Videos

Our firm has successfully pursued cases against police departments, city agencies, and police officers in matters involving police brutality or excessive force and are frequently contacted to evaluate these types of cases. When these cases appear in the news, Attorney Page Pate is often contacted by media outlets to provide an analysis of the situation and discuss the strength of a possible lawsuit.

In this case, police officers in the City of Phoenix, Arizona are receiving much criticism for their response to a shoplifting call involving a couple and their two small children. The couple’s 5 year old daughter accidentally left the store without paying for a doll. The police arrived and approached the family with guns drawn. The woman had a baby in her arms and is pregnant. The police violently scream and cuss at her repeatedly to put her hands up, but she can’t because she is holding the baby.

CNN interviewed Page Pate, who is recognized as constitutional and federal attorney, for an analysis of what happened and the potential case the family might have against the City of Phoenix. When discussing the officers’ response to a supposed shoplifting call, Page explains that “They completely overreacted. I mean, this is not a situation where police arrive on the scene, they think someone may be armed, there’s been a report of a violent crime, and armed robbery, a murder. This is a shoplifting call, and they arrive on the scene with what appears to be the intent to take these folks down. And when the people don’t immediately respond to commands, which seem unreasonable from the beginning, then they really go over the top. So I think it’s definitely excessive and really no justification, given the circumstances.”

Often, when people experience a situation in which the actions of law enforcement are excessive or damaging in some way, they will pursue lawsuits against the responsible parties. When asked about his opinion of the strength of the couples’ possible case, he says “Well, they have a case. I didn’t say $10 million. I mean, I think that number is certainly high. Normally, in a situation like this, where no one lost their life, fortunately there wasn’t shooting, the cops didn’t completely lose their mind and fire their weapons, I think $10 million is basically to grab the attention, perhaps, of people. Saying, “Look, this is serious and we’re gonna pursue it.” But to say that it’s worth $10 million. In this case, I think that’s excessive as well.”

TRANSCRIPT:

Christi: I want to tell you about this Arizona couple that plans to sue the City of Phoenix now, after officers pulled a gun on them and their two young children. Now, we’re gonna see this video together. I wanna warn you, this is hard to watch. There’s a lot of language in it, so you’re gonna hear a lot of bleeping. But take a look at what happened.

[00:00:20]

Officer: Get your [bleep] hands up. Get your [bleep] hands up. Get your [bleep] hands up.

Woman: Oh my God.

Officer: Get your hands up.

Woman: It don’t open. It don’t open.

Officer: Get your [bleep] hands up.

Woman: It don’t open.

Officer: I’m gonna [bleep] put a cap right in your [bleep] head. Get your [bleep] hands up.

Man: Who the [bleep] that man?

Woman: [inaudible 00:00:36]

Officer: Get them up.

Man 2: Police?

Man 3: Yeah.

Man 2: You recording it?

Man 3: Yeah, I’m recording it.

Man 2: All right.

Man: [inaudible 00:00:41]

Woman: [inaudible 00:00:42] kids.

Officer: Put your hands up.

Woman: I don’t…you have to open it.

Officer: I don’t give a [bleep].

Woman: [inaudible 00:00:44]

Officer: Put your hands up.

Woman: Don’t point it at my kids.

Officer: Hands up.

Woman: I can’t put my hands up. I have a [bleep] baby in my hands. I can’t. I’m pregnant.

[00:00:54]

Christi: So the couple said the officers approached their vehicle with guns drawn, after their young daughter accidentally walked out of a dollar store with a doll. The video shows a woman who’s five months pregnant struggling to comply with the officers’ commands. All this time, officers are heard in the video, as you heard there, they’re cursing at the couple, they’re making violent threats. So I want to discuss this with federal and constitutional attorney Page Pate. You just saw that video with us. What stood out to you, first of all?

Page: They completely overreacted. I mean, this is not a situation where police arrive on the scene, they think someone may be armed, there’s been a report of a violent crime, and armed robbery, a murder. This is a shoplifting call, and they arrive on the scene with what appears to be the intent to take these folks down. And when the people don’t immediately respond to commands, which seem unreasonable from the beginning, then they really go over the top. So I think it’s definitely excessive and really no justification, given the circumstances.

Christi: So the parents have a case for their $10 million, you think.

