Rex Heuermann’s Defense Attorney Explains the Strategy | Michael J. Brown on the Long Island Serial Killer Case

What is it like to defend one of the most high-profile murder suspects in modern American history?

In this episode of True Crime with the Sarge: The Audio Files, retired NYPD Sergeant Joseph Giacalone and filmmaker Josh Zeman, director of The Killing Season, sit down with defense attorney Michael J. Brown, who represented Rex Heuermann, the accused Long Island Serial Killer.

Attorney Brown provides a rare behind-the-scenes look at the legal strategy used in the case, discussing the defense’s approach, the controversial planning document, jurisdictional issues, constitutional protections, media attention, and the challenges of representing a client at the center of one of the nation’s most closely followed criminal investigations.

This conversation offers listeners a deeper understanding of how complex homicide cases are defended and why the legal process often differs from public perception.

In this episode, you’ll hear about:
 • The defense strategy in the Rex Heuermann case
 • The significance of the planning document
 • Jurisdictional and venue issues
 • Evidence, discovery, and trial preparation
 • The role of defense counsel in high-profile criminal cases
 • Media coverage versus courtroom reality
 • Lessons from one of America’s most significant serial homicide investigations

Whether you’re a true crime fan, law enforcement professional, attorney, student, or simply interested in the criminal justice system, this episode delivers an insightful and balanced discussion you won’t want to miss.

If you enjoy True Crime with the Sarge: The Audio Files, be sure to follow the podcast, leave a rating and review, and share this episode with others interested in true crime, criminal investigations, and the law.

Transcript

SPEAKER_00 0:00

This podcast contains adult language, adult topics. Listener discretion is advised. True Crime with the Sarge, the audio files, is owned and operated by Sarge Media LLC. Please consider liking and subscribing to the channel. Hello, everybody, and welcome to a new edition of True Crime with the Sarge. I'm your host, Joseph Jacqueline. With me is my co-host, writer and director of the Killing Season, Josh Zeman. And we have a very special guest with us today, attorney Mike Brown. Mike, good to see you. Thanks for coming on the show. Sarge, thanks for having me, Josh. I really appreciate it. Oh, great to have you. We've been looking forward to this, Mike, since you said yes. So this is and people are probably wondering why, right? So just in case you don't know who Michael Brown is, he was representing Rex Heurman, the now no longer accused long serial killer, but convicted long island serial killer. Mike, could you tell everybody how you even got involved with representing Rex Heerman in this case?

SPEAKER_02 1:03

So, Starge, this case is an assigned case through what's called the 18A panel of the Suffolk County Assigned Counsel Program. I've been on this uh panel uh give or take 25, 30 years in terms of the murder panel. And when it came through, uh I received a call from the administrator of the panel. And, you know, obviously this is not the normal murder case. Uh they had asked me to take it. I received a call early on that Friday morning, whatever that day in July was three years ago. Uh, and I had maybe an hour or so to make that decision. It was really an important decision I had to make. Uh, and I, you know, balanced out all the different things. I checked with the boss, who of course is my wife, and uh she said, you know, this is what you this is your world. Uh, and it's uh it's an amazing case. Obviously, it's horrific, but when I say amazing from a legal standpoint, uh, and and she encouraged me to take it if if I'm prepared to do it. It was a tremendous commitment. And I jumped in and I did accept it.

SPEAKER_00 2:05

Yeah, no, I mean, there's historical consequences in this case too, which we want to get into with the DNA eventually. But Josh, you want to follow up, you want to follow up on that?

SPEAKER_01 2:14

Well, I mean, did you this is this was a huge case. You knew you were in for the long haul. You're talking three years, four years. I mean, what were your biggest concerns, I guess, going into that case? You know, what were you really worried about?

SPEAKER_02 2:31

Well, Josh, I didn't know. Quite frankly, I didn't ext, I really did not understand the magnitude of the case for a couple of reasons. Remember, at that point in time, uh, well, we didn't know what the arraignment was, but I I think I was told there are three victims. So getting into it at that point, there were three victims in the initial indictment. Okay, well, three victims. I I've tried, I've handled 25 murders, maybe, and I tried probably about 10 or 11 up to that point. Okay, fine. But three then went to, I think four, which went to seven. Uh, you know, so it just kept getting bigger and bigger. And I was not aware, I had no idea how the volume of discovery would be on a case like this. I, you know, you can imagine it, you can picture it, but it was just it was just unimaginable, really, uh, from what you thought it would be. So those were the things. And and in terms of what was the the other concerns were I have a very significant and big practice, and I really limit it to Suffolk County. And I have a a lot of cases here in Suffolk County. And my concern was quite frankly, hey, look, you know, I'm a worker, but there's only 24 hours in a day. So how am I going to handle this type of case? Um, considering I want to make sure make sure I service my clients and do what I've been doing since 1995 is when I left the DA's office. So those were really big concerns of mine.

SPEAKER_01 3:55

So you didn't know that you were getting involved with one of the largest serial killer serial killer cases in the past 30 years.

SPEAKER_02 4:03

You know, we all know to live here in Suffolk County and Long Island and not know about the Gilgold Beach case and not know the extent of it, you you'd be living, you know, with your head buried in the sand. So I I did I did know the the I knew the significance of it, but until I jumped in, I didn't know the significance of it. If that makes any sense.

SPEAKER_00 4:25

None of us really knew how big it would, how big it would get, I don't think. Yeah, I mean, many of us did never thought that the case would even be solved, let alone, you know, it was gone on for so long, and then let it and then everything just started to snowball. But let's let's get so as you're getting involved with the discovery and the DNA fight. I know this was kind of fast forward a little bit, but the fry hearings and the fight for the DNA. I mean, this is this was basically kind of like everything on the line at this point, right? If you win this, you're looking good. If you lose this boy, it is really going downhill from there.

