1 00:00:03,200 --> 00:00:08,719 Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio. 2 00:00:10,160 --> 00:00:14,240 Speaker 2: A stunning defamation award to advice columnist e Gene Carroll. 3 00:00:14,520 --> 00:00:18,680 Speaker 2: After only three hours of deliberations on Friday, a Manhattan 4 00:00:18,760 --> 00:00:22,439 Speaker 2: jury decided that Donald Trump must pay Carrol eighty three 5 00:00:22,480 --> 00:00:26,279 Speaker 2: point three million dollars for defaming her when he denied 6 00:00:26,320 --> 00:00:30,120 Speaker 2: he sexually assaulted her. The eighty year old Carroll clutched 7 00:00:30,120 --> 00:00:34,120 Speaker 2: her lawyer's hands and smiled as the jury delivered its verdict. 8 00:00:34,320 --> 00:00:38,479 Speaker 2: Trump was not in the courtroom for the verdict. Absolutely ridiculous, 9 00:00:38,479 --> 00:00:42,159 Speaker 2: he said in a statement shortly afterwards, vowing to appeal. 10 00:00:42,600 --> 00:00:46,400 Speaker 2: The award includes eighteen point three million dollars in compensation 11 00:00:46,880 --> 00:00:51,440 Speaker 2: for harm cause to Carroll's reputation, plus a whopping sixty 12 00:00:51,520 --> 00:00:56,000 Speaker 2: five million dollars in punitive damages. Those are damages intended 13 00:00:56,040 --> 00:00:59,680 Speaker 2: to punish Trump and determine from engaging in defamation in 14 00:00:59,680 --> 00:01:03,320 Speaker 2: the future. Joining me is Bloomberg Legal reporter Patricia Hurtado, 15 00:01:03,400 --> 00:01:07,240 Speaker 2: who's been covering the trial to former l magazine columnist 16 00:01:07,319 --> 00:01:11,720 Speaker 2: Egene Carroll for defaming her by denying he sexually abused her. 17 00:01:12,000 --> 00:01:15,520 Speaker 2: The award consists of eighteen point three million dollars in 18 00:01:15,600 --> 00:01:20,880 Speaker 2: compensation for harm cause to Carol's reputation, plus sixty five 19 00:01:20,959 --> 00:01:25,640 Speaker 2: million dollars in punitive damages. Those are damages designed to 20 00:01:25,800 --> 00:01:30,160 Speaker 2: punish the defendant. Joining me is Bloomberg Legal reporter Patricia Hurtado, 21 00:01:30,400 --> 00:01:33,520 Speaker 2: who covered the trial. What did Jean Carroll ask for 22 00:01:33,680 --> 00:01:37,160 Speaker 2: and how does this verdict compare well Edan. 23 00:01:37,080 --> 00:01:40,120 Speaker 3: Carroll's lawyers had asked for at least twenty four million 24 00:01:40,240 --> 00:01:46,480 Speaker 3: dollars twelve million in compensatory damages for having her reputation 25 00:01:46,880 --> 00:01:50,000 Speaker 3: hurt and defamation that happened when Trump accused her of 26 00:01:50,000 --> 00:01:54,240 Speaker 3: being a liar, and then additional reputational repair of twelve 27 00:01:54,320 --> 00:01:59,440 Speaker 3: million dollars In additions unspecified putative damages to get Donald 28 00:01:59,440 --> 00:02:03,400 Speaker 3: Trump from continuing to defame her. Her lawyer said that 29 00:02:03,480 --> 00:02:07,080 Speaker 3: Trump even continued to defame her as he left the 30 00:02:07,120 --> 00:02:10,919 Speaker 3: courthouse each day after the trial. In the end, it 31 00:02:11,080 --> 00:02:15,000 Speaker 3: was a staggering eighty three point three million, seven point 32 00:02:15,040 --> 00:02:20,680 Speaker 3: three million for nominal damages for being defamed, eleven million 33 00:02:20,919 --> 00:02:24,920 Speaker 3: for a reputational repair to repair her reputation, and in 34 00:02:24,960 --> 00:02:29,480 Speaker 3: an additional sixty five million for punitive damages to get 35 00:02:29,520 --> 00:02:31,040 Speaker 3: Donald Trump to stop. 36 00:02:31,600 --> 00:02:35,920 Speaker 2: And during closing arguments in the morning, Carol's attorney, ROBERTA. Caplan, 37 00:02:36,000 --> 00:02:41,400 Speaker 2: had asked for quote, an unusually high punitive award, arguing 38 00:02:41,480 --> 00:02:44,800 Speaker 2: that's what was needed to get him to stop defaming Carol. 39 00:02:45,880 --> 00:02:49,480 Speaker 3: Yeah, she was basically saying that Trump belie he's above 40 00:02:49,560 --> 00:02:52,160 Speaker 3: the rule of law, that the law doesn't apply to him. 41 00:02:52,680 --> 00:02:57,200 Speaker 3: And he started getting, you know, increasingly angry at listening 42 00:02:57,240 --> 00:03:00,920 Speaker 3: to himself being described this way. And then she said that, 43 00:03:01,160 --> 00:03:03,960 Speaker 3: you know, this has to stop now. She said he 44 00:03:04,080 --> 00:03:07,320 Speaker 3: was leaving court and tweeting and putting on truth Social 45 00:03:07,400 --> 00:03:11,800 Speaker 3: thing about Eging Carroll that were also defamatory. She said, 46 00:03:11,880 --> 00:03:15,120 Speaker 3: it's defamation of a woman by a man who believes 47 00:03:15,120 --> 00:03:16,240 Speaker 3: he can do anything he want. 48 00:03:16,600 --> 00:03:19,200 Speaker 2: And he stormed out of the court room at almost 49 00:03:19,240 --> 00:03:22,040 Speaker 2: the very start of her closing arguments. 50 00:03:22,720 --> 00:03:26,920 Speaker 3: Yeah, Eging Carroll's lawyer was minutes into her closing arguments 51 00:03:26,960 --> 00:03:29,080 Speaker 3: and he didn't like what he was hearing, and he 52 00:03:29,560 --> 00:03:35,320 Speaker 3: stormed out, and we did see pretty contemporaneously. Shortly thereafter, 53 00:03:35,840 --> 00:03:40,120 Speaker 3: Donald Trump started posting critical things about the judge in 54 00:03:40,200 --> 00:03:43,360 Speaker 3: the case on truth Social and some of them were 55 00:03:43,440 --> 00:03:47,960 Speaker 3: you know, very angry and serious. So we can assume 56 00:03:48,080 --> 00:03:50,720 Speaker 3: that he probably went into one of the side rooms 57 00:03:50,720 --> 00:03:54,360 Speaker 3: in the courthouse and started posting on truth Social and 58 00:03:54,400 --> 00:03:56,080 Speaker 3: he only came back to the court and to hear 59 00:03:56,160 --> 00:04:00,360 Speaker 3: closing arguments by his lawyer, Alena Habba, about for five 60 00:04:00,360 --> 00:04:00,960 Speaker 3: minutes later. 61 00:04:01,400 --> 00:04:06,040 Speaker 2: So Alina Habbought even before the closing arguments, got into 62 00:04:06,080 --> 00:04:07,880 Speaker 2: a tangle with the judge again. 63 00:04:08,440 --> 00:04:12,360 Speaker 3: The judge took the bench and Carol's lawyers were seated 64 00:04:12,480 --> 00:04:15,000 Speaker 3: at the table, and there was no one at the 65 00:04:15,000 --> 00:04:19,119 Speaker 3: defense table, and the judge got visibly angry that time 66 00:04:19,279 --> 00:04:22,679 Speaker 3: was passing and there was a jury waiting, and court 67 00:04:22,680 --> 00:04:24,359 Speaker 3: was supposed to start at nine point thirty and it 68 00:04:24,400 --> 00:04:27,160 Speaker 3: was about nine forty five and there was still no 69 00:04:27,440 --> 00:04:30,440 Speaker 3: defendant or his lawyers. So the judge said, let the 70 00:04:30,480 --> 00:04:33,680 Speaker 3: record reflect that there's no defense team. And then Alena 71 00:04:33,760 --> 00:04:36,800 Speaker 3: Hobba walked in without Trump, and then he said, is 72 00:04:36,839 --> 00:04:40,400 Speaker 3: your client going to join us? And basically she said. 73 00:04:40,200 --> 00:04:41,560 Speaker 4: Well, he's almost going to join. 74 00:04:41,720 --> 00:04:43,760 Speaker 3: You know, to make a judge, a federal judge and 75 00:04:43,760 --> 00:04:46,640 Speaker 3: a jury weight like that is pretty extraordinary. And then 76 00:04:46,839 --> 00:04:48,960 Speaker 3: Trump came in in his own time, so he came 77 00:04:49,000 --> 00:04:51,040 Speaker 3: in a few minutes later, So that started it, and 78 00:04:51,080 --> 00:04:54,960 Speaker 3: then she started arguing the judge had made preliminary ruling 79 00:04:55,360 --> 00:04:59,080 Speaker 3: disallowing certain evidence and emails to be put in that 80 00:04:59,160 --> 00:05:03,080 Speaker 3: were extrained and not part of the Trump case, and 81 00:05:03,120 --> 00:05:05,440 Speaker 3: some of them were derogatory and they were sent by 82 00:05:05,480 --> 00:05:08,119 Speaker 3: other people, and the judge that this is out of bound. 