroborating evidence… I mean, all these inconsistencies, the fact that it wasn’t disclosed earlier, I think that’s gonna prevent it from being a very serious inquiry on behalf of these new folks. I don’t think they have to worry about criminal charges at this point.

Martin: What is the impact on the criminal case that’s already now ongoing against Epstein?

Page: Well, we don’t know. I mean, we know Epstein has been charged. We’ve seen the indictment. We know what the allegations involve. But we don’t, as Polo [SP] said, know the individuals who may be involved in that case. Now, presumably, Epstein’s lawyers have seen the discovery materials, the evidence. And in that material, you will see the individuals named, and they’ll know who they are.

But we don’t. That information has not been made public. Now, if the case goes to trial, I anticipate that some of these folks may testify at the trial. They’ll be of age, perhaps, now, when they weren’t back in the time period when he’s alleged to have undertaken these activities. But we don’t know a lot about the criminal case other than the charges.

Christi: So, because this was more of a past case, would you have anticipated that we would have seen charges against some of these people had there been something more substantive?

Page: That’s a great point. These allegations may be new to us because the court documents have just been unsealed, but they’re not new to the federal investigators. I mean, right? These allegations that were made by Miss Giuffre have been investigated before. Presumably, the investigators have met with her, they’ve met with other potential victims, they’ve taken their statements. These individuals have likely been identified, but perhaps there was no corroborating evidence to support the claims.

Martin: So, as it goes forward on this case, you know, it’s still, right now, a he said, she said, as much as these are just horrible claims that are being made, right?

Page: Right. But that’s enough, Martin. I mean, that’s really important to remember. In a criminal, sexual exploitation case, just like a rape case, the victim’s testimony that something happened is enough to bring a case. Now, a jury may decide, “We want more corroborating evidence. You need to prove it.” But look, when we’re talking about old allegations, especially, how do you prove things like that? I mean, maybe you have a picture, okay, that shows you were there with the guy, but it doesn’t prove sexual conduct.

Christi: Or she mentioned, look at the flights that I took, and that there were logs of that.

Page: Right, right.

Christi: Those things…

Page: But it’s all circumstantial evidence. Until you…

Martin: So how do you prove it?

Page: Well, it is the testimony and whether that testimony is credible. Now, the things Alan Dershowitz pointed out well, you know, “The testimony had been inconsistent. She didn’t identify me back when she identified the other people.” Those inconsistencies will be what the defense and these folks will use to attack her credibility. But it all boils down to that. Do you believe her?

Christi: What if she really did…? What if she really was taken to the hospital? I mean, clearly, there would be hospital records to show what she was treated for…

Page: Right.

Christi: …if she had, you know, had a very candid conversation with somebody there.

Page: That’s possible. But then, the defense will say, “Well, if it was a sexual abuse allegation, why didn’t she request a rape kit? And if a rape kit wasn’t done at the time, how can you now prove what happened?”

Christi: Could you argue that she didn’t request it because it was Epstein and Maxwell who took her to the hospital?

Page: You can argue that. And then we go down this rabbit hole. And that’s exactly the problem with these cases. Especially, when they’re brought years after the fact.

Christi: All right.

Martin: Oh, there’s so many challenges in this case. All right. Page Pate, great to see you. Thanks very much for…

Christi: Always good to have you.

Martin: …coming in this morning.

Page: Appreciate it.

Christi: Thank you.

Attorney Page Pate appears on CNN New Day Saturday for The Legal Brief – a rundown of the week’s top legal news. In this edition, Page discusses the new lawsuit being filed by the House Judiciary Committee seeking grand jury transcripts in the Mueller Investigation, and the announcement by Attorney General Bill Barr that the federal government will start a new execution protocol and resume federal executions later this year.

Page is frequently contacted by the media to discuss legal issues that appear in the news. Seeking an expert opinion in the top legal news of the week, CNN contacted Page to discuss the new lawsuit being filed by the House Judiciary Committee seeking grand jury transcripts in the Mueller Investigation and Attorney General Bill Barr’s announcement that the federal government will start a new execution protocol and resume federal executions later this year.

Regarding Nancy Pelosi and the House Judiciary Committee’s attempt to use the courts to try to obtain grand jury information behind Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report by filing  lawsuits, Page comments that he does not believe that a judge will see that as an effective use of the courts “… because the only way that the House Democrats can get access to this grand jury material is to first convince a district judge in Washington that they are in a judicial proceeding or about to be in a judicial proceeding. So, the more they hedge about whether or not they’re in an actual impeachment inquiry, the less likely it is they’re gonna get the material that they say that they need.”

The Democrats also plan to file a lawsuit to enforce a subpoena that was issued to former White House Counsel, Don McGahn. When asked if he thinks that lawsuit will be successful, Page says that he thinks “they have a better chance, actually, of getting Don McGahn under subpoena and requiring him to testify, as to some things. I do think there’s a legitimate claim of privilege, perhaps executive privilege, as to some of the information that he may be able to provide the Committee. But it’s not absolute privilege, as the President has said before.”

