Cornell 7 Case EXPLODES in Courtroom Showdown

A pivotal day in court in the Cornell 7. cases. One of the accused tries to get. the attorney general removed as special. prosecutor in the investigation. And all. this as Netflix just dropped a brand new. documentary on this story. We're going. to get into that, the legal arguments, what to expect next, and what happened. in court with somebody who is in that. courtroom. Los Angeles magazines Lauren. Conlin. Welcome to Sidebar, presented by. Law and Crime. I'm Jesse Weber.

Okay, so there are a few big updates. that we're going to discuss in the. Cornell 7 case. First, there is a major. court hearing that happened that could. have massive implications for criminal. charges. And we're going to bring on Los. Angeles magazine's Lauren Conlin because. she was in that courtroom. She's going. to sort it all out for us. Number two, new Netflix documentary. Yeah. So, the. streaming giant just released a 36-inute. Instadoc series about a case that only. surfaced in the mainstream news about a. month and a half ago. It's called Jane.

Doe v. Cornell. Following synopsis. describes it, quote, "The explosive. lawsuit brought by Jane Doe, the former. Cornell University student who alleges. she was drugged and raped at the. school's Ki fraternity house in October. 2024, has sparked widespread protests. and a fervent national debate about how. colleges handle sexual assault. Instadoc's Jane Doe v. Cornell travels. to the center of that fallout as the. story continues to unfold and it. features interviews with New York. Governor Kathy Hokll, Jane Doe's. attorney, editors from the Cornell Daily.

Sun. Now, there's nothing that we can. see that Jane Doe participated or was a. part of this documentary. But just to. put it into context about where we are. here, right? So, you have Jane Doe, this. sarity member, former sorority member. says she was drugged, gang raped at this. fraternity Ki October 2024. Her civil. lawsuit was filed in September, named. seven fraternity brothers. All of them. deny the allegations. No one has. currently been criminally charged. The. local DA originally declined to pursue. charges, then announced plans to reopen.

the case. New York Governor Kathy Hokll. appointed the AG, Leticia James, to. investigate potential criminal charges. as a special prosecutor. More on that in. a minute. Big issue. And at the same. time, Cornell Senate faculty has moved. forward with a no confidence vote. against the university administration. This is as questions have surfaced about. campus leadership and President Michael. Kotlov's response to Jane Doe's. allegations. Now, before we even talk. about what happened in court, and I gave. you that context, I think it is.

important to go over the filing from one. of the accused because what's argued in. that filing is the main subject matter. of the court hearing. Okay. So in this. filing essentially attorneys for one of. the accused Gileia Lopes who's being. sued by Jane Doe argues that New York AG. James should be removed as the special. prosecutor in this case the person who. we'll see if criminal charges are. warranted. I'm going to summarize the. 26-page filing. So it basically begins.

by discussing the governor's power. After all it was New York Governor Kathy. Hokll who appointed James. And Lopes. argues that while a governor's power is. broad, it is quote not unfettered. And. you can't invoke that power to ignore. when there are issues of prosecutorial. bias. And that's what he's claiming. happened here. And they make the point. that a governor has to ensure that the. laws are faithfully executed. And here. they claim that's not happening. That. James has shown a bias. Here's the main. issue. Quote, "Before her appointment,

Attorney General James publicly stated. on the Attorney General office's. official account, what this young woman. has been forced to endure is horrific. and unacceptable. I'm holding her in my. heart and in my prayers. To her and to. all survivors, you're not alone. We. stand with you." By declaring what Jane. Doe has been forced to endure and. characterizing her as a survivor, the. attorney general treated the alleged. assault as an established crime before. conducting the proposed independent. unbiased investigation she was.

