3. Daniel Wozniak's lawyer Scott Sanders shares his murder trial insights.

X defense attorney. The trial began in late December of and then went into the penalty phase early January, and did mid January. Would you say of one of the most important timing elements that's going on in this case right now is that there is a trial taking place of Daniel waznia x X fiance Rachel Buffett. Daniel Wozniak was in fact convicted of the crimes he committed and confessed to uh the capital case. The penalty was in fact death and he is on death row at this point.

But from what I've learned over the years I've been working on this case is that I feel in many ways Daniel would have never committed these crimes if he had not met Rachel Buffett. So with her trial coming up, I really wanted to talk to you about the case and the charges and how you feel about the likelihood that there might be a conviction here, and so if we could go over these uh in more detail, I'd

appreciate it. So the first felony charge involves Rachel Buffett lying to police about a fictitious man in a black hat, and the basis for that charge something I know that you in court spoke about with Judge Connolly regarding an issue where you felt Prosecutor Matt Murphy was in fact committing a double argument, if you will, about the same person. And you can't move from one court room and say one thing and move to another court and would say another.

Let's talk about that. Well, right, there's there's case law out there that talks about the fact that you can't make inconsistent arguments in two different cases. And so our argument to Judge Connley when we came back after the verdict was to say, that's precisely what took place was that he made arguments about Rachel Buffett, and the preliminary hearing and Miss Buffett's case that were vastly different from what he was arguing in um Mr wazni next case.

So let's just tell listeners the preliminary hearing for Rachel Buffett was on December and in essence, that was where Matt Murphy was trying to get an indictment on accessory

after the fact. So you're saying, in that particular hearing, that's where Mr Murphy really painted a picture of her guilt, right, I mean, he's he's bringing home both in terms of how he presents the witnesses at the preliminary hearing and then in terms of argument to Judge McKenna, who's the judge hearing about her responsibility, and he's not only saying that she's responsible as an accessory, but actually continually um

suggesting that she's responsible for something more. But yeah, he very much is trying to convince the judge that she should go to trial because she's aware of the crime and she's trying to help um Dania wasna but at the same time always hinting that there's something more. So do you feel like his purpose and his intent was to convince the judge that perhaps she was more involved than just an accessory. But I think he I think he believes that. I don't that's that's part of it.

It's not so much that he was just playing lawyer there. I mean, I think Matt Murphy absolutely believed what he was saying in the preliminary hearing, that she was more involved, that she had absolute knowledge before the death of MS. Kiboshi. I think that's what he believes. I think that's what he argued. He argued very passionately about it. He cited all sorts of information um that he thought was supportive of it. So I don't think it was an act. I don't think it was just to get her over

to a trial. I think that's what he believes. I think, um, I think he has for a long long time. And Matt Murphy was quite convincing in Rachel Buffett's preliminary hearing because the judge said, you have enough to go to trial. Yeah, I mean, he's he's pointing to all of these incidents, but this one in particular, the one he's looking at, is are these contacts that take place shortly after the first crime that they're going back. They're looking at the

self phone. He's making this point again and again to the judge that it is unbelievable that Rachel Buffett was unaware of this introduction into their household of a new cell phone. And he talks about the fact that you know, these are folks that are struggling economically, that their their paycheck to paycheck, and here he is sitting up sitting with her um and he suddenly has a new cell phone. And the notion that he would that she'd be unaware

of that is unreasonable. Even more so, she talks to police. It was I think March of when police come to issue her a subpoena. She tells police and that in that exchange that she admits that she saw Daniel sitting next to her on the couch while he was texting Julie Kibi she to lure her to Sam's apartment that night. That she admits that he was on a totally different phone, that he was on a more archaic flip phone versus his fancy new phone that he had um that obviously

was way more advanced technologically. So she admits the police she saw him on a different phone, which turns out to be Sam's phone, and he argues about it compellingly. I mean he that probably was a big argument that allowed that case to proceed, a key argument that allowed

it to proceed to trial. About the preliminary the preliminary hearing, he's very much focused on the phone and the significance and it being absolutely unbelievable that she was unaware of that, and that she wouldn't have asked questions and things wouldn't have followed from that. Earlier today, I learned a new piece of evidence that was shared to me in an interview.