83 00:05:08,480 --> 00:05:11,520 Speaker 3: Elena of his partner tried to enter it into evidence 84 00:05:11,560 --> 00:05:16,039 Speaker 3: today after entering of evidence had closed. You don't do 85 00:05:16,120 --> 00:05:18,480 Speaker 3: that when he's starting to do closing arguments on the 86 00:05:18,560 --> 00:05:21,520 Speaker 3: day of closing arguments. The judge reminded him that that 87 00:05:21,680 --> 00:05:25,040 Speaker 3: was improper, and then Alena interrupted the judge and started 88 00:05:25,160 --> 00:05:28,120 Speaker 3: arguing with him and trying to litigate it, and claimed 89 00:05:28,360 --> 00:05:31,480 Speaker 3: she was going to create a record for appeal, and 90 00:05:31,480 --> 00:05:33,800 Speaker 3: then the judge basically warned her that if she didn't 91 00:05:33,839 --> 00:05:35,440 Speaker 3: stop it, he was going to put her in the 92 00:05:35,480 --> 00:05:38,839 Speaker 3: lock up, so she better watch it. So it started 93 00:05:38,880 --> 00:05:39,400 Speaker 3: out that way. 94 00:05:39,720 --> 00:05:42,240 Speaker 2: I said when we talked about the New York fraud 95 00:05:42,360 --> 00:05:44,719 Speaker 2: trial that that was the craziest courtroom. 96 00:05:44,720 --> 00:05:45,719 Speaker 1: But I don't know now. 97 00:05:46,120 --> 00:05:49,400 Speaker 3: We see now that by putting on guardrails that the 98 00:05:49,480 --> 00:05:53,440 Speaker 3: judge did, Trump was extraordinarily restricted and what he could say, 99 00:05:53,920 --> 00:05:56,479 Speaker 3: and that's what prompted him to leave saying this is 100 00:05:56,520 --> 00:05:59,560 Speaker 3: not America. Obviously that heating feel he got to have 101 00:05:59,600 --> 00:06:02,560 Speaker 3: a say. You could argue that what Trump did to 102 00:06:02,680 --> 00:06:05,880 Speaker 3: Judge and Goren two weeks ago in closing argument and 103 00:06:05,960 --> 00:06:09,839 Speaker 3: delivering his own closing arguments was he hoodwink the judge 104 00:06:09,839 --> 00:06:13,040 Speaker 3: and then launched into what he wanted to say. So 105 00:06:13,080 --> 00:06:15,159 Speaker 3: there's not as much of a free for all. It's 106 00:06:15,200 --> 00:06:18,880 Speaker 3: not as free range as Trump was able to do 107 00:06:19,080 --> 00:06:22,320 Speaker 3: in state court. There's much more laws, and Judge Kaplan 108 00:06:22,880 --> 00:06:25,279 Speaker 3: is more of a taskmaster and he just wasn't going 109 00:06:25,360 --> 00:06:27,040 Speaker 3: to let Trump get away with it, and we kind 110 00:06:27,040 --> 00:06:28,040 Speaker 3: of see what happened. 111 00:06:28,240 --> 00:06:31,920 Speaker 2: Let's talk about Elena Habba, Trump's lawyer's closing argument, because 112 00:06:32,000 --> 00:06:34,800 Speaker 2: she showed the jury of video in which Trump said 113 00:06:34,839 --> 00:06:37,919 Speaker 2: that the jury's verdict last year was a disgrace, a 114 00:06:38,000 --> 00:06:40,479 Speaker 2: continuation of the greatest witch hunt of all time. And 115 00:06:40,480 --> 00:06:43,120 Speaker 2: then she said, you know why he has not wavered 116 00:06:43,440 --> 00:06:44,920 Speaker 2: because it's the truth. 117 00:06:45,120 --> 00:06:48,240 Speaker 1: And that prompted the judge to interrupt. 118 00:06:48,600 --> 00:06:52,760 Speaker 3: That also incurred the judge's ire because the judge already 119 00:06:52,800 --> 00:06:57,040 Speaker 3: made a finding. The jury last year found that Trump 120 00:06:57,160 --> 00:07:01,560 Speaker 3: sectually assaulted her. Judge Kaplan said he found that now 121 00:07:01,839 --> 00:07:04,800 Speaker 3: that Trump had disdained her by claiming she was a 122 00:07:04,839 --> 00:07:07,000 Speaker 3: liar and that she had made the story up and 123 00:07:07,040 --> 00:07:08,560 Speaker 3: that it was a quote unquote hoax. 124 00:07:09,080 --> 00:07:10,000 Speaker 4: He said that. 125 00:07:10,200 --> 00:07:13,760 Speaker 3: Earlier in September that Trump was no longer allowed to 126 00:07:14,000 --> 00:07:16,800 Speaker 3: claim that this never happened and that he was just 127 00:07:16,840 --> 00:07:21,040 Speaker 3: defending himself. And that's what basically Elena hobbit, that he's 128 00:07:21,080 --> 00:07:25,400 Speaker 3: remained consistent that he's only defending himself. And she also 129 00:07:25,560 --> 00:07:28,440 Speaker 3: claims in this country, you have a right to speak, 130 00:07:28,480 --> 00:07:31,760 Speaker 3: a constitutional right to speak. But then Kaplan interrupted her 131 00:07:31,800 --> 00:07:34,520 Speaker 3: and says, you have a constitutional right to some kinds 132 00:07:34,520 --> 00:07:37,960 Speaker 3: of speak, but not others. Basically, you can't make false claim, 133 00:07:38,160 --> 00:07:41,480 Speaker 3: which is what he was suggesting Hapa was doing in 134 00:07:41,480 --> 00:07:44,520 Speaker 3: the courtroom by trying to create this alternate universe and 135 00:07:44,600 --> 00:07:46,800 Speaker 3: this alternate reality where Trump was innocent. 136 00:07:47,120 --> 00:07:52,560 Speaker 2: And usually judges don't interrupt closing arguments unless it's something 137 00:07:53,000 --> 00:07:53,680 Speaker 2: very important. 138 00:07:54,440 --> 00:07:58,200 Speaker 3: Well, also, most lawyers know they followed the rules. I mean, 139 00:07:58,360 --> 00:08:01,520 Speaker 3: you're practicing in court, it's very specified. And if there 140 00:08:01,560 --> 00:08:05,640 Speaker 3: were pre trial rulings that you're not allowed to go beyond, 141 00:08:06,400 --> 00:08:08,400 Speaker 3: if you're only allowed to talk about A and B 142 00:08:08,600 --> 00:08:11,720 Speaker 3: but not mentioned B, and h a j you're not 143 00:08:11,800 --> 00:08:15,840 Speaker 3: allowed to and most lawyers follow those rules, the findings 144 00:08:15,880 --> 00:08:19,200 Speaker 3: and the conclusions that the judge has made. Elena seemed 145 00:08:19,240 --> 00:08:22,240 Speaker 3: to be interested in maybe her client wanted her to 146 00:08:22,280 --> 00:08:24,560 Speaker 3: say these things, so she was going to say them 147 00:08:24,600 --> 00:08:26,200 Speaker 3: and say it was because she was trying to create 148 00:08:26,240 --> 00:08:26,640 Speaker 3: a record. 149 00:08:27,520 --> 00:08:31,640 Speaker 2: Because, as you say, Donald Trump was frustrated on Thursday 150 00:08:32,120 --> 00:08:35,719 Speaker 2: by the way the judge limited his testimony so severely. 151 00:08:36,120 --> 00:08:37,439 Speaker 2: Tell us a little more about that. 152 00:08:37,920 --> 00:08:42,720 Speaker 5: Donald Trump was understand unbelievably brief four minutes at most, 153 00:08:42,960 --> 00:08:47,600 Speaker 5: unlike the four hours he spent railing at the system 154 00:08:47,880 --> 00:08:51,520 Speaker 5: in the New York State Cibil Frau trial in November 155 00:08:51,679 --> 00:08:56,240 Speaker 5: when he testified. The judge took great pains to strictly 156 00:08:56,360 --> 00:09:00,960 Speaker 5: limit what Trump was allowed to say, and he made. 157 00:09:00,880 --> 00:09:02,479 Speaker 4: Trump's lawyer, Elena. 158 00:09:02,200 --> 00:09:07,120 Speaker 5: Hobback answer specifically what was the question she was going 159 00:09:07,160 --> 00:09:10,320 Speaker 5: to ask him and what was the answer Trump was 160 00:09:10,360 --> 00:09:13,040 Speaker 5: going to get. So the judge wanted to put the 161 00:09:13,120 --> 00:09:16,719 Speaker 5: guard rails out there and no strain off of reservation 162 00:09:17,040 --> 00:09:19,640 Speaker 5: on this one. Don't go off on the offer rand 163 00:09:19,760 --> 00:09:20,640 Speaker 5: you're not allowed. 164 00:09:21,160 --> 00:09:24,480 Speaker 2: I'm sure Trump's performance in the courtroom did not endear 165 00:09:24,600 --> 00:09:27,240 Speaker 2: him to the jury. It certainly didn't endear him to 166 00:09:27,280 --> 00:09:29,760 Speaker 2: the judge. But I'm curious as to how the jury 167 00:09:29,760 --> 00:09:33,040 Speaker 2: came up with that number, sixty three million impunitives. 168 00:09:33,800 --> 00:09:36,520 Speaker 3: We don't know how the jury arrived upon it. And 169 00:09:36,559 --> 00:09:38,920 Speaker 3: as the judge excused them and said they could go 170 00:09:39,040 --> 00:09:41,360 Speaker 3: home now, he said they were free to talk about 171 00:09:41,520 --> 00:09:44,520 Speaker 3: it if they felt like it. And they were anonymous. 