Disclaimer: Content created by reNotes from the podcast transcript is an example only. reKnow does not own the original podcast and all content on this page, including content derived from the podcast, are the property of the podcast owner. Being featured as an example does not imply the podcast owner is a reNotes user.
Podcast: OC Swingers
Generated by reNotes: This podcast discusses the case of Grant Robichaux, who is accused of raping two women. The first woman, Jane Doe one, said she was raped by Robichaux 10 years ago. The second woman, Jane Doe two, said she was raped by him more recently. The new attorney general in California, Rob Bonta, has only been in his role for a short time. Despite this, the judge in the case against Grant Robicheaux and Cerissa Riley has asked him to brief the attorney general on the progress of the case.
Content created using reNotes
Show notes (unedited)
This is a podcast about the O.C. Swing case, in which two defendants are accused of sexual assault and other crimes. In this episode, the discussion focuses on a memo written by one of the defendants, which was partially redacted and published in the Los Angeles Times. The question is whether the full, unredacted version of the memo should be unsealed for everyone to see.
-The judge in the case wants to set a preliminary hearing, but the defense wants more time to review the evidence and make a decision.
-The judge unsealed the contentious curranz memo, which details allegations of misconduct by the DHS office against Kearns.
-Almost all of the allegations of misconduct against Kearns were either shown to be completely untrue or substantiated.
The case against Grant Robicheaux and Cerissa Riley is being delayed so that the new Attorney General, Rob Bonta, can be briefed on the case. Bonta is so new to his job that his press release hasn't even been published yet. It is unclear if a special prosecutor will be appointed to the case.
A person is asking for a recommendation from someone else in regards to a case that is old. The other person says they cannot give a recommendation because it is up to the Attorney General to sign off on it. The first person then asks if the other person has met with any of the victims yet, and they say they have met with some but not all.
Jane Doe six says that she was sexually assaulted by Grant Robicheaux and his girlfriend while she was extremely intoxicated. She took pictures of their driver's licenses before she left. The incident happened in 2017 and she has since moved to Israel and joined the Israeli Defense Forces.
I interviewed Dan Gillean, whose client Jane Doe number five lodged the civil suit against Dr. Grant Robicheaux and his girlfriend Cerissa Riley. She filed the lawsuit in 2018 because the statute of limitations was running out for civil lawsuits. They have been trying to explain their position to the public and how they interact with the criminal case against the couple ever since.
In the context of the allegations of retaliation made by Jennifer Current that Spitzer colluded with Robicheaux and Riley's defense attorneys, Gillean's conversation with me takes on a different meaning. In the criminal case, my client is just a witness, but in the civil case she is the plaintiff. The purpose of the lawsuit is to obtain compensation for the damages she suffered as a result of what Dr. Roberto did.
The problem with the criminal justice system for Danielle's point of view is that she gets really nothing out of it. She thinks maybe that there's some sort of justice happening, but reality, she gets nothing out of it more than you or I get out of it. So it's quite a painful experience for her. Being a plaintiff in the civil case is a lot more bearable because she is seeking compensation for what
The content discusses the issue of sexual assault cases often not making it to court due to a lack of evidence. It is difficult for victims to go through the process, and even more so when they are not believed. The author suggests that this could be changed if we had different types of district attorneys and trial attorneys who were not afraid to lose cases.
The criminal defense for the "Hail Mary" party girls is aggressive and unique, and a lot of money is being spent on it. The DA is willing to roll over and say he quits after having his woman dedicated to the criminal process for years. The effect of this on politics is that every A will look at cases they've filed that are high profile and try to use them for political benefit.
The case against Grant Robicheaux and Cerissa Riley is based on the testimony of multiple victims, including a civil defense attorney. There is no reason for these victims to lie, and the evidence against the defendants is damning.
The attorney general's office is seeking to dismiss all charges against Grant and Stresa, including rape, due to lack of evidence. This comes after nearly a year of delays in the case, which has taken a toll on the psychological well-being of the victims.
The judge in the case is asking for more information from the prosecution about why they believe that the allegations of sexual misconduct against the defendant are not credible and cannot be proven in court. The prosecution has interviewed five of the seven alleged victims and has determined that they are all credible. However, the judge wants more specific information about why the prosecutor believes that the case is not provable.
The Attorney General's office is only recommending that one of the seven sex charges against Jeffrey Epstein go to trial, and the victim in that case is aware of the AG's position. However, the judge is asking for briefs on whether or not he should allow the AG to amend the complaint, which would mean that six of the seven victims would be dismissed.
The district attorney has dropped charges against a doctor, and the attorney representing the victim in the case is asking the judge to consider not dismissing the case. The attorney believes that the district attorney is hopelessly conflicted and that there is insufficient evidence to prosecute the case.
The case against Grant Robicheaux and Cerissa Riley, accused of drugging and assaulting women, will be referred to the Attorney General's Office for prosecution. The victims may eventually take the stand, and when they do, they will be asked to recall what happened to them as best they can.
