Speaker 1: Judy was boring.
Speaker 2: Hello.
Speaker 3: Then Judy discovered chumpacasino dot com.
Speaker 2: It's my little escape.
Speaker 3: Now Judy is the life of the party.
Speaker 4: Oh baby mama is bringing home the bacon.
Speaker 3: WHOA take it easy, Judy, Jump the chump. A life
Speaker 3: that's for everybody. So go to chumpacasino dot com and
Speaker 3: play over one hundred casino style games. Join today and
Speaker 3: play for free for your chance to redeem some serious prices.
Speaker 3: Jump chumpacasino dot com. No pag's necessary weight, We're committed
Speaker 3: by eighteen plus terms and condition to playe website for details.
Speaker 3: With Lucky Land Slots, you can get lucky just about anywhere.
Speaker 1: Dearly beloved, we are gathered here today. Has anyone seen
Speaker 1: the bride and groom?
Speaker 3: Sorry? Sorry we're here. We were getting lucky in the
Speaker 3: limo and we lost track of time.
Speaker 5: No Lucky Land casino with cash prizes that add up
Speaker 5: quicker than a guess registered.
Speaker 2: In that case, I pronounce you lucky. Play for free
Speaker 2: Lucky Landslots dot Com.
Speaker 3: Daily bonuses are waiting. No purchase necessary board. We're prohibited
Speaker 3: by lack eight team plus terms and conditions apply.
Speaker 2: See website for.
Speaker 1: You are now listening to True Murder, the most shocking
Speaker 1: killers in true crime history and the authors that have
Speaker 1: written about them Gaesy, Bundy, Dahmer, The Nightstalker DTK. Every week,
Speaker 1: another fascinating author talking about the most shocking and infamous
Speaker 1: killers in true crime history. True Murder with your host
Speaker 1: journalist and author Dan Zupansky.
Speaker 4: Good Evening. Internationally known legal ethics professor Richard Zitron's work
Speaker 4: as a trial lawyer placed him on the front lines
Speaker 4: of fighting systemic racism, pervasive elitism, and injustice against individuals
Speaker 4: in the legal system. In Trial Lawyer, he shares details
Speaker 4: of the most compelling case he's encountered and exposes the
Speaker 4: dilemmas he's faced throughout his one of a kind career.
Speaker 4: The profound, the consequential, the shocking, the bizarre, and even
Speaker 4: the humorous. Trial Lawyer brings to life what it means
Speaker 4: to represent people against power. From his first case as
Speaker 4: a young law student on the famous and highly politicized
Speaker 4: San Quentin sixth case, and throughout his forty year career,
Speaker 4: Zitron has worked on dozens of cases that underscore the
Speaker 4: inherent biases of the legal system towards people of color,
Speaker 4: the poor, the less educated, and those who just don't
Speaker 4: appear to fit the mold of whatever society considers normal.
Speaker 4: His personal stories about him bring the reader inside the
Speaker 4: courtroom to experience a unique cast of characters, strange but
Speaker 4: true facts, brilliant trial tricks and tactics, and not so
Speaker 4: brilliant ones that failed miserably. Each had its own lessons
Speaker 4: about social justice, fairness, strategy, ethics, morality and more. The
Speaker 4: book that we're featuring this evening is Trial Lawyer, A
Speaker 4: Life representing People Against Power, with my special guest, attorney
Speaker 4: and author Richard Zitrin. Welcome to the program, and thank
Speaker 4: you so much for this interview. Richard Zitrin.
Speaker 2: Thank you for having me, Dan, thank you so much.
Speaker 4: Very very fascinating story and quite unique for this program.
Speaker 4: Let's talk about what you write. In the introduction, you
Speaker 4: said that this is a book of reflections on the
Speaker 4: most compelling cases that you have encountered during your life
Speaker 4: as a trial lawyer. Tell us what most of these
Speaker 4: cases consist of and what you found about ordinary people
Speaker 4: in extraordinary circumstances.
Speaker 2: Well, Dan, most of the cases I did after the
Speaker 2: first one that you mentioned, we're ordinary cases that didn't
Speaker 2: get an awful lot of publicity. Some got some, but
Speaker 2: not a lot necessarily, But they had extraordinary features, bizarre
Speaker 2: things that occur, surprises that occurred in the courtroom, sudden
Speaker 2: changes in defense, tactics for sudden changes and prosecute, some factics,
Speaker 2: surprised witnesses, all kinds of unique and unusual things that happen.
Speaker 2: And as a storyteller and as someone who's written a
Speaker 2: few other books, I was encouraged by people to tell
Speaker 2: my own personal story. So this started out as kind
Speaker 2: of a memoir about these cases, But as I got
Speaker 2: more deeply into it, given my background asm with legal
Speaker 2: ethics professor for forty years, it wound up being a
Speaker 2: lot about how to deal with disadvantaged people, people who
Speaker 2: haven't had a fair shot in the system, and also
Speaker 2: how to deal with my own sense of my own
Speaker 2: responsibilities to my clients.
Speaker 4: You write about that responsibility that it supersedes all others.
Speaker 4: Explain further, Well, we have what we.
Speaker 2: Call a fiduciary duty. It's a term that's used mostly
Speaker 2: with finance banks and so on, but lawyers have a
Speaker 2: fiduciary duty to their clients, and it's simply to put
Speaker 2: the interests of the clients ahead of their own interests,
Speaker 2: and that's not necessarily easy to do. Sometimes it's hard
Speaker 2: to figure out where your own interests stop and the
Speaker 2: client's interests begin. But the main thing that I learned
Speaker 2: from the very first day I was practicing law was
Speaker 2: that my obligation was to put my client's interests first
Speaker 2: and try to protect that client before worrying about myself.
Speaker 2: It's a basic principle of ethical lawyery.
Speaker 4: You say that it's especially important when it appears that
Speaker 4: the system is being unfair to a client, doesn't it.
Speaker 2: Well, that's true, and my experience has been largely with
Speaker 2: clients for whom the system did not give them an
Speaker 2: even break. A lot of times that's because they were poor.
Speaker 2: A lot of times they were people of color or
Speaker 2: other people disadvantaged by the system, or, as I suggested,
Speaker 2: people who just don't fit what the society as a
Speaker 2: whole considers normal or ordinary behavior. And those people have
Speaker 2: a much tougher row to hoe than the average person
Speaker 2: who doesn't have those handicap So there's a special responsibility
Speaker 2: that I felt for many many of my clients along
Speaker 2: the way, because they weren't getting the fair shot that
Speaker 2: other people might get you.
