Shocking Twist in Doctor Drano Poisoning Case

We are breaking down the shocking. development in the case of the. California [music] dermatologist accused. of poisoning her husband with liquid. drain cleaner. [music] A court just. threw out the case for now. I'm going to. get into the history. I'm going to get. into the legal reasoning. I'm going to. give my opinion because this decision, [music] in my view, presents a much. larger issue in the cases that we. follow. Let's talk about it. Welcome to. Sidebar, presented by Law & Crime. I'm. Jesse Weber. All right, before I jump into this, I.

got to tell you about this app, this. sponsor, [music] this partner. I think. you're going to love it. It is called. Upside. Now, Upside gets you cash back. That's right, extra cash back on. everyday purchases like gas, groceries, takeout. Here's what you do. You. download Upside for free. You claim an. offer at one of their 100,000-plus. locations. You pay like normal with your. card. You verify the purchase. And just. like that, money back. So, say I need to. get gas or I want takeout one night, I'll search for Upside offers first. And. after I spend, money appears in my app. that I can transfer right into my bank. account. frequent users earn an average.

of $254. back a year. So, to start getting your. cash back, click the link in the. description or scan the QR code. But. make sure to use promo code Sidebar to. get an extra 25 cents bonus on every. gallon on your first tank of gas. Why. did a court throw out the felony charges. against a California dermatologist. accused of poisoning her husband's. drink, iced tea, lemonade, with drain. cleaner? Especially when there was an. alleged video of her doing this. Seems. like a pretty strong case just in the.

outset when I say that, right? Seems. like a pretty strong case to send to a. jury, right? Maybe, maybe not. But I'm. going to break down the why because it. has bigger implications than just this. case. When I go through why it has been. dismissed for now, this reflects. something that I've talked about before, something very important in how we cover. these cases. And especially, especially. in the cases where the evidence may. appear or can be argued to be quite. strong. Got to follow the process. Got.

to follow the procedure. Make sure you. grant a criminal defendant every right. they are entitled to. Otherwise, the. charges can get thrown out. The. conviction can be overturned. Now, as. you're also going to see, there's a. little bit of a dispute as to what. happened here. A lot of moving layers, a. lot of moving pieces. I want to get into. it. So, let me explain why it's so. important. Let me explain what happened, but I got to go before this, right? I. got to give you context. I got to give. you background. Back on April 5th, 2023, an Orange County Grand Jury indicted.

then 45-year-old You Emily You on. charges of poisoning and domestic. battery with corporal injury. She had. pleaded not guilty. The charges had. stemmed from allegations that over the. course of several weeks, she allegedly. had been tainting her husband, radiologist Jack Chen's beverages, tea, lemonade, with liquid drain cleaner, and. that this resulted in him suffering. stomach ulcers. She was facing up to 8. years and 8 months if convicted back on.

those charges. You're going to see a. little bit of a change there. Now, according to the Orange County DA's. office, back in April of 2022, You's. husband started noticing that there was. this strange taste to his tea, which. apparently he would drink daily. And. according to CNN in court documents, Chen had alleged, quote, "I started. noticing a chemical taste in my. lemonade. Eventually, I developed. symptoms that had me see the doctor who. performed an examination and diagnosed. me with two stomach ulcers, gastritis,

and esophagitis." So, what did he do? He. reportedly sets up cameras in the. kitchen area to find out what's going. on. And according to investigators, on. July 11th, July 18th, and July 25th, 2022, so three separate alleged. incidents, video reportedly shows his. wife pouring a substance out of a liquid. drain cleaner bottle into Mr. Chen's tea. or drink on the counter. Now, according. to CNN, Chen claimed that he noticed in.

a video that his hot lemonade was. covered with plastic wrap and that the. video allegedly shows her quote taking. the Drano from under the sink, removing. the covering to pour the Drano, and then. replacing the cellophane and putting the. Drano back. The husband then allegedly. collects the samples of this drink, of. the tea, of the lemonade, and gave them. to the Irvine Police Department. And the. samples were then reportedly sent over. to the FBI for official testing. And.

according to the DA's office, those. samples, according to the FBI, turned. out to be liquid drain cleaner. So, what. happens? Yu was arrested in August of. 2022. At the time, Orange County DA Todd. Spitzer released a statement. It said, quote, "Our home should be where we feel. the safest. Yet, a licensed medical. professional capitalized on her. husband's daily rituals to torment her. husband by systematically plying his tea. with a Drano-like substance intending to. cause him pain and suffering. Thank you. to the Irvine Police Department for its.

