- Woman who dated prominent doctor accused of multiple rapes: ‘He had no concept of no’
- Couple speaks out after charges of victimizing female patients were dropped
- My Tinder date terror with the surgeon charged with drugging and raping women: Math instructor, 24, tells how ‘creepy’ doctor tried to rip off her swimsuit and she fled for her life after dinner at his home
- alifornia Code, Evidence Code – EVID § 1108
- Bills aim to address the ordeal for rape victims after crime
- Activists Are Launching A National Effort To Stop Rape Kits From Going In The Trash
- Rise Now
- Internal memo criticizes O.C. district attorney’s review of Robicheaux rape case
CHAPTER 9—NO TIGER
Justine Harman: A listener’s note: This series includes descriptions of violence, sexual assault, and grooming. It is not recommended for young audiences. The People v. Robicheaux and Riley is an ongoing case. At the time of this episode’s original air date, the defendants had not been convicted of any crimes alleged against them.
Lauren Hayden: My name is Lauren Hayden, and I was brought into this situation with Grant Robicheaux when I was on Tinder and I saw a doctor, and he was handsome, and I swiped right. His profile was talking about wanting a good partner, looking for someone who didn’t drink or party too much, and just like wanting a good, you know.
So I thought he seemed pretty perfect.
Justine Harman: From Justine Harman and Audiochuck, this is O.C. Swingers, chapter nine: “No Tiger”
After this show began to air, I started to hear from all kinds of people who knew Grant Robicheaux. Or had interacted with him in some way over the years. I heard from high school classmates, former party pals, business associates, and a woman who says she used to sell Grant his vintage “festival coats” before Burning Man each year. “He introduced himself as ‘The Doctor,'” she told me. “He was handsome but, as most Burners who think they’re being sexually free, he just came off as greasy and sleazy to me. Mostly, he would never give his name when he would ask to see my boss and only referred to himself as ‘The Doctor.'”
I was told about Grant’s tendency to excise people who disagreed with him. “If he was going to burn a bridge,” one former colleague told me, “he’d burn it down with gas. He loved it. He thrived off of that.” Another former colleague admitted that he saw Grant “be very rude to girls. Treat them very poorly.”
I started to piece together a portrait of a manipulative man who is different things to different people. “He definitely had a dueling personality,” the first colleague said. “A-type personality, very charismatic. Definitely very social. Knows how to entertain and communicate and make people laugh, at times. And then when he doesn’t get what he wants he’s like a toddler kicking and screaming and pounding his feet in the middle of a Target.”
I talked to one woman who said Grant Robicheaux sexually intimidated her during a routine consultation in 2017. (She says he placed his hands on either side of her body while she was wearing nothing but a flimsy robe and pushed his hips between her legs.) And that a year later—on the very day of his arrest—Grant made another uncomfortable pass at her in the office. She says that members of the NewportCare staff noticed something was off. She sent me materials to corroborate her story. “I was terrified of running into him and having him hurt me or something because as small as he is, he is still quite intimidating,” she said. “He has a presence about him. He is very intimidating. He doesn’t smile. He’s got this look. He’s very scary.”
I know guys like the rough sketch of Robicheaux I’ve put together in my head. Charming, deceptive, good looking men whose misdeeds thicken the air everywhere they go. I can say with some certainty that men I know have sexually assaulted women I know. And yet I can’t hold their feet to the fire. Because the law doesn’t work that way. It’s not enough to know someone is a sexual predator, you have to be able to prove it.
It is my personal opinion that most men don’t understand the thing the rest of us know about rape: that it’s everywhere, all the time. That we all know a guy who has raped, or will rape, a woman—or women. That one woman’s “good guy” or “perfect husband” is another woman’s absolute nightmare. Or that once someone invades your body, you don’t get to un-know what that is like.
The influx of whispers and rumors about this story made me think about Lauren Hayden, a 27- year-old woman who met Grant Robicheaux over a dating app and subsequently told her story to camera crews circling the Newport beach house after the couple’s arrest in 2018. I remember seeing those videos. Of a young, pretty brunette in a rumpled purple T-shirt getting a little spun out over the media flurry. At points in the interview, while recounting a date during which Grant Robicheaux became QUOTE “way too aggressive,” Lauren is openly crying. She wipes away her tears away with French manicured fingers and keeps on talking:
Lauren Hayden: He just kept trying to rip my clothes off. And I kept saying, I’m not ready for that.
