Latest / Reality with The King / Demanding a Dismissal: Osefo Case Update with Eboni K Williams

Transcript

Demanding a Dismissal: Osefo Case Update with Eboni K Williams · Reality with The King

• 0:03
  Speaker 1: Reality with the King is hosted by me, Carlos King.
• 0:07
  Speaker 2: I'm an executive producer who have produced some of your
• 0:10
  Speaker 2: favorite shows from the Real Housewives in Atlanta, New Jersey
• 0:13
  Speaker 2: and my own creation, The Love and Marriage Franchise and
• 0:17
  Speaker 2: Bell Collective. Every episode we recap reality television from the
• 0:23
  Speaker 2: Real Housewives Franchise to The Bachelor or Selling Sunset, in
• 0:27
  Speaker 2: addition to celebrity guests, whether in the unscripted space or
• 0:31
  Speaker 2: scripted as well. Hey, rain drops on today's episode of
• 0:38
  Speaker 2: Reality with the King, I got my girl and you'all
• 0:41
  Speaker 2: favorite Epony k Williams is black to look, not brack
• 0:46
  Speaker 2: but back.
• 0:52
  Speaker 1: She's black and baby, we're in the brackets.
• 0:55
  Speaker 2: What's going on with the Wendy and Eddie osepho case?
• 1:00
  Speaker 2: With more updates? But before we get into it, Ebony,
• 1:03
  Speaker 2: how argue my love? Oh?
• 1:05
  Speaker 3: I'm doing so well, Carlos the King. Just back from
• 1:08
  Speaker 3: a little Judge Ebony taping in Los Angeles. So I'm
• 1:11
  Speaker 3: back on the East Coast and excited about it.
• 1:13
  Speaker 2: So excited a lot of your fans and the rain
• 1:18
  Speaker 2: drops happened asking about this show. So when can we
• 1:22
  Speaker 2: expect it to come back on the airwaves?
• 1:24
  Speaker 4: Yeah?
• 1:25
  Speaker 3: So you know, it's syndication. So we love a good
• 1:27
  Speaker 3: syndication because we keep it going. But the brand new
• 1:30
  Speaker 3: episodes those top of the year, top of the year.
• 1:33
  Speaker 3: They can expect brand new episodes of Judge Evitie.
• 1:36
  Speaker 2: Okay, good, So listen, raindog'rek in for a Christmas tree.
• 1:39
  Speaker 2: Our gift is more episode the top of the year.
• 1:43
  Speaker 2: So look, let's get right into the latest update, Ebony
• 1:47
  Speaker 2: as it relates to what's going on with Wendy and
• 1:51
  Speaker 2: Eddie and their alegend prime of insurance fraud. So the
• 2:00
  Speaker 2: update is this, Wendy Oseppho accuses police of illegal arrest
• 2:08
  Speaker 2: as she demands the fraud charges be dismissed. So Rain drops,
• 2:15
  Speaker 2: what's going on right now is Wendy demanded the same
• 2:20
  Speaker 2: of why you're in verbal communications due to an allegedly
• 2:24
  Speaker 2: unlawful interception, also claiming that unlawfully obtained admission statements or
• 2:31
  Speaker 2: confessions should not be allowed as evidence in court. She
• 2:36
  Speaker 2: also requested that the trial of co defendants be severed
• 2:42
  Speaker 2: from the trials of a defendant, meaning that she wants
• 2:46
  Speaker 2: her and Eddie to be tried separately. So listen, Evan,
• 2:50
  Speaker 2: we have a lot to talk about. But before we
• 2:52
  Speaker 2: get to all of that, explain to me why is
• 2:56
  Speaker 2: now Wendy alleging that the charges should be dropped because
• 3:02
  Speaker 2: in her words, her attorney's words, rather, she is alleging
• 3:06
  Speaker 2: that it was an illegal yes.
• 3:10
  Speaker 3: Erect Okay, So we're going to zoom out for a second, Carlos,
• 3:13
  Speaker 3: because this is is it's dense, uh, and it's meaty,
• 3:17
  Speaker 3: and it's all very standard. Actually, so I want rain
• 3:21
  Speaker 3: drops to know that this is not wild beyond scope
• 3:26
  Speaker 3: type of behavior from the case of this of this
• 3:29
  Speaker 3: nature and this magnitude. So as a defense lawyer, you know,
• 3:33
  Speaker 3: our job is to defend our clients zealously in every
• 3:37
  Speaker 3: legal parameter available to us. So there's basically two ways
• 3:42
  Speaker 3: in which we tend to do that. Uh, the substance
• 3:45
  Speaker 3: of the case. Okay, so that's kind of what we
• 3:47
  Speaker 3: see a trial. You know, they literally didn't do it.
• 3:50
  Speaker 3: But before we get to that, there's a great opportunity,
• 3:53
  Speaker 3: and any defense lawyer will tell you this, Carlos, to
• 3:58
  Speaker 3: get rid of the case, so to speak, eradicated, beat
• 4:01
  Speaker 3: the charges, so to speak, before we even get to trial.
• 4:04
  Speaker 3: And it's these types of pre trial motions. So that's
• 4:08
  Speaker 3: what y'all are looking at raindrop. This is a standard
• 4:10
  Speaker 3: pre trial motion that doesn't even get to whether they
• 4:14
  Speaker 3: actually did this or not. This is simply saying that
• 4:17
  Speaker 3: the way in which these charges even came about are illegal.
• 4:22
  Speaker 4: At the onset. So this is procedural. Okay.
• 4:25
  Speaker 3: This is where ca dural pre trial procedural stage, and Windy,
• 4:30
  Speaker 3: through her attorney, is saying that pump the brakes. We
• 4:34
  Speaker 3: don't even need to get to a trial because the
• 4:37
  Speaker 3: way in which my client has even faced charges, the
• 4:41
  Speaker 3: way y'all collected this evidence, the way that you have
• 4:44
  Speaker 3: actually charged her with these crimes is illegal, and it's
• 4:48
  Speaker 3: illegal per the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the
• 4:53
  Speaker 3: United States. So the Fourth Amendment, amongst other things, Carlos,
• 4:57
  Speaker 3: protects all of us from being free from illegal searches
• 5:03
  Speaker 3: and seizures. Okay, so this is a search and seizure clause,
• 5:06
  Speaker 3: amongst other things. But that's the biggie. So that says
• 5:09
  Speaker 3: that no government entity can invade our privacy, can can
• 5:15
  Speaker 3: take from us, can search our person or home or
• 5:18
  Speaker 3: car or anything without probable cause.
