Melissa Rosenblum on the Marylue Wigglesworth Self Defense Case

Tom Ritter (00:01)
What is the right nine one one call after a sh self defense shooting in the state of New Jersey? Just that's all I'm gonna give you. Not this self defense shooting. What is the right nine one one call after a self defense shooting in New Jersey? No pressure.

Melissa Rosenblum Esq (00:19)
It's just such a weird question because as a defense attorney, you know, my normal advice is shut up.

Tom Ritter (00:32)
This is a New Jersey crime conversation with Atlantic City Atlanti for fuck's sake. We're here with Atlantic City criminal defense attorney Melissa Rosenbloom, who handled the case and represented Mary Lou Wigglesworth after the December twenty fifth shooting of David Wigglesworth, a Hamilton Township Planning Board member and local Republican political figure who was shot and killed in the couple's maze landing home.

home. Melissa, welcome to the microphone. You're going to do most of the work today.

Melissa Rosenblum Esq (01:08)
Yeah, that might be good. That

Tom Ritter (01:11)
So

Melissa Rosenblum Esq (01:11)
tongue is not not working well right now for you.

Tom Ritter (01:16)
No, it's I'm so I'm so used to saying introductions get flubbed when I'm working with you that it just it just rubbed off. But you represented Mary Lou who made the nine one one call shortly or immediately after the altercation, correct?

Melissa Rosenblum Esq (01:36)
She made the nine one one call after the shooting, which was pretty immediate after the altercation. The altercation was not just the shooting, just so we're clear.

Tom Ritter (01:48)
That was my next setup for you would be can you set the table with what was the altercation? And if you wanna go a bullet point deeper, what are the entirety of circumstances that make up the story behind the altercation, if you care?

Melissa Rosenblum Esq (02:08)
Sure. My client Mary Lou W Wigglesworth was charged with murder for the December twenty fifth, twenty twenty four shooting of her husband. And initially when she was charged, what we knew was that her husband was shot in bed. We also know that she shot him. She admitted to that pretty immediately, or I would say she admitted to that when the police arrived.

She called 911 and was pleading for help and was trying to get an ambulance to the house as as quickly as possible. she was confused. I think she was in a state of shock. She did when the police arrived talk about the fact that there was an altercation on the nine one one call. She also talked about the fact that there was a fight.

But she didn't provide a lot of details and she wasn't making a lot of sense on the day that at the time that the police arrived. So initially, all we knew, and when I say we, I mean the all the police knew was that David Wigglesworth was shot and he was shot by Mary Lou. What we learned pretty quickly was that

Mary Lou was a victim of domestic violence. And although not documented by the police within the first twenty-four hours, I was hired immediately by Mary Lou's son and went out to the jail. And what I was able to see within twenty-four hours of the incident was that she had black and blue marks up and down her arms. She had a little black and blue on her face above

on her forehead and she had black and blues all on the side of her body. And it was significant. It was

Probably one of the first things I noticed when I saw her, and it was not documented by anyone. so the state's version of the case really was that on December 25th, 2024, a woman shot her husband who was in bed, and defenseless. And they very much focused on the fact that he was in bed naked at the time that the gun was shot.

They did not acknowledge, take photos, or even have the information that she was significantly abused and violently assaulted. I think the state didn't really have that information, partly because Mary Lou, although talked about the fact that there was a fight, she she was again in shock and trauma.

They had been drinking the whole day. It was Christmas day. They'd been at family and and a number of different people would admit that they were drinking. And she didn't really tell the whole story. She wasn't making sense that night when the police arrived.

Tom Ritter (05:35)
Got well, that's a terrible position to find yourself in if you've given a building full of detectives or supervisors or police officers time to have conversations about a likely scenario to the point where they think that's what happened. And now you want to introduce your side of the story. That's pretty that's that's less than ideal if you have the option of somehow conveying information earlier. Am I am I

Am I crazy? Because you've spoken before about how once police get an idea, it can be a issue of proving that idea. I mean, it it ha

Melissa Rosenblum Esq (06:16)
Right. It it it was interesting because they charged her with the with murder and their position was they gave her an opportunity to

Explain, but I don't think she was in that state of mind to be able to do that on the night of the shooting. I think she was, as I said, for different reasons, alcohol involvement, shock, confusion of having the police there, and and again, she did she did say things to the police. She did say things to the police like

Like there was a fight, there was an altercation, she made a statement about him being Jekyll and Hyde. So she just didn't make anything, she didn't make a coherent statement. and she was very focused initially on getting help for him. But she said, We had an altercation, please help him, please help him. that was her focus initially.

And again, I don't think I don't think she knew what was the right or wrong thing to say. She wasn't sophisticated in that manner. Do you understand?

Tom Ritter (07:44)
Extremely fair for anyone who has no background in being processed in the criminal justice system. It's probably very different from what you picture. You don't know what to say when it's very much not the movies or TV. And your opportunities to advocate for yourself maybe are not highlighted and presented to you on a platter. Like here's the point where you should do X in your favor.

Melissa Rosenblum Esq (08:12)
I mean she said we had a major fight. I don't know what I did, but she didn't clarify what was said by a fight. And I don't know why the pictures weren't taken of her injuries. as I said, the incident happened on the twenty fifth. I think I was hired on the twenty sixth and went to the jail almost immediately. definitely not if it wasn't twenty four hours, it was no more than thirty six. And

again immediately saw those injuries and bruising and they're defensive bruising. It's clearly somebody holding their hands up and trying to protect themselves, bruising on the side of her body like they were like her body was kicked. And although she doesn't she didn't even know her jail calls were being recorded, again, not sophisticated, never involved in the criminal justice system.

One of the first calls when talking to her son, she said it was really bad. He hurt me really bad. And, you know, again, not a sophisticated client, just really unfamiliar with the criminal justice system. But what I what I think was interesting about this case when I first handled it from the beginning, I know so many people in law enforcement.

And I had so many people call me and say she was a victim of D V, wasn't she? Or he she he abused her. Almost everyone in law enforcement who called me started with that. And I would say I can't really talk about the case, but you're on the right track.

Tom Ritter (10:06)
I'm sure it's seeming I mean, you don't if you've well like I've mentioned cops, if you're if you've watched enough cops, you've seen a scenario where it's somebody's push, push, push, push, push snaps. Like was there any previous fighting back or was this just could not was this the culmination without any sort of previous plateaus of her taking a stand in the past?

