1
00:00:03,200 --> 00:00:07,960
Speaker 1: This is Bloombird Law with June Brussel from Bloomberg Radio.

2
00:00:09,080 --> 00:00:13,800
Speaker 1: This is a wonderful day, a joyous day, and inspiring

3
00:00:13,920 --> 00:00:18,520
Speaker 1: day for the Senate, for the Supreme Court, and for

4
00:00:18,600 --> 00:00:22,520
Speaker 1: the United States of America. Today we are here to

5
00:00:22,920 --> 00:00:27,720
Speaker 1: to vote to confirm Katangi Brown Jackson as the one

6
00:00:27,840 --> 00:00:33,080
Speaker 1: hundred sixteenth Justice of the United States Supreme Court. History

7
00:00:33,200 --> 00:00:37,120
Speaker 1: was made this afternoon as Katanji Brown Jackson was confirmed

8
00:00:37,120 --> 00:00:40,240
Speaker 1: to become the first black woman in two hundred thirty

9
00:00:40,240 --> 00:00:43,760
Speaker 1: two years to sit on the Supreme Court. Three Republican

10
00:00:43,840 --> 00:00:48,320
Speaker 1: senators joined the Democrats in voting for Jackson. On this vote,

11
00:00:48,800 --> 00:00:53,639
Speaker 1: the a's A fifty three the names, and this nomination

12
00:00:53,760 --> 00:01:01,640
Speaker 1: is confirmed. Joining me is Alatoon Day Johnson, a professor

13
00:01:01,640 --> 00:01:06,959
Speaker 1: at Columbia Law School. What does this historic confirmation signify?

14
00:01:07,319 --> 00:01:10,959
Speaker 1: This is a historic confirmation, and in a number of ways.

15
00:01:11,200 --> 00:01:14,880
Speaker 1: Clearly it's important to have the first black woman on

16
00:01:14,920 --> 00:01:18,160
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court, both for how we think about the

17
00:01:18,200 --> 00:01:21,400
Speaker 1: Court as an institution, the legitimacy of the institution, and

18
00:01:21,520 --> 00:01:25,480
Speaker 1: just as a sign that this is a pathway that's

19
00:01:25,520 --> 00:01:30,000
Speaker 1: available to everyone in America, even a young African American

20
00:01:30,040 --> 00:01:34,880
Speaker 1: girl who's just a generation removed from formal segregation. That

21
00:01:34,959 --> 00:01:38,520
Speaker 1: we could have a democracy in which the pathway to

22
00:01:38,520 --> 00:01:40,920
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court is open to people like Katangi Brown

23
00:01:41,000 --> 00:01:44,960
Speaker 1: Jackson and others like her is really important. In some respect,

24
00:01:45,080 --> 00:01:49,360
Speaker 1: she has a background and experience typical of Supreme Court justices.

25
00:01:49,840 --> 00:01:53,240
Speaker 1: In other respects different, Yeah, I think it's really important

26
00:01:53,240 --> 00:01:55,960
Speaker 1: to focus on her as an individual and what she

27
00:01:56,000 --> 00:01:57,960
Speaker 1: brings to the Court. And one of the things I

28
00:01:58,080 --> 00:02:01,520
Speaker 1: was struck by from the moment she was nominated was

29
00:02:01,720 --> 00:02:05,360
Speaker 1: a range of experience. Um So she has some of

30
00:02:05,360 --> 00:02:07,840
Speaker 1: those aspects that are typical of a lot of nominees,

31
00:02:07,880 --> 00:02:11,000
Speaker 1: and she went to what is considered a very top

32
00:02:11,120 --> 00:02:14,640
Speaker 1: law school and elite law school. She herself clerked on

33
00:02:14,680 --> 00:02:17,560
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court. She clerked for Justice Bryer, and we

34
00:02:17,639 --> 00:02:20,959
Speaker 1: see a lot of the justices who have that kind

35
00:02:21,000 --> 00:02:24,960
Speaker 1: of background. She also has appellate court experience. I mean,

36
00:02:25,040 --> 00:02:28,079
Speaker 1: she's coming from the DC circuit. But in other ways

37
00:02:28,400 --> 00:02:31,679
Speaker 1: you see a breadth of experience that really is uncommon

38
00:02:31,919 --> 00:02:34,840
Speaker 1: for a Supreme Court justice. And the things that really

39
00:02:35,400 --> 00:02:40,040
Speaker 1: stand out for me are her experience as a trial judge,

40
00:02:40,320 --> 00:02:42,799
Speaker 1: which she has been for most of her judicial career.