 

In discussing the federal’s government’s plan to begin executing federal inmates again for the first time since 2003, Page explains that the process to do so is much more complicated than it sounds. Page says that “…first, they actually have to change the protocol. And to do that, you have to go through a process. You don’t just sign a press release and say, “Okay, it’s on now. We’re gonna start executions again.” You have to establish a protocol. What type of drug are you going to use? How is it going to be administered? And all of that has to be approved. They haven’t done that yet. And we also expect that once this protocol is put into place, you’re gonna see more legal challenges from the people that are facing execution. And that is almost certain to delay it at least until sometime next year. And then, there’s the availability of the execution drug. That has been an issue in several states. And we don’t know where the federal government intends to get this drug or how they have to get it produced.”

 

TRANSCRIPT:

Jessica: And some legal stories we’re following for this week’s legal brief. The impeachment effort is growing. There are now at least 101 House Democrats calling for an impeachment inquiry into the President. And now, the House Judiciary Committee is seeking the grand jury information behind Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report with a lawsuit.

The Judiciary Charmain, Jerry Nadler, says he needs that information in order to move forward with an impeachment recommendation. The move is the first step in a lengthy and, very likely, divisive process. And joining us now is federal and constitutional attorney Page Pate. Good morning to you, Page.

Page: Good morning, Jessica.

Jessica: So, Nancy Pelosi says she wants all the information before they can make a decision on impeachment. Take a listen to what she said.

Nancy: No, I’m not trying to run out the clock. Let’s get sophisticated about this. Okay? Okay?

Reporter: But how long do think this process will take?

Nancy: We will proceed when we have what we need to proceed, not one day sooner. Their advocacy for impeachment only gives me leverage. I have no complaint with what they are doing. I’m willing to take whatever there is there to say, when we… The decision will be made in a timely fashion. This isn’t endless.

Jessica: So, much to the chagrin of some of the more liberal members of her party, she wants to go through this process methodically, leaning on the courts to first get this information for their investigation. Do you see that as an effective use of the courts by Democrats?

Page: Well, Jessica, I’m not sure that a judge will see it that way. Because the only way that the House Democrats can get access to this grand jury material is to first convince a district judge in Washington that they are in a judicial proceeding or about to be in a judicial proceeding. So, the more they hedge about whether or not they’re in an actual impeachment inquiry, the less likely it is they’re gonna get the material that they say that they need.

Jessica: Mm, that’s very interesting. And in addition to that, the next thing that Democrats plan to do is file a lawsuit, another lawsuit, to enforce the subpoena of Don McGahn, former White House Counsel who refused the Committee’s subpoena at the direction of the White House. So, you’re saying, you know, what they’re gonna have to prove in this first lawsuit. What are the chances of this one being successful?

Page: I think they have a better chance, actually, of getting Don McGahn under subpoena and requiring him to testify, as to some things. I do think there’s a legitimate claim of privilege, perhaps executive privilege, as to some of the information that he may be able to provide the Committee. But it’s not absolute privilege, as the President has said before.

So I think, in connection with that lawsuit, which we expect to be filed at some point next week, a judge will parse through the information that the Committee wants and likely require Mr. McGahn to answer some of those questions. And maybe that information will get Congress to the point where they can formally say, “We are now in an impeachment inquiry.” Because I think they have to say that if they want access to the other grand jury material.

Jessica: Mm, may have been hesitant to say that formally.

Page: Very much.

Jessica: All right, let’s move on to the next story. The federal government’s announcement that it plans to resume executing death row inmates for the first time since 2003. Attorney General Bill Barr ordering the execution of five men on death row, starting in December. That could be delayed by legal challenges. We know there are currently 62 inmates in federal death row.

And, Page, I wanna get your thoughts on this. What kinds of process does the Justice Department have to go through? I mean, can they just say they wanna do this and make it happen, or how is this all gonna play out?

Page: No, it is a lot more complicated than the Attorney General is making it sound. I mean, first, they actually have to change the protocol. And to do that, you have to go through a process. You don’t just sign a press release and say, “Okay, it’s on now. We’re gonna start executions again.” You have to establish a protocol. What type of drug are you going to use? How is it going to be administered? And all of that has to be approved. They haven’t done that yet.

And we also expect that once this protocol is put into place, you’re gonna see more legal challenges from the people that are facing execution. And that is almost certain to delay it at least until sometime next year. And then, there’s the availability of the execution drug. That has been an issue in several states. And we don’t know where the federal government intends to get this drug or how they have to get it produced.

Jessica: Yeah, a lengthy and complicated process there. Page Pate, thanks so much for being with us this morning.

Page: Thank you, Jessica.