Inside the Unite the Right Trial

In the first episode of season two, Infinite Global Head Writer Andrew Longstreth and M Coffey founder Murray Coffey speak with Michael L. Bloch and Benjamin D. White about their role taking on the white supremacists who organized the Unite the Right Rally in Charlottesville in 2017. The $26 million verdict they helped win for victims of the violence made national headlines and sent a powerful message to the defendants and their allies. 

The trial featured a devastating cross examination by Bloch of Richard Spencer, the leader of the alt right. In the episode Bloch discusses how he prepared for it, the story he wanted to tell and some of the key strategic decisions he made. 

The two co-founders of the litigation boutique Bloch & White, now two years old, also talk about what’s next on their docket. 

Thank you for listening! To learn more, visit Infinite Global and M Coffey.

Transcript

(00:03) In the fall of 2021, attorney Michael Block came face to face in a federal courtroom with Richard Spencer, the self -proclaimed leader of the alt -right. Spencer was the headline defendant in a civil lawsuit against organizers of the 2017 Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, where white supremacists marched on the University of Virginia's campus with tiki torches, shouting, Jews will not replace us in other racist chants.

(00:27) The two -day rally turned violent when James Fields Jr. drove his car through a crowd killing 32 -year -old Heather Heyer and injuring other peaceful protesters. From the beginning of the case, it was clear Spencer's testimony was going to be crucial.

(00:46) Block then, with Kaplan -Hecker, represented victims of the violence who sought to hold the organizers accountable. Because Spencer had represented himself from the start of the case, Block had plenty of interactions with Spencer, described by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a, quote, suit -and -tie version of the white supremacists of old, a kind of professional racist in khakis, unquote.

(01:11) Block had gotten to understand that the public Spencer, who held degrees from Duke and Chicago University and who described his views as merely controversial, was very different from the private Spencer, who regularly made disparaging and repugnant remarks about minorities, religious and ethnic groups.

(01:28) Exposing that rift was part of an effort to show that Spencer and his co -defendants not only conspired in planning the rally, they knew it would descend into violence and celebrated when it did. Block, a former public defender with loads of trial experience, had a voluminous amount of discovery to tell that story during his cross -examination of Spencer.

(01:54)

Perhaps no other piece of evidence worked more powerfully than a secretly repugnant Bloch recorded video of an angry Spencer spewing vile epithets and a tirade just hours after the Unite the Right rally and promising to return to Charlottesville.

(02:13)

In a dramatic moment, Bloch quoted Spencer's words back to him. Isn't it true, Mr. Spencer? said Bloch, that those are your sincerely held beliefs? Near the end of the long cross, the damage had been done.

(02:28)

Despite his attempts to downplay his own words, Spencer had nowhere to hide. Because Bloch felt he had made his points to the jury, he ended his examination in a way he often doesn't. He let Spencer deny what he meant when he told an interviewer that the Unite the Right rally was, quote, amazing.

(02:47)

Bloch, isn't it true, Mr. Spencer, that the reason why you thought Charlottesville was amazing is because you accomplished exactly what you set out to do. Spencer, absolutely not. Bloch. I have nothing further, Judge.

(03:02)

Ultimately, a jury awarded the plaintiffs more than $25 million in damages for their emotional and physical injuries, sending one of the most powerful messages ever to white nationalists that they could be held accountable for their actions.

(03:19)

Well, welcome to season two of Reexamination. This is a podcast that features the best storytellers in the legal sector, sharing how they use their skills to deliver historic results. As always, this is a joint production of Infinite Global and Mcoffee.

(03:38)

My name is Murray Coffey. I am the principal of Mcoffee, a consultancy that helps professional services organizations optimize their marketing resources, align with the marketplace, and engage in smart sustainable growth.

(03:53)

We are, as always, joined by my friend and co -host, Andrew Longstreth, head writer for Infinite Global, an elite media consulting group focusing on crisis, media relations, and reputation management.

(04:08)

Andrew himself is a sought -after communications consultant who helps organizations gain clarity about who they are and how they need to craft their story to drive engagement and growth. Andrew, hello, and welcome to season two, man.

(04:22)

We made it. Yeah, we made it, Murray, absolutely. Very excited to be back and very excited to start this season off with, I think, a real bang. This Unite the Right case is just so important. I think it's going to be studied for a long time.

(04:40)

It would be trial lawyers. I think it's going to be studied by historians. What does this say about our country? It's also going to be studied as an example of just the power of lawyers and the power of storytelling.

(04:59)

Michael Block and Ben White, they started their own litigation boutique two years ago after being at Kaplan Fink and Heckler. Their firm is just super dynamic. We're at Infinite Global very excited to work with them.

(05:15)

They're just do interesting work and work that really matters and of course, they got a great story to tell on their involvement in Unite the Right case which was very well told by the HBO documentary, no accident but there's just so much more to learn about this case.

(05:39)

Yeah, absolutely and we'll drop a link to the documentary into the show notes. So, if you're interested, please check it out. It's 90 minutes and it does a great summary but to be honest. uh, this particular conversation goes deep into how a top tier advocate prepares for a, uh, case in which just about every witness is going to be hostile in some way, shape or form.

(06:18)

And that to me is, is where you, where you kind of separate the, the litigators from the trial attorneys. This is a, this is a, this is some, some real schooling. So for any of our younger lawyers out there or trial lawyers who are listening, um, uh, this is a, uh, this is really in many ways, uh, a masterclass in, in, in, in examining witnesses, especially those who are hostile.

