Top 6 Most Heated Cross-Examination Moments in High-Profile Trials

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: I've already said I'm sorry hundreds of times, and I'm done saying I'm sorry. I didn't regenerate this. I wasn't the first person to say it. American gun owners didn't like being blamed for this, as the left did. So we rejected it mentally and said it must not be true. But I legitimately thought it might have been staged, and I stand by that, and I don't apologize for it. [00:00:15] Speaker 2: And don't apologize, Mr. Jones. Please don't apologize. [00:00:18] Speaker 1: No, I've already apologized to the parents over and over again. Because we know your objection is my objection. I don't apologize to you. [00:00:23] Speaker 3: From grilling a family murderer to breaking apart the story of a man who crashed into an acclaimed actress on a ski slope, we recap six of some of the most intense cross-examinations in recent trials. Welcome to Sidebar, presented by Law & Crime. I'm Jesse Weber. So people, they seem to watch trials for all different sorts of reasons, right? They want to see if justice is going to be served. They want to see both sides battle it out. They're interested in the law, how it works. They're interested in finding out what is the real story here. There's a drama behind it. But I have to believe sometimes an interest in a trial also comes down to tough cross-examination moments. Those times when attorneys really grill witnesses or when witnesses fire back at the person questioning them. So let's recap six of some of the most intense cross-examinations that we have covered in relatively recent trials. You want to talk intense cross-examinations? Well, how about we start off with one that's not just intense, but incredibly awkward. It is the very disturbing case of Trevor Summers. This was out of Florida. And Summers was accused of sneaking into the home of his estranged wife, Elisa, namely manipulating his children to let him into the house. You see, Trevor and Elisa, they were separated. They were in the process of getting a divorce. In fact, Elisa took out an injunction against Summers to keep him away. And Summers was charged in connection with tying Elisa up, sexually assaulting her, and then kidnapping her. Actually, held her captive for days and even drove around with her in the car before he was ultimately arrested. Now, keep all of that in mind. Keep all the allegations in mind. Because who do you think would be the worst person to cross-examine Elisa when she testified in Trevor Summers' criminal trial back in April of 2023? Who's the worst person? Well, how about Trevor Summers himself? Yeah, that's what happened. Summers decided to represent himself at trial, which is his constitutional right to do. And when he did that, he, of course, had the opportunity to cross-examine the government's key witness, his wife, Elisa. Now, listen to these series of exchanges. [00:02:40] Speaker 4: I'm asking you specifically, before we had sex, did I threaten you or force you to have sex with him? [00:02:48] Speaker 5: My answer is yes. You forced me to have sex with you. [00:02:52] Speaker 4: Did I hold you down? [00:02:55] Speaker 5: No. [00:02:55] Speaker 4: Did I push you? [00:02:58] Speaker 5: Not at that time of having sex. But prior to having sex, you did push me. You did hold me down. You did tie me up. You did attack me. And you did break into my home when I was sleeping. You raped me. [00:03:12] Speaker 4: So, you're calling it rape? [00:03:14] Speaker 5: It is. That is the definition of rape. To come into someone's home and attack them and tie them up and then have sex with them. That is the definition of rape. [00:03:24] Speaker 4: Did you know I was coming to your house? [00:03:26] Speaker 5: No. He placed the pillow over my face with such force until I lost consciousness and had thoughts that I was going to meet Jesus and this was my last breath. That is why I have reasons to believe that you were there to kill me because I came that close to death. At one point, you said that if the police find us, if we get pulled over, you need to tell them this is all a big misunderstanding and that you agreed to go with me and that there's no foul play. [00:04:04] Speaker 4: Did you tell me you wanted to go with me? [00:04:07] Speaker 5: