I’ve never had to testify in court. If I’m ever in a courtroom, I hope it will be as a juror. That hasn’t happened yet, but I’m still hopeful.
For many people, having to appear in court, in front of a judge, and a jury, and maybe a room full of people, can be really nerve-wracking. Every word you say is going into the official record, and you’re under oath – what if you say something wrong, or you remember something incorrectly? There could be a lot at stake, and it could depend on YOUR testimony.
But lawyers know that. And the lawyer that’s on your side, whether you’re the plaintiff or the defendant, is probably going to give you some helpful advice about how to handle the situation.
For my guest today, Ryan, that was part of his job. Today he’s gonna tell the story of when he had to prepare someone to testify in court. This young person was the victim of a sexual assault, so yes, there’s a content warning for this episode.
For Ryan, it’s difficult enough to prepare an adult for what to expect in a courtroom. In this case, he was working on behalf of a seven year old child. And what he learned after prosecuting this case is something he never would have expected.
If you’d like to contact Ryan:
Website:
https://thebaggagepodcast.com/
Universal link: https://thebaggagepodcast.com/listen
Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61559706070847
Instagram:
https://www.instagram.com/thebaggagepodcast/
YouTube:
https://www.youtube.com/@TheBaggagePodcast
Full show notes and pictures for this episode are here:
https://WhatWasThatLike.com/265
Graphics for this episode by Bob Bretz. Transcription was done by James Lai.
Want to discuss this episode and other things with thousands of other WWTL listeners? Join our podcast Facebook group at WhatWasThatLike.com/facebook (many of the podcast guests are there as well)
Quince - Go to Quince.com/whatwas for free shipping on your order and 365-day returns!
AG1 - For a limited time, save 20% on your first subscription order of AG1 Next Gen or AG1 Pro at drinkAG1.com/whatwas
Find the best deals on what you need at Dupe.com
Episode transcript (download transcript PDF):
I’ve never had to testify in court. If I’m ever in a courtroom, I hope it will be as a juror. That hasn’t happened yet, but I’m still hopeful.
For many people, having to appear in court, in front of a judge, and a jury, and maybe a room full of people, can be really nerve-wracking. Every word you say is going into the official record, and you’re under oath – what if you say something wrong, or you remember something incorrectly? There could be a lot at stake, and it could depend on YOUR testimony.
But lawyers know that. And the lawyer that’s on your side, whether you’re the plaintiff or the defendant, is probably going to give you some helpful advice about how to handle the situation.
For my guest today, Ryan, that was part of his job. Today he’s gonna tell the story of when he had to prepare someone to testify in court. This young person was the victim of a sexual assault, so yes, there’s a content warning for this episode.
For Ryan, it’s difficult enough to prepare an adult for what to expect in a courtroom. In this case, he was working on behalf of a seven year old child. And what he learned after prosecuting this case is something he never would have expected.
Scott
You’ve been a prosecutor now for 14 years, but this happened pretty early in your career. How new were you at that time?
Ryan
This case would have been pretty early on. It was my very first child sexual assault case and within the first year of me actually being hired on in the office to do this case. I was really being hired in the office to be a full-time prosecutor. I had interned with the office for a couple summers before, but it’s apples and oranges. I mean, no matter how many trials you watch and how much court you watch, you just can’t really prepare for that. This wasn’t even my first jury trial. It was a pretty serious case. At the time, we had a pretty high volume of jury trials, so this is probably my sixth or seventh jury trial within my first year of practicing.
Scott
So some of those must have been felony cases, right? Had you done felony cases before?
Ryan
Oh, yeah. The way every office is different and offices changes even over time– everybody kind of did a little bit of everything. You weren’t just misdemeanors. You weren’t just felonies. So, right from the beginning, I got thrown into the fire. And before that, I had done a couple of misdemeanor trials, some felony assault trials, stuff that I had done, stuff involving theft or DUI, that kind of thing, but never anything with this level of consequences for the defendant because sex offenses obviously carry some pretty hefty consequences. So there was kind of a lot riding on it.
Scott
This was your first child sexual assault case. When you were assigned to this, did you feel mostly excitement or were you more nervous about handling it?
Ryan
My memory is being just terrified because, when you graduate law school, when I got my dream job as a prosecutor, this is the goal. You see TV shows and you want to be that guy. You want to be Jack McCoy wearing the white hat and doing the good work. But then when the rubber meets the road and you have to be the one that’s up there actually saying the words, you’re like, “Oh my gosh, what do I do?” So I was incredibly nerve-wracking. There was excitement. With every case, I learned a little bit more and got to be a little bit closer to the prosecutor I wanted to be, but I certainly was not there in the first year. I think there were expectations too because I started this career a little bit later than most people. I was, I think, 32 when I graduated law school and I got hired. So it’s not like I’m a 26, 27-year-old that no one expects to get everything right. I had a little bit of life experience too. So I felt a little weight of responsibility of kind of getting it right from the beginning.
Scott
Okay. Well, tell us about the case. What are the basics of this case? What allegedly happened?
Ryan
So the way it came out is that a 7-year-old little girl was sleeping in her room and it’s a bunk bed and she was on the top bunk and a family friend who would frequently be at the house – sometimes he would even spend the night at the house – found himself in her room at night while there was a social gathering. It wasn’t unusual for him to be at the house – and he was about mid-40s – and he ended up going into her room. She woke up. Because she was on a bunk bed, his head would have essentially been at her level. He ended up using the bunk bed and she woke up, and he ended up using his hands to physically molest her and her genitalia and also tried to orally sexual assault her as well. She’s seven. She freezes. She doesn’t know what to do.
Scott
And there were other adults in the home at this time?
Ryan
Yes. And one of the other friends of the family ended up walking in and seeing the defendant in her room. Now it’s dark. That friend, this other adult, he didn’t know what was happening. He just thought it was strange that this adult man’s in this kid’s room. So he says, “Hey, what’s going on?” And the defendant is acting nervous. “Oh, nothing, nothing. Just checking on her.” Something like that. And he walks out. The family friend didn’t think anything of it, certainly didn’t expect something terrible was happening and says nothing more about it. It’s not until the little girl the next day reports it to her mom what had happened. Mom immediately does the right thing and goes to contact law enforcement.
After law enforcement’s contacted, it starts kind of a chain reaction. There’s an initial road deputy, uniformed officer, that takes the initial report. Then the child is brought in and forensically interviewed – somebody with the training, in this case, our detective in the case, had the training on how to speak to a child of that age – and the questioning is of a certain way. It’s called nonleading questions. You don’t ask a seven-year-old, “Hey, did he come into the room and then do this? Or then do that?” Because they can just nod their head. They want to agree with the adult and you don’t want to lead them down a certain path. Let them answer the questions so you get a more truthful and clear picture about what happened.
So she makes that statement. The detective interviews the defendant – he doesn’t admit to anything – and then the detective has to make a decision, “Is this enough to prosecute or not?” In our jurisdiction – we have one of the best law enforcement agencies that I’ve ever met – we take the position that if we believe a victim and we believe it happened and we think we can prove it, then we’ll go ahead and charge it, but that is a very difficult case when you are dealing with solely– not solely because we did have some corroborating evidence. But when you’re basing it primarily on the testimony of a small child, that could be a very difficult case. So he ends up getting arrested, goes through the court process and, many months later, he ends up getting set for trial.
