"Bad facts don't get better. Don't make them better." Criminal defense attorney Teny Geragos, a founding partner at Agnifilo Intrater LLP in New York City, grew up with those words from her father written on a chalkboard in her parents' pantry. That lesson has guided her defense of some of the most unpopular clients imaginable, from Martin Shkreli to Harvey Weinstein and Sean Combs. In this conversation with host Amber Nimocks, Teny explains how she turns intense media attention into a defense strategy and how she picks jurors who can see past the headlines. Tune in for insights on how to show jurors a client's humanity and why a fair trial can overcome public opinion.

🎙️ Featured Guest 🎙️

Name: Teny Geragos

Connect: LinkedIn

💡 Episode Highlights 💡

[02:47] Standing Up to the Government: Teny says she rarely seeks out clients; they come to her when they have something to say about the government's allegations or actions against them.

[04:48] Advocacy and Feminism: Teny describes being raised by her grandmothers to speak her mind, an upbringing that shaped her personal definition of feminism and how a woman rises to the top in a field full of men.

[08:16] Owning the Worst Fact: Teny explains why she admitted Sean Combs' domestic violence in her opening statement and how that moment shifted the courtroom.

[11:57] The Attorney as an Extension of the Client: Teny shares why jurors must like the defense attorney first and how she showed the jury who Combs really was.

[14:20] Picking a Jury Under a Spotlight: Teny reveals what she looks for in potential jurors who have already seen the headlines and why mock juries shaped her arguments.

[17:35] The Pharma Bro Lesson: Teny's first federal trial as a new lawyer defended Martin Shkreli, then known as the most hated man in America, and taught her that jurors in a fair trial can look past the media.

[19:50] Born Into the Courtroom: Growing up around her father's high-profile cases, including his representation of Michael Jackson and Scott Peterson, Teny briefly considered a media career before landing where she says she was always supposed to be.

Connect with North Carolina Advocates for Justice

☑️ Follow us on X, Facebook, Instagram, and LinkedIn.

☑️ Subscribe to Voices of NCAJ on Apple Podcasts or Spotify

Voices of NCAJ features members of the North Carolina Advocates for Justice talking about what it means to be a trial lawyer, what it takes to be great at the practice of law and how being a part of NCAJ enriches their lives and their careers.

Members of NCAJ belong to a nonprofit, nonpartisan association of legal professionals dedicated to empowering a strong community of trial lawyers to protect people, prevent injustice and promote fairness. Membership affords many benefits and we’re proud to offer discounts and opportunities thanks to our tremendous community of sponsors and partners. Join today!

Welcome to Voices of NCAJ.

We're talking to members of the North

Carolina Advocates for Justice about what

it means to be a trial lawyer, what it

takes to be great at the practice of law,

and how being a part of NCAJ

enriches their lives and careers.

Produced and powered by LawPods.

Welcome everyone to Voices of NCAJ,

the podcast for the North Carolina

Advocates for Justice. I am Amber Nimocks,

your host and deputy director

for NCAJ. Before we get started,

I'd like to thank our Circle of Leadership

members for supporting NCAJ's mission

and this podcast. If

you're watching on YouTube,

you can see a list of Circle of Leadership

firms at the end of the podcast.

To find out how your

firm can join the circle,

go to ncaj.com/circle.

My guest today is Teny Geragos.

She is a founding partner at Agnifilo

Intrater LLP in New York City.

Her record as a criminal defense attorney

includes serving as co-lead counsel

for Sean Diddy Combs, where she won his

acquittal on charges of racketeering,

conspiracy, and sex

trafficking. Earlier this year,

she represented Harvey Weinstein in his

rape trial in Manhattan Supreme Court

where the jury voted nine to three to

acquit and the court declared a mistrial.

Teny will be joining NCAJ from

Mountain Magic in Asheville,

where she will present on the

topic, The Unwinnable Case:

Trial Strategy When the Facts, the Media,

and Public Opinion Are Against You.

Designed equally for civil,

employment, and commercial litigators,

her presentation explores essential

truth shared by every trial lawyer.

The cases that appear insurmountable often

demand the highest level of advocacy.

Mountain Magic is coming up October 15

through 17 at the Omni Grove Park Inn

in Asheville. So if you

have not registered,

go to ncaj.com/mountain-magic-2026

and sign up now. Teny, welcome

to the podcast. I'm so excited.