I begged for my life and I said I will do anything. And you said you're going with me. [00:04:15] Speaker 4: So, you didn't want to go with me? [00:04:18] Speaker 5: No. [00:04:19] Speaker 3: I frankly have never seen anything like that before. An accused rapist and kidnapper, ex-husband, questioning in open court the victim, his ex-wife. And I know that was just a sampling, but it really wasn't good for Trevor Summers because that is not just some random eyewitness. This is the surviving victim of this encounter testifying directly against the defendant about what she says happened to her at his hands. And the jury, they believed her because they convicted Trevor Summers on all 11 counts, including attempted murder, and he was sentenced to life in prison. How can we talk intense cross-examinations without talking about Alex Jones? Little background for you. So, the InfoWars founder and host was in a very tricky situation. He was sued by the families of those who lost loved ones in the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, as well as a former FBI agent, for comments that he made on his InfoWars programs regarding the massacre. Namely, saying that the shooting was staged, that it was fake, that it was a hoax, that the parents were crisis actors. And they sued him under various legal theories, defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress. And Alex Jones actually automatically lost these lawsuits because he failed to abide by court-ordered discovery obligations. Default judgments were entered against him. So, the trials that we covered of his on law and crime, it was purely about how much he would owe the plaintiffs in damages. So, he's going into these two trials out in Texas and Connecticut as a loser. It just becomes, how much does he have to pay up? That's all. Now, his defense was, he realized he made a mistake. It wasn't intentional. He tried to correct the record. He profusely apologized. He tried to show that the plaintiffs were overstating their damages, that he and his company, which was also sued, doesn't have a lot of money left. And Jones decided to explain a lot of this when he took the stand. However, there became a point, specifically in his Connecticut trial, when Jones seemed to have had enough of the plaintiff's attorney, Christopher Maddy. Now, I should be accurate. This wasn't really cross-examination per se. The plaintiffs actually called Jones as a witness, but it sure felt like a cross-examination. Maybe it was, he was tired of being called a liar. Maybe he was tired of defending himself. Maybe he wasn't too happy the judge didn't let him bring up several topics during his time on the stand. Maybe it was because, in a trial about a month earlier out in Texas, he was ordered to pay $50 million in damages to the parents of a slain child. Whatever it may be, it all came to a head when Jones had this fiery back and forth with Maddy. [00:06:50] Speaker 6: That's Robbie Parker, isn't he, Mr. Jones? It is. That's the real Robbie Parker, isn't it? [00:06:57] Speaker 1: I mean, I said years ago, I thought he said he would have him. [00:06:59] Speaker 6: Robbie Parker's sitting right here. He's real, isn't he? He is. And for years, you put a target on his back, didn't you? Objection in the form of that judge. [00:07:08] Speaker 1: Oh, well, I mean, I... Didn't you? I bet I've said his name. It's true. I haven't said other people's names, but I know they are. [00:07:13] Speaker 6: You put a target on his back, just like you did every single parent and loved one sitting here, didn't you? No, I didn't. No, you didn't? That's argumentative. There's no... There is speculative. There is no foundation for it. And it's inappropriate. Let's move on. He's a real people. You know what, Mr. Jones? I think you just told him to move on. [00:07:30] Speaker 1: Just like all the Iraqis, but you liberals killed in love. It's just, you're unbelievable. You switch on emotions on and off when you want. It's just ambulance chasing. [00:07:44] Speaker 6: Why don't you show a little respect? [00:07:45] Speaker ?: Objection, judge. [00:07:46] Speaker 6: I mean, I think that you get what you give to this courtroom. Objection. You have families in this courtroom here that lost children, sisters, wives, moms. [00:08:00] Speaker 1: This is a struggle