‘Housewives’ KJ Biermann’s Disturbing Sex Crimes Case — Everything We Know

You have been charged with aggravated child molestation and aggravated sexual battery. Aggravated child, sexual battery against a child over 60. K.J. Bierman, son of an NFL linebacker and a Real Housewives of Atlanta star. He comes from wealth and fame, and now he's become infamous. When you're 15 years old and you're being accused of this type of crime and this type of accusation, it is really, really tough for everyone involved. But this isn't the first time he's faced these shocking allegations. This would mark the second time he's now been charged with an offense of a sexual nature, of a very serious magnitude, which involved juvenile victims. Here's everything we know so far about the case against K.J. Bierman. This is Scandal, presented by Law & Crime. I'm Sierra Gillespie. Let me just start by saying the allegations against K.J. Bierman The allegations in this case are wildly disturbing. Any sexual assault charge is rough. But honestly, this one adds another layer to all of that, because the alleged victim and perpetrator, by the way, are both kids. The accused is 15-year-old Croy Bierman Jr. He's known as K.J. He's the son of Croy Bierman, an NFL linebacker known mostly for a nearly 10-year stint on the Atlanta Falcons. And if you don't know that name, perhaps you know K.J.'s mom. She's Kim Zolciak, a television personality, known mostly for starring in Bravo's The Real Housewives of Atlanta for five seasons. Kim had two daughters from previous relationships when she married Croy in 2011. They went on to have four kids together, including K.J., before separating in 2023. And the reason we're talking about this family at all today is because of the very serious charges that 15-year-old K.J. now faces. These allegations date back to April 23rd of this year, in Fulton County, Georgia. According to an arrest affidavit, then-14-year-old K.J. was hanging out at the Lifetime Fitness gym when he ran into a friend. And I'm not going to identify this victim, except to say she was a 14-year-old girl who previously knew K.J. She told detectives that her best friend was dating K.J. and they went to school together, so they were relatively close. Now, according to this girl, she and K.J. ran into each other and started chatting. K.J. then asked her if she wanted to go into the co-ed sauna, to which she replied yes. And in order to get into this sauna, you have to walk through a family changing room. Security camera video captures K.J. and this girl walking into the changing room together. Now, there isn't video of what happened inside the changing room, but the girl gave a graphic depiction to detectives. She said that after walking into the room, K.J. closed the door behind her. After that, she alleges, he started to rub her genitals over her biker shorts, eventually getting inside of her pants and fingering her. She says she told him to stop, and even pushed him away. Now, this next part is straight from the affidavit. It reads, quote, He then began to kiss her again, but she began to try to move her face away. He then told her, you're fine, you're fine. It's not like I'm forcing this. The victim then said, but yes, you are. He then suggested that she do something to him. I think it means in return. And she told him, no, he told her to just give him head oral sex. She told him that she did not want to do that. He then stated to her, you're lucky I'm not forcing you down there right now. She stated, I'm not doing this. He then kisses her again. Now, according to court docs, any time this girl would say no, K.J. would kiss her to stop her from talking. At other points during all of this, she reports that K.J. grabbed her hand and tried to make her touch his penis. She told detectives she repeatedly told him no to stop and that she wasn't going to do this. She says he even begged her to give him oral sex, even for just 10 seconds over and over. According to the court docs, he begged for this and even pulled his pants down. At one point, this girl alleges he again grabbed her hand, this time forcing her to touch his penis before she finally was able to pull away. Now, the girl alleges K.J. kept asking over and over again for oral sex. So she finally gave in, quote unquote, and did it for about five seconds before she stopped. The girl alleges he told her that she was better than his girlfriend. And then after that, he allegedly asked her to have sex to what she said no. After that, quote, she brings up that he has a girl and she attempted to pull them back up. The victim stated that he was actively attempting to have sex with her. She stated that she has thong panties on. He begins to rub his penis against her panties over her vagina. She tells him to stop. He then begins to jerk himself off, masturbate. She says this is not OK to him. At this time, she said that she was up against the wall and he was against her. She stated that she began going in circles in an attempt to get away from him, but he followed her. Now, when she continued to say no, the girl alleges K.J. got mad and finally left. As a result of this incident, according to the affidavit, the girl had injuries on her vagina and the next day a sexual assault kit was completed. The acts of the defendant