172 00:09:44,559 --> 00:09:47,280 Speaker 3: We don't have any of their identities and know about them, 173 00:09:47,280 --> 00:09:49,920 Speaker 3: and they're escorted hearing from the courthouse under guard of 174 00:09:49,960 --> 00:09:53,000 Speaker 3: the United States Deputy Marshals. But he told them he 175 00:09:53,000 --> 00:09:55,160 Speaker 3: would advise them never to tell anyone that they were 176 00:09:55,200 --> 00:09:55,959 Speaker 3: part of this jury. 177 00:09:56,440 --> 00:10:00,000 Speaker 2: I mean, we've all heard judges in high profile trials 178 00:10:00,120 --> 00:10:02,920 Speaker 2: tell the jury that they can talk to the press, 179 00:10:02,920 --> 00:10:05,000 Speaker 2: but they don't have to talk to the press, but 180 00:10:05,280 --> 00:10:09,280 Speaker 2: never warning the jury. Don't ever say that you were 181 00:10:09,280 --> 00:10:10,240 Speaker 2: on this jury. 182 00:10:10,800 --> 00:10:12,800 Speaker 3: Well, I mean, if you could think about what has 183 00:10:12,840 --> 00:10:14,920 Speaker 3: happened to people that have had anything to do with 184 00:10:15,040 --> 00:10:18,400 Speaker 3: these Trump cases, they're victims and the subject of lots 185 00:10:18,400 --> 00:10:21,720 Speaker 3: of thetriol and lots of attacks on social media. So 186 00:10:21,840 --> 00:10:23,640 Speaker 3: if they come forward and say, hey, I was a 187 00:10:23,760 --> 00:10:27,040 Speaker 3: juror on Trump, you know they can find themselves getting 188 00:10:27,280 --> 00:10:30,240 Speaker 3: possible threats from Trump supporters. 189 00:10:30,440 --> 00:10:34,160 Speaker 2: Patty, You've sat through all the New York trials involving Trump, 190 00:10:34,640 --> 00:10:36,240 Speaker 2: So what can we take away from this? 191 00:10:37,040 --> 00:10:40,280 Speaker 4: I mean, in the Cibil Frau trial in November, we 192 00:10:40,320 --> 00:10:44,960 Speaker 4: saw an entire trial where Donald Trump behave extraordinarily for 193 00:10:45,080 --> 00:10:48,600 Speaker 4: a defendant, having press conferences right outside of the courtroom door, 194 00:10:48,920 --> 00:10:54,240 Speaker 4: deriding and slamming the judge and the New York Attorney 195 00:10:54,280 --> 00:10:55,280 Speaker 4: General and. 196 00:10:55,280 --> 00:10:58,360 Speaker 3: Saying anything he felt like. You know what we've seen 197 00:10:58,480 --> 00:11:02,920 Speaker 3: in this latest trial, this trials lawyer for e Gene 198 00:11:02,960 --> 00:11:06,640 Speaker 3: Carroll asked the jury to basically hold him accountable for 199 00:11:06,679 --> 00:11:09,000 Speaker 3: what he's been getting away with all this time, and 200 00:11:09,080 --> 00:11:11,240 Speaker 3: this jury this is possibly you could say, this is 201 00:11:11,280 --> 00:11:14,480 Speaker 3: the first reckoning of Trump that he's had to now 202 00:11:14,880 --> 00:11:18,160 Speaker 3: pay the price for what he's claimed. 203 00:11:18,559 --> 00:11:21,520 Speaker 2: Thanks so much, Patty for taking us inside the courtroom. 204 00:11:21,800 --> 00:11:25,640 Speaker 2: That's Bloomberg Legal reporter Patricia Hurtado Coming up next on 205 00:11:25,679 --> 00:11:29,160 Speaker 2: the Bloomberg Law Show. The Supreme Court is stepping into 206 00:11:29,280 --> 00:11:33,040 Speaker 2: Starbucks fight with the unions. I'm June Grosso and you're 207 00:11:33,080 --> 00:11:41,240 Speaker 2: listening to Bloomberg. Thousands of Starbucks workers at hundreds of 208 00:11:41,280 --> 00:11:44,560 Speaker 2: stores across the country went on strike for one day 209 00:11:44,640 --> 00:11:48,280 Speaker 2: last November to protest their union's lack of a first 210 00:11:48,320 --> 00:11:51,720 Speaker 2: contract with the coffee chain despite a nearly two year 211 00:11:51,920 --> 00:11:52,920 Speaker 2: organizing drive. 212 00:11:53,280 --> 00:11:55,920 Speaker 6: We are really fighting to come to the bargaining table 213 00:11:55,920 --> 00:11:59,400 Speaker 6: and regardless of what Starbucks is advertising, they are not true. 214 00:11:59,160 --> 00:11:59,600 Speaker 4: To their word. 215 00:12:00,120 --> 00:12:04,320 Speaker 2: Union Starbucks Workers United, won its first representation at the 216 00:12:04,360 --> 00:12:07,160 Speaker 2: company in December of twenty twenty one, at a store 217 00:12:07,160 --> 00:12:10,000 Speaker 2: in Buffalo, New York. Since then, it has won votes 218 00:12:10,040 --> 00:12:12,680 Speaker 2: at more than three hundred and sixty stores, but the 219 00:12:12,840 --> 00:12:15,800 Speaker 2: union and Starbucks have yet to agree on a labor 220 00:12:15,840 --> 00:12:19,400 Speaker 2: contract for any of the more than nine thousand union members. 221 00:12:19,760 --> 00:12:23,160 Speaker 2: Tom Erickson is president of Teamster's Local one twenty. 222 00:12:23,640 --> 00:12:25,360 Speaker 7: At the end of the day, these workers want to 223 00:12:25,400 --> 00:12:28,280 Speaker 7: be represented, and they Starbucks to do the right thing 224 00:12:28,280 --> 00:12:29,680 Speaker 7: to come to the table and support them. 225 00:12:29,800 --> 00:12:32,959 Speaker 2: Union members have filed hundreds of complaints with the National 226 00:12:33,040 --> 00:12:37,160 Speaker 2: Labor Relations Board accusing Starbucks of breaking the law in 227 00:12:37,200 --> 00:12:40,559 Speaker 2: its efforts to fight off unionization, and now the Supreme 228 00:12:40,600 --> 00:12:43,880 Speaker 2: Court has agreed to hear Starbucks case over a judge 229 00:12:44,000 --> 00:12:47,320 Speaker 2: ordering the company to reinstate workers who were fired at 230 00:12:47,320 --> 00:12:51,000 Speaker 2: a store in Memphis during a union campaign. Joining me 231 00:12:51,040 --> 00:12:54,480 Speaker 2: is labor law expert Kate Andreas, a professor at Columbia 232 00:12:54,520 --> 00:12:58,360 Speaker 2: Law School. Would you say that Starbucks has become sort 233 00:12:58,360 --> 00:13:03,760 Speaker 2: of the face of the fight by management against unionization. 234 00:13:03,280 --> 00:13:06,199 Speaker 1: Or are other companies doing the same. 235 00:13:06,720 --> 00:13:10,479 Speaker 6: Starbucks has been fighting union as they've been really intensely 236 00:13:10,679 --> 00:13:14,400 Speaker 6: and has been both exploiting all of the opportunities in 237 00:13:14,440 --> 00:13:17,120 Speaker 6: the law to fight unions, but has also violated the 238 00:13:17,200 --> 00:13:20,880 Speaker 6: law in many different ways. But they're not alone. We 239 00:13:20,920 --> 00:13:23,960 Speaker 6: also see that kind of resistance the unions occurring now 240 00:13:24,040 --> 00:13:27,280 Speaker 6: by what was formerly known as Twitter, also SpaceX, the 241 00:13:27,440 --> 00:13:32,040 Speaker 6: Elon Musk companies, by Rii, by Amazon. So I don't 242 00:13:32,080 --> 00:13:35,240 Speaker 6: think Starbucks is alone, but it certainly is really following 243 00:13:35,360 --> 00:13:37,520 Speaker 6: textbook anti union strategies. 244 00:13:37,720 --> 00:13:40,360 Speaker 2: Yeah. I saw that it's facing more than seven hundred 245 00:13:40,400 --> 00:13:46,559 Speaker 2: complaints before the NLRB for everything from firing union supporters, 246 00:13:46,600 --> 00:13:51,520 Speaker 2: spying on workers, closing stores during labor campaigns. So this 247 00:13:51,640 --> 00:13:53,560 Speaker 2: comes from the top. I take it it's not the 248 00:13:53,640 --> 00:13:55,960 Speaker 2: individual stores that are deciding this. 249 00:13:56,640 --> 00:13:59,199 Speaker 6: Right, this kind of labor policy has almost always at 250 00:13:59,240 --> 00:14:02,280 Speaker 6: a national level. There might be occasional times where a 251 00:14:02,360 --> 00:14:06,800 Speaker 6: manager was rogue, but this kind of comprehensive anti worker 252 00:14:07,240 --> 00:14:10,079 Speaker 6: campaign is national labor policy for the company. 253 00:14:10,360 --> 00:14:12,000 Speaker 1: Tell us what happened in this case. 254 00:14:12,559 --> 00:14:15,600 Speaker 6: The case that the Supreme Court just granted involved Devin 255 00:14:15,640 --> 00:14:18,720 Speaker 6: workers who worked at a Starbucks cafe in Memphis, and 256 00:14:19,080 --> 00:14:22,320 Speaker 6: they sought to organize the union and the company fires them. 257 00:14:22,560 --> 00:14:25,000 Speaker 6: They alleged because of their efforts to organize the union. 258 00:14:25,040 --> 00:14:28,280 Speaker 6: They had recently appeared on local TV talking about the 259 00:14:28,360 --> 00:14:30,320 Speaker 6: union campaign, so there was no question that they were 260 00:14:30,320 --> 00:14:34,320 Speaker 6: involved with it. Notably, Starbucks denied wrongdoing, but it did 261 00:14:34,400 --> 00:14:36,920 Speaker 6: end up hiring the workers back. But in any event, 262 00:14:36,960 --> 00:14:40,320 Speaker 6: in the meantime, the NRB sought an injunction to get 263 00:14:40,320 --> 00:14:44,480 Speaker 6: them reinstated. Frequently, when workers are fired for organizing unions, 264 00:14:44,560 --> 00:14:46,360 Speaker 6: it can take many, many years for them to get 265 00:14:46,400 --> 00:14:49,120 Speaker 6: their jobs back. Here, because the evidence was so overwhelming 266 00:14:49,160 --> 00:14:52,360 Speaker 6: that Starbucks had violated the law, the board thought an 267 00:14:52,360 --> 00:14:55,200 Speaker 6: injunction in court so that the workers would be reinstated 268 00:14:55,240 --> 00:14:57,080 Speaker 6: while the legal appeals proceeded. 