Melissa Rosenblum Esq (10:34)
So she had been talking about leaving and her sister and her son. There were conversations about her trying to leave him and

And there was family members who were trying to encourage her. And it just I think she was scared. She didn't think she was gonna be left with any money. she thought she had signed a prenup and she thought she wasn't gonna be entitled to anything. She was very dependent on him. And

Even though I can say she was a victim of domestic violence for the course of her whole marriage, which was almost thirty years, she also loved him still, which is what happens sometimes when people are victims of domestic violence. So I don't think she saw a pathway to exit, and I'm not sure if she truly wanted that pathway.

Even though there were family members trying to help her within the year before of the incident.

Tom Ritter (11:47)
And so shortly thereafter, and maybe to layer on to that, that the judge denies bail and based on the idea that the self-defense claim is a trial issue and not a bail conversation. And do you feel like one led directly to the other? The fact that there was there was no self defense basis put in the record?

early in the going, would there have been a chance for bail, I suppose is what I'm getting at, had the circumstances we just discussed been different?

Melissa Rosenblum Esq (12:24)
Right. So you know I'm gonna have to start with New Jersey law as the nerd I am. New Jersey doesn't have bail anymore. it was voted by the good people of New Jersey years ago that the bail system was not the best system and we have what's called criminal justice reform that was enacted and put in place in twenty seventeen. And criminal justice reform if a

If an individual's charge is placed on a warrant, the state files a motion to detain that individual. And so an individual is either detained pending trial or they're released on some sort of pretrial supervision. So it's not bail. It's a and it's a term that people still try to use and we haven't had it in a long time. But the state filed a motion to detain because it was a murder charge.

There's a presumption of detention in a murder tri in a murder charge. And so I argued that it was a self-defense or an imperfect self-defense at minimum, but that she was a victim of domestic violence and she was being assaulted and that this isn't a murder charge and it was self defense. The judge at the first detention hearing said that is a trial issue.

And it's not a issue for the detention hearing.

And she detained Mary Lou. I don't think it was because of what was said or not said. I think at the beginning of the case there just wasn't a significant amount of evidence. I think the judge just ruled that any defenses weren't relevant at the detention hearing. I appealed that and the appellate court agreed

with the defense, or I'll say with my arguments that if there was self defense that that should have been taken into consideration and is relevant even at the detention hearing level. So the appellate court told the trial

Tom Ritter (14:46)
By that time she'd been indicted. So hadn't you then gone through a whole slew of evidence?

Melissa Rosenblum Esq (14:51)
She hadn't been indicted yet. We appealed it really quickly. So you have to appeal within seven days of the initial detention hearing. So we so the detention hearing was January third, I think, if I looked at the dates. What?

Tom Ritter (15:09)
yeah, the first detention hearing was January. Then in February was both the appeal and the indictment.

Melissa Rosenblum Esq (15:18)
No, the appeal was in January.

Tom Ritter (15:21)
I had it in I had that before the well you're I'm sure you're right 'cause you're looking at the file.

Melissa Rosenblum Esq (15:28)
Well that and you only have seven days to appeal that detention hearing. So I appealed it immediately and then it came back and the appellate court said that the judge needed to consider the self defense information. And the judge did consider the sel then then the judge reviewed it again and I say this respectfully to the judges.

I know their job is not easy, but at the first detention hearing there was reference to significant evidence of self defense and it's not relevant. And then when it was sent back, what was placed on the record is that it's it's unclear whether there's a legitimate self defense claim. And so my client was still detained.

I did appeal that as well. I didn't win that appeal. So that might be the second appeal that might have come after the indictment.

Tom Ritter (16:29)
Okay.

Melissa Rosenblum Esq (16:31)
Time wise. And then she was indicted very quickly. she was indicted in February. And I did do one more detention hearing a few months into it with an expert report indicating that she was not a danger to herself or to the community, which is one of the factors of why she was detained. And the trial judge denied that release argument as well.

And so Mary Lou remained in custody for the duration of the case.

Tom Ritter (17:10)
All right. And you get through

Twenty twenty three. Is twenty twenty three when the c when that trial began or did the trial begin in twenty twenty four?

She she pleaded.

Melissa Rosenblum Esq (17:28)
Guilty,

Tom Ritter (17:31)
okay. Okay. So she pled guilty pretrial in June, is that correct?

Melissa Rosenblum Esq (17:39)
She pled guilty in june fourth of twenty twenty four after a significant back and forth of negotiations. And really what the case came down to is that we presented an expert report by a clinical and forensic psychologist, Don Hughes, and

Dawn Hughes is an expert who has worked with intimate partner violence and has, you know, is a clinical and forensic psychologist. She's an expert on interpersonal violence, traumatic stress, intimate partner violence, as well as sexual assault, rape, physical assault, childhood maltreatment. And she did a

assessment of Mary Lou and it was significant and detailed and things that had come up in our investigation, which the

state didn't have this information is really what happened that night because Mary Lou wasn't able to talk or convey it the first night. And when she was evaluated, she was able to fill in a lot of the holes in the story. She she couldn't fill in everything. She didn't remember everything. she didn't remember the the actual shooting.

She remembers grabbing the gun, she remembers that after she was physically assaulted and that she was on the ground def you know, protecting her body and her face and her head. And she remembers David putting a gun to her head and threatening to kill her.

Tom Ritter (19:38)
I was just gonna bring that up.

Melissa Rosenblum Esq (19:41)
And then he

Tom Ritter (19:43)
He

Melissa Rosenblum Esq (19:44)
put the gun down and he got into bed. And

She remembered that and she remembered grabbing the gun. She really doesn't remember the firing it. And it you know, it's one of those facts that actually lended herself to to the authenticity of her story because she didn't try to plug up holes or or add things that she didn't remember.

Tom Ritter (20:14)
I have to be honest, like if you point a gun at someone, there's a re that's a serious crime. And there's the reason for that is I truly believe you could mess somebody up for the rest of their life by simply pointing a gun at them and making them think they're about to die. And and the

The effect that could have on somebody if it does affect them in that way immediately thereafter is the same kind of thing as a car accident. Just having a gun pointed at you could really flip you out for pardon the lack of you going from Dr. Don Hughes' language to me just saying that would freak somebody out to the point where that becomes a legitimate, like emotional psychologically challenging episode. Just having a gun pointed at you.

Melissa Rosenblum Esq (21:05)
I know, but self-defense in New Jersey, and without having that time sequence between the pointing of the gun and the shooting, so we don't know if it was within seconds of the pointing of the gun at her, a minute, or whether there were four to five minutes. And here is the real issue is that the state's position is

She had time to get up and she could have left the room.