SPEAKER_02 4:57

Yeah, that's that's pretty pretty accurate, Sarge. I mean, the the DNA was really a critical piece of the evidence on this case. And it's it's funny because when the case first came in, they talked about mitochondrial DNA. And that was, I think statistical likelihood was uh somewhere around one in uh 10,000, one to 12,000. And and I, you know, I could deal with that in the sense of that that's not that convincing. And I said that from the beginning. And then when the district attorney, I remember the moment when we were in chambers and he turned to me and we had this kind of interaction, and he said, Well, Mike, I got news for you. I actually have nuclear DNA. You know, at that point my my jaw dropped, of course, because now we're talking about one statistic to really another different universe. Uh, but but that's what we fought, and we fought the DNA pretty hard. I I, quite frankly, and I've said this to many people, uh, I I thought that we won the hearing. Um, the hearing is the standard, as you guys know, and you've talked about it so many times, is general acceptance in the relevant scientific community. And the the prosecutor presented three different witnesses, right? We had Dr. Green, we had Novorsky, and we had Harris. All one's just smarter than the next. They're all brilliant, by the way. But they really didn't establish that this type of DNA science is generally accepted in the relevant scientific community. And I thought that I extracted all of that out of them on cross-examination. Uh obviously the court disagreed with me and we lost that. Uh, and then we put on our witnesses as well. We put on uh Dan Crane and uh Nathaniel Adams, and I thought they bolstered that argument that it was not generally accepted in the relevant scientific community. It's a big deal, as you both know, and you've talked about it. This is case law, and this is going not just our state, but our uh our country. I I don't, but let me just say this. We don't have a pro-defense type of jurisdiction. You know, Suffolk is fairly conservative. And the reason I say that is it doesn't mean that this cannot be relitigated and rehashed out. It it may be a more favorable uh jurisdiction to the defense. And we could, I'm certainly happy to talk about the issues that I had with the DNA uh if you want, but but I think this is not the end of the story on that.

SPEAKER_01 7:18

Well, we were definitely saying that, that this is going to become a much larger issue in terms of Jewish jurisprudence, you know, uh across the United States. This has this has huge implications on a Supreme Court stance. Yeah.

SPEAKER_02 7:32

Yeah, and and again, we followed the Idaho case. Uh, I think it was Dowrymple, if my if my memory serves me right. So that was a case, uh a similar case. It was a cold case, and they used the whole genome sequencing and they used the IBD gem, and and Dr. Uh Dr. Green testified in that in that case. I remember reviewing the transcript of that hearing. But the difference, the big difference with Idaho was that that standard is much less than what we have here in New York. So we weren't really overwhelmed by the fact that in Idaho they permitted that new technology in because we have a higher standard. Uh, but we still lost.

SPEAKER_00 8:17

Well, that was, yeah, I mean, part and parcel, right? I mean, New York is very uh oriented towards privacy and human rights and prisoner rights and everything else. So losing that was a big deal. Now, do you do you first see this headed to the Supreme Court eventually somewhere within the country, this kind of DNA being used?

SPEAKER_02 8:36

I I the answer is maybe. You know, the whole genome. So let's just talk about it for a couple of minutes because I know you guys have followed this so closely. The whole genome sequencing is not really where we had our issue. So, of course, it's rootless hairs, and the the procedure they used was this whole genome sequencing, which you know has a lot more data. And and really it is kind of accepted uh within the scientific community. It's it's good science, so to speak. That part is not really what we focused on. So now you develop a profile, you have a subject sample, and you have a uh an evidence sample from the crime scene, which is what we have here. So they take Rex's DNA and they want to compare it to the hairs, the rootless hairs at each of the crime scenes. So that that's okay using the whole genome sequencing. What Green did, Dr. Green from Estria, how how are you going to use that to the to the finder of fact? Like, okay, so you have this comparison, it's really about presenting it to the trier of fact, the jury. He has a program called IBD Gem. That's his program. And and by the way, when when Dr. Green testified, and you guys probably saw the fright hearing, when he testified in front of the grand jury, he didn't even know what the program was. And that's because his one of his assistants, like a graduate assistant, and I'm sure she's very intelligent, she developed the program. So now you have this program, and that's where you extract this likelihood ratio. That's the statistical analysis that now you can, that's really the the productive part where you can put that in front of the trier of fact. So that's where the downfall was, from our opinion, because what they do, it's it's you're taking this and you're using the alternate suspect pool. In that, you know, it's it's an unrelated random person. What's the likelihood it's them instead of the suspect? In the IBD Gem, they use the 1000 Genome Project as this alternate suspect pool. It has roughly, I think it's 2,504 samples in the 1000 Genome Project. It's a misnomer, it's not a thousand people. So there's about 2,500 people. There is not one criminal lab across our nation that uses the 1000 Genome Project as an alternate suspect pool. So when you want the courts to accept this as general acceptance in the relevant scientific community, and no other scientific criminal lab uses it, well, how is that general acceptance in the relevant scientific community? And and I mean nobody else uses it except Estria. And Estria is not a criminal lab, they are a research lab. And and I got this information out from every single witness, including Ed Green, by the way, Dr. Green, that nobody in our nation uses in a criminal setting, in a forensic criminal setting, subject sample, evidence sample, and you want to do that comparison. Nobody uses as an alternate suspect pool the Genome 100, the 1000 Genome Project. That was the heart of our argument. And that's a long answer. Uh, but Josh, like you were saying, yeah, I I think that that's going to be the crux of the arguments as we go down the road. And and again, I I try to be objective as a lawyer. I mean, obviously I'm an advocate, but I really think they fail to establish what we just talked about. And I think we have a pro-prosecution county, it's a very conservative county. If this issue gets raised, and it will, in somewhere like Brooklyn, or somewhere like the Bronx, or somewhere like New York County, or some of the more uh liberal liberal counties upstate, I think that that particular judge in that jurisdiction may have a different ruling and they may preclude uh this type of science. Again, whole gene sequencing, it's okay. We're talking about the second part of it.

