I'm Amber Renee Dixon.

After more than 20 years in prison, 41 year old Ricky Slaughter is preparing for a retrial.

The local man was 19 when prosecutors say he and another man entered a North Las Vegas home tied up the family inside and robbed them at gunpoint.

They say slaughter shot one victim in the face and that victim lost an eye.

No one died, and police never caught the other suspect.

Slaughter pleaded guilty in 2005, but the Nevada Supreme Court later found that plea was involuntary and the case went to trial.

A jury convicted slaughter in 2012, but in March of this year, federal judge and ROM ordered a retrial because, she said, prosecutors withheld evidence that could have changed the jury's verdict.

We'll hear from the lead prosecutor ahead, but first, the high profile defense attorney now representing slaughter at no charge.

Mark Geragos, his clients have included Michael Jackson, Scott Peterson, and Eric and Lyle Menendez.

And in this exclusive interview recorded after a court appearance Monday, Geragos explains why he's fighting for Slaughter's freedom.

Why did you choose to get involved?

You know, there's a, there's been a through line in my kind of the cases I've taken in the last 20 years.

And for the first 20 years of my practice, it was almost exclusively criminal defense.

Then for the last 20 years, it's been, basically police and prosecutorial misconduct.

And I go fortunate enough to go all over the country and take cases that piqued my interest.

And I got a call from a good friend who's affiliated with the Innocence Project.

And, he talked to me about this case once the judge had vacated the conviction.

And it intrigued me.

And once I met and talked to Ricky, it was no turning back Do you believe Ricky Slaughter is innocent?

I do, I do, and I believe even more fundamentally that the process was inherently flawed, that there were all kinds of problems with the case.

And the judge here in this district who ruled on it, I thought, did a incredibly thoughtful, reasoned opinion, vacating the conviction.

How rare is that to get that kind of ruling It's unfortunately part of the problem with the system.

The criminal justice system is a lot of times you keep knocking on the door and it takes a long time to get somebody to answer.

I can think of, in various kind of iterations, other cases that I've handled.

And, I was just telling you before we were running the Menendez brothers is a great example of that.

I mean, they're last appeal they had run through up and down the, the criminal justice appellate process, the habeas process, 2005.

They basically had no more hope.

And they could have made a choice, or they did have to make a choice at that point.

Do I become kind of a inveterate degenerate?

And I say that with, without denigration, but, you go towards a one particular constituency, or do I do good in the cases the Menendez brothers, they did fantastic work with 20 years.

So you knew that it was not because they were trying to game the system.

I think Ricky, in a lot of ways has very kind of resonated with me.

The programs that he's been involved in, the the reform that he has been a catalyst for, all were very attracted to me.

And obviously, if you do any work in the criminal justice system, you've got to believe in redemption.

When Geragos references the Menendez brothers, he's talking about what they've done in prison after murdering their parents more than 35 years ago.

In that time, the brothers helped develop peer support and rehabilitation programs for inmates.

And that work helped convince a judge to reduce their sentences, making them eligible for parole.

Geragos says Slaughter's work behind bars also drew him to the case.

Last year, Nevada Week reported about Assembly Bill 91, known as the second look, at which slaughter helped draft.

It would have allowed Nevada's parole board to review certain cases for possible early release, but did not pass.

Slaughter also wrote a children's book about the legislative process.

When Judge Trump ordered his retrial, she pointed to evidence that prosecutors had suppressed, including the results of a second photo lineup.

Four of the seven witnesses identified slaughter in the first line up in the second.

None of the seven told the detective they recognized him.

The jury never heard that, which Judge Trump said was of paramount importance.

Geragos, however, said he was shocked by a court filing.

He says he saw for the first time Monday, and it has him questioning the district attorney's role in the retrial.

What stands out to you about his case in regards to the evidence that was not presented?

Well, ironically, today, and I said this on the record, so I'm not speaking out of school.

But if you had a video of the record in the courtroom today, I was handed a document from 18 years ago, from 17 years ago, and it was a motion that is then lawyer filed saying that the photographic lineups were unconstitutional and tainted.

And guess who his lawyer was?

16, 17 years ago, you were elected D.A.

today, Mr.

Wolfson.

And to me, that's I'm incredulous over that.

And that'll be the subject of the next motion that we filed.

How familiar are you with all the evidence?

And I'm fairly familiar.

We've been doing a deep dive.

But to your point, there's 16, 17 years worth of litigation, that has been spawned and a very thoughtful, reasoned opinion that you have to go through that is well documented, well cited.

And so, no, I'm not as familiar as I will be, but, but what I've seen so far attracted me to wanting to get him justice.