subsequently appointed to undertake. Her. declaration that we stand with you. further aligned her and her office with. Jane Do's account. Respondents. classification of these words as mere. empathy fails to confront their. substance. The statement publicly. declared as true. the underlying. allegations that the attorney general's. independent unbiased investigation was. supposed to evaluate. So, in other. words, a prosecutor can't prejudge a. case before reviewing any of the. evidence. Essentially, you can't make. what is supposed to be an objective.

independent investigation into what they. call a foregone conclusion. And Lopes. argues that AG James is prejudging the. same allegations that make up Jane Doe's. lawsuit. quote, "A prosecutor cannot. wield the criminal power of the state. while maintaining a competing commitment. to vindicate a private civil litigance. allegations, meaning Jane Doe's. allegations." So, first, Lopes argues. that his claims are what we call in the. law justable, meaning they can be heard. and decided by a court. It's not about a.

governor appointing an AG to do this. That's not what he's arguing. It's not. about how a prosecutor should conduct. the investigation. That's not what. they're arguing. It's about questioning. the AG's qualifications to carry out. this specific task, an objective task, and how a court can legally get involved. to ensure that someone's rights or a. legal obligation is enforced. As. somebody who does multiple sidebars a. day, do you hate the inevitable energy. crash after having your morning coffee? Hey, coffees. That's why I got to tell.

you about our sponsor, Veracity. Why? Veracity is an allnatural way to reduce. cravings and get energized and sharpen. your focus with no side effects. They. are revolutionizing health by tackling. the root cause of so many issues. You. know what that is? Metabolism. Yeah. You. can support your body and live your. healthiest life with Veracity's. drug-free, clinically proven, and doctor. formulated solutions. Because when your. blood sugar spikes and crashes, everything suffers. And Veracity's. metabolism ignite containing lemon. verbena, habiscus extracts, green coffee.

bean extract, magnesium. It helps your. body process glucose more efficiently. and improves insulin sensitivity. The. result is stable, steady energy. throughout the day. The best part is you. just take two capsules every morning. You're adding metabolism Ignite to your. routine. It's really so simple. So. before Metabolism Ignite sells out. again, control your cravings, boost your. energy the natural way. Head on over to. veracityhealth.co. Use code sidebar for up to 65% off your. order. Once again, that's vircyhealth.co.

co for up to 65% off and make sure you. use my promo code sidebar so that they. know that I sent you. Quote, "Petitioner's concern is concrete. The. official entrusted with an independent. investigation has already publicly made. a determination of the facts by. accepting those version of events before. undertaking that investigation in. accordance with principles of due. process and emphasizing how the concern. is that this quote creates a substantial. risk of prejudice to petitioner." And. Lope says, look, disqualifying a. prosecutor, yes, it can be a high.

burden, showing maybe actual prejudice. or something that creates a sufficiently. serious risk. But here, he argues Hokll. and James can't just wipe that aside. Quote, whether that public commitment. establishes the exceptional risk of. prejudice required for disqualification. is a legal question that respondents, meaning James and Hokll, cannot answer. merely by stating that the governor. possesses superseded authority. And this. is where Lopes also seemingly takes a. jab at Hokll saying quote the governor.

referred to the allegations as quote. nothing short of horrifying and. expressed support for the district. attorney's decision to reopen the. criminal investigation. Notwithstanding. her stated support of the local DA. The. governor appointed attorney general. James despite her express prejudgment. which mirrors the reason the governor. inserted herself in this matter in the. first place. So basically making the. argument they're both biased that James. made these comments and the governor. nonetheless appointed her. And Lopes. pushes back on the counterargument of.

well if you get the courts involved here. that's tramping on the authority of the. legislature that originally granted this. power to the governor to appoint an AG. for this investigation. And Lope says no. no no no no the law gives the governor. power to act. It doesn't shield the. prosecutor from being disqualified. What. about the argument? Well, Lopes can't. get rid of the AG, a special prosecutor, because he hasn't been charged. It's too. early. It's too premature. There's no. charges. There's no indictments. There's. no arrests. Lope says, well, she's.

