WEBVTT - Judge in Walters Leaker Case Demands Progress (Audio)

0:00:00.080 --> 0:00:03.279
<v Speaker 1>A New York federal judge is demanding the Justice Department

0:00:03.320 --> 0:00:07.720
<v Speaker 1>provide meaningful information about its investigation of an FBI agent

0:00:07.880 --> 0:00:10.720
<v Speaker 1>who has been accused of leaking tips in the investigation

0:00:10.760 --> 0:00:14.400
<v Speaker 1>into insider trading. In a high profile case, Las Vegas

0:00:14.480 --> 0:00:17.800
<v Speaker 1>gambler Billy Walters was convicted in April on charges of

0:00:17.840 --> 0:00:21.279
<v Speaker 1>making forty three million dollars from an insider scheme that

0:00:21.400 --> 0:00:26.480
<v Speaker 1>also entangled pro golfer Phil Mulkison. Phil Mickelson, lawyers for Walters,

0:00:26.520 --> 0:00:30.240
<v Speaker 1>tried unsuccessfully to have the case dismissed before trial, claiming

0:00:30.320 --> 0:00:34.080
<v Speaker 1>FBI agent David Chavez leak details of his stock trading

0:00:34.120 --> 0:00:37.239
<v Speaker 1>to a newspaper in order to breathe life into an

0:00:37.280 --> 0:00:40.560
<v Speaker 1>investigation that was failing. Joining me is Professor Peter Haining,

0:00:40.720 --> 0:00:43.400
<v Speaker 1>Heading of Wayne State University Law School, who was an

0:00:43.400 --> 0:00:48.080
<v Speaker 1>expert on all things insider trading. Peter, this involved leaks

0:00:48.120 --> 0:00:52.320
<v Speaker 1>of grand jury information. Why might that be more important

0:00:52.320 --> 0:00:56.000
<v Speaker 1>to a judge than other things? Well, under the grand

0:00:56.000 --> 0:01:01.600
<v Speaker 1>fury rules um everything related to that investigation must be

0:01:01.720 --> 0:01:06.160
<v Speaker 1>kept confidential, and if there is any leak of information

0:01:06.640 --> 0:01:09.080
<v Speaker 1>from either a prosecutor or here in this case, an

0:01:09.120 --> 0:01:13.440
<v Speaker 1>agent that can subject the person to a contempt of

0:01:13.520 --> 0:01:18.959
<v Speaker 1>court or even a separate criminal prosecution, perhaps for obstruction

0:01:19.000 --> 0:01:22.240
<v Speaker 1>of justice. So grand jury leaks or something judges are

0:01:22.319 --> 0:01:25.920
<v Speaker 1>very concerned about, and in this case especially the Justice

0:01:25.959 --> 0:01:29.399
<v Speaker 1>Department's initial reaction was, hey, there were no leaks from

0:01:29.400 --> 0:01:32.160
<v Speaker 1>our side, and then all of a sudden, now it

0:01:32.200 --> 0:01:35.280
<v Speaker 1>turns out there was an FBI agent leaking to the

0:01:35.319 --> 0:01:37.880
<v Speaker 1>New York Times in the Wall Street Journal. So the

0:01:37.959 --> 0:01:41.520
<v Speaker 1>judge is clearly quite upset about this. Why do the

0:01:41.680 --> 0:01:47.560
<v Speaker 1>FBI agent allegedly leak this, Well, it's not entirely clear that.