41
00:02:42,880 --> 00:02:45,800
Speaker 1: She's only spent a short time actually as an appellate judge,

42
00:02:45,840 --> 00:02:48,400
Speaker 1: so for nine years she was a trial judge. And

43
00:02:48,440 --> 00:02:53,119
Speaker 1: then also her experience in trial practice, So a lot

44
00:02:53,200 --> 00:02:56,800
Speaker 1: of judges and justices have experience with a pellet practice,

45
00:02:56,800 --> 00:03:00,600
Speaker 1: but actually representing clients in trial settings that he stands out,

46
00:03:00,639 --> 00:03:03,160
Speaker 1: so that breadth of experience. And then she also has

47
00:03:03,200 --> 00:03:06,760
Speaker 1: experience in criminal law and specifically as a public defender.

48
00:03:06,880 --> 00:03:09,120
Speaker 1: And there was much discussion as this of course in

49
00:03:09,160 --> 00:03:13,000
Speaker 1: her confirmation hearings, and you saw a real division as

50
00:03:13,000 --> 00:03:14,960
Speaker 1: to whether or not this was a strength or not.

51
00:03:15,680 --> 00:03:18,120
Speaker 1: I really saw it going in. And then also and

52
00:03:18,160 --> 00:03:20,680
Speaker 1: how she explained it as a key strength. So she

53
00:03:20,760 --> 00:03:24,440
Speaker 1: will bring that knowledge of criminal law and criminal procedure,

54
00:03:24,760 --> 00:03:27,320
Speaker 1: but not just sort of an abstract I taught this knowledge,

55
00:03:27,320 --> 00:03:30,040
Speaker 1: but how does this actually play out in our criminal

56
00:03:30,160 --> 00:03:34,400
Speaker 1: justice institutions. Her experience on the Sentencing Commission means that

57
00:03:34,480 --> 00:03:39,720
Speaker 1: she's really grappled with how the laws around sentencing effect

58
00:03:39,960 --> 00:03:42,960
Speaker 1: ordinary people and some of the trade offs in sort

59
00:03:43,000 --> 00:03:47,240
Speaker 1: of designing sentences. She's going to have that understanding. Another

60
00:03:47,240 --> 00:03:49,800
Speaker 1: thing that really struck out for me, and this is

61
00:03:49,960 --> 00:03:53,880
Speaker 1: related to m Sentencing Commission work is just the extent

62
00:03:53,960 --> 00:03:57,360
Speaker 1: to which she had worked in settings that were bipartisan,

63
00:03:57,720 --> 00:04:01,680
Speaker 1: and that's something that really came across the Sentencing Commission work.

64
00:04:01,680 --> 00:04:04,320
Speaker 1: And there are people who testify to this in the

65
00:04:04,360 --> 00:04:07,320
Speaker 1: confirmation hearings where they talked about and the fact that

66
00:04:07,640 --> 00:04:11,680
Speaker 1: she is seen as someone who believes in bridging differences

67
00:04:11,720 --> 00:04:14,680
Speaker 1: and she's a consensus builder. So hopefully those skills will

68
00:04:14,720 --> 00:04:18,960
Speaker 1: help her on the Supreme Court to explained because people say, well,

69
00:04:19,000 --> 00:04:22,480
Speaker 1: she brings this experience, but will she really be explaining

70
00:04:22,520 --> 00:04:26,760
Speaker 1: to the other justices what criminal defense laws like or

71
00:04:27,000 --> 00:04:32,000
Speaker 1: or sentencing someone. Yeah, I mean it definitely um happens.