269 00:14:57,560 --> 00:15:01,720 Speaker 2: And so the question is the standard that the judge 270 00:15:01,840 --> 00:15:05,240 Speaker 2: used and the Sixth Circuit approved of for granting the 271 00:15:05,280 --> 00:15:08,320 Speaker 2: preliminary injunction is that the issue exactly right. 272 00:15:08,360 --> 00:15:11,800 Speaker 6: These are called ten day injunctions, and they're very important 273 00:15:11,920 --> 00:15:16,000 Speaker 6: because they enable release while litigation is pending. But they're 274 00:15:16,000 --> 00:15:19,480 Speaker 6: not that common. The NLRB only pursues them in cases 275 00:15:19,520 --> 00:15:21,920 Speaker 6: where they be and that the violations are significant and 276 00:15:21,960 --> 00:15:24,920 Speaker 6: they have a strong case. And there's disagreement among the 277 00:15:24,920 --> 00:15:28,800 Speaker 6: Courts of appeals about what standards should apply to decide 278 00:15:28,800 --> 00:15:31,520 Speaker 6: whether one of these injunctions should issue, and that's a 279 00:15:31,600 --> 00:15:35,560 Speaker 6: legal question that the court appears poised to decide. 280 00:15:35,800 --> 00:15:39,200 Speaker 2: So the approach used by the Sixth Circuit here is, 281 00:15:39,520 --> 00:15:42,600 Speaker 2: would you say a more lenient approach requires less of 282 00:15:42,640 --> 00:15:43,400 Speaker 2: the NLRB. 283 00:15:44,040 --> 00:15:46,600 Speaker 6: Probably, So the Sixth Circuit applies to two part tests, 284 00:15:46,680 --> 00:15:50,560 Speaker 6: and that examines first whether a district court has reasonable 285 00:15:50,600 --> 00:15:53,360 Speaker 6: cause to believe there was a labor violation, and second 286 00:15:53,440 --> 00:15:56,840 Speaker 6: whether an injunction would be just and proper. And it 287 00:15:56,840 --> 00:16:01,040 Speaker 6: appears that that is slightly more lenient. So five circuitsupply 288 00:16:01,040 --> 00:16:04,359 Speaker 6: that f and they are slightly more likely to grant injunctions. 289 00:16:04,480 --> 00:16:07,400 Speaker 6: Four circuits apply four part tests that's used in other 290 00:16:07,440 --> 00:16:12,240 Speaker 6: cases involving injunctions, and those courts look at likelihood of 291 00:16:12,240 --> 00:16:16,560 Speaker 6: success on the merit, chance of irreparable harm, balance of parties, interests, 292 00:16:16,560 --> 00:16:18,960 Speaker 6: and whether an injunction is in the public interest. But 293 00:16:19,040 --> 00:16:22,520 Speaker 6: the listener general in this case in opposing of position 294 00:16:22,960 --> 00:16:24,920 Speaker 6: that I think is fairly well supported by evidence that 295 00:16:24,960 --> 00:16:27,080 Speaker 6: in fact, the two tests are pretty similar and they're 296 00:16:27,120 --> 00:16:29,800 Speaker 6: not that much different in how they come out. 297 00:16:30,360 --> 00:16:33,720 Speaker 2: Yeah, I saw that, and so I wondered why Starbucks 298 00:16:34,280 --> 00:16:39,960 Speaker 2: and business interests are so set on challenging this standard. 299 00:16:40,000 --> 00:16:42,800 Speaker 2: And Starbucks said it was seeking to level the playing 300 00:16:42,840 --> 00:16:46,640 Speaker 2: field for all US employers by ensuring that a single 301 00:16:46,720 --> 00:16:47,840 Speaker 2: standard is applied. 302 00:16:48,120 --> 00:16:50,440 Speaker 6: So Starbucks is saying that the circuits that use this 303 00:16:50,520 --> 00:16:53,040 Speaker 6: two part tests are too lenient, and so they want 304 00:16:53,120 --> 00:16:55,240 Speaker 6: one standards throughout the country. But I think it was 305 00:16:55,320 --> 00:16:57,560 Speaker 6: also really going on here is that the business groups, 306 00:16:57,600 --> 00:16:59,640 Speaker 6: including the Chamber of Commerce, which file the prefe and 307 00:16:59,680 --> 00:17:03,160 Speaker 6: support of Sirciary, are trying to get the court to 308 00:17:03,200 --> 00:17:05,560 Speaker 6: send a signal to the lower court and to the 309 00:17:05,600 --> 00:17:08,840 Speaker 6: Board that they should seek these injunction plus frequently and 310 00:17:08,880 --> 00:17:11,040 Speaker 6: grant the injunction plus frequently. So I think what they're 311 00:17:11,080 --> 00:17:14,840 Speaker 6: hoping for is a general tightening of these injunctions. You know, 312 00:17:14,880 --> 00:17:16,720 Speaker 6: it's a wole odd that the court granted the case. 313 00:17:16,880 --> 00:17:19,800 Speaker 6: Technically it meets theircuary standards because there is a split, 314 00:17:20,440 --> 00:17:23,360 Speaker 6: But as a suplister General pointed out in opposition, it's 315 00:17:23,359 --> 00:17:25,960 Speaker 6: not clear that the split matters that much. And it's 316 00:17:26,000 --> 00:17:27,800 Speaker 6: not clear that this is actually a great vehicle for 317 00:17:27,840 --> 00:17:30,239 Speaker 6: deciding the split, because it's not clear that in this 318 00:17:30,320 --> 00:17:32,200 Speaker 6: case it would have come out differently no matter what 319 00:17:32,280 --> 00:17:33,240 Speaker 6: standard was applied. 320 00:17:33,680 --> 00:17:37,000 Speaker 2: So the NLRB said that it sought the injunction twenty 321 00:17:37,000 --> 00:17:39,600 Speaker 2: one times in twenty twenty two, down from as many 322 00:17:39,680 --> 00:17:44,080 Speaker 2: as thirty eight each year during the Obama administration. Is 323 00:17:44,119 --> 00:17:49,679 Speaker 2: it because the current NLRB General Counsel, Jennifer Bruzso says 324 00:17:49,720 --> 00:17:52,399 Speaker 2: that her office is going to pursue these ten JA 325 00:17:52,560 --> 00:17:54,000 Speaker 2: injunctions more aggressively. 326 00:17:54,640 --> 00:17:57,840 Speaker 6: Well, I do think that the companies are concerned that 327 00:17:57,880 --> 00:18:01,280 Speaker 6: these injunctions may be pursuing more aggressively. I also think 328 00:18:01,320 --> 00:18:03,840 Speaker 6: they're taking advantage of a conservative turn on the court, 329 00:18:03,920 --> 00:18:06,400 Speaker 6: so I think they have the opportunity to further constrain 330 00:18:06,480 --> 00:18:09,840 Speaker 6: workers right more so than the court that existed previously. 331 00:18:10,400 --> 00:18:13,960 Speaker 2: Would you call this Supreme Court the most business friendly 332 00:18:14,160 --> 00:18:16,880 Speaker 2: anti labor Supreme court in modern history? 333 00:18:17,520 --> 00:18:19,919 Speaker 6: Well, I guess it depends. When modern has very starts. 334 00:18:19,920 --> 00:18:22,280 Speaker 6: It certainly has real echoes with the court that existed 335 00:18:22,320 --> 00:18:26,840 Speaker 6: before the new deal that routinely struck down regulations protecting 336 00:18:26,840 --> 00:18:29,080 Speaker 6: workers and consumers, and that also really tried to constrain 337 00:18:29,160 --> 00:18:31,880 Speaker 6: government power to protect workers and consumers. I think one 338 00:18:31,880 --> 00:18:36,160 Speaker 6: thing that's particularly concerning is the series of anti union, 339 00:18:36,240 --> 00:18:39,280 Speaker 6: anti worker cases that the Court has issued, but also 340 00:18:39,400 --> 00:18:43,040 Speaker 6: more generally its attack on governments and on an administrative state. 341 00:18:43,320 --> 00:18:45,640 Speaker 6: So in addition to this Starbucks case, the Court has 342 00:18:45,680 --> 00:18:48,600 Speaker 6: before it this year a number of cases that could 343 00:18:48,760 --> 00:18:52,480 Speaker 6: really strain Labor Board's power while it constrains all other 344 00:18:52,520 --> 00:18:53,880 Speaker 6: agencies powers as well. 345 00:18:54,359 --> 00:18:56,159 Speaker 2: So that's why I'm wondering at any hope that they 346 00:18:56,160 --> 00:18:57,960 Speaker 2: would rule against Starbucks here. 347 00:18:58,359 --> 00:19:00,840 Speaker 6: Yeah, I mean it's certainly possible. I mean, each case 348 00:19:00,920 --> 00:19:02,879 Speaker 6: is considered on its own merits. I think there are 349 00:19:03,000 --> 00:19:05,480 Speaker 6: good arguments in favor of the standard that the six 350 00:19:05,480 --> 00:19:08,320 Speaker 6: cerit used. Is never a good practice to predict what 351 00:19:08,359 --> 00:19:10,760 Speaker 6: the court would do. I mean, it's more likely the 352 00:19:10,800 --> 00:19:12,960 Speaker 6: way in favor of Starbucks that you never know with 353 00:19:13,119 --> 00:19:15,720 Speaker 6: a given case. But it certainly is a very strong 354 00:19:15,840 --> 00:19:19,439 Speaker 6: pattern by this court in favor of big business and 355 00:19:19,480 --> 00:19:20,480 Speaker 6: against workers. 