Share This Episode
Outlaw Lawyer Josh Whitaker & Joe Hamer Logo

Happy Thanksgiving, The Outlaw Lawyers talk Rittenhouse, Arbery, and Ghislaine Maxwell Trials

Outlaw Lawyer / Josh Whitaker & Joe Hamer
The Truth Network Radio
November 26, 2021 5:00 pm

Happy Thanksgiving, The Outlaw Lawyers talk Rittenhouse, Arbery, and Ghislaine Maxwell Trials

Outlaw Lawyer / Josh Whitaker & Joe Hamer

On-Demand Podcasts NEW!

This broadcaster has 95 podcast archives available on-demand.

Broadcaster's Links

Keep up-to-date with this broadcaster on social media and their website.

November 26, 2021 5:00 pm

The Outlaw Lawyers have 3 big cases from the headlines to update. Rittenhouse, Ahmaud Arbery, and Ghislaine Maxwell Trials are front and center. Holiday week and yes the discussion turns to favorite sides and K&W Cafeteria. Listener question concerning bail answered as well.

If you have any legal questions of your own and would like to speak with Whitaker and Hamer please call 800-659-1186.

Legal, Trial, Bail, Law, 

See for privacy information.


Today on The Outlaw Lawyer, lots of action. We've got Rittenhouse, The Arbery Trial, The Maxwell Trial, and we announce the first pod of our legal movie tournament.

Next. And now, Outlaw Lawyer. The Outlaw Lawyer's on the air. Your hosts are Josh Whitaker and Joe Hamer. Managing partners, Whitaker and Hamer Law Firm. 46 combined years experience. Again, offices in Raleigh, Garner, Clayton, Goldsboro.

Fuquay, Verina, and Gastonia. They are practicing attorneys here in the great state of North Carolina. We talk legalese each and every week. The hot topics. I'm Morgan Patrick, consumer advocate, referee between these two.

We address the serious topics, but we like to have a little fun with it. If you've got any legal questions of your own, you've got something you need answered, here's the number to call. 800-659-1186. That's 800-659-1186. You can also email questions if you have any, and we can use those on upcoming shows. Leave your information and we will obviously get in touch with you, but also possibly use your situation on the air. Leave your name out of it, of course.

Questions at Well guys, welcome in. Hope you had a great week. Morgan, it was a good week. It was a long week, and we're coming up against the Thanksgiving holiday, so it's crazy to think that 2021 is almost over. Well, there'll be so many people driving around, trying to get their shopping done. I will not be one of them. I'll be listening to the show, probably with my feet kicked up, that kind of thing. But there are going to be a lot of people out there, you know, out and about doing their shopping, so we've got a pretty captive audience. They're all shopping. We need to kind of calm their nerves, talk about some of the hot topics that are out there, and boy, I tell you, you got some.

We do, we do. Now, Joseph, you're not traveling either, are you? You're staying around town.

Yeah, I'm staying here, man. I'm very lucky, and I guess depending on how you look at it, I'm very lucky. My family all lives like walking distance from my house, and fortunately for us, we all get along. We don't have any black sheeps that we don't really work well with, so yeah, everybody's close. We all just stay very local, and it makes for a very stress-free, relaxing Thanksgiving, man. Like, I feel bad for folks that have to do a lot of traveling as opposed to just being able to sit on the couch, eat a lot of food, pass out, and that's what I'm going to do, eat a lot of food and pass out. Well, that's what Thanksgiving's always been to us.

We've never really had to travel very far, and kind of it's a relaxing. I'm not a big holiday guy. I just had a birthday. I don't like birthdays. I'm not a big, I don't like to have to buy presents for people.

I don't like people to have to buy presents for me, so Thanksgiving's like the perfect holiday because you sit, you watch football, and again, yeah, I don't have to travel. I can't imagine having to travel. I don't like to travel like on like a weird Tuesday in January when no one's in the airport, so I can't imagine what it's like to travel now. Well, this week, guys, I mean, you know what I mean. They do stories on this.

They lead up to this. This is the busiest travel weekend. It tops Christmas, so everybody's trying to get somewhere, and again, our shows run on the weekends. We tape them during the week, and the Tuesday travel stories were ridiculous, and you're two days away from Thanksgiving, so things are going to calm down on a Wednesday, and then Thursday, everybody should be where they need to be, and then Friday, everybody goes shopping.

So good luck to you. Well, I was going to tell you guys, last weekend, again, I just had a birthday, so I'm feeling really, really old. It's kind of hit me.

I'm getting to that age where you kind of feel old, and last weekend, Friday night, I went to the Genesis concert. The next day, we had a state football game, and Sunday, we had a state basketball game, and so I have been exhausted. You're out of shape. I feel like I just went down and did military-level training because I'm struggling. I mean, between the ears, that's got to be exhausting, just getting to where you need to get, trying to enjoy what you're viewing, and then you've got to get home, and then you've got to do it all over again. You do that three straight days.

Good luck. I'm sure that Genesis concert was a real barn burner too, Josh, a lot of headbanging, mosh pitting, so I know that took a lot out of you. I'll tell you, in the 80s and the early 90s, they put out some really good stuff. You'd be surprised.

I was surprised. I have never seen Genesis before, but I knew Phil Collins has had some health problems, I think mostly back, and so he is not very mobile, can't play the drums, but he had his kid there, and he was relatively young. I would guess 20s playing the drums, but they tore it down, man. You just know so many of those songs. If you're a certain age, Joseph may be too young to really have a lot of Genesis ingrained, but it's like burned into your brain, and so they played a lot of songs I had forgotten were Genesis songs, but it was pretty packed.

