WEBVTT - Will These Trials of 2021 Make a Difference?

0:00:03.200 --> 0:00:15.200
<v Speaker 1>This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio.

0:00:15.720 --> 0:00:19.360
<v Speaker 1>Millions protested across the country over the death of George

0:00:19.400 --> 0:00:23.200
<v Speaker 1>Floyd as then police officer Derek Chauvin knelt on his

0:00:23.280 --> 0:00:27.600
<v Speaker 1>neck on a Minneapolis street corner, and then, while Chauvin

0:00:27.720 --> 0:00:31.600
<v Speaker 1>was on trial for Floyd's killing, just ten miles away,

0:00:31.840 --> 0:00:35.240
<v Speaker 1>Dante Wright, a twenty year old black man, was shot

0:00:35.320 --> 0:00:40.760
<v Speaker 1>to death by police officer Kim Potter during a traffic stop.

0:00:44.760 --> 0:00:48.199
<v Speaker 1>Potter said she mistook her handgun for a taser, but

0:00:48.280 --> 0:00:51.880
<v Speaker 1>a jury convicted her in December, just as another jury

0:00:51.920 --> 0:00:56.000
<v Speaker 1>had convicted Chauvin in April after trials in the same

0:00:56.080 --> 0:01:01.640
<v Speaker 1>Minneapolis courthouse. Do these two high profile convictions indicate that

0:01:01.760 --> 0:01:05.840
<v Speaker 1>police are being held more accountable for their misconduct? Here

0:01:05.840 --> 0:01:09.200
<v Speaker 1>are the parents of Dante Right. It sends a message

0:01:09.880 --> 0:01:12.880
<v Speaker 1>saying that, um, you just can't do any just because

0:01:12.920 --> 0:01:15.840
<v Speaker 1>you're a police. You can't just get away with anything.

0:01:15.880 --> 0:01:20.240
<v Speaker 1>You just can't do anything. It gives us some sense

0:01:20.280 --> 0:01:24.920
<v Speaker 1>of hope that there will you know that policing in

0:01:24.959 --> 0:01:27.280
<v Speaker 1>America will not be able to pull their gun instead

0:01:27.319 --> 0:01:31.240
<v Speaker 1>of their taser. Joining me is former public defender Krista Groschek,

0:01:31.520 --> 0:01:34.720
<v Speaker 1>managing attorney of Grosseek Law Christa. There are a lot

0:01:34.760 --> 0:01:38.920
<v Speaker 1>of similarities on the face of these two cases. Two

0:01:38.920 --> 0:01:44.520
<v Speaker 1>black men stopped by veteran white police officers for non violent,

0:01:44.880 --> 0:01:48.000
<v Speaker 1>minor infractions end up dead at the hands of those

0:01:48.040 --> 0:01:51.840
<v Speaker 1>police officers. But what are the differences When we look

0:01:51.880 --> 0:01:54.360
<v Speaker 1>at the Chauvin case, I think that that was quite

0:01:54.440 --> 0:01:57.520
<v Speaker 1>literally an uphill battle. I think the Kim Potter case

0:01:57.680 --> 0:02:01.040
<v Speaker 1>was much more nuanced. I will point that as to

0:02:01.160 --> 0:02:05.080
<v Speaker 1>both situations, they started out over what appeared to be

0:02:05.200 --> 0:02:10.040
<v Speaker 1>relatively benign issues expired tabs as it relates to the

0:02:10.160 --> 0:02:12.320
<v Speaker 1>Potter case, and in the Stovin case, we've got a

0:02:12.320 --> 0:02:15.680
<v Speaker 1>twenty dollar counterfeit bill, and so it's very easy to

0:02:15.760 --> 0:02:18.880
<v Speaker 1>say these cases should never have resulted in the death

0:02:18.919 --> 0:02:22.160
<v Speaker 1>of people. You know, each defendant said, well, there was

0:02:22.200 --> 0:02:26.160
<v Speaker 1>a lot more than that that occurred following the initial inquiry,

0:02:26.400 --> 0:02:29.080
<v Speaker 1>and I think that's particularly true with Kim Potter's case,

0:02:29.160 --> 0:02:34.200
<v Speaker 1>and that situation unfolded rather quickly, as opposed to Chauvin's case,

0:02:34.280 --> 0:02:37.320
<v Speaker 1>which there was a sustained period of time where he

0:02:37.480 --> 0:02:40.359
<v Speaker 1>had his knee on George Floyd's neck. So there were

0:02:40.480 --> 0:02:45.280
<v Speaker 1>videos from bystanders in the Chauvin trial and videos from

0:02:45.600 --> 0:02:49.440
<v Speaker 1>police body cameras and dash cams in the Potter trial.

