Speaker 1: Judy was boring.
Speaker 2: Hello.
Speaker 1: Then Judy discovered chumpacasino dot com.
Speaker 2: It's my little escape.
Speaker 1: Now Judy is the life of the party.
Speaker 2: Oh baby mama is bringing home the bacon.
Speaker 1: WHOA take it easy, Judy, Jump the chump. A life
Speaker 1: that's for everybody. So go to chumpacasino dot com and
Speaker 1: play over one hundred casino style games. Join today and
Speaker 1: play for free for your chance to redeem some serious prices.
Speaker 1: Jump chumpacasino dot com. No pag's necessary weight, We're committed
Speaker 1: by eighteen plus terms and condition to playe website for details.
Speaker 1: With Lucky Land Slots, you can get lucky just about anywhere.
Speaker 3: Dearly beloved, we are gathered here today. Has anyone seen
Speaker 3: the bride and groom?
Speaker 1: Sorry? Sorry we're here. We were getting lucky in the
Speaker 1: limo and we lost track of time.
Speaker 4: No Lucky Land casino with cash prizes that add up
Speaker 4: quicker than a guess registered.
Speaker 3: In that case, I pronounce you lucky.
Speaker 1: Play for free Lucky Landslots dot Com.
Speaker 3: Daily bonuses are waiting.
Speaker 1: No purchase necessary board. We're prohibited by lack eight team
Speaker 1: plus terms and conditions apply.
Speaker 2: See website for.
Speaker 3: You are now listening to True Murder, the most shocking
Speaker 3: killers in true crime history and the authors that have
Speaker 3: written about him. Gasey Bundy, Dahmer, The Nightstalker BTK. Every
Speaker 3: week another fascinating author talking about the most shocking and
Speaker 3: infamous killers in true crime history. True Murder with your
Speaker 3: host journalist and author Dan Zupanski.
Speaker 5: Good Evening. The Fifth and sixth Amendments to the Constitution
Speaker 5: of the United States guarantee the right against self incrimination,
Speaker 5: the right to remain silent, and the right to counsel.
Speaker 5: A crime wave swept California in the late nineteen sixties.
Speaker 5: Several young girls were abducted, raped and murdered. Michael D.
Speaker 5: Matson was convicted of these crimes and sentenced to death.
Speaker 5: Law Clerk by day, family Man by Night In nineteen
Speaker 5: eighty two. Jim Potts, a brilliant, idealistic African American law student,
Speaker 5: is honored when one of his professors recruits him to
Speaker 5: assist in writing a death penalty appeal on behalf of
Speaker 5: a serial killer. Potts discovers a loophole in the case
Speaker 5: that somehow had been overlooked, one that could not only
Speaker 5: get Matson off death row, but once presented to the
Speaker 5: Supreme Court of California could release him to rape and
Speaker 5: murder again. When Potts confides in his pregnant wife, she says,
Speaker 5: if Matson goes free, their marriage is over. But if
Speaker 5: Potts quits the case or withholds information, he violates his
Speaker 5: duty to client and constitution and risks his career before
Speaker 5: it even begins. A moral dilemma with no good way out.
Speaker 5: To avoid losing his family and releasing pure evil back
Speaker 5: into the world, Potts must be smarter than his options.
Speaker 5: He must find a way to keep his family together,
Speaker 5: fulfill his duties, and keep Mattson behind bars. But can
Speaker 5: he The book we're featuring this evening is defending a
Speaker 5: serial killer the right to counsel, with my special guest,
Speaker 5: attorney and author Jim Potts. Welcome to the program, and
Speaker 5: thank you so much for this interview.
Speaker 2: Jim Potts, Hey, thank you very much for having me, Dan,
Speaker 2: I appreciate it.
Speaker 5: Thank you so much. This is a remarkable story and
Speaker 5: a very unique perspective you have in this book, as
Speaker 5: you do in the book. Let's talk about Michael D. Mattson.
Speaker 2: Well, he was definitely a piece of work. There's no
Speaker 2: doubt about it. You know, I think that what happened
Speaker 2: to him was that he was a product of his environment.
Speaker 2: As a child, in all honesty, went through that parent situation.
Speaker 2: And not all step parents are bad, so let me
Speaker 2: make make let me make that clear. But in his
Speaker 2: particular case, you know, as a child, his mother started
Speaker 2: noticing certain things about him, certain things that he was doing.
Speaker 2: Some people say that he because of the fact that
Speaker 2: he was abused by his stepfather, physically abused, that that
Speaker 2: had a definite impact on him without a doubt. So
Speaker 2: at a very early age, he was using drugs and
Speaker 2: that was part of the problem. He would he would
Speaker 2: he would drink a case of beer and you're talking
Speaker 2: about in his teens as an example, and he would
Speaker 2: get into all kinds of these different drugs that you know,
Speaker 2: we hallucinate things of that nature. So his childhood was
Speaker 2: a definite factor in my opinion in terms of who
Speaker 2: he turned out to be. And even even the court
Speaker 2: appointings psychologist related back to the same time frame that
Speaker 2: he may have been impacted mentally because of the way
Speaker 2: that he was abused and the things that he saw
Speaker 2: because he not only he was not only abused, but
Speaker 2: his mother was abused by this by this person as well.
Speaker 2: So those are factors for him. But his mother started
Speaker 2: noticing things about him as well, with him wearing female
Speaker 2: clothing as an example, one time she caught him in
Speaker 2: a field and he was wearing a dress and other
Speaker 2: things that he would do that you know, that concerned her.
Speaker 2: He had this one episode where he had a young
Speaker 2: friend of his where he actually made the kids strip
Speaker 2: down with the kid and stuck a broomstick up his rear,
Speaker 2: you know, things of that nature. And so again this
Speaker 2: was at a very very young age, made the kid
Speaker 2: walk home like that. You know. What was interesting is
Speaker 2: what I didn't find was what the parents of that
Speaker 2: child even did have they reacted to any of that. Unfortunately,
Speaker 2: I don't have that His mother was the one that
Speaker 2: related the information from that perspective in terms of what happened.
Speaker 2: So he just developed, in my opinion, into this monster.
Speaker 2: And I think it really did start with the abuseity
Speaker 2: you know that he received as well as the abuse
Speaker 2: that he saw. Now, he may have used alcohol and
Speaker 2: drugs as an escape in my opinion, but I think
Speaker 2: those things eventually overtook him. So he as he moved along,
Speaker 2: he ended up going into service. He was up in Oregon,
Speaker 2: and when he was up there, he basically went awol
Speaker 2: and while he was while he was away when he
Speaker 2: wasn't supposed to be, he actually kidnapped this young lady
Speaker 2: and her brother, both of them, and as a result
Speaker 2: of that he was convicted raped her, robbed her, basically
Speaker 2: made the brother leaves and drove off in the car
Speaker 2: and took her to a secluded place. So he eventually
Speaker 2: got caught and he had to do time for that crime. Obviously,
Speaker 2: now the purpose people argue that the purpose of you know,
Speaker 2: then go to jail, you're supposed to rehabilitate, etc. But
Speaker 2: the sad part in his particular case was that he
Speaker 2: didn't rehabilitate because is what he did was in his mind,
Speaker 2: he developed this attitude that in the future, if he
Speaker 2: in fact engages in the same behavior which he intended
Speaker 2: to do, then he would kill his victims so that
Speaker 2: the victims could not come back and testify against him.
Speaker 2: And that's the sad part about this with him, is
Speaker 2: that his mind, in my opinion, was so demented at
Speaker 2: that time that it was just a matter of time
Speaker 2: when he would go even further and include murder in
Speaker 2: his actions. So I hope that answered your basic question
Speaker 2: on him.
Speaker 5: You talked about that you mentioned and you write about
Speaker 5: a counselor named Jacobs that spoke to him about twelve
Speaker 5: months before any of this killing occurred, and she had
Speaker 5: some dramatic conclusions based on what he had said to
Speaker 5: her regarding women and his hatred for them.