Thank you for having me. Amber, I'm

so excited. I'm excited to do this.

I'm excited for Mountain

Magic. I can't wait.

It's going to be tremendous,

and your program is one I'm

really looking forward to.

We're going to have a wonderful

time in Asheville. We're so excited.

I can't wait. I'm very excited too.

So you'll be talking about the lessons

that you've learned in your career so

far, including the well-known

cases that you've taken on,

high profile and a highly

controversial, even unpopular clients.

What fuels your decision to

seek or take a client like this?

When you say like this,

do you specifically mean like a Combs or

a Weinstein or generally the unpopular

client?

Well, specifically Combs or

Weinstein, but also, I mean,

I can imagine that not all of your clients

have been portrayed favorably in the

media.

So I think generally what fuels.

I'll give you a general first.

So it generally fuels my

decision to take a client,

and it's rarely that I'm

seeking somebody out.

You asked what fuels my decision to

seek someone out. It's rare that way.

I think most clients will come to me if

they feel that they have something to

say to the government, to the

government's allegations against them,

to the government's actions

that they've taken against them.

And what our firm does well,

what I like to do really well is

to stand up to the government,

the actions that they're taking,

or to anybody who is seeking

to harm my client in any way,

whether it be putting them in jail,

taking money from them, whatever it is,

that fuels my decision. If you have

something to say in a courtroom,

I'm the person to hire to do that.

There was a very well-read article

on you in Vanity Fair that came out,

which seemed like it

was a very aggressive,

assertive interview

from the reading of it.

And you expressed this

thought that you are here to

provide representation for people who

have been accused by the government.

And in doing so, you take on these

clients who people see as anti-feminists,

but you are actually striking

a blow for feminism in that

you are representing another side of the

story in a way. Does that make sense?

I think you actually put it quite

nicely, Amber. I like how you put that.

I think come across, I'll

go back to the interview,

come across as an aggressive interview.

I don't think that it was

meant to be on either side.

I think it is hard for people,

even my friends and those closest

to me to see what I do and to not

be overcome by it and to think

that perhaps I'm doing work that is

anti-woman or anti-female or

anti-victim. That is not what I do.

I view myself as an advocate among all

else, and everybody deserves an advocate.

Everybody deserves

somebody championing them.

And if I have something to say on

behalf of somebody, I'm going to say it.

I do view my role as - I was

brought up in my grandparents were

immigrants to this country,

and I was brought up by both of

my grandmothers to be a strong,

maybe not outspoken,

but certainly speak my mind female.

And that is what I grew up believing

feminism is. It's being able to

take control of your own narrative,

to be able to be a powerful woman, to be

able to be in this field, for example,

full of men and to rise to the top.

I have done that by not blaming

anybody else for my circumstances

and to be the strongest person and

advocate and hardest worker that I can be.

I say that because I

think many of my cases,

I try to have the jury see

the case through that lens.

Us women have choices.

That's the amazing part about

living in the United States in 2026.

And so how can we show that somebody

had a choice and that perhaps in Sean

Combs, for example, the trial was about

coercion. It was about coercive control.

And so a lot of my defense, and I

started from the very beginning,

was about women having choices and

choices over their lives. These were adult

women with choices and they had choices

to be with him and they made choices to

stay with him.

And so though a lot of people who maybe

weren't at the trial or didn't follow

the case closely and see some of

the worst evidence of that case view

our defense without looking deeply

into it as maybe anti-woman or

anti-feminist, I just don't

think that's the case.

I started off as strongly as I possibly

could in that trial to say this case is

about females' choices and their

choice to be with them. And for me,

that was empowering and that's because

I'm lucky enough to have choices to get

to do what I want every day.

And so that is what I meant to say and

I'm glad that we have this interview so

that I'm able to express that in a deeper

way. But yeah, that's basically it.

It was interesting in reading

your interview and listening,

I listened to a few of your podcast

interviews in preparation for our

conversation.

The difference between the client as

your more famous clients as portrayed in

the media and as portrayed in the

context of the Me Too movement is

so different than the reality of

what happens inside the courtroom.

And so your cases that come with

intense media attention and usually

negative,

how do you use that media spotlight

as part of your defense strategy?

Yeah,

I think it's rare that I have a case

where a criminal defendant is beloved.

I think the best example,

I'll give two examples with

respect to Combs and Weinstein.

With respect to Combs,

we embraced it wholeheartedly and

it took a while to come to that.