Speaker 4: Also in this book address when it comes to criminal cases.
Speaker 4: There have been two questions that you've been asked more
Speaker 4: than any others. What are those two questions and what
Speaker 4: are your answers to those two questions?
Speaker 2: Well, the first one is how can you represent people
Speaker 2: if you know that they're guilty? I think both questions
Speaker 2: actually get subsumed and put together in that single question,
Speaker 2: how can you represent people if you know that they're guilty?
Speaker 2: And the reason is that, of course, everybody is entitled
Speaker 2: to defend, and nobody is guilty until really a jury
Speaker 2: comes back in and says So there are all kinds
Speaker 2: of circumstances relating to a case that are extenuating circumstances
Speaker 2: that explained the situation. So that in one case that
Speaker 2: I had very early in my career, man named Elvin
Speaker 2: Drummond killed another man, but it was in self defense,
Speaker 2: so was he guilty. He had committed a homicide, but
Speaker 2: that's not a crime. He hadn't committed a murder. In
Speaker 2: the San Quentin sixth case which you mentioned, Dan, the
Speaker 2: underlying facts inside the lockdown of a major United States
Speaker 2: prison were so unfathomable that no one could really ascertain
Speaker 2: what happened, and to this day, no one really knows
Speaker 2: what happened. So to assume that somebody is guilty because
Speaker 2: they're accused, or maybe even because there's an extraordinary amount
Speaker 2: of evidence, only tells part of the story. Now there's
Speaker 2: another reason here. Our system grew out of the system
Speaker 2: that existed in England in the sixteenth and seventeenth century.
Speaker 2: And at that time they had star chambers in England
Speaker 2: in which the accused would be told by the judge
Speaker 2: that even if the jury found them not guilty, the
Speaker 2: judge was finding them guilty. And in one case, involving
Speaker 2: William Penn, one of the found Pennsylvania, the jury was
Speaker 2: told that if they didn't come back with a guilty verdict,
Speaker 2: they too would be thrown in prison. That's not the
Speaker 2: kind of system we wanted in the United States, and
Speaker 2: so to a certain extent, we reacted against that by
Speaker 2: creating rights to people who are accused of crimes, so
Speaker 2: that nobody is convicted of the crime unless a jury
Speaker 2: finds that they're guilty.
Speaker 4: Well, your extraordinary legal career, and we're talking about in
Speaker 4: this book, your first murder case, and you'd only been
Speaker 4: a lawyer for three years. So tell us how you
Speaker 4: came to be working with David Mayer, and how you
Speaker 4: came to represent Johnny Spain, and how you came to
Speaker 4: work on the San Quentin sixth case.
Speaker 2: I had come out to San Francisco to do my
Speaker 2: third year of law school, and I have been out
Speaker 2: here a week when a friend of mine told me
Speaker 2: that he had just turned down a job with a
Speaker 2: fellow named David Mayer working a highly publicized sixth murder
Speaker 2: case in San Quentin State Prison. And he recommended that
Speaker 2: I go up an interview with David, and he and
Speaker 2: I hit it off, and David hired me on the
Speaker 2: spot to be a law clerk on the case. I
Speaker 2: was paid five dollars an hour by the Marin County
Speaker 2: Superior Court, since the county which San Quentin is located.
Speaker 2: Of course, five dollars an hour was more then than
Speaker 2: it is now, but it still wasn't very much money.
Speaker 2: David turned out to be a great mentor, a very
Speaker 2: very dedicated lawyer, former defense, a former prosecutor down in
Speaker 2: southern California who had gone into the Air Force and
Speaker 2: seen the difficulty that accused people had of getting a
Speaker 2: fair shake in their court rooms in court martials, and
Speaker 2: it kind of revolutionized him and turned him into a
Speaker 2: defense lawyer. When he got out of the Air Force,
Speaker 2: instead of going back to the DA's office, he decided
Speaker 2: to come up to northern California and start defending people,
Speaker 2: including a lot of people in San Quentin State Prison.
Speaker 4: Based on that, he got a reputation, and so people
Speaker 4: that were in prison were talking and so they're one
Speaker 4: of the defendants asked for him to be appointed his lawyer.
Speaker 4: What happened in that regard, Yes, he.
Speaker 2: Had gotten a reputation for doing a great job representing prisoners.
Speaker 2: One of the San Quentin six named Willie Tate, reached
Speaker 2: out to David and said, I'd like to have you
Speaker 2: appointed to represent me in this case. And David presented
Speaker 2: that request to the judge in the case, whose name
Speaker 2: was Henry Broderick. Broderick was not very fond of the
Speaker 2: San Quentin sixth defendants. He saw them as guilty people.
Speaker 2: He also frankly saw them as six people of color
Speaker 2: who were not common in his own personal experience, and
Speaker 2: so he pulled a fast one on David and appointed him,
Speaker 2: but not to represent Willie Tate instead to represent Johnny Spain,
Speaker 2: who was the only member of the Black Panther Party
Speaker 2: among the six defendants that got Johnny and David off
Speaker 2: to the wrong foot, a situation that had been created
Speaker 2: frankly by the trial genants.
Speaker 4: So he was assigned this case or appointed this case.
Speaker 4: It was far more difficult with what the judge and
Speaker 4: prosecutor felt was the most guilty of the sixth defendants.
Speaker 2: Well, Johnny was the one most closely associated with George Jackson,
Speaker 2: who was a leader of the Black Panther Party and
Speaker 2: was killed himself on the day in which the San
Speaker 2: Quan sixth violence occurred. And there was a history to
Speaker 2: that violence that I can explain briefly if you would
Speaker 2: like me to. Absolutely started in early nineteen seventy, George
Speaker 2: Jackson had been a sent to Salidad Prison, where he
Speaker 2: came under the tutelage of an inmate named W. L. Nolan,
Speaker 2: who was one of the founders of radical black prison groups.
Speaker 2: One day in January of nineteen seventy, a guard shot
Speaker 2: into the yard at Solidad Prison, which is down near Monterey,
Speaker 2: and killed three black inmates. And when the grand jury
Speaker 2: examined the situation. They exonerated the guard from all three shootings.