Speaker 2: He the reason why I think he hated women was
Speaker 2: because what I understood from the relationship he had with
Speaker 2: his mother is that his mother did not protect him
Speaker 2: from the abuse of the stepfather, right, and as a
Speaker 2: result of that, he was psychologically damaged because and again
Speaker 2: I'm not a psychologist, let me make that clear, but
Speaker 2: he resented that normally, and I'm just speaking in general now,
Speaker 2: are supposed to protect their children, and I think children
Speaker 2: look for that protection and when it wasn't there, I
Speaker 2: think that that psychologically damaged him and that's why he
Speaker 2: hated He hated women. But you know the odd part
Speaker 2: about that then, is that if he hated women so much,
Speaker 2: why did he dress in women's clothes. I mean, even
Speaker 2: when he got captured, there were female there was female
Speaker 2: attire in the car, and the mother when the police
Speaker 2: officers called her. She told them, oh, yeah, yeah, yeah,
Speaker 2: there would be women's clothes in his car because she
Speaker 2: knows that he dresses women. So think about that for
Speaker 2: a second. Where's the conflict there? It just at once
Speaker 2: again it is the point that proves that he was
Speaker 2: just so mentally scrambled, so to speak, that he turned
Speaker 2: into this monster. Because if he hated women, why would
Speaker 2: you dress as a woman. You have to wonder.
Speaker 5: You called them a gamester. But still he was deemed
Speaker 5: competent to stand trial by a judge.
Speaker 2: He was a gagster. He was a good looking guy,
Speaker 2: and he would use those looks to lure these young
Speaker 2: women in, including his very first biot to all of them,
Speaker 2: actually except for the very last one when he got
Speaker 2: caught in Las Vegas. That on was just was just
Speaker 2: a forced situation. But the other ones weren't force situations.
Speaker 2: He used his looks and his charm so to speak,
Speaker 2: to lure these women in. And that's the staff part.
Speaker 2: But that's why I said he's a gangster. He is.
Speaker 5: He was. You write in July nineteen seventy eight in
Speaker 5: Los Angeles, you and your wife Betty were expecting your
Speaker 5: first child. It was a complicated pregnancy, you were working
Speaker 5: full time and attending law school five nights a week.
Speaker 5: There's a lot of pressure on you. And tell us
Speaker 5: about newscast that you happened to view at that time.
Speaker 2: We were watching TV, and just to make to back
Speaker 2: up for a second, Yeah, Betty was bedridden at two
Speaker 2: months with the pregnancy, so for her, she was very
Speaker 2: in tune to this business about having a child and
Speaker 2: things of that nature. So basically, what was going on
Speaker 2: we were watching We're just watching the news as people
Speaker 2: do in the evening, I fixing vent on whether the
Speaker 2: case may be. And we saw the situation where the
Speaker 2: little girl had been kidnapped. All right, loud, no excuse me,
Speaker 2: was missing. Let's start off with that was missing, and
Speaker 2: that it was a man hunt that was going on.
Speaker 2: Ellie County Sheriff's Department was handling that, and you know,
Speaker 2: they were talking about the fact that this little girl
Speaker 2: I was missing from the from the community park that
Speaker 2: she and her sibling was at and everybody's looking for
Speaker 2: it basically, and she was only nine years old. So
Speaker 2: as you as you can imagine, you got a nine
Speaker 2: year old is missing. And these days it doesn't matter
Speaker 2: whether they're nine or whatever the age is, people are
Speaker 2: going to try to do a manhut. They go door
Speaker 2: to door and they start searching. So La County Sheriff's
Speaker 2: apartment was on the news talking about that we had
Speaker 2: a nine year old girl missing and they wanted to
Speaker 2: put the information out there. Have you know, have you
Speaker 2: seen her? I think we've all seen those types of
Speaker 2: newscasts even today. You see him sure from time to time.
Speaker 2: So that caught our attention. Now it's at first it
Speaker 2: was just a little girl missing, which is always a
Speaker 2: sad situation. They suspected something was going on, but they
Speaker 2: did they did not know. And then I believe it
Speaker 2: was the maintenance person who said that he that he
Speaker 2: had seen this particular vehicle okay, and that he thinks
Speaker 2: that the girl may have gotten into the vehicle, which
Speaker 2: is even worse at that point because then it turns
Speaker 2: it turned from a missing child to a kidnapped missing child,
Speaker 2: and that makes a big difference. So that's what happened.
Speaker 2: So of course we discussed it. I mean, people, you know,
Speaker 2: you're laying there and it's, oh my god, nine year
Speaker 2: old girl missing, possibly abducted, and those kind of things
Speaker 2: will always you know, you know, make the normal civil
Speaker 2: person very upset. I think I mentioned in the book.
Speaker 2: I'm time to remember if I mentioned in the book
Speaker 2: or not about the fact that the same child that
Speaker 2: Betty was pregnant with, that's that's my oldest son. Now
Speaker 2: he was almost subductive out of the grocery store, so
Speaker 2: you know years later, No, it wasn't even years later.
Speaker 2: It would have been it would have been roughly after
Speaker 2: he was born, probably a year and a half, maybe
Speaker 2: two years old. He was sitting in the grocery car
Speaker 2: right there was a baby, and Betty had left the
Speaker 2: cart there, walked down the eye you know how you
Speaker 2: walked down the aisle because you looking for something up
Speaker 2: on the shelf. And she turned around and this individual
Speaker 2: had lifted him up out of the cart, and she
Speaker 2: started screaming and everything. He sent him Backdannel Len out
Speaker 2: of the store. So abductions are really something that's almost
Speaker 2: apparent's nightmare. That was the situation with this child.
Speaker 5: M Yes, you do, you do mention that in the book?
Speaker 5: Pardon me? You do rest with that incredible more than
Speaker 5: coincidence and relation to this case. You say that she
Speaker 5: was eventually found and what was the condition that she
Speaker 5: was found in? What was some of the circumstances.
Speaker 2: She was unfortunately found at a park withinni and arrows.
Speaker 2: And when he founder, she had this pookasht necklace wrapped
Speaker 2: around her throat and she had been strangled. The body
Speaker 2: was partially covered, and it didn't take them long to
Speaker 2: ascertain obviously that she had been that she had been
Speaker 2: murdered and also and also sodomized as well. She was
Speaker 2: only nine years old, so that was very upsetting. Equal
Speaker 2: matter immediately was was was spotted on her on her rear,
Speaker 2: and so they know that it was a situation where
Speaker 2: she had been brutally murdered and also sodomized as well.
Speaker 2: Mm hmm.
Speaker 5: And this is Cheryl Christy getires correct. Yes, And at
Speaker 5: the same time, for our listeners, the Hillside Strangler has
Speaker 5: terrorized stranglers have terrorized Los Angeles around this same time
Speaker 5: or previous.
Speaker 2: Correct, that's correct. And and and actually when he ended
Speaker 2: up getting in Nevada, when the Sheriff's apartment went out there,
Speaker 2: or the lap when they went out there, they thought
Speaker 2: that possibly at first that he was the Hillside Strangler,
Speaker 2: but they did not know that he was the one
Speaker 2: associated with these deaths. They were thinking at a whole
Speaker 2: different level. So it didn't take them long to figure
Speaker 2: out what was going on because he basically told them,
Speaker 2: you know, what he had done. So then the gears switched,
Speaker 2: let's put it that way. So then the investigation opened up,
Speaker 2: and too not long the death, but several other deaths,
Speaker 2: so they know they had to go to Nevada to
Speaker 2: do this. But then I'm sure we're going to get
Speaker 2: into what happened all out there because those were part
Speaker 2: of the problems that created the dilemma, so to speak,
Speaker 2: things that I had found out.
Speaker 5: So tell us what happens in the investigation and to
Speaker 5: find the killer of Cheryl Christi Gataz And then you
Speaker 5: talk about July twentieth in Deanna Muskwidge, which was sixteen
Speaker 5: years old, is also missing.
Speaker 2: You know, here's the problem. The problem is parents try
Speaker 2: to tell kids, don't hitchhike, don't get into cars or strangers,
Speaker 2: and that's exactly what happens. Lit's back up on Cheryl.