SPEAKER_01 12:49

But but that any ruling would have no bearing on this case because there is no appeal, correct?

SPEAKER_02 12:58

Yeah, it yes. So we've waived our right to appeal. Uh and that's correct, Josh. But what what's gonna happen down the road is now we're gonna have a coal case in one of these other jurisdictions, and the prosecutor is gonna obviously say, people v. Euremin out of Supreme Court Suffolk County, judge, you should rely on this, and that jurisdiction is not, and they're gonna fight on it. And if it goes to trial, either way, well, if the defense goes to trial and it's not precluded, you know that that's going to be raised on appeal. Uh, so I I think sooner or later it's it's going to be addressed on the appellate level.

SPEAKER_00 13:34

Just not my verse, never underestimate the People's Republic of the Bronx. That's all I can say on that one. Uh how did the jurisdictional issue work out, right? Because uh and correct me if I'm wrong, they said in the sentencing that these homicides happened basically in Nassau, but Suffolk is prosecuting them. How did how does that work out?

SPEAKER_02 13:58

Well, you know, in in New York State, the jurisdiction lies where the crime is committed or where the where the body is found. So it it was much more difficult, I think, for any county, any district attorney's office to determine where the crime was committed as opposed to where the body was found. That that's easy. The body is is found in Gilgo and that's in Suffolk County. Um, where the actual murder took place would have been much more difficult. I don't think they could ever have proved where the murder took place.

unknown 14:28

Gotcha.

SPEAKER_00 14:29

Yeah, because that that question comes up a lot and people ask, like, think why did this happen this way?

SPEAKER_01 14:34

Right. Because they they but didn't they keep saying that the body was brought but we they never said at the house. And we all we were always wondering why they never said at the house, and I guess they can't 100% confirm is what you're saying, that it was at the house.

SPEAKER_02 14:48

Uh I don't know if in the I'm trying to think in the allocution. I think in the allocation he may have indicated where the crime was committed.

SPEAKER_01 14:57

But he didn't say Rex Roman's home. I think he said an address.

SPEAKER_00 15:01

You know, in Nassau County, they said a couple of times in Nassau County.

SPEAKER_02 15:04

Yeah, yeah, yeah. I I yeah, you're right about that now that I think of it. And there was an issue about it, which that's for a later time. Uh yeah, yes, he said Nassau County. Uh, but obviously, again, going back to jurisdiction, Suffolk County is where the bodies were located, and that gives Suffolk County the jurisdiction on the murders. Gotcha.

SPEAKER_01 15:24

Um, how did the change of pleat come about? Was this something that Rex approached you about and said, hey, you know, was this something that you said after a ruling, like, hey, we just lost on this?

SPEAKER_02 15:40

Yeah, I without getting into I'm the only guest on your show on this case that has that privilege still, and then I have to be careful about what I talk about. And and no, but I'll I'll I'll be happy to answer it to the best I can. Um his this decision was completely his, and at some point, the answer is yes, at some point he opted to uh pursue a plea. Um now, if you're asking, was it triggered because of, say, our loss on the motions or a loss on the on the DNA? Uh yeah, I I definitely think it came after that, but I'm not going to suggest that if I had been successful on the DNA issue, would he have still gone to trial? I'm I'm not confident of that. But yeah, um, and and of course, listen, we we lost two big battles in my world on this case, and one was the the severance issue, and and the second one was the DNA issue. And what was outstanding was a lot of other suppression issues. Uh, but and I'm sure you're gonna get get into it. Um, the manifesto was obviously a huge piece of evidence that would have been really, really uh powerful a trial for the prosecutor.

SPEAKER_01 16:53

Uh but what do you think Rex believed or he indicated to you was the quote biggest piece of evidence that he felt was so detrimental to his case?

SPEAKER_02 17:07

I I think that uh you know, I I would I'll tell you what I think, um, not what he said. I I I think that clearly the the DNA and the manifesto were the two big pieces. But but remember, you know, there's like this supporting cast. So those are the real blatant pieces of evidence that are real strong. But but the prosecution on this case did such a nice job. And when I say the prosecution, I'm talking about not only the DAs, but but the investigators, because in terms of the using just using modern science with with the pings on the phones and and you know, dry, you know, this FBI agent, I forget his name, um, it's it's it escapes me. But but he did such a nice job. He literally drove in Massapequa Park and would record at every point in time, not literally every point, but you know, like as he's going down roads, what what cell phone am I pinging to? So instead of on Verizon or ATT saying, well, if you're in this radius that they always draw, you're gonna ping off of that phone. Well, that's not a guarantee, that's just what we think scientifically. This FBI agent literally went down in the box and and drove and said, Yeah, ping, ping, ping, ping, ping. You know, something like that is just so extraordinary that you don't see on a normal day in, day out, even on a murder. Uh, so that's just that's just an example of how much they put into this case.

SPEAKER_00 18:33

The uh planning document, since you brought it up already, uh is that like one of those you see this and you're just like, oh boy, right? I mean, you you you gotta look at this as you know, there's no way to sugarcoat it, right? I mean, it's just you look at it and say, Oh my gosh, right, as the defense attorney.