That was a popular show. I thought it would be a little more subdued, but there were a lot of people there, a lot of old people there having a lot of fun, myself included. I'm glad you had a good time, man. I had the opportunity to attend, as you know, elected to not attend and didn't go to a football game or a basketball game, so I'm very well rested right now, actually. I'm feeling pretty good and just starving myself, anticipating the great feast that is coming. We have a lot of family, so we've got to go to a lot of things. I've got three separate meals I'm going to have to fit in over a five-hour period, so I'm really trying to prepare for that.

I've got just a random question for both of you. When you get to these family gatherings, what's your go-to food that you have to have, one of the first things you put on the plate? I'm a stuffing guy. I go for the homemade stuffing. I think that's the thing that I don't get usually that I go for. My wife does a really good job, but anywhere we go, the homemade stuffing, everything else, I think I get during the year at some point here or there, but that's the big thing for me.

All right, Joe? I usually grab 17 to 18 dinner rolls or something sweet potato based. I grab something sweet potato, whether it be a sweet potato casserole, whatever it may be, that's usually my go-to. I can get that at any time of the year, too, but it calls to me, man.

I don't know what it is, but I'm a big fan of that. All right, I'll just chime in. I love any kind of casserole, green bean casserole. Certainly, if it's early Thanksgiving and you're doing some kind of breakfast, I mean, I love breakfast casserole. So anyway, I'll stop right there. Breakfast casserole. God, that's a whole separate conversation. I feel like we could do a whole show on it.

Yes, we could. Yeah, we'll have to pencil that in for next week, the breakfast casserole special. The breakfast casserole tournament. All right, guys, I did get some pre-show notes. There's a K&W notation here. Do you want to get into that?

I mean, I think that's an interesting one because I was actually thinking about that today. Well, you know, I missed that because that's where my family, I had a grandma, that's where she always wanted to go. And so growing up, we always went to the K&W at Cameron Village. And even when I was at State, I'd come back from law school, like that K&W, that's where I went to eat. Not that it's home cooked food or anything, but that's just what I associate.

That's my comfort food was K&W. And it being gone, it really messes with me. I hate that I can't just go there.

Well, I'll tell you this. When they, I guess they filed bankruptcy and a lot of them closed, there are some individuals that are still open. The one in Burlington on the way to Greensboro, it is right there.

It is open. I do stop there. I grab pies when I'm on my way to the mountains to see my folks because my parents, they're K&W people. They absolutely love it. They live by it. And every time I'm coming up, they go, are you going to stop in Burlington?

Morgan, that's how you know they're good people. Yes. Isn't everybody, if you're not a K&W person, that's like disqualifying. Like I can't, I don't want to associate with you because me, I'm also a K&W person. Very fond memories. No bad memories.

I have zero bad memories associated with K&W. Look, man, I know we got to get moving here, but K&W chocolate pie. So I had a couple of ladies at my church growing up who could make a chocolate pie. Like you wouldn't even believe you can't. We have the recipe. You can't replicate it. They just could do it.

And K&W got pretty close. Those are good chocolate pies. The pie that I have to pick up heading up to the mountains is always the chocolate cream pie. Well, real quick, we got a couple of things to talk about. There's a lot of legal stuff in the news.

I've been sometimes we're kind of looking and it's kind of hard to find like things that I think would be interesting to the folks who are listening. Find good legal news, but we're being bombarded with it. So for like the third week in a row, we're going to talk about Rittenhouse. Rittenhouse, Kyle Rittenhouse has been acquitted. We've kind of talked about it as the trial was going on. And so we're going to revisit that, just talk about what the jury found and kind of what me and Joe have to say about it. And then we'll move into we're recording Wednesday mornings. I'm expecting on the Ahmet Arbery trial, I'm expecting the jury to come back today. So we'll we'll maybe play a little devil's advocate, maybe do some prediction. But I'm assuming by the time we get to air, there'll be a jury verdict. But as of this morning, there isn't one.

We've got Ghislaine Maxwell. That's that's another another hot. Yeah, that was off and on hot and cold. Like you'll hear about it and then you won't hear about it. And it kind of just hangs out there. You know, the whole Jeffrey Epstein got a lot of his suicide or the supposed suicide, got a lot of media coverage, a lot of conspiracy theories based around that. But that's something that you hear a lot of.

You hear a lot of that, but you don't necessarily that's something that you don't necessarily dig deep into the actual specifics of. So we'll try to do that a little bit. All right, guys, we've got a lot on the plate.

We will try to get to it all. The outlaw lawyers, Josh Whitaker and Joe Hamer, managing partners, Whitaker and Hamer law firm. Again, 46 combined years experience in offices in Raleigh, Garner, Clayton, Goldsboro, Fuquay, Verina and Gastonia. They are practicing attorneys here in North Carolina.

And, folks, if you've got a legal question that's been burning and you want to get an answer to it, you need some help there. Here's the number to call. 800-659-1186.

That's 800-659-1186. Leave your name, contact information and an attorney with Whitaker and Hamer will be in touch with you. If you've got a question you'd like to have answered on the show, you can go to questions at the We'll use those in upcoming shows and always go to the website, the

Coming up next, we discuss the fallout of the Rittenhouse verdict and tie up some loose ends about our discussion. The outlaw lawyers, we are back on the air. Josh Whitaker and Joe Hamer, Whitaker and Hamer law firm. They're the managing partners there. 46 combined years experience and, again, offices almost everywhere. Kind of like Starbucks, but it's legal.

Raleigh, Garner, Clayton, Goldsboro, Fuquay, Verina and Gastonia. And when I say that, I don't mean Starbucks is illegal. I'm just saying it's legal ease. All right. We talk legal ease each and every week.

I'm Morgan Patrick, consumer advocate, Rittenhouse guys all over the news. Huge breaking story as far as the verdict is in. So you guys are going to rehash and give your final thoughts. Joe, you know, one of our outlaw lawyer predictions here was that no one was going to, we were going to have a lot of unhappy people when that verdict came down, no matter what it was going to be.

