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

Partner Jeffrey Wolf appeared on Law and Crime last week to discuss the Hollywood Sex Therapist Murder Trial.  Jeff wasn’t a fan of the defense opening, watch to see why.

Jeffrey Wolf Discusses Importance of Cell Phone & Social Media Data In Trials on Law & Crime Network

YNW Melly is on trial facing the death penalty in the shooting deaths of two close friends.  This past week, Jeff Wolf joined Law and Crime to the about the importance of cell phone/social media data in modern trials and how to most effectively challenge their admissibility in such a big trial.

Jeffrey Wolf Analyzes the Admissibility of Evidence in YNW Melly Trial on Law & Crime Network

Law enforcement and prosecutors are increasingly using our own devices against us.  The problem is they don’t always know or care how accurate that information may be.  In the YNW Melly case, prosecutors are comparing iPhone step data to a traditional pedometer.  They’re incorrect and Jeff Wolf helps explain why on Law and Crime Network’s coverage of the case.  Science in the courtroom takes work, no shortcuts are allowed.

Jeffrey Wolf Discusses YNW Melly Double Murder Trial on Law & Crime Trial Network

YNW Melly is facing the death penalty in the murder of his two close friends and associates. The State had their ballistics expert on the stand and Mr. Wolf and Law and Crime host Linda Kenney-Baden were not impressed with the presentation of evidence. 

Idaho Murders Case- Bryan Kohberger

Bryan Kohberger, the suspect of the murder of four University of Idaho students last November, was identified driving across the country and was taken into custody. Reportedly he was pulled over twice, once for speeding and once for following too closely to a car in front of him. Whether this is a coincidence or a conspiracy, Denver Criminal Defense Attorney, Jeffrey Wolf, doesn’t think that can be concluded based on the little information we have thus far from law enforcement. In rural jurisdictions, Wolf iterates that it’s not uncommon to be pulled over for the aforementioned reasons, but he does think it is unusual that someone who knows they’re potentially being investigated for murdering four people, that they’d be more cautious & careful to abide by the rules of the road. As Wolf puts it, “this is a guy who thinks he’s smarter than he is, based on his own behavior.”

Is Bryan Kohberger carrying out odd activities in a Pennsylvania prison to think he can plead insanity? According to Jeffrey Wolf, attorney at Wolf Law, “the insanity defense has been eviscerated across the country almost uniformly.” In law school, students learn a lot of theories and common law and things that may no longer be active in the criminal justice system today. Bryan Kohberger had a criminology course on his master’s degree, so Wolf’s guess is that Kohberger learned a lot about the insanity defense but didn’t realize that once he gets out of school and reads case law, he’ll see that’s not really how it works. Wolf thinks “he’s got a pretty rude awakening coming his way”, once Kohberger gets transferred to Idaho assuming he meets with a public defender there as he did in Pennsylvania. Idaho got rid of its insanity defense back in the 1980s.

Investigators used genetic genealogy websites to link Bryan Kohberger to the murder of four Idaho students. His DNA was found in the trash left outside his family home in Pennsylvania. If DNA is to be valued as evidence, Jeffrey Wolf from Wolf Law says “we need to make sure that our DNA is private” because eventually those not involved in law enforcement will get their hands on it, like private companies, to use the DNA as they see fit. Websites like AncestryDNA, 23andMe, and FamilyTreeDNA, are the wave of the future but still are very dangerous. Privacy advocates are not involved in these websites, and the government simply is not talking about it and Wolf thinks it’s something we should definitely be talking about.

Waukesha Parade Tragedy Trial

Wisconsin man, Darrell Brooks Jr. charged with killing 6 parade goers after he drove his SUV into a crowd of people during a holiday parade.

After a Reddit Post was brought to the attention to the judge, Brooks Jr. requested a mistrial since this post could have been made by a sitting jury member. This request was denied. Criminal Defense Attorney, Jeffrey Wolf doesn’t believe this request was thoroughly vetted before being denied. “In my opinion, they should have at least paused the trial to actually complete an investigation into this, or they should have granted the mistrial, which was one of the very few times I agreed with Darrell Brooks in this trial. It is insane they just pushed through this verdict.”

The Defendant, Brooks Jr., acted as his own defense attorney during this trial, which impacted the way in which the prosecution handled this case. Denver Criminal Defense Attorney, Jeffrey Wolf discussing how this impacted the prosecution’s strategy on Law & Crime “You always hear about how they had to soften their attacks, not look like the bully in the courtroom… but they do have to re-strategize.”