Scott
What were the actual charges?
Ryan
He was charged with what in Virginia is called aggravated sexual battery and indecent liberties. So in the same incident, in the same crime, both physically touching the victim with his hands is a crime and then orally trying to sexual assault her is a separate crime. So those were the two charges. He had several counts of each. Each count of aggravated sexual battery carried a maximum sentence of 20 years and then indecent liberties carried a maximum of 10 years. So if he’d been convicted of all four charges, it would have been a maximum penalty of 60 years, which would have been at that time a bigger case than anything else I brought to trial.
Scott
Was he ever offered any plea deals?
Ryan
Yes. Before it gets to trial – every one of the cases I’ve ever done – I give an out of some kind. It might not be a very good plea offer but, in this case, it never progressed past the point of– I was going to stick with felony convictions and sex offender registry. Any of the charges would have been a lifetime sex offender registry, and those were just deal breakers for the defense. We never got past negotiations for that.
Scott
That’s pretty amazing. I mean, it seems obvious that he was guilty of this or of something and, yet, he wanted to take his chances in court.
Ryan
It’s really interesting. I’ve discovered over the years, when you have a child victim crime, the stakes are so high that most of the time the people that commit these offenses don’t have a significant criminal record or something – many times, no criminal record whatsoever. So, to go from 0 to 60 on the consequences is very hard for defendants to wrap their head around. Sometimes, you’ll just get that personality that even with overwhelming evidence– I’ve had cases that are DNA– like, really, really strong cases where the person has a personality type that just never going to admit that they did it or never get to the point of the reality sinking in about what the consequences are going to be and the prison time they’re going to have to face, and they just can never bring themselves to plead guilty to it. So it’s not surprising, especially at the time. There really weren’t any exceptions to the evidentiary rules that the defense attorney knew – for his client to go to prison, there’s going to have to be a seven-year-old on the stand and she’s going to have to testify, and that’s a real wild card because you just don’t know how a kid’s going to do until they’re up there.
Scott
So there wasn’t ever any question whether or not this little girl would testify in court.
Ryan
Correct. We knew that she was going to have to, and that’s one of the reasons for the plea offer. I’m sure I offered reduced charges. Usually, we don’t make time-specific agreements. That certainly limits the defendant’s exposure if he pleads guilty. But, again, we could not get past this defendant admitting. Hey, there’s going to be felony convictions and sex offender registry – he just couldn’t agree to that.
Scott
You had to prepare this little girl to testify in court. Were there concerns – because you were a man – that she wouldn’t trust you?
Ryan
Absolutely. I was really worried about being able to connect with her because I could connect to a jury pretty okay. I think I could talk just pretty familiarly, trying to argue a case to a jury, but with a little kid, a seven-year-old– at the time I was dating my wife. We certainly didn’t have any children. I had a couple nieces but they weren’t kids I saw every day. So it was really a foreign concept to me. And trial preparation consisted of the girl coming in with her parents and I had some really great teachers and other prosecutors who would give me advice. I remember – specifically, I’ll never forget the trial prep, where another more experienced prosecutor than me was also trying to ask her some questions and then to try to teach me while also trying to get her familiar. It was really awkward. It was not a smooth process.
Scott
It’s an interesting dynamic. Yeah.
Ryan
Because it’s a compressed timeframe. It’s not like I’m hanging out with her for hours and getting to know her or anything like that. It is, “Hey, we got the courtroom for the next two hours and here’s the kind of questions I’m going to ask.” And through that process, it was a little dry and I asked her the questions. Now, picture an empty courtroom. It’s her mom, me, another prosecutor. I’m like, “I’m going to ask her questions.” And she’s like, “I’m going to ask her questions.” It was probably a bailiff that had unlocked the courtroom for us to practice, but it’s empty. There’s no jury, there’s no court report, there’s no judge or anything like that. So I’m having to explain to the seven-year-old what it’s going to look like. Imagine that. Probably difficult for many kids to imagine. And in an empty courtroom, she was struggling to really kind of give any detail to the offenses because – lawyer 101 – when you have a witness on the scene, if it’s your witness, you can’t just say, I’m going to ask her questions and she’s like, “I’m going to ask her questions.” You can’t say things like, “Did he go into your room after that? And did he move the bedsheet?” I can’t say that. That’s leading. I have to say, “And then what happened next? And then what did he do then?” Adults can track where you’re trying to go, but kids, they’re going to be very specific.
“And then what happened next?” “Then I told my mom the next day.” Well, that’s not the next thing that happened. That’s the next thing you’re thinking of, but I need you to say his hand went here. So you have to use very simple language. You have to direct them. Technically, what she said in trial prep would satisfy the elements of the crime and what he did, but it wasn’t a narration, it wasn’t storytelling. It was a little awkward. So, I had some real concerns, going to trial.
Scott
This isn’t something that they teach you in law school, right?
Ryan
No, no. I took trial advocacy in law school and I had a class that I liked very, very much, and we did a mock trial and we went through everything, but that was all. The witnesses were law school students pretending to be adults. A drunk guy got hit with a pipe in a back alley is very different from how you’re going to ask the seven-year-old about this terrible, terrible thing that happened to her. So no, it’s very much on the job training.
Scott
Was there any point where you thought, “Maybe I’m not the right person to be prosecuting this case?”
Ryan
I don’t know if it was, “I’m not the right person.” There was a feeling of, “I don’t have the skill sets yet that I want to have to prosecute this case, but there’s only one way to get them.” I knew what had to happen – I had to do these cases. This is not the type of case that I volunteered for. Throughout my career, it’s been one of those things that I’ve had some pretty good successes with these types of cases and I’ve been able to develop that skill set. That’s certainly my focus now and it has been, really, since pretty early on, but it’s not something I volunteered for. I never started prosecution wanting to do child victim crimes. I was envisioning robberies and car chases and that kind of thing, not this, but you do the case that you’re assigned to. There were more experienced prosecutors and you watch them and you pick apart the things that you like, and I still do that. I hear a question in jury selection from one prosecutor that does the job really well and I said, “Okay, I’m going to pick that” or close in arguments that another prosecutor does very well. I’m like, “Okay, I’m going to borrow from that.” And you try to make yourself this patchwork of your own type of prosecutor with the best of all those skill sets. But I was still very much in the learning process at that point.
Scott
During these prep sessions, did she get emotional at all?
Ryan
No. Nervous and quiet, but not emotional. That was really surprising to me and something I learned over the years that you had to really explain sometimes to a jury. We talk about sexual assault as trauma, and it’s this terrible thing that you have to deal with. Now, imagine you have no frame of reference. You don’t know that something is bad. It might feel weird. You might not like it if you’re a little kid, but you don’t recognize it as necessarily wrong, you don’t categorize it as trauma. You don’t have that language. You don’t understand what it is. So, when she’s telling it, it’s something that’s embarrassing and weird, and she doesn’t have the words to explain some things, but it’s not emotional for her. It was never emotional for her. It was more just an intimidating factor of just a completely foreign experience for her.