Reporter: A woman is coming forward to say she narrowly escaped becoming another victim of handsome surgeon Grant Robicheaux.
Justine Harman: The early news segments about Grant and Cerissa always began the same way: a sexy couple flirting and partying together in sundrenched locations. They’d show videos of Grant facepalming Cerissa or jokingly throwing up gang signs in a van. These clips were always credited to Grant or Cerissa’s personal YouTube channels, which have since been scrubbed from the internet. It’s through the lens of these videos that the world first encountered Lauren, a young woman crying outside Grant Robicheaux’s home, talking to Inside Edition in a purple T-shirt that says BEACH CITY SPORTS TURF FLAG FOOTBALL NEWPORT BEACH. A few days after that interview, Lauren described to Kayna Whitworth—the same ABC journalist who would go on to conduct the couple’s would-be vindication interview—
Cerissa Riley: I feel like I finally woke up from a bad nightmare.
Justine Harman: —about her bad date, alone in a hot tub, with Dr. Grant Robicheaux. A date that took place a year earlier, on October 11, 2017:
Lauren Hayden: When I was saying “no,” it was like he wasn’t hearing me. He just kept going at it. Like, he had no concept of personal autonomy. No concept of consent. No concept of “no.”
Justine Harman: Lauren and Grant’s texts from just before the Tinder date back in 2017 are still available online on The Daily Mail. The messages are just one of the countless banal exchanges three different sets of prosecutors have been mining for hidden meaning for years:
Grant: Hey it’s Grant. Much easier. I’m on the Peninsula.
Lauren: I’m on the Peninsula too. I’ll head over soon. [Bashful, smiley face]
Grant: Cool. I’m in middle house Call and I’ll come out and grab you
Lauren: Sounds good
Grant: fyi my bro n law [all lower case] just stopped by..
Lauren: I’m still getting changed no worries
Grant: My cooking is popular [old school smiley]
Lauren: Haha as long as he doesn’t eat my half [17 minutes passes] Be there in 5
Justine Harman: I talked to Lauren too. About a year ago, back when I started reporting this podcast. She told me everything she remembers about that night, which is all of it.
Lauren Hayden: So I got a couple of bottles of wine and I went over to his place, which I know people always give me a hard time about it. Because they’re like, why would you go over to their place?
But I guess it’s just something that like, it’s hard to try to force people to take you out to dinner these days. I don’t know if that makes sense. Yeah, it just seemed chiller. It just didn’t seem as like heavy. And he said that there was… some of his family was over, which was true. So I was like, okay, whatever, you know. And he was making dinner on the grill and I thought, outside. And there was a jacuzzi. And I was like, cool, you know. It sounds like a fun time, whatever. It didn’t sound creepy in any way.
So I went over and he was making dinner like the indoor grill thing. And his brother-in- law was there. I don’t who it is actually looking back.
So some dude was there and there was some game he was watching. I wasn’t interested. I don’t watch pro sports. I don’t really care. And he made dinner. I either ate some of it poked around at it. And then he had like a special distiller for wine.
I brought a red wine and a white wine. And I thought he was going to choose one, and he took both.
He just took both and then opened a different wine.
Justine Harman: Lauren was immediately struck by Grant’s bravado—by his almost chaotic zest for life.
Lauren Hayden: He just enjoyed being like on the edge with everything. So it wasn’t just the guns and the drugs. He also had like an illegal flying machine that he told me about on our date.
Get this, he had a fucking backpack that he put a like engine on a fan. And he just like flies around in this thing. I am telling you this is what he told me on the date. He said one time it broke and he fell like some insane amount of feet, and then he got it to work last second. And people were like calling all sorts of police and he like got the attention of all sorts of ambulances and like fire trucks and shit. It doesn’t sound true, but you know what, maybe. I don’t know. I don’t know this guy. He goes on crazy trips to Mexico. He told me about this crazy drug trip that he went on in Mexico with a bunch of celebrities. And he like showed pics.
Justine Harman: And then, Lauren says, things got weird:
Lauren Hayden: His brother-in-law left. We had dinner. We went to the jacuzzi. He started to try to take off my top. I told him not to. I put my top back on. He kept kind of grabbing at it. I told him not to.