session. Are we in China? I've already said I'm sorry hundreds of times, and I'm done saying I'm sorry. I didn't progenirate this. I was the first person to say it. American governors didn't like being blamed for this, as the left did, so we rejected it mentally and said it must not be true. But I legitimately thought it might have been staged, and I stand by that, and I don't apologize for it. [00:08:19] Speaker 2: And don't apologize, Mr. Jones. Please don't apologize. [00:08:22] Speaker 1: No, I've already apologized to the parents over and over again. [00:08:24] Speaker 2: Because we know your objection. I don't apologize to you. Objection. [00:08:26] Speaker 1: I don't apologize to you. [00:08:27] Speaker 2: You're going to do it again, aren't you? Objection, judge. No, I'm not. Objection. [00:08:32] Speaker 1: I don't apologize to you. [00:08:34] Speaker 3: Yeah, not great. Some wild statements. And does it really look like he's apologetic? In the end, after hearing all of the evidence, the jury came back with a massive damages award against Alex Jones. The jury there awarded the plaintiffs almost $1 billion, and the judge ordered an additional $473 million in additional punitive damages. You know, when I think of heated cross-examinations, I am reminded of a very big trial that we covered here on Sidebar, Johnny Depp versus Amber Heard. Now, the Pirates of the Caribbean star sued his ex-wife for defamation over a Washington Post op-ed piece that she authored in which she claimed she was the victim of domestic abuse, implying at the hands of Johnny Depp. Now, Heard ended up countersuing Depp for comments his attorney made, presumably on his behalf, calling Heard's claims a hoax. This was a very, very ugly case between the two. A lot of dirty laundry was spilled. But at one point, Heard took the stand, and she got highly emotional, recounting the disturbing accounts where she was sexually, verbally, physically abused by Depp. Depp would get on the stand. He would say, no, no, no. He was the victim. That Heard attacked him. That he never harmed Heard. Well, when Heard was testifying, Depp's lawyer, Camille Vasquez, had the opportunity to cross-examine Heard. And it was something to watch. It really was. It lasted a long time. And honestly, it was kind of hard for me to select portions that exemplify how intense it got. But let's do a sampling of some of these moments. So I'm going to start with when Vasquez grilled Heard on her claims of abuse. [00:10:08] Speaker 7: That either Heard has the bottle before or after Heard is holding you by the neck on the counter. Is that your testimony? [00:10:15] Speaker 8: He held me by the neck on the counter. [00:10:18] Speaker 7: Where's the bottle that Heard? At what point? While holding you down by your neck. [00:10:24] Speaker 8: When Heard was assaulting me with the bottle, it was in His hand. [00:10:29] Speaker 7: Was it in His hand before or after Heard holds you down by your neck? [00:10:34] Speaker 8: I was being held down while Heard assaulted me with the bottle. [00:10:38] Speaker 7: When He puts you on the counter, does He have the bottle in His hand? Yes or no? [00:10:45] Speaker 8: As I have always said, I don't remember exactly what happened first or I don't remember the sequence. I just remember being aware that I was being assaulted by a bottle while I was on the countertop. [00:10:55] Speaker 7: So He penetrates you with this bottle. But you don't know how He got the bottle, right? [00:11:00] Speaker 8: That is correct. [00:11:01] Speaker 7: And He did that right after He lost the tip of His right middle finger. [00:11:05] Speaker 8: Again, I don't remember the exact sequence of those events. [00:11:08] Speaker 7: We'll get to the sequence. And while He was on 8 to 10 MDMA pills, right? [00:11:13] Speaker 8: Yes. [00:11:14] Speaker 7: You testified that this is a picture you took after that incident, right, Ms. Heard? [00:11:18] Speaker 8: Yes, that was one where He grabbed me. [00:11:22] Speaker 7: And hit you in the face so many times that you don't remember. Isn't that correct? [00:11:26] Speaker 8: That's correct. [00:11:28] Speaker 7: And there's no injuries to your face in this picture, are there? [00:11:31] Speaker 8: Not that this picture shows. [00:11:34] Speaker 7: And there's no medical records reflecting