72
00:04:32,080 --> 00:04:35,680
Speaker 1: I mean, you see how the kinds of questions that

73
00:04:35,800 --> 00:04:39,960
Speaker 1: someone asks that oral argument can really shape the information

74
00:04:40,720 --> 00:04:44,839
Speaker 1: um that justices are exposed to and their understanding of

75
00:04:44,839 --> 00:04:49,560
Speaker 1: the implications of different legals. So um, maybe that they

76
00:04:49,600 --> 00:04:52,279
Speaker 1: she pursues a line of questioning UM. A lot of

77
00:04:52,320 --> 00:04:56,159
Speaker 1: times you may notice that when Supreme Court justices ask questions,

78
00:04:56,160 --> 00:04:59,360
Speaker 1: in part their audience is the person who they're asking

79
00:04:59,400 --> 00:05:01,520
Speaker 1: the question of right the litigant um in front of

80
00:05:01,680 --> 00:05:04,000
Speaker 1: the lawyer who's making the argument. But in part they're

81
00:05:04,040 --> 00:05:08,400
Speaker 1: talking to each other through those questions, and so I

82
00:05:08,440 --> 00:05:13,560
Speaker 1: think justices often learn UM a lot through that questioning Yeah,

83
00:05:13,680 --> 00:05:16,800
Speaker 1: you're right. They don't always UM go and then chat

84
00:05:16,839 --> 00:05:20,480
Speaker 1: with each other afterwards. UM. And so there isn't that

85
00:05:20,520 --> 00:05:23,800
Speaker 1: type of dialogue typically, but in the history of the

86
00:05:23,800 --> 00:05:27,640
Speaker 1: Supreme Court that has happened. I mean, Justice Senator day

87
00:05:27,680 --> 00:05:31,239
Speaker 1: O'Connor always talks about what she learned about criminal justice

88
00:05:31,360 --> 00:05:34,800
Speaker 1: and about death penalty issues from Thurgood Marshall, that she

89
00:05:35,080 --> 00:05:38,080
Speaker 1: learned about the effect of these laws in real life.

90
00:05:38,160 --> 00:05:40,559
Speaker 1: He by the way of the last justice who had

91
00:05:40,600 --> 00:05:44,719
Speaker 1: a real public defense background. UM. And so that kind

92
00:05:44,720 --> 00:05:48,040
Speaker 1: of learning can happen. I'm a little skeptical that that's

93
00:05:48,080 --> 00:05:51,279
Speaker 1: going to happen on the Court in the foreseeable future

94
00:05:51,360 --> 00:05:54,960
Speaker 1: because UM, all that we've heard suggests that most of

95
00:05:54,960 --> 00:05:57,600
Speaker 1: the way in which they communicate is through or argument

96
00:05:58,040 --> 00:06:01,400
Speaker 1: and then a little bit UM in the UM a

97
00:06:01,560 --> 00:06:04,880
Speaker 1: conference that they have UM when they are deciding the cases.

98
00:06:04,920 --> 00:06:08,680
Speaker 1: So they're not engaging that back and forth UM. Justices

99
00:06:08,720 --> 00:06:12,039
Speaker 1: also read each other's opinions and sometimes they change their mind.

100
00:06:12,120 --> 00:06:15,640
Speaker 1: There are opinions that sometimes could be assigned to someone

101
00:06:15,680 --> 00:06:19,200
Speaker 1: that are originally in dissent that can turn into a majority. UM.

102
00:06:19,279 --> 00:06:23,520
Speaker 1: So justices can change their mind. Now most of of

103
00:06:23,600 --> 00:06:25,880
Speaker 1: us think, well, how could this ever happen when we

104
00:06:25,960 --> 00:06:29,559
Speaker 1: know that their views are so set on a range

105
00:06:29,560 --> 00:06:33,360
Speaker 1: of issues. And that's because I think we as the public,

106
00:06:33,440 --> 00:06:37,280
Speaker 1: we pay attention to many of the high profile issues UM.

107
00:06:37,320 --> 00:06:43,279
Speaker 1: The most high profile issues UM, abortion, UM, affirmative action, UM.

