JP Miller's Defense Has One Shot — A Former Prosecutor on Their Playbook

SPEAKER_1 (0:01)

This is HiddenKillers Live with Tony Brueski and Robin Dre.

Tony Brueski (0:07)

We're going to go and talk more about the prosecution of John Paul in just a moment. But first, let's get to the defense of John Paul Miller. We haven't talked a lot about that. We spent a lot of time talking about how the FBI built their case against John Paul Miller. But today, we're going to flip the script in this segment. JP is heading to Federal Court this October, facing charges of Cyberstalking and making statements to investigators. And he's pled not guilty. As much as the Court of Public Opinion has already convicted him, especially with the massive spotlight from the documentaries and non-stop media coverage, in a Federal Courtroom, the government still has to prove every single element beyond a reasonable doubt. They can't just be like, Netflix dropped it, everybody hates you, you're done. So, what exactly is his defense team's playbook? How do you combat these charges when there is such a deep, devious evidence stacked against you? Joining me to break it down, how JP's defense might attack the government's case, is defense attorney and former prosecutor Eric Faddis, and Robin Drake, retired FBI Special Agent, Chief of the Counterintelligence Behavioral Analysis Program.

Eric, JP's team has to present a believable, that's the key part, believable counter-narrative to a jury. When you have a mountain of evidence with the GPS trackers, hired private investigator, relentless harassment, how does a defense attorney spin all of that? Do you try to frame it all of this extreme surveillance as, he was just concerned, he's a loving husband, he's not a stalker, I get how it looks that way, but clearly, look at the man, look at how good he is, he's talking in a really high voice, he must be, he must show love. How do you frame this, Eric?

Eric Faddis (2:00)

Sure, so there's difficulties there on the defense side, but certainly some creative defense attorneys could get some traction on some things. So for the cyberstalking charge, basically one big issue is that prosecution has to prove that Mica Miller did sustain serious emotional distress. Well, that's a little hard when you don't have that witness to bring them in to tell the jury, yes, I suffered significant emotional distress. There are issues that arise with the Confrontation Clause in the Constitution, which basically says if someone's going to provide statements against you at a jury trial, you get to cross-examine them. Well, you can't cross-examine that person. There are hearsay issues that come up. So MicaMiller has prior statements saying that, you know, how this was affecting her negatively in an emotional way, are those statements hearsay? Well, it's an out-of-court statement, so it probably is hearsay. But is there a hearsay exception that allows it to come in? The prosecution's evidence is going to be limited, unfortunately, by the absence of the victim's testimony here because she is gone, she is deceased. And so that could spell some trouble for the Cyberstalking Charm.

Robin Drake (3:12)

What about the area when it comes to, I can see it play in both ways, both good for prosecution and as well as good for defense, the trauma that they can say she was under from the stalking aspect because of the mental health issues.

And would they be able to, I'm guessing yes, but I just want to double-check, and they pull those medical records even though she's deceased, and use that for either, I guess that's the question for you. Is that more helpful for prosecution or defense, pulling those medical mental health records of hers? And I guess both could also argue that he induced it, or the other person could say he did it because of it. What do you think has more traction, or both?

Eric Faddis (3:51)

You gotta dance around the hearsay issues there, so you probably could not get the medical records and give them to a jury. Be like, hey look, Mica was saying how emotionally distressed she was because of this. But, Robin, you could probably subpoena the therapist. Let's say that Mica Miller went to a therapist and she was saying, hey, my ex is stalking me, it's ruining my life, I can't sleep, I can't eat, things that are really affecting me.

You could call the provider as a witness potentially, and have the provider say the observations that they made of Mica Miller. Yes, she was nervous, she appeared fidgety, she was tearful.

She appeared, you know, if she hadn't been eating well or sleeping well, you could make such observations. And then you can ask the therapist, what was the subject of what you were discussing? Now, you can't get into the specific statements because those are hearsay, but you can take it a step backwards and say, what was the subject of this? And probably convey to the jury that Mica Miller was going to a therapist because she was under emotional distress due to the stalking. So you got to kind of dance around and weave around those hearsays.