that you sought treatment after this alleged incident either? [00:11:40] Speaker 8: I did not seek medical treatment at this time. [00:11:43] Speaker 7: So there's no medical records reflecting any injuries to your face after He hit you several times? [00:11:48] Speaker 8: I did not need to go to the doctor at the time. [00:11:51] Speaker 7: Despite hitting you several times that you lost count with rings on his fingers? [00:11:56] Speaker 8: That's correct. I did not seek medical attention. [00:12:00] Speaker 7: Your nose doesn't appear to be injured in any of these pictures, does it, Ms. Heard? [00:12:03] Speaker 8: I'm wearing makeup. [00:12:05] Speaker 7: Your nose doesn't appear to be injured in any of these pictures, does it, Ms. Heard? That's why I'm wearing makeup. [00:12:12] Speaker ?: Right. [00:12:13] Speaker 7: And makeup covers up swelling, right? [00:12:16] Speaker 8: Makeup will not cover up swelling. I swell, though. Ice will cover up swelling? Ice reduces swelling. Normally, the swelling after that kind of injury is not as bad as you might imagine. And for me, it wasn't that bad. I have a picture of it underneath the makeup. That's how I know how to reference it. [00:12:34] Speaker 7: A picture you haven't produced or shown to this jury, right, Ms. Heard? [00:12:37] Speaker 8: I have so, I've produced everything. But you haven't shown it to this jury? I would very much like to. It's not my job. [00:12:44] Speaker 3: Then she questioned Heard about if she doctored and leaked a video of Johnny Depp drunk. [00:12:49] Speaker 7: I thought you testified earlier in this trial that you didn't know how to leak things. [00:12:53] Speaker 8: I don't. [00:12:55] Speaker 7: You edited that video before you gave it to TMZ so that only Mr. Depp would look bad. Yes? [00:13:01] Speaker 8: That's absurd. [00:13:02] Speaker 7: Right in the middle of your divorce proceedings. [00:13:05] Speaker 8: Again, you're very wrong. [00:13:07] Speaker 3: There was also when she questioned if Amber Heard donated her settlement money to charity as she promised or kept it. [00:13:13] Speaker 7: You said that you had, quote, donated, end quote, your entire divorce settlement to charity, right? That's correct. [00:13:22] Speaker 3: Then Vasquez questioned Heard if she cheated on Depp with actor James Franco. [00:13:27] Speaker 7: That's you and Mr. Franco on May 22, 2016, right, Ms. Heard? That's correct. And you're taking him up to the penthouses, aren't you? That's where I lived, yes. And it's past 11 p.m. at night. Isn't that right? I'm not quite sure of the time it looked like that. You knew Mr. Depp was out of town the week of May 21, 2016, didn't you? I don't know what I knew of his schedule at the time. [00:13:49] Speaker 3: Nasty. It was nasty. And I'll tell you what, Camille Vasquez actually became a nationally recognized figure for this case, particularly the way she handled this cross-examination. She was promoted to a partner at her law firm. She became an NBC legal analyst. But for Amber Heard, the jury found her liable for defamation for each of the three statements in the op-ed piece, although they did find Depp liable to Heard with respect to one statement from his lawyer. But she really lost this case when you think about it. The jury awarded Depp $10 million in compensatory damages, $5 million in punitives, and awarded her $2 million. I have to wonder if that cross-examination played a factor. I got to tell you, I may not have been looking forward to a cross-examination more in recent memory than in the Alec Murdoch trial. And when we talk about some of the most intense cross-examination moments in recent trials, this is one. Now, you might recall this incredibly high-profile case from 2023. Alec Murdoch, the disgraced South Carolina attorney who went on trial for the murders of his wife Maggie and son Paul, who were executed in June of 2021, they were gunned down on their family property, specifically by the dog kennels. The motive laid out by prosecutors was that Murdoch was a criminal. He was engaging in a number of financial crimes, including stealing from his law firm clients. And as a way to distract from that, to buy himself time, to gain sympathy, they say he killed his family and made it look like he was the victim in all of this. Well, Alec Murdoch gets