108
00:06:43,400 --> 00:06:47,280
Speaker 1: Maybe I put voting rights on that, some questions around UM,

109
00:06:47,360 --> 00:06:50,599
Speaker 1: the administrative state, you know, the power of regulation in

110
00:06:50,600 --> 00:06:53,080
Speaker 1: the area of environment. I mean, those are maybe high

111
00:06:53,120 --> 00:06:58,080
Speaker 1: salience issues where the justices um their opinions. We might

112
00:06:58,080 --> 00:07:00,760
Speaker 1: already know their approach, and so maybe she shift people

113
00:07:00,800 --> 00:07:03,360
Speaker 1: on that. But there are many other issues that the

114
00:07:03,400 --> 00:07:07,440
Speaker 1: court decides UM, that affect the rules and trial cord,

115
00:07:07,720 --> 00:07:12,840
Speaker 1: that affect UM, criminal defendants UM, and some of those UM,

116
00:07:12,880 --> 00:07:17,680
Speaker 1: there is the opportunity to have alignments UM that are

117
00:07:17,760 --> 00:07:21,640
Speaker 1: unexpected or even for the justices all to agree. She

118
00:07:21,760 --> 00:07:29,720
Speaker 1: went through two days of aggressive bruising questioning, where the

119
00:07:29,760 --> 00:07:34,280
Speaker 1: Republicans attacked her for being soft on crime, a proponent

120
00:07:34,320 --> 00:07:39,320
Speaker 1: of critical race theory representing terrorists. Now, no one ever

121
00:07:39,400 --> 00:07:43,000
Speaker 1: questioned her qualifications to sit on the court. But do

122
00:07:43,000 --> 00:07:47,360
Speaker 1: you think the hearings in any way taint this historic confirmation,

123
00:07:48,280 --> 00:07:53,040
Speaker 1: So I think that it taints the Senate most of all,

124
00:07:53,480 --> 00:07:57,240
Speaker 1: So backing up for a second, going in, this is

125
00:07:57,440 --> 00:08:02,000
Speaker 1: unfortunate because she was confirmed in a bipartisan way for

126
00:08:02,160 --> 00:08:05,480
Speaker 1: the Trial court um she was confirmed, as it has

127
00:08:05,520 --> 00:08:08,400
Speaker 1: been pointed out, for the Sentencing Commission. She was elevated

128
00:08:08,440 --> 00:08:11,280
Speaker 1: after being a trial court judge to the DC Circuit,

129
00:08:11,560 --> 00:08:15,360
Speaker 1: and it wasn't as overwhelmingly bipartisan, but there were Republicans

130
00:08:15,400 --> 00:08:18,280
Speaker 1: who voted for her, so coming in that really there

131
00:08:18,360 --> 00:08:21,600
Speaker 1: was nothing in her record, nothing in her record that

132
00:08:21,600 --> 00:08:26,880
Speaker 1: should have drawn particular opposition. Now, I think that Senators

133
00:08:26,960 --> 00:08:31,840
Speaker 1: should really sharply question potential justices. It's really important. We

134
00:08:31,880 --> 00:08:34,760
Speaker 1: call it, in the constitutional context advice and consent, and

135
00:08:35,040 --> 00:08:37,280
Speaker 1: you want the Senate to play a very vigorous role

136
00:08:37,320 --> 00:08:41,320
Speaker 1: when you're talking about lifetime appointments. That said, going in,

137
00:08:41,480 --> 00:08:43,880
Speaker 1: I'm not sure there's much she could have done to

138
00:08:43,960 --> 00:08:47,240
Speaker 1: win over certain Republicans. And really some of the things

139
00:08:47,280 --> 00:08:49,200
Speaker 1: she was asked about had nothing to do with her.

140
00:08:49,520 --> 00:08:51,199
Speaker 1: They had to do with the idea of a kind

141
00:08:51,240 --> 00:08:56,000
Speaker 1: of liberal constitutionalism that seemed very outdated and didn't have

142
00:08:56,040 --> 00:08:57,920
Speaker 1: anything to do with her record, which is really is

143
00:08:57,960 --> 00:09:01,679
Speaker 1: a very kind of careful, incremental trial court judge. And

144
00:09:01,720 --> 00:09:03,920
Speaker 1: then they asked a series of questions that I put

145
00:09:03,920 --> 00:09:07,680
Speaker 1: on the side of quite inappropriate about things like critical

146
00:09:07,800 --> 00:09:11,240
Speaker 1: race theory, and it felt that just because she was

