Courtney Clenney Pretrial Hearing - iCloud Data & Search Warrants - September 11th 2024

hey guys we are doing a bit of an audible today so with the YSL trial having a long recess between morning and afternoon sessions today I have a chance to get caught up on the Courtney Clin case and big shout out to Miranda if you guys have been following the Courtney Clin case probably see Miranda in the chat um we she let me know that there was this hearing yesterday on the 11th That was supposed to take place on the 5th now a lot of what we're going to be looking at today it was a 50-minute hearing involves these eye clouds the parents eye clouds that were gathered as the parents were arrested with that laptop charge which is now dismissed the prosecutors dropped prosecution after judge Laura Sheeran Cruz found made the finding that they violated attorney client privilege by viewing some of the group chat messages now those group chat messages relating to work product are out they are not admissible however the iCloud stuff that might be contained on them and the search warrants for the prosecution to continue looking through them are still in play and we're going to look at the arguments that both sides made today and the judge's final ruling so I skipped the first 10 minutes because it was just you know showing some stuff in the court it is hard to hear this sound quality in this courtroom is not that good but close captions seem to be pretty decent and again we're going to be really focused on the this iCloud and it's going to be a privacy vers property issue so pay attention to the argument here all right good afternoon everybody um let's go ahead and get started the state everybody could announce their pres to the record Sean and St good afternoon your honor attorney Frank with Co counil on behalf of Miss clny on the f221 14137 Mr H you to join us Vol show yes I will be probably coming in to work on okay all right judge is as a housekeeping matter uh the deposition of Dr Marini which is our medical um examiner expert witness was started yesterday who was in trial got a m was able to break away from her hearings to take part of that deposition she had to leave again so that deposition is not completed yesterday uh we communicated with the state and we do not uh disagree that that they should be in time to finish that deposition before we move forward on the defense's motion to dissolve your honor pre attention order we think that's appropriate um however we want to that we offered to finish the Depo today but obviously they couldn't do it uh so that just needs to be coordinated hopefully in the next week but we'll work on that and contact your office ASAP to get that set so that would leave the 20 that portion of the case not for today obviously subject here recoving that um but I know it's professional so motion one was there anything else that was pending prior to whether there were two experts that you guys wanted toose prior to that motion the other one yes judge I believe there are certified questions that we will bring before your honor we're going to follow that motion but for we do need to punish this deposition before we move forward so we are asking for the reset well you guys go and get a date with um Anna Once once we're done with the other motion um and we'll thank you so Mr turn to your motion to [Music] intervene and yes good afternoon here onf of Kim and Deborah CL present in the courtroom we did file as indicated on motion to intervene under the f221 14137 case um which is obviously the threshold question before we get to anything more substantive um sure you're on this our motion I'm happy to uh spam on it if you'd like um I have read it I'll give you a couple minutes to on and the station sure well I look I I know your honor P the rule is under rule of civil procedure [Music] 1.23 um obviously in the absence of a criminal rule procedure governing you revert to uh the Civil rules of procedure not un likee taking any 322 H deposition situation that refers back to the Civil rules um if you're on looks to the entirety of that motion and the rule to intervene it's actually very very broad um I think the exact language is is that any party claiming to have an interest may move to intervene I would proper to the court that this goes well beyond a claim of an interest um I know at the last hearing the state's position was that they were objecting to our intervention obviously that was the first time it was raised I don't know if they're maintaining that position um if the state's position is that our clients do not have an interest in three years of their personal iCloud data I'm sure they can explain that to the court if the position is that yes they do have an interest in it which I think would be the ethical now let me pause and give context to people who haven't been following this case this man speaking right now is Jude fako he is a very well decorated criminal defense attorney in Florida was the former vice president of factal so if youve been watching YSL and you think of Ashley Merchant and Alex suer and those 30 attorneys that showed up to the courtroom when Brian steel was held in contempt that's Gaal the Georgia Association of criminal defense lawyers Florida has something similar it's just Florida um and he was last year he was vice president of that organization he came into the picture when the parents were charged earlier this year with unauthorized access to the laptop Corney clenny was also a third codefendant in that with the same charge and they also tacked on an additional felony charge to her murder case for interception of wire Communications