already leading the investigation. Quote, "The alleged harm here is. substantial and directly concerns. petitioner. He is a named defendant in. the civil action containing allegations. attorney general James has been. appointed to investigate. Her assessment. of witnesses and decisions about which. evidence to pursue will shape the case. against him before any charges are. filed. The basis for the claim. disqualification also already exists. because the statement establishes. disqualifying prejudgment. The problem. arises when she directs the.

investigation, not only if she later. obtains an indictment, the alleged. prejudice likewise concerns decisions. made before indictment. Attorney General. James authority encompasses the. assessment of witnesses, selection of. evidence, and direction of the. investigation. If a prior statement. establishes a disqualifying prejudgment, waiting until those decisions have. shaped the record would render a later. review futile. And then there's a whole. legal discussion about how Lopes has. what's called an individualized injury, implicates legal protections. There's. also a discussion kind of over.

jurisdiction and who can hear. disqualification issues. I'm going to. skip all over that. But here's the part. where Lopes addresses the substance of. James' comments. Because if you accept. that, okay, she could be disqualified. for comments. The question is, should. she be? So, it seems Hokll and James, their attorneys, their side has been, well, this was James just expressing. empathy, not taking a position on the. case. But Lopes argues the wording of. the statement matters. Attorney General.

James described what do has been forced. to endure. Addressed her together with. all survivors declared, "We stand with. you." Petitioner contends that these. words communicated acceptance of Do's. account before A.G. James received. responsibility for evaluating it. The. concern is the relationship between that. expressed credibility judgment and her. subsequent authority to assess the same. complaintant, weigh contradictory. evidence, and determine whether charges. are warranted. EO64, that's the. governor's executive order that was used. to appoint a special prosecutor here, identifies the need for an objective.

review and expressly addresses the. public perception of conflict or bias. Yet, the official selected to restore. that confidence had already publicly. endorsed the complaintant's account. Petitioner submits that placing the. investigation under her control carries. forward the very concern about. prejudgment that an independent review. was intended to address. A later promise. of fairness does not by itself dispel. that concern. And then there's some. discussion on case law. I'm not going to. bore you with that, but you get the. gist, right? Lopes is asking the court. to enull the executive order appointing. James, disqualify James from serving as.

special prosecutor. They also offer an. alternative option to prohibit A.G. James from personally participating in, directing or supervising the. investigation or any resulting. prosecution together with appropriate. safeguards to ensure independent. prosecutorial judgment. By the way, Hokll has defended her decision to. appoint James. She said in a statement, "I have every confidence in our AG to do. what she has always done. Look at the. facts, examine the record, and draw the. proper conclusions." That's exactly. what's going to happen in this case. And.

then there was a hearing about this. yesterday. And then this is where I. bring in Lauren Conlin, podcaster, reporter, host, the East Coast. contributor to Los Angeles magazine. My. good friend. Good to see you, Lauren. It's been a minute. Uh, thank you so. much for coming on. By the way, your. reporting on this terrific, terrific. I. encourage everybody to follow you on X. I encourage everybody to follow when you. do these writeups for Los Angeles. magazine. So detailed, so descriptive, so clear. Um, and including what's. happening here because I think there's a. lot at stake. Now, before we even talk.

about what happened in court, and you. were in there, you're our eyes and ears. I want to talk about Gillio Lopes. His. attorney Andrew Miltonberg spoke outside. the courtroom. Okay. And one of the. things he spoke about was the Netflix. documentary. Let's just start there. What did he say about the Netflix. documentary? >> Well, Jesse, I was shocked because I. thought the attorneys at least would. have been asked for a comment about the. Netflix doc, but actually Miltonberg.

told us that not only was he not asked. for a comment, he found out about it. that day. The day that we all found out. about it, he did as well. and his. partner Stuart Bernstein. I I spoke to. him before before court and he he found. out I mean within the last five minutes. of of them walking into the Sullivan. County courthouse. So I have not seen. the documentary yet. I have only seen a. uh a trailer for it. But from watching.