356 00:19:20,800 --> 00:19:24,120 Speaker 2: And are these injunctions considered a key tool for the 357 00:19:24,240 --> 00:19:27,240 Speaker 2: NLARB in part because of the length of time it 358 00:19:27,359 --> 00:19:30,800 Speaker 2: takes for claims to go through NLRB review. 359 00:19:31,480 --> 00:19:34,000 Speaker 6: Well, it certainly does take a very long time for 360 00:19:34,280 --> 00:19:37,040 Speaker 6: these cases to be resolved. First the board has to 361 00:19:37,119 --> 00:19:39,720 Speaker 6: decide them, and then they typically get appealed through multiple 362 00:19:39,800 --> 00:19:42,800 Speaker 6: levels of appeal. But that's exactly why these injunctions are 363 00:19:42,840 --> 00:19:47,439 Speaker 6: so important, because workers get fired for organizing union and 364 00:19:47,480 --> 00:19:50,320 Speaker 6: then they are not reinstated under injunctions even when the 365 00:19:50,520 --> 00:19:53,560 Speaker 6: evidence is overwhelming. What that means is that they are 366 00:19:53,600 --> 00:19:55,560 Speaker 6: out of work or they're out of work at that 367 00:19:55,600 --> 00:19:58,679 Speaker 6: particular facility for many, many many years until the cases 368 00:19:58,680 --> 00:20:02,040 Speaker 6: are resolved. Once the case is resolved, the only remedies 369 00:20:02,080 --> 00:20:04,920 Speaker 6: that are available to them are reinstatements minus back pay 370 00:20:04,960 --> 00:20:08,199 Speaker 6: earned in the meantime. So there's really no disincentive for 371 00:20:08,240 --> 00:20:11,679 Speaker 6: employers to violate the law, and so I think that 372 00:20:11,720 --> 00:20:14,280 Speaker 6: in order for the statute to be vindicated, these injunctions 373 00:20:14,320 --> 00:20:15,320 Speaker 6: need to be available. 374 00:20:15,800 --> 00:20:19,679 Speaker 2: Is the real concern for businesses the costs associated with 375 00:20:19,880 --> 00:20:21,320 Speaker 2: having unionized workers. 376 00:20:21,920 --> 00:20:26,199 Speaker 6: Well, unions certainly mean that profits within the company are 377 00:20:26,200 --> 00:20:29,879 Speaker 6: distributed more fairly so that workers get a fair share 378 00:20:30,000 --> 00:20:32,720 Speaker 6: of the profits that the company is producing. I think 379 00:20:32,720 --> 00:20:35,919 Speaker 6: there's lots of unionized companies within the United States that 380 00:20:35,960 --> 00:20:39,399 Speaker 6: have learned to deal cooperatively with unions and that have 381 00:20:39,600 --> 00:20:43,520 Speaker 6: really productive working relationships and that continue to prosper. But 382 00:20:43,680 --> 00:20:46,080 Speaker 6: I think what Starbucks is most worried about is giving 383 00:20:46,080 --> 00:20:49,560 Speaker 6: out control of any sort and having to share. 384 00:20:49,480 --> 00:20:50,639 Speaker 4: Power with its workers. 385 00:20:50,640 --> 00:20:52,679 Speaker 6: So I don't think it's just about the money, but 386 00:20:52,720 --> 00:20:54,600 Speaker 6: also about the extent to which workers will have a 387 00:20:54,680 --> 00:20:58,040 Speaker 6: voice in working conditions, as well as increased. 388 00:20:57,720 --> 00:20:58,880 Speaker 4: Ages and benefits. 389 00:20:59,280 --> 00:21:02,800 Speaker 2: How would you carearacterize these times for unions. I mean, 390 00:21:02,840 --> 00:21:07,000 Speaker 2: we've seen organized labor demonstrate its power last year through 391 00:21:07,000 --> 00:21:11,399 Speaker 2: the ua W strike and the Hollywood Writers and Directors Strike. 392 00:21:11,880 --> 00:21:15,879 Speaker 6: Well, certainly there's widespread interest in unionization in the United States, 393 00:21:15,880 --> 00:21:20,440 Speaker 6: so we see both uptick and organizing efforts, an increase 394 00:21:20,440 --> 00:21:23,720 Speaker 6: in strikes, and polls that show that over seventy percent 395 00:21:23,720 --> 00:21:25,720 Speaker 6: of workers would like to have a union. I think 396 00:21:25,760 --> 00:21:28,440 Speaker 6: the big question is is that energy going to translate 397 00:21:28,480 --> 00:21:31,560 Speaker 6: into an increase in union density and a growth in unions. 398 00:21:31,800 --> 00:21:35,280 Speaker 6: And there's a major challenge with achieving that increase, and 399 00:21:35,320 --> 00:21:38,760 Speaker 6: that is that US labor law doesn't effectively protect the workers' 400 00:21:38,920 --> 00:21:42,080 Speaker 6: ability to organize unions. So you have all these Starbucks 401 00:21:42,119 --> 00:21:44,680 Speaker 6: workers that have won elections across the country, and yet 402 00:21:44,680 --> 00:21:46,960 Speaker 6: not a single one has yet reached a first contract. 403 00:21:47,240 --> 00:21:50,920 Speaker 6: That's in part because the law doesn't effectively force the 404 00:21:50,960 --> 00:21:54,080 Speaker 6: employer to negotiate a contract, or to reach a settlement, 405 00:21:54,200 --> 00:21:56,119 Speaker 6: or to obey the law. 406 00:21:56,160 --> 00:21:59,640 Speaker 2: Would you explain that further, because I thought that our 407 00:21:59,760 --> 00:22:01,640 Speaker 2: labor laws were pretty robust. 408 00:22:02,080 --> 00:22:03,040 Speaker 4: So the law is. 409 00:22:03,119 --> 00:22:05,560 Speaker 6: Very strong in the sense that it provides workers are 410 00:22:05,640 --> 00:22:08,359 Speaker 6: right to organize unions, a right to negotiate contracts, and 411 00:22:08,359 --> 00:22:11,679 Speaker 6: a right to strike, but in practice, the enforcement of 412 00:22:11,720 --> 00:22:15,600 Speaker 6: those rights is really limited and the penalties are very 413 00:22:15,640 --> 00:22:18,200 Speaker 6: weak for violations of the law. So after workers win 414 00:22:18,680 --> 00:22:21,399 Speaker 6: the union election, the obligation is on the employer to 415 00:22:21,480 --> 00:22:24,359 Speaker 6: bargain in good faith, but there's very little ability to 416 00:22:24,400 --> 00:22:26,959 Speaker 6: force that to happen, and so you have employers at 417 00:22:26,960 --> 00:22:28,639 Speaker 6: bargain in the state. We just saw that happen with 418 00:22:28,680 --> 00:22:32,120 Speaker 6: the auto workers. We saw that happen with the Hollywood workers, 419 00:22:32,359 --> 00:22:35,280 Speaker 6: where the workers and the employers did reach good contracts. 420 00:22:35,320 --> 00:22:37,440 Speaker 6: But a lot of times when workers organize the union 421 00:22:37,480 --> 00:22:40,440 Speaker 6: for the first time, employers either refuse to bargain or 422 00:22:40,480 --> 00:22:43,320 Speaker 6: really drag their feet and aren't willing to reach first contract. 423 00:22:44,240 --> 00:22:47,200 Speaker 2: Thanks for those insights on Union's Kate. That's Professor Kate 424 00:22:47,320 --> 00:22:50,760 Speaker 2: Andreas of Columbia Law School. In other Supreme Court news 425 00:22:50,800 --> 00:22:54,320 Speaker 2: this week, by a closely divided vote, the Justice has 426 00:22:54,359 --> 00:22:57,680 Speaker 2: delivered a huge win to the Biden administration in its 427 00:22:57,880 --> 00:23:01,880 Speaker 2: escalating battle with Chexis the southern border. In a five 428 00:23:01,920 --> 00:23:04,840 Speaker 2: to four vote, the Court rule that US Border Patrol 429 00:23:04,920 --> 00:23:08,320 Speaker 2: agents can resume cutting the razor wire that Texas has 430 00:23:08,320 --> 00:23:11,360 Speaker 2: installed along a twenty six mile stretch of the US 431 00:23:11,520 --> 00:23:15,399 Speaker 2: Mexico border. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney 432 00:23:15,480 --> 00:23:19,240 Speaker 2: Barrett joined with the three liberal justices in making the 433 00:23:19,320 --> 00:23:23,160 Speaker 2: emergency order, joining me is immigration law expertly on Fresco, 434 00:23:23,280 --> 00:23:26,600 Speaker 2: a partner to Honda Knight. Are you surprised that the 435 00:23:26,640 --> 00:23:29,480 Speaker 2: Supreme Court sided with the Biden administration. 