SPEAKER_02 18:50

It yeah, I mean, at the end of the day, it's it's a very difficult thing to defend. But we So when that when when when that manifesto hit, uh, you know, it it was very damaging in terms of what was contained in it. But as defense attorneys and and people who try cases, we we don't throw in the towel and just say we're done. We try to be creative, we try to see how we can uh really overcome that type of obstacle. Uh, one of the interesting things in that manifesto, and again, it was very particular to our Long Island. So, you know, to argue it's just generic and he just follows Mindhunter and he loves to study these things, it would have been really a fatal argument for us. I don't think it would have uh had any traction to it because again, it is particular points in that planning document. But but again, there's also references to things that just simply aren't true. So if you look, there's a number in there that was that pertained to, I think it was a female sex worker in the Bronx, maybe. And we we were told that she had died from an overdose. So, you know, that would have been something we could have used at trial saying, okay, well, it it's not all geared towards death and and the crimes committed here. Uh there is some things that are put in there that that just simply aren't true. But I it at the end of the day, it was a very, very important and powerful piece of evidence for the prosecutor for sure.

SPEAKER_01 20:17

Uh speaking of other pieces of evidence, what was what do you think other pieces of evidence that you wanted to bring up that you never got a chance to bring up bring up that you thought would have been great?

SPEAKER_02 20:30

There, there's I'm laughing only because, and again, there's nothing funny about this case. Um but I'm I'm looking over to my left when you were saying that because I I spent so I I got this case July of 23, the summer of July of the summer of 24. I went through the 3,000 leads. So I'll give you that as an example. So it comes in and there were literally 3,000 leads. Now I'm not used, and and to my left, it's no longer there. That's where the leads were. And I spent the whole summer, three months, four months going through these leads because it's all about we're gearing up to a witch trial. How am I going to try this case? So the 3,000 leads I paired down to probably 65 good, really good leads. And even then, I wasn't going to go with 65 leads. I I would have gone probably brought those down to maybe 10 or 11, maybe. But there were some really, really good leads because you're going to lose a jury, you know, and juries don't want to be bored and you're going to put them to sleep. So if you can get a s a significant amount that's not going to bore them, that has a lot of information and legitimate leads, that's what I would have gone to. So that was one thing that I certainly was going to pursue. And also, and I'll I'll it's the elephant in the room is Dave Schaller. That was a huge, huge thing that I also was going to pursue. And I had a redwell of Dave Schaller because Dave Schaller's The guy who uh obviously IDs Rex Ewerman, so he says. Um, and he, you know, he he did. And they didn't believe him. You know, the the law enforcement officials didn't really give him much credit because if they did, they would have pursued that lead right off the bat. I mean, that was the easiest lead to pursue. Atai, uh, the investigator from the state police is the one who actually followed through on that, and that's why we're having a conversation that we're having today. Because nobody believed Dave Shaler. Dave Shaler was, so let's let's go back to Amber Costello, which was the last, I think she was the last victim. So, as you guys know, it was the ruse in the home where Smith, the plumber, and and Dave Shaler would wait in the back. Amber would go to the door, uh, she'd go up to the Johns, they'd come in, she'd take the money, she'd start dancing, and things would start moving along, and they would come around the front and in an aggressive manner say, What are you doing with my girl? What are you doing with my wife? And the guy would just leave and and they would take that money and they would drive into Brooklyn, uh, and they would get their heroine and they'd shoot up and they'd do it all over again the next day. And and this is what Dave Shallow was doing. And he he um is the one who makes the identification procedure. So I'll give you a little tidbit that very I don't think anybody knows. So what we did was just because you guys were so so good on this case, and I I really appreciate your show. I didn't want to give this up, but I'm giving it up to you. Uh um is so we subpoenaed, if you remember he did TMZ, and that's like the that was the big interview, but they only cropped it up. It was like a 60-second or 90-second interview. So we had, we were fighting to get the full interview, and and I got it. But we had to get attorneys in LA, we had to get an L because their TMZ is located, I think, in LA County. Is that the county? It's Orange County or LA County, whatever it is. So we got attorneys in on the West Coast, and they went before an LA judge, and we got a Supreme Court order there for the production of those of those documents or really video. So I had gotten the complete TMZ video, and there's a lot more in it because TMZ is looking to put up what they want, and I get that, but I needed stuff for trial, so I had a lot more in that TMZ interview. Um, so that was another uh Josh's question was what will you look forward to in terms of trying the case? Cross-examining him would have been something I looked forward to. But you didn't subpoena my interview with Dave Shaler? Yeah. I I don't how long was that, Josh? And I'm sorry if I didn't. I'll do it now. How how long was he how long was the interview? Hour and a half. Uh I you know what? I I honestly I don't even know if I knew that he had that interview with you.

SPEAKER_01 25:00

Um so so I have a question about that interview, if you don't mind, because I want to know if he said the same thing in your interview that he said in mine, which was it wasn't just one time that he met with the police officers, it was four times. They created a truck lineup. They took the time to create a truck lineup of the trucks, and they had the other information from the neighbor. And he had numerous interviews to the point to the point that they were pestering him. So, my question is it doesn't seem like it's one instance where they got a tip, they put it in lawman, and then it just went away. They were after him. There were numerous indications that they knew this information, yet they didn't follow up.

SPEAKER_02 25:45

Yeah, I I think I think Dave Shaler, a couple of reasons. I think he was coy, I don't think he was up front. Remember, remember when when Amber Costello disappeared, it's not like Dave Schaller and and her sister and her sister, who is um Devaney and Devaney, I think, was the woman who was in the house with Amber, but there was uh her sister is um Kim. What was her name? She did a victim impact statement. I forgot her name.

SPEAKER_01 26:12

Kim, Kim.