• 5:22
  Speaker 4: So that's another big legal easee word. I want you
• 5:25
  Speaker 4: all to stay with me.
• 5:26
  Speaker 3: On probable cause. What is probable cause, Carlos. Probable cause
• 5:30
  Speaker 3: is a requirement before you eat start searching and patent
• 5:34
  Speaker 3: and all of this. You have to have a reasonable leave.
• 5:37
  Speaker 1: Law enforcement.
• 5:38
  Speaker 3: I'm talking about the cops, the sheriff, whatever, the law enforcement,
• 5:41
  Speaker 3: the FBI, whoever is acting as law enforcement in the case,
• 5:45
  Speaker 3: must have a reasonable belief okay, that criminal activity is afoot,
• 5:50
  Speaker 3: that a crime. They can't just out of the clear
• 5:52
  Speaker 3: blue sky walk up to you off the street, Carlos,
• 5:55
  Speaker 3: and start patting you down, and you know, going through
• 5:59
  Speaker 3: your car and all of this. That and the third
• 6:01
  Speaker 3: and let's say they find contraband, drugs, weapons, whatever.
• 6:04
  Speaker 4: Now you're arrested.
• 6:06
  Speaker 3: Well, if I'm your lawyer, I'm getting all that tossed
• 6:08
  Speaker 3: out and my client is walking away free because you
• 6:12
  Speaker 3: had no probable cause to stop mister King.
• 6:15
  Speaker 4: Now, what does probable cause look like?
• 6:17
  Speaker 3: Basic example, most people are maybe familiar with or someone
• 6:21
  Speaker 3: they know the odor of marijuana. So let's say you're
• 6:25
  Speaker 3: driving down the street and you're speeding. Excuse me, not
• 6:28
  Speaker 3: speeding because speeding is probable cause, because that's a crime too,
• 6:31
  Speaker 3: or in fact, but let's say you're driving the speed
• 6:34
  Speaker 3: limit and the cop pulls you over, Hey, mister King,
• 6:38
  Speaker 3: hope you're well licensing registration. As you hand over licensing registration, Carlos,
• 6:43
  Speaker 3: if that officer claims to smell the aroma of Marie
• 6:46
  Speaker 3: Juana Okay or sees maybe something that looks like contraband
• 6:52
  Speaker 3: and plain sight in your vehicle, that.
• 6:54
  Speaker 4: Can service the probable cause.
• 6:56
  Speaker 3: So going to the set and then that allows everything
• 6:59
  Speaker 3: to come after that, the search, the seizure, the arrest.
• 7:03
  Speaker 4: Potentially they're all legal because.
• 7:05
  Speaker 3: They are respecting the Fourth Amendment because the probable cause
• 7:09
  Speaker 3: requirement reasonable belief that crime is afoot has been satisfied.
• 7:15
  Speaker 3: Going to Wendy, her lawyer, Carlos is saying, I don't
• 7:18
  Speaker 3: care what y'all say y'all have on my client. I
• 7:21
  Speaker 3: don't care what audiotapes, what emails, what alleged confessions, what
• 7:27
  Speaker 3: statements she may or may not have made to officers
• 7:30
  Speaker 3: or investigators against her interests.
• 7:33
  Speaker 4: Y'all can't use any of it.
• 7:36
  Speaker 3: It's all illegally obtained because it is all gathered in
• 7:40
  Speaker 3: violation of her Fourth Amendment constitutional rights.
• 7:45
  Speaker 4: She is being they are arguing illegally.
• 7:48
  Speaker 3: Illegally, she has had illegal searches and seizures afoot.
• 7:53
  Speaker 4: Is that making sense?
• 7:55
  Speaker 2: No, No, it's makes sense because the thing is this,
• 7:58
  Speaker 2: what you're saying is, look, any lawyer right would at
• 8:04
  Speaker 2: their first step is to make sure, yes, this is
• 8:07
  Speaker 2: the first step, to make sure that we do not
• 8:10
  Speaker 2: want to go to trial, and let's try to enforce
• 8:14
  Speaker 2: something where our charges can be dropped so that a
• 8:17
  Speaker 2: trial is not you know, does not occur. Yes, So
• 8:22
  Speaker 2: any lawyer would first say, look, let's look into the
• 8:25
  Speaker 2: Fourth Amendment, the search and caizuar clause to make sure
• 8:29
  Speaker 2: that I don't care what you allss you have on
• 8:31
  Speaker 2: my client. We are considering this as a way of
• 8:36
  Speaker 2: saying that you gots I legally search her home.
• 8:39
  Speaker 1: Because again, I.
• 8:40
  Speaker 2: Want to make it very clear, and I'm gonna get
• 8:41
  Speaker 2: to the rest of a second. This is only doctor
• 8:46
  Speaker 2: Wendy's attorney.
• 8:47
  Speaker 3: Correct, We're not talking about Eddie at all, rain Drops.
• 8:49
  Speaker 3: We're gonna get to mister Ocepo, the Eddie of it
• 8:52
  Speaker 3: all in a minute. We are strict and this is
• 8:55
  Speaker 3: very important. As you said in the intro, Carlos, there's
• 8:58
  Speaker 3: already been a request from Wendy's legal team to bifer
• 9:03
  Speaker 3: Kate sever the trials. They do not want mister and
• 9:06
  Speaker 3: missus Osseppho tried jointly. I'm sure they have reasons for that,
• 9:11
  Speaker 3: great reasons. I'm sure they want them tried separately. So
• 9:14
  Speaker 3: Wendy has a lawyer, and then Eddie has a lawyer,
• 9:18
  Speaker 3: and they are separate counsels. They will not be collaborating
• 9:22
  Speaker 3: on this matter.