And then like we went to his room. I kind of told him some of my background in the Air Force and how like I wanted to go slow and how I thought that’s what he wanted. And like, I’m down for like having a good time in the hot tub, but not necessarily getting naked in the hot tub on the first date, you know. So then when I tried to leave, I had already changed back into my clothing and I was wearing like a skirt. And he had stuck his hand up my skirt as I was like walking. I remember there was like a ladder or a flight of stairs. I think it was a ladder. And he like… I just remember being creeped out by that. And then I left. That’s the last time I saw him. And then I texted him later, like “Hey, want to hang out?” But I was really just going to raid his kitchen and get my wine bottles. But he didn’t… Yeah, I guess he wasn’t interested because I didn’t… I don’t know. But whatever, so then I never spoke to him again. And then I saw what happened on the news and I freaked out.
Justine Harman: Lauren says that’s how she ended up on TV recounting the date in the first place—
Lauren Hayden: On the way back to my house in the morning, I drove past his house. And I was just like, I wonder what… Because he kind of lives like on this one part of the peninsula. So I just kind of drove past it. I was like I just wonder what like… like if he still lives there or if he’s moved. Like, I wanted to see a moving truck. I don’t know. I don’t know what I expected to see. But then I just saw a bunch of people. And then they asked me if I knew him. And I was like, yeah, just told the truth.
I was hoping to help other women come forward. And then no women came forward and I felt like, ‘Oh my God, what if this really was made up and I was just making the poor innocent guy who did nothing except for be a part of this scam by the DA look like this monster'”?
Because he didn’t even rape me and I was accusing him of raping all these women. And so I felt really bad.
Justine Harman: Lauren says having her name connected to this story has caused problems for her in the past. A former male employer made snide comments after Googling her name on her first day at work. She stayed up on the case—and started to feel like maybe she’d made a mistake talking about what happened to her. So when the defense’s private investigator Russell Greene wanted to talk after Grant’s arrest, she didn’t see the harm in it. She didn’t anticipate some of the more…creative interrogation techniques:
Lauren Hayden: The hardest question that he asked me, and it still sticks with me, is like do you remember a camera in his apartment? And I was like, no. And he’s like well, there’s a camera and so if everything you say isn’t 100 percent factual, like we’ll be able to back that up. And I was like, I think my story is 100 percent factual, you know. Like… Yeah, and then he asked me how confident I was. And I’m pretty sure I told him I was like 70 or 80. But looking back, I’m still pretty 100 percent sure. I think it was just like the intimidation of thinking my memory is not as good as a camera.
He said there was a camera at the hot tub, and that the reason the camera was put there was by the police because of the previous accusations. I don’t…Yeah, I don’t know. Maybe I misunderstood him, but this is what the investigator told me. So, Lord knows. Maybe he was just trying to see if I would tell him I had 100 percent accuracy in my memory, which I wish I said. But looking back, I was just nervous and I just wanted to tell the truth. I don’t want Grant to get in trouble if he didn’t do anything, you know. But at the same time, just my gut from dealing with him, you know?
I think only two people had come forward prior to the media storm. And then so he said the rest of them were essentially just piggy backing, and the first two were… I don’t remember why he said they were lying. I think it was something to do with handsome doctor type like scheme, you know, advantage artist type people.
But being a woman I didn’t buy that, but the jumping on the bandwagon type thing, I was like, Maybe, you know? But I wouldn’t like to think that of any of the women. I would like to think that everyone is telling the truth. But obviously, somebody’s lying.
Justine Harman: After we spoke over the phone last year, I sent Lauren a picture of Grant’s brother-in-law Bill Ward, who in October of 2017 was still living in the front part of the Newport duplex. You’ll remember that Bill and his wife Jennifer were sued for negligence by Jane Doe #5. Yes, Lauren confirmed. That’s who was there that day. “But he left essentially right after whatever was on TV ended.”
You’ll also remember that Lauren’s date with Grant was in October 2017—a year after the two suspicious incidents were quietly opened and closed by the Newport Beach PD—and three months before investigators found piles of drugs in the home. This was a year before Tony Rackauckas said anything about the quantity of women being sexually assaulted on tape. A year before two more women would tell prosecutors that they were drugged or assaulted by Grant and Cerissa in 2017. A period of time when Grant Robicheaux was ostensibly living with Cerissa Riley, whose last name was on their mailbox—or was by the time camera crews started filming B-roll of the beach house—but didn’t reveal that information to a woman he met on a dating app.
“When I went on a date with him there was no indication a woman live with him,” Lauren told me. “It was a really clean place. And he said he lived with his sister and his sister’s boyfriend or fiancé or something.”
