GUILTY CA - Ana Abulaban, 29, and Rayburn Barron, 28, killed by TikTok'r husband, San Diego, 21 Oct 2021

[Curious Me]

No Verdict is being announced here yet. Local Fox5 News (at four o'clock) is going over the Trial which started May 1st. They spent 14 days in the courtroom, and 3 days with Ali testifying on his own behalf. The Jury has been deliberating all day today, and so far it looks like no Verdict will be reached today.

FOX 5 San Diego: News about San Diego, California, the USA and the world

Get the latest San Diego news, breaking news, weather, traffic, sports, entertainment and video from fox5sandiego.com. Watch newscasts from FOX 5/KSWB and KUSI.

fox5sandiego.com

​

 

[Sustained]

No Verdict is being announced here yet. Local Fox5 News (at four o'clock) is going over the Trial which started May 1st. They spent 14 days in the courtroom, and 3 days with Ali testifying on his own behalf. The Jury has been deliberating all day today, and so far it looks like no Verdict will be reached today.

FOX 5 San Diego: News about San Diego, California, the USA and the world

Get the latest San Diego news, breaking news, weather, traffic, sports, entertainment and video from fox5sandiego.com. Watch newscasts from FOX 5/KSWB and KUSI.

fox5sandiego.com

​

My opinion is that the jury is currently deciding between 1st and 2nd degree murder and going over the premeditation requirements with a fine tooth comb.

 

[Curious Me]

I. THE PROVOCATION OR “HEAT OF PASSION” DOCTRINE In the criminal law, the “heat of passion” doctrine is a partial defense that reduces an offense that would otherwise constitute murder to the lesser offense of manslaughter....​

Repeating my own post, and adding more about provocation and crime of passion that would reduce the charges. This is is what the Jurors have to deliberate to reach a Verdict.

I. THE PROVOCATION OR “HEAT OF PASSION” DOCTRINE In the criminal law, the “heat of passion” doctrine is a partial defense that reduces an offense that would otherwise constitute murder to the lesser offense of manslaughter....

...3 The “heat of passion” element is subjective—the defendant must show that at the time of the killing, he was in fact in a state of passion or extreme anger.

4 The “sufficient provocation” element is objective, in that it depends on evaluating the defendant’s extreme anger against some objective normative standard. (The nature of that normative evaluation is discussed below.) If a defendant is extremely angry but lacks sufficient provocation, the partial defense is not available. If a defendant is extremely angry and there is sufficient provocation, the partial defense is satisfied, and the defendant is guilty of manslaughter rather than murder.​

https://www.law.georgetown.edu/american-criminal-law-review/wp-content/uploads/sites/15/2018/04/55-2-The-Heat-of-Passion-and-Blameworthy-Reasons-to-Be-Angry.pdf

_______________________________________

Jurors will have to decide if it was:

• 1st degree Murder - 25 yrs. to Life
• 2nd degree Murder - 15 yrs. to Life
• Involuntary Manslaughter - Heat of Passion 11 yrs. for each count

 

[Sustained]

Repeating my own post, and adding more about provocation and crime of passion that would reduce the charges. This is is what the Jurors have to deliberate to reach a Verdict.

I. THE PROVOCATION OR “HEAT OF PASSION” DOCTRINE In the criminal law, the “heat of passion” doctrine is a partial defense that reduces an offense that would otherwise constitute murder to the lesser offense of manslaughter....

...3 The “heat of passion” element is subjective—the defendant must show that at the time of the killing, he was in fact in a state of passion or extreme anger.

4 The “sufficient provocation” element is objective, in that it depends on evaluating the defendant’s extreme anger against some objective normative standard. (The nature of that normative evaluation is discussed below.) If a defendant is extremely angry but lacks sufficient provocation, the partial defense is not available. If a defendant is extremely angry and there is sufficient provocation, the partial defense is satisfied, and the defendant is guilty of manslaughter rather than murder.​

https://www.law.georgetown.edu/american-criminal-law-review/wp-content/uploads/sites/15/2018/04/55-2-The-Heat-of-Passion-and-Blameworthy-Reasons-to-Be-Angry.pdf

_______________________________________

Jurors will have to decide if it was:

• 1st degree Murder - 25 yrs. to Life
• 2nd degree Murder - 15 yrs. to Life
• Involuntary Manslaughter - Heat of Passion 11 yrs. for each count

Quoted from this website on California law -

Heat of Passion Defense in California (egattorneys.com)

HOW DOES THE HEAT OF PASSION DEFENSE WORK?​

When successfully argued, the heat of passion defense effectively negates the element of malice aforethought. It argues that the defendant acted not out of a deliberate intent to kill but in a spontaneous reaction to a provocation so intense that it caused them to lose self-control.