• 9:24
  Speaker 4: Go ahead.
• 9:25
  Speaker 2: So the thing with that is okay, because we're gonna
• 9:28
  Speaker 2: get to that in one second. When it comes to
• 9:31
  Speaker 2: Wendy's lawyer making this proclamation, do you think, just base
• 9:38
  Speaker 2: on the fact that we know it to be as
• 9:40
  Speaker 2: of today, do you think there's probable cause for this
• 9:47
  Speaker 2: for amendment to stick.
• 9:50
  Speaker 3: Yeah, it's so hard to speculate, Carlos, because we can't
• 9:54
  Speaker 3: see what they would have cited as the probable cause.
• 9:58
  Speaker 4: Now it could be.
• 9:58
  Speaker 3: Now, I will say to Range, it's not a very
• 10:02
  Speaker 3: hard burden to reach. Probable cause just means more probable
• 10:06
  Speaker 3: than not. Right, we call it fifty one percent. It's
• 10:09
  Speaker 3: not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. That's a trial standard. Okay,
• 10:13
  Speaker 3: that's not the standard. The standard is reasonable belief that
• 10:18
  Speaker 3: criminal activity is afoot. So it could be the testimony
• 10:24
  Speaker 3: of one of the investigating officers from the alleged home burglary,
• 10:29
  Speaker 3: saying that, well, we're not seeing any evidence of a
• 10:34
  Speaker 3: third party breaking and entering, so that gives us reasonable suspicion.
• 10:38
  Speaker 3: See how we're possibly getting me that fraudulent activities are
• 10:44
  Speaker 3: taking place. That is an example, brain drops. I'm not
• 10:47
  Speaker 3: saying that's what they're citing as their probable cause.
• 10:50
  Speaker 4: That would be an example.
• 10:51
  Speaker 1: It could be a.
• 10:52
  Speaker 4: Limn of things.
• 10:53
  Speaker 3: It could be that somebody testifies that they saw some
• 11:00
  Speaker 3: of the garments on social media or this or that,
• 11:04
  Speaker 3: and that triggered a reasonable suspicion to go back to
• 11:07
  Speaker 3: the inventory documents of what was claimed to be stolen,
• 11:12
  Speaker 3: and upon comparison there's a discrepancy. That's an example of
• 11:18
  Speaker 3: what the reasonable.
• 11:19
  Speaker 4: Cause could look like. Now I want to make clear
• 11:22
  Speaker 4: this too, Carlos.
• 11:23
  Speaker 3: When the Wendy's lawyer is asking for all the evidence,
• 11:27
  Speaker 3: it's also a suppression motion, right, So it's a dismissal motion.
• 11:31
  Speaker 3: I'm asking for all charges against my client to be
• 11:34
  Speaker 3: dismissed because I'm alleging that this was an illegal search,
• 11:38
  Speaker 3: a violation of her Fourth Amendment right to protect against
• 11:41
  Speaker 3: illegal searches and seizures, and also any and all evidence,
• 11:45
  Speaker 3: as you laid out.
• 11:46
  Speaker 4: Carlos, We're talking about potential.
• 11:48
  Speaker 3: Emails, wires, audio tapes, polygraph results, anything, all the evidence.
• 11:56
  Speaker 3: We're asking for all of that to be suppressed, including
• 11:59
  Speaker 3: confessions that I was interesting, including any alleged confessions or
• 12:02
  Speaker 3: statements against their own interest from MISSOZPPHO. We want all
• 12:06
  Speaker 3: of that suppressed, your honor. We don't want any of
• 12:08
  Speaker 3: that being used as evidence at trial if there is
• 12:10
  Speaker 3: a trial, because we are saying that that is what
• 12:13
  Speaker 3: we call fruit of the poisonous tree.
• 12:17
  Speaker 4: Fruit of the tree. Let's go back to Adam and Eve,
• 12:20
  Speaker 4: ladies and gentlemen.
• 12:21
  Speaker 3: Yeah, fruit of the poisonous tree is a legal doctrine
• 12:24
  Speaker 3: that says anything gathered under a defective search warrant or
• 12:32
  Speaker 3: see you know it is seized under a defective search
• 12:35
  Speaker 3: warrant is rotten, it's tainted, it's poisonous. It means it
• 12:40
  Speaker 3: could be totally good evidence, it could really prove the
• 12:43
  Speaker 3: veracity of the claims.
• 12:46
  Speaker 4: But because it was gathered and collected.
• 12:50
  Speaker 3: Under a defective, unconstitutional way, throw it up.
• 12:55
  Speaker 4: It must be all thrown out.
• 12:57
  Speaker 3: The evidence now becomes as deficient as the charging document
• 13:01
  Speaker 3: is that connecting.
• 13:03
  Speaker 2: Oh no, it's connecting majorly some rang job justice sort
• 13:07
  Speaker 2: of like summing up for you guys too. What Ebany
• 13:10
  Speaker 2: is saying is, look, when these lawyers in a separate filing,
• 13:14
  Speaker 2: she acts the prosecutors for all alleged evidence, a list
• 13:19
  Speaker 2: of witnesses, polygraph results of the witnesses, the names of
• 13:23
  Speaker 2: any confidential informants, and copies of the police reports.
• 13:28
  Speaker 1: Because what the lawyer is.
• 13:29
  Speaker 2: Saying, even if this look regardless of what you have
• 13:33
  Speaker 2: the basis of this being an alleged illegal search removes
• 13:39
  Speaker 2: all evidence from even being used as in a court
• 13:44
  Speaker 2: of law.
• 13:44
  Speaker 1: If this goes to trial, that's correct.
• 13:46
  Speaker 4: Its poisonous. Think of it, think of it as tainted.