Jennifer Kearns, a veteran sex crimes investigator who has been effectively gagged by the current District Attorney of Orange County, is rooting for the victims of the Grant Robicheaux case to keep fighting. Robicheaux is accused of raping two women, one of whom says she was raped 10 years ago. Kearns is hoping that at least one of the victims will be able to speak out publicly about her experiences.
Disclaimer: Content created by reNotes from the podcast transcript is an example only. reKnow does not own the original podcast and all content on this page, including content derived from the podcast, are the property of the podcast owner. Being featured as an example does not imply the podcast owner is a reNotes user.
When sexual assault victims go to court, they often face an uphill battle. Defense attorneys often resort to character attacks on victims rather than presenting evidence that their clients are innocent. This can be very difficult for victims to deal with, and it often dissuades them from pursuing their cases.
However, there are some victims who are willing to fight for justice. One recent example is the case of Grant Robicheaux and Cerissa Riley. These two individuals are accused of drugging and raping multiple women.
Despite the difficulties, some victims are willing to take their chances in court. Sarah Tahiti, a civil litigator in Orange County, California, is working with one of the victims in the Robicheaux case. Tahiti notes that the large number of victims who came forward, as well as the fact that one of the victims is a defense attorney, makes it very unlikely that the accusations are false.
The attorney general's office has filed a motion to dismiss all charges against Grant and Riley, citing insufficient evidence. This is due to the lack of evidence and cooperation from victims. Some victims believe that the defendants are connected in a political or financial alliance and that they are being silenced.
The court is carefully weighing their words and is asking for clarification on the credibility of the alleged victims. The Attorney General's office has no reason to believe that any of the victims are being untruthful and they are working to prove the case.
This is an extremely difficult situation for all involved. It will be interesting to see how the court ultimately decides to proceed.
Social Posts (unedited)
This is a fascinating episode with lots of twists and turns. We interview Dan Gillean, whose client Jane Doe number five lodged the civil suit against Dr. Grant Robicheaux and his girlfriend Cerissa Riley. Gillean's conversation sheds new light on the case and how it is being handled by the criminal justice system.
This is a must-listen episode for anyone interested in the O.C. Swing case. Tune in now to hear the latest developments in this case.
This is a must-listen episode for anyone following the O.C. Swing case. The discussion focuses on a memo written by one of the defendants, which was partially redacted and published in the Los Angeles Times. The question is whether the full, unredacted version of the memo should be unsealed for everyone to see.
Don't miss this episode of the O.C. Swing case podcast!
Original transcript used by reNotes
Podcast: O.C. Swingers
Episode: Hanging Chads
This series includes descriptions of violence, sexual assault, and grooming. It is not recommended for young audiences. The people first Robichaux and Riley is an ongoing case. At the time of this episode's Original airdate, the defendants have not been convicted of any crimes alleged against them
from Justine Harmon and audio check, this is OSI swingers chapter 10. hanging chads,
FISA beers Oh on a bench and a PA. She made some passes at man in the dark. They began running alone through the night, when she began loving they put up now five.
After Mike fells pronouncement that the defense has never actually claimed grant inservices innocence.
His job is to distract everybody from the facts of the case. But the reason that we've never
is our plan to do. Grants defense attorney Phillip Cohen bit his tongue. Just kidding. Yeah.
Thank you. I, despite the court's invitation, I don't like to interrupt. I am happy to have a discussion of the facts of this case. And anytime the court wants on the record that this entire audience, why would I want to do that now?
Judge Bromberg is like, fellas for the final time. This is a pre trial hearing. We were summoned here today to discuss the current memo and that in camera hearing. I already told you was no big deal. Legit. Why are you still talking about all this other nonsense?
We have not started with court trial today. Have we do? Everybody knows that? Yes. My job is to listen to the facts of what you folks are talking about that are being raised pretrial. Pre pulmonary, make determinations on there. It's not for the court to pontificate and I'm not suggesting that anybody here has pontificating because no one has to understand that it's not for this court to listen to the facts of this case. I know what the alleged facts are. I have read the alleged facts I read judge Jones's 25 Page ruling. To deny the dismissal of this case. I read the 73 page police report. I have listened to audios. I'm getting there had escaped for two, two and a half weeks I'm getting there. So let's understand. If if I need clarification on an issue that raised that relation. I will ask everybody for that information.
But Cohen is still hung up on the current stuff. Specifically, the memo Matt Murphy had come into portions of which ran in the Los Angeles Times. Why was it okay that members of the press published excerpts from a partially redacted performance review. Why not unseal the original version of the memo for everyone to see what deep dark secrets was Matt Murphy hiding beneath those opaque black lines? He wants both versions unsealed. Yesterday. Robert is over it.
