Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 1: Millions protested across the country over the death of George
Speaker 1: Floyd as then police officer Derek Chauvin knelt on his
Speaker 1: neck on a Minneapolis street corner, and then, while Chauvin
Speaker 1: was on trial for Floyd's killing, just ten miles away,
Speaker 1: Dante Wright, a twenty year old black man, was shot
Speaker 1: to death by police officer Kim Potter during a traffic stop.
Speaker 1: Potter said she mistook her handgun for a taser, but
Speaker 1: a jury convicted her in December, just as another jury
Speaker 1: had convicted Chauvin in April after trials in the same
Speaker 1: Minneapolis courthouse. Do these two high profile convictions indicate that
Speaker 1: police are being held more accountable for their misconduct? Here
Speaker 1: are the parents of Dante Right. It sends a message
Speaker 1: saying that, um, you just can't do any just because
Speaker 1: you're a police. You can't just get away with anything.
Speaker 1: You just can't do anything. It gives us some sense
Speaker 1: of hope that there will you know that policing in
Speaker 1: America will not be able to pull their gun instead
Speaker 1: of their taser. Joining me is former public defender Krista Groschek,
Speaker 1: managing attorney of Grosseek Law Christa. There are a lot
Speaker 1: of similarities on the face of these two cases. Two
Speaker 1: black men stopped by veteran white police officers for non violent,
Speaker 1: minor infractions end up dead at the hands of those
Speaker 1: police officers. But what are the differences When we look
Speaker 1: at the Chauvin case, I think that that was quite
Speaker 1: literally an uphill battle. I think the Kim Potter case
Speaker 1: was much more nuanced. I will point that as to
Speaker 1: both situations, they started out over what appeared to be
Speaker 1: relatively benign issues expired tabs as it relates to the
Speaker 1: Potter case, and in the Stovin case, we've got a
Speaker 1: twenty dollar counterfeit bill, and so it's very easy to
Speaker 1: say these cases should never have resulted in the death
Speaker 1: of people. You know, each defendant said, well, there was
Speaker 1: a lot more than that that occurred following the initial inquiry,
Speaker 1: and I think that's particularly true with Kim Potter's case,
Speaker 1: and that situation unfolded rather quickly, as opposed to Chauvin's case,
Speaker 1: which there was a sustained period of time where he
Speaker 1: had his knee on George Floyd's neck. So there were
Speaker 1: videos from bystanders in the Chauvin trial and videos from
Speaker 1: police body cameras and dash cams in the Potter trial.
Speaker 1: How are the videos key in both trials? I think
Speaker 1: they were incredibly important pieces of evidence. And in the
Speaker 1: Chauvin case, the video was I mean terribly damning. I mean,
Speaker 1: that was something that I don't think any jury could
Speaker 1: get passed. It was something that the process you shouldn't
Speaker 1: smartly hung their hat on. You can believe your eyes.
Speaker 1: In fact, that video was so hard to watch, and
Speaker 1: yet the jury was subjected to it over and over again.
Speaker 1: I mean, there was just no question that what happened
Speaker 1: in that situation for that length of time was not right.
Speaker 1: I think the Kim Potter video was a really important
Speaker 1: piece of evidence, and I do question whether or not
Speaker 1: the jury's verdict was correct. And that that was a
Speaker 1: very short encounter. It was quick, there was a lot
Speaker 1: of things happening, There was information coming out shortly after
Speaker 1: he was stopped, he was attempting to flee. I mean,
Speaker 1: it was just a much different situation. But both videos
Speaker 1: were very, very important to both of these cases. Was
Speaker 1: the use of deadly force and issue in both trials,
Speaker 1: it was and I would say kind of, because both
Speaker 1: officers said that they didn't have any intentions to kill
Speaker 1: the decedents in each case, and so ultimately we know
Speaker 1: that there was what i'd call a use of over
Speaker 1: force or too much force. The question that the jurors
Speaker 1: had to grapple with in both cases was why why
Speaker 1: did that transpire? Let's talk about taking the stand, the
Speaker 1: most important decision that a defendant makes. Chauvin did not
Speaker 1: take the stand. Potter did listen to what one of
Speaker 1: the Chauvin jurors, Brandon Mitchell, said the probably was to
Speaker 1: his detriment that he didn't take the stand, because people
Speaker 1: were curious on what his thoughts were throughout the entire incident.