0:02:49.880 --> 0:02:53.560
<v Speaker 1>How are the videos key in both trials? I think

0:02:53.560 --> 0:02:56.960
<v Speaker 1>they were incredibly important pieces of evidence. And in the

0:02:57.040 --> 0:03:00.799
<v Speaker 1>Chauvin case, the video was I mean terribly damning. I mean,

0:03:01.000 --> 0:03:03.880
<v Speaker 1>that was something that I don't think any jury could

0:03:03.880 --> 0:03:06.880
<v Speaker 1>get passed. It was something that the process you shouldn't

0:03:07.040 --> 0:03:09.400
<v Speaker 1>smartly hung their hat on. You can believe your eyes.

0:03:09.680 --> 0:03:12.359
<v Speaker 1>In fact, that video was so hard to watch, and

0:03:12.440 --> 0:03:15.040
<v Speaker 1>yet the jury was subjected to it over and over again.

0:03:15.240 --> 0:03:18.000
<v Speaker 1>I mean, there was just no question that what happened

0:03:18.000 --> 0:03:20.600
<v Speaker 1>in that situation for that length of time was not right.

0:03:20.840 --> 0:03:23.639
<v Speaker 1>I think the Kim Potter video was a really important

0:03:23.639 --> 0:03:26.400
<v Speaker 1>piece of evidence, and I do question whether or not

0:03:26.520 --> 0:03:29.840
<v Speaker 1>the jury's verdict was correct. And that that was a

0:03:30.120 --> 0:03:32.440
<v Speaker 1>very short encounter. It was quick, there was a lot

0:03:32.440 --> 0:03:35.560
<v Speaker 1>of things happening, There was information coming out shortly after

0:03:35.600 --> 0:03:37.480
<v Speaker 1>he was stopped, he was attempting to flee. I mean,

0:03:37.480 --> 0:03:40.320
<v Speaker 1>it was just a much different situation. But both videos

0:03:40.320 --> 0:03:43.440
<v Speaker 1>were very, very important to both of these cases. Was

0:03:43.640 --> 0:03:46.920
<v Speaker 1>the use of deadly force and issue in both trials,

0:03:47.600 --> 0:03:51.120
<v Speaker 1>it was and I would say kind of, because both

0:03:51.160 --> 0:03:54.360
<v Speaker 1>officers said that they didn't have any intentions to kill

0:03:54.440 --> 0:03:58.400
<v Speaker 1>the decedents in each case, and so ultimately we know

0:03:58.560 --> 0:04:00.920
<v Speaker 1>that there was what i'd call a use of over

0:04:01.000 --> 0:04:04.160
<v Speaker 1>force or too much force. The question that the jurors

0:04:04.160 --> 0:04:07.560
<v Speaker 1>had to grapple with in both cases was why why

0:04:07.560 --> 0:04:10.680
<v Speaker 1>did that transpire? Let's talk about taking the stand, the

0:04:10.720 --> 0:04:14.840
<v Speaker 1>most important decision that a defendant makes. Chauvin did not

0:04:15.000 --> 0:04:18.479
<v Speaker 1>take the stand. Potter did listen to what one of

0:04:18.520 --> 0:04:22.520
<v Speaker 1>the Chauvin jurors, Brandon Mitchell, said the probably was to

0:04:22.560 --> 0:04:24.599
<v Speaker 1>his detriment that he didn't take the stand, because people

0:04:24.600 --> 0:04:27.920
<v Speaker 1>were curious on what his thoughts were throughout the entire incident.

0:04:28.400 --> 0:04:30.880
<v Speaker 1>But knowing all that, you know, do you think Chauvin

0:04:30.920 --> 0:04:34.680
<v Speaker 1>made the right decision in not testifying. Well, it's hard

0:04:34.720 --> 0:04:37.160
<v Speaker 1>to tell, because you know, he's not my clients and

0:04:37.360 --> 0:04:40.320
<v Speaker 1>a member of the public watching. We didn't really get

0:04:40.320 --> 0:04:42.640
<v Speaker 1>a sense of who he was. We know from his

0:04:42.760 --> 0:04:45.880
<v Speaker 1>prior record it would have made it really difficult for

0:04:45.920 --> 0:04:48.400
<v Speaker 1>him to take the stand because he had numerous previous

0:04:48.480 --> 0:04:52.040
<v Speaker 1>instances where he was disciplined for using too much force

0:04:52.320 --> 0:04:56.280
<v Speaker 1>in somewhat similar ways, to the force he used with

0:04:56.400 --> 0:04:59.280
<v Speaker 1>George Floyd. We also didn't really get to see Mr

0:04:59.360 --> 0:05:01.440
<v Speaker 1>Chauvin to he had a mask on the entire time.