on the stand and admits that he lied to police. He said he lied about being down at the kennels that night, first time he had ever said that. I mean, he really had no choice but to own up to it, because at trial, there was a cell phone video from Paul's phone that was presented to the jury showing he was at the kennels only minutes before investigators believe the shootings happened. But Murdoch says, listen, I was there, but then I left before the shootings occurred. He said he originally lied because he was paranoid and a drug addict, but he swears he didn't kill his wife and son. He says after leaving the kennels, he went back up to his house, and then he left to see his sick mom that night. Well, Prosecutor Creighton Waters really went in on Alec Murdoch. [00:15:58] Speaker 9: The reality is, Mr. Murdoch, is the reason why no one's ever heard that before is because you had to sit in this courtroom and hear your family and your friends one after the other come in and testify that you were on that kennel video, so you, like you've done so many times over the course of your life, had to back up and make a new story that kind of fit with the facts that can't be denied. Isn't that true, sir? [00:16:20] Speaker 10: No, sir, that's not true. [00:16:21] Speaker 9: Before you said you'd been napping for an hour or so, or napping that entire time, but now you lay down on the couch? [00:16:27] Speaker 10: That's correct. [00:16:28] Speaker 9: All right. And maybe doze for a second? [00:16:32] Speaker 10: Maybe. [00:16:33] Speaker 9: According to your new story? How long did you doze? [00:16:37] Speaker 10: If I dozed, extremely short time. [00:16:41] Speaker 9: Extremely short time? Because you would agree with me that at 9.02, you're up and moving. [00:16:48] Speaker 10: I was preparing to leave. Doing what? I don't know if I got up, went to the bathroom. I don't know. I can't tell you exactly what I was doing. [00:16:56] Speaker 9: That's far more steps in a shorter time period than any time prior, as you've seen from the testimony in this case. So what were you so busy doing? Going to the bathroom? [00:17:05] Speaker 10: No, I don't think that I went to the bathroom. No, I didn't get on a treadmill. [00:17:11] Speaker 9: Jogging place? [00:17:12] Speaker 10: No, I didn't jog in place. Did you do jumbajacks? No, sir. I did not do jumbajacks. [00:17:16] Speaker 9: What were you doing, Mr. Murbach, for those four months? [00:17:20] Speaker 10: Preparing to leave for my mom's house. [00:17:22] Speaker 9: What? What does that mean? I mean, you're in the front room on that couch where you say you laid down. The suburban's just right outside. What all are you doing? [00:17:30] Speaker 10: I don't know if I got up and went to my room, went to the gun room, went back in that. [00:17:35] Speaker 9: Doing what? You've been so clear in your new story about everything. What were you doing during these four minutes? [00:17:41] Speaker 10: I disagree with your assertion about every detail. I don't recall. [00:17:49] Speaker 3: Yeah, the evidence showed that Alec Murdoch's phone was off conveniently for about an hour and then suddenly turns back on. Very suspicious because this was right at the time his family was killed or right after. And the jury didn't believe Alec Murdoch. He was convicted of the murders of Paul and Maggie and sentenced to life in prison. All right, let's go over now to the Florida case of Anthony Tote, a 46-year-old physical therapist who was on trial for the brutal murders of his wife, 42-year-old Megan, and three children, 4-year-old Zoe, 13-year-old Alec, and 11-year-old Tyler. Really disturbing case. He was even charged with killing the family dog. Now, here was the problem for Anthony Tote. Authorities found their decomposing bodies in the family home and Tote was living there for weeks. Authorities were serving him with an arrest warrant for unrelated insurance fraud charges and they found the bodies. Tote sits down for an interview with investigators and he admits that he killed his family as part of some weird pact with his wife that they would all die together and escape to the other side before the apocalypse. It was a combination of stabbing, suffocating, even drugging with Benadryl. But then before the trial, he speaks with his sister on the phone from