Episode Transcript
Transcripts are displayed as originally observed. Some content, including advertisements may have changed.
Use Ctrl + F to search
2:00
grew cold. Over the course
2:02
of eight years, Hamburg interviewed his family
2:04
members and many others
2:07
to learn more about his mother's life
2:09
and gather evidence in hopes of solving
2:11
her murder. Along the way, he uncovers
2:14
a web of familial and local secrets,
2:16
connections to shadowy figures, and
2:18
years-old resentments in his deceptively
2:21
serene hometown. I discussed
2:23
this series in episode 578, but
2:25
I feel like I want to go back and
2:27
revisit this story. So I'm having
2:29
you guys go back and rewatch it or
2:31
watch it for the first time because we're
2:33
going to talk about it in an upcoming
2:35
episode. Today's episode is
2:38
about a case that received national attention
2:40
in 2020. Rebecca Grossman,
2:42
a California socialite and philanthropist, was
2:44
sentenced last week in California to
2:47
15 years to
2:49
life in prison for the deaths of
2:51
two young brothers in a Los Angeles
2:53
crosswalk in 2020. This story
2:55
has been the subject of an episode of
2:57
48 hours. A year
2:59
or so after this crash, I received
3:01
an email asking if I would be
3:04
interested in interviewing Rebecca and
3:06
that the media had distorted the real story
3:08
and I declined that interview. Grossman,
3:11
the wife of renowned plastic surgeon
3:13
Peter Grossman, was found guilty earlier
3:15
this year of second-degree murder in
3:17
the death of 11-year-old Mark
3:20
Iskander and his eight-year-old brother
3:22
Jacob. She must also pay more than $47,000
3:26
in restitution. On
3:28
September 29, 2020,
3:31
Mark and Jacob were crossing the street in
3:33
a marked crosswalk with their parents and siblings
3:36
at the intersection of Trion Faux Canyon Road
3:38
and Saddle Mountain Drive at around
3:40
7.10 p.m. The
3:42
vehicle sped through an intersection and
3:45
hit the boys right in front of their
3:47
parents according to the LA County Sheriff's Department.
3:50
Mother Nancy was able to get her two
3:52
youngest children, including a daughter in a stroller,
3:55
out of harm's way, but she couldn't reach
3:57
the older boys in time according to a
3:59
friend of the victim's family. Mark
4:02
was pronounced dead at the scene. His younger
4:04
brother Jacob was taken to the hospital and
4:07
died a few hours later. Mark's
4:09
body was found 254 feet away from the crosswalk while
4:13
Jacob was found about 50 feet away from
4:16
the crosswalk according to the Los Angeles Times.
4:19
The Mercedes-Benz SUV involved in the
4:21
crash sustained significant damage
4:23
to its front end. Though
4:26
the airbag deployed instantly, Rebecca Grossman did
4:28
not stop her vehicle until she was
4:30
about a quarter of a mile down
4:33
the road when the car's
4:35
safety features automatically disabled it. Grossman,
4:37
who was separated from her husband at the
4:40
time, had been having margaritas with
4:42
her then boyfriend Scott Erickson, a
4:44
former LA Dodgers pitcher. During
4:47
the trial, prosecutors argued that Grossman
4:49
was under the influence of alcohol
4:51
and Valium and was
4:53
racing with Erickson, the two SUVs recklessly
4:56
weaving in and out of lanes, recklessly
4:58
in an area with
5:00
pedestrians. During the
5:02
trial, the defense blamed Erickson, claiming it
5:04
was his car that struck the boys
5:06
as the couple left a local restaurant
5:09
in separate cars. Grossman
5:11
and her husband had been dating other people
5:13
after deciding to separate at the time. Prosecutors
5:16
alleged that after enjoying cocktails, Erickson
5:18
and Grossman were racing each other
5:20
on the street. Erickson
5:22
was driving a black Mercedes SUV just
5:24
ahead of Grossman's vehicle at the time
5:27
of the crash. A
5:29
collision reconstruction engineer testified in court
5:31
that the case had room for