SPEAKER_02 26:13

Kim Overstreet. Okay. So so now what happens is when Amber disappears that evening, they Kim Ombus Kim Overstreet comes into that house, I believe, and now just takes over the phone. And they keep doing their business. They weren't concerned about Amber Costello. Dave Shallow wasn't, nobody in that house was. And even Kim Overstreet. They just figured she was off somewhere, she went to do a job at different locations. So there was no urgency. And it and it and yeah, they spoke to them numerous times, but it took weeks for them to actually say something to the police. And and I don't my recollection, uh, there were many statements, but Charlotte wasn't up front. He didn't give it all up. And and they were questioning a lot of what he said. And they did return to him numerous times. That that's for sure. We we definitely have several, I don't remember it's three, four statements. But I I just there was a lot of credibility issues with him. So I'm not blaming the the police department because he's one of many leads and one of many uh witnesses, but you you got to take it from where it's coming. And and and the Sarge knows, you know, the credibility of this witness, are we really gonna give a lot to this? We got to go over here and we gotta go this way, and we gotta go this way.

SPEAKER_00 27:28

Yeah, and if you recall, I don't know if you saw the thing with the show that Josh and I did on this, and I and Josh and they asked me, what would you do if you were prosecuting this? And I'd put Dave Shaler up first just to get it out of the way, because I thought that was the biggest problem that we would have. But I'm not a lawyer for sure. But we have this just two more questions we have for you. Mine was can you explain why Rex gave up uh the Karen Vagata case in the uh proffer? Is there something like how did that whole come about? Because that seems to be like a big mystery.

SPEAKER_02 27:57

I can say some. What I can say is in order for our deal, and and the deal is, and there's way more than I can talk about, uh, is that you will not be prosecuted on these eight victims, period. Uh, he needed to cut come clean and say if there were any additional victims, and that was the Vergata case. A lot of people think that there's more victims. Uh, he he's denied that. He had the opportunity to come forward and and talk about any other victims. Um, and he is adamant about the fact or the his position that there were the eight.

SPEAKER_01 28:34

I hate saying only eight, but that it was the eight. Uh so so nothing about Asian Doe that that didn't come up in any of the conversations. I assume they pressed him on it, but then he denied it. They did, and and he did, yes. Um third party culpability, just getting back there real quick. Were you ever given uh James Burke's proper agreement that you had asked for?

SPEAKER_02 29:00

You know, it's funny. Um we we were talking about subpoenaing his file. And now, Josh, are you talking about proper agreement here in Suffolk on on this most recent and decent exposure or way back now? I'm talking about the federal. Yeah, no, we we never got. I I I'm trying to I I want to make sure I I'm clear. I don't believe we ever got the federal documents, and I think the district attorney's position was that those are federal documents and we're not in control of them. Um if if it came, if push came to shove, obviously our position was this is a task force, they're part of this prosecution and investigation. It it never got to that because we then commenced our our our plea discussion. So it never got to that. But but we were pressing for Burke's um, and of course that and you know, listen, they would never have called Burke to the stand. I would have done my best to keep eliciting his name on every single witness.

SPEAKER_01 30:01

But if could you not have called Burke to the stand?

SPEAKER_02 30:05

Yeah, of course I could, but he would have hurt me. So, you know, listen, way back in my career when I started in in as a defense attorney, and I like one of my first murders, and Sarge, you've you've testified how many times? I always say, Oh, you know what? I can call this witness. This guy's a homicide detective. All these homicide detectives are testifying. He's a suffocated homicide, and I could get this out of him, and he's gonna help me. And and and you know, you you sit back and you know, you think that homicide detective is gonna help you against his colleagues on a murder? It's never happening, ever, ever, ever. So you don't you just don't do that. So going back to the question, I mean, it seems like simple. Like I put James Burke on the stand, and I'm gonna be able to get a lot. He's not gonna give me anything I want. That it uh strategy-wise, if this case went to trial, I would have put James Burke on the stand without putting James Burke on the stand. I would have elicited a lot of information from many of the, I mean, listen, how many police witnesses would have been on the stand? And I would have elicited so much, as much as I could about Burke without making him my witness. Um so so that's where we were at. But in terms of the his files, I it would have came to a legal argument and it would have been motion practice with the judge to have him do a so-ordered subpoena. Whether the feds would have acknowledged it and and and agreed to it, I I don't know, but we never got to that point. But you could have gotten the other one, maybe. The most, oh, the most recent one.

SPEAKER_01 31:34

Sure.

SPEAKER_02 31:35

Yes, because that's a Suffolk County case, decent exposure. I know that they sat down with James Burke many times, and and you know, listen, Ray Tierney's uh just a good lawyer. He crosses his T's, he dots his I's, he knows exactly where I was going, and he wanted to eliminate the possibility that Burke was involved. So I know that they had meetings, and I know that they went over all his bills and where he was, and and you know, because you can say what you want about James Burke, but he he's loyal to law enforcement, he was our chief. Um, so I I think he was willing to discuss that, and I know he did.

SPEAKER_00 32:13

So uh that's what happened with James Burke. Would would John Bitroff's name's been showing up just as much as James Burke's in this case, as uh somebody like as a the skeleton in the closet, so to speak? Yeah, Bitroff's name came, of course, because you have you have um Sandra Castilla.

SPEAKER_02 32:32

Yeah, Castillo, and and then you have um, was it Taylor? Yeah, it over in Calverton you had you had Mac and Taylor, you had the remains. So and and Castillo was around the Bitroff time. So yeah, I mean that definitely came up. And there was investigation, there were a lot of documents in the discovery that that referenced uh the Bitroff murder and the the investigation. Um, and and of course, as you may know, legal aid in Suffolk County did a whole motion in front of Justice Ambrose to get the DNA results because they wanted to exonerate Bitroff uh because their their position was that was Rex's DNA on on Tangredi. I don't know the names of the victims. Read a Tangredi. Right. Okay, so so that's what they were trying to do. Um who knows?

