• Speak with An Experienced Defense Attorney Today
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

William Husel Facing 14 Counts of Murder in Ohio

William Husel is facing 14 counts of murder and other charges, allegedly giving lethal doses of fentanyl to patients under his care at two Mount Carmel Hospitals between February 2015 and November 2018. In the ninth day of court proceedings, there were arguments over whether testimony from two witnesses relied on privileged information, which ultimately led to the jury being sent home early.

Judge Michael Holbrook continues to make seemingly questionable rulings on the side of the prosecution putting the defense in a tough spot.

Criminal Defense attorney, Jeffrey Wolf, weighs in on current court proceedings around the tough spot the defense team is in, trying to confront the judges’ bad rulings “… It’s called making a record, the attorney has the right to make a record, so that the appellate court can decide if that mistake was made. That’s the gatekeeper of whether or not a judge has made a right or wrong decision, is the appellate court. The appellate court will routinely say that they cannot decide whether the judge was right or wrong if they don’t know the legal basis for the objection…”

Jeffrey Wolf will continue to commentate of this trial, which is expected to last around seven or eight weeks before a final verdict is reached.

Watch the entire video to learn more about this case or for more commentary from defense attorney Jeff Wolf.

Theodore Edgecomb Found Guilty in Road Rage Trial

Last Wednesday, a 32-year-old black man named Theodore Edgecomb was found guilty of first-degree reckless homicide for the shooting of a white man named Jason Cleereman in Milwaukee, Wisc.

Edgecomb claimed that he shot Cleereman in self-defense after Cleereman allegedly used the n-word during a traffic altercation. Cleereman then followed Edgecomb in his car and onto the street—Edgecomb was on a bike at the time of the incident. Surveillance footage shows Cleereman’s wife, who was driving the car at the time, pull up alongside Edgecomb and Cleereman exiting the vehicle to pursue Edgecomb.

Prosecutors and Cleereman’s wife allege that Edgecomb punched Cleereman through the car window when he suddenly veered into their lane. Cleereman’s wife testified that she knew Edgecomb had a gun. She also testified that her husband did not tell her to follow Edgecomb; instead, she said her husband just wanted to talk to the stranger.

After the incident, Edgecomb, who feared for his safety, fled the state with the gun. Prosecutors argued that his actions following the shooting were suspicious and not reflective of an innocent man claiming self-defense.

In a recent interview on Law & Crime Network, Denver defense lawyer Jeffrey Wolf discussed the use of self-defense in a case involving a black man shooting a white man and particularly on the heels of the Kyle Rittenhouse case.

“If anyone thinks that race didn’t play a part in how they had to defend this case and how they were treated by this judge, you’re wrong,” explained Wolf.

When asked whether this case was likely to be appealed, Wolf pointed squarely at the judge who displayed stark contrast toward the defense team and the prosecution.

“He wasn’t just unfair, he was unprofessional…he was screaming at them; he was ruling against things without hearing arguments. When things are going to get overturned on appeal, you have to meet these high burdens. And one of them that you typically have to meet is arbitrary and capricious. When you hear an appeals court return something because of what a judge did, it’s typically because the judge didn’t allow the attorney to make a record, so they can’t rule on something based on legal reasoning. We basically saw this over and over again in the pre-trial motions of this case. So, absolutely they have good grounds for appeal.”

Watch the videos above to learn more about the Edgecomb case and for more legal commentary from Denver defense lawyer Jeff Wolf.

William Argie Found Guilty of First-Degree Murder Following Brief Jury Deliberation

On Tuesday, a New Hampshire jury convicted William Argie of murdering his wife, Maureen Argie, on April 4, 2019.

Argie was represented by public defenders and expressed displeasure over their handling of the evidence. At one point, he requested a mistrial, but the judge declined to entertain his request.

Argie’s defense lawyers argued that his wife killed herself while their two young children were asleep. But Argie’s actions following the discovery of her body, his unsympathetic demeanor on the stand, as well as other testimony and case evidence did a poor job of supporting this story.

After a brief deliberation period, the jury returned a guilty verdict—Argie was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

In a recent interview on Law & Crime Network, Denver defense lawyer Jeffrey Wolf discussed the quick verdict and what incentives Argie might have had to take a deal amidst a mountain of problematic evidence.