Page: Well, they have a case. I didn’t say $10 million. I mean, I think that number is certainly high. Normally, in a situation like this, where no one lost their life, fortunately there wasn’t shooting, the cops didn’t completely lose their mind and fire their weapons, I think $10 million is basically to grab the attention, perhaps, of people. Saying, “Look, this is serious and we’re gonna pursue it.” But to say that it’s worth $10 million. In this case, I think that’s excessive as well.

Christi: I only have a couple seconds left on this one, but what we’re seeing here is very different than what we saw in the police report. It was a very watered down…

Page: [inaudible 00:02:30]

Christi: …report, comparatively.

Page: This is what happens now that we have video. I mean, I can’t count the times I’ve been in court and I’ve questioned an officer about apprehending a suspect, and it’s always been, “I approached him in a calm demeanor. I asked him to politely get out of the car.” Now, we actually see what happens. And it is very different from the police reports.

Christi: All right.

Our firm has represented many people in the State of Georgia who have been charged with sexual battery or charges involving allegations of unwanted touching. When these types of cases appear in the news, often involving high profile individuals, Attorney Page Pate is contacted by the media to discuss the allegations and the potential criminal case that may follow.

In this case, Cuba Gooding, Jr., a famous actor, is alleged to have groped a woman at a bar in New York while there with his girlfriend. The incident was captured on surveillance video and appears to show Cuba Gooding, Jr. putting his hand on the alleged victim in this case.

CNN interviewed Page for an analysis of the video and the criminal charge that has been brought against Mr. Gooding, Jr. When asked about the video, Page says “…it looks, to me, like Cuba Gooding, Jr. does actually touch the person who’s making the accusation. It’s hard to tell because there is a distance there, but it appears that there is some touch. Now, the question is, was it consensual? I mean, we saw the accuser sit down very close to Cuba Gooding’s wife, close enough where she could certainly reach out. And when he makes this touch, as it appears on the video, she doesn’t react to it, she doesn’t get up, she doesn’t push him away. So I think his lawyer is saying, “Look, it maybe a touch occurred, but it was consensual. Therefore, no crime.”

Regarding the charge of forcible touching that has been brought against Mr. Gooding, Jr., Page notes that “it doesn’t appear to be the kind of forcible touching that we normally see as the basis for a criminal charge.”

Page also discusses what would have to be proven in a criminal case like this in order for the accuser to have a successful case. Page explains that “…first, you have to have her statement. She has to say, “Look, I in no way intended for him to touch me. It was not consensual. I never suggested that that was okay.” And that’s gonna be difficult to say, watching the video. Because I think most people, and eventually a jury, will look at that and say, “Wait a minute. If that was not consensual, why didn’t you get up and move away? Why didn’t you push his hand away? We didn’t see any physical or verbal reaction from the accuser once that touch apparently occurred.” Page also agrees that the video could have a determining effect on this case.

When discussing how an attorney might see allegations like this, along with the video, and call it “sexual abuse,” Page explains that “…different states call it different things. In Georgia, it’s called sexual battery. All it has to be is a touch. It can be a very light touch. I could brush up against you. But if that touch was nonconsensual, in other words, you didn’t want it to happen, and there was some sexual purpose to it, either I’m touching an intimate part or I’m doing it for sexual gratification, that’s all it takes. It doesn’t have to be persistent. It doesn’t have to happen more than once. As long as it’s intentional, sexual, and without consent, then that’s a crime in Georgia and in New York, as well.”

Cuba Gooding, Jr. has pleaded not guilty to the charge of forcible touching in this case. It is unusual to have video footage that shows the incident in cases like this, and we will continue to watch this case to see what impact the video has on the outcome.

TRANSCRIPT:

Christi: All right, I wanna talk to you about another piece of video that has made its way online. Actor Cuba Gooding, Jr., he’s pleaded not guilty to a charge of forcible touching, after allegedly groping a woman at a New York bar. I want to show you the surveillance video. There it is. And we pointed out who’s who. There’s Cuba Gooding, Jr. right there. His girlfriend is sitting next to him. The accuser comes up and sits next to her. Gooding’s attorneys say, “You know what? This video is actually gonna vindicate our client.” Can you tell anything in this video, Page?

Page: Christi, it looks, to me, like Cuba Gooding, Jr. does actually touch the person who’s making the accusation. It’s hard to tell because there is a distance there, but it appears that there is some touch. Now, the question is, was it consensual? I mean, we saw the accuser sit down very close to Cuba Gooding’s wife, close enough where she could certainly reach out.