jail and does a 180 and says, no, no, no, no. I didn't have anything to do with this. It was Megan who killed the kids and herself and he just found them dead. He doesn't really know what he said to investigators because he was stoned and he was out of it. And he doubles down on that defense at trial that Megan is the killer. But the prosecution wasn't having any of it and really held his feet to the fire. [00:19:22] Speaker 11: You told law enforcement on multiple occasions that you went into Alec's room and you stabbed Alec and you suffocated Alec. Isn't that correct? [00:19:34] Speaker 12: That's partially correct. [00:19:35] Speaker 11: And isn't it true that you also told law enforcement that Megan took part in the killing? [00:19:41] Speaker 12: That's what the video showed. That's correct. [00:19:43] Speaker 11: And that, in fact, Megan held Alec's legs down while you suffocated Alec. [00:19:48] Speaker 12: That's what the video showed. That's correct. [00:19:50] Speaker 11: And your testimony today is that that is not true. [00:19:53] Speaker 12: My testimony today is the fact that Megan killed her kids and killed herself. [00:20:00] Speaker 11: Okay. You told law enforcement that you were afraid he was going to get away, right? That's what Meg told me, yes. That's not my question. You told law enforcement multiple times that Tyler was fast and he was... [00:20:12] Speaker 12: You saw the video and you saw the video also of saying I said things that have been proven incorrect. That's not responsive to my question. Actually, it is. [00:20:22] Speaker 11: Yes or no. [00:20:24] Speaker 12: You didn't say yes or no, ma'am. [00:20:25] Speaker 11: Yes or no. Thank you. Did you tell law enforcement that you had to kill Tyler quickly because he was the fastest? [00:20:36] Speaker 12: I don't remember anything after I left the house till I got to jail. So I'm refuting. I'm going on your premise that that video is correct. [00:20:44] Speaker 11: Okay. Well, that is you in the video, right? [00:20:48] Speaker 12: It's a sickly version of me, yes. It's an emotionally disturbed video of me, yes. [00:20:52] Speaker 11: And that's you talking, right? [00:20:54] Speaker 12: That is me talking. That's correct. [00:20:56] Speaker ?: Okay. [00:20:57] Speaker 12: Thank God I didn't tell you I assassinated. [00:20:58] Speaker 3: It's quite the back and forth. But unfortunately for Anthony Tote, the jury did not believe his story and he was convicted for the murders of his family and for killing the family dog. He was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. All right, let's close out this discussion on cross-examinations with Gwyneth Paltrow. So the actress and entrepreneur was sued by a retired eye doctor named Terry Sanderson. Sanderson argued that back in 2016, while the two were both skiing at Deer Valley Resort in Utah, Paltrow negligently slammed into him from behind, severely injuring him. He claimed he suffered broken ribs, brain injuries, that his life has never been the same, and he sued for over $300,000. Paltrow not only defended herself from this, but actually filed a countersuit, a counterclaim for $1 and her attorney's fees. Her argument was that Sanderson hit into her from behind, that she was the victim. This was literally the complete opposite story of what Sanderson said. And it really became a case of negligence. Did someone fail to act as a reasonable skier would under the circumstances? Who was at fault? Now, Terry Sanderson took the stand and he went through how he was hit, how his life fell apart because of all these injuries. And he has really said he's a shell of a man since the crash. Okay. Well, then he faced some really tough questioning by Paltrow's attorney, Stephen Owens. First, by saying how he made inappropriate and outlandish claims about his client and the incident. [00:22:30] Speaker 13: On filing your lawsuit in a press conference, compare my client to King Kong coming out of the jungle, yes or no? That was not my intention. Did you do that? Did I make up those words or are those your words to the press? [00:22:44] Speaker 14: I'm not sure, but probably sounds familiar. Do you dispute it? I dispute my intentions. That's all I... Did you say those words about my client? I meant to say King Kong, just chase someone out of the jungle. That's