0:05:01.680 --> 0:05:04.080
<v Speaker 1>So you know, if the call was made that he

0:05:04.080 --> 0:05:07.720
<v Speaker 1>shouldn't testify because he didn't really have a good explanation,

0:05:08.000 --> 0:05:10.839
<v Speaker 1>and or b he would have been viewed as really

0:05:10.960 --> 0:05:14.440
<v Speaker 1>unlikable by the jury and see his prior record would

0:05:14.440 --> 0:05:16.719
<v Speaker 1>have come out. Then I think that makes sense that

0:05:16.760 --> 0:05:19.120
<v Speaker 1>he didn't take the stand because he just would have

0:05:19.160 --> 0:05:22.240
<v Speaker 1>been even more vulnerable and some of the explanations that

0:05:22.320 --> 0:05:27.400
<v Speaker 1>his lawyer gave them might have been deflated because of

0:05:27.640 --> 0:05:30.160
<v Speaker 1>Chauvin's testimony, So that might have been a smart call

0:05:30.200 --> 0:05:34.159
<v Speaker 1>in that case, not having testified. Now, Potter broke down

0:05:34.279 --> 0:05:41.200
<v Speaker 1>in tears throughout her testimony. I remember yelling teaser, taser, teaser,

0:05:43.080 --> 0:05:50.840
<v Speaker 1>and nothing happened, and then obviously it didn't help her

0:05:50.960 --> 0:05:54.280
<v Speaker 1>case with the jurors. But was it the right decision.

0:05:55.279 --> 0:05:57.760
<v Speaker 1>I think putting her on the stand was the exact

0:05:58.240 --> 0:06:01.040
<v Speaker 1>right thing to do. I think she had to explain herself.

0:06:01.080 --> 0:06:02.960
<v Speaker 1>I think the jury had to hear from her. They

0:06:02.960 --> 0:06:06.120
<v Speaker 1>had to be in a position where they could process

0:06:06.200 --> 0:06:08.960
<v Speaker 1>things through her lens or her eyes. I think that

0:06:09.000 --> 0:06:12.760
<v Speaker 1>her testimony was extraordinarily compelling on many fronts. There was

0:06:12.839 --> 0:06:15.919
<v Speaker 1>two things that I think that unfortunately they we're missing

0:06:15.960 --> 0:06:19.280
<v Speaker 1>from her testimony, and one is just because it was

0:06:19.320 --> 0:06:21.520
<v Speaker 1>the way it was, which is that she didn't have

0:06:21.600 --> 0:06:24.159
<v Speaker 1>a very good recollection of what happened in the most

0:06:24.200 --> 0:06:27.919
<v Speaker 1>critical moments, which it's not unusual in times of trauma

0:06:28.040 --> 0:06:30.680
<v Speaker 1>or moments of high stress, right like, we don't exactly

0:06:30.720 --> 0:06:33.560
<v Speaker 1>remember what happened. We just kind of act, We just do,

0:06:33.720 --> 0:06:37.160
<v Speaker 1>We're sort of on autopilot. And she I think explained

0:06:37.200 --> 0:06:39.800
<v Speaker 1>that well. I know other people who have commented on

0:06:39.839 --> 0:06:43.840
<v Speaker 1>our testimony in the media have criticized her testimony for

0:06:43.920 --> 0:06:47.719
<v Speaker 1>lacking that explanation, but I thought her testimony was very compelling.

0:06:48.120 --> 0:06:51.400
<v Speaker 1>One small criticism I had was that I didn't feel

0:06:51.440 --> 0:06:54.000
<v Speaker 1>the way that she dressed, or the way she was

0:06:54.040 --> 0:06:57.320
<v Speaker 1>told to dress, really matched her persona. I understand they

0:06:57.320 --> 0:06:59.760
<v Speaker 1>were trying to make her very human and make her

0:07:00.000 --> 0:07:02.760
<v Speaker 1>a nice, you know, middle aged woman, but I thought

0:07:02.800 --> 0:07:06.440
<v Speaker 1>that what she wore didn't match with her authority and

0:07:06.480 --> 0:07:09.320
<v Speaker 1>her competency. She was my client. I probably would have

0:07:09.320 --> 0:07:12.720
<v Speaker 1>put her in a white button up, longsleeve shirt with

0:07:12.760 --> 0:07:16.280
<v Speaker 1>a blazer just because we know that she is somebody