(06:44)

So I look forward to jumping in. So gentlemen, welcome to the podcast. Thanks. I'm glad to be here. Yeah. Thanks, Adrian. You all have your own firm. You kind of look like you're the same age. I have this idea in my head that you were like, you guys have known each other since you were little kids, but how did, how did you first meet and get involved in that?

(07:05)

You like the right case. Let me just say you absolutely made my day with that question, Andrew. Go ahead, Ben. Yeah, Andrew, I hate to start off the show by, by having to seriously correct the record and make it very clear that I am, I believe 11 or 12 years of Mike's junior.

(07:25)

Um, I don't know if we'll take it as a, as a compliment to Mike or as a hit to me, but, um, Mike and I, um, we met, you know, obviously we, we have a great, you know, both working in personal relationship and it sounds as if we've known each other forever.

(07:39)

And it, it kind of feels like that at this point, but we first met, I believe on Mike's first day at Kaplan Hecker and think a lot from, we were both at before launch it walking away. Um, we've worked there together for about three years, up until 2022 when we launched the firm.

(07:57)

And so the relationship goes back now about, you know, five years or so, but throughout our time at Kaplan -Hecker, and obviously now a block in light, we've had a chance to work together kind of very closely and intimately.

(08:08)

And so I've built, you know, both a strong, obviously working relationship and a relationship outside that. It's just been, it's been a great second marriage as I like to describe it. Starting a new firm together, obviously you have to like share a lot of things in common, right?

(08:23)

You have to share some kind of vision, right? Can you all talk about that? Like, how would you describe your approach to practicing the law? Are there, I guess, models, either law firms or lawyers that you both have talked to about, you're like, yes, that's, that's who I want to be.

(08:41)

That's the firm or this is the kind of thing I want to do. Yeah, I think we share both a vision for kind of the kind of law that we want to practice. as well as a style for the types of litigators that we want to be, and as well as a very strong personal friendship, all of which makes for just a very fulfilling and rewarding legal practice, but also I think a successful one.

(09:15)

And I think Ben and I really overlap in terms of wanting to use the law in a way that is meaningful to us and impactful to society. I personally feel like I just don't really do good work unless I'm really invested in the client and the cause.

(09:38)

And so we wanted to start a firm that uses our skill and experience as litigators to improve society in some way because that's the kind of work that we love doing and that inspires us. And I think as litigators, we also share a style.

(09:56)

I mean, I think we both consider ourselves both careful and aggressive as well as client -centered. And so both very passionate about advocating as zealously as you possibly can for whatever your client wants to achieve and hopefully in the process also impact others to the extent you can with any given case.

(10:26)

You know, Michael, when you joined Robbie Kaplan's firm, you moved to the other side of the V, as they say. And tell us what that was like after being – you kind of jumped the shark, if you will. Yeah, thanks.

(10:44)

I would just make one point of clarification, which is that as to moving to the other side of the V, as you point out, I was a defense attorney for – for a very long time and moved over to what I do now, which I still do a lot of criminal defense, but also do plaintiff's side civil rights work.

(11:04)

I just want to make clear that I am on the plaintiff's side of the V. I would never be on the prosecution side of the V, but I know Murray, you were not insinuating that as a former public defender. No, absolutely not.

(11:18)

When I interviewed with Robbie, Robbie said, we want you to try the Charlottesville case. And they were looking for somebody with significant trial experience. And so I felt compelled to say to her that I do have criminal trial experience, but I don't have civil trial experience.

(11:35)

And I just feel like you need to know that. And Robbie said very confidently, don't worry about it. I'm sure it's basically the same. And I think it turned out, I think it turns out to be basically true from a technical standpoint.

(11:49)

I think if you have experienced trying cases. The skills that you develop as a trial attorney translate very well to either side, I think, of the V, particularly when it comes to advocating through storytelling and figuring out how to persuade a fact -finder, a jury, a judge, through the skills available to us as litigators.

(12:15)

So as a technical matter, I think the transition is not particularly difficult. As you and I know, indigent defense work lays bare savage inequities in the system. I have a lot, I'm sure you and I can go have a drink and we could spend hours talking about our observations, but what was your strongest takeaway from your years in doing indigent defense?

(12:42)

Yeah, I think, and I'm sure you can appreciate this, Murray, I think I would quote, I believe it's Bryan Stevenson, that one of the things you learn deeply is that each of us is more than the worst thing they've ever done.

(12:57)

And I think when you spend, I was in the public defender's office for seven years, and, you know, unlike police and prosecutors who bring charges based on what somebody says happened or whatever evidence they find, we usually enter a case by sitting down with and meeting the person accused.

(13:21)

And you instantly see people's humanity, you see somebody who is in a usually the worst situation of their life, they are scared, they are thinking about their freedom and their families and their jobs, and they need help.

(13:38)

And so you just, I think, really learn about the the in a very deep way about the humanity of the people that are unfortunately charged with crimes. I think that also breeds a pretty strong distrust for police and prosecutors, but getting to know and connect with and fight with clients is both the greatest, I would say, privilege I got as a public defender, as well as the best kind of experience for moving forward in my career to sort of learn how to really convey, to convey to juries in whatever area you're working, the humanity of the person or the cause that you are fighting for.