involve forcible sexual acts to include touching her on her breasts and buttocks, kissing her and then ultimately inserting his fingers into her vagina. The act of the defendant also includes the following: the person being accused, but also for genuine surveillance. of sexual assault and abuse. Every legitimate allegation deserves to be taken seriously and investigated based on the facts and evidence. At the same time, no one should be publicly condemned based solely on an accusation. We remain confident that the facts and evidence will establish the truth, and we ask that people allow the proper process to take its course, rather than spreading unproven allegations. KJ's attorney went on to say, quote, "First and foremost, this is not the kind of information that should be for public dissemination. These are juveniles. Secondly, my client is 100% innocent and tried to present evidence to the arresting officer, including a past polygraph by a notable and respected sex offender polygrapher. Additionally, the officer's report notes the GBI, Georgia Bureau of Investigation, found no male DNA on or inside the areas the alleged victim claimed she was assaulted. Had the officer sat down with me, I feel certain she would have never made an arrest. Sadly, these false allegations are a desperate cry for attention and are motivated by my client's past rejection of the alleged victim's unwanted advances. The fact that he's been arrested and is being held without bond is a tragedy. He is not only presumed innocent, but is in fact innocent. I will work tirelessly to demonstrate to the district attorney's office the mean-spirited nature of these false allegations and to bring a close to this matter as quickly as possible. I'm asking the public not to presume the truth of these allegations and to give the families on both sides their space and privacy. Now, we heard from this attorney once again on September 11th when KJ's bond hearing was held. The last statement that I made was about the motive and the motive and the reason for the statement. The motive evidence and bias evidence is admissible. I have evidence to back up the statement that I made. And I have also asked in that same breath, which is now subject to criticism, that we try to remove ourselves from this public spot right and not comment on these two juveniles and not thumbs up in part. And I have discouraged everyone that I've talked to from doing so. Don't believe I made any other statement other than that one that's been picked up and spread through the various channels. But that is the statement that I made to try to level the scales a little bit about the harm that I thought was prejudicing my client because I was also seeing how it was being reported that he's actually committed the offense. And when you get into social media and you get into other types of online posting, they don't make statements like he's presumed innocent or allegedly, they just talk about how he's guilty. So that was the reason that I did it. I certainly accept responsibility. If the court deems it improper, if the court instructs me not to make further statement or limits me to statements about procedural things, like we'd be in court for bond coming up, we'd be in court for this coming up, I'm certainly happy to even do that. And we're praying for doing that. - During this hearing, Sheffield also made mention of a motion filed on September 8th. In it, KJ's team requests that his case be moved to juvenile court. It reads in part, quote, "Counsel notes only that KJ is not an adult offender who happens to be young. He is an adolescent whose development is ongoing and can demonstrate his ability for understanding growth and change and whose future cannot reliably be predicted merely from the labels attached to the allegations against him." The evidence reserved for the transfer hearing will demonstrate that KJ remains amenable to treatment, supervision, structure, or education, and rehabilitation within the juvenile justice system. Now, according to this filing, there are 11 things the court must consider when determining whether the case will be an adult or juvenile court. Here's how they break down. The child's age, the seriousness of the alleged offense, whether the protection of the community requires transfer, whether the alleged offense involved violence or was committed aggressively or with premeditation, the impact upon the alleged victim, the child's culpability, including planning and participation, whether the offense forms part of a repetitive pattern indicating the child may be beyond rehabilitation, the child's record and history, the child's sophistication and maturity, the programs and facilities available to the juvenile court, and whether the child can benefit from treatment or rehabilitative programs available through juvenile court. Here's defense attorney Bradford Cohen. - They hold an actual hearing and they consider several factors that are involved, and those factors go into a weighing, weighing of whether or not the individual should be charged as an adult or should be charged as a juvenile. I think one of the arguments, obviously, is the punishment that's involved, but it also works both ways. You know, you say, hey, this is such a serious allegation, such a serious case, he