Speaker 2: About two weeks later, a guard was thrown from the
Speaker 2: tier tiers or the stories of the cells that exist
Speaker 2: the usually three or four or five tiers that are
Speaker 2: like apartment floors, was thrown from the third floor tier
Speaker 2: into the yard and was killed, and Jackson and two
Speaker 2: other people were accused of killing that guard in retribution
Speaker 2: for the killing of Nolan. Those three became known as
Speaker 2: the Salidad Brothers. After that time, Jackson was sent to
Speaker 2: San Quentin and eventually the events of August twenty first,
Speaker 2: nineteen seventy one occurred, which Jackson was killed by guards
Speaker 2: and five other people in the interim. In August of
Speaker 2: nineteen seventy after the accusation against Jackson and the other
Speaker 2: two Salidad brothers, Jackson's seventeen year old brother invaded the
Speaker 2: Marin County courthouse, went into a courtroom with guns, kidnapped
Speaker 2: a judge and a district attorney, and left and outside
Speaker 2: the courtroom when they got into their car, there was
Speaker 2: a shootout. Three of the invaders were killed, including purege,
Speaker 2: Jackson's brother Jonathan, and the judge was also killed. So
Speaker 2: this created an atmosphere of extraordinary fear and concern in
Speaker 2: the community, both law enforcement community and also the African
Speaker 2: American community and the other communities of color in and
Speaker 2: around San Quentin State Prison. And it was in that
Speaker 2: environment that a year later the San Quentin sixth case
Speaker 2: arose and six people were killed.
Speaker 4: You're right that there's a little more involved too, because
Speaker 4: the gun that Jonathan used Jackson used was found to
Speaker 4: be purchased by Angela Davis, who had been fired from
Speaker 4: UCLA but for being a communist, then was reinstated, then
Speaker 4: refired for inflammatory language such as calling cops pigs, and
Speaker 4: so a couple months after this incident, Angela Davis was
Speaker 4: charged with murder, wasn't she?
Speaker 2: That's right? And Angela Davis by that time had already
Speaker 2: become extremely well known because of her outspoken statements at
Speaker 2: both Berkeley and then later on at UCLA, And she
Speaker 2: had been terminated by UCLA, which was then reversed by
Speaker 2: the courts. So she was already very well known. And
Speaker 2: when it was found that the guns were supposedly purchased
Speaker 2: by Angela Davis, this was a front page event. She
Speaker 2: was accused of murder along with one prisoner who was
Speaker 2: in that car where people died, who survived, and she
Speaker 2: became a fugitive for a period of time. She was
Speaker 2: soon and quite soon thereafter put on trial and was
Speaker 2: acquitted of all charges.
Speaker 4: Let's get back to working with David Mayer on this
Speaker 4: case and this all the lessons that you did learn,
Speaker 4: all the work that you did do on their behalf, well.
Speaker 2: I've got to tell you, Dan, maybe the most single,
Speaker 2: most extraordinary day I had in the law was the
Speaker 2: day I first went out to San Quentin to meet
Speaker 2: Johnny Spain. I had no idea what to expect. I
Speaker 2: had never been in a prison before. I think I
Speaker 2: had only been into jail once or twice, and the
Speaker 2: security of the prison was extraordinarily high in light of
Speaker 2: these homicides. We were brought into a tiny little visiting
Speaker 2: room that was about the size of two phone booths
Speaker 2: back to back. Separating us was a plastic shield impenetrable
Speaker 2: field that went all the way down to about two
Speaker 2: inches above a little narrow table. Johnny sat on one
Speaker 2: side of this and we sat on the other, and
Speaker 2: you couldn't even hear clearly. The sound was muffled by
Speaker 2: the thick plastic an extraordinary thing happened. David extended his fingers,
Speaker 2: the tips of his fingers under the metal grid that
Speaker 2: was at the bottom of the plastic, and Johnny extended
Speaker 2: his fingers and they shook hands by shaking their fingers
Speaker 2: together with each other. That was the only way of
Speaker 2: doing it. And then I did the same thing. It
Speaker 2: was really extraordinary thing that there was such a separation
Speaker 2: between our ability to connect with our clients in a
Speaker 2: meaningful way. While we were in those rooms, we frequently
Speaker 2: didn't talk because there was a sand point and guard
Speaker 2: sitting two feet behind Johnny listening to everything we said it.
Speaker 2: So we would often take ballpoint pens and scribble what
Speaker 2: we were saying to the person we were talking to,
Speaker 2: pass the note in the little space between the partition
Speaker 2: and the table, and once the note had been read,
Speaker 2: we'd take the note back and scribble over. It would
Speaker 2: depend in circular emotions and no one could possibly read it.
Speaker 2: It was the only way we felt we could have
Speaker 2: a confidential communication with our own client. And to me,
Speaker 2: being a kind of white suburban kid from a relatively
Speaker 2: privileged background, it was just such an eye opener. I
Speaker 2: think I was in shop.
Speaker 4: You're right, that also you were It was like an
Speaker 4: otherworldly experience when you say that, the extent of the
Speaker 4: animosity towards the defense team.
Speaker 2: Oh, yes, We would get there at nine o'clock in
Speaker 2: the morning and put in a visiting slip for Johnny. Now,
Speaker 2: these guys were all locked down in a place called
Speaker 2: the Adjustment Center, which was the most highly secure area
Speaker 2: at that time, the most highly secure California prison, sam Quentin.
Speaker 2: They were locked down for at least twenty three and
Speaker 2: a half hours a day, and sometimes for more than that.
Speaker 2: They got showers only two days a week. They had
Speaker 2: no ability to visit anybody other than their legal team.
Speaker 2: And we were told, nevertheless, when we got there at
Speaker 2: nine o'clock and asked to be able to visit with him,
Speaker 2: that for one reason or another, there was no escort
Speaker 2: to bring him too the visiting room, or he was
Speaker 2: busy doing something else, or he was taking a shower,
Speaker 2: or there was no availability of crew at the adjustment
Speaker 2: center to bring him over to where we were. And
Speaker 2: sometimes we waited for three or four hours, cooling our
Speaker 2: heels in the visiting room before we even got to
Speaker 2: see it. That was pretty typical the animosity that we
Speaker 2: received was palpable. It's beyond my belief to even consider
Speaker 2: the animosity that the sixth defendants were facing.
Speaker 4: You're right that you began everything with to learn all
Speaker 4: the relevant facts by reading transcripts from the first court
Speaker 4: appearances in nineteen seventy one, and also that you've learned
Speaker 4: of the prosecution's theory of what they believe had happened
Speaker 4: and the charges subsequently.