Scott
Okay. So take us to the day of the trial. She’s with her family, right?
Ryan
Yes. Her mother was always present for all the proceedings. So on the day of the trial, I’m obviously quite nervous. The defense attorney involved in the case had been quite difficult to deal with. Quick note on that, most criminal defense attorneys, even ones that defend these types of cases, I pass no judgment on. Everyone deserves their right to an attorney and deserves a defense, and the vast majority of them are professional, ethical, easy to work with, reasonable. The defense attorney in this case was not any of those things. Very just unreasonable, would object at every single term. We had several pretrial motions about what someone was going to be allowed to speak about. God, I even remember we had a pretrial motion because he wanted to have an expert come in and talk about how his client has been analyzed and psychologically analyzed and he’s just not the kind of guy that would do something like this. Very clearly inadmissible to have an expert to be like, “I just don’t think he did it.” Right? That’s what a jury is supposed to do. And that kind of unorthodox defense – just trying to throw anything at the wall and see what sticks with stuff that clearly is never going to be admissible – it was just a lot of fighting. So I was nervous about how he was going to treat this victim.
She shows up the morning of the jury trial, and this stuck out to me more than anything else. She’s in a side room with her family. I opened the door and she looked up to me and she’s got this teddy bear in her lap. And I said, “How are you doing?” And she looks at me with a smile and she goes, “I have my teddy bear today. I’m going to be okay.” At that time, I don’t know, I’m 32, 33. I’m like, “I think I’m about to cry in front of this family because the bravery in that–” like, “I’m good. I can do this.” I said, “Okay.”
So I went in and before the case was called and before the jury came in, I asked the judge, I said, “Hey, she has a comfort item. She has a little toy. It’s been difficult for her to talk about these things.” I’m asking permission from the court. “Could she have that with her?” And the way that works is she’s already up on the stand, before the jury comes in, she’s got it on her lap under the table, they’ll never see it – just something for her to hold onto – and it was a fight. The defense attorney said, “No, I’m not okay with that. She should not have that. That’s not necessary.” A seven-year-old girl. The judge, in my perception of it, was getting a little fed up with the defense attorney, like that’s not even something we should be arguing about. That’s a very reasonable request by the prosecution. So she was allowed to have it and she ended up testifying.
Scott
Why was it important for the jury to not see that teddy bear? What’s the issue with that?
Ryan
You don’t want to influence them. You don’t want to use improper technique to try to gain sympathy for a victim unless it’s necessary.
Scott
It would frame her as the innocent little child because she’s holding her little teddy bear.
Ryan
Exactly. There’s even some case law that says, in some cases, you can’t call the victim a victim. You can’t use that word unless a certain thin– so if the defense attorney says, “No crime was ever committed. Please don’t continue to refer to her as a victim because I am taking the defense that nothing happened whatsoever. She’s not the victim of anything.” In some cases where there’s no question – maybe just a question of identity – then you can call them a victim. So again, all of this is to make sure that – just to the best of anyone’s ability – it’s a clean slate, no prejudice on either side. Just what are the facts? Did it happen or did it not happen? And at the time – big stakes for the defendant – in Virginia when this happened 13 years ago, if a jury convicted you, the jury picked the sentence. So those 12 people would decide if you’re going to spend 0 days in jail or 60 years in jail.
So a lot was hanging on that conviction because if you get the guilty verdict, that’s it because a jury is, in our jurisdiction, almost always going to sentence quite considerably higher than a judge would because a judge would have – without getting too much into it – sentencing guidelines, would see these cases. And on average, it would still be an argument. I would still ask for a considerable amount of incarceration. It’s just a lot easier sell to 12 common sense individuals for the community that, a few minutes before, decided this guy molested a child. That’s a pretty easy argument.
On the day of the trial, we win that fight. She gets to have her comfort item. She gets up and she takes a stand and she does amazing. She does great. It was better than trial prep. It was appropriate. She wasn’t excited about the prospect. We had to use child appropriate language. “What’s this body part called that you used to go to the bathroom?” That kind of thing. We got through it and she was able to say all the things that he did, and I was feeling a little bit better, feeling pretty good.
In addition to that, the detective testified how it’s a complete investigation– the type of case that doesn’t develop forensic evidence. A lot of people want DNA in every case. It doesn’t work like that. She did a great job explaining that she interviewed the defendant – just a complete investigation – and then the family friend that saw the defendant in the room at the time. So, corroborated time and place – where he was situated. It all lined up. So, I was feeling pretty good.
Then, after my case was done, the defense got to call witnesses and the defendant testified, which 9 times out of 10 – probably higher than that – was not a good idea. No one testifies the way they think they’re going to testify, especially for somebody that’s guilty of a crime. It is very difficult to navigate cross-examination, even of a mediocre prosecutor when you take the stand in your own defense, and he did pretty terribly. I think he naturally had a stutter, no judgment on that. But when I was asking the pointed questions that dealt with guilt, it was very difficult for him to even answer. So, it got really hard for him to even communicate when he was pressed on, “What you did to this girl?” I mean, the alternative is, “She just made it up.” “But why? Seven-year-olds don’t like this attention. They don’t understand what it is. They don’t have the words for it.” That’s a red flag in some investigations because you’ll get a bad divorce and mom saying that dad did something terrible and she wants custody of the kid in the divorce. Kid comes in and says really adult language using anatomically correct names for body parts and getting into detail – it’s kind of a red flag.
Scott
Obviously, she’s been told what to say.
Ryan
Exactly, right. Nothing like that. She was perfectly appropriate in every way, so why would she make this up? So, it was looking really, really good.
Scott
And he can’t deny being in the room, right? Did he say he wasn’t even in there? Because this other person saw him there.
Ryan
From my recollection, yeah, he denied like, “I was probably in that room at some point. I was there all the time, but nothing like this.” And that’s what it was. It was very general like, “No, no, no. It didn’t happen.”
“Well, were you in the room?”
“I’ve been in that room before. I’m sure I’ve been in that room with her.”
“Do you remember this guy coming in?”
“No, I don’t remember him coming in.”
Like, okay, well, now we don’t have a conspiracy because this other family friend, why would he have it out for you? And again, this is a family friend they’d known for a long time and they had no issues with, no suspicions or anything and then, all of a sudden, they’re going to turn on him? It makes no sense why they would make this up. They’re not suing him. They’re not looking for any money. So, from my biased point of view, man, if this is my first child sexual assault case, even though it’s primarily based on a seven-year-old’s testimony, yeah, I’ve done my job. I felt good that despite my lack of experience compared to some other prosecutors, I did my job. I checked all the boxes I was supposed to check.
Scott
So, the case goes to the jury. How confident were you at that time? Was it like a coin flip or were you like 80%, 90%? What were you expecting?