To utilize this defense successfully in a murder case, a skilled California criminal defense attorney must establish the following key elements:

• Adequate Provocation: The defendant must have been provoked by an event or situation that would cause a reasonable person to react passionately and without due deliberation. This doesn't necessarily have to be an illegal act.
• Heat of Passion: The defendant must have acted under the influence of intense emotion that obscured their reasoning or judgment. Again, the passion must be such that it would cause a reasonable person to act rashly or without reflection.
• Immediate Reaction: There should be no "cooling-off" period between the provocation and the act of killing. If a reasonable amount of time has passed such that a person could have regained control, this defense may not stand
• Causal Connection: The attorney must establish a causal link between the provocation, the heat of passion, and the act of killing.

IMO, the heat of passion defense is out the door for AA for a couple of reasons -

1. Immediate reaction - Ali had time to cool off before driving over to the Spire - drugs are not an excuse
2. Heat of passion - a "reasonable" person would not have performed the actions Ali did the day of the murder
3. There is no evidence Ana & Ray were engaged in any sexual behavior and Ali started shooting immediately

Unfortunately, Ali is locked into premeditation as he :

1. Turned on the Discord app to record any conversations Ana had with anyone
2. Brought a loaded firearm to the Spire - well aware that he had it by his actions of adjusting the holster before
getting on the elevator
3. Admitted on the stand he disliked Ray

Toss in that Ali took pictures of the dead bodies and sent them to his family. Also, that AA had cheated with Ashley Sanchez in their apartment and tried to hold Ana to a different standard. Not to mention he beat her on numerous occasions.

Folks in SD will remember the Betty Broderick story where she shot her ex and new wife in the early morning hours. Ms. Broderick went down for 1st degree murder and was sentenced to 32 years to life. To me, the cases are similar and the "heat of passion" defense failed in Betty's case.

 

[ttjo]

Quoted from this website on California law -

Heat of Passion Defense in California (egattorneys.com)

HOW DOES THE HEAT OF PASSION DEFENSE WORK?​

When successfully argued, the heat of passion defense effectively negates the element of malice aforethought. It argues that the defendant acted not out of a deliberate intent to kill but in a spontaneous reaction to a provocation so intense that it caused them to lose self-control.

To utilize this defense successfully in a murder case, a skilled California criminal defense attorney must establish the following key elements:

• Adequate Provocation: The defendant must have been provoked by an event or situation that would cause a reasonable person to react passionately and without due deliberation. This doesn't necessarily have to be an illegal act.
• Heat of Passion: The defendant must have acted under the influence of intense emotion that obscured their reasoning or judgment. Again, the passion must be such that it would cause a reasonable person to act rashly or without reflection.
• Immediate Reaction: There should be no "cooling-off" period between the provocation and the act of killing. If a reasonable amount of time has passed such that a person could have regained control, this defense may not stand
• Causal Connection: The attorney must establish a causal link between the provocation, the heat of passion, and the act of killing.

IMO, the heat of passion defense is out the door for AA for a couple of reasons -

1. Immediate reaction - Ali had time to cool off before driving over to the Spire - drugs are not an excuse
2. Heat of passion - a "reasonable" person would not have performed the actions Ali did the day of the murder
3. There is no evidence Ana & Ray were engaged in any sexual behavior and Ali started shooting immediately

Unfortunately, Ali is locked into premeditation as he :

1. Turned on the Discord app to record any conversations Ana had with anyone
2. Brought a loaded firearm to the Spire - well aware that he had it by his actions of adjusting the holster before
getting on the elevator
3. Admitted on the stand he disliked Ray

Toss in that Ali took pictures of the dead bodies and sent them to his family. Also, that AA had cheated with Ashley Sanchez in their apartment and tried to hold Ana to a different standard. Not to mention he beat her on numerous occasions.