Speaker 2: Right, Well, there was an indictment. It was three hundred
Speaker 2: and sixty eight pages long, and it described the narrative
Speaker 2: of what supposedly happened, and then there were transcripts at
Speaker 2: the first couple of hearings, after which the case was
Speaker 2: suspended or stayed by the appellate courts, and it was
Speaker 2: stayed until from October of nineteen seventy one until just
Speaker 2: before I arrived on the scene in June of nineteen
Speaker 2: seventy three. The transcript of the grand jury presented a
Speaker 2: very convoluted and somewhat unbelievable theory. And the theory was this,
Speaker 2: a white lawyer from a privileged background, in fact, from
Speaker 2: a family of Connecticut senators and congresspeople and stuff like that,
Speaker 2: named Stephen Bingham, supposedly put a Spanish World War two
Speaker 2: gun called an astra into a small tape recorder that
Speaker 2: he brought inside San Quentin Prison to visit Johnny Spain,
Speaker 2: to visit George Jackson. Supposedly, according to the prosecution, somehow
Speaker 2: the gun got transmitted to Jackson in the visiting room,
Speaker 2: and Jackson supposedly hit the gun under a wig that
Speaker 2: he was wearing, and after a wig that he was wearing,
Speaker 2: and took it with two clips that would be inserted
Speaker 2: into the gun back to the adjustment center after the interview,
Speaker 2: and when he entered the adjustment center, according to the
Speaker 2: prosecution's case, the guards looked at him. Most of them
Speaker 2: didn't see anything wrong. One ran his fingers through Jackson's
Speaker 2: wig and didn't see anything. When all of a sudden,
Speaker 2: again according to the guards, he pulled out the gun,
Speaker 2: pulled off the wig with one hand, pulled out the
Speaker 2: gun with his second hand, and with what appeared to
Speaker 2: be his third hand, according to logical movement common sense,
Speaker 2: placed the clip inside the gun and said, this is it.
Speaker 2: The dragon has come REDI and we analyzed it and
Speaker 2: looked at all the testimony from everybody who testified at
Speaker 2: the grand jury, and This just didn't make a hell
Speaker 2: of a lot of sense, and it seemed possible that
Speaker 2: the events could have occurred in the way that was
Speaker 2: being described by the prison, and there was a great
Speaker 2: feeling among the sixth defendants that also, I must say
Speaker 2: many and most of the lawyers soon agreed with that
Speaker 2: the prison had set up George Jackson in light of
Speaker 2: the Solidad case in which he was accused of murdering
Speaker 2: the guard and was thrown from the tier, and that
Speaker 2: the idea behind this event was to kill George Jackson
Speaker 2: in a fake attempt by George Jackson to escape from
Speaker 2: the adjustment sentence, and that what happened was that it
Speaker 2: got out of hand.
Speaker 4: You're right that he's charged with conspiracy without them specifying
Speaker 4: who was actually murdered and who was actually all involved
Speaker 4: in the conspiracy to murder.
Speaker 2: Well, one of the things that I've focused on very
Speaker 2: early on in the cases, I was put in charge
Speaker 2: doing a motion to dismiss the indictment because we couldn't
Speaker 2: tell who Johnny Spain was in conspiracy with, that these
Speaker 2: six were conspiring with people or person or persons unknown.
Speaker 2: How do you defend somebody if they're conspiring with people,
Speaker 2: and they're not telling you who the people are. So
Speaker 2: our argument was we were not put on notice of
Speaker 2: what their case was really about. They were saying, these
Speaker 2: six people did various bad things, or maybe they didn't
Speaker 2: do them themselves, but other people with whom they were
Speaker 2: conspiring may have killed the five people who were to
Speaker 2: kill that day in San Quentin, other than George Jackson.
Speaker 2: But they weren't telling us who the people were. So
Speaker 2: our question was put in Layman's terms, this, how the
Speaker 2: hell can we defend Johnny Spain if he's accused of
Speaker 2: conspiring with a killer and they're not telling us who
Speaker 2: they think the killer is. And yet that's the way
Speaker 2: the Caps ultimately went to Trump, can.
Speaker 4: You explain the de mirror and its role.
Speaker 2: What we did with the information that we had is
Speaker 2: we filed what's called a demur which is a legal
Speaker 2: creed cleaning that attacks the indictment itself, and the demurr
Speaker 2: was based on this. You have not provided us notice
Speaker 2: in this indictment of how we can possibly defend the
Speaker 2: case by not telling us who the co conspirators are.
Speaker 2: You're not giving us notice in a way that makes
Speaker 2: it fair for us to be able to defend our
Speaker 2: clients in this case Johnny's spain. But it was true
Speaker 2: of all six of the clients. And this was really
Speaker 2: a great lesson to me about unfairness. I had grown
Speaker 2: up with unfairness. I had grown up seeing and understanding
Speaker 2: something about the unfairness that people of color faced, the
Speaker 2: racism that black people faced, the harder road it was
Speaker 2: for black people to travel, and Indigenous people and other
Speaker 2: people of color. But I had no clue as to
Speaker 2: the extent of the unfairness. And this was basically a
Speaker 2: case in which a prosecution was trumped up by a
Speaker 2: claiming that these six men had conspired with people that
Speaker 2: they weren't going to name. So our emotion was a
Speaker 2: de murder to set aside the indictment completely because it
Speaker 2: failed to provide us notice of how to defend the case.
Speaker 2: I thought it was righteous, but needless to say, we lost,
Speaker 2: and we lost pretty much every motion that we tried.
Speaker 4: One motion that you felt was very, very important, and
Speaker 4: you talk about it in the introduction right away, about
Speaker 4: the chaining of the defendants in court, and this whole
Speaker 4: elaborate handcuffing and chaining explained well.
Speaker 2: First, Dan let me explain the way the chains worked.
Speaker 2: So when they were brought to court the sixth, and
Speaker 2: in fact when they were brought to visits in the prison,
Speaker 2: each of the six including Johnny, had leg chain running
Speaker 2: between their legs, attached with ankle braces. They also had
Speaker 2: a waist chain around their waist, and attached to the
Speaker 2: waist chain was a short six or eight inch chain
Speaker 2: that went to handcuffs. So there was a chain around
Speaker 2: their waist and a short chain on each side going
Speaker 2: to each of two handcuffs, so that they could not
Speaker 2: extend their arms far enough really to even write notes
Speaker 2: to us without leaning their whole body over and with
Speaker 2: their arm constricted by the eight inches, be able to
Speaker 2: try to write something to us. In addition to that,
Speaker 2: they also had neck braces that they had to wear.
Speaker 2: The chains and braces that they had to wear. The
Speaker 2: court weighed twenty six pounds. When we were working on
Speaker 2: motions about the law, the demurder, the lack of evidence,
Speaker 2: the ambiguity of the indictment, the sixth defendants were most
Speaker 2: concerned about emotion that they called the unshackling motion. They
Speaker 2: were most concerned about the chains, And I got to
Speaker 2: be the lead person in writing that motion because they
Speaker 2: felt that with all these chains twenty six pounds of weight,
Speaker 2: that they could not honestly communicate with their own lawyers,
Speaker 2: because the chains were so restricted that they could neither
Speaker 2: sit up right in the courtroom, nor could they communicate.
