Trial Attorney Discusses The Key Ingredient Needed In The Robert Durst Case

TL;DR

The analysis discusses the defense's attempt to argue that a production company should be treated as an agent of the state, the distinction between first party and third party recordings, and the prosecution's efforts to build a circumstantial case against Robert Durst.

Transcript

and hey folks welcome back to the law and crime Network this is the afternoon session I'm Michael Bryant Brad machlin is with me here in studio at the mercy to join us soon enough I don't know about you but I'm exhausted I'm tired you know it's Friday afternoons been a long week I'm not gonna let you off the hook so quickly but we've had so many tr... Read More

Key Insights

• 👍 The defense's attempt to argue that a production company should be treated as an agent of the state was unsuccessful, as they were unable to prove specific direction from the prosecutor or a governmental agent.
• 🥳 Different states have different laws regarding recordings, with some states requiring consent from all parties involved, while others only require consent from the person making the recording.
• 💪 The prosecution is aiming to build a strong circumstantial case against Robert Durst, leveraging his past involvement in various crimes to establish a pattern of behavior.
• 🥳 The distinction between first party and third party recordings can have significant legal implications, with some recordings being admissible as evidence and others not, depending on the state laws.
• 🤗 Evidence obtained illegally by a private citizen can be handed over to the government and used in legal proceedings, as long as the government was not involved in the illegal acquisition of the evidence.
• ❓ The prosecution's success in admitting certain evidence can heavily impact the jury's perception of Robert Durst and influence their decision in the trial.
• 🧑‍🏭 The latitude of what can be admitted in terms of prior crimes and bad acts in California can be disadvantageous for Durst, as his previous crimes and actions can potentially be used against him in the trial.

Questions & Answers

Q: What was the defense's argument regarding the production company's involvement in the prosecution?

The defense claimed that the production company acted as an agent of the state, therefore any evidence obtained by them should be subject to Fourth Amendment protections. However, they failed to convince the court of this argument.

Q: What is the distinction between first party and third party recordings?

In some states, like New York, first-party recordings can be made without the consent of the person being recorded. However, in states like California, consent from both parties is generally required for recordings.

Q: What is the prosecution's strategy in building a case against Robert Durst?

The prosecution is working to build a strong circumstantial case against Durst, who has a history of avoiding punishment for his crimes. They are aiming to present the jury with enough evidence to convince them of Durst's guilt.

Q: Can evidence obtained illegally by a private citizen be used by the government?

Yes, if a private citizen obtains evidence illegally, they can hand it over to the government, and it can be used in legal proceedings. However, the government must not be involved in the illegal acquisition of the evidence.

Summary & Key Takeaways

• The defense attempted to argue that a production company should be considered an agent of the state due to its involvement with the prosecution, but failed to convince the court.

• The distinction between first party and third party recordings was discussed, highlighting that in some states, consent is not required from the person being recorded if the recording is made by the first party.

• The prosecution is trying to build a strong circumstantial case against Robert Durst, who has a history of escaping consequences for various crimes.