Son of 'Real Housewives' Star Claps Back at Sex Assault Claims

KJ Beerman is seemingly trying to get. all his sex crimes charges tossed, arguing the prosecution hasn't alleged. sufficient facts to support any of them. We're going to go through that filing, whether this could work, what could. potentially happen, and we also have a. number of other key filings from the. defense that could drastically change. what happens in this case. Welcome to. Sidebar, presented by Law and Crime. I'm. Jesse Weber. So KJ Beerman is seemingly trying to get. all seven felony charges against him.

thrown out. And we have these new. filings that detail just what his. attorney is arguing. But remember what. we have here. Beerman, 15 years old, the. son of Kim Zoliaak and Croy Beerman. He's accused of sexually assaulting a. female classmate inside a Lifetime. fitness changing room in Georgia back in. April. He was indicted on seven felony. charges for aggravated child. molestation, aggravated sexual battery, aggravated sodomy, sexual battery. against a child under 16, and false. imprisonment. He's pleaded not guilty to. all of them. But now what is happening.

is his defense team, his attorney, Jason. Sheffield, has filed a number of. documents. One of them is basically. trying to toss out the indictment, saying it's legally flawed, it's legally. insufficient. And then there's a swath. of other motions regarding his cell. phone, regarding exculpatory evidence. I. want to get into that, too. But before. we get into all that, just here is where. we're at right now with the case. Because KJ is out on a $200,000 bond. He's living with his mom, Kim Zoliaak, under very strict conditions, electronic.

monitoring, no social media, no contact. with anyone under 16. That really hasn't. changed from what we can see. But. there's another part to this as well. because there is an active battle. happening to have this case transferred. to juvenile court. Now, we've talked. about that on a previous sidebar. That's. preferential, right? Different legal. process, different potential punishment. You could see why he want this in a. juvenile court. Now, it was reported. back in September that his attorney, Jason Sheffield, made a request to get.

this transferred. And according to court. filings reviewed by page six, Sheffield. at one point filed a motion for. reconsideration, a request for a. certificate of immediate review. Both of. those filings are under seal, so we. don't know exactly what they're about. We don't know if they're about the. juvenile court transfer. Potentially. could be though. But there's another big. thing here and that's a cell phone. And. this brings us back to something very. important that Sheffield argued in his. new papers. We learned back in September. that during KJ's bond hearing that the.

state had claimed investigators. uncovered videos on his phone showing. him allegedly engaging in sexual. activity with a family member under 12. years of age. Now, Sheffield is now. filing a motion to suppress the search. of that phone, saying it was seized and. searched without a warrant. We're going. to get more into that in a little bit, but I want to go now to trying to toss. out the charges, trying to toss out the. indictment. Seemingly, that's what's. happening. So Jason Sheffield, who again. was representing Beerman, filed a very.

important document with the court in an. effort to get the charges dismissed or. seemingly to do so. It's called a. special demur to the indictment. And. what it is is basically and as he. describes under the law, a criminal. defendant has a legal right to be put on. fair notice of the charges that they. face. Makes sense, right? Form of due. process that the state has an obligation. to assert allegations to support each. element of a crime. In other words, you. have to state the actual offense, the. nature of the offense in such a way that.

it is clear, that it is plainly. understood that basically it has to be. specific enough that a defendant. understands the charges, the. allegations, so they know how to. properly defend against it. And that is. the key because Sheffield writes, quote, "Although an indictment ordinarily may. charge an offense in statutory language, greater particularity may be required. when that language leaves the accused. uncertain about which of several. materially different acts or means the. state intends to prove." So what does.

that mean for the charges that KJ. Beerman faces? Well, let's take this. count by count. And I'm also going to. give you my legal analysis at the end. regarding what I think is going to. happen here. Oh, and I'm not going to. reveal the name of the alleged victim. here, even though it is seemingly. revealed in the filing. We're just going. to do that. And I also have to say this, too. Apologies. Apologies for how. graphic this can get. But I have to I. have to read this almost verbatim, word. by word of the statute. So, you just. understand legally why the defense is. claiming it's legally insufficient. The.

words here matter. Okay. Count one, aggravated child molestation. And it. says that KJ Beerman did unlawfully. commit an immoral and indecent act to. redacted a child under the age of 16. years by aggressively rubbing the I'm. just going to say the private area of. redacted with the intent to arouse and. satisfy his sexual desires said act. involving physical injury to said child. Now Sheffield and Beerman they argue.

that that doesn't explain what the. physical injury is. And that's important. because they argue the physical injury. component is what separates this. specific charge from another charge. And. they even cite case law to support that. So in other words, quote, the state. identified the alleged physical injury. with sufficient particularity to permit. intelligent preparation of his defense. Count two, aggravated sexual battery. So. this alleges that Croy Beerman did.