(14:32)

So let's dive into the unite the right case. In terms of cases that you've handled over time, how different was this than others that you had that you had worked and done? Well, I would say, for me, this is Mike.

(14:54)

Certainly, the first and only case where I've ever been called a lying Jew during a deposition. It was different on kind of every level that you could imagine. For one, the evidentiary and discovery issues that arose were particularly challenging and novel, in part because we had so much social media evidence, in part because we were dealing with adversaries that had so little regard for the rules of evidence and court orders.

(15:28)

So we spent three solid years in discovery chasing down social media data and data from phones that had been thrown in the toilet and so it really caused us to use all the tools available to us as civil litigators to uncover evidence as well as to get sanctions and remedies where we weren't able to.

(15:49)

I would also say the security aspect of the case made it different from many of the cases I've worked on in terms of Robby in particular was constantly the subject of ongoing threats and chatter from either folks on the other side of the case or their followers.

(16:11)

I mean, many of the litigators on our side of the V were progressive or liberal, many were Jewish and we were taking on Nazis and white supremacists and so there was a kind of very personal component to the case for a lot of us as well as I think it fueled a lot of the animosity that came from the other side.

(16:38)

So I could go on about the ways in which the case was different. I would just note that in one way it was very similar to other cases. I've worked on, which is that we all came together as a team to, you know, sort of put our heads down and power through, sort of try to channel out the noise, focus on the case and we're able to be successful.

(17:11)

And then you worked on some of those discovery issues that were quite novel, right? I mean, that must have been something that some of those issues you hadn't seen before I take it. Yeah. I mean, I think that's right.

(17:21)

It's issues that you either hadn't seen before or kind of propped up in new ways that were at the intersection of advances in technology, free speech issues, but just kind of clouded at least the defendant's approach to anything we tried to do in the case.

(17:39)

And so, you know, I guess it's somewhat of new discovery issues, but overlaid under all the traditional discovery rules and processes and that was kind of the difficult path is dealing with discovery rules in a case that involves kind of deep hidden 21st century technologies that weren't designed to comply with, you know, how we traditionally thought about turning over pieces of paper and calendars to the others.

(18:07)

You know, one thing I'd add to the question of, you know, what made this case different, obviously, rather everything Mike said, I'd also add, this didn't particularly make the case different, but it made it special in the way that it really involved the absolute heroism of the plaintiffs.

(18:25)

Often there are cases that are brought for bigger missions than just whatever the ultimate recovery might be, but this case involved particularly traumatic litigation over a number of years going up against the very individuals who had attacked them, who were acting pro se and who were going to question them at open court.

(18:43)

Also, these are individuals who did seem to be particularly wealthy, who probably were not going to be able to make the plaintiffs rich. So it required a group of people who were focused solely on vindicating the interests of people like them who want to engage in the public sphere in ways that are safe and meaningful.

(19:06)

And that had to go throughout the entirety of the case. I mean, they spent four years living and breathing it and ultimately testified at trial, facing really harsh and just horrific questions from these guys.

(19:17)

And that takes a special breed of person to be able to do that. It really does. I don't think, you know, we all think we would act heroic when the time comes. I don't think I can do what these players did.

(19:27)

Yeah, you know, for sure. And at the same time, I think one of the underappreciated things that you all do is gaining that trust. You talked about this, Michael, in your job as a defender, but that connection obviously is just crucial, you know, to telling that story.

(19:44)

Let me just ask about something that Robbie said in the documentary. You know, she said, you know, if you can't succinctly say, you know, what your case is about either not a good lawyer or you don't have a good case.

(19:56)

One of your colleagues I believe in the case said this case is about the planning, execution, and celebration of racially motivated violence. To me, it struck me as a very good, simple, accurate explanation.

(20:15)

But I'm just kind of curious about how the process of getting to that understanding looks like. Is that something that from day one, it's like, oh yeah, that's it. Or does it kind of, do you need to sort of see some pieces come together?

(20:28)

And then you're just kind of chiseling away and trying to create this simple, easy to understand statement about what is this case about in one sentence? Yeah, I mean, I do think that's a really good sentence that encapsulates it.

(20:43)

And I, as usual, wholeheartedly agree with Ravi about how important that is. You know, I think To be able to generate and convey a theory of your case is one of the most important components to winning trials.

(21:02)

And I think in a lot of ways, it is a work in progress from the beginning all the way up through trial is developing a powerful, easy to follow, easy to understand theory that incorporates the facts that are coming in, the law that applies, and the emotional component that you're hoping will kind of grab the jury and pull them to your side.

(21:28)

And we work a lot in trying to develop a theory that is really is grounded in the facts of the case that are coming out at trial. And that is a very involved process. And it's an iterative process as you go through discovery.

(21:45)

And you're learning more about the case. And there's some twists and turns. And so you have to incorporate that into your theory. So that is a critical part of the case. I think it's a very involved process.

(21:57)

But I also think there are some cases that as you sort of pan out can be described very simply. And I think there's a lot of complexity to what happened in Charlottesville. But at its core, the defendants conspired over the course of months to commit racially motivated violence on August 11th and 12th in Charlottesville.

(22:27)

And that's what they did. And so in some ways, I think that encapsulates the whole thing. And you spend a lot of time kind of filling that out. Yeah, I would imagine it's just tough to be disciplined and just continue to aim for that simplicity when you've got so many facts coming in, right?