Yeah. You know, one thing we do, we, we do a lot of bold predictions and I want to say we're batting a thousand, man. I don't know that we've ever missed on a prediction ever.

We're doing pretty good. And you called it. I think we all called it. We predicted the outcome of the case, which at a point, you never know with a jury.

You never know. But at a point, if you really followed the evidence and you didn't just get caught up in a lot of the media hoopla surrounding it, I think, I think it was fairly clear what the verdict was going to be. But like you said, Josh, a lot of angry people and a lot of that can really be traced to the way that a lot of the media kind of portrayed this event. And I still think even with the verdict and even with such a highly publicized trial, I still think you've got a lot of folks, especially folks who are super angry about it, who may not fully understand the details or not care to fully understand the details and are still misinformed about factually what actually took place. Well, I can tell you not just the not just the Rittenhouse trial, but on anything that the media really latches onto and covers this intently. Very few people on either side, you know, really know what's going on and really stop to kind of look at.

All right. Well, you know, in here and this is going to complement our discussion later of the Arbery trial, because I think the Arbery trial is is really plays off this, because obviously in Rittenhouse, the big thing was self-defense. Rittenhouse was charged with, you know, homicide. There's three incidents on one show. We went kind of incident by incident. And so it depended on who you felt, you know, who was the aggressor.

Right. That's what it came down to was was Mr. Rittenhouse. Was he an aggressor because he was in a place? Maybe I guess if you believe some people, he was there to do violence, was hoping for violence. He was there open carrying, armed, weird situation, you know. But I think what came out in the trial is nothing he was doing at that time before before the incidents that resulted in the homicide charges. Like he wasn't doing anything illegal. Was he doing something stupid?

Maybe. I think that's that is clearly up for for debate. But was he doing anything that was illegal? And I think what you saw there was no. Right. So from the from the beginning, the status quo was he was just he was a guy.

He wasn't doing anything illegal. And so when you start looking at what happened, you have to look at each incident. And that's what the that's what the jury did. And that was the evidence that was presented at each encounter. Who was the aggressor?

Who could claim self-defense? And they just kind of went incident by incident. But when you looked at the evidence and what the jury was allowed to see. I don't think it's any I don't think the jury could have come to any other conclusion.

Yeah, I think you said it like what do you what do you have to go on? You know, there was there was a good bit of video footage and then you had the testimony at trial. And if you look at if you look at that testimony, there's there's nothing there. It was really nothing to suggest that he he was the aggressor. And there was actually a lot of things that actually came out on the prosecution's case that that indicated the exact opposite. That actually killed that notion that he was the aggressor. And like you said, Josh, you really have to kind of go encounter by encounter.

And you start with the initial encounter and everything else kind of follows from that. And from from the evidence that was presented, it was fairly clear that in that initial encounter, if you take take what was said and you take the eyewitness testimony as true, which which again, that's all you have to go off of. There was nothing about that situation where where he was the aggressor. And it seemed fairly clear and I think it was clear to the jury that, you know, he he was not the aggressor in that situation. And he was justified in self-defense. And then from from that point on, you know, I think it gets a little bit trickier because you start getting into the perception of, you know, the second individual that was shot and what they what they knew at the time. And it's a tough situation all around.

But I think if you, again, analyze the evidence and you look at it, it was the right decision. If you've ever taken a concealed carry class, you know, so I took concealed carry, ended up having to take it twice because I lost my I took the concealed carry class once and I lost my little certificate and getting it a new one. So I had to take it again. But if you had a good instructor during the concealed carry, there's usually a section on, OK, you know, they'll give you a scenario like you're in the grocery store. You walk in. There's two people shooting at each other. You perceive one to be robbing the supermarket. So you pull your gun and you shoot that person and you think you've done a good thing. Come to find out you've got a mixed up. You've walked into a different situation. And that person was the good guy in the scenario. But you came in perceive what you perceived and acted.

Well, guess what? You're guilty of murder. It doesn't matter that you thought you were being a good guy. It's going to you know, you inherit the situation you walk into. And they always tell you to be careful because, you know, self-defense only goes so far. And so that's why it's so important in these legal proceedings to determine who is the aggressor. And so, you know, there was evidence that the second and third folks who encountered Mr. Rittenhouse thought they were trying to disarm an active shooter. So they probably thought they were trying to do something good. But if it was determined that Mr. Rittenhouse wasn't the aggressor, then, you know, you're on the wrong you're on the wrong side. And it's just a again.

And I think we said it. We wouldn't want to be on this jury. I wouldn't want to be litigating this case. I wouldn't want to be the judge. I mean, it was difficult. But if you look at the evidence, it really does. Seems like the right outcome happened in a really bad situation.

Yeah, it's extremely difficult all around. I don't think anyone you know, I don't think Rittenhouse feels good. I mean, obviously he feels good. He feels vindicated.

He's not going to jail for life. But doesn't feel good about the situation. I think it was fairly clear that he, you know, anyone would be affected by that dramatically and genuinely felt like he did what he had to do to protect his own life.

And was was he really was in a life threatening situation after that point. And you again, you can debate the merit of what he did to put himself there. And, you know, if you listen to him, he essentially it didn't it's difficult because like you said, man, it you could look at open carrying in an area where people are rioting as being a stupid thing to do. But then again, the counter argument to that is you've got people that are destroying these local businesses. And this is an individual who is trying to assist people.

And by by a lot of accounts was doing some things to assist people either medically, you know, doing some some things that you could look at as virtuous. But at the same time, I'm not going to be there open carry. And that's not that's not necessarily going to be my choice. But I think the real tragedy in this situation is, again, the on both sides, the lack of the lack of people really taking the time to look into the facts. And this is again, it's on both sides of the aisle, people who just pick a side just because that's that's it fits their belief system or they have this tribalistic understanding of of what side they're supposed to be on.