Speaker 1: But knowing all that, you know, do you think Chauvin
Speaker 1: made the right decision in not testifying. Well, it's hard
Speaker 1: to tell, because you know, he's not my clients and
Speaker 1: a member of the public watching. We didn't really get
Speaker 1: a sense of who he was. We know from his
Speaker 1: prior record it would have made it really difficult for
Speaker 1: him to take the stand because he had numerous previous
Speaker 1: instances where he was disciplined for using too much force
Speaker 1: in somewhat similar ways, to the force he used with
Speaker 1: George Floyd. We also didn't really get to see Mr
Speaker 1: Chauvin to he had a mask on the entire time.
Speaker 1: So you know, if the call was made that he
Speaker 1: shouldn't testify because he didn't really have a good explanation,
Speaker 1: and or b he would have been viewed as really
Speaker 1: unlikable by the jury and see his prior record would
Speaker 1: have come out. Then I think that makes sense that
Speaker 1: he didn't take the stand because he just would have
Speaker 1: been even more vulnerable and some of the explanations that
Speaker 1: his lawyer gave them might have been deflated because of
Speaker 1: Chauvin's testimony, So that might have been a smart call
Speaker 1: in that case, not having testified. Now, Potter broke down
Speaker 1: in tears throughout her testimony. I remember yelling teaser, taser, teaser,
Speaker 1: and nothing happened, and then obviously it didn't help her
Speaker 1: case with the jurors. But was it the right decision.
Speaker 1: I think putting her on the stand was the exact
Speaker 1: right thing to do. I think she had to explain herself.
Speaker 1: I think the jury had to hear from her. They
Speaker 1: had to be in a position where they could process
Speaker 1: things through her lens or her eyes. I think that
Speaker 1: her testimony was extraordinarily compelling on many fronts. There was
Speaker 1: two things that I think that unfortunately they we're missing
Speaker 1: from her testimony, and one is just because it was
Speaker 1: the way it was, which is that she didn't have
Speaker 1: a very good recollection of what happened in the most
Speaker 1: critical moments, which it's not unusual in times of trauma
Speaker 1: or moments of high stress, right like, we don't exactly
Speaker 1: remember what happened. We just kind of act, We just do,
Speaker 1: We're sort of on autopilot. And she I think explained
Speaker 1: that well. I know other people who have commented on
Speaker 1: our testimony in the media have criticized her testimony for
Speaker 1: lacking that explanation, but I thought her testimony was very compelling.