• 13:50
  Speaker 3: And I remember learning about this in law school, Carlos,
• 13:52
  Speaker 3: and it making so much sense right as to why
• 13:56
  Speaker 3: sometimes we see things as the public and we're like, well, clearly,
• 14:01
  Speaker 3: I mean it's on tape or we saw it or
• 14:03
  Speaker 3: this or that, and how did they get off and
• 14:04
  Speaker 3: how did they get dismissed? I mean, we all know
• 14:06
  Speaker 3: this happened. Oftentimes it's through this mechanism. It's because and
• 14:11
  Speaker 3: this is why if you're a law and order fan
• 14:13
  Speaker 3: or you watch any of these procedural shows the way
• 14:16
  Speaker 3: in which law enforcement on the front end, you know,
• 14:19
  Speaker 3: whether you know you know, you know, whether it's Stabler
• 14:23
  Speaker 3: and Benson or whoever, how they go about collecting evidence
• 14:27
  Speaker 3: is paramount. They must follow the rules and the book
• 14:31
  Speaker 3: to a t because if they don't, it could be
• 14:34
  Speaker 3: the best case in the world, the most got them
• 14:36
  Speaker 3: dead right a center or whatever. And if they if
• 14:39
  Speaker 3: they take one misstep, Carlos, and if they don't have
• 14:43
  Speaker 3: you know, a judge sign off on the search warrant,
• 14:46
  Speaker 3: or they don't have solid probable calls to enter the
• 14:50
  Speaker 3: room or into the home or into the room or
• 14:52
  Speaker 3: into the car, all that good, good evidence they got
• 14:56
  Speaker 3: goes out the window.
• 14:58
  Speaker 1: And Rain drive.
• 15:00
  Speaker 2: So I of course, I was a junior in high
• 15:04
  Speaker 2: school when the O. J. Simpson trial was around and
• 15:08
  Speaker 2: the Verdi came out. And I want you guys to
• 15:11
  Speaker 2: really listen to what Evny K Willing is saying because
• 15:15
  Speaker 2: everything is about reasonable doubt. And that's something I've learned
• 15:19
  Speaker 2: watching the OJA trial because Rain dropped. If you remember
• 15:22
  Speaker 2: the glove when Johnny Cochran said, if it doesn't fit,
• 15:26
  Speaker 2: you must have quit. So remember the glove was fouled
• 15:29
  Speaker 2: at the crime scene and the prosecutor used that as evidence.
• 15:35
  Speaker 1: And the one thing was when they had O. J.
• 15:38
  Speaker 1: Simpson with the plastic glove, try on the glove.
• 15:42
  Speaker 2: The evidence was not thrown out. No evidence was thrown
• 15:46
  Speaker 2: out in the OJ trial. However, what Johnny Cockran and
• 15:50
  Speaker 2: his team did was the cast reasonable doubt when the
• 15:54
  Speaker 2: visual evidence of O. J.
• 15:57
  Speaker 1: Simpson putting on the glove and it didn't fit.
• 16:00
  Speaker 2: That cast a reasonable doubt When Mark Ferman okay, the
• 16:04
  Speaker 2: police officers had seen the crime, when he was caught
• 16:08
  Speaker 2: on tape saying the in word yes, it cast the
• 16:12
  Speaker 2: doubt of okay, is the LAPD And guys, remember this
• 16:17
  Speaker 2: is years after the Rodney King situation happened, So the LAPD,
• 16:25
  Speaker 2: they were seen at that time as being a very racist,
• 16:28
  Speaker 2: apartment hostile Thank you so again, Ebany's cooking because it's
• 16:34
  Speaker 2: not about whether or not it's true if this does
• 16:37
  Speaker 2: go to trial.
• 16:38
  Speaker 1: Let's say it goes to trial.
• 16:40
  Speaker 2: Well, when these lawyers doing is casting reasonable doubt on
• 16:44
  Speaker 2: the onslaught just in case it goes to trial. But
• 16:48
  Speaker 2: obviously they want this to be thrown out. I'm fascinated
• 16:51
  Speaker 2: by this.
• 16:52
  Speaker 4: Yeah, No, it's amazing. It's amazing, And like I said,
• 16:54
  Speaker 4: it's not.
• 16:55
  Speaker 3: A deviation Carlos from how these things typically play out.
• 16:59
  Speaker 3: It's the thing lawyers, you know, keep in mind. And
• 17:01
  Speaker 3: I am a you know, when I practiced, I was
• 17:04
  Speaker 3: a defense attorney. But putting that bias aside, our job
• 17:08
  Speaker 3: as defense attorneys is, you know, the stakes couldn't be higher.
• 17:14
  Speaker 3: We are normally dealing with life and or liberty of
• 17:17
  Speaker 3: human beings. So it is we take an oath, we
• 17:21
  Speaker 3: put our hand on a bible, you know, and we
• 17:23
  Speaker 3: swear before God and government that we will do everything
• 17:27
  Speaker 3: we can ethically do to zealously defend our clients and
• 17:33
  Speaker 3: their interest. So Wendy's lawyer, and any lawyer frankly worth
• 17:37
  Speaker 3: their salt should be doing something like this. Now I'm
• 17:40
  Speaker 3: not saying every single case, but generally speaking, why would
• 17:44
  Speaker 3: you not try to challenge you know, the search and
• 17:49
  Speaker 3: the seizure and then if that's unsuccessful, if then you
• 17:53
  Speaker 3: essentially get a second bite at the apple, so to speak,
• 17:57
  Speaker 3: once you get to the trial level and now you're challenging,
• 18:00
  Speaker 3: like you're saying, you know that prosecutorial standard of proof
• 18:04
  Speaker 3: beyond a reasonable doubt. So you kind of get two opportunities,
• 18:07
  Speaker 3: see what I'm saying here, to challenge this process. And
• 18:12
  Speaker 3: if I'm a defendant, I want my lawyer to take
• 18:14
  Speaker 3: every single opportunity to challenge what I am up against.
• 18:20
  Speaker 2: Yes, so now rain drops the time you've guys been
• 18:23
  Speaker 2: waiting for. Which is another fascination that I want miss
• 18:27
  Speaker 2: edby k Williams to really download and break down for us,
• 18:31
  Speaker 2: is the fact that Wendy and Eddie have two separate lawyers,
• 18:36
  Speaker 2: and Wendy's attorney wants elected to file emotions so that
• 18:41
  Speaker 2: they can be trial tried separately. So with that being said,
• 18:47
  Speaker 2: her husband Eddie osepho he hired a powerhouse attorney, Joseph Martha,
• 18:53
  Speaker 2: who previously worked on a high profile case involving former
• 18:57
  Speaker 2: President Bill Clinton and Malaka.