(22:46)

And you fall in love with evidence. And you go down rabbit holes, there just seems so much temptation to make it more complicated than it actually is. A hundred percent. I think you also have to be mindful that there are human beings, i .e.

(23:02)

jurors that are listening to this that have other lives and other concerns and don't necessarily want to sit for four weeks to listen to the evidence and you have to find a way to make it palatable and digestible for them and compelling.

(23:18)

And so you do, and particularly in a case like this, we have millions of pages of documents and you do have to figure out how to sort of pare it down to the most critical elements. I would just note to that, the documentary filmmakers, which also are artists and storytellers and advocates in their own way, are really faced with the same task because they had four years worth of footage and transcripts and etc., and they have to figure out how to pare it down to 90 minutes or so.

(23:50)

I think they did a brilliant job with that as well. Andrew, I think your point also, I think, highlights for me the significance of having a really great team around you. Yeah. Because Mike and I both share this approach.

(24:04)

The way to make sense of complicated facts and complicated law and figure out how to present it is to just kick it around the team and brainstorm and chat it out and talk it through and see what makes sense.

(24:15)

One thing Mike knows I'm not shy about is let's try it. Let's say something stupid. Tell me it's stupid. And we'll figure it out and figure out a way to make it sound smart. And the best way to do that is to be surrounded by a team of people that you trust because it takes a level of vulnerability and a level of trust in your teammates to be able to do that.

(24:33)

And that, I view, to be one of the most important things in the trial team. We've done a number of these. And we've talked to some phenomenal lawyers and advocates, yourselves included. And we were lucky enough to talk to former prosecutor Michael, but former prosecutor Tony Velocas, who was a former US attorney.

(24:56)

And we were specifically talking about his role as the examiner in the Lehman Brothers Holdings bankruptcy and kind of the job they were given. And he talked a lot about how that team of lawyers, and he had about 100 lawyers on this.

(25:15)

He talked about how that team, from the saltiest, most knowledgeable people like Tony all the way to the greenest associates, felt the gravity of what they were doing. And he had to manage that. And without a doubt, Charlottesville had so many layers of tragedy and weight upon it.

(25:39)

Tell us about, both of you, tell us about working through a case with the level of gravity that this one has. I'm glad. you ask that, that is certainly a component of litigating a case like this, is being mindful of the emotional impact that it has on everybody involved, including our clients.

(26:02)

And Ben touched on this earlier, I mean, they had to spend four years reliving the trauma that they suffered on August 11th and 12th, and then be prepared to confront the actual people that attacked them in court.

(26:16)

So part of client -centered advocacy is also trauma -informed advocacy and trying to prepare clients without re -traumatizing them and being sensitive to what they're going through. But the same is true for, as you mentioned, Murray, the lawyers and staff that are involved in the case.

(26:40)

We had a team of, I don't know, maybe 25 lawyers and staff by the time we got down to Charlotte Charlottesville, all of whom were, you know... in the trenches fighting with us and it's really important to take time to check in with your colleagues and step back from time to time and understand that this is you know this can impact us as well and that's why it was incredibly helpful and we were we were really blessed to have teammates that we cared about that that were thoughtful of all those issues as well and I think you're absolutely right it's a component of cases like this that you have to be mindful about and manage.

(27:25)

You know obviously the the Spencer examination we can talk about whether we we should call it a direct examination or a cross examination because it's kind of interesting right but it became pretty clear that that examination was going to be crucial to the case.

(27:45)

Yeah he was really the inspirational leader of the alt -right kind of self -described as well as actually the leader and so you know he he was one of the people that that really actually did motivate the defendants and others at Charlottesville to do what they did and he was also someone that jurors were going to look to as a key player in all of this so I yeah I think it was very clear from the beginning that he was going to be a key if not the key defendant at trial even though he wasn't the one that conceived of Charlottesville from the beginning.

(28:37)

And just just explain that real quick. Yeah I'm glad you mentioned that yeah so because we were plaintiffs we called him as our witness and so technically the examination was a direct examination, although in the federal rules, when you call an adverse party, you can treat them as hostile, which impacts the way in which you're allowed to examine them.

(29:01)

You're allowed to examine them as if it's a cross examination. You can ask leading questions, for example. And so everything about the cross itself I approached from a technical standpoint as a cross examination, in terms of the form of the questions, in terms of the style of questions.

(29:20)

And so I think of it very much as a cross, and I prepared it as a cross. But technically, since he was our witness, it was a direct. Andrew, one thing I'd add on the centrality of Spencer to the trial is it was really of his own making in another sense, which is, you know, I'm sure we're going to talk a bit about the famous tantrum that he went on during the weekend at issue.

(29:43)

And that is just, you know, if you listen to it, a remarkable piece of evidence. I have this realization. The last time I watched the documentary and maybe the 100th time listens to this, just horrible rans.

(29:55)

And it occurred to me that if you were us on the plaintiff's side and you were to write down a speech that we could use most powerfully to prove up each of the elements of our claim, it would be pretty darn close to what Richard Spencer actually said.

(30:09)

So it just attracts the theory of the case in such a clean way that, you know, and I will get to this. I mean, Richard Spencer played the tape himself for the jury, I think, because he knew how bad it was, and it was so central to the case.