5:33
ambiguity as he couldn't be certain
5:35
that just one vehicle had hit
5:37
the children rather than two,
5:39
according to the Orange County Register. In
5:42
court, Grossman's daughter Alexis, age 19,
5:45
testified that she had spotted Erickson hiding
5:47
behind a tree near the scene of
5:49
the accident. He was allegedly poking
5:51
his head out and looking to see what was
5:54
going on. Afterwards, she
5:56
claimed Erickson went to her home while
5:58
angrily shouting, Why did
6:00
your mom stop? Why did your mom stop? Why
6:02
didn't she just drive home? The
6:05
teen said she could smell alcohol on Erickson
6:07
and he was freaking out While
6:09
warning her not to tell anyone she had seen
6:11
him near the accident site She
6:13
told jurors that Erickson threatened if you
6:16
do I'll ruin you and your family
6:19
However, LA County Sheriff's deputy
6:21
Rafael Mejia Testified he
6:23
didn't see any indication that more than one
6:25
vehicle could be involved when he responded to
6:28
the scene in 2020 And
6:30
jurors ultimately agreed Mejia said
6:33
he smelled alcohol Coming from
6:35
Grossman and contacted a unit to perform a
6:38
DUI investigation He
6:40
found Grossman about three-tenths of a mile
6:42
away standing outside of her SUV She
6:45
told me that her vehicle was disabled by Mercedes
6:47
Benz He told jurors Grossman
6:49
mentioned she had hit something but she didn't know
6:51
what she struck Under questioning
6:53
Mejia said he didn't find any debris
6:56
consistent with a black SUV or any
6:58
kind of black vehicle We
7:00
didn't see any indicators that there was another vehicle.
7:02
He said Indicating that the
7:05
debris at the scene indicated a white
7:07
vehicle had been involved Nancy
7:10
Iskinder testified that she had heard
7:12
revving engines and looked up
7:14
to see a black SUV speeding toward
7:16
the intersection She dove out
7:18
of the way while purling her younger children
7:20
to safety But she said that
7:23
a white Mercedes SUV was following closely behind
7:25
the black car when it sped
7:27
through the crosswalk She had heard an impact Following
7:30
a six-week trial the jury deliberated
7:32
for nearly two days before handing
7:34
down a unanimous verdict Advanized
7:37
Superior Court and crying could be heard
7:39
from both sides of the courtroom when
7:42
the verdict was read Prosecutors
7:44
had sought a 34 year to
7:46
life sentence But deputy district attorney Ryan
7:49
Gould told the judge that the defendant
7:51
deserves every day of the maximum sentence
7:54
The defense countered by asking the judge
7:56
to impose a probationary sentence or
7:59
the lower state prison term of just over 12
8:01
years on the less serious
8:03
vehicular manslaughter charges on which she
8:05
was also convicted in connection with the boy's
8:07
death. The judge opted
8:09
to sentence her to 15 years
8:12
to life on the murder counts, with
8:14
the 15 years to life sentence on
8:16
the other murder charge to be served at
8:18
the same time. Jurors
8:21
found Grossman guilty of two
8:23
counts each of second-degree murder
8:25
and vehicular manslaughter with gross
8:27
negligence and one count
8:29
of hit-and-run driving. In
8:31
an emotion-filled sentencing hearing, she said that she
8:33
wanted the boy's family to know how sorry
8:36
I am and insisted that she never
8:38
saw the boys in the street on the night of the
8:40
crash. What I found
8:42
notable was the way she purposely pared down her
8:44
looks to make herself seem demure, an act
8:47
that obviously did not sway the judge. Mark
8:51
Iskender, age 11, was gifted in
8:53
math and science. If you had the
8:55
great joy of enjoying a conversation with
8:58
Mark according to his parents, there
9:00
was likely mention of
9:02
reptiles or ice hockey, two passions
9:04
he championed proudly. Mark
9:06
was faithful and never forgot to remember
9:08
his friends and families in his prayers.