436 00:23:29,040 --> 00:23:33,960 Speaker 7: Here, Well, it's not surprising from a purely legal perspective, 437 00:23:34,480 --> 00:23:36,000 Speaker 7: which is that at the end of the day, it 438 00:23:36,000 --> 00:23:39,000 Speaker 7: would have been very tough to say that a state 439 00:23:39,160 --> 00:23:43,440 Speaker 7: can actually erect a razor wire fencing barrier along the 440 00:23:43,520 --> 00:23:46,679 Speaker 7: Mexico border that the Border Patrol would be able to 441 00:23:46,800 --> 00:23:51,600 Speaker 7: access only in the highest of emergencies. So from that standpoint, 442 00:23:51,960 --> 00:23:54,919 Speaker 7: that is not surprising. But it's interesting that it was 443 00:23:54,920 --> 00:23:57,719 Speaker 7: a five to four decision and that it's simply just 444 00:23:57,760 --> 00:24:01,160 Speaker 7: as Amy Coney Barrett had switched to the other side, 445 00:24:01,280 --> 00:24:05,000 Speaker 7: then this injunction would have remained in place, and Texas 446 00:24:05,000 --> 00:24:09,280 Speaker 7: basically could have walled off a twenty nine mile wire 447 00:24:09,600 --> 00:24:13,159 Speaker 7: square there along the Rio Grand River that the federal 448 00:24:13,200 --> 00:24:14,679 Speaker 7: government wouldn't have been able to go in. 449 00:24:14,920 --> 00:24:18,800 Speaker 2: So that means that four justices thought that Texas should have. 450 00:24:18,800 --> 00:24:20,000 Speaker 1: The authority to do this. 451 00:24:20,160 --> 00:24:22,880 Speaker 2: Or could it be that for justices thought the government 452 00:24:22,880 --> 00:24:24,720 Speaker 2: didn't make out a strong enough case. 453 00:24:25,200 --> 00:24:27,840 Speaker 1: I mean, we don't know, because it's just an order, right. 454 00:24:27,920 --> 00:24:30,800 Speaker 7: The decision is just an order which says that the 455 00:24:30,880 --> 00:24:34,800 Speaker 7: injunction that Texas had thought in the Fifth Circuit to 456 00:24:34,920 --> 00:24:38,360 Speaker 7: prevent the federal government from coming in and cutting down 457 00:24:38,359 --> 00:24:43,000 Speaker 7: the wire, that injunction was vacated. And we know that 458 00:24:43,160 --> 00:24:46,640 Speaker 7: Justice is Thomas, Alito, Gorsich, and Kavanagh would have kept 459 00:24:46,640 --> 00:24:49,040 Speaker 7: that injunction in place. Now, if you're going to keep 460 00:24:49,040 --> 00:24:53,679 Speaker 7: an injunction in place, you're technically saying that you believe 461 00:24:53,720 --> 00:24:56,480 Speaker 7: that that injunction was rightfully issued. Otherwise you have some 462 00:24:56,680 --> 00:25:01,000 Speaker 7: duty to vacate that injunction. And so from that standpoint, 463 00:25:01,040 --> 00:25:03,480 Speaker 7: I do think it's fair to say that those four 464 00:25:03,760 --> 00:25:07,639 Speaker 7: justices thought that because the fence was built on private land, 465 00:25:08,000 --> 00:25:10,560 Speaker 7: that the federal government wouldn't have any authority to be 466 00:25:10,640 --> 00:25:13,720 Speaker 7: able to cut down that fire fencing. But that's very 467 00:25:13,720 --> 00:25:16,280 Speaker 7: hard argument to make. I mean, if the intent of 468 00:25:16,280 --> 00:25:20,000 Speaker 7: the fence is to control the border, then that's the 469 00:25:20,280 --> 00:25:23,400 Speaker 7: jurisdiction of the Border Patrol. You can't have it both ways. 470 00:25:23,440 --> 00:25:26,920 Speaker 2: Thanks Leon. That's Leon Fresco of Holland and Knight. Coming 471 00:25:27,000 --> 00:25:32,320 Speaker 2: up next, Alec Baldwin is staring down involuntary manslaughter charges again. 472 00:25:32,720 --> 00:25:34,760 Speaker 2: I'm June Grosso. When you're listening to Bloomberg. 473 00:25:35,400 --> 00:25:36,719 Speaker 8: The gun was supposed to be empty. 474 00:25:36,960 --> 00:25:39,800 Speaker 2: I was told I was handed an empty gun if 475 00:25:39,840 --> 00:25:40,280 Speaker 2: there were. 476 00:25:40,400 --> 00:25:43,639 Speaker 9: Cosmetic rounds, nothing with a charge at all, a flash round, nothing. 477 00:25:44,040 --> 00:25:46,520 Speaker 2: But it turned out that the gun handed to Alec 478 00:25:46,600 --> 00:25:49,280 Speaker 2: Baldwin on the set of the movie Rust back in 479 00:25:49,320 --> 00:25:52,760 Speaker 2: October of twenty twenty one had a live bullet inside, 480 00:25:53,040 --> 00:25:56,600 Speaker 2: and cinematographer Helena Hutchins was killed when it went off 481 00:25:56,720 --> 00:26:00,520 Speaker 2: accidentally at the time of the shooting, Santa Fe County 482 00:26:00,560 --> 00:26:04,760 Speaker 2: Sheriff A. Don Mendoza said there was one key question. 483 00:26:05,119 --> 00:26:08,639 Speaker 8: How the live rounds ended up on set, who brought 484 00:26:08,680 --> 00:26:10,640 Speaker 8: them to the set, and why they were on the set. 485 00:26:10,640 --> 00:26:13,399 Speaker 8: I think that's the key question that our investigators are 486 00:26:13,400 --> 00:26:14,480 Speaker 8: focusing on right now. 487 00:26:14,760 --> 00:26:18,800 Speaker 2: Yet more than two years later, that question remains unanswered, 488 00:26:19,040 --> 00:26:23,200 Speaker 2: and Baldwin is once again facing trial for felony involuntary 489 00:26:23,280 --> 00:26:27,760 Speaker 2: manslaughter after a grand jury indicted him last Friday. The 490 00:26:27,840 --> 00:26:32,600 Speaker 2: actor has steadfastly maintained that he never actually pulled the trigger, 491 00:26:32,920 --> 00:26:35,680 Speaker 2: that he pulled back the gun's hammer and the gun 492 00:26:35,720 --> 00:26:40,160 Speaker 2: went off. As he told ABC's George Stephanopoulos a few 493 00:26:40,200 --> 00:26:42,120 Speaker 2: months after the accident, it. 494 00:26:42,080 --> 00:26:44,919 Speaker 4: Wasn't in the script for the trigger to be pulled. 495 00:26:45,640 --> 00:26:47,520 Speaker 8: Well, the trigger wasn't pulled. I didn't pull the trigger. 496 00:26:47,560 --> 00:26:48,800 Speaker 4: So you never pulled the trigger. 497 00:26:48,880 --> 00:26:49,760 Speaker 8: No, no, no, no no. 498 00:26:49,840 --> 00:26:51,439 Speaker 9: I would never point the gun going to pull a 499 00:26:51,440 --> 00:26:51,959 Speaker 9: trigger at them. 500 00:26:52,000 --> 00:26:52,200 Speaker 6: Never. 501 00:26:52,920 --> 00:26:57,120 Speaker 2: Prosecutors had dropped their initial charges against Baldwin last April, 502 00:26:57,359 --> 00:27:01,200 Speaker 2: but a recent forensic analysis determined that the gun could 503 00:27:01,240 --> 00:27:05,200 Speaker 2: not have fired unless the trigger was pulled, opening the 504 00:27:05,240 --> 00:27:08,800 Speaker 2: way for prosecutors to reboot the case. Joining me is 505 00:27:08,880 --> 00:27:12,199 Speaker 2: Joshua Castenberg, a criminal law professor at the University of 506 00:27:12,240 --> 00:27:16,520 Speaker 2: New Mexico Law School and a former prosecutor. The handling 507 00:27:16,560 --> 00:27:20,320 Speaker 2: of this case by prosecutors has been very confusing. They 508 00:27:20,440 --> 00:27:23,600 Speaker 2: dropped the case back in April. Why are they bringing 509 00:27:23,640 --> 00:27:24,040 Speaker 2: it again? 510 00:27:24,800 --> 00:27:28,280 Speaker 9: Well, I think for a couple of reasons. Number One, 511 00:27:28,600 --> 00:27:32,359 Speaker 9: when the defenses were raised by the other defendant in 512 00:27:32,359 --> 00:27:36,200 Speaker 9: the case, some of those defenses that were raised pointed 513 00:27:36,200 --> 00:27:39,400 Speaker 9: in the direction of mister Baldwin. In other words, it's 514 00:27:39,400 --> 00:27:42,200 Speaker 9: not fully my fault, it's also his he didn't listen 515 00:27:42,240 --> 00:27:44,680 Speaker 9: to me, that sort of thing. The other thing is 516 00:27:44,800 --> 00:27:48,240 Speaker 9: that the prosecutors are stuck with this evidence that's pretty 517 00:27:48,280 --> 00:27:51,199 Speaker 9: compelling evidence if you believe it. What I mean is 518 00:27:51,440 --> 00:27:55,960 Speaker 9: the FBI crime Lab, when they investigated the firearm, concluded 519 00:27:56,280 --> 00:27:58,800 Speaker 9: that the gun could not have gone off on its own, 520 00:27:59,160 --> 00:28:02,040 Speaker 9: that the trigger had to be depressed by a human finger. 521 00:28:02,400 --> 00:28:05,400 Speaker 9: And I think once that evidence is there and known 522 00:28:05,400 --> 00:28:08,320 Speaker 9: to the public in New Mexico, the question then is, well, 523 00:28:08,320 --> 00:28:12,080 Speaker 9: why isn't this going to trial, Particularly if mister Baldwin, 524 00:28:12,119 --> 00:28:16,000 Speaker 9: who may be absolutely sincere in his memory, is saying 525 00:28:16,400 --> 00:28:18,520 Speaker 9: I didn't press the trigger, the gun went off on 526 00:28:18,600 --> 00:28:22,280 Speaker 9: its own, and the FBI experts or the Platinum standard 527 00:28:22,320 --> 00:28:26,760 Speaker 9: of crime labs are responding with that's impossible. You're stuck 528 00:28:26,800 --> 00:28:29,960 Speaker 9: with this where is the truth? And I think that's 529 00:28:30,119 --> 00:28:33,400 Speaker 9: what compels the prosecutors to go forward. Now, there were 530 00:28:33,480 --> 00:28:36,760 Speaker 9: mistakes made, particularly in charging a crime that couldn't have 531 00:28:36,800 --> 00:28:39,600 Speaker 9: been charged because of the date of the crime coming 532 00:28:39,640 --> 00:28:44,240 Speaker 9: into existence. So you're absolutely right that the prosecution has 533 00:28:44,320 --> 00:28:46,680 Speaker 9: been a bit confused, to say the least. 