And when he makes this touch, as it appears on the video, she doesn’t react to it, she doesn’t get up, she doesn’t push him away. So I think his lawyer is saying, “Look, it maybe a touch occurred, but it was consensual. Therefore, no crime.”

Christi: Or it was unintentional…

Page: Or it was unintentional.

Christi: …even, perhaps, he says. I mean…

Page: But it appears that he’s reaching over to her in some way.

Christi: Right.

Page: A hand does at least go towards her leg. I don’t see the hand touch the breast. I think maybe a closer examination of the video may show that. But either way, it doesn’t appear to be the kind of forcible touching that we normally see as the basis for a criminal charge.

Christi: So, other than this video, what would have to be proven for her to win this case?

Page: Well, first, you have to have her statement. She has to say, “Look, I in no way intended for him to touch me. It was not consensual. I never suggested that that was okay.” And that’s gonna be difficult to say, watching the video. Because I think most people, and eventually a jury, will look at that and say, “Wait a minute. If that was not consensual, why didn’t you get up and move away? Why didn’t you push his hand away? We didn’t see any physical or verbal reaction from the accuser once that touch apparently occurred.”

Christi: Again, we’re in a situation where video could make or break this case.

Page: Absolutely, yes. Because what we see here is, perhaps, a touching, but the absence of any sort of reaction to it that would suggest it was not consensual. Now, a lot of people think, you know, they hear he’s charged with sexual abuse. Well, has he been following this woman…

Christi: That’s what I wanted…

Page: …around and…?

Christi: …to ask you about.

Page: No.

Christi: Because when you put… I think there are images of what sexual abuse is.

Page: Right.

Christi: How would you, as an attorney, how would you hear this woman’s story, see this video, and say that’s sexual abuse?

Page: Well, different states call it different things. In Georgia, it’s called sexual battery. All it has to be is a touch. It can be a very light touch. I could brush up against you. But if that touch was nonconsensual, in other words, you didn’t want it to happen, and there was some sexual purpose to it, either I’m touching an intimate part or I’m doing it for sexual gratification, that’s all it takes. It doesn’t have to be persistent. It doesn’t have to happen more than once. As long as it’s intentional, sexual, and without consent, then that’s a crime in Georgia and in New York, as well.

Christi: Oh, all right. Page Pate, thank you so much…

Page: Thank you.

Christi: …for walking us through it all.

Page: Enjoyed it.

Christi: As always.

TRANSCRIPT:

Yodit: All right, Page.

Page: Yes.

Yodit: You just heard the defense requesting that the court allow them to recall Summer Foster, and she is the daughter of Jane Doe No. 1. Her testimony was less than credible when she gave it and so, of course, her daughter saw her on Court TV testifying, called the DAs with information, the DA wanted to bring her in, did so, she did well, humanized her mom, explained…sort of gave the jury and viewers more context in terms of her mother’s behavior and why she may have testified in the way she did.

And then, she talks about a GoFundMe page with our Ted Rowlands after she had testified. And, of course, the defense saw that and now they’re saying, “This is something that we need to call her back on because there’s bias there. There’s a pecuniary interest. There’s motive.

Page: Right.

Yodit: What do you think about the judge’s decision to only limit that to Summer Foster’s credibility and not her mother’s potential mental illness that she refers to?

Page: Well, I think it’s the right decision. I mean, legally, if there is a financial motive when a witness is testifying, that’s clearly fair ground for the defense to explore.

Yodit: Yeah.

Page: So I completely understand why the defense lawyers want to bring her back, if for nothing more than simply to get out into the record the fact that she has that GoFundMe page. Now, they’re taking a risk, because she was a very effective witness for the prosecution. And so, she’s not gonna be on the stand trying to help the defense. So I think you get her up there, you ask her the question about the GoFundMe page, let the jury know there’s at least some financial interest on this witness’s part that may affect her credibility. But then you sit down. You don’t continue to question that witness.

Yodit: Yeah.

Page: But the judge is absolutely right that what that witness may have said out of court relating to her mother’s mental health condition is not fair game for new testimony. Because it’s, first of all, a complete hearsay statement. It’s not made by the witness Jane Doe herself. It’s made by the daughter, out of court, not necessarily relevant to the questions that were being asked during the trial. So I agree with his ruling completely.