And are you talking about the second photo lineup?

Correct.

I'm talking about there was actually a series of photo lineups, and we'll deal with all of that, in the filing mood.

I hope to get it on file within the next week or so.

Okay.

And that second photo lineup he was put in was not supposed to be a part of that was for a second suspect.

How do you characterize that kind of police work?

Well, there isn't any literature that I'm aware of that says that that's appropriate.

And not only is does the literature say it's not appropriate, it says that is almost the fatal flaw.

And so that's part of the problem that we will be addressing.

But I think as important is the fact that there is how does he get a fair shake now?

He's got an order from a federal judge in this jurisdiction telling the D.A.

to file to try him, retry him within a set amount of time.

How does he get a fair shake with the D.A., who was once his lawyer?

And who's the elected D.A.

and with a lying deputy who went out in public and made all kinds of statements that apparently are due, at best in the wild mistakes or widely mistaken.

Are you talking about the prosecutor?

Correct.

Okay.

Who recently told a local news station that this particular case is maybe the most vicious and heinous non-homicide that I've dealt with in 27 years?

Correct.

And that's we'll deal with the inappropriate nature of that as well.

And that characterization and, all nine homicides have a character to them that you can always say is not vicious, but one of the problems is that you can separate the crime from whether he did it.

And that wasn't that.

What do you think about the strength of the evidence against Ricky Slaughter?

I think clearly the evidence is tainted and that's the problem.

Well, for example, he initially accepted a plea deal and in doing so pled guilty.

I say all the time, you have to be in the criminal justice system to understand how the system grinds you down.

I have clients, I've actually had this happen where I will go into the lockup and somebody has been in there for two days in custody, and they will tell me, I will plead to anything to get out of here.

I will plead to a felony, I will go, I will plead to I will admit anything to get me out of custody.

And I say, you've got to complete the offense.

It wasn't you.

I've got an alibi.

I've got somebody, like, just the same type.

Let me try this case in 60 or 90 days.

No, they won't do it.

And until you, you or a loved one has been in that position, it's very hard to comprehend the pressure and the incentive to get out.

What about the phone calls from jail in which he spoke with his girlfriend at the time and said, no, I was there at this time to get you.

Don't tell them that you I got there at this time.

I was there at this time.

Oh, the you know, I think about, a case that was tried in my backyard.

Now just last week with little Dirk and who was just acquitted.

Yeah.

You know, the federal trial, there were all kinds of phone calls that, when presented out of context, seemed damning.

Once you got there and presented them in context, you understood what the issue was.

So no, I'm not worried about that in the least.

And then the prosecutor, Mark DeGarmo, with the Clark County District Attorney's office.

He also said that in 2024, slaughter had a very honest conversation about redemption and remorse, and acknowledged that he was one of the two suspects in the room where this crime occurred.

Right.

I'm told I'm not the most familiar.

I'm told that not only violates, the rules and regulations, but the law, if also taints the jury pool and that he didn't say that.

And so, that's part of the reason I met Mr.

Giacomo today.

And, and it was a rather, unique first meeting because, I don't think Mr.

Dijak was long for this case.

What do you mean?

You think he broke some sort of rule?

I'll leave it to the.

We'll speak in the courtroom, and I'll file the appropriate paperwork in the courtroom.

Well, and it also sounds like this could be something bigger involving the district attorney as well.

Well, clearly, the district attorney's name is on the motion.

That was filed in 2009.

He represented Ricky Slaughter, the elected D.A.

of Clark County.

His name is on the motion that has the lineups saying the lineups were confirmed.

Steve Wolfson apparently represented Ricky Slaughter filed the motion back in 2009, saying, the very thing that the the Federal Court judge has now ruled, you tell me, how is that D.A.

and how is that DA's office possibly able to now prosecute his client if Ricky Slaughter is found innocent, what do you think he's entitled to?

If anything, he's entitled to be out of custody.

I mean, one of the of the enormously frustrating things about this is he needs to be released immediately, at least on bail.

He has not been convicted.

You've got some quirks here in Nevada, which we will address in the courtroom, but there is no reason why somebody whose conviction has been vacated should be held without bail on a, homicide.

That's outrageous.

Frankly.

I alerted the court to these issues.

We said we will file a motion and trial was set for February, I believe, of next year.

But the I don't believe this will ever get to trial because I don't think this case should be prosecuted.

I don't I think it's inherently flawed.

I don't understand how a D.A.

or a lawyer who represented a client and raised the very issue that the client was now vindicated on, is now prosecuting that same client that there's something wrong with that.