In the 64-page manifesto Matt Murphy filed before the motion to dismiss was rejected by Judge Jones last summer, the lawyer summarized the two alleged 2017 incidents:
—On July 8, 2017, only three months before Lauren’s date with Grant, a woman says that after a day-long escapade with the couple and several other women, Grant Robicheaux raped her in his bed while Cerissa was in child’s pose on the floor.
—Six days before that, a different woman says she blacked out after being served a single vodka-and-Canada Dry by Cerissa. She woke up the next morning at the beach house wearing only a shirt, with a completely naked Robicheaux spooning her. She called the cops— immediately after, Matt Murphy says—and told them that she thought she’d been drugged by Riley. She initially agreed to undergo a SART exam, but ultimately did not complete the swab test.
This woman—the last and final Jane Doe in the amended complaint—did not report the assault to the DA until after reading about the arrests in the news.
Jane Doe #8 isn’t even technically a victim in the case, but what is called an 1108 witness.
California Evidence Code section 1108 allows prosecutors to bring in evidence of the defendant’s past sexual misconduct, alleged and otherwise, when they are currently on trial for a sex crime. Jane Doe #8 isn’t charging Grant or Cerissa with a crime. She’s simply there to testify to the defendants’ character, their propensity to commit sex crimes.
One could say that the only real difference between Jane Doe #8 and Lauren Hayden is that Jane Doe #8 told the Orange County DA’s office what happened to her—and Lauren Hayden told the world.
Abby Haglage: I mean, are you comfortable with the fact that my voice was not as good as yours, is my question?
Justine Harman: This is my friend, the journalist and activist Abby Haglage. Abby and I met in 2017 when I was working full time at Glamour.
Abby Haglage: Um, yeah, my name is Abby. Should I say my full name? Yeah. My name is Abby. Haglage. I’m a journalist in Brooklyn and we met through Glamour, when I was brought on as a consultant, I guess was my title. Uh, and I think early on, we connected over journalism and investigative stories, which I love. And so do you, and, uh, I think that night, I can’t remember what we did before that. Did we like go to dinner or something?
Justine Harman: We did go to dinner. With a mutual friend of ours, who was also an editor at the magazine, and who also went home at an appropriate hour. That night, Abby and I found ourselves alone at a bar across from my apartment in downtown Manhattan. It’s a dark place, with a long horseshoe bar where the patrons are somehow seated feet below their bartenders. It was here, in this intimate space designed for people who want to be alone together, that I noticed the tattoo on Abby’s forearm: “No Tiger.”
Abby Haglage: I think people, when you say I’ve been raped or, or, you know, I was sexually assaulted, you can tell almost instantly how much they’re going to be able to tolerate. Like people will avert their eyes or kind of just try to say some conclusive statement, like, Oh, that’s, you know, that’s terrible hope you’re okay.
I mean, I get it: Who wants to hear a really dark story, uh, you know, from a friend about something they endured. Um, I think especially among friends and family, it was hard to hear.
Uh, but you can tell the people that are kind of they’re in it to listen and they ask questions. And I think they realize that they’re able to separate, which I think you were able to do your story from their own safety. And I think that’s part of the problem, especially for women is it’s just scary to hear about these stories and worry that it could happen to them.
Justine Harman: Abby Haglage’s rape story is horrific. You can look it up online if you want to know what happened on the worst night of her life. She’s since committed herself to using it to impact legislature in New York. The same legislature that—when she was abducted, drugged, and raped in 2013 by a stranger who saw her walking alone on a busy New York city street— destroyed the physical evidence required to pin a rapist to his crime only 30 days after it was committed. You can learn more about this work at Risenow.us.
Abby Haglage: So, um, yeah, it was, uh, 2015. I was 25 and had just had a fun Saturday in the city and was walking home in Greenwich village where I lived, I was on a super busy street. And uh, I think like some of the victims in your podcast, I, I don’t remember how it happened. You know, I remember walking home and then I, the next thing I remember is being in this man’s car, um, that was a major sticking point for the NYP is they were like, well, why don’t you remember getting in the car? Like, how do you know you didn’t just get in willingly.
Um, and trauma does such weird things to your memory. That it’s really tough. But, um, I was with him for several hours. I know many, many hours actually, because I, when I ultimately escaped, it was the morning time the sun was up.
