Cardi B is on trial in an assault lawsuit, and the judge let jurors ask their own questions
Closing arguments are scheduled Tuesday morning in a state superior court trial over a lawsuit from a former security guard at a medical center in Beverly Hills in 2018.
Cardi B is on trial in California.
The social media star turned rapper is to return to Los Angeles County Superior Court on Tuesday for closing arguments in a trial over a lawsuit that alleges she scratched a security guard’s face with a long fingernail during a dispute at medical center in 2018.
Legal name Belcalis Almanzar, Cardi was at the Women’s Care of Beverly Hills Medical Group for a pregnancy checkup. Plaintiff Emani Ellis claims Cardi irately confronted her because she mistakenly believed Ellis was recording her with her cellphone. Cardi testified she still believes Ellis was trying to record her but said she never touched her or insulted her with a racial racial epithet as her lawsuit claims.
Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Ian C. Fusselman allowed the trial to be streamed live online, and clips of Cardi’s testimony have gone global.
Ellis’ lawyer is Ron A. Rosen Janfaza, a licensed attorney in California since 2004 who told Cardi he didn’t know she wears wigs.
“Yesterday you had black hair, short hair. Today it’s blonde and long. Which one is your real hair?” Rosen asked.
“They’re wigs,” Cardi answered.
It’s an exchange written words can’t do justice. You must watch the video, which has almost 20 million views on the website formerly known as Twitter.
Several other clips have many million views on TikTok, including one of Rosen Janfaza yelling at her and Fusselman eventually calling a recess that has been viewed almost 27 millions times for more than 438,300 hours.
TikTok provides a statistic that always reminds me where we’re at in terms of human attention span and the way we consume and present information: Of the 26.8 million viewers (12.5 percent are repeat views) since I posted the video last Wednesday at 10:59 a.m., 13.73 percent watched the entire 3 minute, 41 second video. The average watch time is 41.6 seconds.
To say this trial has been a disaster for Rosen Janfaza would be an understatement. He certainly doesn’t lack self confidence, but his logic and reasoning feels so off it’s strange. I discussed this on LiveNOW From Fox this weekend.
In addition to Ellis, Rosen called four witnesses:
Leanne Shmidt, Ellis’ mother who testified Ellis told her about the incident and her injury. “I noticed changes in terms of a lot of anxiety, a lot of depression, and just her general wellbeing has changed dramatically,” Schmidt testified.
Dianne Shmidt, Ellis’ grandmother who testified Ellis told her about the incident and her injury. “After this incident, she was depressed. She was really disappointed. I think she liked Cardi B before the the incident, and she was shocked that she was reacted that way.” Schmidt lives in Las Vegas and said Ellis visits her monthly, which Rosen has highlighted to try to counter Cardi’s defense that Ellis isn’t suffering an emotional injury.
Nichole McKenzie, a psychologist who saw Ellis in 2018 and testified she told her about the incident and her injury.
Brent Moelleken, a plastic surgeon who performed two micro-needling sessions on Ellis’s face scar in November 2022 and testified her facial scar is consistent with a scratch from a fingernail. Moelleken testified Ellis owes him $17,500 that he’s waiting until after trial to collect.
Along with herself, Cardi’s defense witnesses were:
David Finke, a gynecologist who saw Cardi at the medical center that day and testified he recommended Ellis be fired for her actions. He said he didn’t see Cardi spit on Ellis or ridicule her the way Ellis claims. He called the dispute an “epic yelling match.” He also testified he didn’t see an injury on Ellis’ face, but his receptionist was scratched on her face and, based on the positioning of Ellis and Cardi, it came from Ellis.
In cross-examination, Rosen asked Finke, “It’s important to you to help Cardi B in this case, so you can continue to receive celebrity clients, correct?”
Finke quickly answered, “It’s very important for me to tell what happened that day and to ensure that anybody coming to my office — celebrity or not — doesn’t have that type of experience.”
