'Wasted' Judge Demands Millions as Nightclub Arrest Goes Viral

The last person that ever tried me like. this died 30 days later. I pray for you. Yep, that was a former judge who got. arrested outside of a nightclub and now. she has just filed a reported $50. [music]. million lawsuit against the city of. Atlanta and a police officer claiming. she was falsely arrested, imprisoned, and her rights were [music] violated. Oh, and I say she filed it because she's. representing herself. Let's talk about. the latest of Christina [music] J. Peterson. Welcome to Sidebar, presented. by Law&Crime. I'm Jesse Weber.

So yes, we are going to be breaking down. this new lawsuit filed by Christina. Peterson, a former probate judge in. Douglas County, Georgia, where she. claims that her rights were violated. when she was apprehended by police in. the early morning hours of June 21st, 2024, outside of a nightclub in Atlanta. Now, before I even get into her legal. claims, and I'll give you some of my. take on the strength of it, got to go to. the body cam here. Key piece of. evidence, and by the way, comes up in.

her complaint quite a lot. So, the body. cam, as in many stories, tells a lot of. the story. And we're going to start now. with the body cam of the officer, where. there is some sort of altercation. happening outside of the Red Martini. nightclub. Now, according to Peterson, from her lawsuit, and again, we're going. to get a lot more into this, it says, quote, this is her narrative. On or. about June 21st, 2024, at approximately. 3:00 a.m., plaintiff was present outside. the Red Martini nightclub in Atlanta, Georgia, where she observed a man. violently assaulting a woman by throwing.

her backward and repeatedly punching her. in the face, while plaintiff remained. separate from the assailant and did not. engage in the altercation. Okay, so. let's go to the BODY CAM. I NO, HE DID. NOT TOUCH ME. EVERYTHING THE MAN LOVES. MY GOD. HE DID. NO. LET HIM. GO. LET [screaming] HIM. GO. LET HIM. GO. EVERYTHING HE LOVES. NIGGA, THAT'S. THAT'S A. THAT'S A. THAT'S A COP.

I KNOW YOU. NIGGA, THAT'S. THAT'S A. NIGGA, THAT'S. THAT'S A NIGGA, THAT'S. THAT'S A. NIGGA, THAT'S. THAT'S A. NIGGA, THAT'S. THAT'S A. NIGGA, THAT'S. THAT'S A NIGGA, THAT'S. THAT'S A. NIGGA, THAT'S THAT'S A. NIGGA, THAT'S THAT'S A. AND THAT'S ON ME.

NIGGA, THAT'S THAT'S A. NIGGA, THAT'S. THAT'S A. NIGGA, THAT'S THAT'S A. NIGGA, THAT'S THAT'S A. NIGGA, THAT'S THAT'S A. NIGGA, THAT'S. THAT'S A NIGGA, THAT'S. THAT'S A. NIGGA, THAT'S THAT'S A. NIGGA, THAT'S. THAT'S A. NIGGA, THAT'S. THAT'S A NIGGA, THAT'S THAT'S A. NIGGA, THAT'S. THAT'S A. NIGGA, THAT'S. THAT'S A. NIGGA, THAT'S. THAT'S A. NIGGA, THAT'S. THAT'S A. NIGGA, THAT'S.

OKAY, SO AS YOU can see, there's an. altercation, and then there's this. allegation that she hit a police. officer, and she was ultimately charged. with simple battery and felony. obstruction for allegedly punching a. police officer. I'll talk to you about. what happened there with respect to the. charges. I think that's going to be. important. But Peterson, in her lawsuit, states the following. This is her. version of the situation, quote, Plaintiff attempted to assist the victim. and did not use or threaten violence. against anyone. Plaintiff momentarily. grasped the back of the assailant's. shirt solely to interrupt the ongoing.