diligence in thoroughly investigating. this case, and to Deputy District. Attorney Diana King for her. conscientious legal review that allowed. the case to be successfully presented to. the grand jury for an indictment.". interesting because I'm sure the. argument would be she knew his schedule, she knew when they say ritual, she knew. what he liked to drink, when he drank. it, right? That would go into the. prosecution's argument. At the time, the. police said Chen, quote, "sustained. significant internal injuries, but is. expected to recover." By the way, apparently Yu, the defendant here, still.

maintains an active medical license out. in California. And according to the. Daily Journal, she performs micrographic. surgery on skin cancer patients. Her. defense says she's a very esteemed, renowned dermatologist. So, now the. question would be why would she. allegedly do this, right? According to. Court TV and ABC News, in an application. for a restraining order between the. couple because Chen had claimed that Yu. and her mother were abusive. And the. couple apparently have two children.

together. Chen was seeking sole custody. In this application, he apparently. wrote, quote, "Not only was she very. demanding of me that I give her. massages. One time when I could not. because I was sick, she stepped on my. head until I did and also began hiding. money from me." Yu's attorneys have. fought back against this. They have. fought back against this narrative. They. claim that she's innocent, that she. never tried to harm her husband, that. this all stems from a bitter bad divorce. between the couple, that Chen had.

allegedly orchestrated all these claims, these allegations, quote, "in a. deliberate attempt to gain advantage in. family court proceedings. The strategy. succeeded in the most painful dimension. Due to the charges, our client has been. separated from her children for years.". End quote. Now, what's the defense, right? You see it on video, right? What's the defense? Well, this is. interesting. According to the New York. Post and CNN, Yu's defense team claimed, "Wait a second. She was just pouring. this liquid cleaner to kill the ants in. the kitchen. That the family would mix.

the Drano with lemonade, the tea, to do. so. Lure them in, kill them." And that. Chen, you know, the injuries that he. allegedly suffered, that he was. suffering from acid reflux, not. poisoning. CNN reports that Yu's defense. team even claimed that Chen never went. to the emergency room. So, her defense. attorney, Scott Simmons, said, "He's. falsely claiming that she's trying to. poison him. Instead of calling 911, he. calls a divorce lawyer." Simmons said in. 2023, "It's our opinion that the medical. evidence is inconsistent with his claim.

that he consumed the Drano. As you know, Drano is a caustic substance. You would. have severe injuries from consuming the. Drano. The injuries that he claims are. from the Drano, we think the evidence. will show that is consistent with what's. known as GERD or acid reflux. By the. way, before you even get to what just. happened and why, right, the case being. dismissed for now, cuz you'll see how it. might come back. You're also going to. see there's a difference of opinion. about why the case was dismissed, but. this is very important to note. This is. not the first time we have seen an.

upheaval in this case. What do I mean? Back in January of this year, the DA's. office actually filed a motion to. dismiss the case because they wanted to. add another charge, this attempted. poisoning charge. And there was an issue. about an important witness who. apparently couldn't show up for the. first day of trial, so they dismissed. it. So you had a second grand jury who. had to be impaneled. They were presented. with the evidence, and that's the key. there. What happened in the second grand. jury has just come back again right now.

It is what reportedly happened with that. second grand jury that is the reason. these charges were now dismissed. And. actually, before I even get into that, my colleague, Sierra Gillespie, host. scandal, talked about what happened when. the case was first dismissed back in. January because of this issue with a. witness. I just want to play this for. you real quick. Gives you good context. as we talk about what just happened. >> In the final hour, things kind of get. switched up a bit because when a key. witness is supposed to testify, their. schedule does not allow it. Can you.

explain all of this to me? Why the. charges would be dismissed if they're. just going to be refiled? I mean, would. that witness really be that important? >> Well, first of all, sounds like the. witness is going to be important. They're a vital witness, so much so that. for the time being, what they're going. to do is they're filing a motion to. dismiss the case. And, you know, each. case is different, but typically. speaking, you're dealing with a. misdemeanor case, you have a certain. period of time to bring the case back. If you're dealing with a felony case, you can bring the case back as long as. you're not done with the statute of.

limitations. Um and so, basically, they're going to do the technicality of. dismissing the case and then refiling. At least that's what they're saying that. they're going to do. Now, meanwhile back. at the ranch, I don't know if there's. any conversations going on in the. backdrop here, where this woman is like, "Listen, you know, this is ultimately. going to be a problem. I don't you know, I don't know that you're going to beat. this case." Or if any of those. discussions happened. So, I'm not sure. how long it's going to be continued, etc. But I wouldn't be surprised if. there were some conversations in the. meantime, because they really seem to. have her dead to rights. But technically.