Speaker 2: Cheryl was upset because she wanted to go home. They
Speaker 2: were at the park, they were swimming, they were all
Speaker 2: having a good time, but she wanted to go home
Speaker 2: or something was not ready to go home yet, so
Speaker 2: she was upset and Michael Mattson saw something that was
Speaker 2: going on because she was crying and basically lured over
Speaker 2: to the car and then told her he could take
Speaker 2: her home, so she got into the car. The other
Speaker 2: one's the same thing. The only ones who didn't voluntarily
Speaker 2: get to the car was the last person, which we'll
Speaker 2: get to because she was in the batter And so
Speaker 2: luring people in people telling their children don't hitchhike is
Speaker 2: always it's always a message that they need to do.
Speaker 2: So the investigation to answer your question, you want to
Speaker 2: know specifically on the investigation that would have taken place
Speaker 2: in Nevada. So do you want me to switch gears
Speaker 2: and go into Nevada and to the investigation of what happened?
Speaker 5: Yes?
Speaker 2: Do that? Okay? What happened was that Michael Mattson on
Speaker 2: his last situation in California, he actually did not kill
Speaker 2: his victim. His victim basically pleaded for her a life, etc.
Speaker 2: And for some reason he didn't kill her. Now, when
Speaker 2: he was interviewed, he said the only reason why he
Speaker 2: didn't kill her was because she was pleading for her life,
Speaker 2: but that he also couldn't find a rock big enough
Speaker 2: to bash her head in right, so he ended up
Speaker 2: taking her and dropping her back off. So he realized afterwards,
Speaker 2: now he has left a victim alive that could describe
Speaker 2: him in his vehicle, etc. So he takes off and
Speaker 2: goes to Nevada. So he gets to Nevada, but he
Speaker 2: doesn't really have that much money. He gets on the
Speaker 2: spur of the moment, decided he better leave, so he
Speaker 2: drives to North Las Vegas, where he's just about running
Speaker 2: out of gas. So he goes to the local junior
Speaker 2: college there and by that time it's at night. So
Speaker 2: it's what happened was he spotted a female student going
Speaker 2: to her car and he basically a gunpoint forced her
Speaker 2: into the car because he wanted some money the gas.
Speaker 2: What she didn't know is that the gun was actually
Speaker 2: a BB gun. It wasn't a real gun. It was
Speaker 2: a BB gun. But she don't know that it's at night,
Speaker 2: it's a gun. Get in the car and that's what
Speaker 2: she jared, so force us into the car. He knows
Speaker 2: that he doesn't have a gat. He takes us to
Speaker 2: the secluded area and uh basically rapes her, but he
Speaker 2: doesn't have gas, so they go back to the gas station.
Speaker 2: They go back to a gas station, and at the
Speaker 2: gas station, she figures out that she's got to get away.
Speaker 2: This is her opportunity, and when he's out there, out
Speaker 2: of the out of the car, she basically jumps out
Speaker 2: and and runs into the station and tells the attendant
Speaker 2: what's going on. So of course they call the police.
Speaker 2: Pat Dingle was a detective at the North Las Vegas
Speaker 2: Police Department, so he gets to call at night and
Speaker 2: he goes up there and he starts looking around, and
Speaker 2: of course he finds you know, the you know the car,
Speaker 2: and he starts investigating the car, but he's still not
Speaker 2: sure of what's going on. To make a long story short,
Speaker 2: it's at night. He goes back, but then the victim
Speaker 2: ends up going to the hospital and they end up calling,
Speaker 2: and so he's able to interview, et cetera, et cetera,
Speaker 2: et cetera. So they put the word out on the
Speaker 2: vehicle licens plate. The vehicle license plate is to California
Speaker 2: and comes back under Michael b Massive, but he's not
Speaker 2: equating that with anything going on in California. Of course,
Speaker 2: he's just equating it to this particular situation with this
Speaker 2: victim in North Las Vegas. So he puts out on
Speaker 2: the teletype because it's too late at that point to
Speaker 2: call California. So he puts out on the teletype description
Speaker 2: of what happened, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. He
Speaker 2: ends up getting a call from La County about this
Speaker 2: particular situation, and the investigators end up going out because
Speaker 2: again they're thinking he's the Hillside Triangle situation, right. But
Speaker 2: during this time, Pat Dingle's fingers out, Wait a minute,
Speaker 2: nothing's going on because Pat felt that this particular individual,
Speaker 2: you know, there's something going on with now, he's not
Speaker 2: in custody. It's just I'm sorry, I should back up.
Speaker 2: He's not in custody yet, all right. So so even
Speaker 2: though the word was put out on the teletype and
Speaker 2: they got a call about it, they weren't going out
Speaker 2: there yet because Madson hadn't been captured. So Madson ends
Speaker 2: up going up to driving to because he had grandparents
Speaker 2: that lived in Eli. I guess that's type and EOI
Speaker 2: or Nevada. So the sheriff up there, Sheriff Robinson knew
Speaker 2: about a family that was in that particular area, because again,
Speaker 2: when you send out a teletype, it goes out all
Speaker 2: across the country, as you can imagine. So they picked
Speaker 2: up on it and he goes to the grandparents' house.
Speaker 2: It just happened to, you know, knock on the door,
Speaker 2: say listen, we'll looking for Michael D. Madson. Would you
Speaker 2: happen to know him? Mean, while Matson had driven up there,
Speaker 2: and again it was still a gas issue. So he
Speaker 2: ends up going to his grandparents' house walking, you know,
Speaker 2: gets to his grandparents house. So when sure Robinson got there,
Speaker 2: the grandparents came to the door and they said, you
Speaker 2: know Michael D. Manson And of course they looked at
Speaker 2: each other. Well yeah, that's how grand said. Well do
Speaker 2: you know where he is? Well, yeah, he's inside sleeping.
Speaker 2: So of course Robinson was shot because he got lucky
Speaker 2: at that point. He had to know from that perspective
Speaker 2: it's not always that easy, trust me when I tell you,
Speaker 2: But you know what's he done now? I mean, so
Speaker 2: the grandparents even knew that he had a bad background,
Speaker 2: but that's still their grandson. They're not going to turn
Speaker 2: them away, and they don't know what he's done most recently.
Speaker 2: They only know what happened in Oregon. So Mason comes
Speaker 2: to the door and Robinson takes him into custody, takes
Speaker 2: him back to the station. Pat Dingle and his partner reed.
Speaker 2: They find out because Robinson calls and says, hey, I
Speaker 2: got your guy in custody. Basically, so they drive up
Speaker 2: there and Pat told me, as soon as he looked
Speaker 2: at this individual, in his mind, this guy was pure evil.
Speaker 2: And again he did not fully know everything that Mason
Speaker 2: had done. He only knew about what happened with this
Speaker 2: victim in North Las Vegas. Right on the ride back,
Speaker 2: he was in the back with Madson, and Pat told
Speaker 2: me this, and it just, you know, from my perspective,
Speaker 2: being with my background and even being a police officer
Speaker 2: that you know, I was a reserved police officer as
Speaker 2: well with Elie County Sheriff's Department, was it was just wrong.
Speaker 2: He confided it in me that he in fact had
Speaker 2: taken his gun and put it in Matson's mouth and
Speaker 2: you know, threatened him, et cetera. And that to me
Speaker 2: was wrong. But again, nobody knew this at that time.
Speaker 2: This is information that came out way after his conviction.
Speaker 2: I'll get to write, you know a little bit later,
Speaker 2: but at any rate, he gets them out, and of
Speaker 2: course they they did read him as rights. They told
Speaker 2: him that, you know, he had to write domain found, etc.
Speaker 2: So they did what they were supposed to do from
Speaker 2: that standpoint. So to ride back from ELI was about
Speaker 2: three hours. So they get back to North Las Vegas,
Speaker 2: and that's where things, in my opinion, started going to me.
Speaker 2: At that time, the knowledge that I had when I
Speaker 2: was doing the research where things started going a little
Speaker 2: strange because at the time of the appeal, I did
Speaker 2: not know that Pat had done that with the gun
Speaker 2: in the mouth, etc. I didn't find that out until
Speaker 2: you know, years later. Make a long story short, and
Speaker 2: that was after the after the appeal. But what happened
Speaker 2: was Pat put the word out that he was in custody.