It took a while to figure out how

are we going to use the massive media

attention? It's been two years now,

so people are forgetting how

terrible and awful it was.

But the rumors about him before

the trial, it was just disgusting,

terrible descriptions of his conduct that

was not vetted by anybody and fully a

lie. However, we had really bad facts.

We had a video of horrific domestic

violence that was all over the internet,

replayed over and over

and over and over again.

I'm sure CNN has some live feed that said

how many times that video was played,

but everybody had an image of him

when they came into that courtroom.

All the jurors, certainly

during voir dire,

discussed it.

And so it took a while to get there,

but where we ultimately came to in

preparing for that case was we need

to embrace the domestic violence,

embrace the horrific fact of domestic

violence. And I said it in my opening,

and it might've been my

third or fourth paragraph:

"Domestic violence is a horrible

crime. He's not defending it,

but that is not what he's charged with."

And it felt in that moment like the air

had almost just been sucked out of

the courtroom like, "Oh, she said it.

She said what we're all thinking.

He's a domestic violence abuser,"

and that's obviously a problem.

Domestic violence is a horrible crime

and the way Cassie was treated is not

something he was proud of. His actions

are not something he's proud of,

but I contextualized it and I admitted

to his guilt with respect to domestic

violence.

I explained that it had to do with his

drugs and drug use and alcohol abuse,

and I embraced it in that way,

and that was a way of turning

the government's best,

best fact against them.

And to do so in a way that it was

difficult, I think, for anybody,

government witness to overcome

that because we were saying, "Okay,

he did this. Let's get

to the actual facts.

Were you coerced at all?" And that

was one way we did it. And Weinstein,

it's prolific. I mean,

the Me Too movement,

he's the face of a movement that carried

with it so much good for women in the

workplace and generally,

but nothing good came from it in terms

of a courtroom and having other bad act

evidence, of course, why the first

Weinstein trial was overturned.

And we admitted it and we talked about

the elephant in the room at the first

moment of voir dire. My partner, Marc,

during jury selection, spent almost 10,

15 minutes talking to each juror about

are they going to be able to vote to

acquit somebody as reviled as Harvey

Weinstein? I think that's what I've

come away with in my practice

thus far is admitting first and

foremost your bad facts

and embracing them.

My dad has said to me

since I was very young,

and it's actually something that's

on our pantry in my parents' house,

"Bad facts don't get any better." And

so it's something that's seared in my

mind. Bad facts don't get

better. Don't make them better.

Is it like on one of those

cookie jars in your pantry?

They have a pantry that has a

chalkboard, the painted chalkboard,

so that's on their pantry.

Bad facts don't get better.

So that's part of being raised by an

attorney, you're just constant lessons,

but that's a big one. You can't

try to change your bad facts,

just embrace them because they're

not going to get better for you.

Yeah. The idea with a case like

Weinstein or Combs, I would guess,

is that you go in with the mindset,

you have to dispel people of the notion

that he might not be guilty of this,

but he's guilty of something.

And so trying to sort out that,

I would imagine, would

be your first job, right?

Absolutely. And I think you find

that in a lot of high profile cases,

especially even non-high profile cases,

jurors are there brought by the people

of that state or by the government of the

United States,

and they are looking for some type

of compromise or middle ground.

It's really hard to get 12 people to

acquit fully. It happens, of course,

but it's quite hard, obviously. And

giving them that power in Combs to say,

"He did this and it was bad," and that

person who I see sitting next to him

every single hour of the

day in the courtroom over

eight weeks is saying, "Yes,

that's bad,

but I'm still here to fight

for him because I believe

in him and I believe that

he's not guilty of this," it

gives your client a lot of power.

Yeah.

And you talked about how an attorney

is the extension of the client in

the courtroom. How does that play

out for you in a case like Combs?

My partner, Marc, has

always taught me that.

I want to give credit to what credit's

due for each of my mentors in my life,

but he's always taught me it's

a great trial advocacy strategy.

The jury doesn't typically talk to

the defendant because of the amendment

rights, so you are that person. First,

they have to like you. And second,

if you're going to beat up on somebody,

they're going to feel that

you are continuing to beat

up on that witness the way

he did.

And that was a trial strategy that I've

always had and I've taken with me in my

cases. Of course, there are times you

need to get aggressive. Of course,

there are times you

need to be very direct,

but generally that's a signal

to the jury also. So in Combs,

it was an extension.

