Thanks for listening to Reasonable Doubt on Podcast One.

This is Beyond a Reasonable Doubt with your hosts, Mark Garagas and Gary Smith.

Welcome to BRD twice without our fearless leader, but we're coming on the heels of your birthday or was it your half birthday?

Yeah, that's fresh material there, Mark. It was my full birthday. Thank you.

How do you feel, by the way? How old are you now?

I feel 100. I'm 37. I feel great. I was just happy to spend some time with my wife and son. It was a good day.

I spent the rest of the day working as well. I like working on my birthday.

Congratulations. Yeah, because it makes you feel like you're accomplishing something.

Yeah, obviously. Absolutely. So, you know, there's a lot of interesting things going on out there.

But one of the things that I actually spent some of my free time yesterday, aren't you the case in the court of appeal, the state court of appeal here in California.

But also watched a case that we've talked about before in New York, which was, not other than Harvey Weinstein, his appeal judge came in's, or argued it for him, judge came in's as retired in the New York appellate department.

And I will tell you something. It's always tough to prognosticate how an appeal goes, but he's got a shot. He's got a real shot. I wanted to play some of it, but I think you and I would be similar.

You don't have to worry because you're a lay person, but I would probably be summarily defraught if we played any of it.

Yeah, they put very explicit instructions not to do that. So, we decided not to, but I agree with you. I took a look at it as well.

I think that there is a lot of hope to be had if you're on Harvey's team. I mean, there was, there were several of the justices who were expressing concern with some of the decisions that were made.

So basically the appeal cited what's called in New York, they call it Mollano evidence. California, we call it 1101 or similar acts federal. They call it 404 B, which is similar acts. Basically, what I've always said, I know I'm a cynical defense, where it's, how do we get, how do we assassinate the defendant's character?

How do we dehumanize him so that the jury hates him? We've all, we start with, we pile on with all the criminal charges. Then how do we taint him even more, make the jury hate him even more? That that's enter what's called Mollano.

They, the justices are dealing with all of the various acts that the trial court let in under this rubric of Mollano evidence, similar acts, pattern, M O identity style evidence.

And it was fascinating to watch the justices kind of interplay with the prosecutor and then with retired judge came into was arguing for Harvey. By the way, the prosecutor by peeps tell me she's about to become a federal magistrate.

She was, that was what they call a hot bench and she was magnificent. I mean, poised and articulate and didn't miss a beat in Dan. She, you know, kudos to her.

Been there done that. That's a very trying circumstance, but they were bringing up stuff that, that was interesting. They said there were basically 35 other acts that were brought in. One was like the time that they witnessed Harvey beating his brother.

Another was when Harvey had threatened to cut off somebody's genitals. Another was, you left an employee on the side of the road in a foreign country.

...