And so self defense in New Jersey is justifiable when you reasonably believe that the force is immediately necessary to protect yourself against unlawful force. And the response allows re reasonable and proportionate force, but imposes a strict duty to retreat. So here's the question, and and this is I've said this so many times when I've talked about the case.

The law and the psychology do not match up today. When somebody puts a gun to your head, your body becomes you you are then in a fight or flight mode. The trauma is so significant, right? And if you talk to experts in the in the

Psychology field or yeah, the psychology field, they're going to be able to tell you that your body cannot regulate within a few moments from that fight or flight. That fear of your life being in danger could last more than five minutes, ten minutes, twenty minutes, fifteen, twenty five minutes. It is a significant amount of time before your body re regulates, right? But the law of

says that if it's not immediate, the self-defense isn't immediate, then it's not a valid self-defense. And so that's that's the problem in these cases is that the state's position, I'm not saying I agree with the state's position, is that

If she didn't fire the gun immediately, then it's not a valid self defense because she could have left or you know, choosing to pick up the gun and then fire it is why they charged her with murder. Do you understand?

Tom Ritter (23:51)
A hundred percent.

Melissa Rosenblum Esq (23:53)
I'm

not saying you I agree with it. I'm just saying that the law is

Tom Ritter (23:57)
Just so you know, I don't anybody who's interested enough to get this far into this conversation on a YouTube channel about the law already knows New Jersey's self defense laws with the most unbelievable version there is in the country in terms of of responsibility or retreat. If somebody doesn't have a exploding baseball bat with nails on it, literally in the act of coming down on your head, you're probably going to prison if you

Like if they're coming across the room even and they're not in striking distance and they've got a weapon that requires them to be four feet away and you've got a gun, you probably just put yourself in prison because somebody's gonna argue you're disproportionate. He you gotta you should have waited till they got four feet away so they can kill you before you

Melissa Rosenblum Esq (24:44)
Sort of like you can't bring a knife to a gunfight. You can't, you know, at the time that so so the facts that were bad were that he didn't have a gun in his hand at the time that she fired the gun. The fact that the that was bad for my client was that he was naked in bed. And and, you know, the state thought that showed that he was vulnerable, but the family would say

This was a man who like walked in the house and undressed and walked around naked. So the fact that he was naked was not significant to them in any way. But to the state, they would argue that he was naked and in bed and and so vulnerable and had no way to defend himself and didn't have a weapon in his hand. you know, those are all the realities of when you're evaluating the case. I mean, she was charged with murder.

And we ended up resolving it for a manslaughter, which for my anyone who's still listening for interested in the law, there's murder, which is a specific intent to kill, then there's aggravated manslaughter, and then there's manslaughter. And the state and I came to the manslaughter under the passion provocation statute.

that there was provocation based on the conduct of the victim of putting the gun to her head. and then the question really was what was the sentence that was agreeable?

So just so we're clear, because I like to always say the statute, a passion provocation is a sudden intense emotional state triggered by an ad adequate provocation from the victim. That's what passion provocation means. And that's what the manslaughter definition is.

Tom Ritter (26:53)
Boy, that's a word like adequate defining something is always interesting.

Melissa Rosenblum Esq (27:01)
It happens this is this is the best way to say it. It happens when the killing that looks like murder actually happens in the heat of a sudden passion after a reasonable and strong provocation.

Yeah. So the question is, do you take a case like this to trial? And and it I think that it was a good case in some ways to take to trial, but it was a case that it really if you talk to a lot of different people, it people had visceral reactions. There were a lot of people who were very supportive of

Mary Lou. And there were a lot of people that

Had that initial reaction that the shooting was maybe unnecessary and unreasonable. I'm not gonna say who whether men were on one side and women were on the other. I'm just saying that, you know, there were, you know, a lot of visceral reactions to this case. And I will say what was really interesting is the state was very

focused on the murder charge for a really long time. And in this case, and I don't do this often, I had my expert sit down with the prosecutor. And the three of us, we did it virtually. We were all on Zoom. Dawn was in New York in her office. I was in my Atlantic City office. The prosecutor was in her office. And we talked about the expert report and the fact that

even though there were no police documentation of domestic violence, there was a significant history of domestic violence that even people who knew the parties who initially said I never saw anything, then would talk about being with the couple and seeing David berade or demi d belittle or pinch or kind of smack her.

and they didn't consider that domestic violence. And then when they were kind of questioned about it, they would say, yeah, he would like pinch her to shut up, or he would tell her to stop and, you know, would become aggressive. People talked about him as a very Jekyll and Hyde personality. He could be the nicest person in the world and snap like that. but the conversation between Dr. Hughes

And the prosecutor and I really demonstrated that Mary Lou was a true victim, that this was something that was verified, and that Mary Lou's memory and and and explanation of what happened was authentic and that, you know, what she couldn't remember, she couldn't remember. And that really got us to the

to the part of being able to negotiate the case.

Tom Ritter (30:28)
Would have been a jury.

Melissa Rosenblum Esq (30:31)
So what I always t tell my clients about trials is there's just no guarantee with trials. Trials, you are putting twelve people that you don't know who get to decide the truth. And I I say this all the time. I say it to my clients, I say it when people ask me about jury trials or the or when they say I want the truth to come out. And I say it's not a movie.

It's not an hour long law and order. There's no truth that comes out. The state presents their version of the truth. The defense presents their version of the truth. And the jury gets to decide the version that they believe. And so the jury doesn't always get it right. If the jury got it right, we wouldn't need the innocence project. If the jury got it right, there wouldn't be all these.

Exonerations fifteen, twenty years after these wrongful convictions, right? And so

Tom Ritter (31:37)
Juries are scary to me.

Melissa Rosenblum Esq (31:42)
So

it's a gamble. It's a gamble. A jury is a gamble. Now, even on good cases, I've had good cases where I've had the jury do weird things.

I've had really bad cases where I've gotten a hung jury, which is a great result at the end of a trial that you think is a terrible trial for your client. I just had a very long trial and this spring and

It should you know, the evidence went in as as clean as possible and in the end it was a hung verdict, it was a hung jury and

it it really didn't make sense. And and that's you know, that's that's the unexplainable that you can win straight out and not guilty a good case. You can also lose a good case. And so the state

By the time we were getting to trial said that they would probably only proceed on the ag man. But if she was found guilty of the aggravated manslaughter, she was looking at a significant sentence, which could be anywhere from fifteen years or more. And they weren't gonna proceed just on the manslaughter charge. the maximum penalty on a manslaughter charge is ten years. we came to a six year plea.

And then once the offer is at six years, my client had about two years in, and it isn't an offense that falls under the No Early Release Act. So she had to serve eighty-five percent of it, then it becomes the family's decision, the client's decision. I'm happy to go to trial on a case.