(30:25)

I mean, it just, it lined up all of the elements of what we needed to prove. And so once that tape was out there, it became, I think, inevitable that it would be a, if not the key piece of evidence to use against him.

(30:37)

You're right. I mean, kind of all roads of the theory of the case sort of go into and spring out of that tantrum. It just sort of bubbled everything down. But what would the case have been like without the tantrum?

(30:51)

I mean, one of the first things I do in any case is start preparing a cross of the lead witness as well as, frankly, a closing argument. And so I, I mean, as Ben said, that rant was critical. But I think it was most critical in that, in that it made kind of everything that we were saying about Richard Spencer very visceral.

(31:15)

You know, my approach to the cross was kind of from the beginning to expose to the jury that there was a private side and a public side of Richard Spencer, and that there were things that he would say privately that he wouldn't say publicly, and that he was very focused on his image and kind of presenting himself as a very polished version of what, of what I think was very different behind closed doors.

(31:46)

And so I think that. theme was going to be a theme at trial and of the cross of Spencer, although there is nothing that I think portrays that better than that rant and so and so it became obviously hugely impactful.

(32:08)

I think mostly because it just it just makes it absolutely clear that that entire theme of kind of this is who he is behind closed doors. You were prepared to Go without it though. Obviously, I mean before driving that's it added immensely to the case But it sounds like your preparation was not dependent upon it.

(32:30)

I think that's right I mean, you know, it can't it it came out. I forget exactly when I mean, but we were at least probably a year into the case Before that rant came out and I do think it came out before I took his deposition So it's certainly added some clarity to what we were trying to present, but mainly because it was really right in line with what we kind of thought we were going to, the way in which we were gonna try to portray Spencer before that.

(33:05)

The rant. So somebody recorded that. And he was ranting in an environment in which he felt comfortable to rant. So there must have been insiders or people who were in the inner circles, who were in that room and close enough to get a really crisp recording.

(33:28)

Were they trying to like, torpedo him? Because in those organizations, they're always, they eat their young, right? They, you know, Spencer's, he's not hardcore enough or whatever, so we get rid of him.

(33:42)

With that, part of what was going on there, or did somebody see the light? Right, it's a great question. So I know that we had, and Ben has a really interesting follow -up story to all of this, which he should tell you.

(33:57)

So I know we had the rant from two separate sources, and I frankly don't remember at this point who had the clearer one. One of the sources was a reporter who happened to be in the house and just was recording it from the room next door.

(34:15)

Yeah, which, and I wanted to have two copies of it. I mean, I wanted as many copies as I could because I was preparing for the possibility that he would deny that he said it or deny that it was him. So we had from a reporter, we also, the first source, and I don't know who the original person is that recorded it, but they somehow, Milo Yiannopoulos got his hands on it.

(34:40)

Oh, really? He had a real beef with Richard Spencer and he leaked it. And that's how we ultimately got it, which set off. basically a round of litigation. We then issued a subpoena to Milo Yiannopoulos, which Ben can tell you more about, because Ben litigated that in the Southern District.

(34:58)

Yeah, that was a fun one. Milo at first, I think before I got involved, had a couple meetings with Mike where he pretended to be friendly and he said, I want to help you guys out. I've got all this evidence.

(35:09)

He held up on his podcast, I think, where he played the rant, right? He pulled out some thing that looked like a hard drive. I think I've got all these evidence against these guys and then wanted to give it to us.

(35:20)

And then I think got cold feet, clammed up, said he was lying to us and said, I've got nothing, go pound Sam. And so we held to it. We filed a suit, a separate suit in the Southern District of New York, trying to enforce the subpoena on the grounds that he has admitted that he possesses stuff that's responsive to our case.

(35:37)

And it put Milo in this really odd position where he, in order to defend his refusal to comply with the subpoena, was to admit to the court that he lied to us. And then he was just joking, not joking.

(35:51)

His story was, he told us that he had stuff because he wanted to gain access and insight from Mike. And so he effectively was lying to get his way in the door and learn as much as he could about the case.

(36:03)

And the way to get in the door was to claim you had all this evidence that the day before. It didn't get it very far because one that just obviously wasn't true. He clearly had more information than he was claiming.

(36:12)

And his lies were just so consistent and pretty compelling. So we had, we got in front of Goodfela in front of, in the Southern District. She had about a two hour hearing where she put him under a, and just brilled him about who his source was, what information does he have, he kept to his position.

(36:32)

She ultimately granted in our favor and issued a ruling saying that he has to disclose who the source was of the material that he at least claimed gave him the rant. And so that, that was a nice little side fight.

(36:48)

We didn't ultimately end up getting any new information. I guess he claims to the end, even after the court ordered him to disclose his source, that the hard drive was just bullshit and it didn't have any evidence on it.

(37:01)

We had what we needed at that point, but it was an interesting fight. Milo was lying to his listeners, I find that. Oh, no, Jen, and he didn't lie at all to Judge Vela. He didn't commit any perjury, none.

(37:16)

Oh, that's great. The examination of Spencer, it was incredibly efficient and highly effective. You didn't waste time, you didn't waste energy, you didn't go down rabbit holes, as much as he was trying to get you to go down rabbit holes, right?

(37:33)

I mean, some of those responses were amazing. Although he did kind of seem at some point to give up the struggle at a certain point. But what would you say to young lawyers, law students, people who are trying to develop...