Speaker 1: One small criticism I had was that I didn't feel
Speaker 1: the way that she dressed, or the way she was
Speaker 1: told to dress, really matched her persona. I understand they
Speaker 1: were trying to make her very human and make her
Speaker 1: a nice, you know, middle aged woman, but I thought
Speaker 1: that what she wore didn't match with her authority and
Speaker 1: her competency. She was my client. I probably would have
Speaker 1: put her in a white button up, longsleeve shirt with
Speaker 1: a blazer just because we know that she is somebody
Speaker 1: who can take control of situations. She made the wrong
Speaker 1: call here, and so there was a little bit of
Speaker 1: a disconnect for me and how she was presenting physically
Speaker 1: and what we came to understand of the job that
Speaker 1: she did and how she did it. If that makes sense. Absolutely,
Speaker 1: you can't underestimate the importance of how a defendant appears
Speaker 1: to the jury. So in the opening statements in both trials,
Speaker 1: the prosecution talked about the defendants betraying the badge. Were
Speaker 1: they held to a higher standard because their police officers,
Speaker 1: not by the jury instructions, of course, but by the
Speaker 1: prosecutor and by the jurors. Absolutely, And I don't know
Speaker 1: if there was litigation about trying to limit prosecution statements
Speaker 1: about that betraying the badge. There is no special standard
Speaker 1: for police officers versus regular civilians. There's an inmate, I
Speaker 1: think understanding that police officers, through their special training, are
Speaker 1: people that we should be able to trust to make
Speaker 1: the right call. I do think though, that those statements
Speaker 1: sort of elevated what jurors came to expect of a
Speaker 1: person on the job of police officer, Like they were
Speaker 1: basically told that a police officer shouldn't make a mistake
Speaker 1: like this, And so anytime a juror is looking at
Speaker 1: a professional and judging their competence, I think that takes
Speaker 1: us into an entirely different realm, which, to your question,
Speaker 1: are we holding them to a different standard? And I
Speaker 1: think that's why the defense was trying to humanize Potter,
Speaker 1: because that's the only way they could get jurors to
Speaker 1: perhaps see that he was just a person trying to
Speaker 1: do a job, and a hard job at that. The
Speaker 1: defense seemed to try to shift the blame onto the
Speaker 1: victims at both trials. Did that backfire on them? As
Speaker 1: the law is written, there's a question of causation, and
Speaker 1: so in Chauvin's case, his knee on the neck caused
Speaker 1: the death or was it because George Floyd had a
Speaker 1: large amount of a sentinel in his system, And so
Speaker 1: that's what the laws says. The state had to prove,
Speaker 1: and so the defense has to defend their client and
Speaker 1: presents alternative theories and arguments for the jury to consider.
Speaker 1: So while that could be looked at, as you know,
Speaker 1: victims shaming or blaming, I don't think that's a fair
Speaker 1: assessment of the defense has to be able to push
Speaker 1: back on the state's evidence and present alternative theories, just
Speaker 1: as Kim Potter did. Kim Potter's attorneys brought forth the
Speaker 1: defense that, look, she had a really hard choice to make.
Speaker 1: Either her partner was going to be killed or she
Speaker 1: had to subdue ms her right and stopped him from
Speaker 1: leaving the scene. So I see that as a defendant
Speaker 1: attempting to get a fair trial and explain things from
Speaker 1: their point of views. Some people are pointing to these
Speaker 1: two trials as indication that police officers are now being
Speaker 1: held accountable. Do you see this as some kind of
Speaker 1: a sea change or just the results of the specific
Speaker 1: facts in these two trials. I think that they are
Speaker 1: standing for that, and that's my concern because I think
Speaker 1: they're very different situations, but yet they're being looked at
Speaker 1: in the same light. The differences in the facts, that's
Speaker 1: all being glossed over, and instead, if there's somebody who
Speaker 1: gets killed, in particular, person of color, then the expectation
Speaker 1: by the public is that cop is getting charged and
Speaker 1: there is a desire to convict that person, and that's
Speaker 1: considered equal justice, and that's considered fairness. I don't think
Speaker 1: that's how our criminal justice system was constructed. We are
Speaker 1: supposed to look at individual facts and each case being
Speaker 1: tried for what it is, versus the type of case
Speaker 1: that it is, like. We need to be looking at
Speaker 1: individual facts, and I think there was a very strong
Speaker 1: momentum here to look at Kim Potter's case in the
Speaker 1: same way we looked at Derek Chauvinz. I don't think
Speaker 1: that's fair. I don't think that's the right lens. But
Speaker 1: I think now there's a wider lens, and more police
Speaker 1: officers are going to get charged, more are going to
Speaker 1: get tried, and I think, frankly, more are going to
Speaker 1: get convicted because there's this consensus, based upon what happened
Speaker 1: in the Chaugun trial, that we must hold people accountable
Speaker 1: and if we don't, we're failing. Thanks Christa. That's Krista Grosseek,
Speaker 1: managing partner of gros Chek Law. Gallene Maxwell's globe trotting
Speaker 1: days are over as she faces decades in prison. A
Speaker 1: jury deliberated for about five days and found Maxwell guilty
Speaker 1: of engaging in a ten year sex trafficking scheme with
Speaker 1: Jeffrey Epstein. A verdict that offers long delayed justice for
Speaker 1: their victims. Like Annie Farmer, who testified at the trial,
Speaker 1: wasn't sure that this day would ever come. And I
Speaker 1: just feel so grateful that the jury believed us and
Speaker 1: sent a strong message that's perpetrators of sexual abuse and
Speaker 1: a plitation will be held accountable, no matter how much
Speaker 1: power and privilege that they have. But Maxwell's brother, Kevin Maxwell,
Speaker 1: says they'll appeal and that his sister will be exonerated.