After only a few short hours of deliberation the jury came back with a verdict of guilty on all 76 counts. “Frankly, I was a little surprised that it took them that long given what they watched out of this trial. It was very clear that he would do anything except talk about what he did that day…He was disrespectful to the juror’s time, he was disrespectful for the judge, he was combative to the prosecutors… He made a circus out of this trial.” Jeffrey Wolf goes on to state “He comported himself in a way that does not please a jury and this judge had infinite patience with him and always looked like the good guy…”  

OnlyFans Model Charged With Murder

Courtney Clenney, OnlyFans model is accused of stabbing her boyfriend to death and is being charged with second-degree murder. The defense issued a motion for protective order which was denied by the judge allowing for photos and videos of the model’s OnlyFans site to be shared publicly by the media. Jeffrey Wolf is on Law & Crime commentating on the trial as it unfolds. Wolf states that he would have granted the request because “There are very few people in our society that are less protected than the sex worker… They are treated like less than by not only the public… But also by the legal system. They are less protected by prosecutors when they are the victims of crimes. They are more heavily prosecuted by  prosecutors when they are the defendants in crimes and judges looks the other way… She is being treated different… This is absolutely another showing of that.”  

Pike County Massacre Trial Delays

Opening Statements for the Pike County Massacre trial were delayed due to illness, with the trial set to last for 6 to 8 weeks from opening statements. With this lengthy of a trial, it is important to ensure that there is an effective way to tell the story to the jury, without losing their attention. Criminal Defense attorney, Jeffrey Wolf weights in on how to create an effective trial strategy on Law and Crime “… When you’re looking at that length of a trial, you need to schedule it in a way that is going to keep [the jury’s] attention, where you’re not going to have days and days of boring scientific information that is going to completely put them to sleep and ruin the effectiveness of that scientific information.”   

Parkland School Shooting Case: Sentencing of Nikolas Cruz

In 2018, 14 students and three teachers died in a school shooting attack at Parkland School. Nikolas Cruz pleaded guilty to murdering 17 people and is now being faced with sentencing for his crimes.

A jury will determine either a life in prison or death penalty sentence for Parkland school shooter, Nikolas Cruz. Criminal Defense attorney, Jeffrey Wolf weighs in on whether he believes testimony from Nikolas’s loved ones will have influence over the jury’s sentencing. “Often when we see jurors not be able to come back with a death penalty in these types of cases, it’s because they hear from people in their childhood about what made them the way they are now. Because criminals are not born, evil is not born, it is bred, it is made… “

During a cross examination led by the Prosecutor, of Cruz’s elementary school teacher, it was noted that Cruz displayed certain concerning antics that were indicative of “criminal behavior.” Criminal Defense attorney, Jeffrey Wolf points out while the Prosecutor makes clear that early antics showcased by Nikolas would be crimes as an adult, that Nikolas “wasn’t an adult when he did them. He was a kid. And we don’t prosecute below a certain age in this country for a reason, because minds are developing… A kid doesn’t understand right from wrong in the same way an adult does.”

Love Triangle Double Murder: Kevin Eastman Murder Trial

A Greeley Man is being accused of killing his ex-girlfriend and her lover, well known area musician, Stanley Scott Sessions in February 2020. Kevin Eastman faces two counts of first-degree murder, as both bodies were found in similar, yet different, fashions. Sessions had his throat cut and was wrapped in plastic near smoldering logs, which was found by a local snowplow driver. Sessions had been significantly burnt from the waist down. Heather Frank, the ex-girlfriend of Eastman, was found a week later with two fatal gunshot wounds to the chest but was also found by a pile of wood, leading police to believe that the two were killed by the same person.

Denver Criminal Defense attorney Jeffrey Wolf weighs in, “It’s a tale as old as time, in this case where love gone bad creates a major issue… “  Wolf goes on to explain that this specific court jurisdiction has been involved in quite a few similar cases within recent years, including the Watts murder trial of 2018.

Jeffrey Wolf goes on to explain the possible defense position in day two of the trial “…. The more times you hear someone ask about all the different places the pieces of evidence were found, the more likely it is, on the defense side, that they know that evidence is not going to tie their client to the scene…” Stay tuned as this trial unfolds and check back for more commentary from Jeff Wolf.