I will aeron full on a future episode that Rachel Buffett had actually told a gentleman by the name of Daniel hulk Yard, who was a friend of Dan Wisnia's and would visit him often when he was waiting for his trial in Men's County Jail. She said to Daniel al Yard that she had sent a Facebook message to Julie Kabuishi at eleven ten that night, the night that she was murdered, basically saying we'll get together after the wedding and we'll catch up and we'll share some summer

sunshine together at the pool. And she told Daniel Hulkyard that Daniel Wozniak was standing right behind her when she sent that email, and well, that email was part of you know, that email was part of the package of evidence. And then the question just became and it was an important one. You know, where were people located at the time. And again, it was a very oddly timed email that

she was sending. And what Daniel Hulkyard seems to be insinuating is because Rachel slipped and told him that Dan Wozniak was over her shoulder when she sent this message to Julie. So Daniel Hulkyard suggests that Dan and Rachel must have been in cahoots together. Yet Rachel never told police Dan was by her side. She said she was in bed alone on her laptop when she sent that message. I thought that was a very interesting, telling piece of

evidence that I hadn't learned before today. Daniel Hulkyard shares with us that moment Rachel told me in no certain terms, you know, the night that that lady was killed, I was on an email to her and I felt so suspicious and scared because Daniel was standing right behind me, and I about dropped my job. Linda, I said, you what she Yeah, that was so speaking I looked at her mom, and her mom just clammed up real quickly, and I told her in our little talk, I said,

you had no idea. It was going why no idea? You had no idea? And in three sentences later she says what she said, No, only think she knew what she said. It was basically an alibi email, is how I felt when I read it, both exactly. But then when she told me that I haven't told anybody illegal world what I just told you about that conversation. I haven't, and I will tell you because I know what you

want to do with this the truth behind us. And remember Ray, she was sending this message to Julie on her Facebook at eleven ten, Friday night of the murders. It makes you wonder was this an alibi message to Julie? I mean, it was a really nice message, and could one possibly imagine that someone would be diabolical enough to send such a sweet message and then fifty minutes later

be part of a plan to murder Julie. Well, it's interesting, I mean, you know, without talking to him directly and hearing it on, but it certainly makes sense, It certainly fits sort of we know that this email went out this unusual, unusually timed email. So here adds another element that potentially she's acknowledge to someone else. Said Dan's near

by at the time. So I want to be clear with our listeners what you meant when you uh spoke in court about this double argument of Matt Murphy's the preliminary here r he really framed her as not only an accessory, but in fact perhaps an accomplice in these murders. And he was very passionate and and and very convincing in his argument about her role, which we believe he

believes as well as the customers of police. But then in the actual trial of Daniel Wasniac, he sort of shifted quite a bit, right, And so let's talk about that shift and and how he presented Rachel to the jurors. We can go into more about what happens to the trial, but obviously it's kind of a general theme at trial.

Mr Murphy wants to diminish her responsibility and at every turn from the beginning of the trial he is saying things in his opening statement like Daniel Wasnac allied to Rachel Buffett, and he's putting that in a group of victims. He you know, he puts his brother in that list. So he wants to separate Rachel Buffett and other people from any level of culpability because I think quite obviously he thinks the more more culpable um Rachel Buffett is, the less likely he is to get a death verdict.

And I think that's kind of at the core of it. He wants the death penalty, and I you know, obviously our argument is that he wanted it way too much, and he did some things that didn't match with what he was doing at the preliminary herring. And you know, just for people who don't know how preliminary herring is, where it's like a grand jury proceeding, except you're not speaking to a group of members of the public. You're speaking to a single judge who's making that call. And

that's what's happening in Rachel Buffett's case. She's she's before a judge named Judge mckeeno, um well respected judge in the community. And Judge mckeino is asking questions at some point about the case. I mean, he's very thoughtful and he's asking he's kind of pressing and probing about why

she had more responsibility. So he comes back to the subject of Rachel Buffett and why she's responsible, and he's telling Judge mckinna, we have a situation here where these people are living together, they're engaged to be married, they're both employed, they have the same financial pressures, they're both in the process of eviction. They've been described a very various friends as being very close there together all the time.