0:07:16.280 --> 0:07:19.320
<v Speaker 1>who can take control of situations. She made the wrong

0:07:19.400 --> 0:07:22.040
<v Speaker 1>call here, and so there was a little bit of

0:07:22.080 --> 0:07:25.240
<v Speaker 1>a disconnect for me and how she was presenting physically

0:07:25.440 --> 0:07:28.600
<v Speaker 1>and what we came to understand of the job that

0:07:28.680 --> 0:07:32.080
<v Speaker 1>she did and how she did it. If that makes sense. Absolutely,

0:07:32.320 --> 0:07:35.360
<v Speaker 1>you can't underestimate the importance of how a defendant appears

0:07:35.440 --> 0:07:39.480
<v Speaker 1>to the jury. So in the opening statements in both trials,

0:07:39.520 --> 0:07:45.040
<v Speaker 1>the prosecution talked about the defendants betraying the badge. Were

0:07:45.120 --> 0:07:49.480
<v Speaker 1>they held to a higher standard because their police officers,

0:07:49.840 --> 0:07:53.440
<v Speaker 1>not by the jury instructions, of course, but by the

0:07:53.560 --> 0:07:57.560
<v Speaker 1>prosecutor and by the jurors. Absolutely, And I don't know

0:07:57.560 --> 0:08:02.120
<v Speaker 1>if there was litigation about trying to limit prosecution statements

0:08:02.200 --> 0:08:05.920
<v Speaker 1>about that betraying the badge. There is no special standard

0:08:06.000 --> 0:08:09.600
<v Speaker 1>for police officers versus regular civilians. There's an inmate, I

0:08:09.640 --> 0:08:14.680
<v Speaker 1>think understanding that police officers, through their special training, are

0:08:14.720 --> 0:08:16.880
<v Speaker 1>people that we should be able to trust to make

0:08:16.920 --> 0:08:20.560
<v Speaker 1>the right call. I do think though, that those statements

0:08:20.720 --> 0:08:25.160
<v Speaker 1>sort of elevated what jurors came to expect of a

0:08:25.200 --> 0:08:28.920
<v Speaker 1>person on the job of police officer, Like they were

0:08:28.960 --> 0:08:32.199
<v Speaker 1>basically told that a police officer shouldn't make a mistake

0:08:32.280 --> 0:08:36.240
<v Speaker 1>like this, And so anytime a juror is looking at

0:08:36.520 --> 0:08:39.800
<v Speaker 1>a professional and judging their competence, I think that takes

0:08:39.880 --> 0:08:42.480
<v Speaker 1>us into an entirely different realm, which, to your question,

0:08:42.760 --> 0:08:44.880
<v Speaker 1>are we holding them to a different standard? And I

0:08:44.920 --> 0:08:48.760
<v Speaker 1>think that's why the defense was trying to humanize Potter,

0:08:49.200 --> 0:08:52.000
<v Speaker 1>because that's the only way they could get jurors to

0:08:52.120 --> 0:08:55.240
<v Speaker 1>perhaps see that he was just a person trying to

0:08:55.280 --> 0:08:57.760
<v Speaker 1>do a job, and a hard job at that. The

0:08:57.840 --> 0:09:00.439
<v Speaker 1>defense seemed to try to shift the blame onto the

0:09:00.559 --> 0:09:05.360
<v Speaker 1>victims at both trials. Did that backfire on them? As

0:09:05.440 --> 0:09:08.760
<v Speaker 1>the law is written, there's a question of causation, and

0:09:08.800 --> 0:09:12.280
<v Speaker 1>so in Chauvin's case, his knee on the neck caused

0:09:12.280 --> 0:09:14.520
<v Speaker 1>the death or was it because George Floyd had a

0:09:14.600 --> 0:09:16.960
<v Speaker 1>large amount of a sentinel in his system, And so

0:09:17.320 --> 0:09:19.480
<v Speaker 1>that's what the laws says. The state had to prove,

0:09:19.520 --> 0:09:23.080
<v Speaker 1>and so the defense has to defend their client and

0:09:23.280 --> 0:09:26.840
<v Speaker 1>presents alternative theories and arguments for the jury to consider.

0:09:26.920 --> 0:09:29.120
<v Speaker 1>So while that could be looked at, as you know,

0:09:29.240 --> 0:09:31.960
<v Speaker 1>victims shaming or blaming, I don't think that's a fair

0:09:32.000 --> 0:09:34.360
<v Speaker 1>assessment of the defense has to be able to push

0:09:34.440 --> 0:09:37.400
<v Speaker 1>back on the state's evidence and present alternative theories, just

0:09:37.559 --> 0:09:41.920
<v Speaker 1>as Kim Potter did. Kim Potter's attorneys brought forth the

0:09:41.920 --> 0:09:44.560
<v Speaker 1>defense that, look, she had a really hard choice to make.