Tierra Malcolm, Finke’s receptionist who saw the end of the dispute between Ellis and Cardi and testified she told Ellis, “What are you doing? You’re at work” and believes Ellis was at fault. Cardi’s lawyer identified Malcom and located her shortly before trial.
James Rosenberg, a psychiatrist who evaluated Ellis in 2023 and testified he saw “no significant evidence that Ms. Ellis sustained an emotional injury at any point in time, in this case, from the time of the incident present.”
Rosenberg said Ellis “reported to me that since the incident, she’s traveled to Hawaii, Las Vegas, Mexico, though she couldn’t remember, supposedly, that if she had gone to other places, or how many times and again.
Particularly with severe PTSD, you don’t want to leave your house. You don’t want to interact with people. You withdraw from your family. The future looks bleak to you. You don’t have a job.”
Cardi is represented by Peter Anderson and Eric Lamm of Davis Wright Tremaine LLP in Los Angeles and Lisa Moore of Atlanta, Georgia.
Anderson and Moore successfully defended her in a federal trial in 2022 over a likeness misappropriation lawsuit from a man who said she wrongly used a portion of his back tattoo on the cover to her mixtape “Gangsta Bitch Music, Vol 1.”
Moore also represented Cardi in the federal trial in Atlanta in 2022 in the defamation lawsuit against YouTuber Latasha “Tasha K” Kebe, in which jurors returned a $4 million verdict.
You can all videos from the trial in a playlist on my YouTube channel.
Judge lets jurors submit questions for witnesses
Judge Fusselman did something in this trial I’d never before seen: He allowed jurors to submit written questions for witnesses, which he reviewed and decided whether to ask himself. He also asked a few questions of his own.
It gives attorneys a real-time look at what jurors are thinking and how they’re interpreting the testimony and exhibits so far.
Jurors had no questions for Cardi, but they had a few for Malcolm about her.
The first question Fusselman read aloud was, “Did you actually close the your office to maintain privacy for Cardi B?”
“Yes,” Malcolm answered.
“When you do that, was it your customer practice to also notify the building security?”
“I honestly don’t know what, if that was done,” Malcolm answered.
“Did you normally do that?” Fusselman clarified.
“That wasn’t my task, no.” Malcolm answered.
“Do you recall the n-word coming out of Cardi B’s mouth?”
“No,” Malcom answered.
“Can you describe Cardi B’s emotional state during and after the incident?”
“Upset, emotional, worried about the reason why she was there,” Malcom answered.
“Did you notice whether Ms. Ellis had a phone or a camera during the incident?
“She had a phone in her hand,” Malcolm answered.
“She did have a phone in her hand?” Fusselman clarified.
“Yes,” Malcolm answered.
“Alright, those are the questions that I think are appropriate,” Fusselman said.
The judge said the jurors’ questions for Moelleken, the surgeon, “overlap, and so I’ll try and combine them.”
“Did you see any evidence of a scratch on the nose?”
“No,” Moelleken answered.
“Can you tell whether the scar that you examined was caused by jewelry?”
“It could have been the most likely explanation, given the track trajectory is fingernails, but it could have been jewelry,” Moelleken answered.
“Can you offer an opinion as to the approximate age on the scar on her left cheek?
“It’s impossible to know, because after roughly a year, the scars mature. So it really wouldn’t change very much. So you can’t tell the age of the scar,” Moelleken answered.
“You used the term medical necessity, or, I think it was asked during a question. What is your definition of medical necessity?”
“If the patient is likely to derive a benefit from a procedure, then you could say there is medical necessity if they’re likely to derive a benefit from it,” Moelleken answered.
“Generally can a scar form without breaking the skin?”
“Yes. A scar can form by by scrapes or by breaking the skin. Either one, but it definitely can occur in superficial scratches,” Moelleken answered.
Fusselman said he was asking his “own follow up with regard to that.”