He's building the argument for accessory, but it also sounds very much like the argument for murder if he was building an argument for accomplice or a partner in the planning and the execution. Accomplice is the equivalent of a murder charge, right, That's right, So you don't have to be the person who strikes the deathblow. If you assist in some way to have that crime take place, you're

treated the same way under the law. So to the extent as we argued that Rachel Buffett was reasonably taking steps that would have encouraged Dan, pushed Dan to act at a time when he didn't want to. You know, we argue, obviously in terms of the second crime, that he's despondent before that and she doesn't really care and

she's pushing, and that's what logic says. So when I'm making closing argument and I'm actually making this argument that prosecution agrees with me, and he's objecting to it and stating that I'm misstating his argument, and he was right. I was misstating his argument in my case because I was stating his argument in Rachel Buffet's case right here. And so that's the problem that's not supposed to happen. You don't get to flip around because you like to

have the death penalty on a man. The rules are the rules, and the rules are the rules, and it's just you know, that rule is based in common sense logic about what's right. And let's give our listeners a clear sense of just how he shifted in the trial of Daniel Waznac, how he was portraying her in that trial. Well, you know, it was pretty stunning. I mean, here we are in the trial and he is presenting her as

a victim. One of the most dramatic things that he did was to take his argument about what took place outside the residents. So let me take the listeners through that moment just so they understand the scene when Detective Everett shows up in front of Rachel's brother no A Buffet's apartment. When he walks in, he doesn't realize it's in a partment. He thinks at the storefront. He walks in and there's Daniel sitting on the couch and Daniel

asks can we please move outside to to talk? And at that point, Daniel's telling the story about how the last person he saw Sam Hair with was this guy in a black hat. Later that night, Kasta Masa police arrest Dan Wazniak for accessory to murder because they still believe Dan is hiding and helping Sam Hair. So let's listen now as Daniel is questioned by detectives and hear what Daniel has to say about the mysterious man in the black hat. I feared that I was the last

person to see him. So what I had told everyone was because the last person even known that I knew that I was with Sam to my wife, and the last time that she saw and I saw was two three o'clock on Friday, Okay, So I went to live with that story, and then I made up this mystery person just holding that that would you know, take the plane off me? So I I mean of this guy with a white white guy scuffled on a black baseball cap, that he doesn't exist. That's a line, that's a life.

I apologize for that. He does admit to police that he made up that man. He was an imaginary person. So go back to that Wednesday, before he's arrested for anything, and Rachel pops out of the apartment and walks over to the detective ends to Daniel, and she repeats the same story that Daniel was telling them at the time. And so that's what Matt Murphy is referring to, right right, And you have to it's I mean, I laugh, but it's none of it's funny because you think about what

he then turns around and does in our trial. He then puts on detective effort and he presents essentially the defense. And this is fast forward. Now we're in the trial of Daniel wast and here that comes Matt Murphy, and he wants this event viewed completely differently. In fact, if you look at what he's doing, he's saying, we're being unfair to Rachel Buffett to draw the same interpretation that he argued to Judge mckeow. Do you remember the line.

He said. He said, maybe she was leaning in in the door and she was overhearing what Daniel said, so she just repeated what her fiance was saying to police. That is what Matt Murphy said to the jurors, and he did, and he set that up through questioning what Everard? He asked Everett, he being Murphy, asked Everard, and during your interview with her, I believe you testified she echoed the same lie for back lack of a better term, that there was a third individual with Mr Wozniak and

Mr Her on the day that Mr Her went missing. Right. Answer, yes, this is Everett saying yes. So how far outside the door of the residence do you think you were when you engaged in that conversation with Daniel Wozniak? Answer again, Everett, maybe five or six feet? Question? Okay, so big picture. Now, as an investigator and you get a potential suspect, you step outside and Daniel Wasnick tells you the story, including

the lie about the third individual. Yes, and then a few minutes later Rachel comes out and tells you the same lie. That's the question. Ever says, Yes. Now, as a police officer, it could be that Rachel has been involved in this conspiracy, maybe even planned the whole thing, and maybe this whole murder. That's one possibility, or that's

one realm of possibility. Answer yes, Or it could be that she was listening on the other side of the door, right, Yes, it could have been that sort either way, right under under that piece of evidence, yes, Murphy says to Everett, you're familiar with the term tie goes to the runner. So here you have him suggesting that, in fact, the exact same argument that he made at the preliminary hearing