violence. Immediately after disengaging, plaintiff observed a different male. individual unlawfully seize and hold the. victim. Plaintiff verbally directed the. individual to release the victim and. briefly attempted to free the victim's. arm from his grasp using minimal, non-violent contact. Plaintiff did not. strike, threaten, or use force against. the individual. It was at this point, without warning, inquiry, or command, that defendant Wadsworth, so we're. talking that's Atlanta police officer. Keith Wadsworth, she's suing him, too,

by the way, seizes plaintiff. At the time of the seizure, and that's a. key word, seizure, right? Search and. seizure, Fourth Amendment, we'll talk. about that. At the time of the seizure, defendant Wadsworth had no personal. knowledge of the altercation, had not. observed criminal conduct by plaintiff, and conducted no investigation before. using force. It's important for the. analysis, we'll talk about that later. on. Defendant Wadsworth did not. interview the victim, speak with. witnesses, or otherwise attempt to. determine plaintiff's role before. acting. Again, this goes the idea of.

what we'll talk about, probable cause, reasonable suspicion a crime was being. committed. Plaintiff did not resist, threaten, or. obstruct defendant Wadsworth. Without. provocation or justification, defendant. Wadsworth violently slammed plaintiff. headfirst to the ground and applied. compressive force to her neck and back. while she was prone, non-resisting, and. compliant before placing her in. handcuffs. Plaintiff did not strike, attempt to strike, or batter defendant. Wadsworth at any time. Plaintiff's identification was in her. purse, which was on her shoulder. immediately before she was seized. When.

plaintiff was knocked to the ground by. defendant Wadsworth, her purse fell. nearby and was retrieved by friends. And. after plaintiff had already been seized. and handcuffed, defendant Wadsworth. asked plaintiff for her name. Defendant. Wadsworth nevertheless refused to permit. plaintiff to retrieve her. identification, ignored the information. provided by witnesses, and continued to. detain plaintiff. Now, I will say she is. asked repeatedly on this body cam, multiple times by officers throughout. this whole episode, what her name is, and she seemingly refuses to provide.

that information. All right, before we. get into this, look, New Year's means a. fresh start. But if you have debt, the. threat to your financial health is going. to stay the same. Debt is a silent. killer, interest compounds, fees stack. up, and your financial problems are. going to multiply. Doesn't need to stay. that way, though. Our sponsor, PDS. [snorts] Debt, has helped hundreds of. thousands escape debt, reduce what they. owe, and take back control. So whether. it's credit cards, personal loans, medical bills, PDS Debt has customized. options to help you pay off debt faster. There's no minimum credit score that's. required. They look beyond the numbers.

at your unique financial situation and. design personalized plans to help you. pay off debt faster and put money back. where it belongs, in your pocket. Plus, they're A+ rated by the Better Business. Bureau. Every month you wait is going to. cost you more, but your way out starts. right now. Don't wait for debt to strike. again. Break free in 30 seconds. Get. your free personalized assessment and. the best option for you at. pdsdebt.com/sidebar. That's pdsdebt.com/sidebar. pdsdebt.com/sidebar. I want to move on to what happens next.

in this body cam. So this is when she's. in the back of Officer Wadsworth's. police car, and she repeatedly defends. herself, goes back and forth with the. officer, and she also makes these. religious comments. What What did you. do? Nothing. Uh security, I was uh separating a. fight. Nothing. I was assisting He hit a. woman. He He abused a woman, sir. I. didn't hit a woman. And I. >> Calm down, like a person. He put me in.

handcuffs. He put me in handcuffs. I was separating And I was not in. agreement with that. You want to take. her back to jail? Maybe if you wasn't drinking. Maybe if you wasn't Let me Maybe if you. wasn't drinking. Maybe if you wasn't drinking. you would have known that I walked over. there to separate it. So there you go. That's why you're going to jail. This. woman has done nothing to him, Lord. He put his hands up on her, and I. I observed him and.