Folks in SD will remember the Betty Broderick story where she shot her ex and new wife in the early morning hours. Ms. Broderick went down for 1st degree murder and was sentenced to 32 years to life. To me, the cases are similar and the "heat of passion" defense failed in Betty's case.

adequate provocation:
this is what I was wondering, defendant must have been provoked, but does the provocation have to be intentional on the victim's part? ( he was provoked b/c of a listening device he planted, he wasn't taunted?) does that matter?
heat of passion
there was intense emotion, likely made worse by. cocaine, but is that something that factors in?
Immediate reaction/ cooling of period. yikes, he had the entire drive over to cool off, if the listening device is what set him off. but he ruminated all the way over. I think the coke coupled with his rage, was just not going to let him cool down.
Interestingly though, he knows about this because he spoke to it. He said he thought he'd find them in the bedroom. but because they were right there he didn't have that cooling-off period. I don't think that is going to fly. Does he think he would have acted differently if he found them in bed?
I feel bad for all of them, and I can see where he was coming from, but does that matter where the law is concerned?

Betty Broderick is a good example, she paid for all his school, was a devoted wife and mother and then he left her for his ( whatever she was, secretary or another lawyer)
I guess that's what Im asking, whats considered provocation? is it direct provovcation ? taunting, or is it more about the unfairness you feel over something? like BB

 

[Sustained]

adequate provocation:
this is what I was wondering, defendant must have been provoked, but does the provocation have to be intentional on the victim's part? ( he was provoked b/c of a listening device he planted, he wasn't taunted?) does that matter?
heat of passion
there was intense emotion, likely made worse by. cocaine, but is that something that factors in?
Immediate reaction/ cooling of period. yikes, he had the entire drive over to cool off, if the listening device is what set him off. but he ruminated all the way over. I think the coke coupled with his rage, was just not going to let him cool down.
Interestingly though, he knows about this because he spoke to it. He said he thought he'd find them in the bedroom. but because they were right there he didn't have that cooling-off period. I don't think that is going to fly. Does he think he would have acted differently if he found them in bed?
I feel bad for all of them, and I can see where he was coming from, but does that matter where the law is concerned?

Betty Broderick is a good example, she paid for all his school, was a devoted wife and mother and then he left her for his ( whatever she was, secretary or another lawyer)
I guess that's what Im asking, whats considered provocation? is it direct provovcation ? taunting, or is it more about the unfairness you feel over something? like BB

If AA had not turned on the Discord chat on the IPad, he would not have known Ray was at the apartment. So IMO, the provocation was created by himself.

Heat of passion would apply if - Ali/Ana were still living together, getting along, and Ali came home and caught Ana/Ray in the middle of a sexual act. Even then, do you pull a gun and shoot both of them in the head ?

Ana's biggest mistakes were not changing the keycard to the apartment and not getting a restraining order a long time prior. IMO, AA treated Ana as property. But she was moving on and AA could not.

 

[Ray_of_hope]

I can’t believe it’s taking this long. It’s pretty open and shut to me.

 

[Curious Me]

...3 The “heat of passion” element is subjective—the defendant must show that at the time of the killing, he was in fact in a state of passion or extreme anger.
4 The “sufficient provocation” element is objective, in that it depends on evaluating the defendant’s extreme anger against some objective normative standard...

^^^ Posting this again with a definition of the word "subjective". This is more about understanding the definitions of the law. All the fine points matter. Convictions can be appealed and overturned.

Dictionary definition-- Subjective is an adjective that describes something that exists in the mind or is based on personal beliefs or feelings. It is the opposite of objective. In philosophy, subjective refers to the way a person experiences things in his or her own mind. In general, subjective questions are based on personal beliefs or feelings, rather than on facts.​

...Folks in SD will remember the Betty Broderick story where she shot her ex and new wife in the early morning hours. Ms. Broderick went down for 1st degree murder and was sentenced to 32 years to life.

@Sustained, your posts are definitely thought-provoking and leaning strongly towards 1st degree murder. Jurors deliberated an entire day with no verdict. It might not be as quick and easy to reach a verdict because there's a bit of truth that there was some heat of passion and some element of provocation according to the definition of the law.