Speaker 2: And they barely could write by virtue of the waste
Speaker 2: chains that were attached to the handcuffs. And you know,
Speaker 2: I was in that courtroom many many many days, and
Speaker 2: I saw those chains, and they were absolutely right. We
Speaker 2: asked the judge to make specific findings as to why
Speaker 2: the chains were necessary, and the judge merely, these guys
Speaker 2: are coming over from the adjustment center in San Quentin,
Speaker 2: the most violent place in the entire state prison system,
Speaker 2: and I'm going to keep them changed in the court.
Speaker 2: And no inquiry was really held to determine whether the
Speaker 2: chains weren't necessary, whether the chains have been removed, would
Speaker 2: the defendants have acted out, or whether they would have
Speaker 2: simply sat there and be able to assist their attorneys.
Speaker 2: We lost that motion too.
Speaker 4: Tell us about Judge Stole and his actions regarding these chains.
Speaker 2: Well along the way, my mentor David Mayer had an
Speaker 2: idea to file a motion to set aside the grand
Speaker 2: jury indictment based on the fact that the grand jury
Speaker 2: was not a jury of our client's peers. They were
Speaker 2: very white, they were very upper middle class. There was
Speaker 2: no diversity, There was no economic diversity. So David filed
Speaker 2: this motion saying that the grand jury was not a
Speaker 2: fair constitution of the population of Marin County as a whole,
Speaker 2: which did have some poorer areas nobody represented on the Grandeur.
Speaker 2: We didn't really think we were going to win that motion,
Speaker 2: but the motion had the effect of requiring the entire
Speaker 2: Superior Court of Marin County to remove itself from the
Speaker 2: case because they had selected the grand jury and therefore
Speaker 2: were ineligible to rule on its viability. So they brought
Speaker 2: in a judge from Nevada County, an old, retired, white
Speaker 2: haired fello named Vernon Stole. It must have been seventy
Speaker 2: five years old at least, and we thought, oh my god,
Speaker 2: Nevada County, you know, conservative territory, old white hair judge,
Speaker 2: or are we in a mess of trouble? But when
Speaker 2: he got on the bench, the sixth complained, as they
Speaker 2: did at the beginning of every single hearing in the court,
Speaker 2: that the chains on them were too tight, and unlike
Speaker 2: what Judge Broderick had done, Judge Stole did something extraordinary.
Speaker 2: He got up from the bench and he walked down
Speaker 2: to the well of the court room where the sixth
Speaker 2: defendants were seated, and he examined their leg chains and
Speaker 2: their handcuffs personally. And then he turned to the sand
Speaker 2: Quentin guards who were watching them, and said, you need
Speaker 2: to loosen these handcuffs and loosen these chains. And if
Speaker 2: he had done nothing else, he had earned the respect
Speaker 2: of each one of those six defendments because he was
Speaker 2: treating them the first time they were ever treated this
Speaker 2: way in the courtroom. He was treating them by human beings.
Speaker 4: Let's use this as an opportunity to stop to hear
Speaker 4: from our sponsor. Do you ship product from your business?
Speaker 4: What if your business was treated like a fortune five
Speaker 4: hundred company with the discount power and customer service power
Speaker 4: usually reserved for the giants. What if you could pass
Speaker 4: on to your customers the money you save on shipping
Speaker 4: or in reinvest those precious dollars back into your company.
Speaker 4: Main Street Logistics offers their clients unbeatable shipping rates and
Speaker 4: unparalleled customer service. There's no more need to waste time
Speaker 4: comparing pricing. With main Street, you can rest assured that
Speaker 4: you are getting unparalleled discounts and a dedicated customer service
Speaker 4: team available to you twenty four to seven, three hundred
Speaker 4: and sixty five days a year. There is never a
Speaker 4: need to get frustrated comparing rates or stuck talking to
Speaker 4: someone at the other end of a generic one eight
Speaker 4: hundred number. Main Street Logistics provides you with the headache
Speaker 4: free shipping with the deepest possible discounts. Whether you're shipping
Speaker 4: within Canada, from Canada or bringing goods into Canada, main
Speaker 4: Street can help trust main Street Logistics for all of
Speaker 4: your shipping and courier needs domestic courier, international courier LTL
Speaker 4: and FTL, ocean and cargo, warehousing and fulfillment. The main
Speaker 4: Street Logistics team brings twenty five years of experience to
Speaker 4: your shipping needs and will help your business punch above
Speaker 4: its weight. When you work with main Street, you are
Speaker 4: treated like a Fortune five hundred company, enjoying the discounts
Speaker 4: and service that a Fortune five hundred receives. What I
Speaker 4: love most about main Street Logistics is just how immediate,
Speaker 4: easy and comfortable it is. Working with Tom and his
Speaker 4: partner Marnie. They get the job done anywhere anyhow, anytime.
Speaker 4: If you want to get in touch to see what
Speaker 4: they can do for you, visit www dot main Street
Speaker 4: Logistics dot CA. For a ten percent discount. Use promo
Speaker 4: code true murder in the subject line of your email
Speaker 4: so that they know your friend Dan sent you. That's
Speaker 4: ten percent off when you go to www dot main
Speaker 4: Street Logistics dot CA and use promo code true murder
Speaker 4: in the subject line of your email main Street Logistics
Speaker 4: front of the line anywhere anytime. Now, Richard, we were
Speaker 4: talking about what happens with Judge Stole and this stay
Speaker 4: of proceedings again stay of this trial. But also you
Speaker 4: write next about the issue of segregation, right, and.
Speaker 2: In this case, segregation means what they call on the
Speaker 2: prison system administrative segregation, which is basically isolation being taced
Speaker 2: in isolation. So in the adjustment center there were two tiers.
Speaker 2: One looked out on a set of windows. One looked
Speaker 2: out absolutely nothing. The people with the set of windows
Speaker 2: were able to go outside once in a while. The
Speaker 2: people where Johnny Spain and the other six had no
Speaker 2: way of going outside, so there was no outside exercise.
Speaker 2: These people in segregation suffered, among other things, that they
Speaker 2: had a half hour of exercise a day, which when
Speaker 2: it wasn't convenient, they didn't get that. If they had
Speaker 2: a shower day two days a week, they didn't get
Speaker 2: their exercise. When they were removed from a cell. Tear
Speaker 2: gas was routinely used. When they had personal family visits,
Speaker 2: they were limited to one per week. The cell floors
Speaker 2: had no drainings and they frequently flooded because of four pipes.