Ryan
Like, 75%, which is high in a “based off of a kid’s testimony” case, but better than I thought I was going to feel. I was feeling more confident than I thought I was going to feel at that stage. I’m sure I was even joking– not joking, but talking to the bailiffs about, “This is what I always do. What do you think?” And everyone was like, “I don’t know why that guy took this thing to trial. He did terribly. Like, it shouldn’t be that long.” You got 12 people back there. They saw everything I saw. Right? And the waiting game is a little nerve wracking. Even the most straightforward cases usually take at least a few hours. You got 12 people introducing themselves to each other. They haven’t had time to really converse yet. They got to pick a foreperson. They got to go through all these legalese jury instructions you’ve been given. So, you expect there to be a wait and there was.
Scott
What do you do during that time? Where are you located?
Ryan
I’m sure, for that case, I just stayed right there in the courtroom and just waited.
Scott
Oh, in the courtroom. Okay.
Ryan
Yeah. And the jury’s right in a room right off the courtroom. I might go out in the hallway or a side room. I’m sure I went into a side room with the family because they can’t know what happened in the trial. The only thing they’re allowed to see– they don’t see opening statements, they don’t see any testimony–
Scott
The family doesn’t see that?
Ryan
No, no. Mom definitely couldn’t have seen it because she was a subpoenaed witness. I didn’t mention that. I’m sure mom testified as well for the defendant’s identification – very simple things like that. But when you’re going to testify in a trial, if either side asks for it – and they always do – everyone else, all the other witnesses are sequestered. So, they need to stay outside. The purpose is you don’t want to poison someone’s testimony. You don’t want the little girl testifying because she just heard everything her mom said, or she just heard everything that the neighbor said. So, they’re not hearing my opening statements. They’re not seeing other people’s testimony. So, they have a lot of questions.
They’re just sitting in a side room, not hearing anything. “How did the trial go?” So, they might come in and hear closing arguments, but they don’t have any context for like, “Why was the defense attorney arguing this. What happened? What did the detective say? How would the defendant testify? What did he say?” There’s a court reporter, but that’s not real time. So, the only thing they get to hear is my recollection of what happened from my memory. I’m telling them. So, I tell them everything that happens and I said, “Hey, whatever happens, you did your job. Little girl, you did your job. Mom, you did your job. It went as good as it could have. Win, lose, or draw, we put on a good case” and just play the waiting game.
Scott
How long did you have to wait?
Ryan
My recollection was a couple hours.
Scott
Is that good? I mean, I’ve heard some people say if it’s a short time, that’s good for one side or if it’s a long time, it’s good for another. Is there any validity to those ideas?
Ryan
In my experience, you can’t really judge too much on time with the exception of extreme cases. So, I had a case one time, I remember it was an assault. A woman walked into a beauty salon and punched someone. She said, “I wasn’t even there. I didn’t do it.” She surprised her lawyer, even didn’t know this was going to happen. She pulls out a warrant from another jurisdiction, “I was in court in another jurisdiction. I couldn’t have hit her.” So, that was about 5-10 minutes of not being guilty. Turns out she had forged that document and ended up getting prosecuted for that. When it’s very clear and it comes back, you’re like, “Oh, that’s not good.” But if it’s an hour or two, even in really simple cases, people want to make sure they get it right. So, I didn’t read too much into the time.
I have been frustrated on cases that were really, really obvious, and it’s taking 3-4 hours. I’m like, “What’s the holdup here?” And usually, it’s one juror that just has expectations that it’s going to be like CSI with a hologram reenactment of everything and they don’t have that, and everyone else is trying to tell them like, “We know what happened. It’s pretty clear.” I do remember I had a homicide case, a shaken baby case last year – really tough case, days of forensic evidence, very complicated – and I think it went– me and my coworker that prosecuted with me, we were feeling pretty good because it was a ridiculous defense and we’re feeling pretty good, and they were less than an hour, which was really quick with the volume of evidence that they had to consider, which was resounding. We absolutely believe this guy killed this kid. Like there’s no question. And even then there’s a lot of paperwork to go through and talk.
So it depends on the case and the volume of information you go over. But in general, you can’t tell too much from the time they’re back there. And you kind of get comfortable. It’s not that nerve wracking while you’re waiting for the verdict because you know it’s not going to happen right away within minutes. There’s a sense of relief, like, “There’s nothing else for me to do. My job is done. I can relax a little bit.” That changes the second you hear a knock and then you just feel it in your body. Everything tenses up and you get really nervous because there’s an answer now. On the other side of that door, there are several signed pieces of paper. If it’s on the top line, he’s guilty. And if it’s on the bottom line, he’s not guilty. Sometimes that knock is, “We have a question” and sometimes they’re kind of silly questions but, usually, the knock means, “We’ve reached a verdict.”
Knock, knock, knock. Get kind of nervous. The bailiff comes in and says, “They have a verdict.” Okay. Now you wait because they have to go get the judge from the judge’s chambers. They have to make sure the defense attorney– if he’s in the hallway or somewhere else in the courtroom, bring him in, get the defendant ready– everything has to get lined up. That can take 5 minutes, half an hour, depending on if someone was out to lunch or something.
Scott
And does the whole family come into the courtroom then for the verdict?
Ryan
Yes. That’s when the courtroom is the most full. Because even people that aren’t related to the court, if they’ve been following it over the months as it developed, people in the office, sometimes the press, other people that are in the court courthouse, they’ll come in to see the verdict because that’s kind of the climax of the whole thing. The judge comes in, “Is everyone ready?”
“Yes. The jury reached a verdict.” Called the jury in. The jury walked in and they got the piece of paper in their hand. The judge says, “I understand you’ve reached a verdict. You’re ready to read that verdict?” I honestly don’t remember if the foreperson read the verdict or the judge did. Different judges do it in different ways, but I believe it was the foreperson. As the jury reached their verdict, “What is your verdict?”
“We find the defendant not guilty.”
Scott
Not guilty…
Ryan
I was just crushed. I wasn’t prepared for that. I thought that, “12 people thought no way?” I just couldn’t believe it.
Scott
Did it have to be unanimous?
Ryan
Yes. It had to be 12 people agreed. The government did not carry its burden to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. And a not guilty– isn’t that shocking? Before the trial started, I had prepared myself for, at best, a 50-50 shot. But then, after the evidence came out the way it did, I was like, “What?” I feel like I just saw a completely different trial. I’m second guessing myself. Is my judgment that far off? Is my radar broken? Because that seemed like it went pretty well. Am I overconfident in this? How did this train get off the rails? “I clearly did something wrong” is the way I was feeling.
So the jury says not guilty. Normally, what would happen is the judge says this little speech to the jury, “Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your time. I know this was a hard case and you gave careful deliberation. Just be mindful of any confidences that were shared with you in the jury room when you’re talking about friends or family about this case. Thank you for your service. Is there anything else to do with the jury before I excuse them?”
“No, sir. No, sir.”
“Okay. So then the jury’s excused.” That’s normally what the judge does. From my recollection, the way I remember it is, I think the judge just pounded his gavel and said, “This jury is dismissed. I read into that. He was upset that he watched the same trial I did and that they came to that decision. He seemed very frustrated. Who knows? I’m not in his mind, but that was my impression of it. It especially hurt because it felt like the defense attorney’s tactics throughout the case, all the things they tried to pull– like, did it work? The ridiculous arguments and all of that because, if I’m the defense attorney, I’d do it right because that’s the way you defend the case because I got the right result.