intentionally penetrate with a foreign. object, his fingers, the sexual organ of. redacted without the consent of. redacted. So again, they argue this. isn't specific enough as to what the. alleged act is and whether or not that. alleged act is that different from. what's being alleged in other counts. Is. that repetitive, let's say, of count. one? Now, I'll say real quick, and. again, I'm going to give more of an. analysis on a little bit. There may be.

an argument in count one as to what the. physical injury actually is and what the. prosecution should allege. I would. suggest that I'm not entirely sure that. you necessarily that the state would. necessarily be required to present more. specificity with this particular act. I. think it pretty much states it. And I'm. not sure in Georgia you can't charge. someone with two separate crimes for the. same alleged criminal act, molestation.

and battery. Perhaps there's a unique. aspect of Georgia law there. But maybe. at the very least there could be a. requirement for the prosecution to say. this is the same conduct as the other. charge. It's just being pled in a. different way. That's my initial thought. on that one. Count three, aggravated. sodomy. And this alleges, quote, KJ. Beerman did unlawfully and with force. perform a sexual act involving accused. male sex organ and the mouth of redacted. against the will of redacted by placing.

accused sex organ into and upon the. mouth of said redacted. Now, the defense. has a couple issues here. First, they. take issue with the phrase with force. They're saying what's the force? That. hasn't been alleged. That hasn't been. specified. That it wasn't alleged how he. allegedly used force. And then they also. get really specific with the phrase into. and upon the mouth. So they're basically. asking are these separate alleged. discrete acts. Again, I'll explain why I. think they're doing this and what the.

strategy may be and what would come from. this, but that's what they're arguing. here. Counts four through six, sexual. battery against a child under 16. It. alleges that KJ Beerman did. intentionally make physical contact with. the primary genital area of the body of. Redacted, a child under the age of 16. years without her consent. That KJ. Beerman did intentionally make physical. contact with the buttocks of the body of. Redacted, a child under the age of 16. years without her consent. KJ Beerman. did intentionally make physical contact.

with the primary genital area of the. body of Redacted, a child under the age. of 16 years without her consent. So. Sheffield and Beerman argue that counts. four and six are the same. Same. language, same allegation, same alleged. conduct. And therefore, they argue that. under the law, duplicative counts like. this require the state to properly. identify the specific and distinct. criminal acts underlying each count if. they exist. Because if you can't, you. basically need to throw one of them out. As to count five, they're taking issue.

with the specific body part, the. buttocks, because they say that's not. mentioned in the other counts. So, they're saying state, are you alleging. that this is different? This is a. different alleged act from everything. else, or is it part of the same alleged. conduct that you've been talking about? Not clear. Need particularity. Count. seven, false imprisonment. It's alleged. that KJ Beerman did unlawfully detain. redacted without legal authority and in. violation of the personal liberty of. redacted. So the defense's argument here.

is there is no specific allegation on. how Beerman deprived her of her personal. liberty or unlawfully detained her. Are. you alleging that he did something. separate from the alleged conduct in the. other counts, something separate to. restrain her or false imprisonment? again arguing it's not clear that you. need particularized alleged facts. And. what is Sheffield asking the court for? Quote, "Wherefore, for the foregoing. reasons, Mr. Beerman respectfully. requests that the court hold a hearing. on his demur receive evidence and.

testimony by the lead detective in the. case who investigated the facts and. circumstances surrounding the indictment. and grant defendants demur." So, what do. I think is going to happen? Well, first. of all, this is a real thing. Demurs, special demurs are a real thing. Defense. attorneys file these all the time. They. have worked in the past to dismiss an. indictment. But I will tell you, it's. not always so simple. And sure, the. state will have an opportunity to. respond to this. It's likely there could. be a hearing. And sometimes prosecutors, they'll have the opportunity to refile.

the charges or amend the indictment if. necessary. Maybe they have to take it. back to a grand jury. But it doesn't. necessarily mean that the case could be. thrown out entirely and forever. But if. the court agrees on all or some of the. above, the arguments from Sheffield and. Beerman, this will put the burden on the. prosecution to present more. particularized facts. To be more. specific, do they have those through the. lead detective? Was there enough from. the lead detective in that investigation. to fill in those facts or no? That could.

be an issue. You also have to wonder. that this degree of specificity and you. have to imagine whether it's a lead. detective or a medical professional or. even the alleged victim herself. recounting this specificity of these. concrete details about this alleged. sexual assault. That's going to be. incredibly tough both for the witnesses, for the alleged victim, for a jury, for. the family members. I mean, and again, Beerman's innocent unless proven guilty, but to go into these details of these.