SPEAKER_01 33:25

I I mean, but crazy. The Spoti gave you a lot to use here. You had a district attorney arguing with a police chief about the number of killers before the killer is even caught. That was a gift that you were giving. And then you've got him also saying that how could it not be that Sandor Castillo was part of the other crimes uh that Bitroff committed? I mean, first of all, I don't know what he's thinking when he's making these comments, but we also know it's part of something else. But how did you think about that?

SPEAKER_02 33:56

Yeah, I you know, anything, first of all, there's so much here that it's just inevitable you're gonna have ammunition when you're trying to handle a case like this from a defense standpoint. Uh, and and because of the vast X area from the Hamptons all the way to really to Nassau County on the Peaches case, uh, and then you have the time. I mean, you're talking about early 90s to 2010, 11. There's just so much there. And and at times, yeah, they were putting their foot in their mouth and making statements. I I I don't know if it's just it was just so much. And I don't I don't want to put the blame on the DA's office, and I don't want to put the blame on homicide because it's just there was just so much. I say that so many times over the course of the three years, but it it's true, like it really is true. The the amount is just overwhelming. And I'm one person, and of course I had my team, I had other lawyers who were great on this case, but even the the resources that the Suffolk County DA's office had in the police department, they had so many detectives working on this, so many law enforcement, and even for them, it was so much. They went the leads that they followed, and it's enormous. They did so much homework and so much work on this. And and you know, everybody wants to circle back and say, Well, all you had to do is, you know, look at a tie. She's and she did a great job, but it was just this the lawman search. All you had to do was look, ogre, the box, and the avalanche. This is so easy. Like, what's going on? But that's one thing, and there's 5,000 of those, you know. So any one of those, they went down the rabbit hole and they pursued it and they interviewed a hundred people, and there's so many of those. In retrospect, yeah, okay. Look at the low man, look at the ogre, look at the the box, and look at the avalanche. But that's in retrospect, and and they got it right.

SPEAKER_01 35:51

And hunters' licenses, hunters' licenses, hunters in Massapequa?

SPEAKER_02 35:59

Yeah, and fishermen. I mean, there's all there's that. Yeah, and they did. They pulled, they pulled all the licenses. They did a whole search of that. What else? You have to have more questions, guys. I allotted an hour for you. I got a doctor's.

SPEAKER_01 36:16

Oh, did it ever look like there was gonna be a federal nexus in this case?

SPEAKER_02 36:22

That was always a possibility. There was always a concern about that.

SPEAKER_00 36:30

That's interesting.

SPEAKER_02 36:31

Yeah. Let me ask Sarge. You Sarge, I want to just say something because I do, I really do watch your show. You brought out a point, and you and they thought it was a big deal with at this at the sentencing, uh, you know, Rex sat all the way to the left, Danielle sat in the middle, and I sat to the right. And and and it was a good question. And but just so you know, during the Fry hearing, Rex would sit in between us. I would the lead counsel sits on the right. That's just how I we always do it that way, because to my right is the podium and the jury, because when you're on trial, that you want to be closest to the jury, so and you want to just have access to touch evidence and whatever. So I sat right, Danielle would sat sit on the left, and and Rex would sit in the center. When I walked in and I said to maybe it was the major, I said, Hey, you know, why where are we sitting? And they specifically wanted Rex as far away from the podium as possible. Uh, because you know, you had you had victims and civilians and family members who were speaking. So they just said we wanted Rex all the way to the as close to the wall. And being lead counsel, I wanted to sit to the right. So Danielle just inevitably would it just fell into place that she sat in the Senate. There was no strategy or anything like that. I I wish I could take credit for something, but it's not the case.

SPEAKER_00 37:44

Just we never got an answer on the belt. Did it belong to Rex's grandfather? Can you talk about that at all? Or I mean I can't.

SPEAKER_02 37:54

I I I'll I'll okay. I'll pivot from the belt and just tell you the WH was a major player and in another suspect. I don't know if you ever now now Josh knows uh he's shaking his head, and I know you you had talked about this. Did you ever determine who that other suspect was? Um we're without saying names. Do you know who it is?

SPEAKER_01 38:16

Is this the guy that Sini wanted to arrest?

SPEAKER_02 38:18

Yes. Yeah. So you know who it is. Yeah. All right. And and you know that we're going off the target for a bit, but that was a concern of mine. So what I would have done, because I I I did not want to use his real name uh at trial, because I didn't I don't want to expose that person, knowing he's not the person who did it. And again, from a defense standpoint, because I know a lot of people watch this, there's only two ways to resolve cases. So if Rex wants to accept responsibility, he pleads guilty. If he doesn't want to plead guilty, we have an absolute right to go to trial. I can know he's as guilty as the day is long, but that's not the issue. The prosecution has to prove their case, and they have to prove it by a reason beyond a reasonable doubt. So that's how our system works. And I know a lot of people criticize how do you how can you go to trial if you know somebody's guilty? The way our system is set up is not about whether somebody's guilty or innocent. It's about whether the prosecutor can prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. So, going back to that, at some point, if I know he's guilty, and now I'm cross-examining and we're putting in these alternate suspects, such as WH, I never would have used, I know his real name, you probably know his real name, and I know everything about him because they did a real complete investigation, but I would never have used his real name because to me, ethically, I just I don't want to do that. I would use the initials WH. Now, just the same, what would I have done with some of these other suspects and leads that we talked about? There's no need for me to actually say, Josh Z, like he's remember that investigation? I don't need to do that, detective I Jay-Z. Um, and I would I would, and if he doesn't know it, we take him to the side in front out of the presence of the public and the jury and just make sure he knows who it is, and then we can go because I would never want to ethically, I don't, I would never want to do that. It's not fair, and I don't want to expose anybody. Um, so that that's the way we would have handled that. But but WH, they were on the verge of arresting WH. And what what's what's ironic is so now you have WH, and and of course the world says this guy is the mass murderer and he's guilty, and they would have been saying the same things like how could you defend WH? Well, it's funny because we know WH didn't do it, but they would have arrested him. The only point takeaway from this is everybody deserves a defense and everybody's presumed innocent, and you know, they were on the verge of arresting this other person. How horrible would that have been? Because he's not guilty, he didn't do it. By the way, he's a retired member of law enforcement. Um, so it's just a little something to take away for your view is that it's just how our system works. Cool.