“A lot of times, no matter what the plea offer is, it’s not worth not rolling the dice at trial,” explained Wolf. “You never know what could happen at trial. Sometimes, when they’re making an offer on a life without parole case where you’re going to spend the next 30 or 40 years in prison, why wouldn’t you try [a trial] at his age? Because that 30 or 40 years really is the rest of your life potentially.”

Watch the entire video for more about the Argie verdict and for additional commentary from defense lawyer Jeff Wolf.

Man Accused of Murdering Wife For Insurance Money In New Hampshire

Last week, William Argie testified that he found his wife dead by suicide at their home in Rockingham County, New Hampshire, in April 2019. The nature of the alleged suicide is a focal point in the trial—Argie claims his wife used a bedsheet or pillow to suffocate herself.

Even stranger, Argie did not contact police or any family members upon finding Maureen Argie, and instead took her car and cell phone and went to a casino.

Prosecutors opened the trial by painting an unflattering picture of Argie: a man unable to keep a job, behind on bills, and struggling with a gambling addiction. Friends of the defendant testified that Argie had suggested he would be better off without his wife and allegedly asked a friend to kill her for half of a life insurance policy on Maureen worth $400,000.

In a recent interview on Law & Crime Network, Denver defense Lawyer Jeffrey Wolf discussed the difficulties facing the defense.

“This is a very, very tough defense to be running here,” explained Wolf. “Shout out to the public defenders that are representing this guy…but to say that someone would hang themselves with a bedsheet or suffocate themselves with their own pillow, which is almost a physically impossible thing to do…that’s a pretty weird way to kill yourself, especially when you’re a mother planning to leave this marriage with the kids…”

Watch the entire video to learn more about this unusual case or for more commentary from defense attorney Jeff Wolf.

Jeff Wolf Weighs In On Guilty Verdict in Ahmaud Arbery Case

“This was a modern day lynching…and justice has been served,” said Denver defense attorney Jeffrey Wolf during a recent interview on Law & Crime Network.

The three white men who maliciously followed and gunned down Arbery last year in Georgia have been found guilty. Father and son Greg McMichael and Travis McMichael and their neighbor William Bryan, all faced the same nine criminal counts: one count of malice murder, four counts of felony murder, two counts of aggravated assault, one count of false imprisonment and one count of criminal attempt to commit a felony.

As the news of Arbery’s death circulated across the country, many viewed the case as racially motivated, and the trial quickly became a test case for racial justice. It took more than two months for an arrest to be made, and local prosecutors are now under investigation for the handling of this case. It has been alleged that Gregory McMichael’s former status as a special investigator for the Brunswick Circuit District Attorney’s office may have prompted leniency by local police during the initial investigation.

“I think it’s really, really important to not get lost in the fact that the original prosecutors on this case…decided no charges for their friend Gregory McMichael, his friend and his son,” explained Wolf.

And when asked about the defense’s performance in the trial, Wolf didn’t mince words:

“The defense attorneys in this case were basically the villains in a John Grisham novel,” said Wolf. “They tried the case in a small county hoping to get a jury that would walk white men for killing a black man…it was blatant.”

Watch the entire video for more details and extended commentary from Jeff Wolf about the recent verdict in the Arbery case.

Sentencing Deliberations for Killer of Orlando Officer

Last week, Markeith Lloyd was found guilty of the fatal shooting of Orlando police officer Lt. Debra Clayton. This is the second time Loyd faces the death penalty. In 2019, Loyd was convicted of killing his pregnant ex-girlfriend and their unborn child, but jurors recommended life in prison without parole.

In a recent interview on Law & Crime Network, Denver defense lawyer Jeffrey Wolf discussed sentencing considerations for a case that’s similar to the one Lloyd faced in 2019. Will this new jury impose the death penalty?

“The prosecution is hoping that they had a bad jury on that first case,” said Wolf. “That’s what this entire case is about. It’s not about guilt or innocence. I don’t think there’s any question that this incident occurred…what [the defense] is trying to do is get enough information in front of this jury to arouse sympathies through this insanity defense—to hope that when it comes time to talk sentencing, that they’re not talking death penalty…they’re talking life in prison.”

Watch the video above for more commentary from Jeffrey Wolf and details about this case.