Trial for me is, you know, it's just part of my job. I like that part of the job, but there's a gamble to my client. And so because I can never guarantee a result. Jor and again, jurors do juries do re really weird things. They don't follow the judge's instructions. Crazy.

Tom Ritter (34:10)
Thank God.

I think that's well well, not procedurally. I hope they're following procedural instructions, but I think g jury nullification's one of the most valuable things that exists on the planet.

Melissa Rosenblum Esq (34:20)
I know but when they're not following the perceived

Tom Ritter (34:23)
Okay, that's a different stuff.

Melissa Rosenblum Esq (34:26)
I mean, I have like I've heard jurors say that, you know, they couldn't come to an agreement. So they were told to go from the top charge down. They went from the bottom charge up. You know, like they don't follow the procedures. I heard of a case where a juror was like, Well, I know people in that field and and they're not good people. So these might be bad people. You know, you're not that's not facts in the case, right? So

Tom Ritter (34:54)
It's funny you the specific first example you gave. I know those who've served on jury duty, and I've heard more than one story where nothing's getting done. And so instead of starting at the top, some smart person says, Look, because people don't underst don't understand how to classify the charges. So the easiest way is don't define it as charge A.

Or B or but pick the bottom one. And so I've heard life examples where this happened and the trial progressed was pick the very bottom charge. Don't call it the charge. Call it something else.

Melissa Rosenblum Esq (35:37)
Well you but they're they're thinking that

Tom Ritter (35:40)
Do you think they did this? And everybody in the room raises their hand. You said, You just all agreed on X. Now, can we get move on to this? And but it's almost a way to clarify definitions within the charges. It's it's hurting cats. And I've seen that particular manipulation of the process def described to me in real life terms and real life instances to get people to realize,

Yeah. okay. Like that's what that means. You just said they did that.

Melissa Rosenblum Esq (36:13)
Yeah. I mean honestly, you know, I I have never been on a jury. Nobody's gonna pick me, right? I I I No, I walk in and they're like, Goodbye, Miss Rosenblum, goodbye. But but

Tom Ritter (36:28)
And then they find out you're a defense attorney.

Melissa Rosenblum Esq (36:30)
But here's the here's the thing. Once the case goes in and the jury is in the jury room going there they are left to their own devices, you know? And so it I would say it's a it's just a gamble going and sometimes you need to. Sometimes you're not coming to a number that's reasonable. In that case, if we weren't gonna come to a reasonable number, you know, then it was gonna go to trial. But

When it got to the six year sentence, you know, it was something that it was it was what they need the Mary Lou and her family needed to decide. And I think that there were reasons, you know, partly as I said I have said before, I'm not a gambler. I would have I would have taken the six. I would have told my mom or a family member to take the six, right? Because

She would've been she's gonna be out by the time she's fifty seven, and that's a guarantee, right?

Tom Ritter (37:33)
What is and what is the argument for not? That's all emotional. That's all it that's all someone saying, I can't sleep for the rest of my life, admitting something I didn't do kind of thing or

Melissa Rosenblum Esq (37:43)
Well, I don't think she had an issue with doing it because I think she had a lot of guilt, you know, whether she had a whether sh she was justified and whether a jury would have acquitted her or not, I don't know, right? It seems

Tom Ritter (37:57)
It's more business like to be conservative though. When you three minutes ago we're talking about how dealing with a jury is rolling the dice. It's it's very hard to argue with the logic that your CPA would give you. Be conservative. Your lawyer, be conservative. any lawyer usually is going to say be conservative if the risk is that great. So

Melissa Rosenblum Esq (38:20)
Correct.

Well, I think it depends on what the offer is. I mean, if the offer was always a twenty year offer, then there would be no reason for us we could go to trial and get, you know, that offer. They charged her with murder. I never thought she was going to be found guilty of murder. And even the prosecutor said they probably would not have proceeded on the murder charge. They would have only proceeded on the manslaughter and the ag man s manslaughter. So my point to you is it does depend on what the offer is.

If the offer was a twenty or a twenty five year offer, then going to trial is easy.

Yeah. She was that's a life sentence for her. She was fifty two at the time of the incident. If they're offering her more or less a life sentence, it's an easy argument to fight a case. It becomes a harder argument the lower that number gets, right?

Tom Ritter (39:17)
And the more they the more they stuff I have I take great offense to prosecutors putting more in the folder than their heart tells them absolutely needs to be there. Because that to me leads to some of the compromise we just discussed and how like it's a real gray area, a real sort of sludgy kind of conversation you have to have because it's not the movies.

And the more they stuff the folder to begin with, the more leverage they have. That's like the good cop, bad cop, except they're both. And they're walking in later. And if that folder is overstuffed with charges to begin with, then any any deal in the six range when the comparison is a complete disaster, at the other end of the spectrum. But even like adding a charge, even if it's not a charge.

where they're seeking the max penalty, having the charge there when you and they agree to a charge it one step, maybe two steps lower than that, that tells me that charge shouldn't have been the full. Like I just I hate that very human aspect of that phase of it. Because if you've got a used car dealer in there with something less than beautiful ethics and a wonderful soul in the prosecutor's office, how are they not

going to use car deal the shit out of that and treat it like horse trading.

Melissa Rosenblum Esq (40:49)
Yeah, so I'm gonna explain it in legal terms. So not car dealership and and horse trading, which which are great analogies, but here's the thing

Tom Ritter (41:01)
See how it.

Melissa Rosenblum Esq (41:02)
the the prosecutors, then the prosecutor office has a lot of power. They have a lot of power to choose what charges to charge someone, and they have a lot of power to choose.

how to proceed on a case. It's significant, right? And I will say that prosecutors, you know, they're the only lawyer, only type of lawyer that has a specific rules under the rules of professional conduct of ethics to say how they should behave and how they should proceed, right? So it's a lot of responsibility.

I do agree with you that there are prosecutors that overcharge on a case with the goal of being able to negotiate from a higher starting point, right? And there are prosecutors that do that. I don't think most prosecu I think most prosecutors are doing their job. There I will say in this case, the state's position was at the time we indicted and with the information we had.

they believed it was a murder charge. I think they knew enough that it probably was not, but they felt like they had enough information. I will say I have another case in another county where I have a client who, it's it's still an open case, but the facts are undisputed that he was being strangled by his stepfather shortly before my client then got a gun and shot him.