9:11
Jacob, age 8, never shied
9:14
away from adventure and excitement. Jacob
9:16
loved running track because it allowed him
9:18
to showcase his speed, his strength, and
9:20
his sportsmanship. Jacob was
9:22
a great friend to all who were blessed enough to call
9:25
him a pal. The
9:27
Mark and Jacob Iskender Foundation provides
9:29
support to underserved children, allowing
9:32
them to reach their full potential
9:34
academically, socially, and psychologically
9:36
by offering them with love, support,
9:38
and the tools they need to
9:41
succeed. In this
9:43
episode, I interviewed attorney Andrea Keith about
9:45
this case and the trial. Thanks
9:48
for watching. in
10:00
your town. And great coverage is
10:02
just the beginning. Right now, when you
10:04
switch to T-Mobile, you can keep your phone
10:06
and we'll pay it off up to
10:08
$800 per line. That's right,
10:10
you keep your phone and we'll
10:12
pay it off up to $800
10:14
per line. With a network and
10:16
savings like this, there's never been
10:18
a better time to switch to
10:20
T-Mobile. Stop by your
10:23
local T-Mobile store today or use
10:25
our savings calculator to see how
10:27
you can save on every plan
10:29
versus Verizon and AT&T at t-mobile.com/Across
10:31
America. Up
10:36
to four lines via virtual prepaid card
10:38
allow 15 days qualifying unlock device, credit
10:40
service, port in 90 plus days with
10:42
device and eligible carrier and timely redemption
10:44
required. Card has no cash access and
10:46
expires in six months. For 149 years,
10:48
ADT has made For 149 years, ADT has made
10:50
the security of their customers a top
10:52
priority so you can have peace of
10:54
mind that your home is protected. Now
10:57
ADT professionally installs Google Nest products
10:59
to help keep your home safe
11:02
and smart. Google
11:29
Nest Cam and Nest doorbell
11:31
are trademarks of Google LLC.
11:33
ADT, brilliantly safe. Andrea
11:38
Keap is a criminal defense attorney in
11:40
California. In the same community this case
11:42
has occurred, she specializes in domestic violence
11:44
and sex offenses and I'm
11:46
so glad she's with me today. Welcome to the show.
11:49
Thank you so much for having me. This
11:52
case is really interesting and I know that I've
11:54
been following it for years. Several
11:56
news organizations have covered it and
11:58
essentially this is about reading. Rebecca
12:01
Grossman, this very wealthy California, they
12:03
call her a socialite and a philanthropist,
12:05
sentenced last week to 15 years to
12:07
life in prison for the deaths
12:09
of two young brothers in a crosswalk in
12:12
2020. And she has
12:14
to pay more than $47,000 in restitution. This
12:18
case is really unique. Walk us
12:20
through why this case stands out.
12:24
Sure. I would say that it
12:26
stands out from the beginning based on the
12:28
facts and then the legal posture the way
12:31
that the Los Angeles attorney's office charged the
12:33
case from the beginning. So
12:36
the facts of the case are very
12:38
unique. It occurred in Westlake. It
12:40
occurred in an area that borders Los
12:42
Angeles County. And so depending on what
12:45
part that you live in or
12:47
what part the crime occurred, you could be either
12:49
in Los Angeles and Ventura County. And I'm gonna
12:51
talk about that a little bit later. So
12:54
it was unique in that sense. It was
12:56
unique that she's a woman obviously that's done
12:58
a ton of good within the community. She
13:01
is married to a man
13:04
and they both started and worked
13:06
for the Grossman Burn Center. Her husband
13:08
talked throughout the sentencing about a young
13:10
10 year old girl that
13:13
had been burned very badly. And Rebecca had sort of
13:15
taken her under her wing. She was
13:17
known in the community for donating not
13:19
only her time, but a lot
13:21
of her money to do good within the community. She
13:24
obviously has no record. She had two
13:27
children herself. And
13:29
so I would say from the facts, again,
13:31
starting from the beginning, the fact that she
13:34
not only got behind the vehicle
13:36
while intoxicated and there was evidence
13:38
produced at the trial that she
13:40
had volume in her system as
13:42
well, proceeded to speed
13:44
at such a reckless disregard in
13:47
a residential community at almost
13:49
81 miles per hour, and
13:52
then hit not one child, but two, and
13:54
then proceeded not to stop. Those are just
13:56
not facts that you see in our
13:58
community, even in Los Angeles. Los Angeles County, again,
14:01
because of her background and because of the
14:03
type of work that she did. Then
14:05
the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office
14:07
decided to charge murder. And
14:10
so that in and of
14:12
itself caused a lot of
14:14
discussion within the community.