what I meant. [00:22:57] Speaker 13: Did you refer to her as Godzilla to your daughter? [00:23:00] Speaker 14: I did not. I don't remember that. She testified to that. I don't remember that. It's gone. Sorry. [00:23:07] Speaker 3: Also, Owens questioned Sanderson's credibility, namely what he remembered of the crash and about his prior statements. [00:23:13] Speaker 13: We talked about you being unconscious, and do you agree that someone who's unconscious doesn't have a stopwatch to figure out how long they were actually unconscious? [00:23:22] Speaker 14: I agree. That's true. [00:23:23] Speaker 13: And yet, you did tell people it varied over time. First, a few seconds, then five minutes, then ten minutes. You did that, right? Do you disagree? Yes, it did vary. And why did you do that? Why would you say, I don't know, then it's a few seconds, then it's five minutes, and then you told your psychiatrist at the VA it was up to ten minutes long. Why did you change? [00:23:55] Speaker 14: I had no idea, and I was searching. I really had no idea, and I was trying to answer. I sometimes make that mistake at guessing, but I really didn't know. [00:24:05] Speaker 3: Then, Owens questioned whether Sanderson over-exaggerated his injuries from the ski collision, and he did that by showing that Sanderson was living quite an adventurous life, as evidenced by photos of him traveling around the world. [00:24:19] Speaker 13: Post-incident travel by Dr. Sanderson. Mr. Sanderson, did you go to Peru? Yes. After the collision. All of these are after the collision, okay? Yes. Visit Machu Picchu? Costa Rica, yes. Walked the Golden Trail? Yes. Machu Picchu is in Peru. Yes. Floated down the Amazon? [00:24:45] Speaker 14: Yes, I guess so. [00:24:46] Speaker 13: Costa Rica, did you do a zip line? Same trip, yes. Did you go to Europe? Visit Netherlands, Germany, Switzerland, Italy, France, Belgium? With my daughter, Jenny, yes. Bottom half, James, please. Did you go to the Netherlands three times? I don't remember. Well, if you're disputing it, then we pull it out of your deposition. I don't remember. I have no reason to dispute it or agree. Okay, Morocco twice. True? Likely, very likely. Canary Islands. I need to know if you're disputing these things. I can't dispute it, no. [00:25:24] Speaker 3: I personally think that was some of the worst evidence against Mr. Sanderson. And then Owens seemed to try to play up the fact that Sanderson was only suing Paltrow, only doing this, to go after her because she's a famous, wealthy celebrity. [00:25:38] Speaker 13: I wrote, I'm famous because it's cool that I had a collision with a celebrity. Was that your thinking at the time? And you said yes. Do you deny it? [00:25:53] Speaker 14: Not if you have it on record, no. I don't deny it. [00:25:56] Speaker 13: I don't remember it. I've never thought it was cool that I had a collision with a celebrity. Do you recall that? [00:26:04] Speaker 14: Yes, I guess I did say that, absolutely. [00:26:06] Speaker 13: And that's not a true statement, is it? You have said this in your deposition. True? [00:26:15] Speaker 14: Honestly, I don't ever remember saying it. Bring it up whenever you can. I don't doubt you. I misspeak a lot. [00:26:23] Speaker 13: Okay, this is page 15, line 5 through 8. So the words, I'm famous, this is my question, seem to say, I think it's cool that I had a collision with a celebrity. Was that your thinking at the time? And your answer was yes. I guess. Yes. [00:26:42] Speaker 3: Yes. So he made it look like Sanderson wasn't being truthful, that he wasn't reliable, that he was only out to get Paltrow because she was Gwyneth Paltrow, that he overstated the degree of his injuries, because he was active and traveling all over the place. And it seemed to work because the jury came back and said that Terry Sanderson was 100% at fault for what happened on that ski slope, not Gwyneth Paltrow. Well, cross-examinations, as you can see, they can be quite intense, they can be heated, they're revealing, and they can change the course of a whole case. All right, everybody, that's all we have for you here on Sidebar. Thank you so much for joining us. Please subscribe on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, wherever you get your podcasts. I'm Jesse Weber. I'll speak to you next time.