that charge was added at the same time of the hearing for this these new laptop charges so he came into the picture to represent against this unauthorized access charge um during the hearings for that her criminal defense attorneys for the murder trial um they were were kind of under question because they were in some group chat messages in these iCloud messages that were retrieved from the parents phones the parents Apple accounts and those were conversations between the attorneys and the judge agreed it was in furtherance of the defense of their daughter Courtney clenny so a whole bunch of back and forth the um the taint team the filter team one of the guys got on the stand at this hearing and was making it seem like the state attorney's office specifically prosecutor khil quinnon who will'll see today on the other side that he kind of instructed the filter team to not filter the way they were supposed to so judge Laura Sheeran Cruz ends up finding that because there was no actual crime taking place no cover up happening in these messages there was no exception for them to have violated attorney client privilege by looking through these messages and not properly fil filtering them so after all of that was said and done that was a big blow to the laptop case prosecutors decide to drop the charges now fako is still in the picture because this property we're going to see a property vers privacy argument these iCloud accounts which is a cloud account it's virtual it's digital he's going to be here to argue that it's a privacy violation this should be under protective order and rather than allowing the state to continue to search through these iCloud accounts that belong to the parents the judge needs to say look that's it it's done can't do it no search warrant it's gone and the prosecutor is going to argue the opposite that it's actually the property of apple and Apple has turned that property over in response to subpoenas so it's going to be a bit of a different argument than we're used to watching but very interesting nonetheless genuine position but that the state's interest trumps that then I think we can move on to the second motion and from the afternoon here together um but the reality is Jud is what we are seeking to intervene on beh have of is that under the homicide case the State of Florida executed a search warrant I'll reserve my commentary on that should we get to the second motion um that search warrant allowed the State of Florida to go through the personal eyecloud accounts of two uncharge unrelated to the homicide offense non defendants private citizens outside of the State of Florida starting from November of 2020 which is 2 years prior to the predicate offense to November of 2023 a year and a half after the predicate offense um with no limitation so what the court has in its file right now are personal medical Financial spousal Communications attorney client Communications uh all of which the state would very much like to go through and those pieces of data belong to two parents who are and I I'm assuming this they will conceive this point but were not involved in the homicide offense which by their own theory is a heat of passion Heat of the Moment homicide it's not premeditated there's no Financial component to it and yet there um seizure through this warrant of the clenty parents Theta is Broad and vast and it is very very private and we have an interest in that and um based on that we are moving to intervene so that we going to address the warrant itself which is the substance of our second notion because that warrant in our opinion you never shouldn't even been applied for question to you do you think that um it's a to test before I allow you to intervene not only that you have an interest in this but that the state's interest does not outweigh yours so your honors think it's just that they have an interest in it and then you move to the sub of motion that's our position but it is your honor discretion under the rule for intervention you can decide if there is an interest if your honor is going to address that second prong like you just mentioned I am happy to address that I don't know if that's Mr Quinn's argument I haven't discussed it with him if the state is going to profer that hey this is our case and we need to do what we need to do in our interest in Prosecuting this homicide Trump's private citizens privacy rights so be I'll respond okay but what I'm saying is that you would I couldn't tell what you were saying whether or not you thought that that was a tupong test for the intervention itself or um that you were saying that the only test for whether or not you're allowed to intervene is whether or not they have an interest so I I I I think we're allowed to intervene and then your honor can address that after we intervened into it if you look to the rule itself it's incredibly brief and direct and it discusses any party claiming an interest interest I think what your honor is referring to is the portion of the rule that discusses whether our interest is subordinate right so the court can allow us to intervene and then when dealing with the substant issue make that determination as to whether our interest is subordinate I think that goes more to the crugs of the motion to clash the warrant because your honor is going to be asked to determine if this warrant is so overly Broad and invasive that it TRS the state's interest in what it is looking for in this iCloud data so as to continue to prosecute this clent here honor crystallize my argument um the rule plan language of the rule govern the rule provides and I'm going to read it anyone