Speaker 2: Then as a result of that, he learns that match
Speaker 2: and may have involved in other crimes in California. And
Speaker 2: he had suspected that this guy's probably done something like
Speaker 2: this before. So now information is starting to come in.
Speaker 2: So Pat, in my opinion, starts looking at this like
Speaker 2: the highlight of his career. And in conversations that I
Speaker 2: had with it. Pat was a very unique person in
Speaker 2: terms of his background. I mean, he became a detective
Speaker 2: at a very early age because he was just very
Speaker 2: good at what he did. And so he starts developing
Speaker 2: a relationship. So when you start talking about an investigation,
Speaker 2: at some point he's entitled to have counsel present during
Speaker 2: these kinds of conversations. Quote right, you know, investigation type
Speaker 2: of questions. Mason had already said that he wanted to
Speaker 2: talk to an attorney and that was not afforded to him.
Speaker 2: At that point, Pat started developing a relationship with Madson.
Speaker 2: He started luring him. In my opinion, so you want
Speaker 2: to talk about a gamester, Pat at that point was
Speaker 2: becoming a gamester himself because he looked at Massive as
Speaker 2: purely evil. He wanted to make sure Masin was gonna
Speaker 2: end up getting convicted, and so he started doing things
Speaker 2: that police officers should not be doing because why he
Speaker 2: got emotionally involved with the situation. And in my opinion,
Speaker 2: police officers cannot get emotionally involved with We're not the
Speaker 2: judging Jerick. Our job and his job was to arrest him.
Speaker 2: And yes, you can ask him questions, but he hasn't
Speaker 2: right to counsel and this is what this is all about.
Speaker 2: He would go and have Michael come into the interrogation room,
Speaker 2: give him coffee cigarettes. At one point he even promise
Speaker 2: him some drugs. I mean, he was luring him into
Speaker 2: this false sense of security and that to me he
Speaker 2: was wrong. But at any rate, he had put out
Speaker 2: that mass and custom for me, and you know, different
Speaker 2: agencies came out to talk to him, and again that's
Speaker 2: when Past started realizing it that he had really caught
Speaker 2: possibly a person that I don't want to say would
Speaker 2: enhance his career, but was probably like a career situation
Speaker 2: that everybody wants to get, you know, with somebody like
Speaker 2: this because it's a serial killer or whatever the case
Speaker 2: may be. Sure, and that's exactly what happened. I think
Speaker 2: Pat let that go to his head. And again when
Speaker 2: they came out to interrogate him, he has a right
Speaker 2: to council. Now Pat had been in touch with the
Speaker 2: attorney which local public defender's office, and they said die
Speaker 2: go ahead and talked to him, which to me is wrong,
Speaker 2: but whatever it happened, so they would come out and
Speaker 2: they questioned him. They quickly realized during this investing part
Speaker 2: of the investigation that he was not the Hillshigh strangler.
Speaker 2: What Mattson told them was, I could tell you about
Speaker 2: some things you know that I did that you don't
Speaker 2: even know about. And then of course your ears are
Speaker 2: going to perk up, well what are you talking about?
Speaker 2: So that's when he turns around and basically, with all
Speaker 2: of this and with pat influences, et cetera, and luring
Speaker 2: him into a false sense of security, he basically tells
Speaker 2: them about the crimes and even draws a map for
Speaker 2: one of the for one of the victims where they
Speaker 2: can find so that that opened up the door to
Speaker 2: their being issues and his violation of his of his rights.
Speaker 2: I'm just going on. I don't know if you if
Speaker 2: you have questions in between any of this, because I'm
Speaker 2: kind of just moving forward with this.
Speaker 5: Well, you're giving them, gives this information. The thing is
Speaker 5: now once this, once this has happened, once he's Dingle
Speaker 5: has got this confession. You also, when when we talked
Speaker 5: about you hearing about this case of the Guetara's Cheryl
Speaker 5: Gatira is being killed and having that faithful conversation with
Speaker 5: your wife Betty, you now find out information about Mattson
Speaker 5: involved with this in another event where you're again this
Speaker 5: faithful intersection here where you come to be aware of this,
Speaker 5: and then you tell us how Ron Smith, you're a
Speaker 5: professor or law professor in law school, who had taken
Speaker 5: you under a wing, gives you a call. So tell
Speaker 5: us about this event and the event where your professor
Speaker 5: calls you.
Speaker 2: Well, here's what happened. Ron was my first year. Ron
Speaker 2: was my instructor in my first year. And Ron contacts
Speaker 2: me and says, because you know I had an interest
Speaker 2: also in criminal law, Ron contacts me and says, basically, hey, Jimmy,
Speaker 2: I just got appointed by Justice rose Berg to handle
Speaker 2: a death penalty case. Because in cal anytime that you're
Speaker 2: convicted and sentenced to death, it's an automatic appeal to
Speaker 2: the California Supreme Court. So Ron calls me and says, hey, listen,
Speaker 2: would you be interested in working with me on this case?
Speaker 2: You know, on this appeal? And he is a law student.
Speaker 2: You jump at an opportunity like that, of course, I mean,
Speaker 2: you know you can practice law and never had you know,
Speaker 2: in a lifetime, and never have an opportunity like that.
Speaker 2: So I jumped at the opportunity without knowing all of
Speaker 2: the details, just the death pendly cases heading to the
Speaker 2: United excuse me, to the California Supreme Court. So of
Speaker 2: course you're excited. So there was like four thousand pages
Speaker 2: of transcripts and exhibits, and uh So once I got
Speaker 2: those and I'm starting to go through those exhibits and
Speaker 2: the transcripts, etc. I realize what this guy has done
Speaker 2: because now it's in detail with all of these victims
Speaker 2: of what he actually did to them, etc. So I
Speaker 2: start having that conversation because you know, it's the taught conversations,
Speaker 2: as they say. You know, my wife were talking about
Speaker 2: these things. I'm like, oh my god, let me tell
Speaker 2: you what this guy did, you know, And that's where
Speaker 2: the conflict started because at that point she's like, you know,
Speaker 2: wait a minute. You know you can't help somebody like this,
Speaker 2: you know. And then I started looking at my personal
Speaker 2: values versus my I mean, my yeah, my personal values,
Speaker 2: my moral values versus you know, the requirement that you
Speaker 2: have to represent to the best of your ability, so
Speaker 2: the ethical responsibilities to a client. So that took some
Speaker 2: soul searching. I mean, I was an altar boy, I
Speaker 2: was an eagle scout and went to all the Catholic schools.
Speaker 2: I mean, this guy was everything that I wasn't. I mean,
Speaker 2: I was just the opposite. So when she put it
Speaker 2: in my mind about the fact that you can't represent
Speaker 2: somebody like this, I mean, it is something for you
Speaker 2: to think about, you know. So while I was thinking
Speaker 2: about it, of course, I was still reading and doing
Speaker 2: some of the things that I had to do anyway,
Speaker 2: because I still had a responsibility to want. So eventually
Speaker 2: I had to tell I had to tell Betty that, well,
Speaker 2: you know, I've made a decision, and the decision is
Speaker 2: I'm going to go ahead and you know, assist Ron
Speaker 2: in this in this particular case and this appeal. And
Speaker 2: that's when she really became upset because it was like, listen,
Speaker 2: you can't do this if that guy gets off with
Speaker 2: done and you know that's not something you want to hear,
Speaker 2: you expect. Well, you know, any any spouse, in my opinions,
Speaker 2: should always support another spouse and understanding what the implications
Speaker 2: of a comment like that may be. So then that's
Speaker 2: when the conflict sets in, you know, at a higher level.
Speaker 2: And I had to just simply tell her, look, if
Speaker 2: I'm getting into this profession it's clear that you know,
Speaker 2: you can't get out of it just because you find
Speaker 2: the subject matter repugnant. And what I'm not going to
Speaker 2: do is be influenced, you know, one way or another,
Speaker 2: you know, regarding you know, career decisions. You know, we
Speaker 2: had the conversation because your a spouse. We talk about
Speaker 2: these things, but you can't decide for me or force
Speaker 2: me to decide in a manner that's going to be
Speaker 2: contrary to a career that I'm getting ready to enter.