Morning Break in FL v Danielle Redlick

Danielle Redlick is on trial for the fatal stabbing of her stepfather turned, husband, Michael Redlick. UCF Executive, Michael Redlick was found dead in his Florida home in January 2019. Initially, Danielle Redlick told 911 operators that her husband stabbed himself. Now, on day 5 of the trial, she claims she stabbed her husband in self-defense.

Jeffrey Wolf, Criminal Defense Attorney, joins the Law & Crime Trial Network to discuss the trial. With the number of inconsistencies in Danielle’s story about how her husband died, many are wondering if anything she says during her cross-examination could be true. Danielle is claiming she was in a confused, disoriented state of mind from being in an abusive relationship. Jeffrey Wolf points out, “For whatever reason, I am not hearing a lot of people talk about this guy being her stepfather, on a regular basis, I don’t know why that’s not more of a focus for the defense. I think it would bolster their claims that this is an abusive relationship and that she was defending herself. “

Another big point being brought by the defense is the medical examiner’s report of Michael Redlick wounds, which did not align with Danielle’s changing stories. At first, she told police she thought her husband died of a heart attack, but the medical examiner confirmed that he did not kill himself, nor did he have a heart attack- his cause of death was a fatal stab to the left shoulder, which hit a major artery and punctured his lung. The defense wants to bring up the evidence of large amounts of testosterone, alcohol and potentially other substances that could aid in the argument that Danielle was in an abusive relationship and acted in self-defense when she stabbed her husband.  “I think it can help them [the defense], testosterone, not only for aggressive behavior but it could also go into why he had a heart attack, because testosterone effects the cardiovascular system.” Criminal Defense attorney, Jeffrey Wolf commentates.

Jeffrey Wolf Weighs in on Amber Heard vs Johnny Depp Defamation Case

Johnny Depp sued his ex-wife, Amber Heard, for defamation over an op-ed piece Heard wrote for The Washington Post. In the 2018 article, Heard claimed to be a “public figure representing domestic abuse,” which Depp claims cost him lucrative acting roles and is the basis for his $50 million suit against Heard.

Amber Heard countersued her ex-husband, Johnny Depp, for defamation over statements Depp’s attorneys made about her abuse claims. During day 20 of the case, the direct examination of Heard began, in which she made claims that her op-ed piece was not the reason Depp had lost acting roles, rather other news outlets were also reporting on claims of his abuse.  Jeffrey Wolf weighs in on the approach of how the Jury could view this specific piece of information.

“Well, I think what she is trying to do, and she’s doing a pretty darn good job of it, is showing that the op-ed is not the cause of his problems… The fact that there was unflattering press coming out about him on the same day that the op-ed was posted makes it hard for the jury to know which of these two things caused what happened directly after that. Was it the unflattering article or it the op-ed that Amber Heard wrote.”

Law & Crime Trial Network has been following the case closely, and Denver criminal defense attorney, Jeffrey Wolf has been commentating throughout the entirety of the case.

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

Great Lawyer

I am very pleased with the outcome of my court case. Colleen Kelley kept me informed on the various process and was successful in removing my name from sex offender registry. I highly recommend Colleen Kelley if you need a lawyer.

— - Anonymous

My Experience with Wolf Law

I am nothing but pleased with the service, trustworthiness, advice, compassion, and hard work that Wolf Law has provided me with. My case lasted for about six months in 2019. I had charges regarding the developing laws concerning marijuana in Colorado. Originally I wasted four months with a lawyer who made the already stressful and unfortunate situation ever more challenging and miserable. It was a blessing to meet Jeff! He was able to reach a resolution with the Colorado Springs DA that would allow me to have a chance in the future. Every step of the way he was patient, present, persistent, and a pleasure to work with. I drove all the way from Colorado Springs to find a lawyer that would fight for justice to the best of their ability and Jeff Wolf was that person – a person who cares about his clients and their lives. He did his job without judgment and exuded understanding and encouragement throughout. It is difficult to find people who are willing to genuinely help others and keep them positive. My hope is that if you find yourself in a situation where you are seeking legal counsel, please give Jeff’s firm a call. I cannot thank him enough for his kindness and work through this difficult time.

— S.M.

Great Law Firm

Jeff Wolf and Cassandra Monahan were wonderful to work with. Very professional and thorough.