should be tried as an adult. It goes both ways, which is kind of dangerous. It cuts both ways that it's so serious it should be tried as an adult. At the same token, it's so serious, he should be tried as a juvenile. It's one of those things that I'm not sure which way the judge will go on that. - But there's another element that Bradford says the judge will likely consider. - Here's the X factor that no one likes to talk about, but I have to talk about it in generally a lot of my cases, is the notoriety, the press is watching this, the, you know, I don't want to say the people's court, but really the people's court, you know, the general consensus of how this is being determined and how this is being held, it always affects a court. People say it shouldn't, it doesn't, it does. Cameras matter, public opinion matters, especially in high profile cases. I've done enough of these, I've had enough of these trials where I know it affects one way or the other, and usually not in a good way, the judge's decisions on certain motions that are filed, certain issues in terms of things coming in against the accused, all those things go. - Yeah. - Into a judge's decision. Whether they want to admit it or not, you see these cases where it's basically the discretion of the court where this falls. Yes, there's, you know, they'll say it's clear and convincing or preponderance of the evidence. They always give kind of the baseline, but it really comes down to how the judge looks at the case, how the judge feels about the case, what the public opinion is, although they won't admit it. All those different things these judges are up for election every six or eight years. That matters to them. They don't want to say it matters, but it does. So in cases where, especially where there's a sex assault alleged, I think it's very difficult to make those choices, but good judges do it. Some good judges, there are judges out there that just don't care what the press says and they do the right thing. - And according to Georgia-based criminal defense attorney, Mike Strickler, there's a big difference between juvenile and adult court. - It's significant. An extraordinary less amount of prison time, number one. I think that's the biggest issue, is that you're facing like 25 to life for some of these charges. In the juvenile court, you can only have jurisdictional 21. So the other thing is that he is only 15 years old. The whole point of juvenile court is it's more touchy feely. And I mean, the juvenile courts and the Fulton County one, it works. You know, I've had these kinds of cases in juvenile court. They take a lot of time to really focus on treatment. We want to put this person back into society so he can be productive member of society. What's the point of putting him in prison for the rest of his life if there's a way to show that we can do things to make it so that he can live a productive life? And I would argue, and I don't know that's been done here, but his original case that he was in counseling, we gotta go look at all that work. We got to all see what he did in the original case and then see what work he's doing now, today. And then all of those things will be at the hearing discussed and then the judge will make a ruling. But if all of this has yet to be decided, meaning will KJ be tried as an adult or juvenile, how is it that we already know about this case? Generally, juvenile cases are kept under wraps and this could be a juvenile case. But Marian Bracha has an explanation. Well, every state is going to vary in its rules regarding who can be tried. Who can be tried as an adult and who can be tried as a juvenile, depending on age and depending on the nature of the offenses that have been charged. So in Georgia, it is known colloquially and legally as one of the seven deadly crimes or seven deadly sins. And included among those seven crimes are aggravated child molestation, aggravated sexual battery, which are two of the charges that this defendant has been facing. Because he is under 17, but older than 13, and charged with one of these seven most serious or most egregious offenses as determined by the Georgia statutes, that automatically gives the superior court in Georgia jurisdiction over this case, which means that even though he's 15 now, 14 at the time of the alleged offense, the adult system has jurisdiction over his prosecution. Interesting that we know about these allegations, because until this case went public, we had no idea about prior allegations. You heard that right. This is not the first time KJ Bierman has faced charges relating to sex crimes. And these allegations are dark. Here's prosecutor Kaitlin McGillicuddy at the September 11th hearing. - This would mark the second time he's now been charged with an offense of a sexual nature of a very serious magnitude, both of which involve juvenile victims. Both instances, there was a predatory behavior. So the risk he poses to potential victims, including those who trust him, and who are in a condition of closeness to him is incredibly high. The third is risk of committing a felony pending trial. The defendant has already committed a new offense of a similar nature while currently being under supervision of juvenile court, also a sexually exploitive offense against a minor