And it's tough, man. I think everyone really needs to examine these things more closely before they just agree with the media or someone they know or some post on Facebook. You really need to dig into this yourself and inform yourself before you come to any kind of a decision about this.

There's there's a couple of things in the aftermath to rent houses. The verdict has been you know, he can't be retried on those charges. They've you know, he's been he's been acquitted. So I saw a couple of editorials where the authors were kind of enraged that he was not found to be the aggressor. And and and they were wondering if the feds, you know, the federal government would come in and try to charge him on on something.

And I don't I don't think we'll see that. You know, usually they'll have like a hate crime statute or civil rights statute. Sometimes you'll see the federal because this was a state trial. These are state charges.

These are all specific to Wisconsin. And I heard some people asking and we've got kind of a very I think so far, I think we've seen, you know, the attorney general is very active in trying to do things like this. But I don't think we're going to see any more charges for written house. I don't think we're going to see any federal charges.

I had to guess. Yeah, I would get I tend to agree with you and you know, there's speculation. And again, this is speculation from the media, which is is on both sides of biased media.

And there's some speculation that there could be something pursued in that sense. But I think one thing that a bold prediction that I can guarantee is that you're going to see written house suing several, several individuals, media outlets. He's going to sue a lot of people.

And I think he's going to he's going to be successful in those lawsuits. That's going to be one of the rare we tend to agree a lot, Joseph, but I don't think he's got I don't think he's got a case there because he was it was a there was enough there to charge him. I think a lot of these cases where you see someone go back and sue the media. They weren't charged with anything like it was.

And I don't necessarily think I'm referring specifically to some of the more outlandish claims about, you know, white supremacy in regards to, you know, there was some things. I'm not going to say he's going to be he's going to sue and win against everyone. I'm not saying he's going to sue and win. I'm saying I think he's going to sue. And I think he's going to get paid by by way of settlement. Yeah.

Yeah. Well, I mean, we'll see. That's you know, it's the verdict came out, what, last week. So it hasn't been very long. And we probably won't get a chance to talk about Mr. Rittenhouse for a while.

His trial has been fully adjudicated. But it was interesting would be that written that that any sane individuals probably he would want that he probably and he said as much he wants to kind of fade into anonymity, which will be difficult. I imagine for him anytime something like this that so many people are invested in, it's going to be tough to fade into the backdrop. But yeah, I like you said, I imagine we'll go it'll go a while go a while without coming back up on the show would be my assumption.

But again, who knows? One of the things that you can guarantee and we've already seen it, you know, leading into the taping of this show and from a sports standpoint, I will describe it as the washing machine. So if Tom Brady wins the Super Bowl, he goes through the washing machine. And that means he'll go to an ESPN, he'll go to New York City, he'll do the morning shows, he'll do ESPN, where he goes to every single show that they produce. Not that Tom has to do that anymore.

But you know, those first time Super Bowl winning quarterbacks, I mean, they go through the washing machine. So if this is a big story, like Rittenhouse and the verdict, I mean, he is going to be at all the news outlets, as long as the people that are managing him, because I guarantee you, he's got managers now, because I agree with you, I think there is going to be a lawsuit. I think he's gonna stay in the news. It's just, it's almost like that status quo. That's what happens when these big cases, you know, get tried through the media and then tried in the courts.

And then, you know, it's the 15, what, 15 seconds of fame, and they kind of extend it a little bit. So we'll see how it all works out. The Outlaw Lawyers, Josh Whitaker and Joe Hamer, Whitaker and Hamer Law Firm, managing partners there, 46 combined years experience. And again, offices in Raleigh, Garner, Clayton, Goldsboro, Fuquavarina, and Gastonia. They are practicing attorneys here in the great state of North Carolina. And you can get in touch by calling 800-659-1186. If you've got your own legal question, just leave your contact information and an attorney with Whitaker and Hamer will be in touch. If you've got a question you'd like answered on the program, email it to us, questions at We'll use it on a future show and always visit the website,

We're back after this. Up next, Joe and I discuss the Ahmaud Arbery trial. The Outlaw Lawyers on the air. Josh Whitaker and Joe Hamer are your hosts. You can find them at Whitaker and Hamer Law Firm, practicing attorneys here in North Carolina. They're the managing partners at Whitaker and Hamer.

46 combined years experience and they are expanding. If you've got your own set of legal questions, you can get them answered. Here's the number, 800-659-1186. Just leave your name, contact information, an attorney will be in touch with you and try to get those answers to you for your legal questions. And if you want to have a question pondered on the show, well, leave it at questions at We'll use it on a future program and always go to the website, Guys, I mean, it's just big case after big case after big case.

What's next? You know, Morgan, this one surprised me a couple of weekends ago. I was down in Atlanta and the trial was just starting, even though the trial's not in Atlanta. It's in, I can't remember the name of the town it's in in Georgia, but I had, you know, just horrific facts. You know, Mr. Arbery, you know, was, was killed. It looks like some folks were trying to make a citizen's arrest saying he was a suspected burglary suspect and were trying to make a citizen's arrest at some point. You know, they had guns and Mr. Arbery was defending himself and Mr. Arbery was shot and killed.

Just a horrible story all the way around. But I had forgotten about it because it took so long to get to trial. This one had a bunch of crazy stuff, some process, some DA's recusing themselves. If you read, we won't rehash it here, but if you read how long it took this one to get to trial and get prosecuted, it kind of boggles the mind.

Yeah. Josh, there's a, there was a whole lot of behind the scenes intrigue here, a lot of very strange nuances and things taking place as far as with, you know, you're in a, you're in a small town and there was a lot of prosecutor knows some of the defendants. There was some personal relationships there. There was some folks having to recuse themselves. There was a lot of borderline fishy business that went on and that had to be sorted out. And I think that kind of contributed to how long it took to get to this point. And so we're in the studio.