Speaker 2: So she obviously was unhappy about that. But then again,
Speaker 2: we didn't have the outcome yet. So it's if you know,
Speaker 2: he gets off et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. So
Speaker 2: it's like, well, whatever the case may be, it's my job,
Speaker 2: working with Ron, to be able to look at all
Speaker 2: of the possibilities as to whether or not any of
Speaker 2: his rights were violated the case. Because at that point,
Speaker 2: keep in mind, Dan, he's he was a self confessed
Speaker 2: killer at that point, so it's not like we didn't
Speaker 2: have information as if you know, he got railroaded, you know,
Speaker 2: in the courtroom, so to speak. It wasn't like that.
Speaker 2: I mean, you know, his confession got in basically, and
Speaker 2: that led towards, you know, toward him being convicted. So
Speaker 2: having said that, I'm going to move on with this,
Speaker 2: she was not happy. Things were a little bit strained,
Speaker 2: but the outcome wasn't there yet, so you know, things
Speaker 2: settled to a certain extent anyway. So then I go
Speaker 2: through all of this and I'm looking and I'm reading
Speaker 2: the transcripts, I'm reading police reports, and when I'm reading
Speaker 2: the police reports and everything, I'm looking at the fact
Speaker 2: that he was given his rights at the time that
Speaker 2: he was picked up in Elie Nevader from Sheriff Robinson
Speaker 2: to three hour drive as I mentioned earlier, from Eli
Speaker 2: back to North Las Vegas. So when they when Pat
Speaker 2: Dingo continued to ask him questions after they got back,
Speaker 2: that to me was problematic because that was going on
Speaker 2: before he had actually secured you know, proper counsel, which
Speaker 2: again was a public defender at that time. And I
Speaker 2: won't say anything negative about public defenders, Dan, you know.
Speaker 2: I mean, they've got a list of cases that they
Speaker 2: have to handle, and it makes it very, very tough
Speaker 2: on them, but they still do a great job, in
Speaker 2: my opinion, es best as they can't anyway, so that
Speaker 2: to me was problematic, and I looked at that this
Speaker 2: some research on it, and then had a conversation with Ron.
Speaker 2: So I go to Ron and I said, Ron, you
Speaker 2: know I've concluded, you know, my thoughts on this. I
Speaker 2: look through everything. So Ron and I agreed to me.
Speaker 2: So when we met, Ron was all excited because he
Speaker 2: had found an issue that they had read the wrong
Speaker 2: jury instruction, so that instead of Matson getting the death penalty,
Speaker 2: that Math should have gotten life and imprisonment without the
Speaker 2: possibility of parole. And I'm looking at Ron thinking to myself, Okay,
Speaker 2: why does he not see what I see here? He's
Speaker 2: talking about the wrong jury instruction. And when I'm looking
Speaker 2: at and reading is that his it's got violated under
Speaker 2: the fifth and sixth Amendments. And you know, I'm looking
Speaker 2: at a bigger issue here. I was thinking maybe I
Speaker 2: missed the boat. So I get into this conversation with
Speaker 2: Ron about I said, Ron, I think there's another issue here,
Speaker 2: and He's like, what are you talking about? So I
Speaker 2: start relating some of the same facts I related to you,
Speaker 2: and I said, I think his rights have been violated
Speaker 2: under the fifth and sixth A Members and Ron was like, what,
Speaker 2: you're crazy. No, no, no, no, no, no, no no, no,
Speaker 2: you know, and again I'm just a lawsuitent. So I
Speaker 2: argued it. So I ended up arguing it so hard,
Speaker 2: and Ron said, look, I'll tell you what I'll do.
Speaker 2: I'll include your argument in the brief. Okay, Well, when Ron, actually,
Speaker 2: when we actually you know, you only have one hour
Speaker 2: to argue in front of the California Supreme Court. So
Speaker 2: Ron was arguing his issue for about the first ten minutes,
Speaker 2: and then the justice looked at him and said, you know,
Speaker 2: mister Smith, there's a bigger issue here than the wrong
Speaker 2: jury instruction. So then he switched my issue for the
Speaker 2: last fifty minutes. And as a result of that, now
Speaker 2: I don't want to get into you don't want me
Speaker 2: to get into the conclusion.
Speaker 5: Do you.
Speaker 2: Right? Okay, I'll stop right there. At any rate he did,
Speaker 2: he didn't make my argument, and the justices you know,
Speaker 2: went out, you know, to you know, to debate it.
Speaker 2: They don't make you know, decisions right on the spot.
Speaker 2: So let me just put it that way.
Speaker 5: Yeah, let's use this as an opportunity to stop for
Speaker 5: a second to talk about our sponsor, which is ZocDoc.
Speaker 5: When you need a doctor, you need a doctor now,
Speaker 5: not in a few days, not in a few weeks,
Speaker 5: and definitely not in a few months. If you need
Speaker 5: to see an MD asap, We've got a solution. Just
Speaker 5: download the free ZocDoc app. The easiest way to find
Speaker 5: a great doctor in instantly book an appointment with zokdoc.
Speaker 5: You can search for local doctors who take your insurance,
Speaker 5: read verified patient reviews, and book and appointment in person
Speaker 5: or video chat. Never wait on hold with it a
Speaker 5: receptionist again. Whether you need a primary care physician, dentist, dermatologists, psychiatrist,
Speaker 5: I doctor, other specialists, ZocDoc as you covered. Go to
Speaker 5: ZocDoc dot com, slash true murder and download the ZocDoc
Speaker 5: app to sign up for free. Every month, millions of
Speaker 5: people use ZocDoc and I'm one of them. It's my
Speaker 5: go to whenever I need to see a doctor. Doc
Speaker 5: doc is great. You should try it. ZocDoc makes healthcare easy.
Speaker 5: Now is the time to prioritize your health. Go toc
Speaker 5: dot com, slash true murder and download the ZocDoc app
Speaker 5: to sign up for free and book a top rated doctor.
Speaker 5: Many are available as soon as today. That's z oc
Speaker 5: d oc dot com slash true murder. Now, Jim, we
Speaker 5: were talking about the appeal courts and the issues that
Speaker 5: you in Ron Smith brought up in the briefs in
Speaker 5: front of the Supreme Court.
Speaker 2: Tell us California.
Speaker 5: What happens?
Speaker 2: Pardon me, yeah, the California Supreme Court.
Speaker 5: Just to be clear, yes, yes, yes to California. So
Speaker 5: what happens as a result of this, this argument in
Speaker 5: terms of a reversal, what happens?
Speaker 2: Well, Look, first of all, I did another point that
Speaker 2: I want to make, okay, if you don't mind, the
Speaker 2: problem is with the judicial system, and what the book
Speaker 2: is truly trying to point out as well is that
Speaker 2: when it comes to the judicial system, we have to
Speaker 2: leave the emotions out of the judicial system. And that's
Speaker 2: very difficult when you have crimes that are committed like
Speaker 2: this because people are going to be emotionally tied to it.
Speaker 2: Police offices can be mostly emotionally a tie to it.
Speaker 2: But what I'm also trying to get across in the
Speaker 2: book is that we have to leave the emotions out
Speaker 2: of the process. If you don't do that and you
Speaker 2: make the mistakes like Pat Dingle made because he got
Speaker 2: emotionally tied to this. Then is what ends up happening
Speaker 2: is that the criminal can actually get off, the criminal
Speaker 2: can actually walk, and then the victims' rights, okay, are gone.
Speaker 2: At that point. The victims need to be their rights
Speaker 2: need to be protected as well. And when you get
Speaker 2: emotionally involved with this, and it's hard, and I get it.