Yodit: Jane Doe No. 4, on the stand, talked about being raped in a home by Kellen Winslow, from the back, while he’s pushing her head into a guy named Matt’s crotch. She tells the sergeant who was on the stand that she was digitally penetrated. Nothing about Kellen Winslow raping her from the back, nothing about Matt’s crotch. There’s a huge difference there.

Page: Oh, yeah.

Yodit: I mean, so, what do you make of that? Do you, as a prosecutor, because they didn’t, bring in a rape expert to explain why rape victims say certain things, remember certain things? Because Jane Doe No. 4 could recall the fabric of the couch, which is something that people may not realize or may think is important, but then not remember where you were raped or how you were raped. How do you think that chips away at her credibility?

Page: Well, I have certainly seen prosecutors try to bring in expert witnesses like that. Because most jurors who have not been through that type of traumatic experience don’t understand how the human mind works when we’re trying to recall an event. But judges are often skeptical about that type of expert testimony because you have another witness coming in and effectively commenting on the credibility of another witness, and that’s usually not allowed.

So, perhaps they thought about it and then, ultimately, decided they were not gonna be able to get it admitted. But that type of inconsistency, because it occurred at the time of the alleged event, is critical for the defense. I mean, that is one of those focus points that you have to stick with, not just with that witness but throughout the trial, and try to remind the jury that when it happened, supposedly, she was inconsistent about the details.

And not unimportant details: what color car was he driving, what was his shirt like? But exactly what occurred on that day. So I think it’s a critical inconsistency. I think the prosecution could have done a better job explaining why there was that inconsistency.

Yodit: Yeah.

Page: We’ll see if the defense can use it effectively.

Yodit: All right, Page. So, we were talking during the break about whether we would put a client up on the stand. I know, when I was practicing, it was really, really touch and go. I rarely ever put a client up there. Not because I didn’t believe in what they were saying, but because there are certain, you know, telltale signs that may look as if you’re guilty but, really, it’s just nerves, or maybe you just don’t know how to speak in front of folks.

Page: Or maybe you are guilty.

Yodit: Or maybe you are guilty.

Page: And that’s gonna come out during cross-examination.

Yodit: And you don’t want… Exactly. You don’t wanna subject them to that. But with Kellen Winslow, you know, in opening statements, his attorney Brian Watkins said this was, you know, no strings attached sex. He obviously cheated on his wife. Not…you know, a moral issue, sure, not a legal issue. But it was consensual. Do you feel the need, right now, at this point, if you had to make a decision, if you were representing him, would you put him on the stand to establish that, yes, this was consensual?

Page: That is always, without a doubt, the most difficult decision, I think, a defense lawyer faces in a trial like this. Do you put your client up to allow him or her to give their version of what happened, to formally deny the charges against him, to let the jury hear that person say, “I did not do this?” There’s a temptation to do that, certainly, in a case like this where it really boils down to the credibility of witnesses.

I mean, we’ve heard from a number of them. Some of them have been more credible than others. I think, again, if we’re limiting this case to one or two accusations, then I think the balance tips in favor of calling your client to the stand, especially if your defense at trial is going to be consistent with what he said before. In other words, consensual sex for those two. But in this case, with so many different accusations, so much fodder for the prosecution to use as cross-examination, and for them to be able to go through their case with him on the stand.

Well, did you do this? Did you do that? You heard this witness testify to this. What do you say? I just think the balance in a case like this is leave him in the chair. Don’t put him up. But one thing we should remind everybody, it’s ultimately Kellen Winslow’s decision.

Yodit: For sure, yes.

Page: I mean, a lawyer can give advice, can make recommendations, but the defendant ultimately gets to decide, “Do I really want to go up there and tell my story?”

Yodit: But when you talk about the state not wanting to muddy the waters because maybe there might be a slight inconsistency with what he says happened and what Jane Doe 4 says, Brandon Guillermo is her ex-boyfriend, who they brought on the stand. And he stated, on cross, that she had told him, Jane Doe No. 4, that she was assaulted in a car. Vastly different from what Jane Doe No. 4 said. So, if that were the reason, then why put him on the stand?

Page: Well, but inconsistent statements is very different than an inconsistent version of what actually happened. I mean, the boyfriend wasn’t there at the time the alleged incident occurred. This Matt guy was.