534 00:28:46,960 --> 00:28:51,040 Speaker 2: Suppose Alec Baldwin did pull the trigger. He maintains that 535 00:28:51,120 --> 00:28:53,960 Speaker 2: he pulled back the gun's hammer, but he did not 536 00:28:54,240 --> 00:28:56,400 Speaker 2: pull the trigger and the gun just went off. 537 00:28:57,000 --> 00:28:59,560 Speaker 1: Why does that matter so much? Because when he was 538 00:28:59,600 --> 00:29:01,960 Speaker 1: handed gun, he was told. 539 00:29:01,680 --> 00:29:04,240 Speaker 2: That there were no live bullets in it, and there's 540 00:29:04,280 --> 00:29:05,640 Speaker 2: not supposed to be live. 541 00:29:05,520 --> 00:29:08,239 Speaker 1: Ammunition on the set. So what does it matter if 542 00:29:08,240 --> 00:29:09,920 Speaker 1: he actually did pull the trigger. 543 00:29:10,080 --> 00:29:11,920 Speaker 9: You know, that's a great question. This is going to 544 00:29:12,000 --> 00:29:15,040 Speaker 9: get into a nuanced argument that the prosecutor is going 545 00:29:15,120 --> 00:29:18,240 Speaker 9: to make. And the nuanced argument the prosecutor's gonna make 546 00:29:18,400 --> 00:29:21,760 Speaker 9: is everybody who handles a gun has a basic duty 547 00:29:21,800 --> 00:29:26,760 Speaker 9: of gun safety, and he had a duty to ensure 548 00:29:26,800 --> 00:29:30,480 Speaker 9: the gun was unloaded or it was unsafe or inoperable 549 00:29:30,800 --> 00:29:33,600 Speaker 9: before he put it in his hand, And the proof 550 00:29:33,680 --> 00:29:36,920 Speaker 9: that he didn't do that is that he consciously pulled 551 00:29:36,920 --> 00:29:39,719 Speaker 9: the trigger. I mean, that's going to be the prosecutor's argument. 552 00:29:40,000 --> 00:29:43,600 Speaker 9: Whether it flies with a jury or not, I can't say. 553 00:29:44,120 --> 00:29:46,600 Speaker 9: On the other hand, if what we have is a 554 00:29:46,600 --> 00:29:49,320 Speaker 9: hair trigger gun that the moment someone put their palm, 555 00:29:49,560 --> 00:29:52,560 Speaker 9: you know, on the gun stock and the gun goes off, 556 00:29:53,000 --> 00:29:56,040 Speaker 9: or it goes off simply because it's been caught, Baldwin 557 00:29:56,080 --> 00:29:59,280 Speaker 9: has a much better argument to say I was exercising 558 00:29:59,320 --> 00:30:01,440 Speaker 9: gun safety because they never put my finger on the 559 00:30:01,480 --> 00:30:04,240 Speaker 9: trigger and pulled. So that is a critical piece of 560 00:30:04,320 --> 00:30:07,480 Speaker 9: evidence that the prosecutor is going to do their utmost 561 00:30:07,520 --> 00:30:09,520 Speaker 9: to try to bring out and prove guilt. 562 00:30:09,840 --> 00:30:13,600 Speaker 2: The new charges rest on two theories of involuntary manslaughter. 563 00:30:14,000 --> 00:30:18,080 Speaker 2: That Baldwin either caused the death as an involuntary manslaughter 564 00:30:18,160 --> 00:30:21,720 Speaker 2: by negligent use of a firearm, or is an involuntary 565 00:30:21,760 --> 00:30:27,120 Speaker 2: manslaughter without due caution or circumspection. So what's necessary to 566 00:30:27,240 --> 00:30:28,280 Speaker 2: prove those charges? 567 00:30:28,880 --> 00:30:31,720 Speaker 9: So the first one goes to what we were just 568 00:30:31,800 --> 00:30:35,200 Speaker 9: talking about. In order for the prosecution to prove beyond 569 00:30:35,200 --> 00:30:38,280 Speaker 9: a reasonable doubt. They have to prove that Baldwin depressed 570 00:30:38,320 --> 00:30:42,360 Speaker 9: the trigger without exercising appropriate gun safety, and that lack 571 00:30:42,480 --> 00:30:46,240 Speaker 9: of exercise of appropriate gun safety rises to a criminal 572 00:30:46,280 --> 00:30:50,080 Speaker 9: negligent you know arena, So it's kind of recklessness. The 573 00:30:50,120 --> 00:30:54,160 Speaker 9: second charge is that while Baldwin was engaged in an 574 00:30:54,280 --> 00:30:59,680 Speaker 9: ordinarily lawful activity, he didn't exercise enough caution in a 575 00:30:59,760 --> 00:31:03,320 Speaker 9: generuneral sense, and that lack of exercise of enough caution 576 00:31:03,520 --> 00:31:06,000 Speaker 9: resulted in the death of another. Now put it a 577 00:31:06,000 --> 00:31:09,320 Speaker 9: different way. Suppose you have a license to use fireworks 578 00:31:09,320 --> 00:31:12,640 Speaker 9: on the fourth of July, and therefore your ignition of 579 00:31:12,680 --> 00:31:16,000 Speaker 9: fireworks is lawful under state law. But you don't look 580 00:31:16,080 --> 00:31:19,040 Speaker 9: around before you fire off rocket to see if there 581 00:31:19,040 --> 00:31:22,120 Speaker 9: are children in the street yor motorists driving, and a 582 00:31:22,200 --> 00:31:25,320 Speaker 9: firework hits intil as a kid. You didn't do anything 583 00:31:25,440 --> 00:31:29,160 Speaker 9: illegal per se, but your lack of safety, you know, 584 00:31:29,200 --> 00:31:33,200 Speaker 9: your lack of overall caution for the general public, makes 585 00:31:33,280 --> 00:31:35,920 Speaker 9: that act rise to a crime. So those are the 586 00:31:35,960 --> 00:31:38,680 Speaker 9: two theories. He can only be convicted of one. If 587 00:31:38,680 --> 00:31:41,280 Speaker 9: he's convicted of any one of the things the jury 588 00:31:41,400 --> 00:31:44,800 Speaker 9: might do is get confused between the two and if 589 00:31:44,840 --> 00:31:48,120 Speaker 9: they split between the two, then he's acquitted because you 590 00:31:48,160 --> 00:31:50,760 Speaker 9: have to have a unanimous jury that agrees with one 591 00:31:50,840 --> 00:31:52,360 Speaker 9: theory and one theory only. 592 00:31:53,000 --> 00:31:55,840 Speaker 2: Will he be tried in his role as an actor 593 00:31:55,960 --> 00:31:58,400 Speaker 2: as well as his role as a co. 594 00:31:58,240 --> 00:32:02,680 Speaker 9: Producer, Well, he's going to be tried as Alec Baldwin. 595 00:32:02,760 --> 00:32:06,280 Speaker 9: And but that's going to entail is the prosecutor putting 596 00:32:06,320 --> 00:32:10,520 Speaker 9: on evidence that he had a duty to even do 597 00:32:10,800 --> 00:32:13,400 Speaker 9: you know, perhaps had a duty to do firearms training. 598 00:32:13,400 --> 00:32:15,600 Speaker 9: And I know that there's been some talk that he 599 00:32:15,720 --> 00:32:19,080 Speaker 9: missed that course. And you know, I think the prosecutor 600 00:32:19,120 --> 00:32:22,120 Speaker 9: is going to try to avoid those titles to the 601 00:32:22,160 --> 00:32:26,120 Speaker 9: extent they can, because I could see his very very 602 00:32:26,160 --> 00:32:29,760 Speaker 9: exceptional defense team trying to bring in evidence. Look, this 603 00:32:29,840 --> 00:32:31,640 Speaker 9: is the role of a producer, and this is the 604 00:32:31,760 --> 00:32:33,920 Speaker 9: role of an actor, and this is why mister Baldwin 605 00:32:34,000 --> 00:32:37,920 Speaker 9: did not have to attend that firearms training because he 606 00:32:38,280 --> 00:32:40,880 Speaker 9: was acting in the role of an assistant producer, not 607 00:32:40,920 --> 00:32:43,920 Speaker 9: an actor or vice versa. I think the prosecutor is 608 00:32:43,920 --> 00:32:45,320 Speaker 9: going to try to avoid all of that. 609 00:32:46,120 --> 00:32:49,000 Speaker 2: I asked that because as a producer, there have been 610 00:32:49,720 --> 00:32:52,840 Speaker 2: allegations that the set was not safe. You know, the 611 00:32:52,880 --> 00:32:56,120 Speaker 2: safety on the set was neglected. Rust Movie Productions, the 612 00:32:56,200 --> 00:32:59,040 Speaker 2: company behind the film, paid one hundred thousand dollars fine 613 00:32:59,360 --> 00:33:02,720 Speaker 2: to state we're play safety regulators after a report into 614 00:33:02,760 --> 00:33:06,960 Speaker 2: safety failures included testimony that managers took limited or no 615 00:33:07,120 --> 00:33:10,640 Speaker 2: action after there were two earlier gun misfires on set, 616 00:33:11,000 --> 00:33:14,560 Speaker 2: and the Santa Fe County Sheriff said that five hundred 617 00:33:14,640 --> 00:33:18,000 Speaker 2: rounds of ammunition were found, a mix of blank, dummy 618 00:33:18,040 --> 00:33:21,000 Speaker 2: rounds and suspected live rounds which are not supposed to 619 00:33:21,000 --> 00:33:23,920 Speaker 2: be on the set. So in his role as a producer, 620 00:33:24,120 --> 00:33:27,200 Speaker 2: it seems like, you know that's right in his bailiwick. 