child. The juvenile incident occurred, was reported in April of 2023. So very close in time, relatively to where we are now. And in these incidents, there were videos found on this defendant's cell phone. Those were kept in a hidden folder on his cell phone. And they do depict penetrating sex with a juvenile family member under the age of 12. The victim in that case was identified, was forensically interviewed. What I think is important for the court to understand about the nature of the case, the nature of that, is that these acts occurred over a range of time. There was not just one act, one video. They display multiple encounters. And there's also some predatory, I would say derogatory is how you characterize it, language used by the defendant towards the victim in those videos. Some acts of pulling hair and things like that, that demonstrate a little bit of that aggressiveness. That is also, you know, some acts of pulling hair and things like that, that demonstrate a little bit of that aggressiveness, that is also, described in the current case by the victim we have here. In that case, the alleged victim was KJ's own family member. In the new allegations, the teenage victim has reportedly received death threats and major backlash. She didn't attend the hearing last week, but a letter she wrote to the judge was read aloud. I'm writing this because I'm asking you to please consider my safety when deciding whether to let the defendant call my mom. Ever since what happened to me, I have been living in fear. This situation has affected my life in more ways than I can explain. I am only 15. I should be worrying about school, my friends, and normal things people my age worry about. Instead, I have had to deal with the fear, stress, and the consequences of something that I never thought I would have to face. The backlash I'm already facing has been unbearable. I have lost my friends, my peers think that I'm disgusting, and people making an already difficult situation even harder. But what scares me the most is that this has gone beyond people just talking. I have already received threats from neutrals, saying that if he is released, he will come after me. DMs, messages to my friends and family, and posts that you need because of me coming forward. If he is released, I am afraid that threats, calls, emails, and backlash will become even worse. I do not want to wake up every day wondering if someone is going through to follow through on that threat. I do not want to be scared every time my phone goes off, every time someone calls my family, or every time I leave my house. I should not have to defensively lift over my shoulder because I am afraid for myself or someone I love. This has already changed the way I feel about my safety. If he is released, I am scared that the little sense of security I have left will disappear completely. Even still, KJ's bond was eventually granted, and here's how it breaks down: $50,000 for aggravated child molestation, $50 more for aggravated sexual battery, another $50 for aggravated sodomy, $10,000 for each sexual battery against a child under age 16, and $20,000 for the false imprisonment allegation. Now that totals up to $200,000. Well, each charge must have a bond amount attached to it or you don't get out of jail. So each charge has to have one. And the more severe charges, the aggravated sodomy and such, they're the ones that are going to have the $50,000 bond, $20,000 bond. And then false imprisonment is a slightly lesser charge, remembering context, and that's why it's only $10,000. So it's very normal to have a bond amount for each charge. It's a requirement. Beyond that, there's a long list of stipulations, including the rule that KJ cannot go back to school, meaning he can only go to class virtually or be homeschooled. He's not allowed to have any access to social media or a phone at all. He has to do basic things like wear an ankle monitor and turn over his passport, but he can't have contact with anyone 16 or younger, not just the alleged victim. Those are normal. I mean, whenever you have a situation like this, especially someone who's young like that, the social media and the internet access when sex is involved especially is sometimes curtailed. And you would be really kind of surprised. These ankle monitors are amazingly accurate. So if I walk from here to the other side of my office, which is not that large of an imprint, the monitor would show. And so these ankle monitor reports that the ankle monitor person who's a private company, they can send daily reports to the probation officer who's watching this and see if what this kid is doing. I mean, it's really, really accurate. So as well, I'm going so much detail about that is to explain that's why the judge orders it. It's really good and keeping track of folks. According to Meg, these bond restrictions mean that almost all of KJ's freedom will be taken away. I mean, he is on, we used to call it house service. We don't tend to call it that anymore, but I mean, he is what, 15 years old. Those kids live by their phones. They're scrolling 24/7. So that punishment is probably the most dire for him. He's taken out of school now. Remember when you were in high school? I mean, it's a very social time. And then the third issue is that he's not