Roberts also represented Albert Castro, a government witness in this case that was called during the first trial. For an idea of when and how he represented Castro, read this transcript from the first trial beginning on page 40:
US v Bergrin 10_27_11 (link removed - contact me privately for a copy)
Albert Castro was a true criminal and this may be a reason that he was not called to the stand in Paul Bergrin's second trial, or it could be related to Richie Roberts, because let's face it: prosecutors have given real criminals 'get out of jail free' cards in this case and have no issue with calling a parade of criminal informant witnesses to the stand to testify.
Other government witnesses in this case that were later represented by Richie Roberts, after Paul Bergrin was arrested, are Rondre Kelly and Abdul Williams. Kelley implicated Albert Castro, so there is no doubt that there were conflicts of interest. Richie Roberts also conferred with Yolanda Jauregui in a jail visit prior to her making a guilty plea in this case. From what I heard, he was soliciting movie rights.
Roberts was most likely the pollinator, like a bee spreading information from one cooperating witness to another. He definitely represented Albert Castro, Abdul Williams, and Rondre Kelley and then suddenly a new attorney would substitute. If you've read my previous posts, you're aware that he briefly represented Lemont Love, immediately after Paul Bergrin was arrested.
Lemont Love ended-up filing a civil suit against Roberts for various issues that add-up to ineffective assistance of counsel. The suit was filed under an incorrect action in federal court and was dismissed, but this is what he did to Love and I do not say 'allegedly' as it was clear to me before I even found the suit information that his representation of Love was a waste:
I have heard the term "privileged informant" recently. It is a reference to a confidential informant that is an attorney, clergy, or media-related. There is brief mention of the privileged informant in the FBI Confidential Informant Guidelines, which is a lengthy document that I was reading recently. I still have to learn more on the topic before I could dive into the specifics, but it's worthy of consideration here. Roberts convinced Lemont Love to plead guilty in his own case and the government witnesses noted herein that were represented by him pled guilty shortly after meeting him.
In the Lemont Love Affidavit filed in this case on 10 March 2013, the AUSA (Steven G Sanders) came-off as seriously indignant that Love had the audacity to question anything relating to Richie Roberts. Consider how these same AUSAs have pursued Paul Bergrin, allegedly as a result of accusations, and then wonder why such allegations made about Roberts are so quickly dismissed.
The question that remains is how many other government witnesses in this case have heard from Richard Roberts? He's an an interconnecting factor with too many witnesses already. He also discusses this movie plan too often for it to not be real. Was he after more clients for his law practice or was he pursuing movie rights? He's an old guy and I seriously doubt that he needs the money; he's made a lot of money in his working lifetime. He also fails to do much of anything for these clients when he does sign a contract with them.
Richard Roberts is definitely an interconnecting factor in this case, though precisely what he's up to has yet to be proven. Time will tell. One thing that is clear here is that the man has a variety of conflicting interests.