I did feel it was important to show

the jury who he was through me.

And so all of the amazing parts about him,

I wanted to get out through the witnesses

and I wanted the jury to hear the

witnesses gush about him and

talk about him the way that.

And bring them back to how they felt

about him during the charged conduct,

because that's important for the

jury to feel why they were there.

It wasn't coercion, it was love.

That was just a really

important strategy and point.

And so we did this over

and over and over again.

I did it through every

witness I cross-examined.

And it was also important through even

when you're showing text messages and

other types of documentary evidence,

it was just very important

for me to show who he was.

He would try to lift people

up, the great parts about him.

And so that is the trial strategy

I have in every single case,

but it was a great thing for me to do

in the Combs case because he's such kind

of a larger than life figure. I wanted

to be able to show that he was also.

I wanted to be nice to people where

possible because he's nice to people where

possible. As crazy as that sounds, I mean,

I know because we've all seen

this terrible, terrible video,

but everybody said he's magnetic, he's

larger than life, he taught us things.

And so to people who

weren't in that courtroom,

maybe they're listening to me and

thinking that woman's nuts. I mean,

I saw what he did, he's not nice,

but that's what we were able to

do successfully. And frankly,

the jury believed it. They didn't

believe he was a sex trafficker.

They didn't believe he was a racketeer

and that he conspired to do any of the

horrible things the

government accused him of.

How did you go about picking your

jurors for that case? For example,

what were you looking for in a pool of

people who had undoubtedly seen that

tape?

Yeah, that's right. Well, we wanted,

first and foremost, a jury questionnaire.

I happen to love jury questionnaires.

If I'm in federal court, in state court,

you're not always getting them.

And so we wanted a lot of questions as

to where people were getting their news.

Did anybody hear about him? Of

course, everybody heard about him.

If they didn't, that's a little

bit stranger. But if they did,

what stood out to them?

If they started saying that they didn't

remember the video or the video didn't

stand out, that's more concerning.

I felt strongly, honestly,

we had such a mixed jury in terms

of demographic, race demographic,

and in gender. I think I wanted people

who are just going to be able to.

When you look at them,

you just knew they're going to be

able to cut through the morass of it,

and they wouldn't feel like they had to

vote guilty just because of the press.

Part of what we did, and we agreed

on this with the government,

is ask for an anonymous jury.

So they've stayed anonymous from

the press ever since the trial,

unless they wanted to go to the press.

And I think that was just very helpful

in terms of making sure that they felt

like they were going to be okay. I mean,

one thing we've seen from

the Lindsay Clancy case,

and you don't see this as often,

is how much pressure the jurors

have gotten after the trial.

And I think you just saw the judge,

the judge held that they would be

anonymous in perpetuity now because to

have this much pressure and scrutiny

on jurors in the most sacred courtroom,

in the most sacred place during a trial,

that's not what this job is about.

It's a lot for jurors to take

this time out of their day,

and we want to be able to foster that.

But in terms of looking for a jury,

we were able to find that by doing a

lot of mock trials and mock juries,

and I want to talk more

about that at Mountain Magic,

because the mock jury process

was a fascinating one,

really helped hone our arguments,

really helped me hone what was going

to work and what wasn't in every single

argument that I did in

front of a mock jury.

Yeah, I'm sure. Definitely.

I'll be excited to hear more

about that at Mountain Magic.

So as you become more famous,

you have been featured in a lot

more media. In the past few years,

your profile has risen.

How does your own public image

become part of the equation

of which cases you choose and

how you mount the defense?

Thank you. I don't feel that I've

become famous, but thank you.

I think all it's done, my view of my job

and my work is never going to change,

but what it's given me is the

power to be able to choose,

which is an amazing

power in this business.

And so I now have more of an

ability to decide whether or not I

want to take on a case rather than having

to take every single case that comes

in the door because this is a

business after all. I love my job.

I fully believe in advocating for my

clients and to the best of my ability,

and to be able to do so at this level

and have clients who I love trust me is

such a gift. And really,

that's all that's changed is being able

to perhaps sometimes be a little bit

more picky or choosy with my cases.

But I feel very blessed that I get to

be able to do this job and to

work with the people I love.

So we've talked a little bit about this,

but what are the lessons that you've

learned from your most famous cases?

So the first trial,

federal trial that I did when I had just

been sworn into the bar was a Martin

Shkreli fraud case in the

Eastern District of New York.