in the name. He has been. touched by a devil and a demonic spirit, Lord. That he has put his hands up on. me. YOU BEAT ON THAT WOMAN. You did not have. this camera on the whole time. So who. Why you. What woman did I beat? Which woman did I beat? At Red Martini, I was sitting in the. car. You can't. That's what I said. I said Red Martini. Put your hands on that woman without.

cause and provocation. >> What woman did I put my hands on? She. did not put her hands on you. She did. was not aggressive with you. She was not. abusive with you, sir. Yeah, I think you. I think you I think you had too much to. I think you had too much. I think you had too much to drink. I Are. you serious? I didn't have I think you. had too much to drink cuz you can't You. can't You can't remember what happened. You punched me to the ground. All right, we're going to see here. We will be here all night. >> That's fine. That's fine.

All right, I have to let the camera tell. everything. And then there is no reason. why. Yeah, it was on, so I can't wait. Yeah. I don't know what guy is answering your. call. Take me where I need to go cuz you're. harassing me. This called false. imprisonment. I was born in 1991. Take. me where I need to go. I would I should. never be sitting in a police car for 80. minutes. And I am not under arrest. You are under. arrest. >> that I'm under You have You are under. arrest. right now. You have the right to remain.

silent. Anything you say can be or will. be used against you in a court of law. You have not told me that. You have not. told me what I'm under arrest for. You. have not told me what I have done. Let's be very clear. This is false. imprisonment. This is malicious. [laughter] prosecution. Please. understand. Okay, so you're already. getting a preview of what she would. later claim in her lawsuit, right? Some. specific language there. Now, here's. what happens when the officer approaches. her in the backseat. >> Where you going? Take me where you. wanted to take me. I'm not scared of. you. I'm not Take her to jail.

I'm not scared of none of it. Take me. where you need to take me. Take me where you need to take me. I'm. harassing you. All right, ma'am. >> I just prayed for you. So listen. Take. me where you need to take me. I'm not. scared of you or jail. Please take me. where you need to take me. Listen. No, I. could give a Take me where you want to. take me. You're not going to harass me, and I'm not I'm not. I could give a Listen. LISTEN. YOU. STOP PLAYING WITH ME. YOU ARE YOU HAVE.

BEAT A woman and you beat me to the. ground. >> Ma'am. Take me where you want to take. me. >> I can't take you. I don't have any. identification on me. >> I DON'T CARE. YOU DON'T NEED. IDENTIFICATION. YOU HAVE LOCKED PEOPLE. up and you YOU HAVE PICKED UP DEAD. BODIES WHERE YOU DON'T KNOW WHO BODIES. it was but you picked them up. >> Ma'am. Take me where YOU NEED TO TAKE. ME. >> I'm trying to. The last person that ever. tried me like this died 30 DAYS LATER. I. pray for you. And I. I pray for you. Okay. Now, that is. something she repeatedly asks officers. that night to call Cyrus Colly, who she.

says is from Atlanta PD. I actually. looked him up. Does appear to have. worked for Atlanta Police Department, even worked as a police supervisor. Seems at one point in time he ran for. Douglas County Sheriff. But then this is. the part where she arrives at booking. and processing and I will tell you. it gets very tense. Ma'am, get in the car. For what? Ma'am. I wasn't cuffed. I wasn't being. detained. Shut up. You look like was trying to eat me. before and I never let him relax. Ma'am. Shut the.

and get. Stop touching me. >> Ma'am. Don't Yeah, stop touching me. And get the off of me. Stop touch I got. it. I can WALK ON MY OWN. DON'T TOUCH. ME. Don't touch me. Don't touch me. I got it. I can walk on. my own. Don't touch me. This is Where's your camera? You can't let me get in this car with. the You wouldn't see Give me your name. If you give me your name, then you'll be. booked here. You'll be with us. Give me. your name. No. What's your name? No.