claiming anend litigation May permissive at any time be permitted to assert a right by intervention but the intervention shall meaning not be the in subordination to in recognition of the propriety of remain proceeding unless otherwise ordered by the court and its discretion um which ultimately gives the court discretion but before we even cross that bridge there has to be immediate recognition that the right of theun Serv the state I would generally not object to the intervention of a third party who has property interest rights as to for example a right a innocent person had their fire Sten been using a homicide once the homicide litigation is closed then that person can interv their property generally doesn't be done through agreement this litigation is ongoing at the end of the litigation events can intervene and see to obain that evidence but not withstanding that that evidence is also not there we have an expectation of privacy in that in that information but that was Apple the Excel spreadsheet with messages were not made by Mr Miss clenny they were made by Apple the list the business record certification the inventory of whatever materials they in were all made by Apple so again I done this expectation privacy and would have sending for example to challenge emotion suppress where they are charged of defendants but the material is not there is it would be not unlik a cell phone where that a fic extraction they can get the phone the data itself is part of the evence of the case maybe there's an appeal maybe there's a retrial etc so for those reasons I don't think they should be trans so you agree that they have at least a privacy interest but not a property interest and you believe that that privacy interest is subservient to the ongoing case any so judge I this happens but I happen to agree that the plan man the rule that governed there so the first part of the rule discusses interv I think we're getting ahead of ourselves when we're making a determination as to what the subordinate interest is because that is the subject of the second motion once we intervene we can make our argument to the court as to what the interest of Mr and Mrs Clen is and the court then weighs that against the state's interest and that's particularly important judge because I know your honor did read our motion but the warrant application is incredibly vague as to what it is they are looking for in this wide birth of data and how it helps them prosecute a homicide from two years prior to when they started looking through this iCloud there they also think and with respect to the state that's a very disingenuous position to take Kim de's private data belongs to Apple this the State of Florida has a robust constitutional privacy interest and to hide behind the fact that there's a company that acts as a conduit to their data and say that this data belongs to Apple is an end run around their privacy interest I don't think we're there yet I'll be happy to go further into those arguments but it sounds like we are all in agreement that they have an interest I think we need to move now to the substance of the warrant itself so the court can weigh whether that interest is in fact subordinate or not last yes um the business record certification is not from Kim de cling it's from Apple Incorporated so as it pertains to to that aspect the uh collateral part in particular the inter part is um in this case quite literally four Arrangements uh Mr C about a motion to essentially close discover anything that would be subject to a public record to not be disclosed as the public record and then judge denied that motion the Miami heral had to interven in that vation in that context Miss cl's right to privacy was not subordinate to the media and the Public's right and honestly the motion was too Brad anyway but the point is that they failed to have even pled that the state's interest in evidence in the prosecution of a homicide is somehow less than their right to the or to the so your honor in response briefly it is when you have two private citizens not charged with a crime this is the only Avenue of relief that debah clenty had so for the state to stand here and suggest that I didn't understand the argument about the motion PRI um so I don't know if that was relevant but to suggest that Apple owns this data to leave human deor clenty without remedy and the possibility of extreme prejudice to have a government agency go through the most private data for 3 years I I don't know how to see attorney's office stands here and makes that argument I would suggest we go forward on the substance of it so they can advise the court why this is so important and what they're looking for um there are so many times that the police do sees cell phones of witnesses or um victims or people who are not the defendant and criminal case and um because they believe that it has evidence and sign on for them um where they then get the contents of those phones as cell phone dos and they're used in criminal cases um and then the phones themselves are getting back um I certainly understand the argument um but it's not as not as if this is a novel something novel that happens that happens all the time all the time um this is the first time that anybody's actually going to D me and made this request where the owner of the cell phone is asking for um that information to not be used or to be washed um instead of the state being allowed to proceed this investigation based on the evidence on thece during war um I read this rule as saying that um this is a two test before we can get to the substance of the motion that I make a decision as