147
00:09:11,280 --> 00:09:13,240
Speaker 1: a black woman sitting there, she should be able to

148
00:09:13,280 --> 00:09:16,640
Speaker 1: opine on and those were quite offensive. They were shocking

149
00:09:16,960 --> 00:09:20,600
Speaker 1: set of questions about her religion. I felt she was

150
00:09:20,760 --> 00:09:24,200
Speaker 1: incredibly poised through it all. So the short answer is,

151
00:09:24,280 --> 00:09:26,560
Speaker 1: I think it made the Senate look bad. I teach

152
00:09:26,640 --> 00:09:29,200
Speaker 1: my students that advice and consent matters, that the Senate

153
00:09:29,280 --> 00:09:32,360
Speaker 1: is this great, deliberated institution, and it's hard for them

154
00:09:32,360 --> 00:09:35,280
Speaker 1: to take me seriously after seeing some of that. But

155
00:09:35,559 --> 00:09:38,880
Speaker 1: on the flip side, what I heard was she was

156
00:09:38,960 --> 00:09:43,400
Speaker 1: incredibly poised. My respect for her increased through that. And

157
00:09:43,520 --> 00:09:46,560
Speaker 1: so I'm sure the American people will have a mix

158
00:09:46,600 --> 00:09:49,400
Speaker 1: of views on that, because we are a deeply divided country.

159
00:09:49,400 --> 00:09:52,040
Speaker 1: But even some of the polling suggests that there's more

160
00:09:52,080 --> 00:09:55,400
Speaker 1: support for her and more favorable view of her for

161
00:09:55,480 --> 00:09:58,520
Speaker 1: having gone through that process. You know, despite that process,

162
00:09:58,720 --> 00:10:02,080
Speaker 1: Thanks so much for your in sights. That's Professor Alatun

163
00:10:02,160 --> 00:10:07,000
Speaker 1: Day Johnson of Columbia Law School. A judge has denied

164
00:10:07,040 --> 00:10:10,520
Speaker 1: the Lane Maxwell a new trial on sex trafficking charges

165
00:10:10,920 --> 00:10:14,400
Speaker 1: over a juror's failure to disclose during jury selection that

166
00:10:14,520 --> 00:10:17,920
Speaker 1: he was a victim of childhood sex abuse. Judge Allison

167
00:10:18,040 --> 00:10:21,480
Speaker 1: Nathan's ruling ends for now a drama that called into

168
00:10:21,600 --> 00:10:25,720
Speaker 1: question a verdict widely hailed as bringing long delayed justice

169
00:10:25,760 --> 00:10:29,800
Speaker 1: to Epstein's victims. Joining me as former federal prosecutor Robert

170
00:10:29,840 --> 00:10:33,679
Speaker 1: Mentz a partner mcarter in English, Judge Allison Nathan said

171
00:10:33,720 --> 00:10:37,800
Speaker 1: Maxwell's lawyers had failed to satisfy the requirements for granting

172
00:10:37,840 --> 00:10:40,480
Speaker 1: a new trial in a criminal case. What are those

173
00:10:40,520 --> 00:10:44,520
Speaker 1: requirements and why did you think they failed to satisfy them.

174
00:10:44,720 --> 00:10:49,079
Speaker 1: Hearing of the potential jur misconduct after a conviction are rare,

175
00:10:49,160 --> 00:10:52,040
Speaker 1: but they're not unheard of, and it really turns on

176
00:10:52,120 --> 00:10:56,119
Speaker 1: the question of whether the jur misconduct denied and defended

177
00:10:56,360 --> 00:11:00,280
Speaker 1: a completely unbiased jury. So in this case, the sense

178
00:11:00,360 --> 00:11:02,840
Speaker 1: did not need to show that the information was held

179
00:11:02,880 --> 00:11:05,480
Speaker 1: by the juror would have altered the outcome of the verdict,

180
00:11:05,600 --> 00:11:09,040
Speaker 1: only that the juror knowingly lied to enhance their chances

181
00:11:09,040 --> 00:11:11,880
Speaker 1: of getting onto the jury, and so the question before

182
00:11:11,920 --> 00:11:14,679
Speaker 1: the judge at the hearing was whether or not this