And they charged him initially with murder and they were able they verified client had bruising on his neck, had to seek medical care. They did not indict him on them on the murder charge, even though they initially charged him on the murder charge. And I think the state in this case, Was there a white I think the manslaughter charge if they were going to trial would have been the right charge to go to trial on, if that makes sense.

Tom Ritter (43:17)
you're you're the criminal defense attorney here.

Melissa Rosenblum Esq (43:20)
I mean I they were not gonna dismiss the case. They weren't gonna dismiss the case. So, you know, the issue

Tom Ritter (43:28)
Your perspective is that most of these prosecutors are operating above board in not leaning into 'cause it would be easy. I'm not like blaming them. It's they who has more power than a prosecutor? Like

Melissa Rosenblum Esq (43:42)
I mean there are certain charges that are overcharged. The best example I can give, and I will say this to law enforcement, to the prosecutors, to anyone who's practicing in New Jersey, okay? Aggravated assault, strangulation, the strangulation aggravated assault used to be a third degree charge. I think prior to twenty nineteen, it was a third degree charge. Okay. It was never charged.

Or rarely ever charged. You would be charged with an aggravated assault third degree because there was what's defined as significant injury. Significant injury could be bruising, as a good example. All right. And then or you were charged with a second degree aggravated assault because there was serious bodily injury. Serious bodily injury is permanent, or you know, likely to cause death.

That's the definition, okay? In twenty nineteen, our legislature changed aggravated assault from a third degree charge with the maximum sentence at the time was five years, and there's presumption of non-incarceration on those cases, to a second degree strangulation charge. Now a second degree has a maximum penalty of ten years.

It falls under the No Early Release Act, so you have to serve eighty-five percent of the sentence if you're found guilty of that. So if it's a ten year sentence, you're serving eight and a half years. And if you're found guilty of that, there's a presumption of imprisonment, even if you have no prior record and no prior contact with the criminal justice system. I do not have the stats, but I would bet my zillion dollars zillion, I like to make up numbers, that that charge has increased

Not tenfold, not twentyfold, but a hundredfold. Every case that I have now that include domestic violence, almost every case, my client is charged with a second degree strangulation. Even if the victim does not seek medical treatment, has no bruising on their neck, and no objective evidence to show a strangulation, all they need to say is he put his hands on my neck or his hands were on my throat and I couldn't breathe for a moment.

Or I couldn't breathe for seconds, or I felt like I couldn't breathe. And a client will be charged with a second degree aggravated assault. Now

Every charge, every charge that's a domestic violence case, has a second degree aggravated assault, which places all those cases on warrants in the state filing detention, and that is throughout the state of New Jersey.

What has changed since twenty nineteen? The only thing that has changed is the gradation of that offense. It was barely ever charged before twenty nineteen. It is charged.

I cannot even tell you the numbers. You can look you you are a stats guy. You you can go down this rabbit hole.

Tom Ritter (46:56)
W as described, that's the the s it's the subtitle of the article that y is more disturbing. It's that it's defined as like not long term damage, not so what you just described, I could do without the intent to strangle or suffocate

Melissa Rosenblum Esq (47:16)
Pushing away. No, well let me clarify. The charge itself can be charged when you say, I I couldn't breathe, right? I I couldn't breathe, his hands were on my neck. I don't think you can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt without an expert.

Do you understand the difference? There could be probable cause because probable cause is a lower standard. And that's all you need to charge somebody. I

Tom Ritter (47:42)
You're right. So the U

Melissa Rosenblum Esq (47:43)
don't think I think you need an expert report in order to prove strangulation. I think you need medical documentation. I think you need to have somebody that goes to the hospital and gets gets my goodness, I'm gonna blank. But there is testing that they do.

Tom Ritter (48:00)
picture marks and stuff like that.

Melissa Rosenblum Esq (48:03)
And I think you need all of that to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. But you don't need it to charge. And charging someone that in and of itself is significant. It is significant because most likely the person will have a greater likelihood to be detained even if they have no prior record. they're more likely potentially looking at a prison sentence, even if they have no prior record. and it's just

so easy to charge. It's just one of the it's it's one of the few charges that I think is overused by the state and and really needs to be flushed out better.

Tom Ritter (48:44)
It's a disproportionate stick brought to the table. That's

Melissa Rosenblum Esq (48:49)
Yeah. Yeah.

Tom Ritter (48:50)
directly to the to the almo the folder stuffing conversation and the wielding of power in the negotiation phase.

Melissa Rosenblum Esq (49:00)
It is, and I and what I would say is it was an unnecessary change in the law because if there was serious bodily injury, which includes strangulation, right, then you could charge someone with a second degree aggravated assault. It was already there. You didn't need to change that specific statute.

Tom Ritter (49:25)
It's almost like all that really changed was the ability to charge by implication versus charging by evidence. And and and to your point about requiring an expert, it falls short because without the initial evidence of either, you know, a grave bodily injury, something that can be recorded if it was a if it was a sincere attempt at strangulation and

the tests you were referencing or the exams you're referencing have been done, you've got evidence.

Melissa Rosenblum Esq (50:01)
You don't have serious Yeah. Right. Serious bodily injury means physical harm that creates a substantial risk of death, causes serious and permanent disfigurement, or results in a protracted protracted loss or impairment of a function of any bodily member or organ. That's serious bodily injury. That's a second degree aggravated assault. So clearly if somebody truly was strangled, there was a risk, a substantial risk of death, right?

So it just made charging it, the second degree aggravated assault strangulation, easier. Not easier to prove, just easier to charge, is what I would say.

Tom Ritter (50:45)
That's a great point to bring up after me complaining about folder stuffing. Like that's a an incredible illustration of that power dynamic at work in a way like cause I w that was gonna be my next question was are there cases where this is more prone or to be an example than not? And so that yeah.

Melissa Rosenblum Esq (51:05)
Right.

But I I'm gonna say that I I think that the state I do think it's overcharged. I think it's overcharged by the police and by the prosecutor's office. I don't think it's one office, I think it's throughout the state of New Jersey. And I think that their position would be the legislature, you know, enacted this strangulation charge. They upped it from a third to a second degree. And and

You know, it's just one of their tools or charges that they have. but again, I think to prove it it's more significant than just saying I couldn't breathe for a moment.

Tom Ritter (51:49)
I'm gonna ask you to nerd out for a minute and jump all the way back to the nine one one call.

Melissa Rosenblum Esq (51:55)
Okay.

Tom Ritter (51:56)
I sh what is the right nine one one call after a sh self defense shooting in the state of New Jersey? Just that's all I'm gonna give you. Not this self defense shooting. What is the right nine one one call after a self defense shooting in New Jersey? No pressure.