(37:49)

develop their cross -examination chops, because doing this is not natural. Cross -examination is a hard thing to do, and it's how the defense counsel always were able to distinguish themselves in terms of their courtroom capabilities, because a good defense lawyer is a good cross -examiner.

(38:14)

So a trial advocacy class could be taught on the back of this case. I'll let Mike answer, but I will just start by saying they should read Mike's cross or Richard Spencer at the Charles Mills trial. Thanks, guys.

(38:31)

I appreciate all that. Yeah, I mean, so there's a lot there, Murray. And I agree with everything that she said. So I spent, I mean, the first thing that I think is really important to emphasize is you're right.

(38:46)

It's hard. It takes hard work. And it doesn't necessarily come naturally. So I think people have this sort of misconception that in order to be a quote unquote good trial lawyer, you have to be able to think quickly on your feet and just that kind of the good trial lawyers can just get up there and start crossing people.

(39:09)

And I don't think that's really true for anybody. I mean, I think people who are great cross examiners become great cross examiners by cross examining a lot of people over the course of their career.

(39:24)

And frankly, and this is absolutely true in my case, by screwing up a lot. I mean, I think you start to learn how to become, as you put it, an efficient questioner by asking a lot of bad questions early in my career where that totally blew up in my face.

(39:40)

And so you start to learn, you start to get a feel for what's the kind of bad question not to ask, or what's the one question too many. But it really takes, I mean, it takes a lot of experience crossing, which I say hopefully as an encouraging thing to young lawyers that there are great programs out there.

(40:06)

Like I teach, for example, at the National Criminal Defense College, which I would recommend to anybody as a great program where you get up. And there are cross examination workshops where you just get up on your feet and start asking questions.

(40:18)

And you don't have to be a kind of natural trial lawyer to become a great trial lawyer. It just takes experience. And there's a lot of methods to learn that can be taught by other great lawyers. When I was reading the transcript, Michael, it kind of struck me as like, you were very patient and you were comfortable with other people being a little bit uncomfortable, right?

(40:41)

You got into Richard's skin, you have kind of an equanimity there, right? There's got to be some emotional regulation. you know, that you have to get used to like, okay, I'm, I'm making some people uncomfortable, but I, I'm in control here.

(40:55)

I'm focused. I know what I want to do here. Yeah, thanks. I would say a few things to that. Number one, and this goes to what I was saying before to Murray, there's obviously a huge amount of preparation that goes into it.

(41:09)

And, you know, we had a huge team of people that read or listened to just about everything Richard Spencer had ever said. And I had deposed him for nine hours. And, you know, I spoke to him a lot because he was representing himself.

(41:27)

And so I would speak to him outside of the deposition context, for example. And so, you know, I had a lot of preparation going in, I knew the story that I wanted to tell, I knew what I wanted to get out of him.

(41:42)

And, you know, all of that is Very very helpful in terms of staying focused and not going down the rabbit holes and not you know Not kind of getting taken the bait that you know that he would sort of dangle from time to time and the other thing I would say is that as As Murray knows well, you know when you are cross -examining You are telling the story you are You know in effect Testifying and the witnesses and if you're doing it, right The witness is there to kind of affirm the things that you're saying and that's what makes it more of a cross than a direct and So, you know, I spent a lot of time thinking about what is the story that I wanted to tell and also how I wanted To structure the s

tory.

(42:34)

I knew there were things that for example Richard Spencer would be very happy to admit and I actually started the cross with Very I think Favorable things about him that he was well educated that he was motivational and I think I mean at one point he actually said Thank you Yeah, and you know, he was he was sort of very happy to start where I started which is you are a really well educated educated charismatic powerful speaker and obviously I was using that to kind of build up the fact that he was a he was something someone that people were going to listen to and so when it came time to Motivate the people at Charlottesville.

(43:20)

He had a huge following of people that were ready and willing to listen to him But that was a choice that I made to structure the cross starting with that knowing that he would be More than happy to go along with it before we got into some of the more challenging questions for him That you know, I had a lot of preparation to think through I just love the way you ended the cross when you said You know, isn't it true?

(43:43)

Mr. Spencer the reason why you said Charlotte's? bill was amazing was that you accomplished exactly what you set out to do and of course he denied it and no further questions, Judge. I really appreciate that I forgot this until you mentioned that I and Murray, you may be familiar with this, I typically don't like to end across on a denial.

(44:11)

And why? Just because it leaves a wrong. The last thing they hear. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. It's the last thing they hear. It's sort of, I think it kind of costs you a little bit of credibility because it's like you say this thing, it's like, you know, you set out to do this, right?

(44:32)

Mr. Spencer. And he's like, no, I didn't. And then you're like, she said, I'm going to sit down. I mean, it just feels like it typically falls flat and kind of looks weak. I think. But I was actually very intentional about it in this case because Because my theme with him was you will say, you know, and I was just trying to hammer this theme is that you will say things publicly that are not true or you have a different persona and you will say what you say privately is what you mean and what you say publicly is basically not true, I sort of very intentionally built up to, I was trying to sort of create the impression, I was hoping that by that point the jury felt like basically whatever this

guy says in public is the opposite of what he really means.

(45:18)

And so that's sort of what I was, I kind of was very intentional about it, I know he's going to deny this and I kind of want him to deny this because I want by this point the cross for the jury to feel like everything that dude says is true is false.