Sir. We're getting into bathroom again. I'm not going to do that. I appreciate I respect everything you're doing. I respect everything all towns are doing. There's an issue between you and Mr. Murphy. And I'm seeing strength in this case, because it's impacted will taste for the last two years now. I'm sorry. I've been what I've been reading. I'm seeing it. Okay. No one has you don't have to agree with that. But I'm not interested in the banter. I'm not interested in taking shots. The issues that we have here are what they are. We already discussed them. You're gonna find a motion. We probably should have stopped this 45 minutes ago. Okay. I don't want to cut lawyers off when they have something they want to say. But I haven't heard anything. Yeah. new that we haven't already discussed. That I'm not going to read in the motions. I'm not one of those that wants to be heard twice. So is there anything new that you want to add at this point?
The judge doesn't know what to do with the current memo right now. He says the defense is welcome to share currencies deposition testimony from the civil suit as proof of some underlying collusion between the former investigator and the victims in this case, if they want, they can also file an unredacted version of the current memo. Both versions of the memo will remain under seal until further notice. If they
become an evidence, remember, they're not in evidence right now. They're hearsay documents floating around. No one can use them for anything right now. I'm not even convinced or even confidential documents. I don't know the practices in the district attorney's office regarding these type of memos. But I would think of something that's going to be confidential from that office. But right now, it's just kind of a hanging chair.
You'll remember the term hanging chad from the 2000 election, those little half punched holes in the ballot that became a symbol for political fealty, and also probably last Al Gore the presidency. Textbook Boomer reference. Well, the current memo wasn't a hanging chat for long. Less than two weeks after the march 25 hearing, Jennifer Kearns filed her own lawsuit against Todd Spitzer, claiming he colluded with the defense to sabotage the criminal case from the moment he took office. The contentious curranz memo was unsealed too. I've read it. And I cannot imagine a world where any version of it redacted. unredacted or shredded is a good document for the defense. Almost all of the allegations of misconduct by the DHS office against Kearns were either shown to be completely untrue or substantiated. Quote, by all accounts, Kearns was honest and forthright in this investigation. For some minor procedural errors, the commanders recommended additional report writing training and a letter of reprimand so much for that compelling rogue investigator theory. But at this point in the case, we're now on April 21 2021. Judge Bromberg doesn't want to dig through the weeds anymore. He wants to set a preliminary hearing. In this case,
I understand your honor, it's because we have conducted a very thorough review of this case. We have looked at all the evidence we have prompted all the decisions that are willing to speak to that. We've done our due diligence, and then we are very close to a decision. Our decision is imminent. However, because you do have an entirely new boss out in fairness to him. We would like the opportunity to explain our review so that he can then sign off
in March of this year, Javier Becerra, whose name I mispronounced as Xavier with an X in an early episode, I regret the error was confirmed to be President Joe Biden, Secretary of Health and Human Services. His replacement, Rob Bonta, wasn't formally announced as California's new attorney general until the day after this hearing. The man was so new in his gig as the top prosecutor in California, that the ink hadn't even dried on his press release. Wonder how much he knows about the serpentine case against grant Robicheaux and service Riley,
you're going to sit down with the new attorney general and discuss this case with him. Is that what you're telling me?
We're going to bring him on our review.
Whose week you're the attorney has been involved in this case from the beginning. The delays in this case, it's from Audible. I have we've we've had this case for just about five or six weeks now in this courtroom. And I can't believe looking at the history, that the delays that have occurred. I'm not saying they weren't warranted, they're well warranted. I understand the motions and the hearings and all the nastiness that went on. So that's not the criticism, the criticism is in deference to the new attorney general, I just don't understand that. I I'm not excited about that at all and may 25. Why is it going to take over a month? to brief the Attorney General on this case? Is that because he's busy and has other things to do?
Not at all, your honor, to allow for all the attorneys that are involved in the case to be present is quite difficult given the amount of attorneys to find one day that works for everyone.
How about we do this? Can you give the court kind of a preview of where you're going on this case? Do you believe you're going to be able to move forward with it? Do you believe we're going to be asking for something else? Do you believe you might be asking for a special prosecutor? What do you think you might be doing about a little assistance here?
I do not believe that we're going to be requesting a special prosecutor however, the decision of how how we go forward is not entirely mine. To me. That would be the new Attorney General's decision. He's
the elected official is the elected official and the elected official determines what cases go forward. Is that how that works. I'm just speaking from ignorance. I'm sorry. Is that how that makes me determined to to kind of wags the dog a little bit. Is that how that happens
I don't think it's a situation where the tail wagging the dog. However, I do think that this is a very serious case. There's a lot I have going on in case and we do need to properly Repeat He.
He's going to make the decision whether it goes forward or not Trump counsel, is that correct? We'll
make a recommendation.
You're not asking that question.
You're I do not make decisions for the Attorney General's but I can make a recommendation is on a minute.
Can you give the court a heads up as to what your recommendation might be at this point in time?
At this point? I cannot one, because that is for the Attorney General to sign off on.
Attorney General has to sign off on whether you can state a recommendation or not.
To the court. Yes. At this time,
I'm asking you, I'm asking you as an officer of the court to give the code this case is so old now. I'm asking you it's not unreasonable that the courts asking I'm asking you to give the court at least a heads up or an idea as to the direction you are going with respect to a recommendation you might give to the Attorney General. Who is a politician. You're not a politician. You're
not a politician. Politics don't
plan the third branch of government remember that? Right? Okay, good.