Yodit: Yeah.

Page: So if Matt’s version of what happened is drastically different, but still incriminates Winslow enough that his lawyers won’t call him, then he’s not gonna show up at trial. But your point is very good. The absence of Matt testifying is something the defense can certainly use in closing arguments. Where’s Matt? You know the state has gone to incredible lengths to bring in all of these witnesses from way back when to try to prove their case. But there was a material person who was present that day. You didn’t hear from him. It’s their obligation to prove their case and they didn’t do it.

Yodit: What were your impressions of Jane Doe No. 5 and how can she, her testimony, help Jane Doe No. 3, who couldn’t identify Winslow?

Page: Well, I think it certainly helps the prosecution establish that pattern of conduct that they want to show the jury in this case, that this guy is out of control. And even after he’s been charged in a serious sex crime case, we let him out on bond, and he’s still a danger to the community. He’s still going after elderly women. And it makes no sense, especially in a public place. So I think her credibility is going to be very important.

The recency of her accusation. Again, this is not something going back several years. It’s something that happened very, very recently. But at the same time, like we discussed earlier, if that was all that Kellen Winslow ever did, we probably wouldn’t be in trial. Again, those accusations, while certainly serious and criminal conduct, probably would not have made it to the point where we’re at a criminal trial in a big high-profile case like this.

Yodit: Absolutely.

Page: But add them to everything else and it paints a very disturbing picture and a very difficult case for the defense.

Yodit: You mentioned the charges. There’s 12. Do you think that that is adding to the confusion for jurors when they actually do receive this long, drawn out instruction from the judge, which I can’t even stay awake for? But it’s important for them to understand what it is. So what do you make of the 12 charges that they are trying to get Kellen Winslow on?

Page: You know, I do think it’s possible in a case like this for the prosecution to overdo it, to charge too many different counts for one alleged victim.

Yodit: Yeah.

Page: You know, I think most people come into jury service, if they’ve never done it before, and say, “Okay, I’m here to decide whether he did it or didn’t do it, whether he’s guilty or innocent.” And then, they look at, or are read, at the beginning of trial, a 12-count indictment and they’re like, “Wow, I’ve got to analyze each one of these cases and each one of these charges individually.”

And that’s exactly what the judge is gonna tell them to do. But as the trial goes through, and it’s interesting. We heard the reporters say one of them already ran out of notes in their notebook.

Yodit: Yeah. Oh, they’re writing.

Page: She needs to get a new one.

Yodit: Yeah.

Page: They start to focus in on the job and they get it. And so, by the time the jury instructions are given to a jury, especially after a longer trial like this, it’s been my experience they are paying close attention. And they’ll take those charges back, usually the judge will let them have a written copy, and they will go through, and they will try to match it up. And they may spend a lot of time, even though they’ve already made up their mind whether he’s guilty or innocent. They’re gonna do their job and go through those jury charges, as complicated as they may be.

Our firm has successfully represented many people charged with murder and other violent crimes in the State of Georgia. When a serious criminal case is in the news, the media often call Attorney Page Pate to help them understand the charges, the potential defenses, and all possible outcomes.

In this case, Tiffany Moss is accused of starving her 10 year old stepdaughter to death. She is representing herself in court and has not put up any witnesses or made any statements to the jury during her trial. She has laughed when the judge forced her to speak. Moss faces 3 possible sentences if she is convicted: death penalty, life without parole, life with parole. She turned down an option of a plea agreement where she would have received life without parole.

Seeking an expert opinion on the case, WXIA (11Alive) News in Atlanta interviewed Page about Moss not speaking up or cross-examining witnesses. Page said “it’s going to be very difficult for the jury to find her not guilty, I mean she is not putting up any defense at all, she’s not engaging with the witnesses, she made no opening statement – she is sitting silently during this entire portion of the trial.”

When asked if the jury might stray from the death penalty, Page said “they don’t know that she’s been offered a plea agreement. As far as they know she’s gone to trial because she said she didn’t do it or because the DA wouldn’t offer her a deal. She hasn’t engaged with the jury, they don’t know anything about her other than this crime, so I think it’s going to be very difficult for her to avoid the death penalty given the fact she’s not putting up any defense at all.”