• 19:01
  Speaker 1: Okay, so just for you guys know he is.
• 19:05
  Speaker 2: A veteran trial attorney with experience in both state and
• 19:08
  Speaker 2: federal courts, which I'm gonna get ebany talk about the
• 19:11
  Speaker 2: state and federal because as of today.
• 19:14
  Speaker 1: Wendy and Eddie's case is only state. It has not
• 19:18
  Speaker 1: reached federal just yet.
• 19:19
  Speaker 2: So just note that, however, Joseph Marda represented Linda Tripp. Okay,
• 19:26
  Speaker 2: remember Linda Tripp was the one who Malica Lewinsky trusted
• 19:33
  Speaker 2: as a you know, a friend. Little did she know
• 19:37
  Speaker 2: that Linda Tripp was recording a conversation. So in the case,
• 19:41
  Speaker 2: Linda Tripp was accused of breaking the law when she
• 19:44
  Speaker 2: taped the conversation with Monica, who we all know was
• 19:47
  Speaker 2: involved in the sex scandal with President Clinton. So in
• 19:52
  Speaker 2: his filing, Eddie demanded prosecutors turn over the names once
• 19:57
  Speaker 2: again Ebney, of all potential witness they plan to a
• 20:01
  Speaker 2: call to testify against him.
• 20:04
  Speaker 1: Eddie's lawyer acts that all charges.
• 20:06
  Speaker 2: Be dismissed due to issues with the charging document, like
• 20:10
  Speaker 2: the same thing with Wendy.
• 20:12
  Speaker 1: Same thing. So they're doing the same thing. It's just
• 20:15
  Speaker 1: two separate lawyers.
• 20:17
  Speaker 2: What before we get into the lawyer and his background,
• 20:21
  Speaker 2: the million dollars question, is this, what message is Eddie
• 20:27
  Speaker 2: and Whndy is sending to the courts and to the
• 20:31
  Speaker 2: court of public opinion and being tried separately Because a
• 20:36
  Speaker 2: lot of people are saying Eddie may be trying to
• 20:39
  Speaker 2: take the fall for this if it comes to that,
• 20:42
  Speaker 2: because they do have three small children.
• 20:44
  Speaker 4: Sure, yes, I mean, we can just kind of cut
• 20:46
  Speaker 4: to the chase.
• 20:47
  Speaker 2: Right.
• 20:47
  Speaker 3: There's much chatter that perhaps perhaps a strategy at play
• 20:53
  Speaker 3: here is one co defendant in this case. Eddie assumes
• 20:59
  Speaker 3: responsibility so to speak of all of the charges you
• 21:03
  Speaker 3: know and say there was no conspiracy because conspiracy requires
• 21:06
  Speaker 3: two people. There was no conspiracy. My wife, the co defendant,
• 21:10
  Speaker 3: knew nothing. If indeed there was foul play here, it's
• 21:14
  Speaker 3: all on me, and he assumes all of that liability,
• 21:18
  Speaker 3: that legal responsibility himself that is being widely speculated. Is
• 21:22
  Speaker 3: that possible? Sure, we've seen it before. It can't happen.
• 21:28
  Speaker 3: But two things, it's very important that raindrops understand even
• 21:32
  Speaker 3: if that is the legal strategy mister osepho Eddie and
• 21:36
  Speaker 3: his legal team are trying to implement, and even if
• 21:39
  Speaker 3: there's agreement from Wendy and her legal team and this
• 21:42
  Speaker 3: is how we want it to go, prosecutors are not.
• 21:45
  Speaker 4: Bound by that, Carlos.
• 21:46
  Speaker 3: So it's not as if there's optionality amongst the defendants
• 21:52
  Speaker 3: to say I'm volunteering to take all the weight here.
• 21:56
  Speaker 3: Just let her off and then it just be that way,
• 21:59
  Speaker 3: if that makes sense. The evidence is what must be evaluated,
• 22:05
  Speaker 3: and then the judge and ultimately jewelry. If it gets
• 22:08
  Speaker 3: to trial level, will decide if it's believable that you know,
• 22:13
  Speaker 3: only one person, if any are responsible here. But certainly
• 22:17
  Speaker 3: I just don't want there to be a belief which
• 22:19
  Speaker 3: I've seen, you know, some people being confused like, oh, well,
• 22:23
  Speaker 3: if he's willing to take the fall, doesn't that mean
• 22:27
  Speaker 3: she's gonna be okay? It doesn't mean that. It means
• 22:30
  Speaker 3: that is a strategy that could be implemented, and then
• 22:33
  Speaker 3: they will have to see how that plays out in
• 22:37
  Speaker 3: front of said judge and jury.
• 22:39
  Speaker 4: But that's not a sure thing, is essentially what I'm
• 22:43
  Speaker 4: trying to say.
• 22:44
  Speaker 3: You know, it's no different than I'm sure many of
• 22:46
  Speaker 3: us know back in high school or college where the
• 22:50
  Speaker 3: young ladies holding weight so to speak, drugs for her
• 22:53
  Speaker 3: boyfriend and then she gets plat and then he's, oh,
• 22:56
  Speaker 3: you're honor, she was running it for me and don't
• 22:58
  Speaker 3: worry about it.
• 22:59
  Speaker 4: I'll take I'll take the rap for her. It don't
• 23:02
  Speaker 4: go that way. It don't go that way once once
• 23:05
  Speaker 4: the facts are out, that is up to what we
• 23:07
  Speaker 4: call the trier of fact, the judge and or the jury.
• 23:11
  Speaker 4: It is not.
• 23:12
  Speaker 3: Defendant's choice or co defendant's choice the way these things
• 23:17
  Speaker 3: play out to be.
• 23:18
  Speaker 4: Very clear on that.
• 23:19
  Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, no, I'm glad you are, so
• 23:22
  Speaker 2: we understand that. So with that being said, him hiring
• 23:27
  Speaker 2: this powerhouse attorney Joseph Mrda, who was involved, I mean, Ebony,
• 23:33
  Speaker 2: we're talking about the biggest scandal to rock the White House,
• 23:38
  Speaker 2: I think, I think in history when it came to
• 23:40
  Speaker 2: Monica Lewinsky and Bill Clinton.