We agree. All right.
So you think I'm asking for them reasonable?
I think the best I can say on this one is that we expect to importance accounts, but not all.
At this point, I cannot. One thing I am considering is that we need to speak to the victims, before we publicly announced which counts man that was born with
how's it going as far as speaking with the victims. I know that when you were in family court, the beginning of the year, and subsequent to that you had indicated to her that you wanted to meet with victims, because currently you had not done that. And I'm glad to hear that you're making an effort to do that. And it's been quite some time. Have you not met with any of the victims you have already met with some of the victims.
We've met with all the victims that are willing to meet with us at this point. There is one remaining victim who is at a state that we are still trying to
find the alleged victims have you met with
we've met with Geno's one to four
to refresh your memory, Jane Doe one is the lawyer accusing grant of raping her in 2009 and the author of that impassioned plea read in court on the pivotal day in February of last year. Jane Doe two is the one from Chapter Two, who says she was raped by Grant interesa as a team after a Sunday funday in 2016. Jane Doe four is the woman who screams prompted 911 calls later that same year. Jane Doe six who story you haven't heard yet, says that over Easter weekend 2017 she was visiting Newport with a UCLA classmate whose parents have a home there. She was 22 and single and she matched with Grant on Bumble. The two meet a date at the pricey sushi restaurant Nobu. Grant arrived to dinner with ERISA, whom he explained away as a friend visiting unexpectedly from out of town. Riley was immediately friendly, she says and after the group had a few cocktails at dinner, pressured her into doing a drug she said was cocaine in the bathroom of a country themed bar. The next thing she remembers is waking up inside the beach house. She says grant and Teresa had sex in front of her while she cried. Then Riley who Jane Doe six has played kind of like a teacher kind of role, suggested she drink some water. Rochelle grabbed a bottle, added something to it, shook it and handed it to her. Jane Doe six who was 22 at the time, so she began to feel extremely intoxicated and locked herself in another bedroom service it came back to the door and pleaded with her. He's going to get really mad really opened the door open or he'll hurt us. She then overheard a couple arguing and rubbish Oh calling Riley a selfish bitch. Jane Doe six says she didn't open the door again until 6am When she snuck out of the beach house to get her Uber. She has the Uber receipt and text messages to her best friend about the incident. And before she left, she looked through the things and took pictures of grants versus driver's licenses. Since that night back in 2017, Jane Doe six relocated to Israel and joined the Israeli Defense Forces. There is a 10 hour time difference between California and Israel. That feels like a reasonably difficult zoom to get on the calendar. Judge Bromberg seems pleased with the AGs progress.
Okay. All right. Are you making progress Was that through an investigator?
An investigator was pregnant, all those.
So it sounds like you're making progress.
We are making progress. As I said, our decision is
just what the mask things, you know, we all have to deal with this. Okay, so that objective it's a yes or no, no. I would like an earlier date. So what I that's not objecting to this. Talk about that. Okay. No objections.
The first day that she mentioned, oh, hang on.
No objection. Finally, Murphy's law turns. Thank you very much. Okay. What were you saying about the big boss gonna say
the first day that was proposed by the Ag was Friday, May 14. And I believe that works for both myself, Mr. Cohen, but not with the Marcy's attorneys.
On May 14,
what's come mean? No, sir. Okay.
Maybe I shouldn't be surprised that Matt Murphy, a proud surfer and the lawyer for for victims in this case, will be in Indonesia on one of the most important court dates of his clients lives. I've stopped pretending that there are male heroes in the story. And I've stopped pretending I'm not putting myself in a vulnerable position by telling it. I just never imagined I'd become an ancillary character in the proceedings. On Wednesday, April 28, two days after chapter six of this podcast in which you heard an actor portray the impassioned words of Jane Doe one, I was served with the subpoena by the defense's PII, Russell Greene, what buckling up my five year old son in his car seat to take him to preschool. It's been suggested to me that Russell, whom I certainly recognize, but only that surreal Hey, person I saw on TV way, was personally sent by the defense as an intimidation tactic. I've heard crazier things. Back in April of last year before the motion to dismiss was denied. I interviewed Dan Gillean, whose client Jane Doe number five lodged the civil suit against grants ERISA and opened a pipeline for the defense lawyers to rake third party witnesses.
She filed a lawsuit in 2018, because the statute of limitations was coming up for the civil lawsuits and we filed it and thereafter the media picked up on it. We've been trying to explain our position and how we interact with the criminal case ever since.
In the context of the allegations of retaliation made by Jennifer current that Spitzer quote, colluded with Grant Robicheaux and Seresto Riley's defense attorneys while engaging in a concerted political campaign to undermine the prosecution, discredit the victims and ultimately destroy the criminal case against the couple. my conversation with Dan Gillean kind of hits different now.