Speaker 2: But police officers, judges, I want to say, the jury,
Speaker 2: but they do the juries. They do try to reach
Speaker 2: the emotions of the juries when they when they're trying
Speaker 2: to make a decision as well, and that's a little
Speaker 2: bit a little bit different. The people in the process
Speaker 2: that are part of the judicial system to me are
Speaker 2: the ones I'm really kind of focused on. And police
Speaker 2: officers in general, they can't get tied to it. They
Speaker 2: are not the judge and jury. And what Dingle did
Speaker 2: was that he was steering things into a direction based
Speaker 2: upon his emotions to ensure that this person in fact,
Speaker 2: was going to be convicted. Now let me just back
Speaker 2: up for a second, because remember we also talked about
Speaker 2: the fact that he was in Nevada and he committed
Speaker 2: a Nevada crime. Right, he did not want to stand
Speaker 2: trial in Nevada. He did not want to be convicted
Speaker 2: in Nevada because he felt that the jail systems in
Speaker 2: California were better than the jail systems that would be
Speaker 2: in Nevada. And he even made a comment that he
Speaker 2: would rather go to a California facility where he could walk,
Speaker 2: he could work in the kitchen, because he'd have access
Speaker 2: to liver which he could use to help stimulate himself.
Speaker 2: So this guy was really I mean, he was really
Speaker 2: off in a lot of different respects, let's just put
Speaker 2: it that way. So that's why they basically gave the
Speaker 2: opportunity for him to be trained. Now, his attorney at
Speaker 2: that time okayed the fact that he would be transfer
Speaker 2: and then later on he did not realize that Madson
Speaker 2: had done the things that he had done in California,
Speaker 2: which I don't understand, but again, I can't put myself
Speaker 2: in issues of why he did it. Didn't do his
Speaker 2: due diligence, but he okayed the fact that Mason would
Speaker 2: be transferred to California. Otherwise Mason could have been convicted
Speaker 2: in Nevada and you know, done jail time there before
Speaker 2: he came back to California. And obviously with a crime
Speaker 2: like this, they don't want that California's was going him
Speaker 2: back here. So everybody was in agreement at that point,
Speaker 2: and again Mason had had confessed, etc. The other point
Speaker 2: that I want to make is that the families. People
Speaker 2: don't realize it's not just the victims, it's the families
Speaker 2: that can be so impacted by these different types of events.
Speaker 2: To this day, some of these families, you know, cannot forget,
Speaker 2: you know, what had happened, and so their rights have
Speaker 2: to be vindicated to know and to feel that the
Speaker 2: person responsible has truly paid the price. Now you asked me,
Speaker 2: what was the You asked me, basically, what was the
Speaker 2: outcome of the decision by the California Supreme Court. Correct, yes,
Speaker 2: they reversed the conviction based upon my argument. So he
Speaker 2: was he was, it was, it was reversed. But what
Speaker 2: happened was is that the California excuse me, the superior court,
Speaker 2: the prosecuting attorneys, decided to retry the case. And that's
Speaker 2: what they did. When they retried the case, he was
Speaker 2: again found guilty, but this time they excluded the confession.
Speaker 2: And the reason they did that, obviously, is because it
Speaker 2: was in violation of his rights. Because some of the
Speaker 2: crimes that he had committed. They just did not want
Speaker 2: to say, Okay, he's out and end the story. So
Speaker 2: they basically retried the case. But remember what I told you,
Speaker 2: the last victim he did not kill. She was able
Speaker 2: to come back and testify against him, and that's what
Speaker 2: got him convicted for the second time. His appeals. I
Speaker 2: kid you not. These guys when they get convicted and
Speaker 2: they're up there on death row. In the whole nine yards,
Speaker 2: these guys all become jail house lawyers. They all know
Speaker 2: each other, they all talk about the appeals. The appeals
Speaker 2: process is part of the problem. But let's back up
Speaker 2: to my personal relationship. At that point, I've done my job.
Speaker 2: My wife is not unhappy because the guy ended up
Speaker 2: being retried and did not get back out on the street.
Speaker 2: So that changed everything at that point, you know, in
Speaker 2: terms of the concerns that Betty may have had. And
Speaker 2: of course I was happy because you know, my marriage
Speaker 2: was intact at that point and he didn't get off
Speaker 2: and I had done what I was supposed to do.
Speaker 2: He spent I can't, I kid you not. And I
Speaker 2: was involved in looking at some of the appeals on
Speaker 2: him over the years, and and I had trans because
Speaker 2: I had I had secured some of the some of
Speaker 2: the appeals and all of that prior to writing the
Speaker 2: book as well, so I had access to a lot
Speaker 2: more information. In addition to that, I had access to
Speaker 2: Pat Dingle. Pat Dingle made me promise, okay about certain
Speaker 2: things that he had told me right that I would
Speaker 2: not be able to put in the book. Pat Dingle
Speaker 2: has passed away. Michael Madson passed away in prison, by
Speaker 2: the way, but he was masterful at all of his
Speaker 2: appeals over the years. I told you, it's a gamester.
Speaker 2: He died in prison, and that's the good news. But
Speaker 2: then I was able to write the book because the
Speaker 2: information that I had learned from Pat could not have
Speaker 2: been used to because anytime you have additional information, it
Speaker 2: could always go toward the appeal and possibly get once again.
Speaker 2: His conviction reversed right after Pat passed away, which is
Speaker 2: in the book. I was able to divulge some of
Speaker 2: the information that I had had that I sat on
Speaker 2: for all of that time. So Madson died in prison.
Speaker 2: One of his family members took the body and he's buried.
Speaker 2: He's buried in Nevada. Actually he's not that far probably.
Speaker 2: I think it's from his grandparents' house. So that's what happens.
Speaker 5: Some of the issues that we didn't explore here were
Speaker 5: your in your argument before the California Supreme Court. You
Speaker 5: interviewed Pat Dingle, like you say, and then he confided
Speaker 5: in your things like putting the gun in the mouth
Speaker 5: of Madson for a three and a half hour ride,
Speaker 5: and that he was going to circumvent his rights. He
Speaker 5: didn't care about his rights. He knew that this person
Speaker 5: was guilty. But some of the issues that you had,
Speaker 5: you were a police officer, a law enforcement officer with
Speaker 5: the La County Sheriff's Department for twenty years, so you
Speaker 5: know what a copp meant, and you had your moral
Speaker 5: compass straight. What are the things that you argued, especially
Speaker 5: with things like that California had different different rules and
Speaker 5: as far as Pat Dingle becoming an agent when negotiating
Speaker 5: with people, right, he became an agent of an agent
Speaker 5: of California at that point, So they do they do
Speaker 5: have different rules regarding that. And that was one of
Speaker 5: the reasons why it stood up. Because of the fact
Speaker 5: that when he started the investigation based upon the crimes
Speaker 5: in California and the information that he was soliciting, he
Speaker 5: then becoming he done, He then became a part of
Speaker 5: the law enforcement agency, so to speak, of California, not
Speaker 5: Nevada at that point. If he had stuck to just
Speaker 5: the Nevada crime, that's one thing, but that's not what
Speaker 5: he did, and he ended up overstepping his bounds because
Speaker 5: again I think he looked at this as a career
Speaker 5: situation where you don't get to get involved in necessarily
Speaker 5: a serial killer and then capturing a serial killer. So
Speaker 5: he actually became an agent of the law enforcement agencies
Speaker 5: when he's pumping Madison Masine for this information and turning
Speaker 5: the information over, because he actually came out and testified
Speaker 5: as well. And of course when he testified, he purged
Speaker 5: himself because he was asked whether or not he had,
Speaker 5: you know, given Madson his rights, you know, every single time,
Speaker 5: and he testified to that, and that was not true.
Speaker 5: He did not do that because as I told you,
Speaker 5: he would have cigarette breaks with him, coffee breaks with him,
Speaker 5: and be asking him questions and everything is luring him
Speaker 5: into a false sense of security. So he violated the
Speaker 5: rights even with doing that, and even violated his own
Speaker 5: principles because he was a you know then he was
Speaker 5: a very highly principled individual. But he let this get
Speaker 5: under his skin, sure, and that was the bad part
Speaker 5: about it. So he became an agent of the law
Speaker 5: enforcement agencies in California. By the way, he solicited the information,
Speaker 5: received the information, and passed the information on and then
Speaker 5: he actually couraged himself as well. Let's stop for this
Speaker 5: message from our sponsor.
Speaker 4: He is Ryan here, and I have a question for you.
Speaker 4: What do you do when you win? Like, are you
Speaker 4: at fist pumper, a woou, a hand clopper, a high fiver?