Speaker 2: Overflowing toilets were typical. They had no TV, they had
Speaker 2: no radio, They had no academic make or vocational study,
Speaker 2: and they had two separate script cells as they were called,
Speaker 2: which were reserved for people who misbehaved, which had no
Speaker 2: wash basin and only a hole in the floor for
Speaker 2: waste elimination as they called it, and a single two
Speaker 2: hundred watt bull controlled from outside the cell. These conditions
Speaker 2: were things that Johnny and I and the other six
Speaker 2: talked about all the time. They were horrific, and I
Speaker 2: was tasked near the end of the case to do
Speaker 2: a rid of habeas corpus petition regarding the conditions of confinement.
Speaker 2: Habeas corpus bring the body before the court here not
Speaker 2: to free the person, but to say these conditions of
Speaker 2: confinement are unconstitution and cruel and unusual punishment, And indeed
Speaker 2: they were. I can't imagine how any degree of sady
Speaker 2: should have been maintained by these six individuals and the
Speaker 2: other people incarcerated did there under these conditions. And eventually,
Speaker 2: after the case itself, Judge Alfonso'serve the Northern District of
Speaker 2: California Federal Court agreed and declared most of these conditions
Speaker 2: unconstitutional and required changes such as outside time and exercise
Speaker 2: every single day, and many other changes that made life
Speaker 2: a little bit more palatable for people in segregation.
Speaker 4: You say that this case, Judge Stole's decision was eventually overturned,
Speaker 4: but Johnny succeeded in getting Charles Gary to be his
Speaker 4: counsel and David Mayer was relieved of his duties. But
Speaker 4: during the hiatus in the case, you spent a lot
Speaker 4: of time with Charles Gary, and he offered you to
Speaker 4: co chair or be the second chair on the upcoming trial.
Speaker 4: What was your decision and why?
Speaker 2: Well, first, Judge Stole not only did he loosen the handcuffs,
Speaker 2: but then he did something really incredible. He threw out
Speaker 2: the indictment and agreed with our theory that grand jury
Speaker 2: was not And at that point there was a break
Speaker 2: in the action and Charles Gary who Johnny had wanted
Speaker 2: to represent them. Chris John Charles had represented Huey Newton
Speaker 2: in a number of other political figures, and he had
Speaker 2: this residual suspicion about David because Judge Broderick had foisted
Speaker 2: David on. John Charles was interested in taking over the case,
Speaker 2: and I spent a lot of time with Charles during
Speaker 2: this period of time, talking about the case, hanging out
Speaker 2: in his office just off of Market Street in San Francisco,
Speaker 2: and learning a lot about radical lawyer from Charles and
Speaker 2: his partners Barney Dreyfus and Frank mctierney true the lions
Speaker 2: of the radical left defense bar When the case started
Speaker 2: up again, however, I had a lot of doubts whether
Speaker 2: Charles continued to have the acumen to be able to
Speaker 2: win the case. I felt strongly that David would win
Speaker 2: the case. He was a brilliant trial lawyer. But I
Speaker 2: thought that Charles had lost quite a bit off of
Speaker 2: his fastball, and I was concerned that he wasn't as
Speaker 2: familiar with the underlying facts of the case, those three
Speaker 2: hundred and sixty eight pages of the indictment that I
Speaker 2: was so intimately familiar with. So I had a choice
Speaker 2: either going to partnership with David Mayer, who said, you know,
Speaker 2: we've been working great, come on in, you just got
Speaker 2: scorn in as a lawyer, be my law partner and
Speaker 2: will try to do some criminal cases together. Or second,
Speaker 2: cheering the case with Charles. And that meant a lot
Speaker 2: of publicity and a lot of, you know, visibility, but
Speaker 2: it also meant a lot of heartache, and I was
Speaker 2: really concerned that it wouldn't wind up well. And so
Speaker 2: I chose to leave the San Quentin case and go
Speaker 2: into partnership with David, which turned out to be a
Speaker 2: really extrall in decision.
Speaker 4: Absolutely. In the epilogue, you decide or pardon me, you discuss.
Speaker 4: Eventually they went to trial and the longest criminal trial
Speaker 4: in California history at that time several months. And you
Speaker 4: write that the jury deliberate deliberations took over one hundred days.
Speaker 4: Tell us a little bit more transpired.
Speaker 2: Well, the jury deliberations were pretty incredible. The prosecution really
Speaker 2: didn't have much of the case because it was based
Speaker 2: on the smoke and mirror aspect of conspirators who were unknown,
Speaker 2: and while we hadn't want emotions about that and the
Speaker 2: pre trial proceedings, the jury was really troubled by that.
Speaker 2: So as a result of these long, long deliberations, three
Speaker 2: of the six defendants were acquitted on every count, and
Speaker 2: there was something like fifty felony counts. One of the
Speaker 2: sixth defendants, named David Johnson, was convicted only of a
Speaker 2: misdemeanor assault on a guard by kicking the guard and
Speaker 2: that's it. He was very quickly released from prison on parol.
Speaker 2: One of the other six, Yogi Panel, was convicted of
Speaker 2: very serious crimes for cutting the throats of two guards
Speaker 2: who lived to testify and testify that Yogiell was the
Speaker 2: person who had done that. So in this one instance
Speaker 2: there was direct evidence that this person had committed that crime.
Speaker 2: Yogi Panell was sentenced to life in prison, which is
Speaker 2: an appropriate sentence under the law for people who were
Speaker 2: in those circumstances and committed a crime against a correctional
Speaker 2: officer and actually lived for very many years and passed
Speaker 2: away in prison a few years ago. Johnny Spain. Our
Speaker 2: client was the only one convicted of murder of two
Speaker 2: counts of murder, which was pretty bizarre because he was
Speaker 2: accused of five and there was no claim that he
Speaker 2: himself had committed the murders, and yet he stood convicted
Speaker 2: as the sole person convicted of murder. But that was
Speaker 2: just the beginning of that issue. He had a wonderful
Speaker 2: criminal appeals lawyer named Dennis Reardon who had sat with
Speaker 2: Charles Gary and second chair of the trial, and Dennis
Speaker 2: twice was able to get a federal judge to overturn
Speaker 2: Johnny's conveyed. The second time it was overturned, it was
Speaker 2: based on the shackling, and Judge Felton Henderson found as
Speaker 2: we had moved several years before that the trial Judge
Speaker 2: Roderick had never determined that all of those shackles were necessary,
Speaker 2: and then having shackled the defendants like this made it
Speaker 2: impossible for Johnny to truly communicate with his counsel, and
Speaker 2: there was a lot of evidence about it. There were
Speaker 2: times when Johnny would say, it's too painful for me
Speaker 2: to go to court. I'm going to stay in the prison.