the trailer I I just see Kathy Hokll. I. see Jane Doe's attorney. I see the. Cornell son. And given what we've we've. learned, I want to say in the last two. weeks, Jane Doe's attorney, Tom Ju, he. filed this scathing motion to the state. judge in the civil case, really coming. down on the defense attorneys for for. speaking to the media and and giving all. of these interviews. And he said in this. motion, he said he only did interviews. uh in in response to the defense.

attorneys. So seeing him on this Netflix. doc, I I was confused. I was like, "Wait, so when did you do this? Who who. were you, you know what I mean? Which. defense attorney were you uh you know, speaking out to when you when you did. this?" Because it just it just seems. like we're we're we're jumping the gun a. little bit. Although I I have not seen I. have not seen the dock yet. So. >> I I haven't seen it either. But look, it's a quick turnaround from a story. that really broke about a month and a.

half ago. And just to be clear from what. I've seen, I don't know if you're. reporting you saw something different. Jane Doe herself, did she participate in. this documentary in any way? I didn't. see anything to suggest she did. >> I I did not either. I did not. And I I. also will point out that some of the, you know, this is it's a very layered. case right now because we're talking. about a criminal investigation and and a. criminal case that doesn't exactly exist. yet because there hasn't been an. indictment, but we've got this civil. case and um you know, we've got we've.

got motions from a defendant to a I want. to say a theoretical grand jury judge. I. mean, there's there's so much going on, but one of the seven men, it was Diego. Sarabia, his team officially filed a. motion to uh dismiss him from the civil. lawsuit. And one of their biggest. arguments there was that all seven men. are being grouped into the the same. category of misconduct. And in Diego. Sarabia's case, his attorney was saying,

and look, I just want to also preface. like this behavior is vile. I can't even. begin to um express my disgust about the. text thread, you know. So, I'm not. defending any of this, but I'm saying. Diego Sarabia, his attorney said, "Well, he allegedly just snorted ketamine off. of her body and he kissed her without. consent and he walked out, but they're. grouping him in to this sexual assault.". So, I think that a lot of this and and.

uh this the seven men involved, they all. have much different culpability or. alleged culpability, I should say. So, I. think that to me, that's what I would. would worry about in in a documentary. like this. Do you know what I mean? Like. everyone's grouped into. >> Well, they say the Cornell 7, right? It's the Cornell 7. It's like is it just. to be clear as far as you know before we. get into what happened with court Lopes. himself do you know what he's accused of. specifically doing. >> Lopes I so to to my knowledge Lopes did.

not uh participate in any intercourse or. alleged assault. I think he was also one. of the uh the young men that that may. have snorted the the ketamine off her. body. Um, so and the thing is like. there's not like I I was able to get a. lot of uh interesting Title 9. information um from Scott Crutch because. he has a a petition out, an article 78. petition and and getting the entire.

record wiped basically um from Cornell. because he says that he was basically. charged or not charged, he was found. guilty of attempted sexual exploitation, meaning he sent one of the text. messages. He went into the room and he. didn't help Jane do. But his argument is. that he wants that expuned from his. record because he was never accused of. attempted sexual exploitation. Um, so he. couldn't defend himself against it. So, we don't know quite everything when it.

comes to each defendant unless, you. know, you really dig into some of these. documents that are readily available or. publicly available. >> I I appreciate making that distinction. So, let's talk about what happened in. court. Stuart Bernstein, who represents. Lopes, one of Lopee's attorneys, started. off, what did he say? >> So, he he made a a lot of sense, Jesse. He has a a background as being a. prosecutor, and he just basically said, "It was my honor to represent the people. at one point, and he he said all.