0:09:44.760 --> 0:09:47.280
<v Speaker 1>Either her partner was going to be killed or she

0:09:47.400 --> 0:09:49.480
<v Speaker 1>had to subdue ms her right and stopped him from

0:09:49.520 --> 0:09:52.319
<v Speaker 1>leaving the scene. So I see that as a defendant

0:09:52.840 --> 0:09:55.840
<v Speaker 1>attempting to get a fair trial and explain things from

0:09:55.920 --> 0:09:58.600
<v Speaker 1>their point of views. Some people are pointing to these

0:09:58.640 --> 0:10:03.640
<v Speaker 1>two trials as indication that police officers are now being

0:10:03.679 --> 0:10:07.640
<v Speaker 1>held accountable. Do you see this as some kind of

0:10:07.679 --> 0:10:11.880
<v Speaker 1>a sea change or just the results of the specific

0:10:12.000 --> 0:10:15.760
<v Speaker 1>facts in these two trials. I think that they are

0:10:15.800 --> 0:10:18.439
<v Speaker 1>standing for that, and that's my concern because I think

0:10:18.440 --> 0:10:21.719
<v Speaker 1>they're very different situations, but yet they're being looked at

0:10:21.760 --> 0:10:24.720
<v Speaker 1>in the same light. The differences in the facts, that's

0:10:24.720 --> 0:10:28.160
<v Speaker 1>all being glossed over, and instead, if there's somebody who

0:10:28.200 --> 0:10:31.840
<v Speaker 1>gets killed, in particular, person of color, then the expectation

0:10:31.920 --> 0:10:34.680
<v Speaker 1>by the public is that cop is getting charged and

0:10:35.000 --> 0:10:38.360
<v Speaker 1>there is a desire to convict that person, and that's

0:10:38.400 --> 0:10:41.560
<v Speaker 1>considered equal justice, and that's considered fairness. I don't think

0:10:41.600 --> 0:10:45.120
<v Speaker 1>that's how our criminal justice system was constructed. We are

0:10:45.160 --> 0:10:48.360
<v Speaker 1>supposed to look at individual facts and each case being

0:10:48.600 --> 0:10:51.600
<v Speaker 1>tried for what it is, versus the type of case

0:10:51.640 --> 0:10:53.240
<v Speaker 1>that it is, like. We need to be looking at

0:10:53.280 --> 0:10:55.760
<v Speaker 1>individual facts, and I think there was a very strong

0:10:55.880 --> 0:10:58.400
<v Speaker 1>momentum here to look at Kim Potter's case in the

0:10:58.440 --> 0:11:00.960
<v Speaker 1>same way we looked at Derek Chauvinz. I don't think

0:11:01.000 --> 0:11:03.400
<v Speaker 1>that's fair. I don't think that's the right lens. But

0:11:03.520 --> 0:11:06.840
<v Speaker 1>I think now there's a wider lens, and more police

0:11:06.840 --> 0:11:08.880
<v Speaker 1>officers are going to get charged, more are going to

0:11:09.000 --> 0:11:10.959
<v Speaker 1>get tried, and I think, frankly, more are going to

0:11:11.040 --> 0:11:15.280
<v Speaker 1>get convicted because there's this consensus, based upon what happened

0:11:15.280 --> 0:11:17.800
<v Speaker 1>in the Chaugun trial, that we must hold people accountable

0:11:17.840 --> 0:11:21.800
<v Speaker 1>and if we don't, we're failing. Thanks Christa. That's Krista Grosseek,

0:11:22.000 --> 0:11:27.800
<v Speaker 1>managing partner of gros Chek Law. Gallene Maxwell's globe trotting

0:11:27.920 --> 0:11:32.240
<v Speaker 1>days are over as she faces decades in prison. A

0:11:32.360 --> 0:11:36.640
<v Speaker 1>jury deliberated for about five days and found Maxwell guilty

0:11:36.640 --> 0:11:39.920
<v Speaker 1>of engaging in a ten year sex trafficking scheme with

0:11:40.040 --> 0:11:44.600
<v Speaker 1>Jeffrey Epstein. A verdict that offers long delayed justice for

0:11:44.679 --> 0:11:48.720
<v Speaker 1>their victims. Like Annie Farmer, who testified at the trial,

0:11:49.280 --> 0:11:52.320
<v Speaker 1>wasn't sure that this day would ever come. And I

0:11:52.400 --> 0:11:55.640
<v Speaker 1>just feel so grateful that the jury believed us and

0:11:55.679 --> 0:11:59.800
<v Speaker 1>sent a strong message that's perpetrators of sexual abuse and

0:11:59.840 --> 0:12:02.960
<v Speaker 1>a plitation will be held accountable, no matter how much

0:12:03.160 --> 0:12:07.479
<v Speaker 1>power and privilege that they have. But Maxwell's brother, Kevin Maxwell,

0:12:07.720 --> 0:12:11.160
<v Speaker 1>says they'll appeal and that his sister will be exonerated.