Speaker 2: There were times when an he wrote letters to the
Speaker 2: judge saying I'm in such pain in the court I
Speaker 2: can't communicate with my lawyer. Judge Henderson understood that reversed
Speaker 2: the convictions showed that there was no grounds for the
Speaker 2: twenty six pounds of shackling, and at that point Johnny
Speaker 2: was very soon after least for prison when the prosecution
Speaker 2: declined to reprosecute it.
Speaker 4: Jesus has an opportunity to stop for a second for
Speaker 4: these messages.
Speaker 5: Hello, it is Ryan, and we could all use an
Speaker 5: extra bright spot in our day, couldn't we just to
Speaker 5: make up for things like sitting in traffic, doing the dishes,
Speaker 5: counting or steps, you know, all the mundane stuff. That
Speaker 5: is why I'm such a big fan of Chumba Casino.
Speaker 5: Chumpbuck Casino has all your favorite social casino style games
Speaker 5: you can play for free anytime anywhere with daily bonuses.
Speaker 5: That's your bright new day, Lowe, actually a lot, so
Speaker 5: sign up now at Chumbuck Casino dot com. That's Chumbuck
Speaker 5: Casino dot com.
Speaker 3: Noll brigus ness every where. I lost the terms conditions
Speaker 3: eighteen plus.
Speaker 4: You right about March tenth, nineteen eighty eight, and Johnny
Speaker 4: walking out of prison in Vacaville, California, parole by order
Speaker 4: of a Los Angeles judge. Tell us about this meeting.
Speaker 4: You were there, your wife was there, and others.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that was a hell of a great day. Man.
Speaker 2: He was no longer convicted on the Sam Clinton sixth case,
Speaker 2: although they haven't yet decided mount to prostitute, but he
Speaker 2: was still in prison based on his original conviction. In
Speaker 2: nineteen sixty seven, Dennis and his investigator Kathy Cornbliss did
Speaker 2: a study showing that everybody in the state prison system
Speaker 2: convicted of a similar murder at a similar time had
Speaker 2: already been parole, and yet the parole board continued to
Speaker 2: deny Johnny Spain. The only reason could possibly be his
Speaker 2: San Quentin sixth conviction, but that had been set aside.
Speaker 2: Dennis went down and found a superior court judge in
Speaker 2: Los Angeles who was assigned to the case, who ordered
Speaker 2: the parole board to parole him. Wow, so it wasn't
Speaker 2: the parole board, it was a superior court judge. And
Speaker 2: on that day in March of nineteen eighty eight, we
Speaker 2: all gathered at the back of Dennis, his young daughter Lisa, me,
Speaker 2: my young wife Naomi, and a few other friends, and
Speaker 2: Johnny walked out of Vacaville and got into my car,
Speaker 2: and there's a there's a picture in the book of
Speaker 2: me and Johnny hugging at a gas station in Fairfield, California,
Speaker 2: halfway from Vacaville back to San Francis, where his parole
Speaker 2: plan was to live in my home, which he did,
Speaker 2: wow for several months. And I can tell you how
Speaker 2: long ago the picture was taken, because pass at that
Speaker 2: time was a dollar nine cents a gallery. Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 2: And you can see the joy on our faces as
Speaker 2: we have. And he came back to San Francisco, he
Speaker 2: lived and we actually had to have my two year
Speaker 2: old's room vacated. We gave Johnny that room and got
Speaker 2: him a telephone, and he came out of prison in
Speaker 2: nineteen eighty eight, and to this day he's never gone back.
Speaker 2: I talked to him last week. He all to wish
Speaker 2: me a happy birthday, which actually is today, and it's
Speaker 2: great to have his friendship.
Speaker 4: Happy birthday. And you you right about your San Quentin
Speaker 4: sixth experience having an enormous effect on you. In what
Speaker 4: ways you believe it changed you really.
Speaker 2: Well, I think in a lot of ways I grew
Speaker 2: up and in fact David grew up in that case.
Speaker 2: It was necessary, given the political and highly visible nature
Speaker 2: of that case, and also the equivocal evidence and the
Speaker 2: really questionable prosecution theory, to file every possible motion on
Speaker 2: every possible issue, and then to petition for a writ
Speaker 2: to the higher court on every possible issue. And we
Speaker 2: did that. We did absolutely everything that possibly could have done,
Speaker 2: and a few things that we just kind of thought
Speaker 2: of ourselves. When we were done, David and I realized
Speaker 2: that every case should be the San Quentin sixth case,
Speaker 2: that there would be no reason for any other criminal
Speaker 2: funding or any civil client with less than that kind
Speaker 2: of full amount of dedication. And so there we were
Speaker 2: kind of stuck with us. We've done absolutely everything in
Speaker 2: our power, and when the next case came along, and
Speaker 2: I write about this in the second chapter of the
Speaker 2: case involving a young Vietnamese kid who was being racially
Speaker 2: profiled by a bunch of white kids in Brin County,
Speaker 2: that's exactly what we did. We did the same thing.
Speaker 2: We pulled out all the stops. We didn't make it
Speaker 2: easy for the prosecution. We called all the available witnesses
Speaker 2: and put them on the stand one of the time, David,
Speaker 2: and I learned that that's what it takes. So that's
Speaker 2: what you do.
Speaker 4: You also write in this book, and we don't have
Speaker 4: much time to go into it, but it's interesting that
Speaker 4: you apply these lessons and what you've learned in the
Speaker 4: case of Elvin Drummond and self defense. Can you talk
Speaker 4: about that.
Speaker 2: Elvin Drummond was a guy who had been working as
Speaker 2: a security guard, had very little of a record, which
Speaker 2: were a black man in the seventies and San Francisco
Speaker 2: was remarkable. He had one front driving case and he
Speaker 2: came to us and said, you know, my public defender
Speaker 2: wasn't a public defender. My private appointed counsel is not
Speaker 2: doing a good job for me. Will you guys take
Speaker 2: on the case? And a group of us, six of
Speaker 2: us took on his case pro bono, and his case
Speaker 2: was relatively straightforward. He was accused of murdering a fellow
Speaker 2: named Bo Molson by stabbing him six times in the chest,
Speaker 2: and all of the stab wounds were very similar. They
Speaker 2: were the same depth, the same angle, everything else, so
Speaker 2: that the coroner concluded that either Elvin had held Bo
Speaker 2: up against a wall or had stabbed him while Bo
Speaker 2: was on the ground, but we knew that that didn't happen.