Jeff Wolf Highlights the Importance of Elijah McClain’s Case in the Wake of Recent Settlement

In September, a Colorado grandy jury indicted three police officers and two fire department paramedics involved in ElijahMcClain’s 2019 death, following protests in Aurora, Colorado, and a viral online petition.

This week, the family of Elijah McClain reached an undisclosed settlement agreement with the city of Aurora.

“There’s no amount of money that could ever compensate Ms. McClain or Elijah’s family for their devastating loss,” said Matthew Cron, who represents McClain’s mother and the estate.

The renewed attention on McClain’s death also led to a 14-month investigation led by the Colorado Attorney General’s office. The investigation found the Aurora Police Department practices racially biased policing and excessive force. The report also revealed the fire department had a pattern and practice of illegally administering ketamine.

In a recent interview on Law & Crime Network, Denver defense lawyer Jeffrey Wolf stressed the importance of standing up for people like Elijah McClain and resisting the unchecked impunity of local law enforcement.

“This is my hometown, this is where I live…and this tragedy is something that did not even come to light until the George Floyd case erupted throughout the country, and somebody decided to take a look at what happened to this kid…” explained Wolf.

“He was brutally assaulted by the Aurora Police Department,” Wolf continued. “He was drugged by the paramedics on the order of the Aurora Police Department. It’s something that happens out here more than we’d like to see…this is a systemic problem. This is something that continues in Aurora, Colorado…we can’t say Elijah McClain’s name enough in our community and nationwide…”

Watch Jeff Wolf’s impassioned speech on Elijah McClain’s death and the evolving investigation into the Aurora Police Department in the video above.  

Jurors Struggle To Overlook Past Conviction in New Markeith Loyd Murder Trial

The trial of Markeith Loyd in the 2017 killing of Orlando police Lt. Debra Clayton began recently. Loyd is accused of fatally shooting Clayton at a Walmart after she tried to arrest him for killing his pregnant ex-girlfriend, Sade Dixon.

Between the time of Dixon’s death and Loyd’s arrest, defense attorneys say he was paranoid and delusional. Loyd claimed Dixon had a gun during the tussle, but news reports purposefully left out that detail. Loyd was allegedly convinced law enforcement was out to kill him.

Less than a month after Dixon’s killing, Lt. Clayton encountered Loyd at a Walmart and a shootout ensued. Clayton was shot four times; Loyd was shot in the chest but protected by a bulletproof vest.

This is the second time Loyd faces the death penalty. In 2019, Loyd was convicted of killing his pregnant ex-girlfriend and their unborn child, but jurors recommended life in prison without parole.

In addition to delays caused by the pandemic, this trial faces challenges in jury selection—jurors are aware of the previous conviction and are being questioned about their ability to put that knowledge aside for this new case.

In a recent interview on Law & Crime Network, Denver defense lawyer Jeffrey Wolf discussed the difficult situation these jurors face in the courtroom.

“It’s not that [jury members] are trying to lie, it’s not that they’re dishonest people, that is a really intimidating circumstance…you’re sitting in the courtroom and the judge is telling you that you need to do this and that you’re going to be instructed to do it and then asking if you will…how many people will look the judge in the eye and say: no I won’t do what you tell me to do. It’s rare…”

Watch the videos above for more commentary from Jeffrey Wolf and details about this ongoing case.

Airman on Trial: Experts Dispute Murder Weapon

Sasha Krause disappeared on Jan. 18, 2020, as she gathered materials for a Mennonite Sunday school class. Her body was recovered about a month later in a forest clearing just outside of Flagstaff, Arizona.

Law enforcement officials who searched for Krause used cell phone data, surveillance video, and financial records to track down the alleged perpetrator: a man named Mark Gooch, a U.S. Air Force airman stationed at Luke Air Forces Base in metropolitan Phoenix.

Prosecutors allege that Gooch was motivated to kill Krause because of his early history and disdain for Mennonites. Gooch was raised in the Mennonite faith in Wisconsin but never joined the church. So far, the evidence suggests that Gooch and Krause were not acquainted.

According to expert testimony presented by prosecutors, the bullet recovered from Krause’s skull was fired from a rifle owned by Gooch. However, Gooch’s defense lawyer, Bruce Griffen, presented expert testimony that contradicted the certainty of the prosecution’s evidence. 