• 23:42
  Speaker 3: So you run around for Watergate, but go ahead, all right,
• 23:48
  Speaker 3: a little people's little we we.
• 23:50
  Speaker 4: Thought in our parents eye for water Gate.
• 23:52
  Speaker 1: Yes, yes, no, you're right about that.
• 23:55
  Speaker 4: In modern presidential history.
• 23:56
  Speaker 1: Absolutely yes.
• 23:59
  Speaker 2: What message does that then, to hire someone of his
• 24:04
  Speaker 2: caliber to represent him in an insurance broad case with
• 24:11
  Speaker 2: a lawyer Ebony who is capable of representing him in
• 24:17
  Speaker 2: the state, which is their current filing, but also the
• 24:21
  Speaker 2: federal and if this reaches a federal then baby, we're
• 24:24
  Speaker 2: talking like we're talking a big deal.
• 24:27
  Speaker 4: Yeah, yeah, we're talking a bigger deal.
• 24:29
  Speaker 1: We should say, right, yeah, bigger deal. Sorry, no, no, no, you're.
• 24:32
  Speaker 4: Right, listen to me.
• 24:34
  Speaker 3: I actually think it says something very good, which is
• 24:37
  Speaker 3: that they are taking this very seriously.
• 24:40
  Speaker 1: Eddie.
• 24:40
  Speaker 4: Let me just speak to Eddie because that's the one
• 24:42
  Speaker 4: you know who's representing him. Uh.
• 24:44
  Speaker 3: That means that Eddie is rightfully taking this even at
• 24:48
  Speaker 3: just the state level, which, to be clear, raindrops is
• 24:51
  Speaker 3: certainly a less severe legal consequence than anything federal would be.
• 24:58
  Speaker 3: To Carloser's point, everything just gets ratcheted up and some
• 25:02
  Speaker 3: arrange offsight be like, but why is that the case?
• 25:04
  Speaker 4: Let me explain.
• 25:05
  Speaker 3: It is because the federal government, as we can see
• 25:08
  Speaker 3: certainly very clearly in this administration, even more so than
• 25:11
  Speaker 3: ever before, has almost unlimited resources, unlimited resources when it
• 25:18
  Speaker 3: comes to prosecuting claims. So that means there are infinity
• 25:23
  Speaker 3: number of investigators, infinity number of expert witnesses, infinity number
• 25:29
  Speaker 3: of all the things that the prosecution will need to
• 25:31
  Speaker 3: prove their case, which is why federal prosecutors have over
• 25:34
  Speaker 3: a ninety five percent prosecution rate versus if you look
• 25:38
  Speaker 3: at that of almost any state in the country, it
• 25:41
  Speaker 3: is vastly lower because states are subject to what state
• 25:44
  Speaker 3: budgets and so therefore there is a massive reduction of resources.
• 25:49
  Speaker 3: There's only so many investigators that are at the helm
• 25:53
  Speaker 3: of a state prosecution prosecution office, There's only so many
• 25:57
  Speaker 3: expert witnesses. There's only so many of appeal they can go.
• 26:01
  Speaker 4: You see what I'm saying.
• 26:03
  Speaker 3: So there's just a reduction of resources that are going
• 26:06
  Speaker 3: to be at play at the state level, which makes
• 26:08
  Speaker 3: it less severe than anything they could be potentially facing federally.
• 26:12
  Speaker 4: But let's not get ahead of ourselves.
• 26:13
  Speaker 3: As Carlos said, we're not even talking federal at this point,
• 26:17
  Speaker 3: and we may never be. Let's be clear that dog
• 26:20
  Speaker 3: might not hunt because there are certain things that elements
• 26:25
  Speaker 3: are are what we call them legally, Carlos, that the
• 26:28
  Speaker 3: state requires that the federal it could look totally different.
• 26:33
  Speaker 3: I do want to just drop this for something for
• 26:35
  Speaker 3: rain Drops to consider as well, because these are state charges.
• 26:40
  Speaker 3: That means the state government and political leadership have a
• 26:45
  Speaker 3: lot of power here. And it's not lost on anybody
• 26:51
  Speaker 3: that the current governor of Maryland is Governor Wesmore, who
• 26:56
  Speaker 3: we know has some however casual or lucid, may be
• 27:02
  Speaker 3: some relationship with I know his wife, the first Lady
• 27:07
  Speaker 3: Don Moore has had some social acquaintances with Wendy him cephone.
• 27:12
  Speaker 4: So just putting that.
• 27:12
  Speaker 3: Out there as everybody's talking about Trump and and and
• 27:16
  Speaker 3: Diddy or whatever and all of these pardons and this,
• 27:19
  Speaker 3: that and the third. There is a political element that
• 27:23
  Speaker 3: might enter this conversation at some point.
• 27:29
  Speaker 2: So I'm not sure if you watched last night's episode Potomac.
• 27:34
  Speaker 4: I did not, but I did see the clip of
• 27:36
  Speaker 4: Stacy speaking with Andy. I watch What Happens Live.
• 27:40
  Speaker 2: Okay, So the First Lady was at this like Derby event,
• 27:48
  Speaker 2: and so.
• 27:50
  Speaker 4: She was actually in the episode last night.
• 27:51
  Speaker 1: Oh wow, I'm about to gag you. So long story short,
• 27:55
  Speaker 1: long story short.
• 27:57
  Speaker 2: The girls are being you know, housewise, you know of
• 28:00
  Speaker 2: feel them being loved. Caddy and Wendy interrupts and it
• 28:04
  Speaker 2: says the first Lady's approaching, behave yourself. She puts her
• 28:07
  Speaker 2: heels back on, and her and Joseille go to speak
• 28:10
  Speaker 2: to the first Lady.
• 28:11
  Speaker 1: And Evany K.