Please understand my whole post is not to actually defend Ali, but about defining the two elements that would reduce his 1st degree murder charges to a lesser charge.​

Betty Broderick is a good example, she paid for all his school, was a devoted wife and mother and then he left her for his ( whatever she was, secretary or another lawyer)

I agree, that is a good example of Betty Broderick. Her case was slightly different in that so much time had passed and he had remarried. It was hard to see it as the provocation that it might have been in her own mind. It didn't seem like a pressing heat of passion by then, but more like revenge. He had a high standing in the legal community here. What's really kept her behind bars though, and not get paroled out, is what they say is her utter apparent lack of remorse and her willfulness that she was right to get revenge. Who knows, Ali might also feel like that under his mask.

You can watch Betty's entire trial at the link below. ​

A Woman Scorned (CA v. Broderick 1991) Court TV Archives

Elisabeth "Betty" Broderick is being retried for the shooting death of her ex-husband and his new wife.

www.courttv.com

2. Heat of passion - a "reasonable" person would not have performed the actions Ali did the day of the murder​

This is how I understand the Defense explained it. You can leave the action out of it. The action Ali took does not have to be an action a reasonable person would take, but the provocation does have to meet what a normal person would consider being provoked. That is how I heard the Defense explain it. Please correct me if I'm wrong.​

3. There is no evidence Ana & Ray were engaged in any sexual behavior and Ali started shooting immediately

It doesn't matter if they were having actual sex. Ali thought they were kissing on the couch, and he found her with another man. The way I see it is she had denied seeing someone else for awhile, perhaps she had been gas lighting him saying she would never-ever do that while married. They had only been broken up less than a month I think, like so many times before a very short time and they'd get back together. In Ali's mind they might get back together and were still married.

Yes, he did set up his own provocation, but never expected to hear what he did so immediately. It was instant, sure enough another man, and he reacted. Wow, she really was with another man. He went basically out of his mind with emotion (yes, and coke) at that point, unable to stop himself or think clearly to stop his crime of passion.​

...guess that's what I'm asking, whats considered provocation? is it direct provocation ? taunting, or is it more about the unfairness you feel over something? like BB

@ttjo, I hope the Jurors are digging into that definition to get a clarity about it like you are. It's a tough one.

Heat of passion would apply if - Ali/Ana were still living together, getting along, and Ali came home and caught Ana/Ray in the middle of a sexual act. Even then, do you pull a gun and shoot both of them in the head ?

With all due respect, I don't think that's true always. No, not always. I believe there have been other cases. It's not a necessary element to have to live together to be moved to commit a crime of passion. Nor would it have to be an actual sex act seen.

Like I said before, I believe the action Ali took doesn't have to meet the reasonable person's action. Only the provocation has to meet that criteria, and objectively, as I understand it. I thought that is what Defense explained in her closing.

Ali had moved out only recently. Ana was with another man in the apt. that Ali probably paid the rent on. Ali had lived there with his family, just a short time ago. His daughter was living there. He might've still been on the lease. Doesn't matter if he found them having actual sex for it to be a heat of passion.

The heat of passion is subjective. It's the finding of provocation that must be objective. I imagine who and how he was provoked is in question. Alas, your point, @Sustained , of him setting himself up to be provoked may be the main sticking point the Jurors are having a hard time with and agreeing on.​

 

[Curious Me]

I like to watch trials and learn something from each one I watch. This one is legally intriguing to me.

Defense says, "Jurors have to look at the Weight and Significance (video below 1:22:00) of the provocation." They have to look at Ana and Ray because they are part of the facts of the case. Defense says in this case the provocation was both Weighty and Significant. You would have to disregard the fact that Ali was not provoked or didn't have the heat of passion. The Prosecution would have to prove that. Provocation could even happen from a sudden quarrel that caused someone to act rashly. Intense emotion to act impulsively.

This is what the Defense is explaining. Jurors have to follow the definitions and instructions of the law. This is part of their legal instructions given to them by the Judge before they go into deliberation.

The Defense's Closing Argument starts at 1:17:20.
Defense Attorney Jodi Green gets right into explaining the definitions of provocation and heat of passion, and how to weight the facts. Please listen to the Closing. ​

 

[Curious Me]

Why is it so outrageous the clever and unique way Ali used to find out what was really going on? Putting the Discord recording app on the device in the home reminds me of people that go through their spouse's pockets and phones in search of something they suspect might be going on. How's that so much more harmless? Plenty of people go through their spouses phones. Admit it.