In a recent interview on Law & Crime Network, Denver defense layer Jeff Wolf discussed the juxtaposition of these two expert witnesses and how it might impact the case.

“You want to highlight that the two experts don’t agree, and if the two experts don’t agree, then there isn’t a scientific certainty that connects our client to the crime itself,” explained Wolf.

“What you really want to do is play them off of each other and show that the science is not settled…” Wolf concluded.

Watch the full video for extended commentary from Jeff Wolf or for more details about the case.

Deliberations Continue in Durst Case: Jeff Wolf Weighs In

A Los Angeles jury began deliberating Tuesday in the murder trial of New York real estate heir Robert Durst. In closing arguments, Deputy District Attorney John Lewin told jurors that Durst was a “narcissistic psychopath” who needed to be held accountable.

Prosecutors allege that Durst killed Susan Berman in 2000 because she planned to come forward about a fake alibi provided for Durst when his wife Kathie went missing. Lewin also introduced evidence from a Galveston, Texas, trial where Durst was acquitted of murder.

Denver defense lawyer Jeff Wolf has been analyzing the ongoing trial for several weeks. In a recent interview with Angenette Levy on the Law & Crime Trial Network, Wolf discussed some of the finer points made by prosecutors throughout the lengthy trial. Jurors began hearing evidence in March 2020 before taking a 14-month break due to the pandemic. The case resumed this year in May.

“Quite frankly, Chavin’s testimony in this case was some of the most persuasive testimony that the prosecution had where Bob confessed to this crime…and if he [Chavin] is to be believed, then that’s kind of the ball game for Bob Durst…but because his testimony was so delayed, because he was so argumentative up front…the question for the jury is not as open and shut as it may be in another case where somebody’s friend comes forward…”

Nick Chavin testified that Bob and Kathie’s relationship was “strange” and that they had an open marriage. Chavin also testified that Durst had a very close relationship with Berman, saying there was nothing she would not have done for him.

Watch the full video for extended commentary from Jeff Wolf.

Durst’s Testimony Continues: Jeff Wolf Reviews Strong-Arm Tactics on Law & Crime Network

Robert Durst has now spent more than 24 hours on the stand testifying in his defense. In a recent interview on Law & Crime Network, Denver defense lawyer Jeffrey Wolf weighed in on Deputy District Attorney John Lewin’s aggressive demeanor toward Durst throughout cross-examination.

“John Lewin has taken this case so personally that he is unable to have a back and forth with Robert Durst without getting frustrated,” explained Wolf. “Lewin is playing word games with him…asking him the same question in different ways. He [Durst] is being careful and careful is good.”

On Wednesday, the judge in Durst’s murder trial requested that prosecutors wrap up there questioning of the 78-year-old man accused of killing of his longtime friend, Susan Berman, who was found shot to death in 2000.

“I think he [Lewin] is going too far,” Wolf continued. “I think this case is too personal for him and I think he’s too angry. He’s catching him [Durst] in inconsistencies, he’s sometimes catching him in lies, but then he insists on drilling down further…and if you’re John Lewin, you can’t help but be frustrated when he doesn’t give you the connective answer that you want…then you’re going to start yelling…and that’s what he’s doing.”

Watch the full video for extended commentary from Jeff Wolf or for more details about the Robert Durst murder trial.

R. Kelly’s Trial Begins in New York: Jeff Wolf Weighs in on Law & Crime Network 

R&B singer R. Kelly faces 24 criminal charges as the result of multiple accusations spanning two decades and in three different states: New York, Illinois and Minnesota. Kelly’s trial began last Wednesday in New York, where he faces nine counts of sex trafficking and racketeering.

“This case is about a predator,” said Crus Melendez in her opening statement. “…A man who for decades used his fame and his popularity in order to target girls, boys, and young women for his own sexual gratification.”

Kelly’s trial has faced multiple delays due to the pandemic; Kelly has been in custody since 2019. The federal trial now underway in New York is expected to go on for about a month, but Kelly will soon face other charges in other jurisdictions.

In a recent interview on Law & Crime Network, Denver defense lawyer Jeffrey Wolf discussed the scope of Kelly’s charges and how it might impact the case.