— Laura A.

I Was Very Well Represented by Jeff

Regarding a DV assault charge, Jeff was able to have the judge do something he stated he’d never done in any similar case: he deferred my sentence, reduced probation, reduced the amount of classes I would have to take from being many weeks on end to 2 days, and instead of requiring a no-contact order (which would have left me homeless and unable to speak to my partner via any means), he placed me on a no-contact order with alcohol… That alone was the best thing I could hear.

Without going into details of my case, this was the best possible outcome I could have been given, and I’m so happy that I was recommended to him by a fellow law professional that went to school with Jeff. I will be using him again when the time comes to put this case behind me for good, and would recommend him to anyone who needs expert defense, and wants someone to explain your case in simple, yet professional terms. I felt very well taken care of. Thank you again, Jeff!

— Laurie A.

Wolf Law is Well Worth the Investment

Thanks to Jeff Wolf I had the ideal outcome on my case, whereas without any representation it would’ve been a less than desirable outcome without me even fully knowing my options. He was extremely informative and thorough; it was clear that not only did he know what to do for every scenario but I was confident that he would make it happen, which he did. Very personable and easy to trust, I highly recommend Jeff and Wolf Law.

— Jeff H.

Responsive, Insightful, Professional and Compassionate

Jeff is not only great in the courtroom, but has a sense of caring and true passion for his profession. He takes the time to explain things with a productive attitude. I would highly recommend him and can’t thank him enough.

— Mike

Services with Jeff

Jeff accepted a traffic violation case with not a ton of time to prepare. He provided clear instructions on how to proceed with the initial hearing in order for this individual to receive an extension and time to gain attorney representation. From there, he continued take the extra steps necessary to not only communicate effectively and clearly but also provide a level of advocacy that was necessary for this vulnerable individual! Thanks Jeff — Your work, patience and understanding is greatly appreciated!

— Nicole Young

Jeff is a Powerhouse in the Courtroom

Jeff is truly an expert in his field. He is extremely knowledgeable and bright and it was clear throughout his management of my case that he is highly respected. He was very supportive of my desire to see my case through to trial, he was always empathetic, and he took the time to understand my personal and professional situation. He was determined to get me the best outcome with the least impact to my personal and professional life and he succeeded. We were dealing with a refusal and I have little doubt that I would not have had the same results with another attorney. Jeff is a powerhouse in the courtroom! I am beyond appreciative and would strongly recommend anyone facing challenging legal issues to seek out Jeff’s expertise.

— Jana S.

I Recommend Jeff Wolf to Anyone Needing Legal Defense

I retained the services of Jeff Wolf after I received a DUI. During the free consultation, Jeff reviewed his services and the details of what would happen before, during and after my trial. He was very thorough, supportive and diligent in ensuring all my questions were answered. I am thrilled with the level of service he provided for an extremely reasonable fee. Jeff was accessible and reassuring throughout this entire process. The end-result of my hearing was exactly what I had expected based on Jeff’s counseling. This is a direct result of his knowledge and experience with the court and the system. I was very impressed with his closing presentation in court and his professionalism and felt that the judge reduced my fines and my sentence because of Jeff’s efforts. I have already recommended him to two other people and will continue to recommend him to anyone requiring the services of a defense attorney.

— Monty

Outstanding Results

I have contracted Cassandra twice now and both times had outstanding results. In the first case she got the results I tried to obtain with ease. When I spoke on my own behalf to the district attorney they wouldn’t budge in any way. Once Cassandra was involved it was like watching a master at work. She stated the facts and provided evidence to back her argument in my situation and actually got better results then I initially wanted. Then in a second unexpected turn of events she yet again worked her magic. She remained real with me the entire time and explained the reality of the situation and prepared me for the worst while still working hard to achieve the best results and let me tell you she far beyond exceeded expectations. Her hard work and perseverance caused unheard of result and I couldn’t be more satisfied. Throughout the entire process she never misled me, always remained patient and understanding; she always listened and always made sure to go the extra mile to make sure things went as planned. I was never charged with surprise fees or felt taken advantage of financially in any way. What I paid for the service and commitment to my case is unheard of in this day and age. I would recommend Cassandra and Wolf Law to anyone I know who is having legal troubles. You will not be disappointed! Sincerely thank you again to Cassandra and Wolf Law for everything you have done.

— Ryan W.