to whether or not you're allowed to intervene um I don't see that I mean I I I could let you intervene I guess um as you know allows me the may but given what I know already about this case and about um the communication between particularly Miss Mrs clinty and her daughter at the time of the homicide um the nature of the relationship before the homicide the nature of everything to happen after the homicide and having read through the warrant as to why this the state was requesting this information I'm going to deny the your honor may I respond briefly because I I understanding that your honor has ruled on the position of the claims that's I now need to address if nothing else for purp so what we have here is aone that asks for I Cloud date let's be clear about what I data is and I think we all know everybody with a cell phone in their pocket has private information on that phone let's talk about that private information we are talking about medical records confidential talking about financial records confidential we're talking about spousal Communications confidential photographs potentially confidential we know the state read attorney client messages confidential the warrant itself and I would encourage the court to review it again because it does not speak to do anything that could be related to the homicide and Playing devil's out judge your Honor's position regarding the calls between uh Courtney CL and Denver CL okay why is this warrant not narrowly tail why are we looking at private data that dates 2 years prior to with no restriction in the one Co there's no limitation in fact I'll read into the record what it is asking for exactly H um because it is a little frightening that a government agency in the Miami D State Attorney's Office believes that simply because you are related to somebody charged with a crime that you are allowed all stored electronic communications or files dating two years prior to that crime to a year and a half subsequent to that crime let's also keep in mind that the defendant herself was in custody from April of 2022 or from August of 2022 past when that warrant was then issu she has no access to devices or Communications with her parents why would they be allowed to see that simply because my clients are related to her that's a very scary slippery slope here H everybody in this courtroom who maybe knows somebody who was charged with a crime is now subject to the state attorney search that's what this warrant says and that is a slippery slope that we are not inclined to go down where is the narrowly tailored warrant as required by Statute and that brings up the issue judge that yes we understand that this was presented to a judge we're asking your honor to correct what we believe to be an error your honor has the jurisdiction to do so previously my colleague has you know during hearings has mentioned his experience as a state attorney and his experience and what he's seen and what he knows Mr Quint so he's referenced that several times sh and I take him out his work and he does have significant experience in this Courthouse I been in here 20 years and the only thing I know is that I've been wrong before and I will be wrong again and anybody in this courtroom who's being honest will say the same the and you as well you're AR the reason I say that J is that being wrong is not the problem not correcting it when you have the opportunity to do so is the problem if your honor is inclined to allow this to stand I would suggest that it you redrafted and tailed because what the one area you referenced was the only thing and again taking the position of the state attorney for a moment is the only thing that could possibly be considered to have any relevance from that wide birth of massive amounts of private information Florida respects and protects privacy the state attorney's office drafted a warrant which frankly we don't think it should have been signed I don't think it ever should have been applied for because it is scary how broad it is and what it is asking for and so your Honor's reference to other Witnesses and other victims who may have just because they haven't asked for it back doesn't mean they weren't entitled to it um so judge I would I you know I try to avoid doing this but I am going to ask the court to reconsider its position um I think the sheer breath of this warrant speaks to the fact that it is a fishing Expedition and it will create an irreparable Prejudice to two private citizens who are now not charged for the crime and open their private information up he traes through by a government agency that's not something we did so your honor is sitting in the unenviable position of being able to correct that right Mr qu um I know that you know this argument is being made active ruling and we're now getting into a little bit of the substance of the warrant itself that I would like you to actually respond sure judge um as it pertains to the beginning dat a warrant it begins just like every other warrant on dig evidence in this case with the beginning of the relationship with the defendant and the victim um at least as far as we can tell um which was November 2020 um the nature of this case handedly is nature of the relationship because there were only two persons in uh the one bur of apartment at the time one's dead the other defendant and so signicant portion of the case is clearly been identified as the BR a similar fact evence the nature of the relationship um that frankly was a lot of the break in the cases that pertains to mr's phone records his prediction of his own murder the defendant L his live on January 30th of 2022 so I