allowed to see any friends, do any social, anything. This is very restrictive. But then I look at it from the other side rather than that, than being in a youth detention center or jail. And that's where the case stands right now. KJ Bierman is due back in court on October 14th for a formal arraignment. At that time, he will likely enter a plea. And in the meantime, I have some questions about the case so far. It's a tough one to talk about, but we have a great guest to break it all down in just a few minutes. So let's get right into it. It's Nima Rahmani, former federal prosecutor and friend of the show. Nima, as always, great to have you on Scandal. Thanks for stopping by. Of course, Sierra. Thanks for having me. So excited to be on. But I agree. This one is tough to hear. The allegations are very disturbing. Very disturbing. And I mean, any sexual crime allegation is tough, right? I mean, the victim, the perpetrator, all of it is just terrible. But then it's an added layer, in my opinion, because we're talking about a child victim and a child perpetrator here. It makes things really confusing. Plus, his parents are in the spotlight. So let's just start with the basics. What are your initial thoughts about this case? So like you said, any time you have a crime against a child, it makes it more difficult, not just for us to talk about it, but because a lot of the information is not public. Obviously, our criminal justice system likes to and should protect victims. But when you have child victims, they're entitled to even more protection. So, here, not only do you have a child victim, you have an alleged child perpetrator. So there's not a lot of information out there. There's some. It's pretty terrible. I won't repeat it. But there's some pretty serious sex crimes that are being alleged. And I think this entire case comes down to whether it's being prosecuted in adult court or juvenile court. It's going to make all the difference. And that's exactly my next question, Nima, because how do we determine that? I mean, I talked about in this episode, there's a motion from the defense. They want this to be in juvenile court, still kind of up in the air. What are the considerations here? So it's up to the criminal judge to decide whether to transfer the case to juvenile court. And Sierra, I could tell you, it's going to make all the difference in the world. I mean, some of these very serious charges, if they stick, if it were an adult, they have a 25-year minimum sentence if there is a conviction in adult court. But juvenile court, we know it's not about punishment. It's about rehabilitation. So you're talking about little to no time. I don't think you can even hold someone for in any juvenile proceeding related to these charges for more than 60 months in Georgia. So here are some of the considerations. Obviously, the age of the perpetrator, the age of the victim, right? Obviously, a victim cannot consent to any sexual activity. It does appear that the allegations here were that it was not consensual anyway. The prior history of the defendant, that's going to be important because the prosecution is alleging some previous sex crimes and some sexually explicit messages on the defendant's phone. Obviously, they're going to look at the risk to others if it's handled and rehabilitated in juvenile court. Is rehabilitation even a possibility, right? So a lot of it turns on this sort of series of factors. And really, the judge has a lot of discretion. So expect to see a lot of discussion of these previous cases, even though they're just allegations. There were no charges filed. That's something the judge can consider. The nature of these particular allegations with this victim, and of course, really the long-term risk to the public if this is adjudicated as a juvenile instead of an adult. Okay. I wanted to ask you specifically about something that you mentioned there, the allegations that this isn't the first time that KJ Bierman has made an offense like this. According to prosecutors, we don't know about this because this was, you know, it involved juveniles. It hasn't been publicized. However, she said in open open court that there are allegations that he sexually assaulted a family member. And additionally, there was images or videos, whatever it may be, on his phone in a hidden folder. How does all of this work? I mean, I'm thinking prior bad acts, but does that make sense? I mean, they would want it to show a pattern, but what's kind of the rule here? Yeah, so it's similar to a prior bad act, but not necessary because prior bad acts have to show really sort of motive, identity, intent. There's a series of factors. Some of us call it mimic type evidence. But here, it's really just to show that this is a pattern of conduct and that this individual is dangerous and can't be rehabilitated, right? And this is someone that needs to be punished and deterred. So there's no question that this is going to be highly relevant, that this may be one of the focuses of this particular hearing, right? Because you have an alleged crime against a family member, you have images. I mean, we don't know what they are, what they do, right? The defense is saying that it's just, you know, and obviously, like defense attorneys say all sorts of things. I don't