people." And Tish James at this moment, she because of this statement is not. representing quote all people. and he, you know, he wanted to make it clear he. wasn't coming after her as a whole. He. wasn't coming after her authority as a. whole. It was just specific to this. case. And what he did, um, you know, he. he used some of their their defense in. saying this was an empathetic statement. Well, he also pointed out that Tis James.

herself, there's been no declaration. from her. You know, she hasn't said. anything. She refuses to comment on it. But he pointed out that this is not an. empathetic statement. It appears if you. break down her statement, she's taking. every allegation as fact. He said. there's three specific parts. Quote, "What happened or or what this young. woman has been forced to endure?" He. broke that down and said, "Look, she's. accepted that it did happen." And then.

when he read the next part, I'm I'm. holding her in my heart. He said, "AG. James is making this personal, holding. her in my heart. She's not saying crime. is bad, assault is bad. This is. personal." And then he goes into saying, you know, the part where James says to. her and all survivors. And then he says, "AG James has already made this decision. that something has happened to this. woman and she is one of the most highest.

or or the most uh I think you know. legally the highest ranking official in. New York State and she should not be. making any statement like that. Not at. all." And then he kind of says he calls. Kathy hypocrite and I'm paraphrasing uh. Kathy Hokll a hypocrite because you know. Hokll when the DA said okay we're going. to reopen this case. We're going to. reopen the investigation. He said this. on September 28th and that's right. around when Tish made the statement if. not the same day. Well, on October 1st,

Pok puts forth the executive order that. she is appointing James, and she says, "Concerns have been raised by both Jane. Doe and the public that this incident. cannot be fully and thoroughly. investigated or prosecuted without. conflict or bias or the public. perception of bias." And then Bernstein. says, "She has shown that she's shown bias.". now. And then he starts to read. >> from uh the the comments under that.

post, which also attaches James's social. media post where people say, "Oh, so. much for the presumption of innocence.". And he said, "Your honor, that's the. public. That's the public speaking.". >> Got to say something real quick. For. anybody who's been supporting me over. the years, supporting the projects I've. been a part of, first of all, you guys. are amazing. Thank you so much. We have. the best fan base. But I thought, why. don't we do something? Why don't we do. something different? Why don't we switch. things up? Why don't you ask me the. questions for a change? Yeah. So, what. we're doing is we're giving some fans. the chance to meet with me virtually,

one-on-one, to ask me anything. Ask me. about the cases I've covered behind the. scenes at Sidebar, Prime Crime, really. anything you've always wanted to know. So, to enter, you sign up for Long Crime. Plus. You click the link below, you. submit your questions for a chance to be. featured in an exclusive Just Ask Jesse. special. It's the week of Thanksgiving. And right now, by the way, you get 25%. off an annual Long Crime Plus. subscription with promo code Just Ask. Jesse. It's just $44.99 for the entire. year. So hopefully you can join me. I'm. really looking forward to it and I'll. see you then. But also, I thought it was.

interesting they're making the legal. argument because it's a question of how. much should the court get involved in. this, right? A governor has the legal. authority to appoint a special. prosecutor, but they're saying, "Look, we're not asking the court to supervise. an investigation. We're asking for A.G. James to be removed from this for the. governor to pick somebody else." I. thought there was an interesting part. and I read from your reporting where the. judge asked Bernstein, "Do you know if. there's a grand jury? Has there been a. grand jury right in the criminal case or. potential criminal case?". >> Well, so this is this was strange to me.

as well because I was not letting this. go at outside of court either. And I. mean, look, Jesse, you you know that. obviously a grand jury is dictated and. directed by the prosecutors, by the DA's. office. But at times, if a defendant. knows about this, they can submit. evidence. No. And and the prosecution. can use it or they can't use it. But I I. was under the impression everybody knew. that a grand jury was being convened.