In the criminal case, my client is a witness just like any other witness, in any case, you know, they also call her a victim. But in reality, she's just a witness like anybody else. And she has to be subpoenaed to appear at trial. And you know, she's agreed to do that. And civil case, she is a plaintiff, the victim is the plaintiff, and she is represented by an attorney. That's me. And the purpose of the lawsuit is to obtain compensation for the damages that she suffered as a result of what Dr. Roberto did, in the criminal case, the whole purpose in reality, even though they call themselves a Department of Corrections. And a lot of people believe that, you know, it's all about trying to correct some wrongdoing and maybe steer the defendant in the right direction. In reality, the purpose of a criminal justice system is to punish the defendant and make society feel better about that. That's just that's reality of it. It's retribution. And so that's what a prosecutor is doing. The prosecutors goal is to represent the people of the state of California, and get a conviction against Dr. Rowe show and punish Dr. Robo show by sending him to prison asset. The problem with that for Danielle's point of view is that she gets really nothing out of it. She thinks maybe that there's some sort of justice happening, but reality, she gets nothing out of it more than you or I get out of it. She's just one of the people of the state of California. But it's really quite painful for her because she comes under attack by the defense attorneys by potentially some of the jurors but she's also left in the dark the entire time. She tries to get any information from the DEA, it's very limited as to what they will provide her. So it's pretty miserable experience. I'm not saying that being a plaintiff in the civil case is fine. It certainly isn't, but it's a whole lot more bearable in the civil case because first of all, she seeking compensation for what she went through
this blustering by the defense, the subpoenas, the mock outrage, the peppering the phishing. This is all business as usual.
What this is, is it's the stage where defendants criminal cases usually stay at the stage where she's lying. And let me tell you why she's lying. She's a druggie, she was drunk, she's extorting me, you know, that's what happens. Unfortunately, it's the victim in criminal cases and civil cases. That's what the attorneys do. It's just knee jerk. That's just the good. That's just the beginning of what happens.
But Killian says, The cartoonish villainy of the exercise, the fact that the gas is turned all the way up, that anyone would walk into this room and be like, Yo, it stinks in here, someone left the gas on it straight up smells like gas in here can embolden a plaintiff, because maybe it means they've got a case on their hands.
It makes it almost easier for them to stay the course, when the defense attorneys are taking cheap shots like that. Because, you know, ultimately, it begs the question, you know, if you had some evidence that she was lying, if you had some evidence that your client didn't do this, wouldn't make more sense to throw that out there, as opposed to just attacking the character. And juries are really good at seeing through that 99 out of 100 times a guy is going to get away with it from the standpoint of the criminal court. And the reason is this is that two thirds of all sexual assaults don't get reported at all. So there's 66 guys right there, that doesn't get reported of the remaining 1/3. So the 33 guys out there where the victim comes forward and reports it, only 3% of those are ever going to make their way to the criminal court system with a filing and a conviction. So just doing the math, we're talking about a tiny percentage, and it varies from state to state. But overall, in the end, is about 1% of all cases of sexual assaults get resulted in the conviction. And it's just awful for a victim to go through years of that, then to be told, like it happened recently, by you know, this district attorney and Danielle's case, you know, my client learned from the media, that he had decided to drop all the charges, using that same reason, oh, we don't think that we can meet our burden of proof. It's just a really, really tough situation. I think that could change if we would just change how we get a district attorneys in there and get trial attorneys in there that, you know, aren't scared to lose a case. As opposed to politicians. I think that would change a lot of things.
I had to know ghp. Is that something you've ever seen fall under the casual party drug category?
Not as a party drug? No. And especially for women, not for women? Maybe if you're a really cheap guy that weighs about 400 pounds? I mean, because No, it's 10 to one doing one shot is like doing 10 shots. What person in their right mind. He's got are they going to use that? Because of calories? No. I've come across it all the time. It's always a debate. Always. This was this those wouldn't call them Hail Marys. You know? Where they're going for anything they can, you know, yeah, they were party girls, and she was partying on ghp This is a unique criminal defense. And they're very, very aggressive. They are it's like a you know, a ruffian pointing to the fence. I mean, they stand to lose everything. And they're sitting there right now calling the home run over to centerfield fence. And that's the way they've been conducting themselves. There's a lot of money being spent. And I don't know where Dr. Reilly got it from, but it's a lot of money being spent. And right now they're really positioning this to be, you know, all out war. And, you know, I think it makes sense. If you have a DA like, Spitzer who's willing to roll over and say, No, I quit after having his woman and devoted and dedicated to this criminal process for years, you know, Spitzer from using this as a political tool, even before he was elected. You know, it gets up there. On the one side of the mouth, he's saying, elect me, I'm champion of all you know, sexual assault victims. I was part of that Marcy's Law, blah, blah, blah, blah. And then in the other hand, he's handing out private information about the victims to the media and trying to use it to get elected. Then he comes on, and the defense attorneys take a deposition, and they get the former DEA to say that and just be honest, yes, I did see some political benefit in filing this case. Well, guess what, that's what all the A's do all the A's and look at cases they filed that are high profile. So the effect on their politics, every one of them does and that's what the problem is, but then this da who himself played the dirtiest of all politics just to get elected, then comes out and throws you know, his predecessor under the bus as a reason for why he's dismissed. into the charges. None of that evidence was admissible. It wasn't it was never going to come into trial. But he cites it anyway. So there's some stuff that it just doesn't add up. You know, I had conversations with Spitzer before he was even elected. I was not impressed, didn't like his attitude, didn't like the phoniness didn't like the transparent politics, and he was playing. And I just knew that coming in that something was going to happen.