“So can you describe how a scar can — or what the difference is between an abrasion and actually breaking the skin?” the judge asked.
“Yes, a minimal dermal injury may not bleed, but can produce scarring,” Moelleken answered after explaining in more detail.
“I think you identified a scratch and then some additional scratches on the cheek. Is that correct?” Fusselman asked.
“Yes,” Moelleken answered.
“And is it your opinion that all of the scratches came from fingernails?” Fusselman asked.
“Well, that’s the most likely scenario, given the patient’s history. Could it have been a dwarf with sharp toes who jumped up? Possible, not likely. But it could have been most likely fingernails. But there are many other things that would leave three linear marks. But just given the patient's history, that’s the most likely scenario,” Moelleken answered.
Fusselman rephrased another question this way: “Is it fair to say that when you agree to treat on a lien, you’re deferring payment until the resolution of the pending litigation?”
“Yes. So we defer always. We defer the patient paying the bill until the case has settled,” Moelleken answered.
“But it’s fair to say that, at least according to the terms of the lien, that the patient is responsible regardless of the outcome of the litigation,” Fusselman clarified.
“Yes, the patient is responsible for the bill,” Moelleken answered.
With McKenzie, the psychologist, Fusselman said “a couple questions are a little bit overlapping, but I’ll go ahead and ask them.”
“If a physical injury is not reported to you, is there any reason you would still take a note of it?”
“From what I recall, when individuals were referred for treatment, they were asked to fill out paperwork. On that paperwork, they were asked to document if they had physical injuries or physical pain symptoms in those situations. I would review it and include those in the report,” McKenzie answered.
The judge asked his own follow up questions.
“When the patient is coming in, they provided their responses to questions relating to their history and physical, correct?” Fusselman asked.
“Correct,” McKenzie answered.
“And so they would note any physical symptoms, whether or not they related to this the reason for their visit?” the judge asked.
“Correct,” McKenzie answered.
“Was it your practice that if the psychological trauma was caused by a physical injury, that you would note that on your chart?”
“Yes,” McKenzie answered.
“Do you recall actually seeing any marks on plaintiff’s nose or cheek?”
“I do not recall,” McKenzie answered.
Jurors asked no questions of Ellis’ mother, but they had a couple for her grandmother.
“Do you have an approximate time as to when Ms. Ellis called you? Do you know the approximate time?”
“I really couldn’t tell you,” Shmidt answered.
“Did she tell you how long prior to the call that it happened? Or, in other words, did she say this just happened, or it happened earlier?”
“She called me right after, and she was humiliated, you know? So she was crying. ” Shmidt answered.
Los Angeles-based lawyer Lou Shapiro told me allowing jurors to submit questions for witnesses happens on occasion in both criminal and civil cases in Los Angeles County Superior Court but is “not so common.”
Fusselman, who earned his law degree from the University of Southern California, was a partner at Thorsnes Bartolotta McGuire LLP in San Diego from 2004 to 2018 and a mediator at ADR Services from 2018 to 2021. Gov. Gavin Newsom appointed him to the bench in 2021.
My YouTube channel continues to grow
I’m covering Cardi’s trial by posting testimony clips on TikTok and Instagram, and longer testimony videos on YouTube. I’m approaching 53,000 subscribers after gaining 15,000 in the last week between my coverage of Cardi’s trial and my coverage of Donna Adelson’s murder-for-hire trial in Tallahassee, Florida.
People consistently thank me in the comments for providing a place to watch the testimony that highlights the major occurrences without adding commentary and “analysis.”
I strive to write descriptive, informative headlines that avoid the sensationalism I see on other channels promoting conflict while insulting everyone’s intelligence (“Attorneys Battle In Court While Judge Gets Heated”).
Viewer also say they appreciate my ability to break the trial days into separate videos with detailed descriptions that include quotes from the testimony with timestamps that help guide people through testimony that can feel indecipherable to someone just joining in.