Say a person suspects their spouse is having an affair or cheating, so they sneak a peek at their spouse's phone while they're sleeping, and check out all the emails and history found on their phone or computer. They might follow their spouse one night when they go out. MOO, all equally as sneaky to finally find out if what they suspect is true, if they're being lied to and maybe gas lighted for having those suspicions. ​

 

[Curious Me]

Defense's Closing- (1:33:00) As a result of the provocation a reasonable person would react. Simply, they have to decide whether the average person would have a reaction to the provocation. It's not part of the consideration to decide if the average person would commit a homicide as a reaction. The type of reaction, of the action taken, is not what Jurors have to judge as what the average person would do in this part of the deliberation. It's if the average person would have a reaction to a provocation like Ali experienced.

The type of reaction, like to commit a murder is not part of the Jury's consideration at that point. It's the provocation and the heat of emotion, not the action or reaction that is looked at to reduce the 1st degree to a lesser charge. (1:37:48) If the Prosecution failed to prove to you ... ​

 

[ttjo]

Defense's Closing- (1:33:00) As a result of the provocation a reasonable person would react. Simply, they have to decide whether the average person would have a reaction to the provocation. It's not part of the consideration to decide if the average person would commit a homicide as a reaction. The type of reaction, of the action taken, is not what Jurors have to judge as what the average person would do in this part of the deliberation. It's if the average person would have a reaction to a provocation like Ali experienced.

The type of reaction, like to commit a murder is not part of the Jury's consideration at that point. It's the provocation and the heat of emotion, not the action or reaction that is looked at to reduce the 1st degree to a lesser charge. (1:37:48) If the Prosecution failed to prove to you ... ​

OK I think its starting to click.
.3 The “heat of passion” element is subjective—the defendant must show that at the time of the killing, he was in fact in a state of passion or extreme anger.
so establish he was in a state of extreme anger as opposed to revengeful
Heat of passion defense is used to negate the element of malice in a murder prosecution.

4 The “sufficient provocation” element is objective, in that it depends on evaluating the defendant’s extreme anger against some objective normative standard...
establish that a reasonable person under the same circumstances would be in a similar state of anger.

Causal Connection
That the reason you are angry, scared, etc has a causal connection to an event, (related) wife in bed with a man or you found out someone sexually abused your child.
and because of all of the above, you had an immediate reaction and acted impulsively I think about fight, flight, freeze, fawn.
What stands out is what you do does not enter into it.
it's tricky to me because it interweaves, which makes it difficult to sort out in your head when you talk about how a reasonable person would be? It seems it speaks more about how they feel, not what they did as a result, ( that's hard to separate)
what if you found someone hiding under your car? and as you were about to get in an arm came out and grabbed your leg. would you immediately think he is a robber and shoot him, what if he was hiding? what if they were injured and needed help? in the moment do you have time to figure that out?
or
what if you found out your boyfriend was abusing your child?
am I close? @Curious Me

 

[ttjo]

and maybe "what you do, the action you take " is how you are charged.
No wonder the jury is taking their time, I would be there for a week.

 

[Curious Me]

OK I think its starting to click...

If nothing else maybe we learned something new from this trial about legal proceedings. I think you're getting it, @ttjo. I agree, it is very slippery to hold onto these concepts.

The State (Prosecution) says it was premeditation, but the Defense says no it was a reaction from being provoked by something and then he acted in a heat of passion. (That was why the Defense dragged out all kinds of reasons to look closely at Ali's childhood, mental issues, drug addiction or self medication, the mixed messages Ana gave, the breakups & back togethers constantly, and what we saw as victim blaming-- all those things help explain how this could've been a perfect storm when provoked.) Will it work in his favor? Probably not, but it's up to the Jurors to decide.

He admits to shooting the people, but he didn't intend to commit murder. Claiming it was an act of Involuntary Manslaughter. We need to deliberate about his Defense being he was (1) provoked and (2) acted rashly being moved by a sudden, overwhelming reaction.

(1) We have to deliberate if there was provocation looking at it objectively. Did finding a man with Ana in the apt provoke him? Objectively reasonable? (2) Then if whatever action he took was due to being overcome with a sudden passionate emotion (anger, jealousy, shock, etc., an emotion a reasonable person might have subjectively) that caused him to act / react rashly.

We know he killed two people, but Defense says he did not commit a murder. If those two things are decided true, it becomes Involuntary Manslaughter. The sentence is then reduced.

Just heard a Verdict has been reached!