Call Do what I asked you to. >> know I don't know other people. Call. Colly. You know Colly. Yes, you do. Who's that? Who's Where's. Where's she work? Him. Where he work at? Atlanta Police Department. Well, you I. don't know who that is. Yes, you do. Do you know Faggot? No. She there with Faggot. Yes, you do. I don't know who that is. Yes, you do. If you give me your name, then you stay. here. Lavall. Lavall. I don't know that number. You don't know. Lavall? I know who he is, but I don't. have his number.

Call Lavall. And tell him I can't How am I going to. tell him You can call him and I will say. hello and then he will know where I am. Can't do that. Cuz he's harassing. It's harassment. And I will Are you recording this? I I. I I I I I I. Are you recording this? Ma'am. You can be here and stay here and your. friends can pick you up. The ones that. were in the Audi. Listen to That's it.

All I have to do is put your name and. date of birth on here so you can get. booked in. >> You You a liar. You're a liar. I'm. telling you what I'm telling you. You beat that bitch to the ground and. you hit me to the ground. >> the wrong person. That was you. No, you're drunk and I'm. telling. >> I I DON'T EVEN. DRINK LIKE THAT, YOU WEIRDO. AND THAT'S. AND THAT'S why you acting like this. Now, as I mentioned, in the end she was. reportedly charged with simple battery. and felony obstruction. However, those. charges reportedly were dropped. WSB-TV.

reporting that a judge dismissed them. for {quote} want of prosecution. Now, that can be for procedural reasons. That. can be there was an issue with the. prosecution meeting their burden in a. case like this. Although, there is. reporting that she still may be facing a. misdemeanor charge of obstruction. This. is according to 11 Alive. But whatever. the circumstances are, that could. potentially be helpful to her case, particularly if you're dealing with a. situation if there was a problem with. that specific charge, the elements of. that charge. Not entirely sure. Don't.

have more information about this, but. potentially could be useful for her. claims in the civil case. Now, I should tell you. she has been removed from office by the. Georgia Supreme Court. This happened. back in 2024. But it wasn't because of. this incident per se, rather for {quote}. a pattern of misconduct proved by clear. and convincing evidence and showing a. {quote} flagrant disregard for the law. That's what the high court said. And. essentially, our understanding is is. that she wouldn't be able to be.

appointed as a judge or run for at least. 7 years because of this. And apparently, she was accused of numerous violations. of the Georgia Code of Judicial Conduct. going back to 2021 and 2022. There was. one where it was found that Peterson. wrongly held a woman in contempt of. court without providing her adequate due. process. And when she was questioned by. a disciplinary body about this, Peterson, according to the court, that. she offered up {quote} untruthful. testimony about her reasoning that. {quote} underscores her conscious.

wrongdoing. This is from the high court. There were also apparently issues of. decorum and courthouse behavior. But the. bottom line is. she was removed. Now, I have to tell you. for purposes of this civil lawsuit, she. is still a licensed attorney in good. standing without a history of discipline. in that capacity. This is according to. Georgia State Bar records. And so now. she's filed this lawsuit. She's filed. this lawsuit against the city of Atlanta. and Officer Wadsworth. So, she basically claims that Wadsworth not.

only physically violated her, but after. telling her she was being arrested for. disorderly conduct, {quote} Plaintiff. was placed in the back of Defendant. Wadsworth's patrol vehicle and detained. for 4 to 5 hours, during which Wadsworth. drove erratically, stopped at. undisclosed locations, exited the. vehicle multiple times and made private. phone calls. Plaintiff's detention was. punitive and pretextual, not. investigatory and occurred without. probable cause or prompt judicial. determination. And she argued that her.

case. was elevated to felony obstruction. {quote} based solely on the false. allegation that Plaintiff battered. Defendant Wadsworth while he was. purportedly investigating a crime. {Quote} Defendant Wadsworth falsely. alleged that Plaintiff struck him with a. closed fist and or shoved him and struck. him in the head and or chest. These. allegations were knowingly false and. were made to justify Defendant. Wadsworth's unlawful use of force and. prolonged detention. And in terms of the. city, a lot of this is about the body worn.