This is the most important part of what I do, and the success of it reminds me of my first experience in a professional newsroom.
It was 2005, the summer before my senior year at the University of Oregon, and I was interning at The Bulletin newspaper in Bend, Oregon. The paper’s leadership held a meeting with the newsroom staff, and the human resources director awarded prizes to people who correctly answered questions about the state of the newspaper. I won a Bulletin visor that I still have because I was the first to correctly answer that the reason most people say they’re cancelling their daily newspaper subscription is because they just don’t have time to read it.
Fast forward 20 years, and some people apparently think the best way make use of having every single moment of major trials recorded on video is to post videos of each eight-hour trial day online and say “here you go.”
Or, they think people interested in the trial care about the opinions and commentary of uninvolved people and want to watch 90 minutes of them talking about what happened in court instead of watching it themselves unedited. Some people do, and more power to them. But a lot of people absolutely do not, and I’m happy to provide a place for them to watch the trial.
Either way, I’m happy to provide an alternative. I’m also happy to post short clips that quickly highlight the key testimony, which harkens me back to my days at The Spokesman-Review and the rise of “briefs” that appeared on the front page of the Metro section as a column, with 3-4 inch write ups that often were the most read items in the paper.
My testimony coverage short clips originate on my TikTok page and are cross-posted on my Instagram, Facebook and YouTube pages.
I won’t be streaming closing arguments in Cardi’s trial, but I’ll stream Adelson’s trial each day this week, and I’ll post testimony videos from both her trial and Cardi’s trial.
The Adelson trial has an incredibly dark feel to it. Saying the murder-for-hire of Dan Markel shocks the conscience is an understatement.
There’s a rip tide of evil in this trial, driven by people without a conscience and without a moral compass but with strong egos that overpower everything else. Donna Adelson also has zero viable defense.
Her attorney Jackie Fulford, a licensed attorney in Florida since 1994, said in her opening statement that there’s no evidence showing she actually knew of Markel’s contract killing in 2014, and after watching every second of the prosecution’s case at least once (they rested on Friday), I can safely say that is a ridiculous statement.
There is a ton of evidence against Adelson, from her contacts with her now-imprisoned son, Charlie Adelson, the day Markel was shot to her clear knowledge of the payments from her family’s dental practice to the woman who linked Charlie to the hitmen. That evidence seems like enough, but the FBI conducted an undercover investigation in 2016 that absolutely seals the case.
Fulford and her co-counsel, Joshua Zelman, a licensed attorney in Florida since 2003, will begin calling witnesses Tuesday morning. I think it’s possible she insists on testifying just as her son Charlie, who also could testify, did in his trial in 2023.
I saw an indication last week that she’s not an easy client when Judge Stephen Everett made the rare move of questioning her in open court about her confidence in her attorneys’ cross-exam strategy for two upcoming witnesses, both inmates who met her in jail and testified she implicated herself in Markel’s murder.
Everett didn’t say why he was questioning her, but the questioning took place after he met with Fulford and Zelman in his chambers. I suspect Adelson said something that made them nervous about a possible ineffective assistance of counsel claim, and Judge Everett questioned Adelson after hearing from them about their concerns.
The judge is the best I’ve seen on a live-streamed trial. He handles business with a great temperament and zero drama.
He also has a great sense of humor.
I made my first cameo in a rap music video
I am extending a big thank you to rapper Glasses Malone for thinking of me when crafting the video for his new song “Wanted.” I joined his crew for a courtroom cameo at the filming location near Los Angeles earlier this year, and the video is out now.
Thank you for supporting my independent legal affairs journalism. Your paid subscriptions make my work possible. If you’re not already a paid subscriber, please consider purchasing a subscription through Substack. You also can support me through my merchandise store and by watching my YouTube channel. Also, please follow me on Facebook and Instagram as I grow my Meta presence. Thank you!