0:12:11.559 --> 0:12:16.199
<v Speaker 1>I'm absolutely convinced of Jeffrey Epstein's crimes, and I'm equally

0:12:16.200 --> 0:12:20.559
<v Speaker 1>absolutely convinced that my sister is being punished for them

0:12:20.640 --> 0:12:24.480
<v Speaker 1>and for him joining me is Bloomberg Legal reporter Patricia Hurtado,

0:12:24.600 --> 0:12:28.920
<v Speaker 1>who covered the trial. Maxwell is facing what could be

0:12:29.080 --> 0:12:32.480
<v Speaker 1>a life in prison. What was her reaction to the verdict?

0:12:33.240 --> 0:12:37.600
<v Speaker 1>She virtually showed no reaction. She stood and watched and blinked,

0:12:37.720 --> 0:12:40.040
<v Speaker 1>and you know, half of her face was obscured by

0:12:40.080 --> 0:12:43.120
<v Speaker 1>her mask. Before the verdict, we were all waiting for

0:12:43.160 --> 0:12:45.880
<v Speaker 1>the jury to file in and she was sitting and

0:12:45.920 --> 0:12:48.720
<v Speaker 1>looking pensively down at her lap with her hands folded,

0:12:48.800 --> 0:12:51.079
<v Speaker 1>and I saw her brother, Kevin, look up at the

0:12:51.080 --> 0:12:53.720
<v Speaker 1>ceiling I don't know if it was like a moment

0:12:53.760 --> 0:12:57.360
<v Speaker 1>of hopefulness or worry. One of her lawyers, after the

0:12:57.440 --> 0:13:00.400
<v Speaker 1>verdict was announced, patted her on the back, you know,

0:13:00.480 --> 0:13:03.360
<v Speaker 1>to kind of comfort her, and then she was led

0:13:03.360 --> 0:13:08.640
<v Speaker 1>away by the marshals. It seemed that the prosecution had

0:13:08.679 --> 0:13:14.160
<v Speaker 1>an overwhelming amount of evidence against Maxwell. What was the

0:13:14.240 --> 0:13:18.480
<v Speaker 1>strongest piece? I think it was really a masterful putting

0:13:18.520 --> 0:13:23.880
<v Speaker 1>together of small pieces of information altogether collectively. I mean,

0:13:24.200 --> 0:13:27.520
<v Speaker 1>many people criticized the case that it was based on

0:13:27.600 --> 0:13:31.000
<v Speaker 1>the word of the women alone. They had powerful stories

0:13:31.000 --> 0:13:36.920
<v Speaker 1>to tell excruciating detail about being basically hoodwinked by Maxwell

0:13:36.960 --> 0:13:42.720
<v Speaker 1>and Epstein and to coercive, weird sexual domination relationships with Epstein.

0:13:42.840 --> 0:13:45.840
<v Speaker 1>But Maxwell had participated them, and when they're like thirteen

0:13:45.840 --> 0:13:48.480
<v Speaker 1>and fourteen years old, and they had gone on for years.

0:13:48.600 --> 0:13:53.400
<v Speaker 1>You know, these things happened years ago. It's quite compelling,

0:13:53.520 --> 0:13:57.160
<v Speaker 1>but is there actual other evidence to corroborate it? And

0:13:57.200 --> 0:14:00.600
<v Speaker 1>what the government did is they had managed to get

0:14:00.840 --> 0:14:05.520
<v Speaker 1>one pilot of Epstein's Dave Rogers, so he actually corroborated

0:14:05.880 --> 0:14:08.600
<v Speaker 1>that one of the accusers, Jane, was with Maxwell and

0:14:08.640 --> 0:14:11.640
<v Speaker 1>Epstein on one of Epstein's private plane at least four

0:14:11.720 --> 0:14:14.720
<v Speaker 1>times that she had been transported across state line. And

0:14:14.720 --> 0:14:19.160
<v Speaker 1>then records showed that Virginia Guffrey had been transported when

0:14:19.200 --> 0:14:22.560
<v Speaker 1>she was under eighteen at least twenty times. And there

0:14:22.640 --> 0:14:26.160
<v Speaker 1>was also evidence of the FedEx shipments that Epstein had

0:14:26.160 --> 0:14:29.920
<v Speaker 1>sent to a girl named Caroline who was fourteen when

0:14:29.960 --> 0:14:34.120
<v Speaker 1>she started getting into these abusive, sexualized massages with Epstein.