Melissa Rosenblum Esq (52:14)
It's just such a weird question because as a defense attorney, you know, my normal advice is shut up. Don't say anything. Don't admit. Admit to nothing. Right? But but if you're trying to seek help for someone, which is the right thing to do, right?

Tom Ritter (52:37)
If you but isn't so but as a strategist as a strategist isn't there value in being the person who goes on record first when there's been an incident? And is there that's all I'm getting at is as a defense attorney, I've I've shot somebody and it just assume I'm in the right, but I'm in New Jersey.

Melissa Rosenblum Esq (53:00)
Yeah, I mean I think

Tom Ritter (53:01)
The

Melissa Rosenblum Esq (53:03)
you make a nine one one call, you provide the address that you're at. So it's been an interesting So Tom, this is this is like a really hard question because it's like giving advice. It's I know we're having like a general conversation, but it is like an awkwardness of a criminal defense attorney about giving advice potentially, right? It's almost

Tom Ritter (53:27)
I'm almost asking you for a rule which is kind of like giving universal advice. Yeah, that's a bad

Melissa Rosenblum Esq (53:32)
And

I don't really like that, which is my hesitation. What I would go back to is providing statements to the police usually are not helpful. And providing limited statements are not helpful either, if that makes sense. the the the whole issue with self-defense is usually the person who's charged, for lack of a better way of saying it, is the person who won the fight.

Right? So like if so for example, if you strike me, if you push me and

Tom Ritter (54:15)
We've got to do it the other way around. You've got to be abusing

Melissa Rosenblum Esq (54:18)
I'm sorry, am I attacking your manliness in this way?

Tom Ritter (54:21)
I just I don't wanna be the one d well, whoever comes down on top it has to be you because I'm not gonna be the winner in this fight. Just make whatever you do, make sure you kill me.

Melissa Rosenblum Esq (54:29)
No, I was gonna say if you strike me and then I punch you back and I get one shot in that knocks you out and you hit the ground and smash your head, right?

Like my reaction would be I'm gonna I most likely am gonna be criminally charged. I caused serious bodily injury with a one punch. That's how strong I am. But I would still if I leave you, it's worse. I would you call nine one one and say, I just got in a fight. I need an ambulance. I think

I think that's the best you can do. I think you could say, you know, I got in a fight after somebody struck me, I struck them. I think they need medical attention. And that's it. I mean, in that situation.

I mean, I've had cases where an individual tried to swing at my client and they missed, they swung and they missed, and as they were swinging and my client stepped back, my client then punched the person. So fair use of force, punch for a punch, right? But one person missed. And my client hit him and the guy went down and hit his head on concrete.

Tom Ritter (55:58)
That's the right.

Melissa Rosenblum Esq (55:59)
My client got charged with the second degree. One punch. You know?

Tom Ritter (56:06)
It's yeah, it the charges are to paint with broad rogues without a jurisdiction, I feel like that story, and I've seen that story a whole lot, the charges are gonna stem from the impact of the head on the ground way more than the hand on the fist. You need to pray that there's friends to catch because the the sentence is gonna have way more to do with what the sidewalk did than what your fist did. So

As soon as that head comes in contact with anything after you hit it, like that's that's where the sentencing's gonna come in. It's because they you did exactly what they did. So it's it's more like you're gonna be charged and or sentenced on the events you unleash as much as the the single act that you commit.

Melissa Rosenblum Esq (56:55)
I mean listen, we we did, you know, that's the case I had, we filed motions to dismiss. I think our client in the end went into PTI on a lower degree. But, you know, s when someone has a self defense claim, almost every time and is that there was some sort of fight and the person charged won the fight. I mean, that's the best way or the most simple way to explain it, you know?

Tom Ritter (57:23)
I guess it's just the injury puts it into like a disproportional view if that person happens to hit their head.

Melissa Rosenblum Esq (57:30)
Right, but here's the thing. In case I gave you it was one punch. It wasn't like the guy went down and then th they started stomping or there was anything initial. You know, anything more than that. New Jersey doesn't have this, but you know, Pennsylvania has a case law that says one punch is one punch. It's not it's a simple assault at best. No matter what the injuries are.

Tom Ritter (57:52)
And in a mutual if New Jersey's not a mutual combat state, right? You can't can't settle your differences with fighting by agreement.

Melissa Rosenblum Esq (58:01)
Mutual fight is a simple assault. It's a petty DP simple assault, but it's still a simple assault.

Tom Ritter (58:08)
Well no, there's states in the there's states in this country where that's not a crime.

Melissa Rosenblum Esq (58:15)
Again, I think you know, I think it's silly for people to be charged for a mutual fight that they're both consenting into entering, you know? I mean if that was the case, if we charged everyone, you know how many juvenile boys would be having criminal records?

Tom Ritter (58:31)
My two nephews would be in jail at the ages of five and ten. I'd I'd drop a dime on him myself.

Melissa Rosenblum Esq (58:40)
Yeah, so yeah, so it's just you know, I'm gonna come back to I think that and this came down to the charging, is that yes, the state can use the charging as a tool and they have the power, I think for the most part,

Has it ever been abused? Yes. Have I seen it? Have I I could say specific individuals utilize the charging document in order to gain an advantage in the negotiation? Absolutely. And when that happens, I do say I call them on it when it occurs. But I think for the most part, the prosecutors are looking at the case and not just looking at what's probable cause, what they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

Other than the strangulation charge. I think that's the exception to the rule.

Tom Ritter (59:36)
You know. Yeah, that's wild. That's a really interesting little tangent to go down. I have heard you mention it once before, but it's it's really kind of an outstanding in every sense of the word example. Like it's way out there. That's awesome.

Melissa Rosenblum Esq (59:51)
Yeah. I'm gonna have to look at the stats. I'm really because I think if I looked at the stats and told you like was able to give you the Well Yeah, I think it's I it's without a doubt. It's it's it's significant. It's almost like when it first started happening, I was like, my god, I've never seen this charged You know, and then all of a sudden every case, you know.

Tom Ritter (1:00:16)
That's interesting. I might that'll be a question I ask other New Jersey criminal attorneys is hey, have you noticed a little uptick in what second degree strangulation tacked onto DVs?

Melissa Rosenblum Esq (1:00:29)
Yeah.

Tom Ritter (1:00:30)
Yeah, right.

Melissa Rosenblum Esq (1:00:32)
Hey listen, when we finish this up, I'd like to give you some mighty Murp news.

Tom Ritter (1:00:37)
Ooh, give it to me right now. What's the mighty Merc news?