speaking, it's not unusual for a DA, for. one reason or another, to dismiss a case. for the time being, because you're. supposed to answer ready for trial on. trial day. So, something obviously. unfortunate and then unforeseen has. happened, where a key witness can't be a. part of it. And so, there's a dismissal. um for the time being, but the case can. still be brought back. >> And yes, it was brought back. That's. what happened. It was refiled. It was. presented to a second grand jury. A. superseding indictment came out of that. According to the Daily Journal, the. second grand jury returned an indictment.

on the following charges. Count one, alleged domestic battery resulting in. corporal injury between March 1st and. June 25th, 2022. Three poisoning. charges, three attempted poisoning. charges tied to July 11th, 18th, 25th, 2022. And apparently, this grand jury, the second grand jury, heard testimony. from nine witnesses, including an FBI. chemistry unit chemist, Jason Brewer, Irvine Police Department crime scene. investigator Shannon Goldsmith,

Detective John Sanders, and physicians. Patricia Sai and Brian Riff. So now, let's circle back. Now, let's go to what. we're talking about here. Why was this. case thrown out? Why was this case. tossed by the court this second time. around? What can we expect next? This is. where you get a difference of opinion, okay? Now, here's the problem, okay? We. tried to get a copy of the judge's. order, the judge's opinion. We couldn't. get it from the court. But what you're. going to see, it doesn't affect our. analysis, cuz we we know how to do this.

anyway. But what you're going to see is. two differences of opinions about why. this happened, both from the defense and. from the prosecution. So, Judge Patrick. Donahue reportedly dismissed the. charges, according to the defense, over. allegations that the Orange County DA's. office failed to properly disclose. evidence during that second grand jury. presentation, according to Court TV. The. prosecution allegedly withheld from this. grand jury the opinion of an FBI chemist. who believed that those three samples of.

the substance in question were actually, quote, drinkable and not harmful. That. this was apparently based on their pH. levels. Could see why that's a big deal, right? Now, You's defense team argued. that is exculpatory evidence, meaning. evidence tending to negate guilt, that. was withheld from the grand jury, and. that could have affected their decision. That it was withheld from the grand jury. even after the defense claims, quote, grand jurors specifically asked about. You's defense. Now, You's defense team.

also argued that the DA's office. improperly dismissed two grand jurors in. front of the remaining jurors. That that. was prejudicial. Now, to be clear, the. Orange County DA's office denies this. In a statement to Court TV, the Orange. County District Attorney's Office denied. that a failure to present exculpatory. evidence was the reason for the. dismissal. That they vowed to keep. fighting. In their statement, they say, quote, we are refiling this case. We. believe in the strength of the evidence. in this case and in the professional.

conduct of our prosecutors. We will. continue to litigate this in a court of. law as we pursue justice for an. individual who is being methodically. poisoned by his wife, a licensed medical. professional, whose intent was to. inflict pain on him. As you can imagine, You and her defense attorneys, they are. thrilled by this. Attorney Scott. Simmons, who I mentioned before, of. Simmons Wagner LLP, represents Dr. You, said, quote, Judge Donahue's ruling. reflects the justice system at its best.

A court carefully reviewing the record. and ensuring that the grand jury process. worked the way it is supposed to. For. Dr. Yu, this was never been an abstract. legal matter. She is a dedicated. physician and a mother who has spent 4. years separated from her children. fighting allegations her legal team. believes were orchestrated to gain. leverage in a divorce and custody. proceeding. The human toll of that. cannot be overstated. We are proud to. have stood by her through this and we. are grateful to Judge Donahue for his.

thorough and principled analysis. Dr. Yu. has maintained her innocence from the. beginning. Now, she can begin to reclaim. what matters most, her family, her. patients, and her life." And Simmons. added, this is according to Daily. Journal, "They can obviously refile and. will be happy to respond," meaning the. prosecution, "we'll bring a motion to. dismiss again." Now, Ms. Yu, Dr. Yu, had. a statement of her own through her. attorney. "I've spent 4 years watching a. life I worked hard to build come apart. I am very grateful that the court looked.