know it's hard to hear so just to pause to emphasize here they are talking about a previous time that Christian obami the victim her boyfriend was stabbed just couple months before the April 3rd 2022 fatal stabbing um there's pictures I probably easier to find him on on my ex I can pull up I'm not going to just pull him on the stream they're they're really gross to look at I mean just straight cuts down his cheek and on his lip that happened on January 30th a lot of the text messages between them seem to allege fights over infidelity possible infidelity and then in her journal notes we find out that around that time she was the one caught in the bathroom with with another man she was the one actually cheating according to her notes according to her notes so we might find out more context of trial but based on the Discovery exhibits that I've requested and gone through uh doesn't look great for defendant that's going to be lobbying a self-defense claim um those there's a playlist Linked In the description it's about 50 videos I go through a bunch of the the video exhibits as well as some of these Journal notes I've done three of the four parts of them right after January 30th is when they go on this Aspen Colorado trip where many people have seen this video of you know a screaming argument in their Airbnb that they're staying in in Aspen Colorado and then of course that's a couple weeks before the elevator footage where the two of them are in the elevator a lot of people have seen that and during that time frame around February 28th I want to say there's some text messages exchanges that we got to see through the bond hearing Christian obam's text message records are not available through Discovery requests we only have what was shown at the bond hearing the Arthur hearing back in November of 2022 but in these long text messages coming from Christian obami at the end of February he describes that the stitches he had from this January 30th stabbing on his face she's hitting him with her arm that's injured that she had to have surgery on so she has an injury she's recovering from she's hitting him and opening up his stitches and in her own personal Journal note she makes note that this was 5 weeks later she's still reopening the stitches from when she causes January 30th face dabbing so a lot a lot of context behind this case is going to be really interesting to see them try to put together a solid self-defense argument so that's what they're talking about right now in Miami Florida and to enjoy the hospital for example given that significant digital evidence in that case serous reporting Tak by by there was significant interest in the defendant Communications including the communications with her mother which the state contends were indications by her mother for the defendant who would claim self-defense that did not exist that is our opposition that is our position if Miss CL testifies CL testifies we will cross-examine them and not because candidly on the night of the homicide she did not tell police in Sp CL so in that respect we have an interest in the sever Communications with theend um we did not get those Communications we could not get into this important climing F at least originally instead cling phone was in Texas and this honestly presented an opportunity for doing a warrant might as well do all war in finding outled right an element of a search warant is evidence of the crime presently presently exists and the place to be searched we still at Apple to find out whether is there an iCloud p and we discovered Mr Courtney's CL cl's accounts Wasing with Mr H cl's accounts the phone numbers are all in responded and if necessary I got to open the subpoena response to essentially outline how each of those accounts rates are responded and active access was being done to Portland CL account in December of 2020 I don't know who's accessing it I don't know how they are accessing it and frankly I need to know especially since Mr Kim clenny p with his account with that person which also requires me to get all of the backups and that intervening period to find out whether anything had been changed or not so that outlines probable cause which I think is the second and third last paragraph of the app for the warrant that actually pull up Mr F's response because in his motion and I want to make sure I so beginning on page 10 of mr's motion he begins quoting paragraphs of perance to miss de cl's public cause and thenit intentionally makes portions and I don't necessarily disagree that paragraph 11 13 and 14 are not necessarily perent but um in the end of the conclusion here at page 11 Mr F fails to quote page 11 at the top where it outlines specific probable causes to each account it says CT there's probable cause search CTC 4496 at C there's probable cost search Deb 007 Etc and that's in the search so if the court looks at the top page 11 and if this motion be denied referring to the warrant okay on page 11 ironic beginning accordingly based on fatality circumstances we outlined specific I was discussing both but it outlin specific problem for of to each ofil so um that is all to say that I honestly have no idea what's on the record despite the um shots across the bow that we've read all of the messages we cease our review immediately upon finding Mr creates those message so I don't know is there anoun the only thing I could and if the court required do so I will say is the four months of messages from April 3rd of 2022 between Miss ever CL until January of 2022 and then I did a word search so I have no idea what else is in there I don't know to the extent that it is in there