here, especially since there was this. filing from Winston Lee's attorney kind. of saying, you know, we know there's a. grand jury being convened, but we don't. agree with Tish James being the one to. oversee all of this. So, the fact that. Bernstein was kind of up there being. like, well, yeah, like we kind of know. about it, but we don't know the details. We don't know a filing number. We don't. know anything like that. I mean, they. they kind of just moved on from that. rather quickly, I guess. And then when I. asked Miltonberg this outside, he kind. of looked at Bernstein and they just.

were like, "We we're not talking about. this. We don't know." So, I was like, "Okay, I guess I'll I'll stop.". >> Yeah. Cuz they're civil attorneys. They. probably don't want to say. And then, by. the way, if there is an indictment, I. mean, it completely completely throws. the schedule of a civil case, you know, into a muck because sometimes you'll. pause that civil case while the criminal. case goes ahead. Um, and by the way, if. Jane Doe testifies in a criminal case, you know, she's going to be asked about. her civil case, right? You know, are you. doing this for money? >> Oh my gosh. And she h she she has to.

testifi, you know, you think about this. and Jesse, you know, just like I do, Alexander Brothers, Harvey Weinstein, the I I and I hate the word complaining. witness. Well, you know, and I know. everyone gets, you know, survivor, victim, complaining witness, accuser, I. don't know. There's so many terms, but. we'll say the survivor gets on the. stand. She has to testify. And I think. the biggest hurdle here and what's. happening now with these cases, because. it's not black and white, we are now. seeing these cases that happened 10.

years ago that have a paper trail of. survivors communicating with their. abusers. and and then we have we have uh. experts on the stand that basically say. there's no wrong way or right way for a. survivor to act. So when they are on the. stand, it's almost like they're the one. on trial. So it's it's a really tough. situation and you kind of understand why. women don't necessarily want to come. forward anymore. Um and and I'm not.

saying one way or another that you know. XYZ didn't happen. This is just. something I thought about recently. It's. just like why would anyone want to come. forward when everything is scrutinized, you know? >> Well, that's there's two parts to that. That's why Cornell is under. investigation, right? I mean, if it. wasn't didn't create an atmosphere where. someone could come forward with sexual. assault allegations, that's why you're. having a no confidence vote and maybe. why you're seeing a change in the way. they handle this moving forward. Having. said that, all these guys are innocent. unless proven guilty. They haven't been. charged with a crime and there is, you.

know, there are questions about her. credibility. We've talked about this. regarding the text messages, but it also. says at the same time, like you said, this isn't sometimes not a cleancut. case, and there can be complications. I. saw it in the Harvey Weinstein case. where there was questions, well, if this. person assaulted you, why would you say. you love them? Why would you say you. you'd stay in contact with them? It it. it becomes a very very complicated. analysis and it's quite gray and and. that's, you know, a separate issue to. what's happening here because if AG. James is removed from this. investigation, that is also going to.

have big ramifications. Now, before I. get into the the part about and this is. significant about why the other. defendants didn't join in on this. motion. Yes. To have to We'll put that. to the side for a second because the. judge had a statement about that. I. understand. Let's just go really quick. to what Andrew Miltonberg said in court. What was his argument to the judge and. what did the judge say to Andrew. Miltonberg? And this also this was. confusing to me I guess as well because. you think about it and and the judge you.

know brings this up about the the joiner. and that's what he he kind of focused on. with Miltonberg and uh Miltonberg kind. of said you know whether it affects five. of the seven three of the seven whatever. it is whether the court determines the. statements made by AG James will take. her out of the case or determine she can. continue well this is a statewide issue. as we see it there's no competing or or. pending litigation on this particular. issue. And he just said, you know, it.

was very and I appreciate this. I see. this a lot from uh attorney Marko in. court. And and the reason I appreciate. this is because they speak in lay terms. and and they just put things in a. perspective, not necessarily uh in terms. of the law, but he's just like, "Judge, how would you feel? How would you feel. if you're one of these seven men and. Tish James stays on the case after. making these statements after Hokll made. these statements as well? Would you feel. that you're you're getting a a fair and.