camera. {Quote}. On June 21st, 2024, the city approved, released and affirmatively promoted. edited and curated body worn and dash. cam footage that implied Plaintiff. committed felony obstruction and battery. on a police officer. Such approval and. release decisions were made by city. officials. The city released and promoted these. materials before any judicial. determination while felony charges were. pending. After the felony charges were. dismissed, the city continued. publication of the misleading footage.

and narratives without correction, disclaimer or contextual clarification. The city further permitted or failed to. prevent the premature dissemination of. non-public arrest allegations, including. the specific claim that Plaintiff struck. Defendant Wadsworth on the head and or. chest before booking or lawful public. release. Prior to Plaintiff's arrest, Defendant City of Atlanta was on notice. of allegations that Defendant Wadsworth. had engaged in unconstitutional arrests. and uses of force in prior incidents and. litigation.

Despite such notice, the city failed to. take reasonable corrective or preventive. action and continued to deploy Defendant. Wadsworth without adequate supervision, discipline or restraint. So, that's. important to try to get the city on the. hook. So, what is she claiming? What are. all the. causes of action? Well, the first one, count one, this is 42 USC 1983 claim, very important. It's for false arrest. So, this is a specific federal law that. says any state actor, like an officer, who deprives somebody of their rights.

can potentially be held legally liable. So, here the argument is that Wadsworth, right, a police officer for the state, arrested her without probable cause that. she committed a crime. That this was a. violation of the Fourth Amendment. You. know how somebody has a right against. unreasonable searches and seizures, that. a warrant needs probable cause. So, this. is because she claims Wadsworth. didn't see her commit a crime. Didn't. conduct a proper investigation. That she.

didn't obstruct or interfere with. Wadsworth in any way. And what he did. was allegedly unreasonable. That's the. key term, unreasonable. And she claims, and this is important, I'll talk about. it in a minute, that he is not entitled. to any sort of immunity here. That he. can be sued. Talk about that. Count two, again, another Section 1983 claim. This. is for excessive force. Same federal law. again, she says this is a violation of. the Fourth Amendment because the Fourth. Amendment protects the right to be free. from excessive force during an arrest.

And so the claim here is what he. allegedly did was objectively. unreasonable under the circumstances. because she claims she wasn't an. immediate threat. She wasn't resisting. She wasn't fleeing. And yet she was. allegedly slammed to the ground and had. force applied to her neck and back. And. so she claims that Defendant Wadsworth. used force against her that was. objectively unreasonable and excessive. under the circumstances. Count three, again, another Section 1983 claim. This.

is for unlawful detention and false. imprisonment. By the way, these are all. against Defendant Wadsworth. But so. you're talking Fourth Amendment again, unreasonable seizure, unreasonable. seizure. Here she was allegedly kept for. several hours without probable cause or. a warrant or a court order. So, it. served no legitimate police. investigatory purpose. You can't be. subjected to prolonged detention like. this without more. Count four, another Section 1983 claim. This is for malicious prosecution. Essentially, that you can't be. criminally charged or move forward.

through the criminal legal process. without probable cause. So, here you. can't be criminally charged. You can't. move through the criminal legal process. without sufficient probable cause. And. here she claims that the probable cause. asserted by the officer Wadsworth was. supported by false statements and. misleading information. Count five, state law, false arrest and. false imprisonment. This is a state law. Georgia claim. Basically, the allegation. is quote, "Defendant Wadsworth knowingly. and intentionally arrested and detained.

plaintiff without lawful authority.". You have count six, again state law. This is battery. Here it's under Georgia. law, "Defendant Wadsworth intentionally. and without justification made harmful. and offensive physical contact with. plaintiff." Count seven, again state. law, Georgia law, assault. "Defendant. Wadsworth intentionally placed plaintiff. in reasonable apprehension of immediate. bodily harm." Count eight, this is back. to the federal section 1983 claim, stigma plus due process. Okay, so this.

