Two Lawyers and Client on Trial Over Waffle House Sex Tape
Former Cobb County Assistant District Attorney John Butters and Marietta lawyer David Cohen are accused of violating Georgia's eavesdropping law by helping their client record a sexual encounter with a Waffle House executive.
April 02, 2018 at 03:24 PM
5 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Daily Report
Two attorneys and their client—the former housekeeper for the chairman of Waffle House—are on trial this week in Atlanta on charges that they violated the state's eavesdropping law by recording a secret sex tape.
A jury was seated Monday in the trial of John Butters, a former Cobb County assistant district attorney, and Marietta lawyer David Cohen over a sex tape that their client and co-defendant, Mye Brindle, recorded during an encounter at the home of Waffle House chairman and then-CEO Joe Rogers Jr.
That sex tape, sealed by judges in two counties in 2012, was the basis for a demand Butters and Cohen made suggesting that Rogers pay his housekeeper $12 million to keep quiet over claims he repeatedly sexually harassed her or else face a civil lawsuit and potentially ruinous publicity.
Court records described the recording as depicting Rogers shaving nude in his bathroom and then lying on his bed as Brindle manually serviced him.
Rogers and his civil lawyers at Marietta firm Moore Ingram Johnson & Steele have aggressively combated Brindle's claims, suing her and her lawyers and lobbying for criminal charges against the trio in what has become a tangle of civil and criminal cross-claims and litigation that shows little sign of resolution after six years. Rogers has not denied the June 20 sexual liaison but has claimed it was consensual.
In 2016, Fulton County District Attorney Paul Howard's office waded into the civil dispute, securing a four-count felony indictment accusing Butters and Cohen of conspiracy to commit extortion, conspiracy to commit unlawful surveillance and unlawful surveillance.
Georgia law makes it a crime for any person through the use of any device, without consent of all persons observed, to photograph or record the activities of others that occur in a private place out of public view. The only exceptions are for people in prison or in jail and property owners who install cameras for security purposes.
Fulton County Superior Court Judge Henry Newkirk, who is presiding over the criminal trial, initially threw out the indictment, only to have the Supreme Court of Georgia reinstate the eavesdropping charges last November.
In affirming Newkirk's dismissal of the extortion conspiracy charge, the high court ruled that Cohen's demand letter warning of a potential civil suit using the sex tape as evidence, though aggressive, did not rise to the level of a criminal threat.
But the high court also ruled that, although Georgia's eavesdropping law only requires one-party consent, it only applies to oral, wire and electronic communications, not video recordings.
At a pretrial hearing in February, Newkirk told prosecutors and defense lawyers that he felt strongly that the case should have “a universal agreement and settlement.”
The high court's other rulings in the competing civil litigation and their multiple appeals have not favored Butters and Cohen, but the defense argued again Tuesday to have counts dismissed before opening statements were scheduled to begin.
Last Thursday, the high court declined Cohen's motion for reconsideration of its earlier ruling upholding nearly $200,000 in legal fees awarded to Rogers. Former Fulton Court State Court Judge Susan Forsling had directed that Rogers' fees be paid after holding in 2013 that Brindle's sexual harassment lawsuit, filed in Fulton County just two days after Rogers sued her first in Cobb County, was frivolous.
Rogers sued following failed negotiations associated with Cohen's initial demand letter on Brindle's behalf. Forsling ruled that Brindle should have filed a counterclaim to the Cobb suit.
The high court last year also upheld a Cobb County judge's decision to disqualify Cohen and Butters as Brindle's counsel in the civil suit. Cobb County Superior Court Judge Robert Leonard, who later recused from the civil case, disqualified the lawyers after determining their attorney-client privilege could be pierced over the production of the videotape. In that order, Leonard said the videotape, which he reviewed, “makes it clear that defendant was a willing participant in the sexual encounter and is not the victim of a sexual battery.”
Two private investigators may be key to the prosecution's case.
Thomas Hawkins, owner of Hawk Private Investigations Inc., and investigator Michael Deegan said in civil depositions obtained by the Daily Report that they balked when the lawyers asked for help in securing video evidence to document Brindle's claims.
According to the two investigators, they met with Cohen and Butters two days before Brindle retained the lawyers on June 6, 2012, and three weeks before she made the sex tape.
The investigators are represented by former Georgia Gov. Roy Barnes.
But in a pretrial hearing in February, Cohen attorney Brian Steel sought to portray Brindle as a vulnerable, single mother who repeatedly was lured into situations where Rogers forced her to submit to unwanted sexual advances.
Steel contended that, as a victim of an alleged sexual predator, Brindle was legally justified in surreptitiously recording what he claimed was a criminal act. Rogers has not been charged with a crime tied to Brindle's allegations.
Rogers' wife, Fran Rogers, told the Daily Report in February that she believes Brindle intended to play on Rogers' fears that his wife would find out about the affair.
“Their hope was Joe would be embarrassed and that he would pay them money for their silence,” she said. “Their worst nightmare was when Joe told me. They lost what they thought was their leverage.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllPlaintiffs Seek Redo of First Trial Over Medical Device Plant's Emissions
4 minute readIn Lawsuit, Ex-Google Employee Says Company’s Layoffs Targeted Parents and Others on Leave
6 minute readPaul Weiss’ Shanmugam Joins 11th Circuit Fight Over False Claims Act’s Constitutionality
Trending Stories
- 1Pa. Hospital Agrees to $16M Settlement Following High Schooler's Improper Discharge
- 2Connecticut Movers: Year-End Promotions, Hires and an Office Opening
- 3Luigi Mangione Defense Attorney Says NYC Mayor’s Comments on Case Raise Fair Trial Concerns
- 4Revisiting the Boundaries Between Proper and Improper Argument: 10 Years Later
- 5Hochul Vetoes 'Grieving Families' Bill, Faulting a Lack of Changes to Suit Her Concerns
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250