is faulty. He's he's saying that what we argued to Judge mckeeno really wasn't fair because the tie should go to the runner and he doesn't end it there. He says, So, in other words, when you have two pieces of evidence, one that points toward innocence and one that points toward guilt. As a police officer, you've got to kind of give

the benefit of the doubt, right, answer Everett. Yes, So you can imagine a sitting in the courtroom knowing what happened in the prior hearing and realizing this is how far he's going to go. Now they're not in a plot together everything that I just talked about in terms of um, what they pressed Judge mckeeno to believes earlier argument that you have to believe this. This is the only logical interpretation that they're in a he says, this

is our cleanest argument. Obviously they plotted this. He calls it a plot. Now, it's not a plot. Now. It may have just been a very good listener who's sitting at the door who then decided, Okay, I'm going to match the stories to help my um my loved one get out of harm's way. Um. But nothing in terms of an intention to do anything further or that she had knowledge before. That's the really bad thing, right. He's saying, Look, she really may not have had any knowledge of this

crime before. You cannot reconcile that. There's no way you can reconcile that with what he did at the preliminary hearing. UM. In the Buffet case, it's similar to Matt Murphy's statements that he's made in the past regarding Rachel Buffett, where he said she just might have to be considered collateral damage. Yeah, but as horrifying as it is, and it is, it's exactly what took place here. He decided, Look, Rachel Buffett is looking at a few years in prison on a

good day for them. Does he want any chance, just even the slimmest chance of reducing the possibility that he gets a death verdict. So he's sitting here worried that if the jury believes that's somehow Rachel Buffett may have been involved and is not going to be held responsible for the higher crime, which we argue she was involved with murder, which is murder. He thinks jury may go this isn't quite fair. So what does he do? He pushes back on any notion, even a semblance of a

of a notion that it's fair. We're the ones who are being unfair. Now, that's the amazing thing in the trial. We're the unfair ones because we're suggesting Rachel Buffint may have more involvement, which is exactly what he said at the preliminary hearing. Yeah, you're just reiterating what he said earlier in at her preliminary hearing. But he doesn't like those arguments anymore because those arguments are the type of

arguments that keeps someone from getting death. If all of a sudden, the jury if we both spoke the same way, and that closing. What if he had said exactly what he had said in that preliminary hearing, how powerful that would have been. Mr Sanders is right. All of these things that he's saying are absolutely right. She wasn't coincidentally sitting next to the door. She did know everything, She did have the phone in sight, she knew about the phone,

and all of this happened an earlier point. He knows that verdict may have turned out differently. So it's Rachel's own words, it's her lies that are the blueprint to the truth. Rachel Buffett tells the Coast of Masa police that when Dan came back with the first installment of money that they owed Chris Williams for helping them stave

off the eviction. Rachel tells police that the Friday afternoon of the murders, Daniel came back with the four dollars and he possibly gave it to Sam or the loan Sharks outside their apartment, but she was sitting there at the table. Chris Williams tells me in an interview that she was right there when Dan gave Chris Williams the money.

In fact, Chris Williams tells me that he specifically asked them if they had any food money, and Dan said, that's all we have, pointing to the money that he just handed to him, and so Chris decides to give them a twenty, passes that twenty across the table so that they had some food money. He left that apartment so quickly. There was just this weird energy, this this

darkness that was sort of looming in the apartment. So he said he couldn't get out of there fast enough and then he that he's on a call with Rachel within minutes, and she's trying to lure him back, telling him that he dropped a twenty, and at that point, he said, is this about the money, because I wanted you to have that for food? Is is this about the money that you want me to come back to talk to you about? And she said, no, it's something

else I need to talk to you about. And it was then that he said every bone in his body just shook because he had no idea at that point why she wanted him there, but she he just didn't have a good feeling about it. So we're Rachel and Dan perhaps worried because Chris Williams was the only witness who saw Dan leave alone with Sam, because there really

was no third person in a black hat. One of the other statements that Matt Murphy made to jurors during Dan Wozniak's trial was his portrayal of Rachel Buffett as almost a hero in this case, because if it wasn't for her, he says, they wouldn't have had this cornucopia of evidence to accuse and convict Daniel for these murders,