0:01:48.120 --> 0:01:50.920
<v Speaker 1>Some of the talk has been that it was to

0:01:51.000 --> 0:01:54.800
<v Speaker 1>put pressure on one or more of the targets, either

0:01:54.920 --> 0:01:59.480
<v Speaker 1>the source of the information, Tom Davis, or perhaps Billy

0:01:59.520 --> 0:02:03.040
<v Speaker 1>Walters himself. The government at the time also had up

0:02:03.080 --> 0:02:06.440
<v Speaker 1>a wire tap, and maybe if the stories appeared in

0:02:06.480 --> 0:02:10.560
<v Speaker 1>the press, they might make incriminating statements. It really isn't

0:02:10.680 --> 0:02:13.880
<v Speaker 1>clear why the agent did it. I mean, clearly it

0:02:13.960 --> 0:02:19.080
<v Speaker 1>was um illegal, uh and impromper. But you know what

0:02:19.240 --> 0:02:22.000
<v Speaker 1>the motivation is and how leaking to the press is

0:02:22.040 --> 0:02:25.320
<v Speaker 1>going to help an investigation. It's not easy to figure out.

0:02:26.000 --> 0:02:29.160
<v Speaker 1>Judge Kevin Castell writes what the court learns is at

0:02:29.160 --> 0:02:33.760
<v Speaker 1>the Section and the Inspector General are quote continuing continuing

0:02:33.800 --> 0:02:37.920
<v Speaker 1>to investigate this matter, and they've obtained records and conducted

0:02:38.000 --> 0:02:42.480
<v Speaker 1>multiple interviews and it's ongoing. That's it. So anyone who's

0:02:42.480 --> 0:02:44.840
<v Speaker 1>been on the receiving end of government reports has to

0:02:44.919 --> 0:02:48.280
<v Speaker 1>love that from a judge. Oh absolutely, I mean this

0:02:48.520 --> 0:02:52.520
<v Speaker 1>is what what the Department of Justice tried to give, uh,

0:02:52.720 --> 0:02:56.760
<v Speaker 1>Judge Castle is. Essentially, it's boiler plate response, Um, we're

0:02:56.760 --> 0:03:01.640
<v Speaker 1>conducting an investigation, don't ask us anymore questions. Um. That

0:03:02.280 --> 0:03:05.519
<v Speaker 1>this case has really gotten under the judge's skin, especially

0:03:05.560 --> 0:03:08.760
<v Speaker 1>given the initial response, which was Judge, there's nothing to

0:03:08.760 --> 0:03:11.200
<v Speaker 1>see here, and now there's actually a lot to see.

0:03:11.560 --> 0:03:14.560
<v Speaker 1>So he is going to hold their feet to the fire. Absolutely.

0:03:15.720 --> 0:03:20.280
<v Speaker 1>Is it more likely that they haven't been investigating this

0:03:20.560 --> 0:03:23.440
<v Speaker 1>preferring to let it drop, or that they don't want

0:03:23.440 --> 0:03:26.560
<v Speaker 1>to reveal what they have because it puts the FBI

0:03:26.800 --> 0:03:29.840
<v Speaker 1>in a bad light. Well, I think the FBI is

0:03:29.880 --> 0:03:34.080
<v Speaker 1>already in a pretty bad light. One, you know, purely

0:03:34.120 --> 0:03:38.240
<v Speaker 1>speculative notion is that perhaps it was more than just

0:03:38.440 --> 0:03:41.880
<v Speaker 1>this case in which the agent might have leaked information,

0:03:42.040 --> 0:03:46.120
<v Speaker 1>So it could be a much wider investigation than we've

0:03:46.120 --> 0:03:50.600
<v Speaker 1>had indicated. But again, that's something that the Justice Department

0:03:50.680 --> 0:03:52.760
<v Speaker 1>is going to have to indicate at least a little

0:03:52.760 --> 0:03:56.480
<v Speaker 1>bit to the judge, rather than, if you will, just

0:03:56.560 --> 0:04:00.320
<v Speaker 1>blowing him off with a hey, judge, we're investigating. We'll

0:04:00.320 --> 0:04:03.520
<v Speaker 1>get back to you later. Um, judge gave him two

0:04:03.560 --> 0:04:06.280
<v Speaker 1>weeks to get back to him. So they're going to