SPEAKER_00 41:13

Okay, Jeff. Yeah, the the district attorney's put out a website for the FOIL request now. You know, 100,000 images or whatever. Is there certain things that will never be released, do you think, from this case?

SPEAKER_02 41:26

Yeah, I I hope so. I I I don't, I mean, the crime scene photos, the autopsy photos, people can make money maybe on this. It's really, you know, you know, come on. That's not really what this is about. I I hope that that doesn't get exposed and and revealed. Um there's some really interesting stuff uh that I've seen over the course of my three years. And but but I'm sure the DA is going to try to protect some of that, and I and I hope that's the case. There's no reason for some of that to get to get publicized.

SPEAKER_01 42:02

Especially with the internet. Oh, I'm sorry. But some stuff we should get released, correct? Will get released.

SPEAKER_02 42:09

Yeah, I I I do. I do, Josh. It's it's just it's foyable, and and it's our you know, our transparency that we have in our system, and and you know, you guys can spend you know the next 30 years looking at it because it's gonna take forever. Um no, it it's a crazy amount of of discovery, and there's so much there, but there's some really interesting things in the case. Uh, but yeah, I I think a lot of it should should get out, yes. And and listen, this is almost like I I kind of hope some of the jurisdictions do look at this because they did, they really did a great job. There's things they did on this that, you know, I I've been doing it, I left the DA's office in 95, and I'm looking at some of this and saying, oh my goodness, this is really impressive how they did this and how they did this. And, you know, I I'm not a know-it-all. I I know I know very little and I learn every day, but I think other jurisdictions can take note, and maybe there's some things that they did here that they can utilize in other jurisdictions on their investigations.

SPEAKER_00 43:13

Wow. Yeah, it's interesting. Do you think the task force model is the way to go for a lot of these coal cases? I mean, we saw a lot of good work done with this one. I think so. I do.

SPEAKER_02 43:22

I think it was impressive because what what stands out in my mind is you have different law enforcement organizations doing things differently. And like Joe, Sergeant, when you were in the city, you guys are just trained, you're focused, and you do it the NYPD way. Suffolk County does it the Suffolk County PD way. And now you bring in the troopers and you bring in the FBI. So you're just getting different vantage points and different approaches. I I think it's a wise move. I thought that the task force was, in fact, a great way uh to solve the crime, and obviously they they succeeded. So good for them.

SPEAKER_01 44:01

Were there any other jurisdictions that ever approached you about uh getting access to Rex?

SPEAKER_02 44:06

Not to me, because they would never have gotten jurisdiction, they would never have gotten uh access to them, but I but I know that I know that there was a lot of conversations with other jurisdictions, including outside of our state, uh with law enforcement here, yes. But they no, I mean they're never gonna talk to them. And and you know, I I don't know. I know Nassau County always wanted a grab and they always wanted to have a foot in here. Um but Suffolk, listen, this is Suffolk's case. They they've been doing this work, and there's a lot of prosecutors who are no longer in the office that did a lot of work on this. There's a lot of detectives, good detectives that have retired that did a lot of work on this. So, of course, it goes back so far. So, yeah, we have a task force, and the task force is the ones that that kind of brought this to the finish line, but it there is a ton of work that was done uh for many, many years by a lot of good law enforcement.

SPEAKER_00 45:06

There seems to be confusion about where Rex's forever home is over here. I mean, they say they have him listed as Elmira. Then we have different news they saying Elmira. News 12 is saying Clinton. Can you tell us what that's all about or where he is?

SPEAKER_02 45:19

He's upstairs, he's at the Dunkin' Donuts next door. It's um he we don't, I mean, you could go on the inmate locator website. I I think I was informed uh Dan Amore is where he's at, which is due north, right by the clear border. But the New York State Inmate Locator generally gives a pretty good accurate description of where he's at at any given time. But you know, in a state congressional facility, they can change you if they want. Um, I don't know if they would do that with a high-profile subject like Rex. I think oftentimes a lot of my clients will get changed. They'll, you know, they'll get moved. And there's a host of reasons why. Uh, within the category, right? So you have medium security, minimum security, maximum security. Obviously, Rex would be in the maximum security. I think somebody like him and and the Berkowitzes and and the uh Rifkins, they they kind of get into a place and they stay there. It's just better for everybody putting them in a place, everybody's just kind of familiar with the situation and they stay there. But I I don't know if he's gonna stay in that war.

SPEAKER_01 46:25

One thing that continue to kind of I don't know, mythologize is, and I'm sure would really love an answer just so we could set the record straight, is Karen Vergata. There's this story, uh, she was at the house previously with somebody with somebody else, the wife knew it was a swingers type of thing. Is there anything that you can illuminate to to say whether that's a true story or not true story?