Speaker 1: I'm absolutely convinced of Jeffrey Epstein's crimes, and I'm equally
Speaker 1: absolutely convinced that my sister is being punished for them
Speaker 1: and for him joining me is Bloomberg Legal reporter Patricia Hurtado,
Speaker 1: who covered the trial. Maxwell is facing what could be
Speaker 1: a life in prison. What was her reaction to the verdict?
Speaker 1: She virtually showed no reaction. She stood and watched and blinked,
Speaker 1: and you know, half of her face was obscured by
Speaker 1: her mask. Before the verdict, we were all waiting for
Speaker 1: the jury to file in and she was sitting and
Speaker 1: looking pensively down at her lap with her hands folded,
Speaker 1: and I saw her brother, Kevin, look up at the
Speaker 1: ceiling I don't know if it was like a moment
Speaker 1: of hopefulness or worry. One of her lawyers, after the
Speaker 1: verdict was announced, patted her on the back, you know,
Speaker 1: to kind of comfort her, and then she was led
Speaker 1: away by the marshals. It seemed that the prosecution had
Speaker 1: an overwhelming amount of evidence against Maxwell. What was the
Speaker 1: strongest piece? I think it was really a masterful putting
Speaker 1: together of small pieces of information altogether collectively. I mean,
Speaker 1: many people criticized the case that it was based on
Speaker 1: the word of the women alone. They had powerful stories
Speaker 1: to tell excruciating detail about being basically hoodwinked by Maxwell
Speaker 1: and Epstein and to coercive, weird sexual domination relationships with Epstein.
Speaker 1: But Maxwell had participated them, and when they're like thirteen
Speaker 1: and fourteen years old, and they had gone on for years.
Speaker 1: You know, these things happened years ago. It's quite compelling,
Speaker 1: but is there actual other evidence to corroborate it? And
Speaker 1: what the government did is they had managed to get
Speaker 1: one pilot of Epstein's Dave Rogers, so he actually corroborated
Speaker 1: that one of the accusers, Jane, was with Maxwell and
Speaker 1: Epstein on one of Epstein's private plane at least four
Speaker 1: times that she had been transported across state line. And
Speaker 1: then records showed that Virginia Guffrey had been transported when
Speaker 1: she was under eighteen at least twenty times. And there
Speaker 1: was also evidence of the FedEx shipments that Epstein had
Speaker 1: sent to a girl named Caroline who was fourteen when
Speaker 1: she started getting into these abusive, sexualized massages with Epstein.
Speaker 1: So it's that kind of a little incidental evidence that
Speaker 1: the jury had to really sort through. But the government
Speaker 1: was highlighting look at all these little points, put them
Speaker 1: together like a puzzle, and what does it put it
Speaker 1: together that Maxwell was guilty. I think that's why the
Speaker 1: jury took so long. They were being very careful about it.