Melissa Rosenblum Esq (1:00:40)
already reached out to people for booking in the fall. Meg Horner and I are gonna do a case update, ten to fifteen minutes on the lot of new Supreme Court cases that have come out recently. We're just gonna do a quick update and put it out there for the Mighty Mart Podcast. Maybe you can use it for the New Jersey criminal podcast as well.

Tom Ritter (1:01:03)
It sounds pretty nerdy, so it sounds right up my alley.

Melissa Rosenblum Esq (1:01:07)
So we're gonna do that. and have Evan Laveau and Peter Letterman lined up to talk about the ninety five tens now that the Supreme Court has chosen not to make a decision of whether whether it's scientifically reliable based on state vs Cunningham.

Tom Ritter (1:01:31)
Talking roadside blow devices.

Melissa Rosenblum Esq (1:01:36)
There's no roadside blow devices. the ninety five ten is the new Alcatest machine that replaced the seventy one ten. It there was a case that Evan Laveau was handling challenging the scientific admissibility of the ninety five tens. And his client chose to withdraw that appeal because of

Tom Ritter (1:01:58)
Seventy one tenths were garbage.

Melissa Rosenblum Esq (1:02:01)
There you go. So you're like, I don't know anything, but I didn't like those seventy-one tens. So we're gonna have a conversation of now what? Because, you know, lots of different courts seem to be doing it differently. I don't think we have true guidance on it. I think the state, the prosecutors and defense attorneys are not seeing eye to eye, so we're gonna have a good conversation on that. And

I have a few other people lined up. So I'm starting to book for September for Mighty Murp for a number of new podcasts. So I know there was one or two people you wanted me to talk to, so lining them up. Coming off the summer, the summer vacation of Mighty Murp to get back to work.

Tom Ritter (1:02:49)
Have you had anybody call you after being wrongfully arrested because Flock flagged him incorrectly yet?

Melissa Rosenblum Esq (1:02:58)
No. But I missed you went out for a second. Has anyone called me for what?

Tom Ritter (1:03:04)
I said has anyone called you because they were wrongfully arrested because Flock misidentified them or their vehicle?

Melissa Rosenblum Esq (1:03:13)
No, I have not

Or I haven't had s anyone use that language.

Tom Ritter (1:03:21)
no, they it's pretty blatant. Like when they make the mistakes, they're l literally pulling over the wrong car and charging some rando with something that's worthy of being out on the wire. yeah, when it misses it misses big. And there's there's a police officer arrested at like at least every other day for stalking their ex or their significant other.

I was curious. I saw a but a whole slew of cases in the last week where people were pulled over, detained, felony stop style. Like they'll get a whole bunch of cars around thinking they're a bank robber and it's just like a lady going to get her laundry.

Melissa Rosenblum Esq (1:04:04)
That would have been so much fun when I had my four kids in the car and they were like two, four, and six, you know? I should say two, four, four, and six, you know. I can't leave one of them out.

Tom Ritter (1:04:18)
Yeah.

Melissa Rosenblum Esq (1:04:20)
We're

not that age anymore, so you know.

Tom Ritter (1:04:23)
Well good Wigglesworth stuff and yeah that was that was really good. Thank you for that. That was a really fun convo and that's an interesting case, but it also like there's so many bullet points in that case that you could go off on for a while too, because they're just sort of interesting and this case sort of framed them well.

Melissa Rosenblum Esq (1:04:45)
Listen, I'm gonna tell you a story about my jury trial, and I I don't think you can put it on because I'm not supposed to talk to jurors. Okay. And I'm gonna start this with I have never spoken I did not speak to a juror. but I had a trial that was a four week trial in April, March and April, and I represent a a corrections officer who I believe was wrongfully charged and overcharged.

with a second degree aggravated assault for putting a knee on inmates upper back neck area. That was it what was in dispute. And he was also charged with official misconduct and falsifying reports. And he had a co-defendant who was just charged with the falsifying reports and official misconduct. Who was present during the aggravated assault but was not charged with it. and we did the trial and at the end of the trial

the jury came back with a verdict with co defendant and they were not unanimous on all charges with my clients. They were unanimous on some charges, but they were not unanimous on all charges. And we in the end decided we rejected the verdict. reason being is the state still could have come back and retried him on any remaining charges. So there was no benefit to take a partial verdict. Correct.

So we we objected to taking the verdict and so we got a hung jury, which was fine for my client. If he was found guilty of any charge, he would have been looking at a mandatory prison sentence, right? So the co-defendant was found not guilty of every single charge. And when we were getting the verdict, one juror was crying, like trying not to sob.

But crying. I had other jurors looking at me like

I was interpreting the looks of like sorry or like like we couldn't we couldn't get it there, right? So that's how I interpreted it. I I feel like I can read juries very well. I've done a lot of jury trials. Okay. So the case gets resolved two to three months later. they offer my client a d a fourth degree plea for probation, no jail, no prison, one year probation he gets.

Okay. And he just wanted the case to be over. He didn't want to retry it again. And he said, I can't do that again because

The evidence seemed so clear and they still came back as a hung jury, right? Like that was the client who was like, I can't do it again. Like, I can't go to jail. I have kids. I have a wife and I don't trust the system anymore. Right? You went through the whole system and he had the trial and was like, couldn't believe it, couldn't believe that in the end. So my office gets a call from

A friend of a juror, not the juror. And the friend says

I am friends with a person on the jury who has been crying almost every day since this case went to verdict.

And she's devastated that they could not reach a unanimous verdict. And the woman says, I live in Pennsylvania and I was not on the jury. She said, I know that attorneys that can't talk to the jurors in New Jersey. And she said, I'm not on I wasn't on the jury. And I don't live in New Jersey, so I don't care. But I needed to tell your so this is my step. I needed to tell Melissa.

That my friend has been crying because this was the nice thing. The jury loved you, loved, loved me, loved what I did. They called me Elle Woods throughout the trial, because I wore pink almost every day. And they thought I did a great job, and that it was an eleven to one to not convict on all charges. And the one person who was the holdout said.

I know corrections officers at my church and they're bad people.

And what if that was my son that he did that to?

And that is why it was an eleven to one after a verdict. After a whole trial. Eleven to acquit and one person held out.

Tom Ritter (1:09:34)
I knew I knew why that juror was crying as soon as you told me. I n I knew this it was gonna be one person and like his reaction and him kinda like y you know f dare I say folding to the circumstance he was handed and taking the path of conservative approach. But like that's what

Melissa Rosenblum Esq (1:09:59)
He

couldn't do the trial again. He said I can't do it.

Tom Ritter (1:10:02)
How many people come to that conclusion at that stage?