and that just wasn't true. Violet Randolph, who was a neighbor and a friend who actually Rachel ended up living with for quite some time after the murders, she was in that car and when they left the Waznia home, after Rachel came and spoke to Darryl Wosnia, Daniel's father, she told him that he was arrested and tried to

take him through what had happened. They left there, and Tim Wozniak and Lisa Goldge, his girlfriend at the time, showed up and Rachel went over to the car and he's sharing with her that he has gone and he has all this other evidence, and she's like putting her hands up on her ears like I don't want to hear this whatever, and when she got back into the car, Violet basically said, like, what's going on? He has evidence?

She said yes, he said he has a gone and she said, you're going to bring that to police, right and Rachel said no, and Violet said, if you don't, I'm going to because that gun is going to disappear. And she picked up her cell phone as she tells me, and she calls her mother to get Jose Morales's number, at which point that's the very moment that Dan calls in from the holding cell and I just talked to him, and I need to make a phone called the detective.

Now what Cautin's involved, because I need to call the detective first because I need to call him and by him now before they catch me on its recording device, because it looks like I'm not trying to tell him right away. Tim says he has evidence with them, or or he knew where it was or something. Then I'm doomed. What yeah, do you know that Tim had some evidence? Scott, what did you think about the jailhouse calls between Dan and Rachel when you heard them for the first time?

She's not expecting this call, right and as the call goes, here comes Dan and he's worried. Oh god, oh god, oh god. Okay, well this is this is ridiculous and I have to go tell the detective the truth. Um, come, come do kick up only to me so far, and it was in casting. I said, I'm going to police station right now. Danny's in arrested. He starts for being out and it's really frantic and he said something and

something slips that he had evidence. So I have to I don't, don't, don't, don't, no, Rabe, I'm going to do it. I needed to pull over to the art second get the phone number for the infective out what you realize they recording the song conversation. Anyways, if you look at what she's doing, she's not planning. When she's driving down the street. She is not planning to call

the police. There's no chance in the world. And then she realizes Dan is unraveling and we're on a recorded conversation and she has this interesting moment where she says, I need to call the detective right now. What do you mean didn't you need to call the detective the moment you took this evidence so that that's one of the tells. There's about five or six tells in there. If you look at it closely, you can see she was hoping just to do whatever she was gonna do. Well,

it's a performance for Violet too. I mean, the girl was sitting in the passenger seat saying to Rachel, if you don't call detective Morales, I will, that's right. And so she's driving. All of a sudden, Dan is doing what he's doing, and she needs to perform for Violet. She needs to perform for what she knows. Are the police listening and she points that out. Dan, You're an idiot. The police are listening to this conversation, and I've got to make sure I assist the police. Well, I don't

know what that is. I thought it was a murder weapon. I don't know what you're talking about other evidence. I don't know what him how decides that Dame said he had a murder weapon? You realize the recording the song conversation. Anyways, I need to call the detective first, because I need to call him and by him no before they catch me on its recording device, because it looks like I'm not trying to tell him right away, and her mind is twirling, going, if I don't say this soon, I'm

going to be in big trouble. So that's exactly what Tim told me. So I'm going to go tell the detective now. So so she's doing this in steps because her brain is flying. She's saying to herself, they're going to know in a millisecond. And I'm deeply involved in this. So I'm so I better say something. Okay, what do you want me to do? I don't want you to tell the detective of anything, and I don't want them involved up. I mean now I'm no, I'm dead. Now

I'm really dead. Maybe you are already dead when you deconstructed and kind of look at it closely, you can see what she's doing. And she does this kind of throughout. You know, she's trying to reel Dan back even after he says I did it. There's no way back. They're thinking that you pre meditated a murder of both of your friends because you were telling me beforehand that you had a class that you knew you didn't have. You're already making an excuse in an alibi. Do you see

what I'm saying? Like I'm done I'm done. I'm really done. Um what I was trying to cover it up and now I'm going away for life. It necessarily means that when that call took place on the she knew he was involved, She was plotting with him. It means the whole call is a lie. It's well done. It's a kind of an amateurish level, right, you know, kind of low level theater. Why on earth would you try and cover for him? We needed the money? No, we never need money. You need to be good people and just

have each other. O. Sorry, it's well done for a minute, unless you look at it pretty closely. And Murphy knows that that phone call had to be completely fabricated. Maybe when did when did we fall asleep last night? And where were you? When did you leave lust or not? Last night? That Friday night? Friday night? We got home probably around I don't know, midnight? Yeah, remember that. What did we do? Did anyone come over? I don't remember?