Speaker 1: Maxwell didn't take the stand in her own defense. What
Speaker 1: was her defense? Was it just an attack on the
Speaker 1: credibility of the victims? Yeah, it was a sailing every
Speaker 1: moment of these victims. You know, you don't remember what
Speaker 1: you said. Well, didn't you say you met her at
Speaker 1: a party. Oh, it wasn't a party with a little
Speaker 1: get together. Oh didn't someone tell you to lie about
Speaker 1: your age? Didn't you lie? There were many, many attacks
Speaker 1: on the credibility and They also tried to go after
Speaker 1: the women, claiming they were just in it for the money,
Speaker 1: that they had lied about Maxwell and Epstein purely to
Speaker 1: collect money from the Epstein Victims Compensation Fund, which had
Speaker 1: been set up by the Epstein estate to compensate women
Speaker 1: who had been sexually abused by Epstein. And the government
Speaker 1: really showed in enclosing an Arguments and rebuttal that that
Speaker 1: was a patently false lie. The women had long accused
Speaker 1: Maxwell and Epstein, long before there was ever any Epstein
Speaker 1: estate funds, and they had collected money before they ever testified,
Speaker 1: and they weren't going to collect more money after they
Speaker 1: testified because they testified, which is what the defense claimed.
Speaker 1: So the jury was able to see through those allegations
Speaker 1: of the lack of credibility. She's going to appeal. Appeals
Speaker 1: are always very difficult to get your conviction overturned. Were
Speaker 1: there any obvious points of appeal? Well, I think the
Speaker 1: defense is going to argue Epstein got a non prosecution
Speaker 1: agreement from the U. S. Attorney's Office in the Southern
Speaker 1: District of Florida with Alexander Acosta, and so they already
Speaker 1: argued that it was improper for the Southern District to
Speaker 1: prosecute a case that basically Acosta had given Epstein a
Speaker 1: pass for. They had already lost that argument before Judge Nathan,
Speaker 1: and I'm sure they're going to ask the Court of
Speaker 1: Appeals to review the judge's decision on that the government
Speaker 1: used women who had been abused in New York, so
Speaker 1: even and there were new victims. So this woman Jane
Speaker 1: was a new victim. She had never come forward and
Speaker 1: she only came forward after Epstein died it. And then
Speaker 1: they used this woman Caroline, who had was from Palm
Speaker 1: Beach as well, but she was the one that got
Speaker 1: gifts from Epstein in from New York, and there was
Speaker 1: the FedEx records they had of those those gifts. So
Speaker 1: they built a new case using the nexus of the
Speaker 1: crimes happened that were tied to New York. Annie Farmer,
Speaker 1: for example, was one of the victims, and she had
Speaker 1: been invited to New York by Epstein, and the government
Speaker 1: argued that was like the Epstein setting the stage to
Speaker 1: kind of groom and lure this girl, and he allegedly
Speaker 1: lured her to New Mexico and now he's the jury
Speaker 1: found that she was lured to New Mexico by Epstein.
Speaker 1: She was trapped on a ranch with a New Mexico
Speaker 1: when Epstein and Maxwell and they molested her. Is there
Speaker 1: any chance that she could still make a deal with prosecutors.
Speaker 1: Prosecutors usually go up the chain and the top of
Speaker 1: the chain. Here Epstein is dead, But could she name
Speaker 1: names and get herself maybe a lesser prison sentence. I
Speaker 1: don't see how that's going to help Maxwell, because the
Speaker 1: government had a hard road to even get Maxwell convicted.
Speaker 1: There were many people that played roles in the abuse enablers,
Speaker 1: Let's say, people who may have called an arranged her appointments,
Speaker 1: but the actual abuse of the victims was done by Epstein,
Speaker 1: and according to these women, Maxwell as well. And so
Speaker 1: basically you could see Epstein as the head of a
Speaker 1: drug organization. He's the kingpin and she's number two in
Speaker 1: the organization. You don't normally prosecute the customers in the
Speaker 1: same way you would that person who's running the drug operation. Right,
Speaker 1: So Maxwell is at the top, and I don't see
Speaker 1: how she could flip on anyone way way way down
Speaker 1: the food chain. She spot this too hard already, Thanks Patty.
Speaker 1: That's bloom Burg Legal reporter Patricia Hurtado coming up next two,
Speaker 1: Maybe a seizemic year at the Supreme Court. You're listening
Speaker 1: to Bloomberg