“I think the prosecution thinks they can fly…” Wolf said. “What you have here is a very common tactic by prosecutors where they will charge everything they can charge and hope that something sticks. It’s giving the jury a lot of options to consider when looking at this really convoluted and really dark case. He’s going to have an uphill battle…it’s going to be pretty hard to get a jury in there to deliver an impartial verdict, so I don’t think Kelly stands a very good chance of vindication…”

Watch the full video for extended commentary from Jeff Wolf or for more details about the case.

Durst Takes the Stand: Jeff Wolf Discusses Cross-Examination on Law & Crime Network

In recent weeks, it was unclear if Robert Durst would take the stand—a move that would give the prosecution a chance to cross-examine the frail 78-year-old real estate heir accused of murder.

On the stand, Durst denied killing his friend Susan Burman, who prosecutors allege was about to reveal to investigators Durst’s involvement in the 1982 disappearance Kathleen McCormack Durst.

Last week, the exchange between Durst and Deputy District Attorney John Lewin, who is known for long and aggressive cross-examinations, was unusual to say the least. Lewin’s reproach for Durst was nearly palpable as he repeatedly berates Durst over the same questions.

In a recent interview on Law & Crime Network, Denver defense lawyer Jeffrey Wolf discusses the negative implications of bullying a witness, even one as unlikable as Robert Durst.

“Argue it in closing!” explained Wolf. “You’re not going to get Bob Durst to raise his hands and say: You got me! Liar! Guilty! Where’s the jail cell? He’s not going to do that…you can’t control this witness, and he [Lewin] seems to think he can control every witness…and…the jury doesn’t like that. A trial is as much about whether the jury is buying what you’re selling because they like you and they believe you as it is anything else. The more you look like you’re bullying people on the stand…it can come back to bite you.”

Watch the full video for extended commentary from Jeff Wolf or for more details about the Robert Durst murder trial.

Epstein Accuser Files Suit Against Prince Andrew: Jeff Wolf Weighs In On Law & Crime Network

In a 15-page lawsuit filed by Virginia Roberts Giuffre, the plaintiff claims that in addition to being abused by Jeffrey Epstein himself, Giuffre was also forced to have sex with Prince Andrew at Epstein’s and Ghislaine Maxwell’s direction.

In a 2019 BBC interview, Andrew denied the allegations and said he had never met Giuffre—despite photographic evidence to the contrary. The lawsuit also states that Andrew emailed Maxwell about the allegations back in 2015, naming Virginia Roberts specifically in the email.

Prince Andrew has not cooperated with the U.S. authority’s investigation into Epstein’s and Maxwell’s alleged trafficking operation involving several underage women.

In a recent interview on the Law & Crime Trial Network, Denver defense lawyer Jeffrey Wolf discussed the broader ramifications of the suit.

“Especially where Epstein is concerned, there are a large number of powerful people who are closely connected to him,” explained Wolf. “There’s the Bill Gates allegations that came out after the divorce. There are Bill Clinton connections. There are Donald Trump connections, and then you have Prince Andrew and the royal family…Lord knows the British royal family has enough money to get an expert to come in and say that the picture is doctored…but that’s not the only piece of evidence…”  

Watch the full video for extended commentary from Jeff Wolf or for more details about the case.

Will Durst’s Poor Health Cause a Mistrial? Jeff Wolf Weighs in on Law & Crime

Since May, Robert Durst’s defense team has argued that their client’s deteriorating health was so extreme that he could not be prosecuted. Durst has both bladder and esophageal cancer and has sat in a wheelchair throughout court proceedings.

On more than one occasion, Durst’s health has resulted in delays, prompting motions for a mistrial by the defense. Is Durst too sick to testify in his own defense? Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Mark Windham thinks Durst is just fine.

Nevertheless, questions about Durst’s mental and physical faculties have come into question. In a recent interview with Angenette Levy on the Law & Crime Trial Network, Denver defense attorney Jeffrey Wolf discussed the rigorous nature of testifying in court.

“I think that there’s a big difference between being able to assist in your own defense…and being able to physically handle the rigors of testifying,” explained Wolf.

“Because when he gets up there, he’s going to get up there first with his lawyer, and they’re going to question him…but what they don’t get to control is what Lewin does on cross-examination,” Wolf continued. “He’s going to be sitting there playing mental tennis with a worthy adversary who is hell bent on hanging him from the highest tree. The stress that that’s going to cause on his cardiovascular system…is astounding. His ability to stand up for moments at a time, to pipe up with a sentence here or there, does not mean he’s going to be able to physically handle one, two, three, who knows how many hours of cross-examination.”