Speaker 4: I kind of like the high five. But if you
Speaker 4: want to hone in on those winning moves, check out
Speaker 4: Chumback Casino. At chumbacasino dot com, choose some hundreds of
Speaker 4: social casino style games for your chance to redeem serious
Speaker 4: cash rise. There are new game releases weekly plus three
Speaker 4: daily bonuses, so don't wait start having the most fun
Speaker 4: ever at shumba Casino dot com.
Speaker 1: Billber just necessary dedially revoid where everyby lost the terms
Speaker 1: conditions eating plus.
Speaker 5: Now you talked about as well that the felony of
Speaker 5: the selony, crimes of rape and kidnap that were only
Speaker 5: given to the course or they only knew about this
Speaker 5: information from Matson himself, and there was no evidence backing
Speaker 5: that up. Tell us how that was an issue in
Speaker 5: this peal as.
Speaker 2: Well his confession, because remember, all these other individuals were
Speaker 2: deceased at that point, so only Matson could have related
Speaker 2: any of these things, such as the kidnappings and what happened,
Speaker 2: et cetera. The only person who had anything, I mean,
Speaker 2: the last victim of court at the last, the last
Speaker 2: California victim, was able to identify him and test and
Speaker 2: testifygainst him at court. But everything else before that was
Speaker 2: information that came out of Mason's mouth. They had nothing
Speaker 2: to tie him to any of these crimes. There was
Speaker 2: no evidence. Now, there was no DNA sample, there was
Speaker 2: none of that. So it was only that the information
Speaker 2: was provided by Madson, and that information was solicited in
Speaker 2: violation of his fifth and sixth Amendment rights. That was
Speaker 2: the problem.
Speaker 5: How did they make the retrial? How did they get
Speaker 5: around not having the confession? And you just mentioned that
Speaker 5: they didn't have any direct evidence of any of the
Speaker 5: details of the kidnap and rape other than his confession,
Speaker 5: So how did they get this conviction without that evidence.
Speaker 2: The question normally that comes up it things like double jeopardy. Well,
Speaker 2: wait a minute, he had already been tried by baba,
Speaker 2: can you do it again? And the answer is yes, okay,
Speaker 2: because they find that there's a reversal because there was
Speaker 2: a problem with the way it was conducted. Because sometimes
Speaker 2: people don't understand that. So that's why I'm explaining that.
Speaker 2: So he does have an opportunity. They do have an
Speaker 2: opportunity to retry. They just can't use the information, which
Speaker 2: was the confession in his and the way his confession
Speaker 2: was obtained. They had to leave those pieces out. But
Speaker 2: remember the last victim was not killed, so they could
Speaker 2: use the testimony of that person to bring him back
Speaker 2: in and retry him based her testimony as an example,
Speaker 2: so they could always bring it back. They just can't
Speaker 2: use certain things. So she was able to testify in
Speaker 2: terms of what had happened as well. The information around there,
Speaker 2: around the confession was still available. The confession is one thing,
Speaker 2: but he had other knowledge where he drew the map,
Speaker 2: he did things of that nature that still linked him
Speaker 2: back to a certain extent. And remember that I told
Speaker 2: you that the maintenance person has seen the little girl
Speaker 2: with him with the car. So they paced together enough
Speaker 2: other information to say with this because you know, the
Speaker 2: jury only has to he has to convict, you know,
Speaker 2: beyond a reasonable doubt, and they had beyond a reasonable doubt,
Speaker 2: I mean, you know, so it still satisfies it. So
Speaker 2: ultimately he was said he was sentenced to death.
Speaker 5: Again you you talk about him being a gamester behind
Speaker 5: bars and again utilizing the the his illegal ability to
Speaker 5: appeal to Yeah, he was able to game this system
Speaker 5: for a long time until his death, wasn't he.
Speaker 2: Yeah, because people don't understand the appeal process, and that's
Speaker 2: part of their frustrations, quite frankly, that the that the
Speaker 2: families have, the families are the victims that they have. Uh,
Speaker 2: these types of issues where a person can manipulate the
Speaker 2: system because remember he can go to let's let's just
Speaker 2: take the conviction, the last conviction, Well, he can appeal
Speaker 2: that to the court of appeals. So what did he
Speaker 2: argue on his first one was that the jury was
Speaker 2: not made up of a jury of his peers. You know.
Speaker 2: So that's a first argument. Those are my peers, you know.
Speaker 2: And and and my attorney was incompetent. They make those
Speaker 2: standard arguments. So then you lose that at the appeal process,
Speaker 2: and then you appeal it to the Caloria, to the
Speaker 2: Supreme Court. Then once all of the appeals are exhausted
Speaker 2: in California, whether they turn to now they do a
Speaker 2: federal writ of habeas corpus the Californiaan's holding me illegally,
Speaker 2: and now the process starts all over again. These guys
Speaker 2: are gamesters at that level.
Speaker 5: You talk about the political issues, especially with appointees, and
Speaker 5: and also there's again something different in California regarding this
Speaker 5: tell us about how politics has a big get influence
Speaker 5: in this, especially with people with pro death penalty statuses
Speaker 5: or as opposed to the other people opposing them.
Speaker 2: You know, what's interesting as in California is that we
Speaker 2: have we're one of only one of two states where
Speaker 2: the Supreme Court justices actually can be voted out. We
Speaker 2: don't have life tenure here for California Supreme Court justices.
Speaker 2: And again there's only two states that have that. And
Speaker 2: Justice rose Bird as an example, she and two others
Speaker 2: maybe three, they turned around and got you know, ended
Speaker 2: up getting rid of the death penaling in California so
Speaker 2: that's how she ended up getting voted out. So there
Speaker 2: are political issues that are associated in politics. It is
Speaker 2: associated with this and if California voters got very upset
Speaker 2: about that, both of them out because they wanted it back.
Speaker 2: That's how Charles Manson got off of death row was
Speaker 2: because of Justice of Rose Bird as an example. But
Speaker 2: at any rate, so the politics plays into it because
Speaker 2: you get these different governors, like right now we have
Speaker 2: a governor that says, you know, no, you know, there's
Speaker 2: not going to be any executions in California. So politics
Speaker 2: does play a role.
Speaker 5: I always thought it was interesting for a liberal state
Speaker 5: like California to have the death penalty but then have
Speaker 5: this obvious no one hardly is actually put to death
Speaker 5: from death row, and yet there still is this desire
Speaker 5: in that state by some people to continue with this,
Speaker 5: and the time and the money an expense. I don't know,
Speaker 5: it doesn't seem to be worth.
Speaker 2: It, you know. That's part of the problem is that again,
Speaker 2: people work off of emotions. The reason why they if
Speaker 2: they think we get rid of the death penalty all together,
Speaker 2: that's going to create a surge with people killing people.
Speaker 2: And then you don't have to worry about it because
Speaker 2: of the fact that you're never going to be put
Speaker 2: to death. California has been up and down on this,
Speaker 2: I mean decades, and then with the lethal injection that
Speaker 2: became a whole big issue also, So then they suspended
Speaker 2: it based upon the legal injection arguments that whether or
Speaker 2: not it's going to be pain, no pain, things of
Speaker 2: that nature, it's just going to always be a political
Speaker 2: you know, you know, football so to speak. Sure, Newsom
Speaker 2: says no execution now, but if Newsom loses on his
Speaker 2: next election because he won the recall situation, and now
Speaker 2: you turn around and you get a Republican governor will say,
Speaker 2: then you know, that could all be once again. You know,
Speaker 2: death penalty is back. So they're still on death row.
Speaker 2: They're just not doing the executions. And I think there's
Speaker 2: nine hundred people on death row or something like that
Speaker 2: right now. Yeah, but they may never they may never
Speaker 2: be executed, who knows. And it costs a lot of
Speaker 2: money to put these to lead these guys on death row.
Speaker 5: Yeah, you talked about Matson's death in two thousand and nine.
Speaker 5: How did he die?