and impartial investigation? Cuz cuz I. sure wouldn't. Miltonberg said the facts. don't change and the facts are accepted. by the AG. I thought that was very very. powerful that they're you know what I. mean? The facts are already accepted. At. least that's what it seems like. Oh, you. know what else came up? the venue came. up a lot too and and this has also come. up in the the civil case because there. was some kind of motion to change the. venue from Manhattan to Tomkins County, but yesterday we were in Sullivan County.

which um you know the the judge was kind. of just like why are we here again? And. their their argument was well this is. where you know this is where the the. statement was was put out into the. world. This is where it was created. So. I'm skipping ahead a little bit but. Caitlyn Vigars for going to she spoke on. behalf of James and Hogan. What What did. she say? >> Yes. So, I will say Judge Frell came. down pretty hard on her and Jesse at. this moment and court I I swear you. really you could hear a pin drop because.

he started focusing on the social media. post and he said, "Did Governor Hokll. know about James' social media post when. she appointed her as special. prosecutor?" And Viger said the governor. was aware of the statement but. nevertheless exercised her discretion to. appoint James. Then he got into more. detail where he said, "Well, did did the. AG stand next to the governor during the. October 2nd press conference when Hokll.

made statements such as quote, this. woman, and this is from Hokll, this. young woman has already endured. something that is utterly unspeakable.". And then he repeated himself. Was James. standing next to the governor when she. made those remarks and Viger said yes. And I in my notes I actually wrote down. I didn't catch what he said but he. looked unimpressed. But I will just go. back to to the crux of of her argument. Um she cited some case law Mulroy versus.

Kerry which basically affirmed a. governor's authority to replace a local. district attorney with an AG while. leaving open the possibility of judicial. intervention in certain circumstances. Her whole argument is that the governor. has this authority. she can do whatever. she wants and it not I mean I'm. paraphrasing here and it's really it's. it's not up to to number one this civil. attorney who by the way she's pointing. out there's not even a criminal case yet.

so what are we doing here and then she. points out well if this results in an. indictment there are other legal avenues. for them to fight it which I get what. she's saying and that's true for me if. that's my son I don't want a criminal. indictment out there I don't want him to. face that and you Yeah, she's basically. saying like it's a standing issue, right? He hasn't been harmed yet. It's. too spect Yeah, it's too premature. And. yeah, there could be a legal avenue. If. he's indicted, he could file a motion to. dismiss the indictment because of AG. James' comments or the I know the judges.

even said, well, if he's convicted, it. could be an appellet issue, but then. there's other argument. You're getting. ahead of it, isn't it? The the sanctity, the integrity of the investigation. itself, why not get out ahead of it? And. I get I get I hear both arguments and. and to be clear to be clear so everybody. knows Judge Farrell didn't make a. decision on this. Didn't make a decision. on whether to remove or has the ability. or the authority to remove A.G. James. from this case. But you were in that. courtroom. Do you get a sense of which. way the judge is going to lean?

So if we just quickly go back to the. joiner issue, I would say that was his. biggest issue with the defense in terms. of what I mentioned with Miltonberg. where he basically said, well, where are. the other defendants? Like so if let's. say. >> like why aren't they a part of this. request to get AG because he said let's. say I agree with you. So what she's off. off Lopes's case but then the six others. have Yeah. So, you know, Miltonberg, they didn't have any kind of argument as.

to why or or why not they weren't. involved. He just said, you know, it it. wasn't anything strategic. We just we. don't think they're going to have any. type of issue with this. However, at the. end of of the hearing, the judge did. give them additional time until November. 5th for to to get this supplemental. information with the other six. So that. is I think I mean and and the state was. against that. They just said we don't. want to drag this out any further so. we'd prefer you know no more time and.