• 28:12
  Speaker 2: Williams the camera stopped, freeze frozen frame, pointed an arrow
• 28:19
  Speaker 2: at this person off camera, and wrote wrote on the
• 28:24
  Speaker 2: screen the First Lady did not want to appear on camera, right,
• 28:29
  Speaker 2: not at all surprised.
• 28:30
  Speaker 4: I was wondering how they were So I only knew.
• 28:33
  Speaker 3: This because full disclosure, I have not watched Potomac since
• 28:37
  Speaker 3: the binder of it all, many many moves ago.
• 28:41
  Speaker 1: I loved them all.
• 28:42
  Speaker 3: I loved them all and I, as you know, we
• 28:48
  Speaker 3: have friends, we have all we all have mutual friends
• 28:51
  Speaker 3: who had literally been at events and not this derby,
• 28:54
  Speaker 3: by the way. So in addition to this derby, there
• 28:57
  Speaker 3: are other social events, which makes this because Wendy is
• 29:01
  Speaker 3: a lady about town, you know, she is running in
• 29:04
  Speaker 3: the social circles of the social lights of Maryland. And
• 29:09
  Speaker 3: so it is no surprise and I'm not at all surprised,
• 29:13
  Speaker 3: but I am a.
• 29:14
  Speaker 4: Little gagged that they actually and how they produced it.
• 29:17
  Speaker 4: I guess like you're saying. But yeah, so that's just.
• 29:21
  Speaker 3: Something again, you know, not trying to overplay that, not
• 29:24
  Speaker 3: trying to make any assumptions around it, but just something
• 29:28
  Speaker 3: for rain drops to consider that because it stays. Because
• 29:31
  Speaker 3: if these were federal charges, the governor and and and
• 29:35
  Speaker 3: and everybody else can't do anything about it. But because
• 29:38
  Speaker 3: they are state charges, there could be opportunity, if need be,
• 29:42
  Speaker 3: for relief at that level.
• 29:46
  Speaker 2: I do want to ask you this before I let
• 29:49
  Speaker 2: you go, because I'm just curious in terms of your thought,
• 29:53
  Speaker 2: because a lot of people had a lot of things
• 29:56
  Speaker 2: to say about this. So last week, Ebony, uh, doctor
• 30:02
  Speaker 2: Wendy and Eddie both released.
• 30:04
  Speaker 1: Their own personal statement. So prior to.
• 30:08
  Speaker 2: Last Sunday, they had a lawyer speak on their behalf
• 30:14
  Speaker 2: asking for privacy as they figured this out. Last Sunday, however,
• 30:20
  Speaker 2: they released a statement separately on their Instagram pages.
• 30:24
  Speaker 1: I want to read you, Ebeny's and I want to
• 30:25
  Speaker 1: read you something that.
• 30:28
  Speaker 4: Made no statement Wendy statement.
• 30:31
  Speaker 1: We did a caption on his page to Ebony.
• 30:34
  Speaker 4: Oh Eddie, Oh I'm sorry, you said, Eddie.
• 30:36
  Speaker 1: Okay, that's okay, look at it.
• 30:38
  Speaker 2: So Wendy and Eddie both left the caption on their
• 30:41
  Speaker 2: Instagram pages.
• 30:43
  Speaker 4: Yes, yes, okay, okay.
• 30:44
  Speaker 1: So I want to read you.
• 30:45
  Speaker 2: Wendy's she posted a picture of herself and the caption
• 30:49
  Speaker 2: read and through it all, God remains faithful. Thank you
• 30:54
  Speaker 2: for the outpouring of love, support and prayers for myself
• 30:58
  Speaker 2: and most importantly, my family during this time. We are
• 31:03
  Speaker 2: forever grateful. Eddie also released his own statement, pretty much
• 31:08
  Speaker 2: echoing their faith in God. Well, some people pointed out,
• 31:13
  Speaker 2: is this and this is the million dollar question if
• 31:17
  Speaker 2: this was purposeful and if it means anything the rain
• 31:22
  Speaker 2: drops and the audience said hmm. And the statement from
• 31:27
  Speaker 2: y'all joint attorney at the time, a representative an attorney.
• 31:31
  Speaker 2: Y'all did not use the word we're innocent. In y'all
• 31:34
  Speaker 2: separate Instagram post talking about God.
• 31:38
  Speaker 1: You both did not use the word innocent.
• 31:41
  Speaker 2: A lot of people are wondering, why wouldn't they say
• 31:47
  Speaker 2: we deny all of this and we're innocent, like they
• 31:50
  Speaker 2: may have read in other people's statements.
• 31:52
  Speaker 1: Is that something that practs your curiosity?
• 31:56
  Speaker 4: Not really, And I'm gonna tell you why.
• 31:58
  Speaker 3: It's because if they're being advised early and wisely, I
• 32:07
  Speaker 3: wouldn't tell my clients to make any statement of factual
• 32:10
  Speaker 3: innocence at this stage.
• 32:12
  Speaker 4: Why. Because it's not of service. It's not of service?
• 32:15
  Speaker 4: Is that? Who does that?
• 32:16
  Speaker 3: Feed the peanut gallery? The folks in the comments. They're
• 32:19
  Speaker 3: not in charge of my client's destiny or faith. And
• 32:22
  Speaker 3: if I you know what I mean, no disrespect, love
• 32:24
  Speaker 3: you all, but maybe you're not the triyer's or fault.
• 32:27
  Speaker 3: That is for your honor and the twelve ladies and
• 32:30
  Speaker 3: gentlemen of the jury. And because I want all options
• 32:34
  Speaker 3: available to me, Carlos, I just went through the ethics
• 32:37
  Speaker 3: and the oath that we take, and I need to
• 32:39
  Speaker 3: have all the bites at the apple, and I need
• 32:40
  Speaker 3: to have all the all the plays on the table
• 32:44
  Speaker 3: that could include.
• 32:48
  Speaker 4: A plead, and it is a wholly possible. Let me
• 32:52
  Speaker 4: just pay a scenario.
• 32:54
  Speaker 3: Let's say let's say they figured they I'll just use
• 32:59
  Speaker 3: wind random.
• 33:01
  Speaker 2: Uh.
• 33:01
  Speaker 3: Wendy and her legal team decide that the best legal
• 33:04
  Speaker 3: interest for her is to enter into a plea bargain.