Speaker 2: You know, he you know, it was weird. I was
Speaker 2: out of the country. At the time, and they were
Speaker 2: trying to locate me to ask me questions about him
Speaker 2: at the time of his death, and he died because
Speaker 2: he uh our illness. Even in his last appeals. This
Speaker 2: man had appeals almost up to his death. Last time
Speaker 2: he was in court, he was in court in a wheelchair,
Speaker 2: So you know, he very well could have died from
Speaker 2: complications as I understand, and associated with HIV because remember
Speaker 2: he was I don't want to use the word, Okay,
Speaker 2: I'll say sexually DV and we'll put it that way.
Speaker 2: So who knows that I already told you about how
Speaker 2: he's you know, felt of these female with certain respects.
Speaker 2: So eventually all of that brought up to him. To
Speaker 2: make a long story short, so he died in prison
Speaker 2: basically not on death row at the time that he died.
Speaker 2: He was put into a prison hospital at another location.
Speaker 2: So he was not in death row because his time
Speaker 2: was coming. Let's just put it that way.
Speaker 5: Was there any exploration of other murders. Was there any
Speaker 5: suspicion that he had done other murders?
Speaker 2: He had suspicions, There was no doubt about it. You know,
Speaker 2: there's a lot of unsolved murders out there, and he
Speaker 2: even denied a couple of them, you know, after he
Speaker 2: ended up coming back to California, he made them denials.
Speaker 2: But it's a couple that have gone. We'll just say
Speaker 2: that would never solved. Let's just put it that way.
Speaker 2: But that pointed in his direction. So again the tough
Speaker 2: part for the victim's family that he was probably the one,
Speaker 2: but they'll never know for sure.
Speaker 5: And we talked about your marriage to Betty. Did was
Speaker 5: this case and you or work on it instrumental in
Speaker 5: you're split with Betty? You know it's in a way
Speaker 5: the answer is probably yes, And I'll tell you why
Speaker 5: because the support mechanisms. To me, spouses always have to
Speaker 5: support each other, and she was not a person in
Speaker 5: my opinion, that supported my professional ambitions. Let's just put
Speaker 5: it that way.
Speaker 2: And so that was the beginning of understanding that she
Speaker 2: was not a supportive person. So I will leave it.
Speaker 2: I'll leave that like that.
Speaker 5: Yeah, you rite that you didn't pursue criminal law and
Speaker 5: you instead went to represent employees and employment law. And
Speaker 5: you have a very simplest business.
Speaker 2: Employers not employees, employers just yes.
Speaker 5: Oh, pardon me, yes, employers pardoned me much different, Yes,
Speaker 5: much different. Yeah, and you also a field I'm sorry,
Speaker 5: go ahead, sorry, yeah, it's a different field altogether. You know,
Speaker 5: when you work in criminal law, you know, and you're
Speaker 5: defending people. Again, you're in a situation where you're defending
Speaker 5: people that may be contrary to your to your values
Speaker 5: as well.
Speaker 2: So people do it. It's not an issue. I eventually
Speaker 2: became an La County Deputy Sheriff Reserve. I was a
Speaker 2: captain at the time that I retired, so I was
Speaker 2: all about still enforcing the laws and doing things what
Speaker 2: I felt was the right way to do that.
Speaker 5: I have written. I guess maybe we shouldn't talk about
Speaker 5: but let's let's talk about just this book and the
Speaker 5: first book that you wrote as well.
Speaker 2: The first book that I wrote was right to Council.
Speaker 2: But in that book I could not put information because
Speaker 2: remember I told you that Pat Dingle had told me
Speaker 2: some things. So when I wrote the first book, I
Speaker 2: could not include information in that book that I had
Speaker 2: because Mason was still going through his appeals, and information
Speaker 2: that I had could have again took it to the
Speaker 2: California Supreme Court and possibly reversed his case, his second case.
Speaker 2: So I had to wait and after Pat had passed
Speaker 2: away and Michael Mason had passed away, then I was
Speaker 2: free to do something more comprehensive than I was able
Speaker 2: to do the first time. I even interviewed Pat's wife
Speaker 2: after Pat had passed away, and she gained information. I
Speaker 2: actually interviewed one of the family members by marriage of
Speaker 2: Cheryl Guterres as well. So you have situations where now
Speaker 2: you're free to give more information than you were before.
Speaker 5: Yeah, and it's fascinating. It's a fascinating your interview with
Speaker 5: Pat Dingle and how candid he is. Again, he gave
Speaker 5: those conditions, but he trusted you with this information, and
Speaker 5: it is fascinating his attitude and is how candidate he was,
Speaker 5: that he didn't care about this person's rights whatsoever.
Speaker 2: You know. Part of that is And the first time
Speaker 2: I met Pat, Pat and I we just hit it off,
Speaker 2: and you know, he respected, you know, what I had done,
Speaker 2: and he didn't have an issue with it. And again
Speaker 2: because they retried him, and that's with convicted the second time.
Speaker 2: So he respected digital systems will be big. That clear.
Speaker 2: It's just that he got emotionally tied to this one situation. Yeah,
Speaker 2: and that was what was bad.
Speaker 5: Yeah, and I'm sorry, And you understood this flight and
Speaker 5: his his conflict as well, and you understood his positions.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Of course nobody wants to hear about somebody that
Speaker 2: kills kids, rape them, can have them, sateimizes them, murders them.
Speaker 2: We as a society, we're never going to endorse that
Speaker 2: kind of behavior, and that and that and that can
Speaker 2: create these emotional responses. I get it, but I'm only
Speaker 2: saying that when you're part of that system, it's almost
Speaker 2: like you have to walk the person down the aisle,
Speaker 2: so to speak. You know, you treat them right, you
Speaker 2: give them every courtesy you give them back because once again,
Speaker 2: you're not the judge injury. And now for us to
Speaker 2: determine why somebody does what they do. And that's why
Speaker 2: in the case itself. You know, in the transcripts, I'm
Speaker 2: able to read about the different psychologists of talk about
Speaker 2: why he was the way he was, etc. That's why
Speaker 2: those experts are in place. This is why he did
Speaker 2: what he did, and people don't think about that in
Speaker 2: your judicial system. What happened, This is what happened, but
Speaker 2: this is why it happened, and sometimes that's enough to
Speaker 2: get somebody off or to get somebody, you know, to
Speaker 2: reduce sentence. I mean, there's so many different factors. Pat
Speaker 2: Dingo did not want that to happen. He wanted everything
Speaker 2: coming out because he did not want to see this
Speaker 2: guy walk under any circumstances. And that's not and was
Speaker 2: not his job.
Speaker 5: Yeah, yes, it's an incredible story. I want to thank
Speaker 5: you so much for coming on, Jim and talking about
Speaker 5: defending a serial killer the right to counsel. Tell our
Speaker 5: audience about your weekly radio show, and you're blind.
Speaker 2: I have a week thank you. I have a weekly
Speaker 2: radio show La Talk Radio. It actually streaming. I think
Speaker 2: some people would call it a podcast, but I've been
Speaker 2: doing that every Sunday, three o'clock California time, and we
Speaker 2: talk about a variety of things. That really started out
Speaker 2: because I was also a certified Terrorists investigator with the
Speaker 2: Early Down Shrifess Department. So I talk about a lot
Speaker 2: of things on international terrorism, domestic terrorism, etc. How people
Speaker 2: can be safe under those trying times. I've done active
Speaker 2: shooter training. I've trained probably over thirty thousand people in
Speaker 2: active shooter training across the country. I've spoken in front
Speaker 2: of political groups, political associations except business associations as well
Speaker 2: businesses and schools. The blog is something that I write
Speaker 2: about my regular nine to five, so I've done that
Speaker 2: probably about twelve years, where every Monday I put out
Speaker 2: a blog on Listen Up with Jim Hotts, and I
Speaker 2: put out information for employers from managers and supervisors that
Speaker 2: they can read on recent cases, situations that they need
Speaker 2: to be aware, updates in the law, and things of
Speaker 2: that nature.
Speaker 5: Fantastic, You're very busy. Thank you so much, Jim Potts
Speaker 5: for coming on and talking about your book Defending a
Speaker 5: Serial Killer The Right to Counsel. It's been fascinating. Thank
Speaker 5: you so much, Jim. You have a great evening. Thank
Speaker 5: you so much.
Speaker 2: Good night, Thank you bye.