Scott
How did the family react to that verdict?
Ryan
Obviously, very very disappointed, confused. So I was the person who had to explain to them what happened, and I’m struggling.
Scott
And you don’t know yourself, yeah.
Ryan
I don’t know myself, and I said so. I said, “Hey, that’s the best case that that case was ever going to be.” We have a victim witness support staff, so I would have had another person from my office assisting the family and being kind of a late liaison, and they were great. They were saying the same thing because they’re in there for the whole trial. They’re like, “Everything came out the way we wanted it to a little bit better. There was no question. If it was a hung jury, if it’s not unanimous, there’s a couple of holdouts, the court would have declared a mistrial and we’d have done it again. And with those cases, that’s terrible because then that little girl has to testify again, she’s going to be cross-examined on what she said before, which will certainly be just a little bit different because seven-year-olds don’t repeat everything exactly. And a retrial couldn’t have been better. There’s not another scenario that would have improved it.
Scott
I’m just wondering, at seven years old, did she understand what that verdict meant? Does that mean he didn’t really do what I thought he did? I don’t know how a child’s mind can comprehend that.
Ryan
No. And I don’t think she understood. I think she was just happy it was done, so I don’t think she comprehended that. When you’re explaining that, it’s more for the parents of – this is what I typically say, and it’s true – “Hey, this does not mean that they didn’t believe you. But beyond a reasonable doubt means different things to different people and they would have understood pretty significant ramifications. The jury doesn’t get to hear what the sentencing range is. They wouldn’t know that they would have an option of 60 years. And in most cases, they wouldn’t even know that they were going to be doing the sentencing before they come back with the verdict. But they certainly know that he’s being charged with something that has to have really significant consequences. Are we going to be the jury that’s going to do that, even if we think it probably happened? So that verdict does not mean that the jury thinks you lied. It just means that we didn’t reach a certain threshold that we had to in their mind. That’s the best I can do.” Because I really don’t have more answers than that. But they felt they were good. I mean, they were disappointed, but they felt that they had been listened to, taken seriously, that the government had done everything it could to try to bring this guy to justice. And there’s just variables that sometimes are out of your control.
Scott
And then you had a little chat with the bailiff.
Ryan
Yes. The bailiffs in my jurisdiction are with the same agency that does the investigation – that sheriff’s office we have a good relationship with – and they’re very professional. And jurors sometimes feel comfortable talking to cops and like, “Hey, the bailiffs are impartial.” So as the jury was leaving, I don’t know if it was the bailiff or one of the jurors who initiated it, but the impression of, like, “How did you guys get to ‘not guilty’ there?” One of the jurors had told the bailiffs that they believed it happened. They think he did this thing, but they were sure that the family were not going to let this guy around their kid anymore. So what’s the problem? They felt comfortable doing “not guilty” because that’s not going to repeat itself. That was their rationale. When I heard that, I said, “Man, that is not something I had planned – for them to think it happened and just not care.” You wouldn’t think that’s something you would have to address. The jury just didn’t care that much.
Scott
They get instructions from the judge about what their job is, right?
Ryan
Yeah.
Scott
I mean, this just baffles me, and I’m sure you were 10 times as baffled when you heard that revelation from the bailiff.
Ryan
Absolutely. It was like a one-two punch. It was “not guilty”, and then I heard the reasoning. All the preparation, all the hours of work that goes into it, and then this variable that I didn’t plan on– especially when you’re new, you have a checklist. I have to prove this element. I have to prepare the jury instructions. I have to get all these witnesses lined up. I have to make sure everyone’s subpoenaed. You’re doing all these practical things that you have to make sure they are done because you don’t want to screw up. You don’t want to screw up something that is just on your checklist and you make sure you get that all done. Then, you have to come across as personable, one of the good guys and be able to communicate with the jury. So that is the nuance of that.
Then, I learned from that and other cases that don’t make assumptions. Don’t assume the jury’s going to care about a case. You would not think, in a child sexual assault, you would have to get them to care, but you do sometimes. You have to convey the message for him to be held responsible. That heavy responsibility is in your hands as jurors to make that decision. And if I could do anything differently, it would have been to try to hammer that. Would that have made a difference? I don’t know. Probably not. I don’t know.
Scott
If people don’t have empathy, you can’t really instill that in them.
Ryan
No.
Scott
But just thinking about the logic behind this though, I mean, they believed that he actually did this, but they assumed that the parents aren’t going to let this person near their child again, so it’s not a big deal, but what about other children?
Ryan
Right. And that gets tricky. As a prosecutor, it would be improper for me to say, “Ladies and gentlemen, he did this and he’ll probably do it again, unless you convict him.” That second part – not okay. You can’t convict somebody out of fears of future crime. That’s the practical implications of a “not guilty”. I’ve thought about that. Like, look this guy up and see if he got caught for anybody else. Most of the time, perpetrators like these go unreported. They don’t get caught. But on this one, it actually worked out that the girl came forward, all the things fell into place that are so difficult in a criminal prosecution.
Nowadays, I think there’s a misconception of, like, “It’s so easy to convict the wrong person.” I can say, with a clean conscience, I have never convicted an innocent person. I’m very confident of that. There are not a lot, but I certainly have had many cases where I know the person did it, but I didn’t have the evidence, so I had to drop the charge or I was not surprised by “not guilty”. That does happen. But to actually get the guy and have it all come together and still get that result shook my confidence. It definitely shook my confidence as a new prosecutor. But you got to pick up the pieces and move on and go on to the next case. I’m sure, at that time, I probably had another child sexual assault case in the pipeline that I was also getting ready for.
Scott
What if the judge found out about this? Would he have had any recourse? Or is the jury verdict just final and it’s over?
Ryan
It’s over. It is something that you don’t look behind. That’s it. I have never come across a case where you can take another look at that and call them back in and try to rectify something because all the rights go to the defendant. There are certainly cases where there have been guilty verdicts and, if there is some type of jury misconduct that’s found out after the fact, that conviction might get overturned. But an acquittal? That’s it. You’re not supposed to do jury nullification. We don’t think this should be a crime. This is a bad example because I think everyone thinks this should be a crime but a drug case or something like that– you get 12 people that just didn’t voice their personal beliefs in the jury selection process and they just don’t believe drugs should be a crime. They’re not allowed to do that. They’re supposed to take the jury instructions. What are the elements? Was it proven or not? And they can say, “We just don’t like the case. We don’t like that victim, maybe, or whatever. It’s going to be an acquittal because we just don’t like it. That’s it.” Even if that’s improper, they shouldn’t do it. An acquittal is an acquittal. Jeopardy is attached and there is no recourse for the government, which is a good thing, let me say that. I’m not trying to say–
Scott
That’s kind of the way it should be.
Ryan
Exactly, right. When you face a trial and the government puts on its case and you don’t get a conviction, that’s it. That’s the end of it.
Scott
When you learned about the way the juries came to that, did you give the family that information?