alleged acts, how sensitive it is. I. mean, that's the right of the defense to. do to argue there's reasonable doubt as. to whether what Beerman allegedly did. fits within the specific definitions of. these crimes. But at the same time, could this lead the prosecution to drop. the case? Could this lead to the alleged. victim being incredibly reluctant to. testify about these details? And would. this compromise the case if she's. reluctant? I'm not saying that's going. to happen. I think they had to imagine.

how sensitive this was and how graphic. this would be, but that level of detail, I do wonder whether or not it's going to. be an issue for the prosecution. So, some things to think about as this case. progresses. Now, I want to get into the. next part. She filed all these motions. and in court filings we've obtained the. review. The defense filed this, for. example, a motion to suppress the search. and seizure of the defendant's phone. Quote, "Diffendant moves to suppress all. evidence obtained from the seizure, search, forensic examination, extraction, copying, retention, or.

subsequent examination of his cellular. telephone and its digital contents. Defendant asserts that his cellular. telephone was seized and searched. without a search warrant. Defendant did. not consent to the search of his. telephone or its digital contents. Defendant further asserts that no. exigent circumstances or other. recognized exception to the warrant. requirement justified the challenge. search. Now, what the contents of his. phone would be and how it's relevant the. current charges is one thing, but it. also seemingly lines up with the. allegations that I mentioned before. about that other family member. I will.

say under the law, of course, you need a. warrant to search a cell phone, unless. of course during the course of an. arrest, there is some specific set of. circumstances that you can immediately. search the phone. You don't need a. warrant exent circumstances or again, there could be another exception to. that, but they say that it didn't exist. All right, I got to say something real. quick. Big announcement. So, for all of. you out there who have been supporting. me over the years, supporting the. projects I've been a part of for over. the years, first of all, thank you so. much. You guys have been amazing. We. have the best fan base there is, and I.

thought, why don't we do something? Why. don't we switch things up? Why don't you. ask me the questions for a change, right? So, what we're doing is we're. giving a few fans the chance to meet. with me virtually, one-on-one, to ask. about anything, the cases I've covered, behind the scenes, at Sidebar, prime. crime, really anything you've always. wanted to know. To enter, you sign up. for Long Crime Plus. Click the link. below. You submit your question for a. chance to be featured in an exclusive. Just Ask Jesse special the week of. Thanksgiving. And right now, you can get. 25% off an annual Law and Crime Plus. subscription. Just got to use promo code.

Just Ask Jesse. Just $44.99 for the. year. Just Ask Jesse. Hope you can check. it out and I really look forward to. talking to all of you. Thanks so much. And the defense goes even further, by. the way, challenging the entire. timeline. Quote, "Dendant specifically. challenges the initial search of the. telephone. any forensic extraction or. copying of its contents and any. subsequent examination, re-examination. or use of those contents by law. enforcement. Defendant further. challenges the reasonleness of the. continued retention of the telephone and. its digital contents, including the.

scope, duration, and purpose of any. examination undertaken approximately 18. months after the initial seizure. So, a. year and a half. That's how long they're. saying the phone was held before it was. examined. And again, I think you're kind. of relating this to those prior. allegations, that prior case about the. family member. And they also are citing. a Supreme Court case, Riley v. California, that claims a search of a.

cell phone without a warrant is. unreasonable. And by the way, if that's. the case, anything that law enforcement. discovers during the course of that can. be tossed. It can't be used at a trial. And remember, this is the phone that. prosecutors referenced when they made. the claim about the family member. It's. also the device that could contain. evidence tied to the gym case. So, Sheffield is trying to make sure that. none of it is used against his client. The defense, in addition to the phone, they also seemingly want to suppress any. statements that KJ may have made to the.

police, meaning they don't want that. coming in at trial. They're arguing that. he was a minor, that he wasn't. questioned properly. This is how they. frame it. Defendant moves to suppress. any and all statements, admissions, confessions, or other communications. allegedly obtained from him by law. enforcement or its agents in violation. of his constitutional and statutory. rights. Stop right there. We didn't even. know if he made a statement. So, did he. make a statement to law enforcement? Did. he make a statement to someone acting. with law enforcement or in the capacity. of law enforcement, right, an agent that.

could potentially harm him? It goes on. to say, quote, "Defendant challenges the. voluntariness and admissibility of such. statements, including whether any. custodial interrogation was preceded by. constitutionally adequate warnings, and. a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. waiver of his rights." Defendant further. challenges whether any statements were. obtained through coercion, improper. inducement, promises, threats, or other. circumstances rendering them. involuntary. defendants's age, maturity, understanding, and the totality of the.

