Michel Bryant (00:05):
So a little background info there from the sergeant who is the cell phone expert. You heard the key word there, cell bright. I think it may be a hyphenated word so that when I hear that word, that phrase, I know it's time to chat a little bit about the case before they get into some of the crazy numbers. Joseph McBride is with me again. Good to see you again this week, sir. It's good

Joseph McBride (00:21):
To see you too.

Michel Bryant (00:22):
Criminal defense attorney Katie, Katherine Smith is here. How are you? Civil Rights advocate and criminal defense attorney. How are you?

Katherine Smith (00:29):
I'm well, thank you.

Michel Bryant (00:30):
Okay, so let's just talk about this kind of evidence in general. Katie, let me start with you. Important. Yes, but you really got to watch walking over the line of too much for the jury just to get bored. That's the word with all the numbers, right?

Katherine Smith (00:44):
It's true. I mean, it's so important and there is the importance. A lot of it is in the detail, so they do have to get into it into a level of depth, but it's always a challenge to do that in a way that's going to be memorable to both to the jury while still getting out what they need.

Michel Bryant (00:56):
So Joseph, what do you do when nobody knows a case better than the attorneys involved and sometimes to their detriment because you think this is important, they need to know every single thing. How do you gauge that yourself when you're the one in court putting on the case? How do you know enough is enough?

Joseph McBride (01:12):
So with regard to something like a cellebrite dump, you want to limit the scope of that as much as possible. A cellebrite dump, if done to the fullest extent, will essentially give the government full access into every click that you've ever made on your phone, your entire life, your brain, your soul is there. So it's interesting to find out what they're going to see on that because it's going to tell a lot about the person, the way he thinks, the way he works through his material, what he sees online. I would try to limit the scope of that to a specific amount of time and keep it very limited as possible.

Michel Bryant (01:44):
Okay. It's all about telling the story. You don't want to read somebody the phone book. Let's go back into court and see how they start telling that story with these numbers. I'm going to share my opinion then ask my guest opinion very quickly here. Katie Smith's here, Joseph McBride is here. I don't like this type of evidence per se, unless it is really backed up by the science that says there are flaws. You can't pinpoint exactly where somebody is. It depends on how many cell towers, what cross signal interference it might be, even what carrier it might be. Katie, what do you think about the credibility of this kind of evidence?

Katherine Smith (02:15):
I think it boils down to the experts you have analyzing that data, and they can also bring in lots of testimony that there is inherent unreliability. It's not like ADNA, which is on its face, reliable in their statistical probability. There is some level of interpretation,

Michel Bryant (02:30):
Joseph. That's my point, that it seems to have this shroud of credibility that, hey, this is good stuff. We can tell you exactly where you were. If there were cell phone towers every 10 feet, okay, then I'd buy it. But tell me if you have any concerns about this type of evidence.

Joseph McBride (02:43):
Of course, you have concerns when something comes across so damning from one side, it's incumbent upon the defense here to bring upon their experts and tear this information apart.

Michel Bryant (02:54):
I mean, obviously that's part of the game. I just think it rose so quickly to this level of DNA expertise that I think it's misleading to the jury. So we're going to take a quick break, come back to more of this cell phone data, which is of course used to put Mr. Seg at the scene of the crime or near it at the very least. Okay, now we're getting to it here. Let me ask my guest very quickly here, Joseph, lemme start with you when you're hearing words like approximately, and we expect that all I'm missing is the please. We hope we're right. I mean, it just seems like a little too much wiggle language to me

Joseph McBride (03:23):
Agreed upon cross-examination. First question out of my mouth. Isn't it true that you cannot say with the scientific certainty that he was in place X at this time?

Michel Bryant (03:32):
Yeah, and Katie, you do civil rights work. Does this bother you at all? This inability to kind of hide as it were?

Katherine Smith (03:40):
It is so ambiguous and what we were talking about in our last talk here, that if they oversell it, it has this ring of it being more true than it should be. At least here. They're being honest.

Michel Bryant (03:51):
They're watering it down a little bit. Yeah. Okay. Let's go back in. Okay, so get your map out here. We're going to give you a sense of, I think, where these calls originated, the texts, where they went, why they went where they did. Again, this is the cop who is an expert on cell phones, and in this case we're talking about texts that originated on November 16th, three of them, 7:44, 7:46, 7:47 in the morning from apparently the defendant, Henry Segura to his wife. However, they have a signature stamped on them that is allegedly from Brandy Peters, queen Bee, the girlfriend. So Joseph McBride. Let's try and untangle this little web here. If they're forwarded from the victim to the wife by the defendant, what's his purpose? What's going on here?

Joseph McBride (04:37):
It certainly calls for speculation.

Michel Bryant (04:39):
Yeah, I didn't hear that objection. No

Joseph McBride (04:42):
One would think that. As we were discussing before, kind of off the record here, that it's out of the bag at this point, that the jail is being threatened and he's letting her know in good faith, you could also think that the girlfriend could have grabbed his phone and could have sent a message somehow as well. It's tough. It's tough to kind of call what happened here.

Michel Bryant (05:04):
Quick procedural question, Katie. Why not object? When the expert is asked, why do you think it would have been signature identified as the victim,

Katherine Smith (05:14):
You could object, but then you always run that risk of calling attention to something that you want just to slide under the boring malaise of all this technical stuff. So if they feel that that's something that's a little vulnerable, maybe they're just trying to be quiet it down.

Michel Bryant (05:26):
Yeah, we're still going to have to figure out exactly who's talking to whom here, because it's critical to put Mr. Segura in the place where these crimes took place. But it's also important to lay the foundation for why he would've been there, what sort of motivation was involved. Let's take a quick break. We'll come back more on the cell phone issue and we will discuss. This is the long crime network.