Um, and I just have sort of flashes of him and what was going on. But most of it is really, uh, obscured, I think obviously I’m sure you’re aware and maybe have even talked about how there are so many studies about how trauma impacts memory. And so I think of it as a good thing on some level that I can’t remember a lot of it because it probably is really terrifying and I would probably never leave my house again. Uh, if I remembered at all, but it’s also maddening in the case when you’re trying to not only, you know, tell investigators, but tell family and friends, because, you know, my parents, my parents immediate questions were like, well, why would you get in this man’s car? And I don’t know. And I’ll never know. I don’t know if I did. I don’t know if he pulled the knife then and forced me to get in his car.
Um, it took a long time to accept that those are memories. I probably just will never get back.
But it’s such a cruel twist of fate that the, you know, the same mechanism that your brain uses to protect you from a lot of this pain and trauma is really what hinders the investigations, um, and, and stops the ability of prosecutors to have a clear cut case and a clear timeline. I mean, it’s just often not something that we can produce, uh, as survivors and it’s especially maddening for me as a reporter because I’m, as you know, I mean, I’m trained to, to notice details and to pay attention to timelines and people and all of these different cues, both verbal and nonverbal. And, um, they’re just not there. So I, it was really tough in the aftermath to even tell people about it because that’s where I think a lot of the blame comes in because people kind of see holes in the story and that’s because there are holes and those holes are intentional and your brain’s way of protecting you, but, uh, they really do a disservice.
So I got comments, um, even from friends that kind of afterwards said, you know, well, you are super friendly. Um, you know, you are really, really friendly and I wouldn’t talk to a stranger who approached me. Um, I think it’s comforting for people to think that, to think that, you know, maybe I said hi, and maybe that’s why it happened. Um, and for awhile, I thought that too, I think a lot of survivors, you know, you, you blame yourself because it’s, there’s comfort in thinking that you were in control and that you, you know, maybe, maybe it was something you did and then, you know, you think, well, then I just won’t do that thing again. Um, and once you kind of acknowledge that you didn’t prompt this, that, you know, nothing you did caused you to get raped. It’s, it’s a really unsettling reality to accept.
I think there’s like, there’s an innocence that’s lost. Um, it just fundamentally changes the way you see the world and you just realize that bad things can happen to anyone at any moment.
Justine Harman: So, the tattoo.
Abby Haglage: It was about two years after my assault. And, um, I was having a lot of health issues, new things that had kind of cropped up like acid reflux and really bad stomach aches. And, um, I had seen a bunch of doctors tried a bunch of different medicines. I was having chronic pain, just my body was really, um, betraying me in a lot of ways. And finally, I saw this doctor, um, this Chinese nutritionist actually, who I was saying, you know, well, is it something I’m eating?
Like what, what, what could it be? And she had tried a bunch of different things. So finally she had this appointment with me and said, you know, I think what’s happening here is some PTSD potentially. And some anxiety, um, you know, there are also so many studies showing the effect of trauma and PTSD on, on your health. And she sort of, I kind of didn’t believe her and wasn’t really sure what she meant and said, you know, I’m, I’m fine. I’m, I’m dealing with everything. And she talked about really the evolution of anxiety and she, you know, said it was necessary at one point when we were living in the jungle and trying not to get eaten by animals to have, you know, our hearts race and our thoughts, race, and just be in this kind of activated defensive position. Um, and she said, you, you have that anxiety switched on all the time.
Abby, you you’re, you appear face to face with a tiger. Um, and then she sort of, I remember grabbed my forearm and said, there is no tiger. Um, and then I just couldn’t stop thinking about it. It really hit me in the gut. So I think the idea that there is no tiger, it does kind of harken back to the evolution of anxiety and this idea that, you know, bad things are going to happen, whether or not I worry about them or not. I think I have always been a worrier. So, which is probably you can tell. Um, but I’ve always been somebody that’s anxious. I’ve always worried about worst case scenarios and, you know, having worries that I might get assaulted or raped, didn’t stop me from getting assaulted and raped.
I think there’s freedom in sort of accepting that some of it is out of our control.
Justine Harman: Abby, who is not affiliated with the Robicheaux case, never saw her rapist get convicted—even though she can identify him now. Her rape kit, and the toxicology report, was destroyed 30 days after the assault without her knowledge. She would go on to spend years telling herself stories about the kind of woman something like this happens to. But she didn’t have to live through the enduring inanity of a criminal trial. Last week, we covered the explosive January 7, 2021 hearing when victims’ attorney Matt Murphy revealed he had “come into some documents.”
Matt Muprhy: I’ve come into some documents. I have this in PowerPoint. Can I set this up?