Or did we just crash? Did eye craft? We crapwer together? Uh? Huh? Family guy? And then in black wait wait where I can't we're walking then black and I can hardly hear you on this Funday spak a little bit louder. What about Black and Family guy? Okay? That night? Okay, so when did you go over and meet Sam? And when did you help Sam? Saturday morning? Saturday morning? She is pretending as she's going as if she knows nothing, And then when Dan Wozniak switches and says, I've got to

tell you the truth about what happened. You can hear it and you can kind of hear what she's doing. And at the very end of that tape, she tries to pull him back one last time. Are you sure you're not taking the blame for someone else? She tries to recover him from himself. Are you trying to cover for somebody? Me? Um, listen to me. I'm gonna go do something right now, and you're not gonna see me for the rest of your life. Do you understand that? No? No, I have to tell the truth on what I did.

And I think you now know what it is and it's bad. Imagine the word and that's what I did. H Do you want to tell me first or are you gonna go tell them? If you tell them, can you tell me back and tell me? To my faith? Can you can? You can probably tell them first? To come down to position right now. Yes, yes, I'm coming down to the station right now. You should buy them first. But I want to hear it from you. It's her though. I mean, you talk about who's worse. There. He's going,

I'm done. I'm you know, I'm not. There's no coming back from this. And she's thinking to herself, if you don't come back from this, you may take us both down. That's what she's doing very clearly. And I'm not saying anything other than what Matt Murphy would have said in two thousand and twelve in the preliminary hearing. We would

have sounded almost identical. We just don't now because in two thousand and sixteen he wanted a death verdict very badly, so he decided it was okay to switch his theories. That's what he did. It was surprising how Matt Murphy characterized Rachel Buffett during Dan Was the next trial. Yes, but only because you knew more. If you don't know more, and I'm making arguments that are being stopped and and

you're right right, you don't you don't know. I don't blame the jury for not getting what he was doing to them and the rest of the media didn't have a word to say about it because I just didn't know that. And this is, you know, this is the difficulty sometimes in a trial. It's you've got to have so much information to really get it. And really what he was starting to do there was kind of beyond

the pale. It wasn't something that even anybody would envision and think back at the time, what else, what was he's saying before? But you know, after the trial, we get a chance to go to the judge and we did our motion and and tell us about his ruling and how you felt about it. Well, you know, the ruling is only memorable to the extent we lost. I don't remember what he said specifically, and I don't think he committed a lot of writing to it, other than to say, um, we lose. And so I'm not going

to tell you that it's surprising that we lost. And I'm not saying that because I think we should have lost. We shouldn't have. I just we didn't have a lot of success and litigation in that courtroom. We weren't successful here. And you know, I've second guessed all sorts of things. That's just the nature of the beast but I'm also still angry because there wasn't complete truth in that courtroom. I don't sit here trusting that we've gotten everything. There's

no reason to. They don't have a history of disclosure, and it's not going to surprise me if ten years, twenty years down the road something gets found out in addition to all the things you've found out, And that's that's a big problem. That's had a big problem with this process here. It's just I have no faith whatsoever the tricks that were pulled here. The notion like I found all of the tricks, I don't think so I don't have I don't know that kind of faith in myself.

You know. The notion that Rachel Buffett was protecting him is insanity, and that this was her goal. I can't even believe someone's going to say that in the courtroom just because it's going to help them get a win. None of this has to do with protecting Dan Wasnext. She's done with Dan Wasney. She thinks Dan Wasny next time.