This is a, we're in the studio the Wednesday before Thanksgiving. So right now the jury is still deliberating. I was, I've got the news up here refreshing to see if anything comes in. It looks like the jury just asked to see a video that I guess there's some video and the 911 call again, but the jury has been deliberating for a full eight hour day going in their second day. But I think this mirrors Rittenhouse in a lot of ways because you have basically, uh, some folks who are claiming self-defense. And so you have to kind of go through this calculation again and figure out who the, who the aggressor was in this situation. And I think just reading the facts, I have not been following this one as closely as, as I did written house.

I just, it just kind of snuck up on me, but just kind of reviewing the facts. Um, there, there is a little difference here in that there was this antiquated, uh, Georgia law that allowed a citizen to make a citizen's arrest. And I haven't read that law. Again, we're not licensed in Georgia. Uh, but it's a little complicating factor that wasn't in, uh, in Rittenhouse.

Cause we talked about Rittenhouse. It may not have been the smartest decision in the world to be open carrying at a, at a protest in a situation that could have turned violent. Um, but it wasn't illegal. And here the citizen's arrest statute kind of, kind of gums it up a little bit, gives the jury something else to have to consider. Now I know after this happened, that law was taken off the books.

I did see that. Yeah. And, and that's a, it's a, that's kind of a, it's an interesting point, but it's not relevant to, you know, these charges because again, you can't retroactively go back and take that away. And I, I think you're right, Josh, you, you take that law out of the equation and I think this is fairly cut and dry. And even with the presence of that law, it still may be fairly cut and dry. Uh, and there's, there's, there's similarities to the Rittenhouse case, but a lot of differences as well in terms of how this developed and who the aggressor was. But like you said, that, that law, an antiquated civil war era law that has since been taken off of the books, it really, really does kind of throw a wrench in this because like you said, whoever, who the aggressor is, is what the relevant factor is. But if you've got justification by this law, it gets a little bit more tricky. Um, and I think this is a little bit, I think this is a little less clear cut to call than the Rittenhouse case as far as predictions go. But that being said, I still think these guys are guilty. Well, I, I do too. I think if you have to predict, and again, that's all we're doing.

We're prognosticating. Uh, but I would be shocked. I've been shocked before, but I'd be shocked if these, if these gentlemen were not found guilty, um, just based on the facts and the, and the case has been, you know, the, the Rittenhouse judge, I can't remember his name, but the judge in the Rittenhouse case got a lot of, uh, depending on what media outlets you were following. Uh, got a lot of, um, he was criticized. He's kind of a centric a little bit, uh, but he was pretty fair judge and I could have done some things different, but all he kept control of the court. Nothing too crazy happened. I can't say the same for this one. There's just been a lot of stories, uh, what the judge entertained and what the judge allowed to be said.

And I don't like this case at all. I I'm, I'm surprised the jury has, I thought we would have a verdict to talk about this morning. So I'm really kind of alarmed. I'm trying to figure out in my head what's going on in that jury room. I feel like there's probably like one, I would hope they're trying to convict and there's like one or two holdouts are trying to convince. Like, I hope that's what's going on. I hope it's not the other way around where most people want to let these guys go. And there's, you know, a couple of people who are, who are holding out, but I, I hope they can, I hope they could, I hope they convict and I hope they convict, uh, today going into Thanksgiving. It just seems like a, if you look at the evidence that was presented, it seems like a no brainer to me, but what do I know?

Yeah, me too, man. I think the most reasonable people, um, even, even if you take the defendant's argument, uh, you know, and you look at it in the most favorable light possible, it's still, you know, you, you've got testimony, direct testimony from, from one of the defendants, you know, basically stating this, he knew this individual didn't have a weapon. He was unarmed. He never brandished a weapon. He never threatened them verbally. Like there's, how do you justify murdering an individual, even in the event that this person was, you know, burglarizing a vacant house, whatever it was they suspected him of doing.

That's not a proportional response and you don't get the right to just outright murder someone. Uh, and I'm with you, Josh, that the sooner, the sooner this gets wrapped up, the better. The, uh, I did see, uh, and again, I hadn't been following this one as closely cause it kind of, kind of fell off my radar there for a while, but I did see, you know, the federal, they've already been indicted on, on hate crimes and that's all coming up in February. So I guess that's the one, the one thing, you know, if, if this jury comes back with anything but a conviction, at least, at least the federal government has kind of stepped in and I doubt they, they get, you know, I don't know, it seems like these guys are going to go down one way or the other. And it seems like they should, uh, that that's kinda, I was about to say, we could go through the facts. We could, we could talk about some of the evidence, but I hadn't seen, I haven't seen anything that would convince me as a juror to let those guys walk. Yeah, I agree with you. And you know, we talked about parallels with the Rittenhouse case and you know, the federal component and speculating whether the feds would try to get involved in the Rittenhouse case.

And the difference here is you've got that clear racial component and with that clear racial component, you've got, like you said, those, those additional federal charges. And I'm with you, man, it's, this seems clearly egregious and you look at the evidence and there's really, there's no way to spin it where this shouldn't bother you. The outlaw lawyers, we are discussing Ahmaud Arbery. And again, we tape in the middle of the week. There should be some kind of a verdict this week.

Obviously, we will get into this next week. I want to make sure that you understand that each and every week we talk legalese between Josh Whitaker and Joe Hamer, managing partners at Whitaker and Hamer Law Firm. Forty-six combined years experience between these two attorneys and they are practicing attorneys here in North Carolina.

They have offices in Raleigh, Garner, Clayton, Goldsboro, Fuquay, Verina, and Gastonia. If you've got your own legal question and you need an answer, we've got a number for you to call and an attorney with Whitaker and Hamer will be in touch. Just leave your information. 800-659-1186.