0:04:06.400 --> 0:04:08.680
<v Speaker 1>have to give a little bit more meat than the

0:04:08.720 --> 0:04:12.320
<v Speaker 1>bare bones that they've provided at this point. Peter, the

0:04:12.440 --> 0:04:15.880
<v Speaker 1>judge refused to dismiss the case based on this leak

0:04:16.240 --> 0:04:19.440
<v Speaker 1>or alleged leak, But is it something that Walters could

0:04:19.600 --> 0:04:23.080
<v Speaker 1>use in his appeal. He could try to bring it

0:04:23.160 --> 0:04:26.360
<v Speaker 1>up that the problem is and Judge Castle noticed this

0:04:26.600 --> 0:04:30.760
<v Speaker 1>or discussed this when he rejected the defense motion. He said,

0:04:31.080 --> 0:04:34.200
<v Speaker 1>what's the prejudice, um, And you have to show prejudice

0:04:34.640 --> 0:04:39.200
<v Speaker 1>from a violation by the government prosecutorial misconduct or here

0:04:39.240 --> 0:04:43.039
<v Speaker 1>the FBI agent's misconduct. That it can't just be well,

0:04:43.480 --> 0:04:46.719
<v Speaker 1>maybe they wouldn't have brought the case. Um. They need

0:04:46.760 --> 0:04:49.000
<v Speaker 1>more than that, And so I don't see that as

0:04:49.040 --> 0:04:51.240
<v Speaker 1>a strong argument on appeal. I think they're going to

0:04:51.279 --> 0:04:55.400
<v Speaker 1>focus more on the issues at trial. And certainly questions

0:04:55.400 --> 0:04:58.880
<v Speaker 1>about Tom Davis's credibility that the tipper who was the

0:04:58.960 --> 0:05:03.479
<v Speaker 1>key government with and when he sentenced, how much time

0:05:03.760 --> 0:05:08.480
<v Speaker 1>is Billy Walters facing. Well, government alleged that he made

0:05:08.640 --> 0:05:12.320
<v Speaker 1>over forty million dollars and that will get you in

0:05:12.560 --> 0:05:16.320
<v Speaker 1>range of about a five to seven year sentence, although

0:05:16.680 --> 0:05:19.320
<v Speaker 1>that would be under the federal sentencing guidelines, which are

0:05:19.400 --> 0:05:23.520
<v Speaker 1>only advisory. So I would certainly think though that Walters

0:05:23.800 --> 0:05:26.680
<v Speaker 1>is going to be looking at, say a three to

0:05:26.760 --> 0:05:32.120
<v Speaker 1>five year sentence. That's been about the norm for insider

0:05:32.160 --> 0:05:36.880
<v Speaker 1>trading with that kind of dollar figure. So he's certainly

0:05:36.960 --> 0:05:40.640
<v Speaker 1>looking at jail time, and they may ask for probation.

0:05:40.880 --> 0:05:44.320
<v Speaker 1>Dependants often do, but I think that's very very unlikely.

0:05:45.120 --> 0:05:48.159
<v Speaker 1>So that's the next step, and then the appeal and

0:05:48.200 --> 0:05:50.559
<v Speaker 1>then the appeal. The sentencing will come in the next

0:05:50.720 --> 0:05:55.880
<v Speaker 1>couple of months. Um the appeal will take probably about

0:05:55.920 --> 0:05:58.280
<v Speaker 1>a year. I don't think we'll have any real resolution

0:05:58.720 --> 0:06:03.120
<v Speaker 1>on the Walters convict and until later into eighteen. So

0:06:03.839 --> 0:06:06.599
<v Speaker 1>the wheels of justice moved pretty slowly in this area.

0:06:06.800 --> 0:06:10.360
<v Speaker 1>We certainly know that. Thank you, Peter Henning, Wayne State

0:06:10.440 --> 0:06:12.240
<v Speaker 1>University Law School Professor