This is about protecting her, and it makes sense. I remember that you revealed in court a conversation that Rachel had with police during those early morning hours after police arrested Dan. They had brought her in for questioning. It was there she mentions how he really wasn't a great lover, and she wasn't over the moon about him, and she even said he wasn't well endowed down below. She's saying all these things, and she's supposed to marry this guy

that next day. It just seemed like she was done with him. Then. I mean that there's a level of cruelty in that. I mean, it's not the cruelty obviously, you know. I I want to make it clear. I mean I represented Dan and then believe very deeply that he should not have gotten a death penalty. You know, I don't think it was fair. I don't think the trial was fair. I don't think anything about this process was fair whatsoever. And I don't think we have all

the evidence in the case. Why do you feel Daniel Woznia didn't deserve the death penalty? Well, look at the first place, any pursuit of death should start with his fairness. Just should be a fair process. You shouldn't have a prosecutor arguing two different theories to get death all. I mean, I have a lot of adentury issues, things that I think should have come in his evidence. But there are a lot of things that I thought, UM made this whole process unfair. Are you referring to Sam's past? Um,

that's that's one of them. UM, for our listeners, Sam Hair at one point in his life was charged with murder and he was acquitted. I think his defense lawyer did a great job and they were able to keep out all of the key evidence and kind of a unique theory and should be commended for that. But in the standard that's used in most cases, and then when I think is a legal standard, once the prosecutor took certain steps in our litigation, we should have had the

right to introduce that evidence. And the way they the prosecution chose to kind of present Mr her which they didn't have to do. They went further and kind of presenting him as a solid citizen. We had the right to answer that. But there's all sorts of other places, including you know, more what we've been focusing on today. You know, if I look at all of that, I

keep coming back to the same spot too often. In this county, evidence hasn't been turned over, and UM, I look at this and wondering what else wasn't turned over, and don't I think it's reasonable. If you have a prosecutor that's making the type of arguments he's making, why on earth would I believe he It's it's beyond him to just keep some evidence that he thinks Um might be beneficial to us. And what I know, you talked

about how you felt for the Daniel Wozniak trial. You felt that in many cases it wasn't a fair trial. What was the most egregious example of where you thought you did not get a fair break? Well, you know, one of the examples, certainly is the sam Her evidence. I mean we thought that we The interesting thing was we didn't anticipate getting into that because we thought the

prosecutor was going to actually limit himself. And you can do that because basically what the prosecutor's option is just to put on evidence about his impact on human lives. So you could put on people and talk about how sad it was, and that wouldn't have allowed us, arguably to get into this next spot, which is Um Samer having killed somebody in his past charged with it. Well, I mean he's charged with that crime. I mean he was, he was charged. He was acquitted and I and I

appreciate the process, but I don't. Yes, I hope so yeah. I mean, I appreciate the process, but I don't. I don't agree that he didn't kill you know, I'm just the evidence doesn't point to that. It's just the evidence all got kept back. I mean, he confessed in statements, the statements just didn't get introduced. I know that this was an important point for Scott that he did not win.

The argument of introducing Sam's passed in the Dan Wozniak trial, and although the jurors didn't have a chance to hear the facts, I thought my listeners deserved to know what happened in Sam's past when he was in fact charged with murder, and so I spoke at length with retired Sergeant Gilbert Anderson, who was the lead detective on Sam's murder case, and suffice to say that there were eighteen defendants that were charged with the murder of Byron Benito,

who was an MMS gang member, and he was in fact the victim that was lord. As Sergeant Anderson says, he was lured by his best friend at the time, Sam Hair, and Sam brought him to undisclosed location where rival gang members from the Brown Familiar Family were waiting to attack Byron, and Sam at that time was growing increasingly frustrated with his and Byron. Byron was acting like a bully in many instances, beating up members of the Brown Familiar gang for no apparent reason, and so Sam

was starting to distance himself. We may never know with absolute certainty if Sam believed that the Brown Familial gang intended to murder Byron or simply wanted to rough him up give him a scare, and everyone that knew Sam would tell me he would never run away from a fight, which is why Sam himself was injured from the attack. Eventually, Byron Benito did pass away from his injuries, and eighteen people stood charged with that murder. Six of them, including Sam,

were acquitted. And the reason that Sam Hare was acquitted of these charges were because there was a technicality that the judge at the time felt there was a illegal, as he called it, arrest after a traffic stop. The police had stopped Sam because they saw some scooters in his car, and at the time a lot of scooters were being stolen, and so the actual traffic stop, the judge said, was was fine it was the it was the arrest afterwards that the judge felt was far reaching.