SPEAKER_02 46:51

Yeah, I I I am not familiar with that, and I've never heard that. I've heard it from the folks in the media, but I I not not from us. Uh I I don't if you're asking me my opinion about whether Asa knew anything, I you know, what you the answer is no. She what you see on these uh these interviews and and the these documentaries, whatever they put out, uh she's however you want to characterize her, I I don't think it's I think it's much more than that. Um and and it's it's definitely you know, yeah, it's definitely uh fathomable that she did not know. And I don't think she knew. I I don't see how she did.

SPEAKER_01 47:37

I really don't. Very brainwashed person, very brainwashed, very like kind of clueless about things.

SPEAKER_02 47:44

Yeah, no, and and Josh, that's a that's a good app description. She is. Um, you know, she had a very difficult upbringing, and she relied on Rex, and he he took care of her. I mean, he did. You can call Rex anything you want, but he was he he he definitely took care of her, uh, provided a roof over her head and raised the stepson, and they had a daughter together. Um, I I she definitely doesn't see the forest and the trees. I mean, she just it's almost like she just functions, you know.

SPEAKER_00 48:21

With the last uh minute or two that we have left, was there something that we should have asked you that we didn't that you thought that the uh our watchers would like to know?

SPEAKER_02 48:31

No, I I you guys did a great job. And and you know, one of the things I had mentioned to I think to Josh, I really didn't follow this in the media that much, only because I was inundated with stuff and I was working on the case. And I don't know how I got I got your um I got your feed and I saw some of your shows and then I started watching. And I I will say, and it's not a plug by any uh stretch, but you you along with Laura Ingle, you were always like one step ahead. And you would say things that I knew were happening and would come true. And a lot of these other shows, whenever you see the newscast and whatever, it was a very generic, but you guys definitely had insight. Um, and and more often than not, what you thought was happening and what you would talk about ended up becoming reality. So that was pretty impressive, and I I thought that was kind of neat. Uh but in terms of revelations, I I guess you have to wait for the book on that, Sarge. I don't know. Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. There's a book, there's a book. I you know what? I I don't know what I'm doing. I I I would like to get into that. I think that my experiences over the three years, uh a lot of ups and downs, and it it's been a a a wild ride, and that's to say the say the least. There's so much that happened over the course of the three years, and I think it would be I I just think it would be great to talk about it and give it up. Uh, but I'm I'm really I I I'm like recovering, you know. It's it and when I said that and I mean that sincerely, it's it's been an intense, intense three years. Um it just has, and it was a lot, and I'm just kind of taking a breath uh and hopefully enjoying the summer, and then I'm gonna I want to go back to my trying cases, which I love to do, and I couldn't really try many cases over the course of the three years. That's something I really enjoy doing, but I think the story that I live for three years with the client and and just everything about this case uh is real interesting. It is.

SPEAKER_01 50:45

Is there one thing, one moment, one thing that you remember your takeaway with Rex Huerman? Anything he said or anything he did that you're always going to remember.

SPEAKER_02 51:02

Well, you know, I and I don't want to take this, and I said this at at the at the press conference at the end of the case, which is obviously what what he did is is it's horrible. And and you folks know this, you've you you read about it. I've seen the video, I've seen the pictures, I've seen the crime scene, I I know a lot more. You you think certain things happen, I know certain things happen. So that part of it is so hard to reconcile with the person I've been dealing with for the last three years. Because I walk in and here is a guy that, and I I say this to my friends all the time. If he was sitting, you know, we're sitting around a bar watching a game, if Rex was sitting there, he'd be drinking a beer with us, he'd be laughing, joking, he's charismatic, he's funny, and you would say, Hey, Mike, let's get this guy back next week, right? This is a serial killer. So, you know, to reconcile that, it's very, very difficult. So in my past, a murder over a drug deal. Yeah, okay, this is not a I get that person. He's a drug dealer, he's violent, he's doing what he's doing. There's there's the the husband and wife, there's you know, the domestics that spin out of control, and it's literally a harassment sarge, and then it that one extra step, and now the woman's dead. It's horrible. We know those people. This this individual is unique for me for my 30 plus years. I've never seen that. I've never seen it, and and it's really hard to reconcile. I've seen him with his daughter. We had meetings, of course, we had meetings because this therapist, so-called therapist, revealed it all. So, so you know, I saw him with his daughter, and that there's this, it is a genuine, she looked at him as her hero. She idolized her dad, and he had this love for her. It was evident. I'm sitting in that room next to them in this meeting. How is that possible that this person who's capable of that type of love and affection, how is he capable of just the heinous murders that he did? I don't have the answer for that. I don't. Um, but that's something that I would love to get the answer at one point in time. My client can't tell me that. But you know, maybe the psychologist, psychiatrist, I don't know. Maybe somebody else can. That's something I really would like to kind of figure out, just as a human being. Did he try and explain it to you at some point? He he he does he doesn't know the answer either. He doesn't know the answer. We've had these discussions, he doesn't know the answer.

SPEAKER_00 53:54

Well, if what when you write your book, make sure you come back on the show. We help you promote it and this and that. And you know, if you you know, there's there is a therapist we do know of if you need help to get through some of these things. I got does she take my insurance? That's really the question. You couldn't get more of a Long Island story than this one. My God, it just never stops.

SPEAKER_02 54:14

It's um I you know it it's a lot, but anyway, I appreciate it. And I I would love to chat with you guys more, really. I just I have to run to a doctor's appointment. I thank you for having me on the show. Uh, it's nice to finally meet you guys and have this discussion. Thank you. Thank you. Take care, guys. Bye.

SPEAKER_00 54:32

For more shows like this, check out True Crime with the Sarge on YouTube or on my official website, josephjackalone.com. This podcast is owned and operated by Sarge Media LLC. All rights reserved. Thank you for listening.