Okay, I said, Isn't the swingers argument are really flimsy defense? Doesn't it basically put the defendants hands on the gun without quite pulling the trigger?
Yeah, you know, it's finally good when I don't like it, but they're trying I mean, maybe in Orange County, I don't know. I mean, I, I really don't know, I can tell you this, I cannot remember one time ever thinking that I had a quote unquote, swinger as a juror on any panel I've been in front of, I don't know if that's going to work at trial is not the best defense. In fact, it's an awful defense is to start saying that that's what they were into. Because everyone knows that, that human nature is always to kind of set law oftentimes, especially with drugs is to push the envelope. So if you're a swinger, and you're engaging in sexual activities that most people don't do, then isn't it foreseeable that you're going to encounter a woman that doesn't want to do it either, it's very possible that they just did this so much. And every once in a while you went too far, that's where a lot of crimes are committed, by the way is that guys, you know, they ride the fence, they get almost all the way up to the point of committing a crime, and then they stop. And if they do it a lot, and they get cocky, then invariably, it's going to happen, they go too far. And but that's a crime. You know, that's a felony. And so I don't know if that's a very good defense at all. But then again, if you have nothing else, and that's what you gotta go with, don't lose sight of the fact that there are several victims, none of whom stand to benefit from any of this. That said the same thing. That alone is damning. There is no reason for a woman to ever make something like this up. There's just no upside to women for doing that. Yeah, there are those rare cases that we hear about where they do make something up. But those cases, even though they're rare, they always get weeded out during the investigation stage. They never make it all the way to a criminal court. And that's just with one victim, just one victim. What's the odds that five victims who are willing to come forward and one of them is a defense attorney, a civil defense attorney, there is zero reason for them to make something like this.
One of the very first people I talked to when I started working on this podcast is a civil litigator in Orange County named Sarah, Tahiti. I originally contact her after reading a blog post she had written in 2018, titled, corruption in the Orange County District Attorney's office. Back in March 2020. I asked Sarah to pinpoint the most astounding part of the case against grant Robicheaux. And service O'Reilly.
Reading that case was just mind boggling to me because this doctor who was charged with these crimes and his girlfriend, it wasn't just one victim or one person who came forward, there were multiple people who came forward. And this doctor was charged. And then once the new da came in Todd Spitzer, all of a sudden this case got, you know, a whole new vantage point where the new da said, hey, you know, there's not enough evidence here, we can drop the case. I mean, what stands out most to me is that, how could this case just simply go away? Something is amiss here. There's something that the public doesn't know.
nearly an entire year later, and five days before we launch this podcast, I called Sarah again. She remained convinced that Todd Spitzer and the defendants are connected in a political or financial alliance. It didn't surprise her one bit, that considering the cases checkered past, the AGs office had been unable to reach three of the seven victims.
When you were talking about the victims not showing up or cooperating with the attorneys who are prosecuting the case, I wonder, you know, are they being silenced? Is somebody paying them to go away and not pursue it? Or is it more from a place of I have so much more to lose? By pursuing this and having all of the details of my personal and private life out in the public? Because that victim As often don't come forward because you have so much to lose by telling your story, in the sense of being discredited, undermined slut shamed, negative repercussions for your career for your personal life, your family life, creates a lot of anxiety for the victims, and a lot of unknown and a lot more pressure to have it build up like this. And I'm sure a lot of these victims want to move forward with their life, you know, get married, start a family, whatever it is pursue a career and to have this be hanging over their heads. It's not something I would wish for anybody. So again, the delay, the constant delay has been detrimental psychologically to the victims and probably their willingness to want to continue and move forward and
tell their story.
On May 14 2021, all sides reassembled in court for what the attorney general's office had promised would be the very last pre trial hearing.
People versus Roboshot and Riley,
just three days prior, the AGs office filed a motion to amend the complaint against grant and Stresa.
You are asking the court to dismiss all of the charges including an oral copulation by anesthesia.
charges as to
are you seeking to dismiss the rape charges as to
have all of the allegations made against grant and ERISA. Yvette Martinez says the only sex crime they think they can prove is that grant and Serena drugged Jane Doe six with an intent to rape her. This is the woman who says she met grant on a dating app over Easter weekend in 2017. And then locked herself in a bedroom after she was drugged. A team of four from the AGs office met with all of the victims who would cooperate and they were unanimous in their findings. Though no one ever actually breaks the fourth wall and addresses the attending press. You can tell that everyone in court is carefully weighing their words. Everything is coded. Everything is loaded.
Which are the alleged victims. We refuse to speak with you.