0:14:34.520 --> 0:14:36.760
<v Speaker 1>So it's that kind of a little incidental evidence that

0:14:36.840 --> 0:14:39.800
<v Speaker 1>the jury had to really sort through. But the government

0:14:39.840 --> 0:14:43.160
<v Speaker 1>was highlighting look at all these little points, put them

0:14:43.240 --> 0:14:45.400
<v Speaker 1>together like a puzzle, and what does it put it

0:14:45.480 --> 0:14:48.040
<v Speaker 1>together that Maxwell was guilty. I think that's why the

0:14:48.080 --> 0:14:50.720
<v Speaker 1>jury took so long. They were being very careful about it.

0:14:51.360 --> 0:14:54.840
<v Speaker 1>Maxwell didn't take the stand in her own defense. What

0:14:55.080 --> 0:14:58.600
<v Speaker 1>was her defense? Was it just an attack on the

0:14:58.640 --> 0:15:02.480
<v Speaker 1>credibility of the victims? Yeah, it was a sailing every

0:15:02.520 --> 0:15:05.360
<v Speaker 1>moment of these victims. You know, you don't remember what

0:15:05.560 --> 0:15:08.120
<v Speaker 1>you said. Well, didn't you say you met her at

0:15:08.120 --> 0:15:10.960
<v Speaker 1>a party. Oh, it wasn't a party with a little

0:15:11.000 --> 0:15:14.280
<v Speaker 1>get together. Oh didn't someone tell you to lie about

0:15:14.320 --> 0:15:18.840
<v Speaker 1>your age? Didn't you lie? There were many, many attacks

0:15:18.880 --> 0:15:22.040
<v Speaker 1>on the credibility and They also tried to go after

0:15:22.440 --> 0:15:25.480
<v Speaker 1>the women, claiming they were just in it for the money,

0:15:25.520 --> 0:15:29.640
<v Speaker 1>that they had lied about Maxwell and Epstein purely to

0:15:29.720 --> 0:15:33.160
<v Speaker 1>collect money from the Epstein Victims Compensation Fund, which had

0:15:33.200 --> 0:15:36.200
<v Speaker 1>been set up by the Epstein estate to compensate women

0:15:36.200 --> 0:15:40.240
<v Speaker 1>who had been sexually abused by Epstein. And the government

0:15:40.520 --> 0:15:44.280
<v Speaker 1>really showed in enclosing an Arguments and rebuttal that that

0:15:44.360 --> 0:15:48.560
<v Speaker 1>was a patently false lie. The women had long accused

0:15:48.560 --> 0:15:52.000
<v Speaker 1>Maxwell and Epstein, long before there was ever any Epstein

0:15:52.160 --> 0:15:57.400
<v Speaker 1>estate funds, and they had collected money before they ever testified,

0:15:57.680 --> 0:16:00.200
<v Speaker 1>and they weren't going to collect more money after they

0:16:00.280 --> 0:16:03.520
<v Speaker 1>testified because they testified, which is what the defense claimed.

0:16:03.920 --> 0:16:07.080
<v Speaker 1>So the jury was able to see through those allegations

0:16:07.120 --> 0:16:10.680
<v Speaker 1>of the lack of credibility. She's going to appeal. Appeals

0:16:10.720 --> 0:16:14.960
<v Speaker 1>are always very difficult to get your conviction overturned. Were

0:16:15.000 --> 0:16:18.640
<v Speaker 1>there any obvious points of appeal? Well, I think the

0:16:18.640 --> 0:16:22.080
<v Speaker 1>defense is going to argue Epstein got a non prosecution

0:16:22.120 --> 0:16:25.240
<v Speaker 1>agreement from the U. S. Attorney's Office in the Southern

0:16:25.240 --> 0:16:29.200
<v Speaker 1>District of Florida with Alexander Acosta, and so they already

0:16:29.320 --> 0:16:32.080
<v Speaker 1>argued that it was improper for the Southern District to

0:16:32.280 --> 0:16:36.920
<v Speaker 1>prosecute a case that basically Acosta had given Epstein a

0:16:37.040 --> 0:16:41.040
<v Speaker 1>pass for. They had already lost that argument before Judge Nathan,