and I should also let the court know that we told Apple that's plan in black and white in the warrant from November of 2022 pres Apple provided every single text message Mr play s since 2011 we didn't ask for that Apple just exports the iCloud returns so even if we had said from April 1st to April 3rd Apple was going to provide us everything anyway so I don't control that and the bottom line is that it is evidence in this case the communications that existed between the defendant and her mother her mother who test who uh gave an interview to TMZ claiming that she was told all these attacks that and the not in those messages are all pertinent substance of evidence in terms of the nature of the relationship and impeachment evidence if they were to T your honor with regard to the paragraph that Mr Quinn's relying on it stcl you know it's it seems to be the state's design and we take issue how the war St and frankly we don't find I think it's intentional um and and it's also curious why a pending case in front of your honor and a non exent warrant was not corrupt to your honor with knowledge of this case but notand so that person so your honor the state offers a conclusions as to why it believes has probable cause without any detail based on the totality of the circumstance problem cuse similarly exists for KDC 50 and kc50 at Austin because K Clinton us utiliz his own accounts with those of the defendant and email belonging to defendant as verification of an email for his own okay what evidence of a crime is there the state's desire to investigate their taste is not a private citizens privacy interest unless they can pinpoint specifically something that establishes problem will cause that there will be evidence of a crime or evidence of a future crime none of that exists in the warrant this is the definition of a fishing Expedition and it is designed to go directly at the parents of mcney Cl the question for the state is did they do the same for the victims did they they do the same for the victim's family members because what they are suggesting here and through this warrant are telling this court that if you are related to somebody charged for their crime and possibly had Communications with them you are now subject to their Invasion and your privacy interest is no longer Paramount to their interest it is a typical and seemingly theme of this case that we can do what we want to do and we're going to do it with without probable cost what they say in here and this paragraph that has no relevance to anything and makes no reference to anything of work cannot be relied upon to say that two private citizens outside the State of Florida as well you're are should now have all of their personal private information searched that is a terrible uh first my myot here um something to my attention to I to also say with regard to financial records the cor calls at the aring we contended that U the defendant intentionally moved funds to possibly prepare for PL which you did see the jurisdiction Al be it to Al be it to R um that was our contention it still is our contention and that kind of came out the proc ination of Mr uh Mr clening when issues about coming BL funds came up and so on and soth um that's one number two the distinction between going after mr's family's record and M cl's family's record is that mr's Mom wasn't on the phone killed the defendant's mother was mr's mother didn't text him saying it was 20 minutes after not knowing what happened it is very important youbody were defending yourself I've got a question for you um and I have no idea what the answer to this is honestly um I agree that there are possibly lots of different things on these phones that could be relevant to your case so I don't think that it's a p fish Expedition however similar to anybody's phone there are also lots of Records on there on there that are not relevant to your case and typically speaking it is true that a lot of these forms are not as narly tied as they could be what power do I have as a J now to somehow protect some of the more private data that is not relevant to um this case um which would be things like medical records or other private Communications um from the CL parents or quite frankly in any case um because again this is not special in that um I don't know what power I have after this morning has been signed um because a lot of it is relevant I see why the time itself is relevant as well the nature of the relationship and what's happening after um she's arrested but clearly there are records on anybody's son that's can be so extraneous to this absolutely judge my son's passport application that's on my iPhone is has nothing to do with anything that for example might exist or might not exist and I don't know if that exists or doesn't exist on my I'm only using that I just did that um the the bottom line is that for anything that is beyond the scope of itability then frankly it is not used the remedy for anything that not so is exclusion under and I can't use it not standing that I appreciate the court actually raising that top because it's part of my outline never got through resp which is they have standing to intervene and move for a protective order preventing disclosure to the public of those materials absolutely but the state has a right to review that because we've outlined probable cost and which is which is our thresh period there are a ton of things that go towards other records or documents that we both need and it's just a natural consequence of doing these searches for example even if a forensic examination is my phone even if only narrowly tailor to the communication