14:17
California has a very unique law
14:19
regarding DUI cases where if somebody
14:21
has the first conviction for a
14:23
DUI, which is
14:25
typically obviously a misdemeanor, they're
14:27
advised that driving while under the
14:29
influence can result in death. And
14:32
so it's a case called Watson where
14:34
then somebody can be convicted of murder.
14:37
And so for a long time, the legislator
14:39
in the court system has been trying to
14:41
get people for murder on DUI
14:43
cases, but hasn't been able to do
14:46
it on a first case
14:48
like this. If
14:50
it's the edge of Los Angeles
14:52
County, are their lives
14:54
intersecting? So unfortunately,
14:57
both families attended
14:59
the same private school. It is
15:01
a very well-known private school. The
15:04
private school itself actually borders Ventura
15:06
and Los Angeles County, believe it
15:08
or not. The borderline between
15:10
the two counties divides between the middle
15:12
school and the high school, but
15:15
they are technically, I believe registered in
15:17
Ventura County, but I could be wrong.
15:20
And so both families'
15:22
children attend the same school.
15:25
When this first happened, the school
15:27
actually did an excellent job of
15:30
canceling class because they did
15:32
not want sort of the rumors of
15:34
the drama to occur
15:36
on the first day. They held
15:38
a chapel for the victim's family
15:40
on the first day. And as
15:42
school reconvened, they actually held a
15:45
chapel and a prayer for both
15:47
families, because obviously Rebecca Grossman's children
15:49
have been greatly affected by this
15:51
as well. Absolutely. So
15:54
what were the charges that were brought?
15:58
So interestingly, again, And
16:00
everybody was surprised within the community. I
16:02
think some people felt like there was
16:04
a lot of pressure on the district
16:06
attorney's office, again, to bring murder
16:08
charges. And I can talk a little bit
16:10
more about that. But they did
16:12
end up bringing second degree murder charges
16:15
against Ms. Grossman. They brought what
16:17
we commonly call a hit and run
16:19
involving death that's basically involving fatality, because
16:22
there was evidence that she had left the
16:24
scene of the crime. And that the only
16:26
reason that she stopped is because her Mercedes
16:29
vehicle actually malfunctioned and was
16:31
not able to continue driving. And
16:33
then they also brought gross vehicular
16:36
manslaughter charges. What
16:39
were the uncoupled factors? So
16:42
one was, again, there was evidence
16:44
that she and her boyfriend and
16:46
another individual who was
16:49
actually a coach at the
16:51
school that both the kids had gone to, because
16:54
I think that the news has already
16:56
covered that Scott
16:58
Erickson was an ex-Dodger player. So
17:00
there were some baseball MLB people
17:02
that had been involved. They
17:05
had been golfing earlier, which is very typical
17:08
within this community. Again, it is a
17:10
very well off, very high
17:12
end economic community that this occurred
17:14
in Westlake. That they
17:16
had been sort of casually drinking throughout the day
17:18
playing golf, had had cocktails towards the end of
17:20
the night. And so there
17:22
was some evidence that this was a
17:25
DUI, that there was alcohol involved. There
17:27
was evidence that at the scene itself, she
17:30
had blown a .07. We
17:33
call that a preliminary alcohol screening test. It
17:35
is a basically small device. It is not
17:37
considered the chemical test in California, which again,
17:39
I can talk more later about if you'd
17:42
like. But it's a small
17:44
device that you blow into
17:47
and it essentially gives the officers a reading when
17:49
they're out on scene. So there was
17:51
some evidence that she had blown a .07 and
17:54
that later on when she did the blood draw,
17:56
which I believe was a force draw at the
17:58
hospital, results were a
18:00
0.08. There was also
18:02
evidence in her blood of Valium as well.