That's 800-659-1186. If you've got a question you'd like answered on the program, just email it to us. Questions at And for past shows and podcast form, you can go to our website, I'm Morgan Patrick, consumer advocate.

We have more to get to and we'll do that right after this. Coming up next, we will talk the forthcoming Ghislaine Maxwell trial. The outlaw lawyers on the air, Josh Whitaker and Joe Hamer are your hosts. You can find them at Whitaker and Hamer Law Firm, managing partners there, practicing attorneys here in North Carolina.

46 combined years experience between these two offices in Raleigh, Garner, Clayton, Goldsboro, Fuquay, Verina, and Gastonia. If you've got your own legal question, we've got a number for you. 800-659-1186. Leave your name, contact information, and an attorney with Whitaker and Hamer Law Firm will be in touch. Again, the number 800-659-1186. If you've got a question you'd like pondered on the program, you can always email it to us. Questions at

And please check out the website, Again, gentlemen, we talk about big ones and we're talking about big stories. Rittenhouse, Ahmaud Arbery, and now another big case. The Ghislaine Maxwell trial is going to start.

I think, Joe, I think I saw it was going to start on the 29th. Have you seen that? Yes, Josh, I have seen that. But to be fair, I saw that on your notes that you prepared.

I think that's what I saw. This one, you know, this one's another one that kind of got away from me. It's just been so long. You know, everybody knows what happened to Jeffrey Epstein or what didn't happen to him and his suicide in prison. And obviously by all reports, kind of a scuzzy, scuzzy situation there and involved a lot of famous folks. So it was a big lightning rod story for a long time.

And then he committed suicide. And so then they got Miss Maxwell on charges and she's been in prison. I have followed some of the stories on her treatment in prison, obviously, because of what happened to Mr. Epstein. They've been keeping a close watch on her.

They wake her up every couple hours to make sure she's alive. So she was a big international woman of means. So she had passports, you know, from a lot of different countries. She traveled. She had people who watched over. She has her own money. So she lived a pretty fancy, I think, lifestyle by all accounts. And now she's, you know, getting a not getting the meals she wants, not being able to sleep, small cell, constant surveillance. So I saw that her attorneys, I think, just made a complaint to the U.N. on her her treatment and her conditions. I've seen that come up a time or two.

Yes. You know, basically a socialite who came from money. And I'm sure not thrilled with with her current situation as far as it's not the lavish lifestyle that she's accustomed to. But also, I'm sure it's far more glamorous than a lot of individuals that are in state prisons or, you know, hard lockup deal with on a daily basis. And the things that this lady is accused of aren't anything small or anything to laugh at or anything minor.

These are substantial, ridiculous allegations, basically. I think it's important to note before you get too far into it. So we talked about Rittenhouse. We talked about the Arbery. We've been calling it the Arbery trial.

But obviously, Mr. Arbery is deceased. He's not on trial. But we've been calling that just so everybody knows what we're talking about. But those were state court cases. And so now we're in federal court. We're in a big boy court court. We're in federal court. And so this is the one where judges don't have to allow video.

And so we're just getting some sketches when she appears and it's not being live streamed. I think that's rubbed some folks the wrong way. But but this is federal court. So it's completely there's some similarities, but it's different.

Yeah. And like you said, this is this has been a hot button issue and especially for a lot of folks who are very much into the conspiracy theories. And as far as Epstein and Maxwell, both and just everything surrounded their case.

I mean, there are elaborate, substantial theories regarding how deep this goes, how hard this permeates the upper echelons of society. And a lot of speculation as to, you know, what happened with Epstein relating to that. But there's really there's there's nothing conspiratorial about the fact that this this trial is not being publicized in the same manner as, you know, the Rittenhouse trial was. Because like you said, it's it's federal court.

And this isn't unusual to have those things omitted in the way that they're being omitted. So that that in and of itself doesn't indicate foul play. But again, you can understand these are very serious charges and these are the type of things. I know there's everybody rational wants to see someone who is accused of and who has done the things that are being alleged here. If that person has done these things, everyone wants to make sure that justice is being carried properly. And that gives people a very vested interest in it.

Well, I agree with you. One thing that I said this before on the show, I was a journalist. I was a journalism undergrad major, obviously went to law school. I stand before you as a lawyer now, but journalism aspect of this is still very interesting to me. What people what what outlets choose to cover, what's happened to newspapers over the past 10 to 15 years, like all that. I find very interesting how people get their news. And so I kind of looked because there is there are some conspiracy theories on how Maxwell's being covered. And I will tell you, when I went and looked to try to get more information about evidence that was going to be presented, what was what was coming up?

It was slim pickings, you know, so I went to the CNN and the Fox News and the MSNBC and just kind of searched her name. Maybe one or two stories in the month of November so far. Definitely not a lot of coverage.

You know, the AP News BBC was covering it very heavily, but I guess that's because Prince Andrew was involved. And it sounds like he's he's not really going to be as involved as as maybe they thought early on. Maybe I read one of the witness that's accusing him or of stuff is not going to be as involved in the case.

But it was really hard to end up reading a lot of the actual documents filed by, you know, prosecutors and defense attorneys to get information because there wasn't. I mean, there and there's other things going on. And until the twenty ninth when the trial starts, you know, maybe everything will tick up then. But so far, not a whole lot of coverage in what we always call, you know, kind of the mainstream media. It's just I think it will be. But it's it's odd that it's not there yet.

It is. And again, that's one of those things that the conspiracy theory folks sees on the lack of coverage. And you look at if you look at Epstein and you look at how he's he was very you know, it's hard to say, you know, when you get to a certain point in society and you are a you're a famous person, you're associating with his famous people.