(45:32)

In watching the documentary it was clear that the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs counsel paralegals everybody was focused on trying to get some measure of justice here and to kind of expose this for what it was.

(45:52)

The tantrum is maybe the center of gravity around that, right? And then hopefully that would help this whatever was emerging recede, this ugliness that was emerging recede. And a couple of people I think said it in that fashion.

(46:13)

But I think we're still seeing a rise in racist violence, rhetoric, anti -Semitism is at all time highs in this country for lots of reasons but none of them good of course. And we're even seeing candidates from some of our major parties signaling racist leanings in not so subtle ways, things that they would never have been able to say 10, 15 years ago at least in the country I grew up in.

(46:45)

What did both of you learn about how we actually might get past this as a country? You're right. The Charlottesville litigation did not eradicate racism, and it certainly didn't, it didn't tie the stem of what seems to be an escalating real problem in the country.

(47:03)

But one thing it did do, and I think we could do more of, is at least shine the light on the actual human beings that are out there, not just parroting what is hateful rhetoric, but leading the charge in kind of condoning it and trying to regularize it, and force them under oath to be clear about what they actually believe.

(47:22)

And I think the tools of civil litigation, while lead to a slow result, and often can be an unsatisfying outcome, they at least force people to the table, they at least force them to come out from where they're hiding and say what they want to say and say publicly.

(47:38)

The hope is that at least some of it won't be defensible. I mean, even the defendants in our case didn't stand behind all the things that they said. In fact, and this was a key feature of the documentary, is they try to cast off most of what they were saying as jokes and not even real.

(47:56)

Well, underlying that is a recognition on their part that you still can't publicly adhere to what they were saying. You have to at least claim it was a joke. Now, we claim that was bogus. It wasn't a joke.

(48:08)

It was what they actually believed. But there's power in my view and at least getting them to forcefully and publicly recognize that there are still certain things that you can't say, certain things that should be unacceptable in a modern society.

(48:20)

And while that line is certainly being pushed and there are politicians saying worse and worse things every day, politicians, leaders, figures, kind of everywhere saying things we couldn't imagine they would be allowed to say publicly just 10 years ago, the hope is that at least forcing them to acknowledge the ramifications of the rhetoric might ultimately lead to a pushback where we could say enough is enough.

(48:44)

Yeah, I would say in response to one of the things you said, Murray, in terms of what I learned from Charlottesville, that one of the most dangerous things that I think we learned about throughout this whole litigation is that there's a lot of talk of white replacement theory throughout the case, which is the idea that white supremacists believe in that white people are being demographically replaced by people of color over time and the defendants and white supremacists generally really think of that theory, which is a bogus conspiracy theory as a call to violence.

(49:28)

And a lot of times the defendants in our case justify the use of violence against Jews and people of color as really an act of self defense for their race against the so -called replacement of their race.

(49:47)

And so white replacement theory is an incredibly dangerous call to violence. It's not just a kind of, you know, intellectual concept. And so I think when you see that concept getting mainstream attention and being advocated by mainstream leaders and politicians, that really is an incredibly dangerous call to violence that somewhere, someone is, you know, sitting in their basement thinking that they are truly being called upon to act on it.

(50:25)

And the more that that is mainstreamed, the more you're going to see Charlottesville -type attacks. I mean, as we've seen many times since Charlottesville. On the flip side, the main takeaway that I have from this case in terms of what people can do is to be more like our clients.

(50:49)

And, you know, our clients went out on August 11th and 12th because they heard that white supremacists were coming to town. And they nonetheless went out, they peacefully protested, they brought signs, they brought peaceful chants and songs.

(51:06)

And they stood up and they made clear to, you know, to the defendants and all of those that came to Charlottesville on the white supremacist side that hate has no place in Charlottesville. And that is a way to at least challenge the kind of mainstreaming of these violent, hateful ideas.

(51:32)

And then when they were harmed, they stood up for the next four years in our case to continue to fight back and ultimately got, I think the verdict that we got was a really resounding message from the community that, you know, that you can't do this and you can't do what the defendants did in our case.

(51:51)

And I think that's meaningful. And so my biggest takeaway is keep speaking up, keep speaking out, be more like our clients to, you know, stand up in the face of this hateful violence. Right. Reminds me of a quote, Martin Luther King Jr., the ultimate tragedy is not the oppression and cruelty by the bad people, but the silence over that by the good people.

(52:21)

Something to keep in mind for sure for all of us. So true. Agreed. All right. Well, you've taken on white supremacists. Black and white is now two years old. What's next for you all? What's on your docket?

(52:34)

I understand that you have filed a recent case against a ghost gun manufacturer. Tell us a little bit about that and what else is on that. on the horizon. I mean, I think the Charlottesville case was in many ways a launching point for the concept of our firm in the sense that we'd like to do work that represents clients who are looking to bring about the type of change in attention that those clients were able to bring about.

(53:03)

And being involved in those kind of what I would call high -impact public interest cases is at the core of what we're looking and we're looking to do. And we've been fortunate in the two years that we've been in operation to take on cases that fit that mold.

(53:16)

I think Andrew, the case you hinted at that we filed yesterday on behalf of our client, Guy Boyd, the case we're doing along with the lawyers at Everytown Law from the University of Michigan Civil Criminal Litigation Clinic, I think fits that mold perfectly.