is against the city of Atlanta. Basically, you're saying the government. violated her rights. And here, the. allegation being that the city of. Atlanta quote, "Publicly disseminated. false and misleading arrest narratives. and police video footage portraying. plaintiff as having committed violent. felony offenses including felony. obstruction and battery on a law. enforcement officer. The stigmatizing. statements and visual depictions. disseminated by the city were false and. were published with knowledge of their. falsity or with reckless disregard for.

the truth." Kind of like defamation. language putting in there. "The city's. dissemination occurred through official. channels and with command level. approval. The city's official. dissemination and continued publication. of false felony arrest narratives and. curated police video footage. independently imposed an ongoing legal. and practical burden by publicly. branding plaintiff as a violent felon. without adjudication, without affording. her any name clearing hearing or. meaningful opportunity to contest the. city's official account, thereby.

altering her legal status, professional. standing, and liberty interests in a. manner distinct from and addition to the. underlying criminal process." Kind of. like a little bit of a due process claim. there. Count nine, this is municipal liability. under Monell. So, this is again against. the city. And Monell, whenever you hear. that, it establishes that local. government cities, counties, departments, they can be potentially. held liable under a section 1983 claim, but not on a theory of respondeat.

superior. What do I mean by that? So, you're not saying that simply the. actions of an officer can hold the city. liable. Instead, what you are saying is. that liability for a government, for a. city, arises when there is a. constitutional violation coming from an. official policy or custom. Something the. government set out, something the city. set out that caused that person's rights. to be violated. What's the argument. here? That the city of Atlanta, quote,

"Defendant city of Atlanta through the. Atlanta Police Department was. responsible for the supervision, discipline, training, monitoring, and. deployment of sworn officers including. defendant Keith Wadsworth. Prior to the. incident giving rise to this action, the. city had actual notice that defendant. Wadsworth repeatedly violated APD rules. The sustained violations were not. isolated or aberrational. Rather, they. reflected a recurring pattern in which. defendant Wadsworth failed to comply. with directives designed to regulate.

officer conduct, ensure accountability. during citizen encounters, and safeguard. constitutional rights. Despite this. documented pattern, the city failed to. implement effective corrective measures. including meaningful supervision, targeted restraining, monitoring, reassignment, or restrictions on. defendant Wadsworth's enforcement. authority." Now, I'm not privy to his. past. perhaps disciplinary actions or his past. law enforcement work, but potentially, potentially this could be problematic. for both Wadsworth and the city if true,

if they were put on notice of something. And what is she looking for? She's. looking for damages. Looking for damages. in an amount to be determined by a jury. believed to exceed $50 million for. physical injury, emotional distress, loss of liberty, widespread reputational. and professional harm, and also punitive. damages like punishment damages against. defendant Wadsworth. Okay. Few things. I laid out her claims, kind of laid out what her evidence would. be, right? And also I said if the. charges were dismissed, could potentially be helpful for her,

you know, if she can show that Wadsworth. has this history, again, could be very. positive for her. But a few things. So, I am just going to. be giving potential counter arguments. here as someone who's not connected to. the case, don't know all the facts, but. Officer Wadsworth, in my opinion, will. most likely argue a few things. First, probably will argue that he followed the. proper protocols of the arrest. He was. following his training. That he had. probable cause to arrest her based on.

the circumstances at that time. That he. had followed that he followed the. guidelines. That he followed the. training, the protocols of how to arrest. somebody in an open environment like. that. That he didn't do anything counter. to that. That he didn't do anything. excessive. Maybe use the body cam to. support that claim. Usually in these. cases there's a lot of back and forth on. use of force, in training, and manuals. But you put all that to the side, I also. think he's going to be arguing qualified. immunity. Okay, now qualified immunity. essentially protects officers from being.