between my spouse and I between a period July 1 July 7 of 2024 the extraction of that material still produces logs for example when my home is open and closed whether it was open through biometric measures or through a passo whether it was put into charg or not charged they're just a natural consequence of the forensic extraction furthermore certain aspects of the records I'll be since I figur there's a stipulation that the records belong to these persons is the state on occasion has an obligation to prove possession and who controlled it which honestly again is why we had to go for the KDC accounts because they were coal not at our Direction but at the direction of whoever controled those accounts and I don't know who control those accounts I have to review those records to actually see who was controlling those accounts and what they were doing and whether evidence of a crime to murder exists on those records and downlo so um again as I a remedy for them if they want to Prelude the public from finding out personal Communications from finding out Financial or medical is a protective order and I don't know that I have pars to that that was also be emotion and I don't know that I have to that as a matter of fact their private privacy interest in that respect would be would be uh my my interest in the case would be subordinate to their interest that is the proper aspect of this but my ability to review those records asking what isn't is not evence in the prosecution of the State of Florida versus CL is well within my rights as a state of FL so your honor what Mr Po just said there reveals the fundamental issue and the misunderstanding of the State of Florida as to the nature of an individual's right to privacy it's not about the public it's about anybody private is private and I think one thing we can all my state turns is a government agency is a government agency that is looking to go through personal private records of two people who are not charged with a crime in the hopes that it may find some communication related to its case also Mr Quinton pointed out he's done it twice now the converation with conversations between Courtney and her mother around the time of the homicide that actually is something that they may have an entitlement to but that is nowhere near what they are asking for they keep referencing that because they're hoping to bootstrap it to say and that way we can get everything else also the testimony of Mr CL and an arur hearing regarding finances there's no Financial compl to this offense the state just said they think it may be related to risk of play all of this is State speculation and is unrelated to the prosecution of a homicide let's remember we're not dealing with Medicare fraud not dealing with mortgage fraud we're dealing with a homicide and to then say that private citizens personal data needs to be reviewed by the state and to suggest that us reviewing your personal data is not a breach of your privacy is violently mised judge Consciousness is go us the homicide defend money jurisdiction I mean I'm sorry Mr but that's evidence of the homicide I make that argument if I have evidence but you fishing for evidence that they had nothing to support that it existed judge that's that's the truxs of this issue is Mr Quinn's speculation as to I may find this so let me go get this there's nothing to support that the testimony of Mr clenny as to whether he could post bond or not does not suggest risk of FL rather the opposite so I wanted to stick with my rule and I appreciate the request to reconsider it um hopefully you ler record it I don't know what the remed are here but um I think that we covered all the arguments for this particular motion unless anybody well with regard to what your honor just raised so what I'm going to ask is the court to stay the release of the hard drives um so we can pursue a p remedies um my understanding is that uh the Court's ruling in this aspect is a final order as to movements and would be subject to a direct appeal so let's do this let's go ahead um can you give me a Pap so I can goad and order a copy of this transcript I don't have a paper judge but I can allow well there should be actually um let me see there [Music] um denying this motion and I was going to agree to this day only because my my witness that would take custody of it not avable to additionally we were intending to outline Bas Bas on the aspects of the the privileg ASA and so we were to ask for all right so we'll keep I will keep these I will um stay the release of them ordering a cop this transcript back in 10 days than that no I as long as there's no Prejudice and 10 days is I'm order it and I will make sure that everybody has get it thank you I will also attach it to [Music] October 8th October 8th is the next hearing date for this um this was not the first time that a hearing was scheduled for a certain day and then nothing happened it was just tumble weeds no news and then a week later they actually had the hearing so this was supposed to be November November September 5th it ended up happening yesterday and I still didn't get to see Miranda I hope Miranda if you catch us on replay thank you so much for like hey look the hearing happened um but guys this case fun fact when I wanted to get into covering this case I did a deep dive it was like 4 hours of recording and that includes like space that gets trimmed out it probably would have been um about 2 hours total after finish from start to finish recorded it all laid it out scripted it out had a whole document with everything in order that was available at the time it was was before the laptop