Watch the full video for extended commentary from Jeff Wolf or for more details about the Robert Durst murder trial.

Jeff Wolf Discuses New Testimony in “Fake Uber” Murder Trial on Law & Crime

Samantha Josephson was reportedly last seen alive around 2:00 a.m. in the Five Points region of downtown Columbia, South Carolina, on March 29, 2019. According to reports, Josephson got into the back of a black Impala, but “then her Uber was cancelled.”

When police pulled over Nathaniel David Rowland, who was nearby and driving a car that matched the description, they found blood all over the vehicle. Rowland is currently on trial in for Josephson’s kidnapping and murder.

Last week, evidence was introduced that was procured from the defendant’s ex-girlfriend’s house. Maria Howard, the ex-girlfriend, took the stand and seemed to muddy the waters even more with various accounts of her activities with the defendant on March 29. The evidence, which includes bloody trash bags, a weapon, and clothing have also raised questions about her involvement. 

In a recent interview on Law & Crime Network, Denver defense lawyer Jeff Wolf was asked whether the defense or prosecution utilized Howard’s recent testimony best:

“I think they both utilized it well,” explained Wolf. “Because what you have is the prosecution laying out all of these suspicious things that were going on during this interaction with her… obviously she’s his friend, maybe a little more, we don’t really know. And then from there you have the defense trying to poke holes in the timeline: what was going on here? How much time was there really for all these things that you say happened to happen? And why were you just going along with this…noticing all these strange things and then you just go to work? You don’t call anybody? You don’t do anything? There’s clearly some evidence of something going on in the back of this car…you did nothing about it…you gave him [Rowland] a key to your house, you went home to him…and so maybe she doesn’t have as clean of hands as she would say she does.”

Watch the full video for extended commentary from Jeff Wolf or for more details about the case.

Robert Durst Murder Trial Continues with New Testimony from Susan Giordano

During a recent interview with Angenette Levy on the Law & Crime Network, Jeff Wolf discussed recent testimony heard in California at the Robert Durst murder trial.

Susan Giordano, longtime friend of Robert Durst, testified last week in a trial in which Durst is accused of the December 2000 killing of Susan Berman. Berman was allegedly killed for having information related to Durst’s wife’s 1982 disappearance.

According to her recent testimony, over the course of their friendship, Durst had gifted Giordano more than $300,000. Giordano also said she “didn’t ask questions” when she was asked to store more than 60 boxes of Durst’s personal belongings in her basement or when Durst asked her to mail boxes containing thousands of dollars in cash.

“What they’re trying to do here is say: this witness has dirty hands,” explained Wolf. “This is a witness who is here to help Bob Durst and that’s what they were arguing about. They called this adverse witness and they’re going to try to prevent the defense from cross examining…They’re basically playing a very, very dirty game of pool by using the statutes against the defense, so they can get this friendly witness for the defense to look like a fool on direct and then prevent a meaningful cross.”

Watch the full video for extended commentary from Jeff Wolf or for more details about the case.

Jeff Wolf Discusses Robert Durst Murder Trial on the Morning Docket with Jesse Weber

Last Friday, Denver defense lawyer Jeffrey Wolf appeared on the Morning Docket with Jesse Weber to discuss the Robert Durst Murder Trial.

Durst is on trial for allegedly killing his friend Susan Berman because she was planning to speak to authorities about the disappearance of Durst’s first wife.

Last week in court, Durst could be heard speaking to his attorney and said he planned to “make a fool” out of Deputy District Attorney John Lewin when he (Durst) testifies.

“It is a trial lawyer’s nightmare to have your client talk loud enough for everyone to hear it. And this is something that’s been rampant on WebEx trials over the last year and a half,” explained Wolf.

WebEx is a web conferencing company, and its services have been customized to meet the needs of courtrooms across the country, particularly amid the pandemic. 

Wolf went on to describe how people tuning in to proceedings via WebEx can text their colleagues in court with audio gleaned from the web conferencing service.