18:04
And then obviously the speeding that had gone
18:06
on, there was evidence that she was driving
18:09
up to 80 to 81 miles
18:11
per hour when the collision had occurred, that
18:14
she did not stop that she dragged one
18:16
of the boys under the vehicle for a
18:19
period of time, one of
18:21
them died at scene and the other one
18:23
died at the hospital. And so it
18:25
wasn't just that this was a woman that was
18:29
driving with a blood alcohol
18:31
content between the legal limit
18:33
in California 0.07 to 0.08. And it hit
18:37
a child and had stopped and
18:39
had taken responsibility. She had
18:42
never taken responsibility for the crime. She had said
18:44
in the beginning that she did not do it.
18:47
There were various defense attorneys that she went through.
18:49
And again, I'll talk about that. But
18:51
I think, I think a lot of that
18:54
played into the charging decisions that the district
18:56
attorney's office made. When you
18:59
go through so many different attorneys, what kind
19:01
of costs are we thinking of? What
19:04
kind of costs are associated with changing
19:06
your attorneys? So
19:09
every attorney obviously is going to charge differently. I
19:12
would assume that attorneys on a case like this
19:14
are probably charging 100,000 plus
19:17
on a case. Typically, criminal defense attorneys,
19:19
we bill in bulk a little bit different than
19:21
other attorneys do. And we're going to bill it
19:23
based on different stages of the proceeding. So pre
19:27
preliminary hearing, sometimes through preliminary hearing is
19:29
going to be a cost versus post
19:31
preliminary hearing. And then trial is obviously
19:33
going to be the most expensive. But
19:36
I'm sure she spent hundreds of thousands of
19:38
dollars on attorneys fees. Also during
19:40
the trial itself, there were various experts that
19:42
testified those all came out of her pocket
19:44
as well. So whatever the expert was
19:47
going to charge 10 to 20,000 to $30,000 for testimony
19:49
and preparation,
19:52
she paid all of those
19:54
costs as well. Transcribed by
19:56
https://otter.ai Are
20:00
you looking to maximize your online
20:02
shopping experience? Try Rakuten. Your favorite
20:05
stores like Sephora, Nike, and Neiman
20:07
Marcus pay Rakuten a commission for
20:09
sending them shoppers, and Rakuten shares
20:12
the commission with its members. That's
20:14
you! Cashback is then deposited directly
20:16
into your PayPal account. Or, Rakuten
20:18
can send you a check. The
20:21
choice is yours. You can even
20:23
maximize your savings by stacking cashback
20:25
on top of other deals, like
20:27
store sales and coupons. Look, you're
20:30
already shopping at your favorite stores. Why
20:32
not save while you're doing it? It's a
20:34
no-brainer. Get the Rakuten app now, and join
20:36
the 17 million members
20:38
who are already saving. Cashback
20:40
rates change daily. See rakuten.com
20:43
for details. That's R-A-K-U-T-E-N. Your
20:47
cashback really adds up. Support for
20:49
this show comes from Atlassian. Atlassian
20:51
software like Jura, Confluence, and Loom help
20:54
power the collaboration needed for teams to
20:56
accomplish what would otherwise be impossible alone.
20:58
Because individually, we're great, but together, we're
21:00
so much better. That's why millions of
21:03
teams around the world, including 75% of
21:05
the Fortune 500, trust
21:08
Atlassian software for everything, from space
21:11
exploration and green energy, to delivering
21:13
pizzas and podcasts. Whether you're a
21:15
team of two, 200 or 2 million, Atlassian
21:18
software is built to help keep you
21:20
connected and moving together as one. What
21:27
were some of the culpability factors because
21:30
there was mention of an incident from 2013 when
21:33
she'd been ticketed for driving quite fast? I
21:36
know that there was some mention of that, that
21:40
she had had previous tickets before. I think there
21:42
was actually more than one. I
21:45
didn't follow specifically what that
21:47
exact evidence was, but
21:49
I know that there was mention that she had had prior
21:52
speeding tickets before. There was actually two. There
21:54
was one mentioned also where she was... sued
22:00
based on an accident that she had
22:02
been into. And so she did have,
22:04
because I know that that family had
22:07
come forward regarding their negotiations
22:09
with her during the lawsuit of the
22:11
traffic accident. So there
22:13
was a couple of prior cases,
22:15
again, nothing criminal, but
22:18
there were a couple of prior incidences where
22:20
she had had a speeding ticket. And then
22:22
again, she had had a traffic collision where
22:24
another family had sued her as well. So
22:27
in the end, she's sentenced to
22:30
that many years, but she's also
22:32
up for parole in seven years.