When asked about a possible insanity defense, Page said “there is not going to be a viable insanity defense in this case because the judge is not going to tell the jury that they have that option.”

Page also said that he is shocked that the judge hasn’t stepped in and required Moss to have a lawyer in a death penalty case and that it will open up the possibility of an appeal.

Ms. Moss was convicted and sentenced to death. We expect an appeal and will watch the case closely.

TRANSCRIPT:

Ron: Well, it’s the trial that has some jurors in tears.

Aisha: Yeah, and as we get closer to the end of this trial, it’s anybody’s guess what will happen. So, Tiffany Moss is the woman accused of starving her 10-year old stepdaughter Emani to death. She is defending herself but has yet to take the stand or call any witnesses at all.

Ron: And many of you are asking right now, “Where’s the biological mom in all of this?” Well, according to the DA’s office, Emani’s mom gave her up when she was just an infant and has not been involved in her life at all.

Aisha: 11alive is where Atlanta speaks. So, you have a lot of questions about this story and Hope Ford is here to answer them.

Hope: Yeah. So some people are wondering about, you know, her not speaking up for herself during this trial and not really giving any defense. So, I talked to Page Pate. He is a criminal defense attorney. He’s not associated with this case, but I asked him if she is condemning herself by not cross-examining witnesses and not speaking up during the trial.

Page: Well, it’s gonna be very difficult for the jury to find her not guilty. I mean, she’s not putting up any defense at all. She’s not engaging with the witnesses. She made no opening statement. She’s sitting silently during this entire portion of the trial.

Hope: Moss faces three possible sentences if convicted: death penalty, life without parole, like with parole. She already turned down an option of a plea agreement where she would have received life without parole. So, I asked Pate, “What’s the likelihood the jury would stray from the death penalty?”

Page: They don’t know that she’s been offered a plea agreement. As far as they know, she’s gone to trial because she said she didn’t do it or because the DA wouldn’t offer her a deal. She hasn’t engaged with the jury. They don’t know anything about her other than this crime. So I think it’s gonna be very difficult for her to avoid the death penalty given the fact she’s not putting up any defense at all.

Hope: Moss laughed at point when the judge forced her to speak, and one comment from Facebook reads she was simply trying to beef up an insanity appeal. So, I asked Pate if that was even possible.

Page: There is not going to be a viable insanity defense in this case because the judge is not gonna tell the jury that they have that option.

Aisha: All right. So let’s talk about the judge. Could the judge step in here?

Hope: So, Pate said that he’s actually shocked that the judge hasn’t stepped in and required that she has counsel in a death penalty case. And he says that by doing that, that opens up the possibility of an appeal.

Aisha: All right. Thank you so much, Hope. We will continue to follow this into next week. So closing arguments set to begin. She can say something, but it’s unlikely that she will.

Our firm has represented many people in the State of Georgia who have been charged with serious felonies. When these types of cases appear in the news, sometimes involving high profile individuals, Attorney Page Pate is contacted by the media to discuss the charges.

In this case, Jussie Smollett, an actor, was charged with 16 felony counts of disorderly conduct for filing a false police report, following his claim that he was a victim of a racist and homophobic assault while he was walking down the street. Mr. Smollett is accused of making up the story about his attack.

CNN interviewed Page for an analysis of the charges brought against Mr. Smollett. Page is asked for his thoughts on Mr. Smollett being charged 16 times for the same crime (one count for each time Mr. Smollett repeated the alleged lie). Page does not think this is a typical approach to charging a person and explains that “There’s really one crime here, if there’s a crime at all, and that’s the false report of a crime. No matter how many different details you give, it’s really one offense. It’s a felony under Illinois law, but it’s not 16 different crimes. I think they did that, though, to send a message. Because remember how much effort, how much money, how much time was spent by law enforcement to investigate what may very well have not been a crime at all.” Page further explains that he doesn’t think this approach is “overkill” because “…the way they charge the crime is different than the way the case may play out in court. Because at the end of the day, if the case does go to trial, the prosecutor is gonna put on the same evidence. He came to us, he gave us this story, we found out it was not true. So the fact he’s charged with 16 different counts is not going to affect the evidence and it’s not going to affect the ultimate sentence.”