The Durst case presents multiple battlefronts for the defense, the least of which involve new technology in the courtroom. Durst is suspected of involvement in two murders and confessed to a third, but was acquitted at trial after claiming self-defense in 2001.

“It’s an absolute nightmare,” said Wolf. “You don’t want to have to fight these battles…and the rules of evidence say that you shouldn’t have to fight these battles. And that’s the crux of this entire case and the prosecution’s theory…”

Watch the full video for extended commentary from Jeff Wolf or for more details about the case.

Jeff Wolf Discusses the Robert Durst Murder Trial on Law & Crime

Robert Durst, a New York real estate mogul, is one of the most notorious defendants in the country, following the 2015 HBO documentary miniseries: The Jinx: The Life and Deaths of Robert Durst. The documentary chronicles the disappearance of Durst’s wife Kathie (1982), the murder of his friend Susan Berman (2000), and the death and dismemberment of Durst’s neighbor Morris Black (2001). Durst was suspected of involvement in the first two murders and confessed to the third, but was acquitted at trial after claiming self-defense. 

This week, after a long delay due to COVID-19, Durst, now 78, sits in a wheelchair in a courtroom in Los Angeles for the death of his long-time friend Susan Berman.

The defense called the 14-month delay “the longest adjournment in U.S. history featuring the same jury.” And they argued that the jurors could have forgotten information from earlier in the trial.

In a recent interview on Law & Crime, a multi-platform live trial network, Denver defense lawyer Jeff Wolf discussed the veracity of allowing jurors to read transcripts of previous court testimony.

“It’s highly unusual…jurors all the time ask for a transcript of what someone has said, and the judge routinely tells them they have to rely on their memory. Because of what COVID has done to this trial…[it’s] a huge problem. The jury heard this testimony and now they get to read it again. It’s beyond the pale.”

For cases like Durst’s, which now spans four decades, many of the witnesses have passed away or are unavailable to testify. Wolf went on to discuss the rules of hearsay: an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of whatever it asserts.

“It tends to happen in older cases because witnesses are less available,” explained Wolf. “So, when you’re talking about the rule of hearsay, it’s a very complex rule…The first thing you have to determine is…is this actually hearsay or is it being used for a purpose other than the truth of the matter asserted. If it is being used for the truth of the matter asserted, then there’s one set of rules for when the declarant is available and one set for when they’re unavailable…and then both of those have a bunch of exceptions that fall under them for when they’re going to be allowed. The exceptions for when the declarant is unavailable are much looser than when the declarant is available.”

Watch the full video for extended commentary from Jeffrey Wolf or for more details about the case.

Featured Blogs
  • Answers to 6 Common DUI Questions
  • Assault or Self-Defense?
  • happy hour to sober
  • breathalizer thumbnail
  • 4/20 safety
  • domestic violence cases

Truly There for You

Jeff is the best attorney my husband and I have used. He actually cared about what was best for my family. He actually fought for my husband and was on his side. He listened to my husband and made us feel like he was on our side and we could trust him with my husband’s future. I suggest to anyone looking for an attorney to put your trust in Jeff, he got us the best deal ever.

— Raena

I Trust My Future with Jeffery A. Wolf

My experience was very hard like many others facing any criminal charges against them. Jeffery A. Wolf was a very compassionate, caring individual that was there to help me through the entire court process. He is very knowledgeable about criminal law and was very helpful, getting my family and me through the whole criminal process. He fought for me in a time I needed someone the most, ensuring me that he was there for me and out to get the best results as possible from the court system. What an outstanding man to fight for the truth and be there for anyone with criminal charges, explaining the whole process very methodically and being pin point with all the facts. I was very confident in his experiences and knowledge that I would only trust my future with Jeffery A. Wolf. I had a great experience with him, allowing me to have the life I am here to live.

— Adam B.

Helped Me Through a Rough Time!

I became quite the habitual traffic offender with two speeding tickets and one ticket with two charges totaling 12 points. Jeff brought the 12-pointer down to a 3-pointer and a small fine, and saved my license with the two other tickets at bay. I had a lot of trauma at the time of the tickets, and he not once judged me. He is quick to respond to a call or email or text and walks you through each process. I am so glad I listened to earlier reviews because he made this process so much easier. I would definitely recommend him to anyone dealing with similar infractions and problems!

