JP Miller's Enablers, His Defense, and the Feds — A Prosecutor on All of It

Tony Brueski (0:02)

This is HiddenKillers Live with Tony Brueski and Robin Dre.

I think the best thing Netflix has done all year is release the MicaMiller documentary. I really do, because it shines such a spotlight where it's needed to be shown.

We're continuing to dig into the John Paul Miller, MicaMiller case today, and there's a specific angle that's driving a lot of us kind of crazy. South Carolina doesn't have coercive control laws, which makes it incredibly difficult to hold JP fully accountable for the sheer psychological torment that Mica endured and the allegations against him. But JP doesn't operate in a vacuum. He had help. He allegedly used people in his inner circle to do some of his dirty work, so he wouldn't get caught on camera. Now his network is scattering, and we have to ask what happens to the enablers? Joining me to break this down is Defense Attorney and former Prosecutor Eric Faddis and Robin Drake, retired FBI Special Agent, Chief of the Counterintelligence Behavioral Analysis Program. Let's start with the help because they are scattering like flies. Now again, JP is saying, I'm not guilty of any of these charges against me. It's all bullshit, blah, blah, blah. So that's where we're at on all of that. And a lot of the friends, too, very much distancing themselves or former friends saying, we weren't that tight, that close, all that. That's why we're here. The exposure of the help. So Eric, because South Carolina lacks that coercive control law, the state has a hard time hitting JP with much for the psychological abuse. That's where the Fed charges are coming in. But what about the people, the people who helped him? Considering the allegations, what kind of legal exposure, if any, considering JP doesn't seem to have much at all in the state of South Carolina, do the people who are now running like scared cockroaches that have just gotten singed as the building is collapsing, what kind of exposure do they actually have right now, if much of anything?

Eric Faddis (2:13)

Under the doctrine of accomplice liability, that's a legal theory by which folks who may have assisted or provided aid could be roped in, including in a criminal context. Usually to prove that, you have to establish that the conspirator or the accomplice share the same mental state as the principal wrong actor, here that would allegedly be John Paul Miller, so that they knew what John Paul Miller was doing, that they provided some material assistance in terms of that course of dealing, that course of alleged criminal activity over time.

If those things can be established, then those folks could be in many states just as liable criminally, as the principal actor themselves. But without significant criminal charges at the state level against John Paul Miller, that's going to be difficult, at least at this stage. But we're learning more.

Tony Brueski (3:12)

When we have, because right now there's the federal charges against John Paul Miller, there's no state charges there.

And we know in federal charges, they tend to go after your bigger fish, if you will, not to waste their time. And John Paul would be the bigger fish in this case.

Do the federal authorities have any interest in going after the best friends or the buddies or the this or the that, if they played minor roles in his allegations of the control and such? Like for example, the GPS trackers that they were continuously finding on Mica's car. That's part of this case. Did John Paul put them there? Did one of his minions put him there? I guess if one of the minions put the trackers there, is that something that they would then go after the minion or following the orders of John Paul? Or does that kind of get into the gray area of, well, how did he ask you? Do we have a record of of meaning asking you? Is that provable? Because I could see where it gets into a gray area where there's going to be plausible deniability on the part of John Paul saying, I never asked for that. And then the feds is going, fuck it, we don't care about that person. That's not the problem anyhow. The problem is JP.

Eric Faddis (4:26)

You know, the feds have to prioritize what they're doing.

And they've got to go up to the folks whom they think are important with respect to a given event. That being said, I mean, there's a national fervor around this case. Everybody's talking about it. And so, you know, is there kind of an optics motivation, a PR motivation perhaps for the feds to do a complete and thorough investigation and potential prosecution of any alleged complicit? I think that there is probably an appetite for that in the federal government just based on the momentum that this case has garnered in the public eye.