You're very hesitant to name
just contain those who are not mine.
I am hesitant to state that we're happy to have those conversations in chambers. Because I don't want to I don't want it to seem as victims. Well,
you didn't put it your motion, didn't you? That some big completed.
But like I said, I'm happy to have this conversation. How
many? How many are there? It's not talked? Yeah.
There are two
was that because of unavailability or they chose not to talk to you or you don't know. You
chose not to speak.
Judge Bromberg asks for clarification. After speaking with five of the seven alleged victims, did the Attorney General's office believe that any of the women were lying about what they say happened to them in
interviewing the alleged victims of this case? And then reviewing the statements, for those that would not speak with you, and I'm sure you did that. If you and your team make an issue, make a determination as to the issue of credibility as to the alleged victim,
we made a determination as to prove.
Okay, I respect that. So in determining the issue of provability whether or not you can prove your case, would you agree credibility is a major factor or myth, credibility of witnesses can be a major factor. Yes. So you and your team make a determination of credibility as to one or more of the alleged victims of sexual lates to the provability of the case. Yeah, no. Okay. So you believe you did not you did not believe the alleged victims, prepayment.
We have no reason to believe that any of these victims are being untruthful. In general, that doesn't necessarily mean that that is a provable case.
So when you said you have no reason to believe any Are you referring to any of the victims there's not one alleged victim you believe was being untruthful is that correct? Okay. But statements have been given your mind that you cannot prove this torture.
Okay. All right.
Judge Bromberg takes it all in before making his decision, he's not granting the amendment, not just yet anyway, he wants more information count by count as to why the allegations made by five credible women wouldn't stand up in court.
Not looking for a 250 page brief. Hopefully, it will be very direct. And incredibly specific as to why you cannot believe you cannot prove your case. With that you may be giving the store away to a certain extent. But I don't know how I can even think or consider granting your motion. If you don't give me the information or the tools that I need to consider your concerns because you think about a year or so you have thought about as you are looking to dismiss every single allegation of sexual nature that resulted in a charge in the violation of California Penal Code, with the exception of the one that's in there now and how you want to modify that as to number six, okay. So that's what I need to know. And if you don't give me the information I need, and you're going to give it to me verbally in court. And that's just you wouldn't, but if you're looking to be cautious. So coughing up window, I need to see what you're talking about. There's a lot of state for the defendants, the alleged victims, and for the people, a lot of state and everyone's gonna be transparent about this. That's the only way I can do my job and make a determination. I can't do it any other way.
I watched the May 14 proceedings live with a sense of abject horror. And then I thought of Jane Doe for the woman who screams prompted neighbors to call 911 more than four years ago, trying to make sense of what we just heard. I texted her lawyer, Mike fell, wait for real, one charge. After all that. He called me on his way home from court. So another crazy eventful head scratching day in court for us civilians. But my sense in what the judge is saying basically, is that of the sex charges, the only one that they're advocating to go to trial is the one against Jane Doe six. Is that accurate?
Yeah, that is accurate. That's the Attorney General's position right now. But we're very much in a position that we were, you know, pre June 5. So as Yogi Berra says, it's almost like deja vu all over again. Right. Right. Because the judge is asking for briefs as to whether or not he should allow the attorney general's office to amend the complaint. And if he allows the Attorney General to amend the complaint, then you're right, Justine, six out of the seven victims will be dismissed.
And your victim is aware, I guess the Ag called you or her this week and told her of the position they were in?
Yes, yes. We actually had a meeting with the Attorney General last night and with my client, and her supervisor and her investigator. So yeah, I will tell you this, the Attorney General has really been wonderful about keeping us in the loop as to what's been going on. Not that we agree with her position, right. But she really has been wonderful about letting my client know what's going on. And just making sure that my client is aware of what's occurring in the proceedings.
But it's like the whole court knows, it felt like a knowing like, we know that all of this looks really bad. We know that none of these women are purposefully misleading anyone. And yet, we can't prove it. It's just a hard thing to kind of sift through your brain as a person who's been paying attention to this and watching it. It's sort of like, everyone's like, no, no, you're not lying. We're not saying that nothing bad happened to you. We just can't prove it. And it's a hard fact of how we judge these events and how we it's just it's hard to process.
Well, and that's why it's a head scratcher. And the disadvantage that I am in as a martial law attorney representing a victim in the case is that I am not privy to the same evidence that the prosecutor has and the same evidence that the defense attorney has. And that's why I said to the judge, exactly that I'm at a disadvantage. I I don't know what type of impeachment evidence the defense is talking about. I don't know if there's evidence that the prosecutor is relying upon to be able to make a determination that they can't prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. But my position is, then ask my client, then put her on the stand and try to impeach her. And let's hear what she has to say. So if their impeachment evidence is, well, you said the sky was black that day and the sky was blue. Let her explain why she believed the sky was black and whether or not that's an issue that goes against the fact that she was sexually assaulted or not.
Obviously, we were anticipating something a little different, or at least I was last week, what would you call this moment in that timeline of the case?