Melissa Rosenblum Esq (1:10:05)
By

the way, I say this like my client after the four week trial had three minutes to five minutes to decide whether to take a verdict or not. He literally started crying and he's like, This has been five years of my life and I have five minutes right now to decide what to do.

Tom Ritter (1:10:24)
That's why.

Melissa Rosenblum Esq (1:10:25)
And by the way, when I say that he was charged for putting a knee on the inmate's back, I should have clarified. Do you want to know the injuries to the inmate?

None. Do you want to know if they sought medical treatment? No. Do you think the inmate came to the trial and testified? No.

They showed one video. One video. That was it.

Tom Ritter (1:10:54)
One

Melissa Rosenblum Esq (1:10:56)
And then when you say why I don't why I don't recommend jury trials, that's why I don't recommend a jury trial.

Tom Ritter (1:11:03)
I told you they terrify me for this reason.

Melissa Rosenblum Esq (1:11:08)
Woohoo. So I get the I get that whole message. And the only thing I would say at the end of it was that

Tom Ritter (1:11:17)
Yeah.

Melissa Rosenblum Esq (1:11:17)
I left it and I thought to myself

After I got the my staff sent me the message, I'm like pulling up the message right now. The staff said a woman called I'm gonna leave her name out regarding the trial. Her friend was juror on the trial and has been crying about it since. The jury loved you. The jury called you L the whole time. Jury thought you did the state's job and that they shouldn't have even gone through with the charges.

With all that being said, and I did not relay any case information to her, she said it was one juror, hold out, whose reasons to find client guilty were one, they were corrections officers at her church and they were bad people, and two, I imagine one of my boys in that complaining witness's position. My staff says I don't know if this is relevant to the proceedings, or the person said I don't know if this is relevant to the proceedings.

This is what my staff said, given that it's already been resolved, but I will note it in the file. And and I said, please let her the please let the person know. Thank you for the information. Melissa cannot reach out, cannot, you know, and and that's it. But it's a really good example of doing everything right. And I I can't control that. But

But what I will say is what I took from it is I did read the jury right. I read the jury right. And by the way, I know who the holdout was as well, like you know?

Tom Ritter (1:13:02)
I'm guessing it's not too hard to figure out if if

Melissa Rosenblum Esq (1:13:06)
No, I know who it was. It it wa it wasn't the person crying was crying 'cause she was upset they were upset that get

Tom Ritter (1:13:14)
Yeah, yeah.

Melissa Rosenblum Esq (1:13:15)
you know that

Tom Ritter (1:13:17)
affected person in the room. It was probably who who the holdout was.

Melissa Rosenblum Esq (1:13:21)
So but

Tom Ritter (1:13:23)
The one who didn't look annoyed.

Melissa Rosenblum Esq (1:13:25)
Yeah. So I would say like it taught me that I read the jury right, it that the evidence went in as I expected, that I did my job. But in the end, you can't control that

individual that comes in with their bias no matter what you do, you know?

Tom Ritter (1:13:48)
That's crazy that that I hate corrections officers doesn't come up in Voidir.

Melissa Rosenblum Esq (1:13:56)
It did come up in vois dir. It meant she lied. Yes, yes, yes. It's terrible. It is terrible, Tom. It is terrible.

Tom Ritter (1:14:11)
That's just mean, Melissa. Who do I'll write a letter, but that's just that's a bad juror, man. That's bad faith a little bit. Like that's so confirm. You just laid out in very clear terms that you did nothing wrong. Why can't I let's use this? That was a really good story. And you brought up r the receipt like the I don't think you're even near a gray area the way you just literally did that on.

Melissa Rosenblum Esq (1:14:38)
I know I'm not near a grey area. I know I'm not. I'm not like

Tom Ritter (1:14:43)
That's good shit.

Melissa Rosenblum Esq (1:14:45)
It's good shit, but it's a really good example of why I why do I not like jury trials? Exhibit A is that story.

Tom Ritter (1:14:54)
All right, can I use it?

Melissa Rosenblum Esq (1:14:56)
Sure.

Tom Ritter (1:14:56)
Okay, good, good. That's what matters. That's a really that's a fucking I almost said that's a really good story. What I mean is that's an infuriatingly engaging story. Yeah.

Melissa Rosenblum Esq (1:15:08)
Make sure you you put in that she was from PA and she wasn't a juror. Like it was almost funny, like how much this woman went out of her way to be like, I like I know.

Tom Ritter (1:15:22)
Well, she she probably thought you guys were gonna reprimand her right off the bat if if if she didn't disclaim or maybe maybe she's a paralegal out in Pennsylvania, knows what the hell she's talking about and was like, I gotta

Melissa Rosenblum Esq (1:15:37)
I but you know the crazy side of me is like I had to like say to my staff like I first was like just say thank you and and say Melissa, you know, isn't gonna call you back because she can't she doesn't wanna I wasn't directly part of any of it anyway. Like I didn't communicate with anyone because I didn't want to even though she wasn't a jeweler, I just didn't want to be communicating.

but then I did say, like a day later, I was like, Can you send her a message to tell her friend that it's okay? Like, I don't want her friend traumatized for the rest of her life over this jury experience, right?

Tom Ritter (1:16:19)
Yeah. Well, that's like when you were saying people like, I just want the truth to come out. I liken any interaction with the criminal justice system to being starving, and you're guaranteed a meal and you're guaranteed to be unsatisfied. And everybody at the table is going to be unsatisfied. And the result might technically be a win in the column of choices you had to even classify as a winner or a loss. But don't expect

satisfaction in any way, shape, or form. If for no reason then you had to go there and do this. That alone means you're not winning.

Melissa Rosenblum Esq (1:16:58)
Right, and can you imagine if there weren't criminal defence attorneys fighting for people?

Tom Ritter (1:17:03)
That's what I'm always telling people. Can you imagine if there was no Melissa Rosenwell?

Melissa Rosenblum Esq (1:17:07)
There you go. I'm just saying, like, what would the system be without a defense attorney checking and doing checks and balance for everyone there?

Tom Ritter (1:17:19)
It's pretty scary to the layman when you have a criminal defense attorney. So yeah, without one you'd just be like in the middle of the ocean without a life preserver. Hi Murp, you got your glasses back on, you're packing up your folders. Thank you for thank you for a a good long convo and welcome back to the fall edition of Mighty MERP twenty six. let me know when you

Melissa Rosenblum Esq (1:17:43)
Forward to it.

Tom Ritter (1:17:45)
first recording date will hit will hit the road and I'll let you know when we get this out.