621 00:33:27,600 --> 00:33:30,200 Speaker 9: Well, it would seem to be that way. You know, 622 00:33:30,520 --> 00:33:33,920 Speaker 9: you've got a very strong legal background and there are 623 00:33:34,040 --> 00:33:37,400 Speaker 9: rules of evidence, and I could see the defense team 624 00:33:37,560 --> 00:33:43,520 Speaker 9: trying to suppress define the investigation to say that, look, 625 00:33:43,760 --> 00:33:47,080 Speaker 9: you know, Alec Baldwin has a role on the Russ 626 00:33:47,080 --> 00:33:50,560 Speaker 9: movie set, but he is not responsible for the overall 627 00:33:50,640 --> 00:33:53,080 Speaker 9: safety of the set in his role as an actor. 628 00:33:53,600 --> 00:33:56,200 Speaker 9: That goes back to my comment that I think the 629 00:33:56,240 --> 00:33:59,040 Speaker 9: prosecution will want to get that evidence in but say 630 00:33:59,040 --> 00:34:01,840 Speaker 9: it doesn't matter what his role was, but do its 631 00:34:01,920 --> 00:34:04,880 Speaker 9: best to sort of water down titles and just say 632 00:34:05,600 --> 00:34:09,160 Speaker 9: everybody's responsible. I think the defense is going to try 633 00:34:09,160 --> 00:34:11,720 Speaker 9: to argue he's an actor nothing more. 634 00:34:12,280 --> 00:34:16,759 Speaker 2: It still hasn't been conclusively determined how live ammunition got 635 00:34:16,800 --> 00:34:20,520 Speaker 2: on the set. Now, the armorer, Hannah guccierraz Read, is 636 00:34:20,560 --> 00:34:23,560 Speaker 2: set to go on trial on February twenty second, but 637 00:34:23,640 --> 00:34:27,160 Speaker 2: her attorneys say she has no idea where the live 638 00:34:27,280 --> 00:34:31,359 Speaker 2: rounds came from. How important is that missing piece of 639 00:34:31,400 --> 00:34:31,960 Speaker 2: the picture. 640 00:34:33,000 --> 00:34:36,640 Speaker 9: Well, it would be helpful to both sides. I suppose 641 00:34:36,800 --> 00:34:39,400 Speaker 9: to know where they came from, as long as mister 642 00:34:39,440 --> 00:34:42,239 Speaker 9: Baldwin wasn't the source of them, which I doubt that 643 00:34:42,320 --> 00:34:42,719 Speaker 9: he was. 644 00:34:42,920 --> 00:34:44,480 Speaker 1: He certainly hasn't been accused of that. 645 00:34:45,560 --> 00:34:49,799 Speaker 9: That's a difficult question, and it actually might favor the 646 00:34:49,840 --> 00:34:53,680 Speaker 9: defense because if the defense is able to cast significant 647 00:34:53,719 --> 00:34:57,320 Speaker 9: doubt on where those bullets came from, you know, maybe 648 00:34:57,360 --> 00:35:01,320 Speaker 9: the shipper for example, maybe a manufacturer, maybe somewhere back 649 00:35:01,480 --> 00:35:04,879 Speaker 9: in Hollywood, you know, who knows. But it might make 650 00:35:04,960 --> 00:35:08,600 Speaker 9: it palatable more to the defense to be able to argue, 651 00:35:08,680 --> 00:35:11,080 Speaker 9: how is Baldwin supposed to know there were any live 652 00:35:11,239 --> 00:35:13,759 Speaker 9: round I'm not saying it's a strong selling point to 653 00:35:13,840 --> 00:35:16,520 Speaker 9: a jury, but it could possibly be well. 654 00:35:16,560 --> 00:35:20,520 Speaker 2: Baldwin's attorneys learn a lot from the Guccierrez read trial, 655 00:35:20,880 --> 00:35:24,640 Speaker 2: how the prosecution is presenting its case, how witnesses testify, 656 00:35:24,760 --> 00:35:25,239 Speaker 2: and the like. 657 00:35:25,760 --> 00:35:29,839 Speaker 9: Absolutely, but they'll also learn not just how the prosecution 658 00:35:30,040 --> 00:35:33,600 Speaker 9: works in the preview of the prosecution's case, but they'll 659 00:35:33,600 --> 00:35:37,279 Speaker 9: also learn whether Hannah Goudierrez will end up being a 660 00:35:37,320 --> 00:35:41,960 Speaker 9: witness for the prosecution against Baldwin or whether what she 661 00:35:42,120 --> 00:35:46,279 Speaker 9: has to say would absolve Baldwin if she testifies, and 662 00:35:46,320 --> 00:35:48,799 Speaker 9: they may call her as a witness. So if she's 663 00:35:48,840 --> 00:35:51,799 Speaker 9: acquitted in this trial, and there's a possibility that she 664 00:35:51,880 --> 00:35:54,840 Speaker 9: would be acquitted, depending on how the trial goes, she 665 00:35:54,840 --> 00:35:56,800 Speaker 9: could end up being a witness for one side or 666 00:35:56,840 --> 00:35:58,840 Speaker 9: the other. But I think they'll learn a lot, and 667 00:35:58,880 --> 00:36:00,719 Speaker 9: I think that at least one of them will be 668 00:36:00,760 --> 00:36:01,880 Speaker 9: sitting through the trial. 669 00:36:02,520 --> 00:36:03,239 Speaker 1: One thing that. 670 00:36:03,239 --> 00:36:08,160 Speaker 2: Will differ in Baldwin's trial is the celebrity factor. Jury's 671 00:36:08,320 --> 00:36:11,360 Speaker 2: love celebrities, as we've seen over. 672 00:36:11,200 --> 00:36:14,520 Speaker 9: And over again, they certainly do. I mean, the Brettic 673 00:36:14,600 --> 00:36:18,720 Speaker 9: case resulted in an acquittal and star power is everything. 674 00:36:18,760 --> 00:36:21,600 Speaker 9: I go back to the Jimmy Hoffa trial in Washington, DC, 675 00:36:22,040 --> 00:36:25,000 Speaker 9: so many years ago, and you know, in the middle 676 00:36:25,000 --> 00:36:28,120 Speaker 9: of Haffa's trial, in front of the jury, no less 677 00:36:28,120 --> 00:36:31,759 Speaker 9: than Jesse Owens came up to him and shook his hand. Look, 678 00:36:31,800 --> 00:36:34,320 Speaker 9: that kind of thing plays into the minds of the jurors. 679 00:36:34,760 --> 00:36:37,920 Speaker 9: If Jesse Owens, if other athletes think Jimmy hoff is 680 00:36:37,960 --> 00:36:40,640 Speaker 9: a good guy, then you know, in the psychology of 681 00:36:40,680 --> 00:36:43,360 Speaker 9: the jury, Jimmy Hoffer couldn't have done the terrible things 682 00:36:43,640 --> 00:36:47,000 Speaker 9: that Robert Kennedy and the Justice Department accused him of doing, 683 00:36:47,320 --> 00:36:50,160 Speaker 9: and it resulted in an acquittal. And that's an example 684 00:36:50,160 --> 00:36:51,080 Speaker 9: of star power. 685 00:36:51,719 --> 00:36:54,640 Speaker 2: Of course, a defendant does not have to testify in 686 00:36:54,680 --> 00:36:58,160 Speaker 2: his own defense, but in this case, does it seem 687 00:36:58,239 --> 00:37:01,920 Speaker 2: like Baldwin will testify for a number of different reasons. 688 00:37:02,760 --> 00:37:03,320 Speaker 3: Yeah. 689 00:37:03,680 --> 00:37:07,960 Speaker 9: I always tell my students if you're a prosecutor, one 690 00:37:07,960 --> 00:37:10,400 Speaker 9: of the first things you do when you're prepping a 691 00:37:10,480 --> 00:37:14,680 Speaker 9: case is to pretend that the defendant is going to testify, 692 00:37:14,719 --> 00:37:17,360 Speaker 9: knowing that in about ninety five percent of all criminal 693 00:37:17,400 --> 00:37:19,760 Speaker 9: trials the defendant does not, But you have to prep 694 00:37:19,840 --> 00:37:22,280 Speaker 9: that way. Having said that, in this case, I would 695 00:37:22,280 --> 00:37:25,160 Speaker 9: say it's a fifty to fifty chance he testifies, and 696 00:37:25,239 --> 00:37:28,560 Speaker 9: the reason is he's already made a statement that he 697 00:37:28,640 --> 00:37:32,480 Speaker 9: didn't depress the trigger, and I think if he holds 698 00:37:32,520 --> 00:37:35,760 Speaker 9: true to that and he testifies, it works to his favor. 699 00:37:36,080 --> 00:37:39,799 Speaker 9: You know, one reason why defendants don't testify is there 700 00:37:39,800 --> 00:37:43,080 Speaker 9: are things that the judge has already suppressed that are 701 00:37:43,160 --> 00:37:46,600 Speaker 9: damaging to the particular defendant. I don't think there's anything 702 00:37:46,719 --> 00:37:49,640 Speaker 9: damaging to Baldwin that he would have to be afraid 703 00:37:49,640 --> 00:37:53,319 Speaker 9: of on cross examination. And if you look at that calculus, 704 00:37:53,360 --> 00:37:55,680 Speaker 9: then why wouldn't he testify exactly? 705 00:37:55,719 --> 00:37:58,840 Speaker 2: And also he's very articulate, another thing in his favor. 706 00:37:59,280 --> 00:38:02,640 Speaker 2: Thanks so much for joining me, josh that's Professor Joshua 707 00:38:02,719 --> 00:38:06,560 Speaker 2: Castenberg of the University of New Mexico School of Law. 708 00:38:06,800 --> 00:38:09,440 Speaker 2: And that's it for this edition of the Bloomberg Law Podcast. 709 00:38:09,800 --> 00:38:12,160 Speaker 2: Remember you can always get the latest legal news by 710 00:38:12,200 --> 00:38:16,040 Speaker 2: subscribing and listening to the show on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, 711 00:38:16,320 --> 00:38:19,840 Speaker 2: and at Bloomberg dot com, Slash podcast, Slash Law. 712 00:38:20,000 --> 00:38:22,640 Speaker 1: I'm June Grosso, and this is Bloomberg