Sex tapes, privacy issues take main stage at hearing
by Lindsay Field
April 28, 2013 12:00 AM | 6019 views | 0 0 comments | 10 10 recommendations | email to a friend | print
Joe Rogers Jr.
Joe Rogers Jr.
slideshow
MARIETTA — Privacy issues and the number of sex videos in existence took center stage during the latest pre-trial hearing in the ongoing legal battle between Waffle House CEO Joe Rogers Jr. and an Acworth woman.

Friday’s four-hour session before Cobb Superior Court Judge Robert Leonard III was a continuation of hearings for the civil suit involving Rogers and his former personal assistant, Mye Brindle.

She is accusing Rogers of sexual battery, and he filed a countersuit saying she was attempting to blackmail him.

Details regarding their sexual relationship have been divulged throughout the hearings, and that continued Friday, but more specifically regarding how those encounters were recorded by video or audio.

Rogers’ attorney, Robert Ingram, argued that he and his co-counsel believe more video recordings exist than have been placed into evidence. He accused Brindle’s attorneys of contempt, or withholding evidence.

Ingram said Brindle’s attorney, David Cohen, has said in the past that there were “multiple videos.”

He was requesting that Leonard require Cohen to turn those over.

That is not the case, though, according to Cohen.

He told Leonard that there is only one video, but multiple clips from it do exist, and it has all been entered into evidence.

The recording in question was shot secretly by Brindle in Rogers’ bathroom and bedroom. It includes footage of him nude while she performed a sex act.

Judge Leonard said he would make a ruling on the motion at a later date.

The second point to be decided is whether the video recording was an invasion of Rogers’ privacy.

Ingram said the video was recorded in Rogers’ home, a private place, while another of Brindle’s attorneys, John Butters, said the recording was made in his client’s “place of business.”

“This was recorded without the consent of all persons involved,” said Ingram. He quoted a Georgia statute about the invasion of privacy and video recordings.

“There was no expectation of privacy,” Butters argued. “She was working in his bedroom and bathroom … It is a victim of a crime of battery that was gathering evidence.”

Recently retired Cobb District Attorney Pat Head was called in for questioning during the hearing as well.

Cohen said he was asked to come in and confirm an affidavit that Head filed before his retirement that stated that he would not have prosecuted Brindle for invasion of privacy if charges were brought against her in Cobb.

Ingram had an opportunity to question Head for about 20 minutes before Judge Leonard ruled in favor of Butters and Cohen.

This portion of the hearings led attorneys into what will soon be another hearing regarding whether Brindle recorded her sexual encounter with Rogers only after she sought legal counsel and if they participated in seeking that action.

Ingram believes Cohen and his co-counsel advised Brindle to meet with a former FBI agent who gave her a spy camera, which was a video camera that looked like a cell phone, and directed her how to use it.

“The attorneys can’t counsel someone to commit a crime,” Ingram said.

Cohen objected to this but did not give an explanation.

“This has unearthed a whole other thing that will need to be addressed,” Leonard said.

Another round of hearings will be held at a later date to determine a ruling on that questioning, but a trial date has not been scheduled.
Comments
(0)
Comments-icon Post a Comment
No Comments Yet
*We welcome your comments on the stories and issues of the day and seek to provide a forum for the community to voice opinions. All comments are subject to moderator approval before being made visible on the website but are not edited. The use of profanity, obscene and vulgar language, hate speech, and racial slurs is strictly prohibited. Advertisements, promotions, and spam will also be rejected. Please read our terms of service for full guides