22:36
Correct me if I'm wrong. Is there not
22:38
an elderly parole factor in the state of
22:40
California for those over the age of 50?
22:45
So there is, I want to talk about the
22:47
sentence and then I'm going to get into parole
22:49
because the sentence has actually caused a lot of
22:51
controversy within the community as well. So
22:54
she was sentenced to concurrent time and
22:56
just for people to understand what that
22:58
means. There's two victims, obviously,
23:01
the two Iskander boys that were
23:03
killed in this case. She
23:05
was sentenced to 15 years to life
23:07
on each count, but it was to
23:09
run concurrently. Concurrent is the whole
23:11
factor in the state of California for those over
23:13
the age of 50. So
23:17
there is, I want to talk about the sentence
23:19
and then I'm going to get into parole because
23:21
the sentence has actually caused a lot of controversy
23:23
within the community as well. So she
23:26
was sentenced to concurrent time. And just
23:28
for people to understand what that means,
23:31
there's two victims. Obviously the two
23:33
Iskander boys that were killed in
23:35
this case, she was sentenced
23:37
to 15 years to life on each
23:39
count, but it was to run concurrently.
23:42
Concurrent essentially means that she's serving the
23:44
same amount of time. So instead of
23:46
serving one sentence for one victim, and
23:49
then once that is complete, then you
23:51
would serve your other sentence. That would
23:53
be consecutive time. And so
23:56
you wouldn't be eligible for parole until
23:58
you're serving your sentence on both. Judge
24:01
Brandolino chose to serve the sentences concurrently.
24:03
And so as you said, she got
24:05
15 years to life, which is a
24:08
concurrent sentence. And then she
24:10
is eligible for parole after a period
24:12
of time. California laws have
24:14
changed drastically, I would say
24:17
since COVID, and they're changing
24:19
more and more every year. And
24:21
so one of the things that the legislator
24:23
is starting to recognize is that we don't
24:25
want to keep people in custody forever. And
24:28
so they've come up with these
24:31
useful offender parole hearings, where if
24:33
somebody was, it started with 26,
24:36
it's now, and then went down to 25 and now 24. If
24:39
somebody's under the age of 24, then they
24:42
get a useful parole offender hearing where
24:44
they're able to be eligible for parole
24:46
sooner. Because again, we recognize
24:48
that young people sort of
24:50
commit crimes and then they grow up and they can
24:52
change. Same with the elderly,
24:54
as you've indicated. And so we don't
24:57
want to keep people within the prison
24:59
system forever, because
25:01
they are elderly, they do get sick.
25:03
It's very costly for the state to
25:05
keep people in for periods of time
25:07
when they do have medical issues and
25:09
so forth. And so she
25:12
will be eligible for parole, as you've
25:14
indicated at an earlier time, because she
25:16
does qualify as elderly. Now
25:19
I can tell you in the state of California,
25:21
it's very difficult to be granted parole on
25:25
violent felonies. Especially on
25:27
a case like this. And so
25:29
I would presume that the family is
25:31
going to continue to speak at the
25:33
parole hearings. I would assume that
25:36
she's gonna put a lot of work into the
25:38
parole hearings so that she does not ultimately die
25:40
in prison. But it is
25:42
very, very difficult because in the state of
25:44
California, no matter how well you're doing in
25:47
prison, they are always going to look
25:49
to the crime itself. And
25:51
so I've had parole cases before and I've
25:53
looked at the packets that are presented and
25:56
they still focus on
25:58
the crime itself and the remorse that you
26:01
did or did not take at
26:03
the time of sentencing. I know in
26:05
this particular case, the mother talked
26:07
about that she actually ran into Mrs.