Ryan
I don’t remember telling the family about that. Part of my job too is to limit infliction of harm. So, there’s nothing to be done about it. I would have found that out after the fact, after I’ve already had the conversation with the family and everyone’s left the courthouse. They start the healing process at that point. Their focus is on their daughter and it needs to be on their daughter. I have to make those judgment calls sometimes. “Hey, they didn’t care that much.” Is that something that’s going to help them in the healing process? So it didn’t come from me. I didn’t end up calling them with that information because I already conveyed to them, “They very well could’ve believed he did it.” Now, I don’t want to downplay this too. I thought about this – that’s one juror’s perception. That’s probably true but I don’t know. And that’s the thing, that’s the unknown with jury verdicts.
Man, I had one just 2 weeks ago – very violent assault against a woman who didn’t testify very well. She had a substance abuse issue for decades and it certainly had an effect on her physical appearance and the way she is able to communicate, but she testified honestly and there were jail calls where he admits that it did happen that way. Pretty good case. So I only prosecuted it knowing who this victim was. I only prosecuted it because I had the jail call. And at the end of it, it was a not-guilty – let me say, we have a very good success rate, I’m just telling not guilty stories today – and you’re just like, “What? I would love to know what those jurors were thinking.” In my cynical mind, they just didn’t like this victim. So to be really crass, she couldn’t be a victim because of her history or criminal history and the way she presented. You’d hate to think that that’s the reason, but I couldn’t come up with another one, and I’ll never know.
The judge in that case, even after everything was gone, he said, did anyone else see that happening today? And the defense attorney was great, a very good defense attorney, and she goes, “Absolutely not.” I think the government carried their burden. She put on a good defense and argued zealously for her client but, as much as I like her, I don’t know if that’s what did it. You just never know. It’s the unknowns. You don’t know what they were thinking on an acquittal most of the time.
Scott
You had mentioned – the law has since changed – that in juvenile cases, you can now sometimes use their forensic interview. Can you elaborate a little more on what that means?
Ryan
Right. The forensic interview is recorded and, like I said, it’s done by a professional with non-leading questions and it just comes across as very genuine. And if the child is very young, if they’re under 13 in Virginia, there is an avenue where you can actually play that video as a major, major exception to hearsay. The child probably still has to come to court and probably still has to be subject to cross-examination, but you get to play that video and the jury can consider that video as evidence as if they are testifying live – very powerful tool that did not exist 13 years ago – and it has made a big impact because it’s much closer in time to the offense and it’s just a very different setting, and it comes across as very genuine, and it’s very effective, and it has had an effect of both generating more pleas because when a defense attorney goes to their client and says, “Hey, that video that I showed you, the jury’s going to see that video. What do you think they’re going to do if they see that video?” She might fall apart on the stand, but they’re still going to see that video.
I had a really interesting case about two years ago now. I had a victim that was probably a couple years younger than she was at trial because the case had been going on for so long. It had been lingering in the courts for so long. So that forensic interview has her giving details, being a little bit older, 12 by the time she testified at trial, that she understands the significance of it more and she couldn’t say it. So she couldn’t say the words in court that she was able to say in that video, but that didn’t matter because the video could be accepted as if it was testimony. So they convicted on some of the offenses that she otherwise could not testify about. Very powerful tool and really great for victims. Makes it much easier on them.
Scott
That little girl now would be in her early 20s. Do you know anything about her or do you think about her sometimes?
Ryan
I think about her often and wonder if she thinks about that case as often as I do. Chances are probably not the way kids work unless the family’s bringing it up. Very nice family, very supportive and trauma-informed family, so I’m sure they’re not talking about it. But yeah, I think about her. I think about her and a lot of victims in cases of where they’re at and if the outcome of the case changed their trajectory in any way. I’d like to think no. In this particular case, she had a supportive family. Many don’t. One of the victims I think about even more often was a young teenager. She was probably 13 and had testified– well, had given an interview where her biological father had assaulted her many times and was getting a lot of pressure from the family. Her brother and other people were, “If you testify, dad’s going away, he’s going to prison.” She just had no help, no support.
I talked to her trial prep and she said, “Yeah, I’ll be honest. I don’t want to testify against my dad, but I’ll say what I said before. It happened.” And she gets on the stand, she goes, “Nope. I don’t know what you’re talking about. Didn’t happen.” And there’s not much I can do about that. I got her treated as a hostile witness because I was genuinely surprised. I was like, “Is it true he did this?” Which normally I can’t ask that question that way. The judge let me. And she said, “No.” Okay, that’s it. There’s no point in continuing the case after that. Case dismissed and he was out of jail that day, and she was in the home with him that night, knowing that he’s doing those kinds of things and, that, I think about, because that’s my goal.
One of the cases I had immediately after the one I’m talking about in this episode – after that seven-year-old – same detective had a 16-year-old that came forward seven years after her uncle had assaulted her. That delayed disclosure for that long is very difficult, very difficult. No forensics, no corroboration really whatsoever. He had made some weird statements – not a confession, but just weird statements – that were kind of strange that were somewhat helpful, but otherwise it was her testifying. And she’s trying to remember things that very clearly had to be somewhat wrong. Grandma was on the bed one time while he had touched me. I don’t think so. I don’t think grandma’s going to let that happen kind of thing. So there were some strange statements, very tough case. Hung jury.
I can’t remember if I tried it two or three times, but definitely not surprising, a couple one or more juries couldn’t reach a verdict. I was pushing hard for a conviction because, at the time the case came to light, he had met a woman and married her very quickly and she had a seven-year-old daughter and he was living with them. In my mind, no question whatsoever, he’s assaulting that girl. So while he’s incarcerated, while my trial is pending, the seven-year-old comes forward – his stepdaughter – and law enforcement in another county where she is is waiting to see what happens with my trial because, if he’s acquitted, he goes right back home to her.
Finally, on the retrial, they convict. Even though it was difficult, I think they gave him 120 years or something like that – no, 60 years. I’m doubling it. The jury gave him 60 years. I’m like, “Okay, that kid’s safe.” Then, he’s sentenced by the judge later. The day he’s sentenced, a detective goes in to talk to him and he makes a full confession. He’d been molesting that seven-year-old this entire time. So that just confirmed why I do what I do. I know that if he’s not locked up, if he’s not convicted, someone’s going to get hurt. There’s an actual identifiable kid that’s going to get hurt, but you can’t tell the jury that. You can’t tell the jury that’s deliberating on the testimony of a 16-year-old that she was assaulted when she was seven. They can’t know, “If you acquit, he’s going to go home and probably molest a seven-year-old.” You can’t say that. But that’s what I know. That’s the pressure that’s on the back of my mind.
Scott
Yeah. I just can’t imagine that pressure, knowing that your performance, how well you do your job could affect whether a child is going to be hurt. How do you handle that kind of stress?