the judge is like November 5th you have. until then. and Miltonberg seemed very. very confident in in getting the other. six men on board and and I don't see why. you know why they wouldn't but. >> there was there first of all I also. think there might have been a legal. obligation to serve them and say hey. request them be joined to this uh motion. um and I'm curious about that as well. but also at the same time like I guess. if the judge felt there's absolutely. nothing here he would have said forget.

doesn't matter whether you have all them. a part of it or not this there's here, but it seems like a little bit. Yeah, it. seems like a little opening. >> I agree. So, again, going back to what. you asked me, the way he was so. unimpressed about this social media post. and then hocal statements after the. fact. Um, in terms of what she said. about the public being concerned about a. fair investigation and then she's saying. this stuff and appointing someone who. wrote that social media post, he's just.

like, I don't I don't understand, guys. like this is not proper for a prosecutor. to say and Vikers actually argued. against that saying well and going back. to I think we said this offline but she. basically said no prosecutors can can. speak like this in so many words and I'm. paraphrasing but as you said. >> you speak like that once the. indictment's been dropped right that's. when that's when you say whatever. >> for for anybody who follows this show. you know we've covered press conferences. where a prosecutor comes out talks about.

the indictment talks about the charges. is makes a comment about the alleged. victims in the case. You've seen it, but. it happens after they're charged. It. happened after the indictment. What. James has done is created an issue where. there was a public statement that was. made before she was even assigned to the. case, before there was even a review of. the evidence. And this is something. she's been accused of doing in the past. And that's what creates such a problem. That's what creates a possibly tainted. investigation that can be used by a.

defendant. And by the way, for all of. the anybody out there saying, "Well, you. seem awfully sympathetic, right, to to. to the defendants here, I will just say. for those of you who believe that these. defendants are guilty, and I've said. this before in other cases, those are. the cases where you need to make sure. that prosecutors dot the eyes, cross the. tees, give a defendant every right that. they have because the last thing you. want, and I'm not making comparison. here, but I talked about this before in. the Coberger case, you don't want a situ.

situation where you go through a trial, there's a conviction and then that could. be overturned. Right? So, this is a. problem here where you don't want a. tainted investigation from the. beginning. You want it to be objective. and impartial so that it's purely about. the facts and the evidence and an. impartial jury and they ultimately. decide. >> Jesse, you you said it so perfectly and. I feel like your audience um your. audience is is super sharp, super with. it and I think they understand that no. one is is defending we're defending the. the Constitution.

as cliched. writing this story about these First. Amendment battles that we're having with. with prosecutors and with attorneys and. and again it started with with you know. Jane Doe. That's what made me kind of. think about this with with her. attorney's motion. And I got into sort. of the the federal gambling NBA mafia. case and there was a big one with Terry.

Rosier's attorneys and and the. prosecutors and the prosecutors just. accused them of speaking out in the. media, whatever. And and the defense. their response was basically it was so. fiery. It was this this sassy motion. where they just copied and pasted. everything that Cash Patel said from the. start. everything that you know it was. just it was it was very good. It was. very very good and and I just find both. sides to be you know yapping and talking. out of both sides of their mouth. So.

it's just it's really interesting to me. I'm I just I find it all fascinating. >> It's an interesting legal situation. that's developing from a number of. different angles. And again you have you. have this internal investigation or. Cornell looking at the response. You. have this civil case. You have a. potential uh criminal case. And the. allegations are are very very serious. here. and there's a lot on the line. So, um it's comments like this that uh are. now under question and we'll see we'll. see if the judge a has the authority to. remove AG James and would actually do. that. But Lauren Cottonland, excellent,

excellent, excellent reporting on this. I always follow you and I always. appreciate. Thanks for taking the time. >> Thank you so much for having me. This. was a nice discussion. Thank you. And. >> that's all we have for you right now. here on Sidebar, everybody. Thank you so. much for joining us. I'm Jesse Weber. Speak to you next time.