Murder Sheet – A Defence Perspective on the Bullet
Murder Sheet
A: = Attorney (verified and speaking anonymously)
[Much of this is verbatim but I’ve paraphrased parts. Unnecessary words and phrases have been omitted]
PART 4
KG: I’m curious. What sort of things should people be looking for to happen next?
A: Oh. Well, I don’t practise Indiana law so I don’t know procedurally exactly all the next steps but I would be surprised if we get to the point where there is a trial – I doubt it’s going to be March, but whenever it is – we’re not going to get to a point where there is a trial and another suspect has not been named publicly. That would be something that has to happen at some point. In my opinion, I think it has to happen. Even if a deal has been struck with that other person, there’s going to have to be some kind of acknowledgement, whether it’s in the form of a press conference or a press release, or more likely a filing of some sort in the public record, I think that has to happen in order for it to kind of be cleared up a little bit – the confusion regarding what happened in this case and how we got to the point where a previously unknown person has been charged and no connection to any of the other players that have been mentioned so far publicly. You know, there’s got to be some connection made and that’s what – you know, that’s going to be the next big step in my opinion. That’s going to be the next big action that happens in this case.
AC: Moving on to you experience with firearms, we wanted to ask you – so RA is said to have a Sig Sauer P226. Do you know anything about that gun or what it conjures to mind. We don’t own guns and don’t really know them that well so we’re curious about what someone who does have to say about that kind of gun.
A: He doesn’t have enough experience with that particular brand to know anything in particular. He says it’s a fairly commonly sold handgun and just the sort of thing that somebody who wants to buy a firearm for self-protection or protection of the home would buy. It’s not like some sort of automatic weapon that would be prohibited by law or an uzi type thing or something you’re going to see in a movie and say, “Oh wow. That’s an interesting gun”. It’s just a standard handgun basically. It’s not the most common handgun but it’s not rare.
AC: As you’re observing this, have any other things stood out to you about either what the prosecution or the defence is doing so far that seems noteworthy or worth discussing?
A: The defence side is strongly asserting actual innocence so far and that’s what I would be doing. Generally I don’t give interviews but I think they’re in the position where they kind of have to. It’s pretty noteworthy to me that they are as strongly taking that position as they are and that Rick’s family seems to be behind him. That’s very interesting.
KG: Is that unusual for a defendant’s family to stand behind him in a case like this?
A: In cases that I handle it’s not terribly unusual but this is not a normal case. This is a once in a career kind of case. I don’t think I’ve had anything like this personally. The fact that his defence lawyers mentioned that his wife is behind him means that it’s probably true. I don’t think she was – you know, (ui) was there in court – that’s why she’s there or not, but in a case like this – so high profile and it’s such an abhorrent nature, the facts that are alleged – it is somewhat surprising that there’s a mention that she’s supporting him. I would suspect (inaudible) the court to come for a family member is to not be involved terribly in the defence but not necessarily being – you know, for example, (ui) giving him some money. … (Inaudible) That’s if the reports are to be believed. That’s the sort of thing that I would – doing it quietly. You know, that’s what I would expect, for them to be – for the defence lawyers to feel confident enough (ui) to mention it. To me, it’s no (ui). And what does it mean exactly, I don’t know, but it’s no (ui).
AC: You mentioned the defence asserting actual innocence. I’m sure for a lot of lay people that might just seem like par for the course for a defence attorney to do kind of thing. “No, my guy’s innocent. He didn’t do anything wrong”. But I’m curious, you know, in your experience, what makes that somewhat unusual?
A: Well, a lot of times there are defences that kind of suggest themselves from the facts. You know, you may have a self defence claim or you may have an accident claim. You know, there are all kinds of legal defences that you can raise, but to say actual innocence right from the start, you’re kind of staking a claim. You better have some facts to make stick or else that’s gonna look – you’re gonna look foolish later on. You know, that’s why to me the better course of action in my cases is always to say “no comment”. But you know, these guys are in the position where they’re having to respond, and the fact that went out on that limb and said “actual innocence” – not those words exactly but the fact that they (ui) that as a defence is a big statement; it’s a big claim. And either they know something we don’t or they’re just trying to bluff so that they can, you know, get the public reaction to quieten down a little bit and actually consider whether maybe Rick is not guilty.
AC: And I would imagine – not to put words in your mouth – I imagine that is important in such a high profile case to kind of, you know, for the defence to at least make overtures to the public. Is that fair to say?
A: Oh yeah. It’s huge. In order to have a fair trial you have to have people who will consider whether – and who will say – and actually consider – whether he is not guilty. And so you’ve got to put that out there, that just because you – just because there’s an arrest and you’ve come through all this excitement doesn’t mean that our client is guilty or not. Press releases and press conferences do not make a prosecution – it’s evidence. And so I think that that is a very big step to take to protect your client, and I’ve done it on multiple occasions after trials or after guilty pleas, I go to the press and say that my client is not the monster that he was made out to be and you can see it based on the evidence that came out. This was a bad situation. And that’s more of an active cleaning up my client’s reputation a little bit, but if I were placed in their position, I would want to put my defence out there as early as I can and still leave some flexibility and the problem with the actual innocence theory is there’s not a lot of flexibility for that.
AC: Right. You either did it or you didn’t do it, and yeah, that makes a lot of sense.
A: Yeah.
AC: And it seems like almost setting up another hurdle for themselves to be kind of proving that he’s actually innocent rather than just creating reasonable doubt.
A: Exactly. Exactly.
AC: Well listen, this has been incredibly insightful and helpful to us for understanding this bullet evidence, but just also kind of looking at things from a strategic perspective overall. You were self-deprecating but you are an expert obviously and we really appreciate it.