When Page is asked for his opinion on whether Mr. Smollett could also be charged in federal court for mailing a death threat letter to himself, Page says that he does not think so, and that he does “believe the FBI was involved in investigating what may have been the false report of a crime” and that “at the end of the day, you rarely see two different jurisdictions, federal and state, prosecuting the same offense. So, it’s likely the federal government, the U.S. Attorney’s office, may have looked at the case, but then decided to pass on it, let the state folks handle it.”

The charges against Mr. Smollett were ultimately dropped and his record was wiped clean. He forfeited the $10,000 bond that he posted when he was first arrested. The City of Chicago later demanded that Mr. Smollett pay over $100,000 to cover the costs associated with the investigation of the alleged attack against him and have filed a civil lawsuit against Mr. Smollett to recover those costs. We will continue to follow the civil case.

TRANSCRIPT:

Victor: All right, let’s discuss. With us now is criminal defense attorney Page Pate. Page, welcome back.

Page: Thank you.

Victor: Let’s start here with the 16 counts. One for, as Nick said there, each time he told this lie.

Page: Right.

Victor: Is that typical?

Page: No, it’s not typical. There’s really one crime here, if there’s a crime at all, and that’s the false report of a crime. No matter how many different details you give, it’s really one offense. It’s a felony under Illinois law, but it’s not 16 different crimes. I think they did that, though, to send a message. Because remember how much effort, how much money, how much time was spent by law enforcement to investigate what may very well have not been a crime at all.

Victor: Let’s listen to Smollett’s defense attorney here, Mark Geragos, also a CNN contributor. Let’s watch.

Geragos: What is happening here is, frankly, a media gang bang of this guy, of unprecedented proportions. And that’s the reason I got into this. I’ve never seen a media pendulum swing more quickly and more viciously and rob somebody of their presumption of innocence like this case. It’s startling the way people assume that he’s guilty.

Victor: Now, you said that the 16 counts, 1 for each lie, is not typical.

Page: No.

Victor: Is it, as Geragos says, overkill, overreach?

Page: I don’t think so. Because the way they charge the crime is different than the way the case may play out in court. Because at the end of the day, if the case does go to trial, the prosecutor is gonna put on the same evidence. He came to us, he gave us this story, we found out it was not true. So the fact he’s charged with 16 different counts is not going to affect the evidence and it’s not going to affect the ultimate sentence.

Victor: So let’s talk about evidence here. Do you expect that this will go to trial, considering all of the exposure through disclosure that Smollett could face, or is this looking like a plea deal, potentially?

Page: Well, it sounds like his lawyer, at this point, does not have all the evidence. I mean, he was on CNN saying, “We haven’t seen the discovery materials. I don’t have, you know, the backup for the checks. We haven’t talked to the folks at Empire.” So I think once they see the evidence, they’ll be in a much better position to decide if it’s something they have to resolve or if it’s something that goes to trial. But if, at the end of the day, the point here is to get media attention and media coverage, then we may see this play out all the way through a jury trial.

Victor: Now, considering, you know…you’re saying that this is potentially trying to make a point here, a statement, an example through Smollett, would you expect then federal charges, considering he’s accused of having mailed that letter, that death threat, to himself?

Page: I don’t think so. I do believe the FBI was involved in investigating what may have been the false report of a crime. But at the end of the day, you rarely see two different jurisdictions, federal and state, prosecuting the same offense. So, it’s likely the federal government, the U.S. Attorney’s office, may have looked at the case, but then decided to pass on it, let the state folks handle it.

Victor: What’s the impact here of, you know, people wake up and see these 16 charges? It’s been a few days, unrelated case, but the conversation before this was about Paul Manafort getting fewer than four years for the crimes for which he was convicted. Does this make him, potentially, a sympathetic character, considering he absolutely was not up to this point?

Page: Well, that’s a good point and there’s always that possibility. But, I mean, think about what he did if, in fact, he committed this crime. I mean, he diverted resources, scarce resources that could have been used to investigate serious violent crimes that go on in Chicago all the time. And I think law enforcement and the prosecutor here, they feel they need to send a message.

“Look, you’re gonna come to us. You’re gonna rely on our investigative work, our time, our money, our effort, you better be reporting something real.” And so, I think there is a need here to send that message, because with today’s media and social media, the way things can ramp up so quickly, people can get in trouble for something they never did.

Victor: All right. We’ll see what happens next. Page Pate, thanks so much.

Page: Thank you, Victor.

Victor: All right. Chris.