ETA-- edited to shorten so deleted an example.​

 

[Leilei]

Verdict to be read in about fifty minutes. Court TV will have it live, I think.

San Diego TikToker Ali Abulaban found guilty of murdering wife, friend

During the trial, prosecutors displayed graphic photos Ali Abulaban took of the bodies and mentioned online searches he made about how to cut up a body, among other things

www.nbcsandiego.com

 

[ttjo]

If nothing else maybe we learned something new from this trial about legal proceedings. I think you're getting it, @ttjo. I agree, it is very slippery to hold onto these concepts. Any scenario you come up with where the Defense is claiming "not murder", but claiming provocation & heat of passion would require a Jury to deliberate on those two factors that would reduce the charges to Involuntary Manslaughter.

If someone was hiding under your car and you shot them, charged with Murder like you meant to do it, when really you were provoked and acted rashly in a heat of some emotion (fear), then the charges would be reduced to Involuntary Manslaughter. (IMO, a normal person would be provoked to start defending themselves if someone hiding under the car grabbed their leg. Their reaction taken in the heat of emotion was sudden and not controlled by their thought process.)

The State (Prosecution) says it was premeditation, but the Defense says no it was a reaction from being provoked by something and then he acted in a heat of passion. (That was why the Defense dragged out all kinds of reasons to look closely at Ali's childhood, mental issues, drug addiction or self medication, the mixed messages Ana gave, the breakups & back togethers constantly, and what we saw as victim blaming-- all those things help explain how this could've been a perfect storm when provoked.) Will it work in his favor? Probably not, but it's up to the Jurors to decide.

We know the defendant has been charged with 1st degree Murder already. Two people are dead. Did they die from 1st degree Murder or were they killed by an act of Involuntary Manslaughter?

He admits to shooting the people, but he didn't intend to commit murder. It was an act of Involuntary Manslaughter. We need to deliberate about his Defense being he was (1) provoked and (2) acted rashly being moved by a sudden, overwhelming reaction.

(1) We have to deliberate if there was provocation looking at it objectively. Did finding a man with Ana in the apt provoke him? Objectively reasonable? (2) Then if whatever action he took was due to being overcome with a sudden passionate emotion (anger, jealousy, shock, etc., an emotion a reasonable person might have subjectively) that caused him to act / react rashly.

We know he killed two people, but Defense says he did not commit a murder. If those two things are decided true, it becomes Involuntary Manslaughter. The sentence is then reduced.​

OK last thought before the verdict . to this point
(1) We have to deliberate if there was provocation looking at it objectively. Did finding a man with Ana in the apt provoke him? Objectively reasonable?

does it matter that it wasnt just any man , it was a man he hated and suspected of wanting his wife. , and as he walks in his worst fears are confirmed?
is that provocation?
yes he had time to think feom when he heard the ipad, instead he runinated all the way there. and after hearing her say nothing was going on, he walks in to his worst nightmare? even if they werent having sex., the fact that this man whom he suspected and hated, was in his home with his wife? that would be a litle crazy making IMO


Thank god Im not a juror. we'd be there till Christmas.

lets take a vote will the jury come back murder 1 or crime of passion ?

 

[Curious Me]

lets take a vote will the jury come back murder 1 or crime of passion ?

I think the Verdict will be 1st Degree, but I feel the Defense met the heat of passion part; however, not quite sure about the provocation. You'd need both to make it Involuntary Manslaughter.

What's your vote?

Verdict to be read on Court TV at 4:30 p.m. Eastern time. (about a half hr. from now)​

 

[ttjo]

I think the Verdict will be 1st Degree, but I feel the Defense met the heat of passion part; however, not quite sure about the provocation. You'd need both to make it Involuntary Manslaughter.

Verdict to be read on Court TV at 4:30 p.m. Eastern time. (about a half hr. from now)​

Thank you I only saw one creator schedule it for 4 pm which is 2 hours away for me.
I can't decide what it will come back as, but i think they also worry about sending the wrong message out, therefore murder 1.

The one thing I saw from the defense that I think hurt them, was when they were interviewing the girl from upstairs. there was a lot of shaming going on, you smoked pot with a stranger, you got into bed with a stranger, etc . IMO anyway

 

[Curious Me]

 

[Curious Me]

Court TV Live Stream - Your Front Row Seat to Justice

Court TV brings you inside the courtroom for high-profile cases across the U.S.

www.courttv.com