And Martin Shkreli at that time was

apparently the most hated man in America.

He was known as Pharma Bro.

Oh, I remember Pharma Bro.

Do you remember him?

Yes. That was your first case?

That was my first case. That

was like, I couldn't believe.

Yes.

But it was an incredible

first case because I had a

client, somewhat eccentric,

still talk to him, totally trusted me.

I was a baby lawyer and I

was deep into his trial prep.

I loved his case. I wanted

to do everything I possibly

could, and he was hated.

And this was a fraud case, but it had

nothing to do with what he was famous for,

which was jacking up the price of

Daraprim, which was a medication,

lifesaving medication. That wasn't what

his case was about. So won five counts,

we lost three counts, we

lost three fraud counts,

but we won the big money count. And

what I learned most from that case,

besides what I consider to be everything,

is that a jury can look past what's

happening in the media. I mean,

there was so much paparazzi in that case.

There was so much vitriol for him. The

jury selection was like nothing I've ever

seen, even now. People

hated him, blamed him for.

It was a healthcare -

everything. Everything. I mean,

he was what was wrong

with all of healthcare.

There was a documentary after

that verdict, I'm trying

to remember what it was,

maybe it was American Greed or

something. And one of the jurors came,

they were willingly speaking to the press

and they were saying he would've never

defrauded his company. His company

was his baby. They liked him.

They understood the good parts about him.

They understood the humanity of it and

the humanity behind him and the great

things that he did.

And people are asking me recently a

lot about Combs and some other trials,

but when I really think about what's

imprinted in my memory and cases that

taught me the most, it's that one

because it taught me that jurors,

if you have a fair trial,

can look past the press,

can look past how somebody's viewed.

And I'm grateful I had it because I don't

think I could have gone into the

Combs case without that trial.

I wouldn't have been able to

realize, frankly, you can do it.

Criminal defendant can do it

if they have a fair trial.

I have to ask, you grew up with

trial instructions on the pantry wall

and with your father being Mark Geragos.

Did you know from the time you were

old enough to read and write that you

were going to become a criminal defense

attorney or was there a turning point?

I always have been interested

in this work generally.

I knew I think I was

going to go to law school,

but I also had a passion

in media generally.

And so for a while there, I went

to NYU for undergrad. For a while,

I thought I should be in media.

I say this because my dad,

he represented Scott Peterson,

he represented Michael Jackson.

We are always around

these big media cases,

but I always got to see the

humanity behind it at home.

How is the defendant's life affected?

My dad also did plaintiff's work.

How is his client's life

affected by this case?

And so I always saw the humanity behind

it and I saw the media's ability to

manipulate, frankly, the public about a

case, about a client, about a defendant,

about a plaintiff. They had

extraordinary ability to do that.

I've always been affected by that and

have always wanted to figure out how

to best use the media in order to

advocate for your client or. I mean,

if you think about the Me Too movement's

a perfect example, Harvey, after that,

there was just no turning back.

He was charged for everywhere.

And so for a while, that's

what I thought I'd do.

I'd be in TV because they

have the most impact.

They have the greatest ability

to whip up the country.

I thought maybe that was my way of being

able to explain to people how unjust

the system can sometimes be or to just

expose injustices, whatever they may be.

But ultimately, I landed where

I was always supposed to be,

which is to be a criminal

defense lawyer, which I love.

I just don't think the media

aspect comes as naturally to me.

This job is one that I grew up with.

I used to go to the office with

my dad every single weekend,

Saturday and Sunday. So this is

more in my blood than anything else.

Well, that is awesome.

We're glad that you didn't have a

problem following in his footsteps.

I'm so excited to hear your presentation

and get to talk to you more at Mountain

Magic. It is going to be terrific.

Thank you, Amber. I can't wait

to be there and meet everybody.

Well, Teny, thank you

for coming on the pod,

and we will see you in

about exactly a month.

If you have not registered

for Mountain Magic,

you want to get registered because you

do not want to miss Teny and you do not

want to miss any of the other terrific

folks that we have coming to speak.

It is a star-studded lineup,

and we're going to have a

wonderful time in Asheville,

October 15 through 17 at Mountain Magic.

So please go to

ncaj.com/mountain-magic-2026

and sign up.

Thank you for joining us on

this episode of Voices of NCAJ.

For more information on the North Carolina

Advocates for Justice and how to join

or support NCAJ,

please visit our website at www.ncaj.com.