• 33:09
  Speaker 3: It is possible that such plea bargain might require an
• 33:12
  Speaker 3: admission of guilt.
• 33:14
  Speaker 4: It's possible.
• 33:14
  Speaker 3: I'm gonna tell you about another kind of plea bargain
• 33:16
  Speaker 3: that doesn't even require that minute. I'm gonna gag you right,
• 33:19
  Speaker 3: gag you right back, honey.
• 33:22
  Speaker 4: But let's say that, let's say one.
• 33:26
  Speaker 3: You're so silly me, honey, listen, we read. But let's
• 33:34
  Speaker 3: say let's say one requires an admission of guilt. You
• 33:38
  Speaker 3: know what I wouldn't want is from my client to
• 33:41
  Speaker 3: now look less credible, less believable, less truthful, because.
• 33:49
  Speaker 4: They're gonna say, oh, well, that's interesting. Uh.
• 33:52
  Speaker 3: Back in October you said you were innocent, incident and innocent,
• 33:57
  Speaker 3: and now you're standing before the coreroom today, accepting responsibility
• 34:01
  Speaker 3: and asking for mercy from the court. Well, which one
• 34:03
  Speaker 3: is it it's unnecessary. Now, I mentioned that there's another
• 34:08
  Speaker 3: type of plea that doesn't even require an admission of guilt.
• 34:11
  Speaker 3: It's called an Alford plea. I used to use these
• 34:15
  Speaker 3: on occasion as a defense lawyer. An Alford plea, Alfred
• 34:18
  Speaker 3: that comes from that's a president, that's a case, an
• 34:21
  Speaker 3: alphad plea. Carlos says that I could say, your honor,
• 34:26
  Speaker 3: I am entering into on behalf of my client, Wendyocephal
• 34:31
  Speaker 3: We're entering into an alphad plea, which says we're making
• 34:34
  Speaker 3: no admission of factual guilt. We're not saying we did
• 34:37
  Speaker 3: anything wrong at all, but we are saying that the evidence.
• 34:43
  Speaker 4: Looks compelling, and we believe that legally.
• 34:48
  Speaker 3: And strategically, it is in my client's best interest to
• 34:51
  Speaker 3: not go to trial because the evidence is so compelling.
• 34:56
  Speaker 4: Even though we're not admitting any actual guilt.
• 34:58
  Speaker 3: Here, we're saying that the best legal thing to do
• 35:02
  Speaker 3: is enter into a plea bargain.
• 35:04
  Speaker 4: That is the beauty of an alpha please.
• 35:06
  Speaker 3: So it allows you to reap the legal benefit of
• 35:08
  Speaker 3: a bargain with prosecution, a pre determined deal, you know,
• 35:13
  Speaker 3: which normally comes with reduced sentence. And this and that
• 35:16
  Speaker 3: and other perks. But you actually do not make an
• 35:19
  Speaker 3: admission of factual guilt an Alfred plead. So but back
• 35:23
  Speaker 3: to you, back to your question. Those are all the
• 35:26
  Speaker 3: reasons why I am not bothered or alarmed by the
• 35:30
  Speaker 3: omission of a declaration of innocence at this stage of
• 35:35
  Speaker 3: the game. That it literally serves it's it's it's of
• 35:38
  Speaker 3: no service to either.
• 35:39
  Speaker 2: Osepha Listen, That's why I wanted to clear it up,
• 35:43
  Speaker 2: because I thought the safe thing. And at the end
• 35:45
  Speaker 2: of the day, at the end of the day, what's
• 35:48
  Speaker 2: interesting range jobs is this, by law, you're innothent.
• 35:53
  Speaker 1: Until proving guilty. So like like having.
• 35:55
  Speaker 2: Said, it does more harm than good for me to
• 35:59
  Speaker 2: do stopping for the court of public opinion. I'm going
• 36:03
  Speaker 2: to behave in a way that makes me do things
• 36:06
  Speaker 2: the right way in the court of law and that
• 36:10
  Speaker 2: the depths are rest.
• 36:12
  Speaker 3: Yes, yeah, yeah, we're not playing crisis management. You know,
• 36:16
  Speaker 3: no disrespect to that important work, because it's very important.
• 36:21
  Speaker 3: But the stakes are too high. The stakes are too high.
• 36:24
  Speaker 3: They can worry about image rehabilitation and all that far
• 36:27
  Speaker 3: down the road. This is a time to be totally
• 36:31
  Speaker 3: preoccupied with legal best interest, legal best interest. Yeah, and
• 36:36
  Speaker 3: one thing at a time. Like I said it, rain drops,
• 36:38
  Speaker 3: We're at a very preluminary stage. We have not gotten
• 36:41
  Speaker 3: to anything substantive yet. That's why it is way too
• 36:44
  Speaker 3: early to make any assumptions about substantive guilt or innocence.
• 36:48
  Speaker 3: This is are the charging documents even right? Is the
• 36:52
  Speaker 3: evidence collected properly? Are the witnesses credible? That's the stage
• 36:57
  Speaker 3: of the game we're.
• 36:58
  Speaker 2: At, ladies, gentlemen, Games and Dave Ebony K Williams, thank
• 37:05
  Speaker 2: you so much, Sis for.
• 37:07
  Speaker 1: Bringing down for us and listen.
• 37:09
  Speaker 2: Will We will be back excuse me when more conversations
• 37:14
  Speaker 2: and more talks about this occur.
• 37:16
  Speaker 1: But in the meantime, guys, thank you.
• 37:18
  Speaker 2: All for tapping into this episode and we'll see y'all
• 37:21
  Speaker 2: the next one.
• 37:22
  Speaker 1: Bye.
• 37:22
  Speaker 4: My Loves.
• 37:26
  Speaker 2: Reality with the King is executive produced by me Carlos King,
• 37:31
  Speaker 2: produced by Lizzie Nimitz, and a partnership with.
• 37:35
  Speaker 1: The Lack Effect Network.
• 37:37
  Speaker 2: You can also find us on my YouTube channel at
• 37:40
  Speaker 2: the Carlos King Underscore