Justine Harman: More specifically, Matt Murphy had come into an internal OCDA memo concerning Jennifer Kearns, the so-called “rogue” investigator Todd Spitzer had placed on leave.
That same day, the Los Angeles Times ran a story with the headline: “Internal memo criticizes O.C. district attorney’s review of Robicheaux rape case” that included damning quotes about the veracity of the de novo review conducted under Todd Spitzer. “According to the memo,” the article reads, “the top-to-bottom review of the case against Grant Robicheaux, 40, and Cerissa Riley, 33, ordered by Spitzer was ‘incomplete and contained inaccurate and misleading information.'” There was some back and forth about the original, non-redacted contents of the memo and then about Matt Murphy’s relationship with Jennifer Kearns, whom he’d come to represent in some legal capacity.
The defense was up in arms: How could Matt Murphy represent four victims in the case and the original investigator? What is he—the only lawyer in Orange County? Why was it okay that members of the press published excerpts from the partially-redacted Kearns memo? Why not unseal an original version of the memo for everyone to see? What deep, dark secrets was Matt Murphy hiding under those opaque black lines?
On March 25, 2021, the attorneys reconvened in court to discuss the myriad issues.
Judge: This is a different type of issue that we normally do not see an in-camera where you have Marsy’s law council representing a number of alleged victims. And also the individual who [CUT—raped, who] investigated this case at least early on. That is a red flag. There’s no question. It’s a red flag. And I’ve told the court, everybody in the court, the full counsel, that’s why we had that hearing. Mr. Cohen’s the one would requested it. I thought it was very proper. And I want to address that issue also. But at the end of the day, when we was heard, and this was for everybody’s benefit, it’s harmless.
I can’t say any more than that. I know that you shake your head. How can that be harmless? It is because I was there. I know what it is. And this could probably be resolved again, maybe in five minutes or less, but I’m not going to put that pressure on anybody because that’s not my job to do that. Um, that’s one of the camera is folks and as devious as it may sound, um, yes, we’re hiding something. That’s what an in-camera is. I’m sorry, but that’s how it works.
Justine Harman: He’s saying that he and Murphy discussed the fact that he represents four victims AND the former lead investigator “in-camera”—as in, off-the-record in the judge’s chambers—and it’s harmless.
If we knew, he says, we wouldn’t care. But we can’t know. Because it’s off the record.
Moving right along. Mr. Fell
Judge: OK, Mr. Fell?
Mike Fell: Judge, thanks so much. And um, I will be very brief. And I will not use analogies. One of the words that’s come out here is “frustration.” Mr. Cohen, Mr. Murphy brought it up. I think the frustration here is with my clients. I understand the role of a defense attorney. I’m also a defense attorney. And I’m a former prosecutor. And I’m a Marsy’s victims’ rights attorney. But when Mr. Cohen says that our goal is to have the case filed. Our goal is to have a jury convict. That’s not our goal. Our goal is justice for our clients.
Our goal is to have our clients take the stand and tell a jury what Mr. Robicheaux and Ms. Riley did to them. And to let that jury figure out what justice is. Now that’s different than a defense attorney’s job. Their job is to get their client off. When Mr. Cohen says he wants justice as much as anybody. That’s not his job. His job isn’t justice. His job is to get his clients off. His job is not to focus on the facts of the case. His job is to focus on Mr. Murphy. His job is to focus on Ms. Kearns. His job is to focus on Mr. Spitzer and Mr. Rackauckas. His job is to get in the weeds. He’s doing his job. His job is to have a jury to look at the weeds. His job is to distract everybody from the facts of the case. Otherwise we wouldn’t be talking about this.
He’ll file his motions. Not because his clients didn’t do it, but he’ll make those assertions that the government messed up, so his client should walk free. Or, Mr. Murphy somehow has a conflict by representing an investigator and victims, so his client should walk free. Or, this was too political, so his client should walk free. Or all the other reasons. But the reason that we’ve never heard is that “my client didn’t do it.”
Judge: Wow, wow, wow, wow. Hang on. Time out. Why would you even bring that up?
Justine Harman: Next time, on the season finale of O.C. Swingers…
Dan Gilleon: There is no reason for a woman to ever make something like this up. There’s just no upside to a woman for doing that.
Sara Naheed: How could this case just simply go away? Something is amiss here. There’s something that the public doesn’t know
Judge: Politics don’t play in the third branch of government, remember that, right?
Martinez: I absolutely agree.
Judge: Okay, good. All right.