closely and recognized that the way. these charges came about was deeply. flawed. The court's ruling allows me to. begin moving forward. My focus now is on. my family's privacy and healing and on. spending meaningful time with my. children and nurturing those. relationships as we move forward. together." According to CNN, Steven. Hittleman, this is a Mr. Chen's divorce. attorney, said that his client is going. to continue to work with the district. attorney's office and in his words, quote, "protect his children and himself. through the family law court." So, different avenue there, civil arena,

different than the criminal arena. Okay. My legal opinion on this. If these allegations are true, the defense is right. First of all, why do prosecutors go the. grand jury route? You have two options. as a prosecutor to get formal charges in. a case against a defendant. Two options. You could say, "Hey, we have enough. probable cause, lower standard, enough. probable cause to show the defendant. committed these crime or crimes and for. this case to move forward. You can.

either go through a grand jury or you. can even go through a preliminary. hearing. Now, preliminary hearing, it. can be trickier for a California. prosecutor. Why? Because the defense has. an opportunity to be there, to be. present, to hear the evidence, to. challenge it, to question the witnesses, the prosecution's witnesses. It's open, it's public, and it's the court, the. judge, that determines if there's. sufficient probable cause. Whereas the. grand jury process is different. It is. secret. The defense is not present. They. don't have an opportunity to put on a.

case. They don't have an opportunity to. challenge the prosecution's evidence or. challenge the prosecution's witnesses. It's more one-sided. You just need a. majority of the jurors to vote in favor. of the indictment. It doesn't have to be. unanimous. And by the way, it's a lower. standard. It's not proof beyond a. reasonable doubt. It's just is there. enough probable cause, sufficient. probable cause, to support the charges? Now, here is the important part. Despite the fact that the defense does. not have a role in the grand jury,

prosecutors have an obligation, a legal. obligation under California law, to tell. the grand juries about exculpatory. evidence. Again, meaning evidence. tending to show the defendant did not. commit the crime. Under the California. rules, I'll give it to you, I'll read it. verbatim. This is California Penal Code. Section 939.71. If the prosecutor is aware of. exculpatory evidence, the prosecutor. shall inform the grand jury of its. nature and existence. Once the.

prosecutor has informed the grand jury. of exculpatory evidence pursuant to this. section, the prosecutor shall inform the. grand jury of its duties. If a failure. to comply with the provisions of this. section results in substantial. prejudice, it shall be grounds for. dismissal of the portion of the. indictment related to that evidence. Now, assuming the defense is accurate, even though the prosecution is denying. this happened, assuming the defense is. accurate, I think there is certainly a. strong argument that by not presenting. the opinion of this FBI chemist, that.

would constitute exculpatory evidence. The idea of the samples, the key. evidence here, potentially not being. poisoned, not being poisoning, could be. key to jurors analyzing about whether a. crime was committed. That's a key. element of the charges. Is arguably. whether or not the liquid was in fact. poison, right? Would a jury need to. consider this? So, the defense can make. the argument there's a reasonable. probability the grand jurors would have. found no probable cause if they heard. about that. There's a counter argument.

to that, too, right? The other way to. look at it is, well, maybe you allegedly. did pour the cleaner, but it wasn't. enough. Small doses. Maybe it was a. mistake on her part. Does that change. the intent? Could still be an attempt. charge, could still be a poisoning. charge, could still be potentially a. battery charge, not sure. I haven't seen. the report myself, but you do wonder if. that could be explored at a trial. So, even if it was presented, maybe the. grand jury would say, "No, wait, no, there's still enough here to support the. charges.". And look, if the prosecution refiles,

and they go back to a grand jury, and. they present all of this evidence, so. they present the the chemist to a new. grand jury, who knows? Maybe the grand. jury won't indict, maybe they will. indict. But again, you don't need a. unanimous vote, just a majority of. jurors to agree on probable cause, which. again is a lower standard than beyond a. reasonable doubt. Now, second part, that's one part. The idea that there. were jurors that were improperly. dismissed in front of other jurors, to me, that's very context-specific,

because there are times during a jury. selection process that you'll see jurors. excused in front of other jurors. That's. usually due to scheduling or hardship. reasons. It's kind of at the beginning, initial stage. Usually dismissal of. jurors once they've been selected, that happens outside the presence of. other jurors in order to avoid any. issues of prejudice or improper. influence. And my research, when I did. under California law, seems to suggest. that a defendant can legally move to set. aside an indictment in the case of.

improperly dismissed jurors. If the. defendant can show that he or she was. denied a substantial right and that the. dismissal of these jurors or juror in. this fashion might have reasonably. affected the outcome of the grand jury. So again, without knowing all the facts. of the circumstances regarding this. alleged dismissal, you could at least. see how this may have created an issue. And if the defense is right, it was. enough of an issue for the judge to. throw out the case for now. Now, here's.