— Tiffany

Complete Satisfaction

Jeff took on 2 cases for me with complete success. He is extremely sharp and confident. Jeff really gets to know his clients and is very sympathetic to their needs.
The relationships he has with prosecutors and the judges was pure respect. When he spoke he had the ears of the courtroom. He speaks very eloquent and exudes confidence that translates into the result I was looking for, “Case Dismissed.”

I highly recommend his services. If you are need of his services you will get more than what you pay for.

— Steven L.

Expedient, Thorough and Effective

Fortunately, I don’t find myself needing legal representation often…only once before have I needed an attorney. My situation was interesting…I was given a disorderly conduct summons and felt it was far beyond the pale in terms of its validity. I didn’t want this on my record and needed help navigating the legal process. I did some research on a few attorneys and read about Jeff Wolf’s practice. I called Jeff and we spoke the same day. He listened to me and I met with him a few days later. He took the time to explain his process and approach, which made sense to me and seemed to be in the right dollar range for what we were dealing with. Thankfully, my case was dismissed. Jeff took the time to show the DA that there were inconsistencies all over the place and that there was no way I was guilty…likely shouldn’t have even been issued a summons. As I said to Jeff, I hope I never have to talk with him again, but I won’t hesitate to call if need be.

— Christian

I Couldn’t Have Asked for a Better Lawyer

Until the night of my DUI, I had never been in trouble before so one could only imagine how scared I was. Facing a DUI with a possible felony/assault charge, I honestly wasn’t sure how I was going to get through it all. I happened to find Jeffrey Wolf through another lawyer. After meeting with him in person, I knew immediately that he was going to help me. I was a complete wreck from day 1 and yet he made me feel at ease with every meeting, phone call and court appearance.

One of the traits I appreciated most was his honesty. Mr. Wolf told me straight up from the beginning what could happen and what I was facing but reassured me that he would do everything he could to get me through it with the best outcome. Having him there with me through this process and through every court appearance with him by my side made it easier to handle and I am so grateful to have worked with him. At the end of it all, I was able to get probation with a deferred judgment on my case. I would absolutely refer Mr. Wolf to any of my friends and/or family!

— Nichole G.

Here’s a Lawyer You can Trust

I found myself threatened with life-changing accusations, and Jeff Wolf was there for me. Kept me up to date every step of the way and really helped relieve the stress of going through something so awful. 100 percent worth every penny.

— Patrick

6-Month Jail Sentence Reduced to 90 Days

I was arrested in May 2014 for a warrant that I had since 2010 for DUR, I was facing a six month jail sentence that would have caused me to lose my business, home, as well as once again re-offend me. After countless calls and conversations and meetings with numerous attorneys I was referred to Jeffery Wolf. By simply speaking with him over the phone I felt a little at ease, until I met with him and after that I was completely at ease. He made feel the way an attorney is suppose to make a client feel. He was extremely personable, caring, honest, completely honest, and very detailed as to what his process is and what will take place in court.

On the day of my hearing Jeff arrived a little early and had me wait in the hallway while he stepped into the court room and went to bat for me. The result was a 0 point violation allowing me to keep my DL, a six-month jail sentence reduced to 90 days in-home detention, and a $67 fine, which was way more than I expected.

I highly recommend Jeff he is an excellent attorney that takes your case as serious as you do. I hope I never have to hire an attorney again but if I do without a doubt Jeffrey Wolf will be my first and only thought.

— David

Would Highly Recommend

Jeff provided excellent legal advice and guided my situation to a very desirable outcome. He was in frequent contact via phone and email throughout the process, answered all of the questions that I had, and gave me the ability to confidently choose the best outcome for my circumstances. Legal issues are scary, complicated, and stressful but Jeff reduces all those negatives and makes you feel like someone has your back. Would highly recommend his services if you ever find yourself in need of criminal defense.

— Max I.

Professional and Knowledgeable

I cannot be happier with Jeffrey Wolf’s representation in my court case. He was very direct, no time wasted. Very professional, and above all very knowledgeable and qualified as an attorney. I was facing felony charges that were unfounded and Mr. Wolf saw the truth immediately, believed in me despite the allegations and got all charges dismissed. He always kept me informed and current with his progress, and offered very sound advice. I also would consider him a friend as well. I highly recommend Mr. Wolf to anyone needing serious legal counsel.

— Bill F.