26:09
Grossman in the hospital as
26:11
she was pulling life support from one
26:14
of her sons. And it was at
26:16
that time that Mrs. Grossman should have come up
26:18
to her and she should have apologized and she
26:20
should have taken responsibility for what
26:23
happened. And the mom talked at sentencing about
26:25
how she looked her straight in the face
26:27
and didn't say anything to her. So
26:29
I think there's been a lot of
26:32
anger within the community that she never
26:34
took responsibility after this happened
26:36
and she didn't really take responsibility, not
26:38
even when she was convicted, frankly, because
26:40
in custody she continued to violate the
26:43
court orders and do various things that
26:46
she was ordered to do and that she
26:48
didn't really take responsibility until the sentencing. And
26:51
so I know that there's been a lot of
26:53
anger within the community about the way she responded.
26:56
Are there any other unique factors to
26:58
this case? There's
27:01
a lot of unique factors about
27:03
this case. Ventura County is
27:05
a very, very small community. We have
27:08
one courthouse on Victoria Avenue.
27:10
I have borders Santa Barbara and Los
27:12
Angeles County, which are both considered very
27:15
liberal, I would say communities. There
27:17
are also larger communities. Santa Barbara spans
27:19
all the way to Lompoc and obviously
27:21
Los Angeles community goes through Palmdale, Long
27:24
Beach. There's a variety of courthouses in
27:26
both. And so the
27:28
Ventura community really felt like Los Angeles was not
27:30
doing their job, but they put a lot of
27:32
pressure on the fact that the case
27:35
went as long as it did, that
27:38
it went on for years, that there
27:40
were various continuances, that Mrs. Grossman stayed
27:42
out of custody during the entire pendency
27:44
of the court proceeding, that
27:47
she wasn't put in custody with no bail. And
27:49
so there was a lot of anger within the
27:51
Ventura community that this ended up
27:53
being tried in Los Angeles County, because
27:55
that's where the crime technically occurred, rather
27:57
than occurring in Ventura County. Do
28:00
you think that this case is precedent setting? Absolutely.
28:03
I mean I talked about that in
28:05
the beginning As
28:08
a criminal defense attorney not as a
28:10
mother but as a criminal defense attorney
28:12
I was shocked frankly with the murder
28:14
charges when they first came out I
28:17
was not as shocked by the verdict and we
28:19
can talk about that because I wholeheartedly disagreed with
28:22
the defense But I
28:24
was shocked with the charges in the
28:26
way that it was charged Again,
28:29
the gross vehicular manslaughter Um,
28:32
that does not surprise me the hit
28:34
and run involving death. That's and did
28:36
not surprise me It was this the
28:38
murder that surprised me especially considering the
28:40
watson laws Talk to
28:42
me a little bit about the sentencing. What
28:44
surprised you? It surprised
28:46
me that he ran it concurrently Great.
28:49
I think that that was a shock to everybody um
28:54
Judge brandolina was so Fair
28:57
and strict and
28:59
you could tell was not swayed by
29:01
the publicity Um in
29:03
any way shape or form and as as
29:05
a personal note, I work in the van
29:08
eis courthouse So I did have the opportunity
29:10
to actually stop in a couple of times
29:12
and see the testimony myself I
29:14
actually saw one of the defense experts, um
29:16
testifying the accident reconstructionist So i'm i'm well
29:18
aware obviously of the trial and the evidence
29:21
that was presented But I
29:23
think everybody was surprised that he That
29:26
he he sentenced her to concurrent sentences. I
29:29
think that came as a big shock to people Well,
29:32
i'm so grateful for your insight. Where can people
29:34
find you? Thanks. They can find
29:36
me on my website. It's uh, keith criminal
29:38
law.com I
29:40
can also be found on Tiktok
29:44
Instagram twitter and linkedin again all
29:46
under keith criminal law Thank
29:48
you so much Amazing
29:53
cake I
29:56
want to thank my great guest andrea keith and remind
29:58
you to click subscribe
Podchaser is the ultimate destination for podcast data, search, and discovery. Learn More