So therefore anything after the arrest was thrown out, and that included Sam's confession. He was haunted by this, it was his friend. I think he felt bad. I think in many ways he was self medicating because he felt so bad. But he did, I guess after many hours with the sergeant, he did finally confess to his role. And Steve Hair told me that while he and Sam's attorney that Steve hired, we're waiting outside the interrogation room. For whatever reason, police did not allow the attorney access

to Sam. I don't know if it was because Sam didn't ask for an attorney, but that is what Steve Hair had mentioned to me. And ultimately, because that confession was thrown out, Sam was acquitted of all charges. And I just think it's important to mention that that same officer, the same sergeant that I spoke to, he said that he wanted it to be clear that Sam never went

back to a life of crime. Sam, you know, from there, really turned his life around, joined the army, and he he never he never looked back and tried to continue on that path. That was going to only lead him to prison at some point. Sam's past was something that he used as a litmus test often because he he would share this past with with people that he barely

knew at times. In fact, Sam's fiance at the time had told me in a later interview that that he had this paperwork that he would show people and they would read it and and they would see what his past was about and what he had been through. And if they reacted in a way that they said, well, you know what, you're our guy, you're our friend, and we're not holding that against you, then he would become

friends with that person. Or if they were turned off by what they read, then he knew that they would never be real friends. So he did the same thing with Daniel and Rachel, and this happened a weekend before

the murders. Daniel had been arrested by the Coast of Masa police ironically for an outstanding do you I warrant and he was the lead in a musical called nine at the time, and so Rachel was scrambling to get his bail money raised because he was the lead and they weren't going to be able to perform the next night.

If she couldn't get him out of jail. So Dave Barnhart and John Randolph, friends of theirs, a neighbors at the camp to Martinique, called around to try to raise the bail money, and one of those people that they called was Sam Hair, but he refused to give money. I don't know them very well and I have no interest in participating in this dude's bail money. Sam's friend

Ruben Manacho recalls the story. Sam received a phone call from Dave Dave and Dave was obviously I wasn't listening to the conversation, but after they were dawn talking and Sam told me about what the conversation was about. Essentially, Dave was asking for money to bail Dan out of out of jail. And I said, no, why would you. Why are they even calling you to ask, you know, to ask you for money. Doesn't seem fair. Do you even know this guy that well? And he said like, yeah,

he's a friend. And I know that because if it would have been a friend friend and he would have hung out with us a lot more often. And that's the reason why I say that. So and I advise Sam to not to give him the money. I don't actually remember if he did or not. Hopefully he didn't, so that's yeah, um, but yeah, that was it. So that upset them because in fact, Dave Barnhard said to Rachel, and he's the he's the one guy that has more

money than all of us. I guess Rachel told Dan that Sam did not contribute and when they saw Sam, because eventually Rachel was able to raise the money and Dan got out of jail the next morning and that afternoon they went to the hot tub and that's where Sam was, and Sam, you know, responded to a complaint that Dan was making, saying, I never want to go to jail again. That was a horrible experience. It was awful. I can't even believe I made it through the night.

And basically Sam was like, you know, you gotta be kidding me, dude, Like I was. I was sitting in the Los Angeles County Men's jail for two years waiting for my trial when I was charged with murder. At that moment, Dan and Rachel found out this past of where Sam was in fact himself once a defendant being charged with murder. So that's what ultimately put the target on his back. That's why they had used that pass.

They kept referring to that past when when Dan was first arrested by Costa Masa police, So that in essence is the story of sam has past and why it plays a relevant role in this case. In the end, I've always felt that Prosecutor Matt Murphy had a far better case for accomplice or murder charges rather than the accessory charges that Rachel now faces. I want to thank you Scott Sanders for your time today and we look forward to having you back next week for all your

legal observations on Rachel Buffett's trial proceedings. Thanks very much for the opportunity. Yeah, On the next episode of Sleuth, we go straight to Santa Anna Superior Court for our gavel to gavel coverage of the trial we've been waiting for. It's the State of California versus Rachel Buffett, So tune into Sleuth and you won't miss a moment of the witness testimony. If you enjoyed this episode of Sleuth, share it with a friend and be sure to leave a

rating or review. Follow Sleuth on I Heart Radio, or subscribe wherever you listen to podcasts so that you never miss an episode