Speaker 2: Alvin was a very small man. Both stood six to
Speaker 2: two and weighed well over two hundred pounds, and Elvin
Speaker 2: described to us how Bo came after him with a
Speaker 2: knife and Elvin was able to duck underneath Bou, kind
Speaker 2: of like Joe Ferraser fighting Muhammad Ali and Boom boom
Speaker 2: boom boom boom boom. Six stab wounds underneath, all similar.
Speaker 2: Because Bo Molson was moving towards Elvin at the time.
Speaker 2: That's a tough defense. But we absolutely believed Elvin. One
Speaker 2: of the reasons we believed Alvin was that Bo was
Speaker 2: Elvin's girlfriend's new guy, and Elvin and the ex girlfriend
Speaker 2: had a young child, and Elvin was trying to get
Speaker 2: visitation with the young child. But in doing it he
Speaker 2: always sought out the Legal Aid Society and got a
Speaker 2: court order to see the child. He never took the
Speaker 2: law into his own hands. And this if I made
Speaker 2: that is where my mother came. Yes. So my mother,
Speaker 2: who was an extraordinary woman, an early medical doctor and
Speaker 2: a psychiatrist and pediatrician, happened to be out in San Francisco,
Speaker 2: visiting because we had a one year old son at
Speaker 2: that time. She wanted to see her grandson, and she
Speaker 2: turned to the trial and she listened to my closing argument.
Speaker 2: And by that time we had developed a witness who said, no, no,
Speaker 2: Elvin didn't stab Molston while he was on the ground,
Speaker 2: and he didn't hold him up against the building. The
Speaker 2: two of them were standing there, which supported our theory.
Speaker 2: But I hadn't nailed it down. And at lunchtime, everybody
Speaker 2: on our team was telling me what a great job
Speaker 2: I had, Die Richard, you're really nailing the argument. You're
Speaker 2: really doing a great job, except for my mom. And
Speaker 2: my mom said, rich rich listen to me for a second. Okay,
Speaker 2: what is it, mom? You have to go back into
Speaker 2: the jury and when you finish up your argument after lunch,
Speaker 2: you have to say to them, you have to ask
Speaker 2: them this question. Is Elvin Drummond the kind of person
Speaker 2: who would take the law into his own hands? And
Speaker 2: I thought about that. I said, you know, on the
Speaker 2: one hand, he always went through legal processes to get
Speaker 2: the order to visit his daughter, and on the other hand,
Speaker 2: taking the law into his own hands has the second
Speaker 2: meaning using the knife aggressively to commit murder. And so
Speaker 2: the first thing I did that afternoon and wrapping up
Speaker 2: my isommation, was to turn to the jury and say,
Speaker 2: members of the jury, I want you to ask yourself
Speaker 2: this question. Is Elvin Drummond the kind of man who
Speaker 2: would take the law into his own hands? And five
Speaker 2: jurors shook their head no. And I realized my mom
Speaker 2: through me as the vessel had managed to reach the
Speaker 2: key of the case.
Speaker 4: What was Elvin Drummond's state? And again, who's there to
Speaker 4: pick him up?
Speaker 2: Well, Elvin got out of jail the night of his
Speaker 2: acquittal because he had no other holes on him, he
Speaker 2: committed no other crimes. He came to our home and
Speaker 2: spent the night at our home. But we knew that
Speaker 2: Bo had two brothers who had actually shown up at
Speaker 2: the trial, both of whom had violent felony records. Yes,
Speaker 2: and we're not going to let this go if Elvin
Speaker 2: were still around them. So one of the members of
Speaker 2: this pro bono team of ours had come from Portland,
Speaker 2: had a lot of contacts in Portland, and we got
Speaker 2: Elvin a couple of contacts in Portland, Oregon, bout him
Speaker 2: a bus ticket, told him who to talk to up
Speaker 2: in Portland and got him out of Dodgs. The bad
Speaker 2: part of that was that a strange from his daughter,
Speaker 2: who we really loved, who was an infant. The good
Speaker 2: part of that is it was able to save its
Speaker 2: life at least at that time. About ten years ago,
Speaker 2: I got a call from this woman and it turned
Speaker 2: out that she was Elvin's daughter and had managed to
Speaker 2: get in touch with him, and it continued to be
Speaker 2: in touch with him after all these years. And that
Speaker 2: was really really gratifying to hear, because here was a
Speaker 2: guy who only wanted to spend some time visiting his daughter,
Speaker 2: has been accused of murder, almost convicted, and then was
Speaker 2: able to reunite with his daughter many years later. So
Speaker 2: every once in a while stories have at least a
Speaker 2: partial happy ending.
Speaker 4: I want to thank you so much Richard Zitrin, for
Speaker 4: coming on and talking about your book Trial Lawyer, A
Speaker 4: Life Representing People against Power some of the most compelling
Speaker 4: cases that you have encountered during your life as a
Speaker 4: trial lawyer. I want to thank you very much for
Speaker 4: coming on and talking about this book. For those that
Speaker 4: might want to take a look at other works of
Speaker 4: yours or about this case and more in particular, do
Speaker 4: you do any social media and do you have a website?
Speaker 2: Sure? You can read about this book at www dot
Speaker 2: Richard Zitron dot com. The Zitron is ZI t R
Speaker 2: I N. It's got this book featured and the other
Speaker 2: books that I've written. It also has a number of
Speaker 2: other published articles. But there's more information about this book
Speaker 2: and some quotes from some good people who enjoyed it.
Speaker 2: You know. It's available through my publisher, Political Animal Press.
Speaker 2: It's available on Amazon and all the other usual places.
Speaker 2: I have an Instagram account, and I have a Facebook page,
Speaker 2: and I have a LinkedIn page. But the best and
Speaker 2: easiest thing to do is go to my website wwwwichards
Speaker 2: dot com. I hope you're interested in following up and
Speaker 2: reading about some of the other stories in addition to
Speaker 2: the post stories about seven twenty six and all they're done.
Speaker 2: Thank you Dan so much to ask me about these.
Speaker 4: Thank you so much for coming on and discussing trial
Speaker 4: Lawyer a life representing people against power. Thank you so
Speaker 4: much for this interview. Richard Zitron. You have a great evening.
Speaker 2: Good night. Thank you, Joe, thank you