sued in the performance of their duties. Makes sense because officers should be. able to feel that sense of protection in. order to properly carry out their. duties, not have fear of being sued. every 5 seconds. However, that can be pierced. It's not absolute, okay? So, that immunity can be pierced. if the officer if it can be demonstrated. that the officer's actions violated a. clearly established right under the. Constitution or law. So, that could be. difficult to show, a clear departure.

from what an officer was supposed to do. under the circumstances. You have to. show that what they did was objectively. unreasonable. Oh, and by the way, Wadsworth may, you know, deny the. allegations of any kind of past. performance issues or disciplinary. actions, not sure. The city is probably. going to do the same thing. They may. contest that he had prior disciplinary. actions or there were prior issues. They'll say they didn't have any notice. of that, no knowledge of him doing. anything. Or they may say, "Hey, listen, what he did is what he did. You know, you're trying to hold us liable for what.

he allegedly did. He went rogue. He did. his own thing, you know? It wasn't our. fault and it doesn't work under that. specific law that you're suing under.". Right? Mentioned I mentioned before they. can only sue us under Monell, you can. only sue us if we had some sort of. custom policy in place. We did. everything right, he went rogue. Maybe. try to distance themselves from. Wadsworth. That's one thing. Or they'll. defend what he did, right? They'll look. at the training, they'll look at the. manuals, they'll look at the use of. force and say what he did was reasonable.

under the circumstances. You know, we. did everything we were supposed to do. You weren't violated because of our. policies or our customs. Now, I do have a little bit of trouble with. the releasing the body cam issue because. especially body cam and in a public. setting, right? You know, in a police. cruiser, booking, it's different than in. someone's home. You could say there's a limited. expectation of privacy there, it's part. of the investigation. But, you know, she makes this allegation. essentially that there was maybe the.

footage was manipulated or tampered or. curated in a way. I I don't have any. evidence to suggest that, but if she can. show that, right? That's different. If. you can show there's evidence that. someone tampered with evidence or the. video was manipulated to serve a false. narrative, that's interesting. But look, generally. the production of body cam or arrest. materials or court footage, you deal. with FOIA, you deal with First Amendment. considerations, the public having a. right to access to these materials. And. any defendant, I also have to think. about this, if any defendant where.

charges are dropped or they're acquitted. could claim that nothing should have. been released. I mean, there's a side. question about whether or not it. influences a jury or that. But whether. or not those materials should even be. made public if the charges are. ultimately dropped or someone's. acquitted, I haven't seen a lot of that. I don't. know if that's necessarily going to work. because wouldn't any defendant who's. acquitted or the charges are dropped. say, "None of that should have been. released." I'm not entirely sure. I'd. have to look at that a little more. specifically, especially under. Georgia law. But again, it's an.

interesting argument. But can she also. kind of throws in that defamation. language that I mentioned before. I also. have to mention it is interesting she's. representing herself. She can do it, it's her right, she can do it, and she. is an attorney. But always complicated, there's a conflict of interest in a way. You kind of want an objective, neutral. analysis. That's why you want somebody. to represent you. Always usually best. policies to let somebody do that, to. fight for you in these circumstances. And I will tell you, in terms of being. your own advocate, in the last few days,

Peterson posted kind of these glamour. shots of herself on her personal. Instagram page. There was the caption, "Taking everything back that was stolen. from me." That's the comment. Then you. have the hashtags, "It's my time, the. year of redemption, reclaiming my time, clearing my name, and justice for all.". That's all we have for you right now. here on Sidebar, everybody. Thank you so. much for joining us, and as always, please subscribe on YouTube, Apple. Podcast, Spotify, wherever you get your. podcast. You can also check us out on. NBC's Peacock. We're putting episodes up. there as well. If you want to follow me,

you can check me out on X, Instagram, my. NewsNation show, Jesse Weber LIVE. I'll. see you next time, everybody.