circumstances surrounding any. questioning must be considered. Now, you. and I both know that law enforcement. doesn't necessarily have to be honest. with a suspect or a defendant, but there. are issues about someone's mental. capacity, their age, whether they were. manipulated, coerced, whether those. statements are reliable or could come. in. So, something to think about. And by. the way, that's not all. The defense. just filed a motion also asking the. judge to order the prosecutor to send a. memo to every law enforcement agency.

involved in the investigation reminding. them that legally they have to turn over. any evidence that is favorable to KJ's. defense. We call that exculpatory. evidence, right? And they even attached. a template memo as an exhibit. One more. motion that matters here I want to talk. about. The defense wants the judge to. privately review records, including. DFACS records, school records, medical. records, juvenile court records. Here's. the key. This motion likely isn't about.

the gym accuser at all. The gym. incident, as I said, happened in April. The girl went to the hospital the next. day. The defense's argument that the. allegation came, quote, a year or so. later, it doesn't fit that timeline. It. fits the separate juvenile matter. involving the family member, the one. that prosecutors brought up at the bond. hearing to argue KJ was so dangerous. The defense seemingly wants those. records. Okay. So, the motion reads, they're making the argument that the. allegations were made later, about a. year later after KJ's family was. apparently talking to this person about. problematic behavior. The motion reads,

"The allegations made by the complainant. were not made contemporaneously with the. alleged offense. Rather, the allegations. were made a year or so later at a time. when the complainant's mother, grandparents, and Mr. Beerman were. confronting the complainant about. problematic behavior. Council is aware. that certain records exist that were. made contemporaneously to the relevant. timeline in this case, 1 and a half. years leading up to the allegations as. well as after the allegation was made. The records include behavioral, social,

school, medical, and treatment. observations that are crucial to. council's ability not only to impeach. the state's case and the complainant's. report of abuse, but also to corroborate. Mr. Beerman's sole defense at trial. Interesting. So, what role that's going. to play in his current case is not. entirely clear. But there are a few. other motions in this filing that we. need to mention because they tell us a. lot about the defense's strategy in. general. So, first, there's a motion to. redact the indictment. The defense wants. the judge to remove the names of the. grand jurors, the names of the state's. witnesses, the name and title of the DA.

from the indictment before it goes to. the jury, arguing those details could. bias the jury since obviously this is. very high-profile. They even anticipate. the state arguing, quote, "We've always. done it this way." And they call that an. appeal to tradition. They said it's a. fallacy. Here's the language from the. filing. The process of redacting. requires nothing more than a copy. machine and some blank paper. It can be. accomplished in a few minutes. Second, there's the motion to exclude the. state's forensic interviewer from. offering certain opinions. The defense. wants to prevent this interviewer from.

testifying that the alleged victim's. behavior or statements are consistent. with sexual abuse or that she was not. coached. They're arguing that the state. has to prove the interviewer's methods. are reliable legally. There's a whole. area of law about the admissibility of. expert testimony. quote, "Generalized. observations concerning the behavior of. persons reporting sexual abuse do not. without an adequate scientific or. methodological foundation establish that. a particular allegation is truthful. And. third, the motion to preserve evidence.

and the motion to inspect and test. physical evidence." So, the defense is. asking the court to order the state to. keep everything from rough notes to. biological tissue slides. And they want. their own experts to be able to examine. and test the evidence. They're citing a. Georgia case that says a defendant is. entitled to have an expert of his. choosing examine critical evidence. And. there was a question already in this. case about forensic material, whether. there was forensic material showing or. trying to prove an alleged assault. And. then finally, the motions in lemonade. So these are evidentiary motions. You.

see them before trial. What can or. cannot come into evidence. It's a. laundry list of things the defense wants. to keep out of trial. No hearsay, no. opinions about KJ's truthfulness or the. victim's truthfulness. No expert. testimony about whether the victim's. behavior is consistent with abuse. No. digital evidence or photographs without. first showing them to the judge outside. the presence of the jury. Obviously, they don't want something shown to a. jury that can inflame them, get them. angry, inflame their passions, their. emotions, could be overly prejuditial. So, when you just take a step back, what.

are we seeing here? The defense is. attacking the indictment. They're. attacking the phone. They're attacking. the statements. They're trying to get. access to records. They're trying to. exclude a forensic interviewer. you're. trying to keep evidence out of trial. We're still waiting a response from the. prosecution. We'll keep an eye on this, but obviously big developments. We. wanted to bring them to you. It's all we. have for you right now here on Sidebar. Thank you so much for joining us. I'm. Jesse Weber. Speak to you next time.