Ryan
I think I learned early on that– I’ve never been able to label it. I don’t know what the diagnosis is or whatever, but I’ve been pretty good at leaving work at work most of the time. For example, the case we were talking about, the acquittal with the seven-year-old, I remember, that day, I just started dating my wife and we went out to dinner. I get a little emotional. I started crying a little bit about, like, “Man, she came in with that teddy bear and she was so brave and it worked out. So, to have it be an acquittal really hurt.” I’m sure, a couple of days later, I was on to the next case, and I’ve always been good at that – being able to compartmentalize things and being very emotional in the moment and just look at the words on a page at a police report and have it be very black and white, with some exceptions.
I mean, there’s one case I have right now with what this guy’s doing online. It’s really disturbing. But when I stopped reading that, when I stopped preparing for that for the day, and I had to go pick up my kids from school, I’m focused on picking up my kids from school. So it’s been an advantage to me to be able to kind of switch it off like that. I recognize not everybody can – even a lot of prosecutors – these aren’t the type of cases for them. I’ve accepted the fact that I’m glad it’s me. I’m glad it’s me because I think I have been able to retain some of the skill sets necessary to get these convictions.
Again, we have a very good success rate of holding people accountable even in difficult cases where many other jurisdictions might not charge. In fact, the one that I was talking about, the 16-year-old that waited seven years, was passed on by another prosecutor. They said, “This is not a prosecutable case.” And the detective– best detective we’ve ever had. She just retired, I think, last week. She came to me and she said, “I really believe in this. This girl’s telling the truth.” I said, “Okay, good enough for me. If we believe the girl, and we think there’s a reasonable chance of convincing 12 people to believe her, I’m going to try that case. I will do everything I can ethically and legally. If we have a shot, I’ll take a shot.” And that’s a judgment call. Some prosecutors would disagree with it, but you never– what’s the saying? You never hit the ball unless you take a swing. You got to try.
Scott
Yeah. And I guess your ability to compartmentalize and move on to the next case– if you couldn’t do that, if you’re still stuck emotionally in the case that you just lost, that does a disservice to the next victim that you’re trying to get justice for.
Ryan
Absolutely. And I think about that too. I don’t want to get gun shy of– if I had acquittal after acquittal after acquittal, am I now not trying cases that should be tried? Am I making plea offers that are overly generous? And I think that is a trap consciously or unconsciously a lot of prosecutors fall into. They’re so concerned about the prospect of trial and a negative outcome, they make offers that don’t fully hold the defendant accountable with the strength of the evidence.
I was in court just today. Very good defense attorney, very experienced, both of us know what’s at stake. We know the strength of the evidence. This victim– I had to be very vague because it’s pending. This victim with their mental disability, that’s a real wild card – what’s going to happen at trial? I’m going to make some concessions – I have to. My goal is public safety and keeping this defendant away from children in the future in his employment capacity. So can I do that and make some pretty big concessions about the level of the offense, the amount of jail time, that kind of thing? Yeah. If my goal is public safety, I’m going to do that. But that defense attorney knows – because I’ve had trials with her – I’ll push it. I will push a case and I will use all the tools I can and put it in front of a jury and I can convince most juries of what the truth is. “Yeah, he has some mental deficits, but he’s also telling the truth.” That’s the question, right?
I’ve had that reputation of being able to try cases, and that’s a problem. If you’re not willing to try a case, defense attorneys are going to figure that out really quickly. So, hey, take this plea offer or take it to trial. “Well, I know this prosecutor. They haven’t tried a case in three years. They’re not going to take this thing. On the eve of trial, they’re going to give me a sweetheart deal.” If you prove them right, you’re just not as effective as a public servant as you should be, and you battle it all the time. I’ve had some cases where I worry about getting overconfident, and that’s why I don’t practice in isolation. I work with some very good prosecutors, always doing a gut check, “Hey, am I right to try this? Should I make this plea offer or should I try it or not?”
So, more to the point– I don’t think the public always has a good appreciation for “so many things have to go right. You have to get an initial officer that cares about the case and moves it up the chain. The detective does a thorough investigation and can testify well. A prosecutor who knows how to navigate all of that and everything that’s going to be thrown at them from a defense attorney and tow the line on holding them responsible and not giving away the farm on a plea deal or something like that. That’s even before you go to trial. Then when you go through trial, you have to navigate all of that and convince 12 people that you never met a few hours ago to believe you complicitly and believe your witnesses beyond a reasonable doubt – it’s asking a lot. All of that has to line up just right and then you get a conviction. You can understand, when you have appreciation for that, there’s a lot of things that can go wrong. You just get a detective that’s just not that good at talking to kids – that could be it. They didn’t do the interview the right way and it never progresses past that.
Scott
Obviously, you have the experience that you know how to play the game, and that’s good. It’s super interesting. I appreciate you telling the story, and I also want to let the listeners know that you have a podcast and it’s surprisingly similar to What Was That Like. What’s your show?
Ryan
Yes. A couple of years ago, me and some friends started a podcast called Baggage. It is very much like this show. We thought, many years after you probably thought the same thing, there’s a lot of people out there who have some pretty fascinating stories. So my buddy’s a pediatrician. He was an ER doctor. Another one of the hosts is a comedian. Another one’s my brother-in-law – he’s a war veteran. They all have really interesting stories that we tell each other and no one else really gets to hear them. We’ve just come across some really fascinating people in our lives and we thought, “Man, this is better than any celebrity story on any podcast I would listen to.”
Scott
Because it’s real life.
Ryan
Yeah. Because it’s real life. I’ve met some fascinating people on the podcast and we’ve been able to partner with some charities. So, get to focus on some good charities and funnel some money their way. It’s been great.
Scott
What are some of the stories that you’ve covered on your show?
Ryan
Some of the more recent ones– we’ve had a couple of firefighters. We just had a couple former special agents with the FBI’s behavioral analysis unit. That was fascinating. Sharing war stories about the BSU, like the Silence of the Lambs unit, that kind of stuff. So that was really a really fascinating one. One of the ones I think about often is we had a death scene investigator. As a prosecutor, I’d never run into one of these guys before, but they’re the assistant, basically. They work for the medical examiner and they’re on the scene when someone dies and he’s seen thousands and thousands of dead people. My job might be stressful, but it’s not that. That is next level.
So it was just fascinating to talk to people about their life experiences. They’ve never been on a podcast, they’ve never written a book, they’ve never talked to anybody about this, and just to give them a platform is I think therapeutic for them, interesting for the public. And if we can raise some money– we worked with some cancer charity, service dog charity, Ukrainian charity, and we’re adding some more charities too that we’re helping out. And all the beneficiaries of those charities have interesting stories too. So it’s been really rewarding. It’s been fun.
Scott
Well, I’m sure people will want to go and check it out. How can they find your show?
Ryan
Search for “Baggage” wherever you get your podcast.
Scott
That’s a very generic term. If you just type in that in iTunes, it’ll just come up with your show – the word “Baggage”?
Ryan
As the years go by, it’s higher up on the rankings, which is good. We are not marketing professionals. If we had thought back then, we’d have a unique name. But it really does fit. My buddy came up with it. Yeah, just search for “Baggage” wherever you get your podcast.
Scott
All right. We’ll have links to your show in the episode notes for this. And thanks for sharing your story.
Ryan
Thank you. Thanks for having me.