know if this is true or not. I don't know if allegations are true, but the defense attorneys say this is, you know, consistent with, you know, middle schoolers engaging in horseplay. Again, I don't know if that's true or not. I don't know the nature of it. But again, if you do have sexually explicit images on your phone as a 15-year-old and there's evidence of other abuse, I mean, we know that perpetrators, especially people that perpetrate sex crimes, they tend to abuse more than one victim. And that's something that absolutely the judge is going to take into consideration in deciding. Because look, if, you know, a few years from now, someone else is sexually assaulted, guess what? People are going to come back to this judge and say, you know what? You cut him a significant break. And I'm talking potentially, Sierra, decades, decades in prison versus really a slap on the wrist in juvenile court. So it's night and day. This determination is really going to be everything. Wow. That's, when you're talking about something like that, it's so stark. I mean, we would hope for rehabilitation in any case, but if this is a repeat offender who is someone who's actually dangerous out there, I can understand why the judge would kind of lean more toward adult court. Because to your point, if he gets let out, if there's another offense down the line, all speculation and possibility, we don't know yet. But I don't know. I mean, the judge has a lot to consider for sure. And I guess my next question with all of this, too, is, you know, I think there's a lot to consider. I think there's a lot to is, wherever this is tried, whether it be juvenile court or adult court, whatever it may be, does it make things more complicated in that the victim here, she had a sex crimes kit done, and it showed, I guess, that she had injuries to her genital area. But there was no male DNA found. So KJ's DNA was not found there, which, of course, the defense is going to jump on. You know, if he was sexually assaulting her, she'd probably have some of his DNA on her, which he doesn't. However, so does that make things harder then for the prosecution? Well, yes. If the defense is going to argue that the sexual contact never happened, then absolutely. So we're talking about two primary types of allegations. And again, folks that are watching this may be disturbing. There's digital penetration, and there is an allegation that he forced his genitals into her mouth. So you would want, if you're the prosecution, for there to be some sort of DNA, his DNA, on her body for either of those. Because obviously, if he says that this didn't even happen, and the allegations are fabricated, that certainly does help the defense. Yeah. Although I was looking at the dates here, and according to the court docs, this allegedly happened on April 23rd, and this sex crimes kit was performed on April 24th. Now, I don't know the time. Maybe this allegedly happened around 5 p.m., like kind of dinnertime era. And I wonder if maybe it was, you know, midnight. Could it have just happened? Or was it 24 hours later? Is it possible she took a shower? Is it possible, you know, something, you know, I don't know. I don't know the exact date and time of all of this. And I do have to just make note of the fact that according to this kit, she did have some sort of injury. So is that positive then for the prosecution to say, okay, maybe we don't have DNA, but we do have this injury that seems consistent with a sex crime? Definitely the injury helps. Obviously, you would prefer there to be DNA. So it really depends on the type of injury. Is it bruising? Is it cuts? Is it consistent with someone who has been sodomized, right, under joy? Obviously, the defense is going to argue that this is fabricated. It didn't happen. Because really, that's really the only thing you can argue for the defense, that this really goes to adult court. Because again, in sex crimes, there's primarily two types of defenses. The sexual contact didn't happen or that it was consensual. And we know that it can't be consensual because it's a minor. So really the only thing the defense can argue here is that the contact didn't happen at all and that these allegations are fabricated. But yes, to the extent that there are injuries, that certainly helps the prosecution. Ideally, we want injuries plus the DNA. Okay, I have another question for you about the victim here, the alleged victim. And it kind of reminds me, I had you on all the time when we were talking about P. Diddy. And I remember specifically asking you, isn't it going to be tough for Cassie, for Jane, for these people who are going to have to testify about what they say is probably some of the worst moments of their life in a federal court in front of all of these people? You and I talked about this at length. So this is a girl, a girl specifically, she's a teenager. I mean, the prosecutors would probably want her on the stand. Doesn't that make things extra complicated? Because not only is it traumatic, but this is a child. No question. And under the Confrontation Clause of the Constitution, if this does go to adult court, Fulton County, the defense has the right to cross-examine their accuser. So she will have to testify. We don't know anything about her except that she's under