0:16:41.400 --> 0:16:43.440
<v Speaker 1>and I'm sure they're going to ask the Court of

0:16:43.440 --> 0:16:47.960
<v Speaker 1>Appeals to review the judge's decision on that the government

0:16:48.160 --> 0:16:51.760
<v Speaker 1>used women who had been abused in New York, so

0:16:51.920 --> 0:16:55.800
<v Speaker 1>even and there were new victims. So this woman Jane

0:16:55.960 --> 0:16:57.960
<v Speaker 1>was a new victim. She had never come forward and

0:16:58.040 --> 0:17:01.200
<v Speaker 1>she only came forward after Epstein died it. And then

0:17:01.240 --> 0:17:05.440
<v Speaker 1>they used this woman Caroline, who had was from Palm

0:17:05.520 --> 0:17:08.200
<v Speaker 1>Beach as well, but she was the one that got

0:17:08.200 --> 0:17:11.199
<v Speaker 1>gifts from Epstein in from New York, and there was

0:17:11.320 --> 0:17:14.960
<v Speaker 1>the FedEx records they had of those those gifts. So

0:17:15.440 --> 0:17:18.560
<v Speaker 1>they built a new case using the nexus of the

0:17:18.720 --> 0:17:22.480
<v Speaker 1>crimes happened that were tied to New York. Annie Farmer,

0:17:22.560 --> 0:17:25.120
<v Speaker 1>for example, was one of the victims, and she had

0:17:25.160 --> 0:17:29.320
<v Speaker 1>been invited to New York by Epstein, and the government

0:17:29.480 --> 0:17:32.359
<v Speaker 1>argued that was like the Epstein setting the stage to

0:17:32.520 --> 0:17:36.080
<v Speaker 1>kind of groom and lure this girl, and he allegedly

0:17:36.200 --> 0:17:38.840
<v Speaker 1>lured her to New Mexico and now he's the jury

0:17:38.880 --> 0:17:41.680
<v Speaker 1>found that she was lured to New Mexico by Epstein.

0:17:42.040 --> 0:17:44.800
<v Speaker 1>She was trapped on a ranch with a New Mexico

0:17:44.920 --> 0:17:48.960
<v Speaker 1>when Epstein and Maxwell and they molested her. Is there

0:17:49.000 --> 0:17:53.200
<v Speaker 1>any chance that she could still make a deal with prosecutors.

0:17:53.240 --> 0:17:56.320
<v Speaker 1>Prosecutors usually go up the chain and the top of

0:17:56.320 --> 0:18:00.440
<v Speaker 1>the chain. Here Epstein is dead, But could she name

0:18:00.640 --> 0:18:05.239
<v Speaker 1>names and get herself maybe a lesser prison sentence. I

0:18:05.320 --> 0:18:10.720
<v Speaker 1>don't see how that's going to help Maxwell, because the

0:18:10.840 --> 0:18:14.800
<v Speaker 1>government had a hard road to even get Maxwell convicted.

0:18:14.960 --> 0:18:19.120
<v Speaker 1>There were many people that played roles in the abuse enablers,

0:18:19.240 --> 0:18:22.720
<v Speaker 1>Let's say, people who may have called an arranged her appointments,

0:18:22.960 --> 0:18:26.879
<v Speaker 1>but the actual abuse of the victims was done by Epstein,

0:18:27.080 --> 0:18:31.200
<v Speaker 1>and according to these women, Maxwell as well. And so

0:18:31.800 --> 0:18:35.879
<v Speaker 1>basically you could see Epstein as the head of a

0:18:36.000 --> 0:18:39.919
<v Speaker 1>drug organization. He's the kingpin and she's number two in

0:18:39.920 --> 0:18:44.919
<v Speaker 1>the organization. You don't normally prosecute the customers in the

0:18:45.040 --> 0:18:49.320
<v Speaker 1>same way you would that person who's running the drug operation. Right,

0:18:49.440 --> 0:18:52.320
<v Speaker 1>So Maxwell is at the top, and I don't see

0:18:52.320 --> 0:18:55.240
<v Speaker 1>how she could flip on anyone way way way down

0:18:55.320 --> 0:18:59.240
<v Speaker 1>the food chain. She spot this too hard already, Thanks Patty.

0:18:59.520 --> 0:19:04.400
<v Speaker 1>That's bloom Burg Legal reporter Patricia Hurtado coming up next two,

0:19:04.720 --> 0:19:08.520
<v Speaker 1>Maybe a seizemic year at the Supreme Court. You're listening

0:19:08.520 --> 0:19:09.159
<v Speaker 1>to Bloomberg