Scott
I really loved getting this story from Ryan. Obviously he knows what goes on behind the scenes in a big case such as this.
And definitely go check out his podcast, Baggage. The website is TheBaggagePodcast.com, and it’s also on Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube. You can get all of those links in the episode notes at WhatWasThatLike.com/265.
And I’m also curious what you thought about this format, where someone involved in the criminal justice system comes on and tells the story of a particular case. Is this something you want more of? I mean, obviously, we’ll keep hearing first-hand stories of crazy situations whether they involve a crime or not. That’s not gonna change. But I’d love to hear what you think of this episode.
And you know what the best place is to talk about podcast episodes, with other listeners? Our private Facebook group. We’re coming up on almost 10k listeners in that group and I love it because I get to interact directly with you – the listener of the show. I’d love to have you join us over there – WhatWasThatLike.com/facebook.
Graphics for this episode were created by Bob Bretz. Full episode transcription was created by James Lai.
And now you’re about to hear this week’s Listener Story. If you have an interesting story that you can tell in about 5-10 minutes, record it on your phone and email it to me – Scott@WhatWasThatLike.com.
This Listener Story is from a friend who was a previous guest on the podcast. In the episode titled “Cesar was attacked”, from May of 2025, Cesar told the story of how he was beaten by several men and left to die – and what happened afterward. That’s episode 217.
But today, he’s gonna talk about meeting up with an old friend – and it didn’t go the way he expected it to.
Stay safe, and we’ll see you next time.
(Listener story)
My name is Cesar Cardona and I want to talk about a time that recently happened to me that instilled in me two different feelings of imposter syndrome and complete and deep gratitude. I’ve been sober for some years now. I used to live in a space in my life that was full of drugs, drinking, cocaine, smoking, high promiscuity, dangerous sex acts, all this crazy stuff. But I’m sober. I’ve gotten to this point now where some people that I knew from back then are sober as well and we would rekindle connections and we would really feel the bond at a deeper level. Now, I personally believe, as a spiritual person, as a Buddhist, I believe that within us already lies a jewel, a diamond per se, that is made to be found within us, and we cover it up with all of the wants and the desires and the goods and the bads in our lives and you name it.
One day, I ran into another person online that I used to do these drugs with. They were sitting on a mountaintop meditating, they seemed more spiritual than ever, they seemed like they got to the other side of their darkness, so I reached out to them because I’ve been doing this recently with other people and they responded to me immediately. “Oh my God, we got to get together.” We planned a time for me to go over to his place and catch up and all this stuff.
That same day, just before seeing this person, this guy, I went to the doctor for my usual checkups. In that conversation, the doctor was praising me on how well my health has been. I’m 36 now and I feel healthier than ever, and I was so thrilled by that feeling. So I take that information, being proud of myself, congratulating myself on being kind to myself for these years, getting sober, treating myself better, eating healthier, working out, meditating, becoming a deeper Buddhist in my life, and then going into the world and being kinder to the outside world because I was kind to myself first.
I went out and went to this friend’s house to rekindle something because, like I said before, we fundamentally have this diamond living within us. Even though he and I were using a lot of drugs back then, I still had a deep appreciation for who he was deep down inside. So I got to his house. It’s at nighttime. It’s in the Hollywood Hills. It’s actually a townhouse, so it’s connected to a couple other places. I pulled up, I knocked on the door and, as soon as he opened the door, I realized I made a terrible mistake. He opened the door and at least 5, maybe 10 dogs came running out of the house. I looked him in the eyes. He was already high. He had a very slack jaw. Some of his teeth were missing. He had a vibe about him, he had an essence about him – and his personality and his demeanor – that was a bit aggressive.
I walked inside the house and saw the entire place was a mess. There was dog feces on the floor. All curtains have been broken. There was broken glass on the floor. Every single kind of furniture was uncovered on the ground, unorganized, you name it. It was a complete and utter mess. I’m in the middle of this place thinking, “What do I do here? Do I stay and have this conversation? Do I catch up with this person? What do I do?” I’m as clear headed as possible. I’m coming off of this joyful win from my doctor about how healthy I am now to meet this person who I thought was healthy as well, and they are still suffering.
So in the middle of all that, I followed him to his room so we could just hang out and catch up. He turns to me and says, “I got to take a shower.” So he goes to the bathroom. When he comes back out from starting the water to turn it hot, I realize he’s wearing knee-high boots, a crop top T-shirt, and a pair of, like, jean shorts. It’s very disorganized clothes. There’s drugs on the table in his bedroom. And then, he says, “You can come hang out while I shower in the bathroom. We can catch up.” I didn’t know what to say to that or what to think. Then, I watched him walk into the shower fully clothed while trying to have a conversation with me. I said, “I’m going to wait in the bedroom.”
I sat in the bedroom and the dogs were walking around. I take back what I said. I didn’t sit because everywhere I looked, it didn’t seem suitable, which I don’t know is even a word, but it’s a word now. There was just stuff strewn everywhere. There were no bedsheets. Bedsheets were on the floor and the bed was completely bare. His roommate across the way was using an outdoor leaf blower to blow trash around in his bedroom and it was loud. Now, it’s at that moment that I had a little bit of space for myself that I thought and said, “Caesar, this is how people die. This is the story in life where somebody who’s doing really well, dips back into an environment and it ruins them. Now I want to be there for this person and help them, but I have to make sure that I’m safe first.”
So I make an excuse and say, I do have to go. I’m going to go ahead and leave now. I get in the car and I drive away. I get home and I’m in shock. I don’t know. exactly what to do with my feelings that I had at the moment, but what I’ve learned from Buddhism is that when you are afflicted in your mind or in your heart, just be still. Don’t take any action, just hold stillness, and you’ll find that the waves of your thoughts and feelings will over time subside and you can find a way through. So I did that and I went to sleep.
Next morning, I woke up and I felt nothing but dread and survivor’s guilt. I felt like, “Why am I the one who gets to be clean? Why am I the one who got to work through all of my struggles while this person that I found to be a very beautiful individual is still struggling? And as much as I hope that they can get through it, why couldn’t they get out of it when I did? How come I’m here and they’re not? It didn’t feel fair.” Technically, at this point in my thoughts with it and my time that I spent with it, it still doesn’t feel fair.
I called my mother the next day that morning and told her what happened. While talking about how I felt, I began to cry. I began to feel so sorrowful for him and the guilt of my own betterment in my life. It absolutely broke my heart to see that. I made a point to, once I gathered my thoughts, I would reach out to him. Over time, I started to remember how grateful I am to be here and that whatever the answer is for why I’m here in this healthier space and he’s not, I’m still grateful for where I am. I’m grateful for the experience that I had with him that got me to this point. I’m grateful for my life. I’m grateful for breathing. I’m grateful for waking up every day clear headed, kind to myself and kind to others. There’s no price that you can put on peace, and I won’t ever forget that.
I reached out to him and he met me with nothing but scorn and vindictiveness and aggression, and I can’t do anything about that. But I did let him know that when the time comes he needs help, I will be here for him. Because I’m so kind to myself, I can be kind to others and not take their afflictions personally.