charges record it go to edit it I had the microphone off the whole time so I never ended up I'm I'm like I'm not rerecording that I'm not doing it so it never happened um that was me in the back of YouTube Days many months ago it was the time but I do have a playlist of a bunch of exhibits different smaller videos and some of the previous hearings that happened in this case um this was a very popular case when it first broke the news and I was like cool I don't need to cover it you know everyone else is talking about it but then there was some discovery that I didn't see people talking about and then some hearings that were getting streamed by one local news outlet and as soon as they were done they were gone so there's actually one hearing where the only record of it is a live stream that we did we started it uh through the afternoon it's when Frank PR defense attorney had to take the stand um the only relic of that on the Internet is a really low bandwidth quality stream recording from a news Outlet streamed through this Channel's feed so sorry I don't have a actual Deep dive cuz I never wanted to re-record it after I made that mistake but if you are interested in this case and want to look at some of the exhibits see some stuff that you might have missed if you go to let me pull this up there is a ton of content and it's obviously going to be in Reverse like chronological order with the most recent stuff first so if you want to start from the beginning go back to the beginning we've got the body cam footage of the parents getting arrested it was a strategy you know we're going to put them in the same car together to see if they say anything recorded and you can see them trying to talk to each other a little bit of good cop bad cop going on these personal Journal notes going through Courtney Clint's own words about their relationship um why she hits him what happened with certain events lots of interesting stuff as well as the status hearings now this is It's hard to watch because the video bandwidth from the local news Outlet was really rough but this status hearing that I'm going to link directly in the chat is when Frank PTO took the stand so defense attorney on the stand you know we love to see that especially if you've just uh come off the heels of watching the YSL trial with Derek Wright and John Melnick and cayb bump is getting on the stand who doesn't love to watch attorney vers attorney so there's that um and I'll link to this playlist here if you want to go back these are different body cam videos from you know the day that everything happened this one here if you watch it the one with this thumbnail trigger warning I I did put blurs in it but you do see the victim they turn his body over he's handcuffed it's really hard to watch um but that's the most important thing to know is the detectives that responded on scene and this like sh bed me when I watched it because it was not in the clips from the news showing a couple seconds of this body cam footage corney's out of the room the this officer here goes in obam selli is already non-responsive he's groaning and then he's going silent and then while he's on the ground this officer handcuffs Christian obami in the middle of all that and it just is something that really pisses me off about this case so that being said if you want to go back and track some of this stuff this is the full playlist yeah they handcuffed the victim who ended up dying from in insanguination no exanguination I think exanguination is the correct term not too long after so it like L literally just horrible um and ever since that I was like there's some some details that are just not getting here and you'll see if you go back to the beginning you'll hear me flip-flop back and forth between oh I think this is actually a good argument for from this side or that side shouldn't be doing that and and back and forth you know I do try to take in information as it comes I always reserve the right to change my mind um and I hope you guys if I give someone pat on the back for doing one thing that doesn't mean I think that everything someone did is the right thing or that the defense will ultimately win this case or the state will ultimately win this case um but it's probably really cool to go back and see me learn more about this case in the evolution so with that being said this case is not set to actually go to trial until 2025 I don't think it'll even be like first quarter of 2025 this has had major delays because of the laptop case and everything coming into the picture so again she's been in custody since November of 2022 another long one and they motioned for Bond it seems like the judge isn't going to go for another bond hearing if they do another bond hearing we'll watch it and I also want to watch Jude fadmo raised the issue of privacy vers property on appeal so if you guys are interested in that let me know because I'll look for this the appeals court if they have a feed of his oral arguments and when they do that we can watch that together if you guys want so there is that um I will be back in 50 minutes for the second part of today's YSL hearing since they had that long recess very very cool and I'm very appreciative to have a a smaller chat that I can see you know with with the YSL I haven't been able to see the comments going by it's it's like fast sometimes um but here it's been really nice to see so many familiar faces in a way that I can actually see and have a conversation with you guys so it's been really nice thank you for coming and hanging out on my lunch break and see you at 2 pm uh Eastern when YSL comes back bye you guys