You don't you don't necessarily want to take the fact that an individual was filmed with another person as evidence that, you know, they're in collusion together. But a lot of evidence that a lot of very big names, you know, both actors, musicians, just just people that famous people in general were, you know, associated with with Epstein and then by proxy kind of Maxwell. And it should give you pause.

You know, it really should. And in a lot of ways, this this Maxwell trial is kind of Epstein's trial by proxy if you look at it, because she was kind of his his right hand lady and helping to to carry allegedly to carry out these these heinous things that are being alleged. Well, Joe, I'm going to follow this one closely because I'm interested to see what the actual I feel like we've heard a lot about it, you know, early on, but probably more like you said, more Epstein than Maxwell. But I'm interested to see what the evidence is. I can't imagine Miss Maxwell's ever going to be a free person again. But of course, don't want to jump to conclusions.

We always want to see what kind of evidence is put on. So we'll hold off giving our the outlaw lawyer prediction on her on her what her jury returns until we see some evidence. Yeah, I'm withholding that as well. We will wait. And we may even wait till till the verdict is announced to make our prediction just to keep our record that 100 percent record.

We want to keep that sterling. All right, Joe, I want to take a minute. We've talked about three various very serious topics. I want to take a minute. You know, a couple of weeks ago, we said, hey, we're going to we're going to have a little bit of fun. We're going to do our own little 16 16 movie tournament on the try to find the best, according to the outlaw lawyer, anyway, the best legal movie of all time. And so I've kind of gone selected some movies that I like, but I have come up with a 16 movie, 16 team tournament. All right.

And I did I did this without talking to you. So I've kind of gone again. We got four pods.

So I think we generally discuss, you know, we generally discuss this in theory. And I think that counts. And the fact that you put in the legwork. I'm proud of you. It does worry me because I think you've seen maybe six movies when you watch 18000 episodes of The Simpsons.

It doesn't leave a lot of time to watch movies. But I'm I see your notes and I like where your head's at. And I like where this is going. I was going to say I like the fact that you not only you came up with 16 teams, you put them in pods and you broke down the pods into different categories.

And I like the categories. So this is what we're gonna do. We're gonna do four pods. So four pods of four movies. We're gonna have the black and white bracket.

So I just put all the older movies in the black and white bracket. And then we're going to have a straight comedy bracket. That's the we can call it the Cousin Vinny bracket. And we're going to we're going to have one that's kind of more drama geared in my. High drama to be specific. Drama, high drama, pod. And then we're going to go straight action. So we're having an action pod. That's our four pods around the black and white bracket, comedy bracket, high drama bracket, action bracket. All right.

I like those those movies will fight out other brackets and we'll have a final four and we'll crown our best legal movie of all time. And so today I felt like we would reveal our black and white pod. And this was hard. I had to do like Joe said, I don't watch a lot of movies and the movies I do watch that I like, I rewatch over and over again. And I haven't seated these guys yet.

I didn't get that far. But if I had seated, I think our first movie would be the number one overall seed. And that is To Kill a Mockingbird. So, yeah, just to kill a mockingbird.

The number one seed for sure. Kind of the the Duke basketball of the legal movie tourney, if you will. I think that that movie, that book, I think I inspired a lot of attorneys kind of my age and older. I don't know if the kids today in school, if they still get to kill a mockingbird.

I know it's on Broadway because I see that on Sunday morning. They go to that a lot. But I think to kill a mockingbird has to be the presumptive number one overall favorite. And I've seen that. I see. Yeah, it's it's a classic. And again, if a generational thing, I'm like you, I'm not sure if they if the kids still get it. But when I was coming through, we still got it. So it's one of those that it's one of those that, you know, everyone for the very most part should be familiar with. And like you said, I think that the shoe in at least that of this pod, I think it's it's got to be the favorite. And listen, just for our listeners, let me translate that. That's Joe calling Josh old.

Well, Josh called himself old. That's true. It is. Well, in my defense, it's the black and white pod.

So this isn't the pod of the young people, you know, by definition. All right. What else you got?

What else you got? All right. The next one up, I think is going to be it's kind of a classic. I can't say I've ever made it through this one all the way, but I got the gist of it. Miracle on 34th Street. So that's the next one.

The trial of Santa Claus. Very seasonal as we approach the holiday season. And I think the fact that we're playing this tournament out during the holiday season may give an unfair home court advantage to Miracle on 34th Street. That's true. So that that and that nostalgia may play into it. And you got a lot of remakes of that as well. So it's got a lot of things going for it, man.

It really does. And I'm not going to lie to you guys, the next two movies I had to Google and figure out what other people thought were really good movies, legal movies from the black and white era. So I actually have to watch these. But we've got 12 angry men and we've got to inherit the win. I've seen 12 angry men. I took a film class.

I'm very cultured, Josh, if you didn't have this. And I actually took a film class at one of the great learning institutions in our country, Barton College. And we actually watched 12 angry men. That was one of the films we watched.

I recommend it, man. And I think it could be a dark horse. I think it could be a dark horse. I mean, as far as black and white movies go. And you appreciate legal things like you kind of if you like legal things in general, I think you'll like the movie. I don't know, Morgan, Joe, anybody seen Inherit the Wind? I have not seen that, but I'm going to have to do some research and view these, obviously, since they're going to be in the tournament.

And, you know, these first four seeds. Interesting. Is it a sequel to Gone with the Wind by chance? I think so. I think it was a prequel. What Wikipedia tells me and we will watch this movie before we dissect it more. But it tells me that in the 1920s, Tennessee school teacher Bertram Cates was put on trial for violating the Butler Act, which is a state law that prohibits public school teachers from teaching evolution instead of creationism. So it sounds it sounds terrible.