the big picture, okay? This is the big. picture why I think it's not just about. this case, but all the cases that we. cover. I've said it before, I'll say it again. I know the DA, the DA's office is. denying what the defense is asserting. here, but again, assuming this is true, this is why it's so important to dot all. the i's and cross all the t's. Yes, Ms. Yu is innocent until proven guilty. Yes, these are mere allegations. Yes, she. hasn't been convicted of anything. But. you can see how much effort the DA's. office is putting into this. Multiple.

grand juries, being methodical with the. case. They didn't want to move forward, apparently, unless they had the right. witness. The prosecution doesn't believe. this is just a custody dispute or a. family dispute or a divorce proceeding. dispute, even though that's what the. defense will most likely argue at trial. They believe, the prosecution, they have. strong evidence in terms of video, testimonial, potentially scientific. evidence. And yet, now they're on the. defense. They have to go uphill once. again. I mean, look, the burden is. always theirs. They have the burden to.

prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the. defendant commits a crime. But to now. have the case dismissed and have to be. presented in front of a third grand. jury. I mean, I'm assuming they're going. to do that, not the preliminary hearing. route. This is costly. This is timely. This. takes away their resources. They do not. want to have to do this again. So, even. in cases where you believe the evidence. is strong, and you believe the defendant. is guilty. Put him on the side. I'm not. even talking about her. In those cases, you have to afford that criminal.

defendant every right they're entitled. to under state and constitutional law. I've said it before. Look with the. Kohberger case. Not trying to make a. comparison between the Kohberger case. and this, but in that case, the evidence. was stacked up against him. Cell phone. evidence, surveillance evidence, DNA. evidence, eyewitness evidence. And I. said this in a previous sidebar, when it. was about change of venue. I said it's. actually beneficial to the prosecution. Give him change of venue. Give him the. chance to make his motions, because what. happens is, if you grant that before the.

trial starts, and he's convicted, you're. taking away his appellate right. You're. taking away his chance to successfully. argue that his rights were violated, or. he wasn't given a fair trial in appeal. If you provide him every opportunity, then it's going to be very, very. difficult for a convicted defendant to. then say the case wasn't fair, I didn't. have a fair and impartial jury, I wasn't. given this opportunity. No, no, no, no. You do everything by the book,

because you do not want the situation of. having to retry a criminal defendant. The last thing you want as a prosecutor. is to present all this evidence, and go. through a grand jury, or go through a. trial again, and for the conviction to. be overturned, or the charges thrown. out. Besides the time and the resources, and how costly this is, what about the. family? The family has to relive all. this. The witness testimony can change. Evidence can change. So, you have to. make sure you follow proper procedure. And yes, to be clear, going back to.

this, this is currently a win for Dr. Yu, but it does not mean that this case. was dismissed on substantive grounds. It's not like the court said, "You're. innocent. The charges can't be refiled. Someone else did this. That's it." No, this is procedural. Once more, there's a. different view, different opinion from. the prosecution and the defense on why. this case has been dismissed and what is. going on here, but at the end of the. day, this is a dismissal on procedural. grounds. Now, I do just want to take a.

second to talk about the defense in Dr. Yu's case. This isn't a slam dunk case. The idea of her allegedly mixing the. draino with tea or lemonade to attract. the ants and kill them, that could be. explored at trial. I mean, it's going to. be hard to deny, I would imagine, the. video itself if you see her pouring. something. I've seen the screenshots. And I do wonder if the children would. have to testify and explain, "Yes, this. is what mom did commonly. This is what. we all did." The allegation he didn't go. to the ER, the allegation that he. weaponized this against his wife,

there's an argument that there will be a. difference of opinion on medical experts. on his injuries, his conditions. Is that. reasonable doubt? Did he accidentally. drink this? Did he make a mistake? Is he. now accusing her of doing this on. purpose? So, if this goes to trial, it. will be interesting to see a jury. explore these potential issues [music]. and narratives, but let's see what the. prosecution does next. That's all we. have for you right now here on Sidebar, everybody. Thank you so much for joining. us and as always, please [music]. subscribe on YouTube, Apple Podcast, Spotify, wherever you get your podcast.

You can also check us out at NBC's. [music] Peacock as well. If you want to. follow me, X, Instagram, my NewsNation. show, Jesse Weber LIVE, Monday to. Friday, [music] 11:00 p.m. Eastern. I'll. see you next time, everybody.