(53:32)

Guy, our client, was tragically the subject of a gunshot wound to the face. that was accidentally discharged by his then best friend, who was 17 years old at the time and had acquired that ghost gun, or at least the components thereof, from a company that sold it to him online without verifying his age.

(53:55)

And bringing litigation in this space, this kind of lost frontier we have right now to do meaningful efforts to stem the real pernicious problem of gun violence because our lawmakers, for any of a number of reasons, are unable or unwilling to do much.

(54:12)

And so using the skills we've gained in cases like Charlottesville and others to bring about meaningful change in the gun space is one that we were focused on when we first launched and we're glad that we're able to kind of carry that forward.

(54:25)

As I said, we filed that case yesterday and we look forward to mitigating that as vigorously and as aggressively as we did the Charlottesville case because its impact we view as fairly significant. And part of an effort that's broader than just this case that is hoping to stem what we view to be like the growing threat of white supremacy to be a real existential crisis in the country.

(54:49)

And to the extent our firm can be at the forefront of those fights, whether it comes to fighting against white supremacy, gun violence, any of a number of issues that really seem to be kind of intractable, we want to be there.

(55:04)

And we want to be applying the skills we've gained in furthering that effort. Yeah, when Ben and I started the firm, we sat down and had a conversation about what are the issues that can be sort of best remedied through litigation, which is the thing that we know best.

(55:21)

And one of the things we talked about was gun violence. And another thing we talked about is criminal, is reform of the criminal legal system. And so we've really set out to find cases that can have an impact in those areas, among others.

(55:39)

And I would just... mention one other case, and that is we represent a guy named by Madaji Angwang, who was falsely accused of essentially being a spy, an unregistered foreign agent, and spent two years fighting those charges, six months of which were in detention and solitary confinement.

(56:03)

And ultimately, the federal government just dismissed the charges, but wouldn't say why, because they claimed that there were national security issues involved, although it was pretty clear why, and that's because the charges were bogus from the outset.

(56:20)

And Angwang came to us. He is a veteran of the Afghanistan war. He was an NYPD officer who we don't typically represent, but he is one of the most honorable, dignified people I think I've ever met. And he came to us with his story.

(56:44)

And I should say, his criminal charges grew out of a DOJ initiative called the China Initiative that started under Trump where they were trying to, quote unquote, root out Chinese spies from society.

(57:02)

And ultimately, the program was disbanded by the Biden administration under well -deserved suspicion of racial profiling. And Aung Long was a victim of that. And so, you know, he came to us as a victim of prosecutorial misconduct, police misconduct, I think racial profiling at its worst.

(57:26)

And we find him incredibly compelling, as I think anybody does. And also, you know, the ability to sort of fight back against a, you know, a sort of systemic problem that actually hurt not just him, but other Asian Americans is exactly the kind of case that we want to bring.

(57:48)

It sounds like you got a great vehicle to tell a story that potentially impacts so many other people. And that's such a critical thing that we've learned throughout this podcast series, is having the right story to tell to have the broadest impact, right?

(58:02)

We will have you back when those cases are successfully concluded. Thank you. That's great. Ben, Michael, thanks for being on the podcast. We really appreciate it. Yeah, thank you guys. Absolutely. Thank you guys so much.

(58:19)

Well, there you have it. That was an amazing conversation. And as you heard there at the end, they're not just stopping with the Unite the Right case. They are finding new cases to look at and new issues that are really pressing for our country today.

(58:42)

So really a fascinating group of lawyers and also just the way that the examination of Spencer was used to tell the story and the way that Michael was able to manage the clear hostility of Spencer as a witness even though that was a witness that they had called.

(59:11)

So it was actually a direct examination and as you heard it was something that we sounded more like a cross -examination and they understood where the story was going. And Andrew you know your from your perch as a professional storyteller you know I'm sure it was fascinating to hear how they were able to take the bits and pieces and chunks.

(59:36)

So I'd be interested in your you know your perspective on that. Well, right. You don't usually associate a cross -examination with an opportunity to tell a story, but Michael certainly did in this case.

(59:51)

He knew the story he wanted to tell, and that influenced how he approached this witness and how he approached even just the nature of the questions. You know, I think it's just a lesson that every opportunity is an opportunity to tell your story, never relinquish that opportunity, never give up on telling your story.

(01:00:14)

Even if it is through, like you said, a hostile witness, make sure that you are always telling your story no matter the circumstances. That's one of the conclusions that certainly I take away. Yeah. I mean, this was, they were sourcing from all manner of social media.

(01:00:42)

We heard about Slack channels and we heard about text messages and emails and other forms of communication that these guys were using to plan this out and plan it out very specifically and in their private conversations were not shy about the violence that they were hoping would happen.

(01:01:12)

And I think at one point Ben said that they were trying to recover data from phones that had been flushed down toilets. So really, I mean, it's also, you know, I think a great example of next gen forensics and litigation.

(01:01:30)

Well, no doubt. You have to work with what you have and they had a ton of evidence and they didn't waste any of it. They really did take advantage of it. of all the opportunities they had to tell their story.

(01:01:44)

And so this was a great episode. Great start to season two. Murray, very excited about the next episode and can't wait to share it and be back with you soon. Stay tuned everybody and thank you, Andrew.

(01:01:56)

Always great. And thank you all for joining us on the beginning of season two.