It's going to be very, very up to date. It's the 16th seed from the Big Sky conference that barely scraped out the play in game. Like a Western Kentucky Hilltoppers type. OK. All right, guys, we're in the great Dick York. All right. Well, we've got we've got our first four seeds again. It's the Black and White Pod to Kill a Mockingbird, 12 Angry Men, Miracle on 34th Street and Inherit the Wind.

We will also unveil the other three pods in upcoming shows. You're listening to the Outlaw lawyers, Josh Whitaker and Joe Hamer, managing partners at Whitaker and Hamer law firm. They have offices in Raleigh, Garner, Clayton, Goldsboro, Fuquay, Verina and Gastonia. They are practicing attorneys here in North Carolina.

If you've got your own legal question, you need an answer. Here's the number. Eight hundred six five nine eleven eighty six.

That's eight hundred six five nine eleven eighty six. Leave your name, contact information and an attorney with Whitaker and Hamer will be in touch. If you want a question answered on the program, future editions, just email us questions at the outlaw lawyer dot com.

We're back and we'll wrap things up. And we have a listener question to ponder. Up next, we have a listener question about bail. The Outlaw lawyers, Josh Whitaker and Joe Hamer, Whitaker and Hamer law firms, where you can find them during the week, managing partners, their forty six combined years experience. Again, offices in Raleigh, Garner, Clayton, Goldsboro, Fuquay, Verina and Gastonia. They are practicing attorneys here in North Carolina. Guys, I know you've got a listener question, so let's get to it. We do.

I got this question from a couple of people, Morgan. So we unfortunately just bad news over the weekend for Wisconsin, but they they had that incident where a suspect ran through a Christmas parade, got a lot of deaths, just a terrible situation. But one of the things that came out of reporting on on the on the guy who's been charged was he has a long criminal record. He was recently arrested for trying to run someone else over. And one of the things that came to light is that the judge gave him an exceptionally low bail amount. I think the bail cash bail thousand bucks maybe is what it was for trying to run over or charged with trying to run over his mother of one of his children. So again, just a terrible situation all the way around. But what it caused a lot of people to do in the media that some folks asked me, they don't understand how bail could be set that low for a serious crime. And a lot of people didn't even really know what bail was. And so, Joe, I figured that'd be a good listener question. We go and define just bail. Yeah. And like you said, the super unfortunate incident and the fact that it happened in pretty, pretty close proximity to the Rittenhouse incident as well.

Just a tough, tough string of events for just Wisconsin in general. And to answer to answer your question, bail is essentially the temporary release of an accused person that's awaiting trial. And it's sometimes on the condition that a sum of money and generally on the condition that a sum of money has to be pledged to guarantee that person's appearance in court. And once you get charged with a crime, depending on the seriousness of the crime, the judge is going to determine, you know, they want to make sure you're coming back to court. So you've been charged, arraigned, different states call it different things, but you're in front of a judge to answer charges and they want to make sure you're going to come back to court. So they determine based on your charges, your, you know, Miss Maxwell, we talked about Miss Maxwell, and she has all these passports from all these different countries.

She's a tremendous flight risk. So they didn't even grant her bail. But for a lot of things, they'll say, okay, a thousand dollars bail, ten thousand dollars bail, but that's the amount of money the court wants to hold to ensure that you're going to show up for your court case. And so you'll see sometimes that's cash, right? So if you get a thousand dollar bail and you got a thousand dollars in your pocket or you're, you know, someone you know does, they just pay the thousand dollars and you're out until your trial. If it's a lot of money, right, if it's a serious crime, I think the same gentleman who's been charged in Wisconsin, his bail was just set at five million dollars for his current charges, which are, again, horrific. And some people think it's too much and some people think it's too little, but it's hard to come up with five million dollars.

And so that's the thing. And you can use cash, you can use real property, you can go to a bail bondsman. And if you don't have a thousand, you have a hundred, they may post for a fee, they may post that bond for you. But that's in general, that's what bail is. And attorneys will argue all these factors, whether you're a flight risk, the seriousness of the charges, your criminal record, all these things can be used to argue why your bail should be less or more. And that's what a good attorney is going to do for you. And that is they're going to argue, of course, to reduce that bail and they're going to give various reasons why it should be reduced.

And then again, sometimes those arguments aren't going to be accepted. And like you said, with the case of Maxwell, in the case of this individual, you're going to, the bail should be proportional to that risk that you don't appear. And a lot of folks in this situation were kind of angry about the fact that the bail was so low for this person prior to this incident happening and feel like, you know, maybe if he was he was locked up, this could have been prevented. But there's a delicate balance there between fairness and, you know, bail being too high, bail being too low. The Outlaw Lawyers.

We have another episode in the books. Josh Whitaker and Joe Hamer, your hosts. Whitaker and Hamer Law Firm is where you can find them.

Managing partners there, 46 years combined experience between these two, Raleigh, Garner, Clayton, Goldsboro, Fuquay, Verina and Gastonia, where you can find their offices practicing attorneys here in North Carolina. If you've got your own legal question, give us a call. Eight hundred six five nine eleven eighty six.

That's eight hundred six five nine eleven eighty six. Or you can email your question to the show. Questions at the We'll use it on a future show. But guys, great show.

And we will see you on the radio next week. Outlaw Lawyer is hosted by an attorney licensed to practice law in North Carolina. Some of the guests appearing on the show may be licensed North Carolina attorneys. Discussion of the show is meant to be general in nature, and in no way should the discussion be interpreted as legal advice. Legal advice can only be rendered once an attorney licensed in the state in which you live had the opportunity to discuss the facts of your case with you. The attorneys appearing on the show are speaking in generalities about the law in North Carolina and how these laws affect the average North Carolinian. If you have any questions about the content of the show, contact us directly.
Whisper: medium.en / 2023-05-30 20:17:12 / 2023-05-30 20:41:16 / 24

Get The Truth Mobile App and Listen to your Favorite Station Anytime