Great question. Put it this way. I'm very pleased. I'm pleased that the judge has taken this under submission in the fact that he wants everybody to be able to state what their position is, as to whether or not they should be forced to go forward. As you heard, the judge also talked a little bit about whether or not there's a special prosecutor, right, which potentially could be appointed. So again, there's more twists and turns. If I were to have to, I think the word that you said is, what do you call today, I would call today, more of the roller coaster ride.
It hadn't once occurred to me that what I just watched this new loop de loop on the never ending coaster ride could be interpreted as a positive thing. But then I remembered all of the tiny victories it took to get here.
And I just said, somebody's giant hill. It's sounds Frannie. And I've never heard anybody sound like that.
And please hurry.
We believe that a penance user good looks and charm to lower the inhibitions of their potential pray
new trouble for that reality show doctrine, his girlfriend charged with drugging and sexually assaulting multiple women.
There's a deep, I would say beyond grudge. I think there's a hatred between those two men. And it wasn't enough to beat Tony. I think Todd wanted to bury him.
insufficient evidence. That's the word from the new district attorney and dropping charges against a doctor. And as
Your Honor. Today, I not only wanted to detail what has happened to me since reporting this crime. But I also wanted the opportunity to respectfully request that the court take some time and consider not dismissing this case.
The long and the short of it is that I have serious questions about the district attorney's ability to prosecute this case at this point, I think that they are hopelessly conflicted. I am going to order the case be referred to the Attorney General's Office for prosecution. Do you think with obviously, kind of the larger Mewtwo movement? And maybe it's a sad testament to the fact that and the victims have kind of I mean, to some extent, they have not been the focus at all of this recently. Our goal
is to be able to have our clients take the stand and tell the jury what Mr. Rochelle and Miss Riley did to them, and to let that jury figure out what justice is.
Sex Crimes cases are not won by a landslide. They are won and lost by hanging chads. Here's what I know. In the upcoming weeks, the defense will argue that the court doesn't have the power to deny the amended complaint that a motion like that can only be denied when there is proof of some sort of ulterior motive or political conflict. They'll fight to move ahead on a sex charge that could corner their clients a 10 year prison sentence, because it means leaving the allegations of six others in the rear view. They'll revise your position as many times as necessary, like a video game whose universe reimagines itself, or a virus that learns the light money on fire to do it. They'll huff and puff. They'll try to blow this goddamn house right down. But one thing they can't deny is that a year ago, Judge Jones changed the course of this case forever by refusing to dismiss the case against grant Robicheaux and servicer Riley, and now it is one step closer to trial. One step closer to conviction. It has been rested from Todd's buzzers hands, it has been battered, but not broken. This case isn't just about seven women who say they were drugged and assaulted by a handsome couple in Newport Beach. It's another step forward in our collective deprogramming and a mighty blow to the powerful myths. We're all taught that women lie about this, that women cry rape to get back at men who rejected them, that women don't prey on other women. That any occasion where a man didn't assault a woman or properly understood the notion of consent, proof that a man is not capable of this behavior. We don't think that way about any other criminal activity. But when it comes to sexual assault, the inconsistency is just too upsetting to bear, a rapist, we tell ourselves cannot hide who he is. What we don't say is that he really doesn't have to the next court date and the people first rubbish Oh, and Riley is on the calendar for June 11 2021. At that time, all sides will discuss the briefs they've prepared. And then there will be a hearing after that, and likely another after that. The victims may eventually take the stand, and when they do, they will be asked to recall what happened to them as best they can. Through the fog of time and trauma and disbelief. In my head. Jennifer Kearns, a veteran investigator who spent 14 years advocating for sex crimes victims, and has been effectively gagged by the sitting District Attorney of Orange County is rooting for them to keep pushing the boulder uphill. Go, go. Go. It has been over 10 years since Jane Doe one says she was raped by Grant Robicheaux 10 years since she says a cocky medical resident looked a law student in the eye after forcing himself inside her and said we're having sex now. So there's no point in saying no anymore. Right before I filed this episode, I called Jane Doe one who is expecting her first child at the end of this month. I asked once more whether she might like to speak with me on the record about her experiences. And she said maybe one day, but not just yet. She knows if the AG is motion to amend is approved, she will no longer be involved with the case. She's good with that. She did what she came here to do two and a half years ago, when she heard on the news that her rapist might finally be punished for what he did. May 14 2021 She told me was a good day. Bottom line she said they want to move forward with at least one victim that's a win and we just need one to get a win.
OC swingers is an audio Chuck original executive produced by Ashley flowers and created written and recorded by me Justin Harmon. It was produced by Josh McLaughlin, editing and Sound Design by David flowers with additional research and fact checking by Barbara Kean. Special thanks to Michael Kerry and dipole and Anna Hendrick of quest investigates and Orrin Rosen bomb at Uta
Disclaimer: Content created by reNotes from the podcast transcript is an example only. reKnow does not own the original podcast and all content on this page, including content derived from the podcast, are the property of the podcast owner.