the age of 16. And she'll likely be either 15 or 16 if and when this were to go to trial. So no question. I think one thing that makes this helpful, and we talked about it in the Diddy case with Cassie and others, is that we have a contemporaneous report. Whenever you have that, that makes the case a lot better. That really tends to cut away from the argument that this was fabricated for money or fame or revenge or whatever reasons why people may fabricate. I love a contemporaneous report as a prosecutor or as a civil plaintiff's attorney, which I am now representing victims. My next question for you about all of this is that I was just watching the video that we have for the hearing that happened on September 11th. It was the bond hearing, a couple of other things, this motion about juvenile court was brought up, kind of a plethora of things were discussed here. And one of the things that the defense brought up was this polygraph, I guess, that KJ completed a polygraph that he passed it and he was hoping that it would be allowed in. Now, whenever I've just generally reported on polygraphs, it's like, oh, they're not admissible in court. Is that true? That is true. So polygraphs are inadmissible in almost every state. I think there are some exceptions. I want to say maybe New Mexico is one of them. I don't think Georgia is an exception. And the reason is they're considered junk science, not reliable. They just don't meet the Daubert standard. So almost every judge in every courtroom in this country is not going to admit a polygraph. And frankly, most people, when the polygraph is conducted by law enforcement or the prosecution, they fail the polygraph or it's inconclusive. But you did raise an important point regarding the bond. And some of this is reading the T-League. We obviously haven't heard all the evidence, but there's a pretty significant bond that we're talking about, not just in the amount, 200,000, but stay away from anyone under the age of 16, homeschool, even your own family members. That's pretty serious, right? So again, I don't know how the judge is going to rule, but at least with respect to the bond, the judge deemed these allegations serious enough to make sure that this particular defendant has to stay away from any minors, even family members. Wow. And how do we make sure that that happens? That I know that his parents are divorced. So maybe if he's at one parent's house, the other, the siblings who are younger are in a different house. Same with, I know that social media was completely, he's not allowed to go on it at all. How can we make sure that he's following along with the bond stipulations? Yeah. I mean, it's serious because we know that the prosecution, I believe, wanted to have him detained, which is pretty serious when you're talking about a minor. So obviously, look, I mean, if someone gets on social media, it's pretty clear that they're on social media, right? I mean, this is the last thing you want to do. This is your chance to be out pending trial, pending litigation of this juvenile adjudication motion. I believe he can go to and from court, to and from any medical appointments, but really that's it. Can't go to school. It has to be homeschooled. So this is the type of thing you got to take very seriously. If you're the parents, I don't care if you're a celebrity parent or not, because if not, you violate your conditions of pretrial release. That's a surefire way to get remanded into custody. Oh, wow. So many aspects of this case are so serious, and I'm glad that the court is taking it so seriously. We have to remind our viewers, he hasn't been convicted here, so he is innocent until proven guilty. But I do feel like the judge is doing a good job weighing what we have here and the bond stipulations. Nima, I'm going to ask you before we go, what's your hypothesis for looking ahead? Do you think this is going to be in juvenile court? What do you really expect? It's a tough one, and it's very hard. It's very hard to predict. I think given his age, and I believe he's also 15, if I'm correct. Yep, 15. And even though 13 to 17-year-olds can be prosecuted as adults, if I had to guess, and it's just a guess here, you know me, I love to stick my neck out and make predictions. I would predict that given his age, it's likely that this will be adjudicated in juvenile court, just a guess. I'm not saying that the allegations don't have merit, aren't serious. But again, there's such a sexual assault, aggravated sodomy. Georgia state law as an adult. And again, there's minimums that we're talking about, potentially even life sentences. I think we're likely going to end up in juvenile court, but I definitely wouldn't bet the ranch on it. Wow. Okay. I guess we'll have to wait and see. This is one of those cases that everyone's so interested in, intrigued by. So we'll keep following it and have you back on shortly, Nima. Thanks for having me as always, Sierra. Great to be on Scandal. And that's where today's episode of Scandal leaves us for now. If you like what you saw and you want to see more or connect with me on social media, you can find me on places like Instagram at Sierra Gillespie. Thanks for watching today's episode of Scandal. As always, I'm your host, Sierra Gillespie, and I'll see you next time.