183
00:11:14,800 --> 00:11:18,280
Speaker 1: juror had intentionally lied in order to get on the jury,

184
00:11:18,520 --> 00:11:21,560
Speaker 1: and most importantly, whether or not that juror could be

185
00:11:21,679 --> 00:11:24,400
Speaker 1: unbiased and could listen to the evidence and could render

186
00:11:24,480 --> 00:11:28,880
Speaker 1: ultimately a fair and impartial verdict. Nathan disagreed with the

187
00:11:28,960 --> 00:11:32,960
Speaker 1: idea that past victims would not be fair jurors. But

188
00:11:33,160 --> 00:11:36,680
Speaker 1: isn't it obvious that this juror's passed abuse made a

189
00:11:36,720 --> 00:11:39,480
Speaker 1: difference in the case because he said it did. He

190
00:11:39,559 --> 00:11:44,120
Speaker 1: told several media outlets that he raised his childhood abused

191
00:11:44,240 --> 00:11:48,000
Speaker 1: during deliberations to sway other jurors. Yeah, that's a very

192
00:11:48,040 --> 00:11:52,000
Speaker 1: interesting question. And the real issue here is whether or

193
00:11:52,040 --> 00:11:56,040
Speaker 1: not the past history of this juror gave this jur

194
00:11:56,120 --> 00:11:59,160
Speaker 1: an impermissible stake in the outcome of the trial. In

195
00:11:59,200 --> 00:12:02,840
Speaker 1: other words, was a jur an unbiased fact finder or

196
00:12:02,960 --> 00:12:06,240
Speaker 1: was a youur an advocate for a particular cause with

197
00:12:06,360 --> 00:12:09,400
Speaker 1: their own agenda. And that's what the defense argued here.

198
00:12:09,640 --> 00:12:12,760
Speaker 1: But the judge ultimately found that despite the history of

199
00:12:12,840 --> 00:12:17,240
Speaker 1: child sexual abuse that was not disclosed during the jury questionnaire,

200
00:12:17,280 --> 00:12:20,040
Speaker 1: despite the fact that it was clearly asked on that questionnaire,

201
00:12:20,559 --> 00:12:23,400
Speaker 1: that that did not result in an unfair trial for

202
00:12:23,520 --> 00:12:27,400
Speaker 1: miss Maxwell, and the verdict was therefore upheld. Nathan wrote

203
00:12:27,559 --> 00:12:30,160
Speaker 1: that the juror was not biased and would not have

204
00:12:30,240 --> 00:12:34,040
Speaker 1: been stricken for cause even if he's answered every question

205
00:12:34,080 --> 00:12:37,840
Speaker 1: on the questionnaire accurately. She said that whether the defendant

206
00:12:37,840 --> 00:12:41,440
Speaker 1: would have exercised the peremptory strike against this juror had

207
00:12:41,440 --> 00:12:45,400
Speaker 1: he actually disclosed his prior sexual abuse is not an issue.

208
00:12:45,840 --> 00:12:48,520
Speaker 1: Why isn't that an issue. Doesn't the defense have a

209
00:12:48,640 --> 00:12:53,080
Speaker 1: right to exercise peremptory challenges to get a jury they

210
00:12:53,160 --> 00:12:55,800
Speaker 1: believe will be fair. Yeah, I think that really goes

211
00:12:55,840 --> 00:12:58,160
Speaker 1: to the heart of this question. And the judge made

212
00:12:58,160 --> 00:13:02,679
Speaker 1: the point, as you say, simply because a juror is

213
00:13:02,760 --> 00:13:06,800
Speaker 1: themselves a victim of sexual abuse does not preclude them

214
00:13:06,840 --> 00:13:10,679
Speaker 1: from sitting as a juror on the trial about sexual abuse.

215
00:13:11,120 --> 00:13:13,880
Speaker 1: In other words, it is not correct to conclude that

216
00:13:13,920 --> 00:13:16,880
Speaker 1: an individual with a history of sexual abuse can never

217
00:13:16,920 --> 00:13:19,960
Speaker 1: serve as a fair and impartial juror. But in this case,

218
00:13:20,120 --> 00:13:23,280
Speaker 1: what the defense was arguing was not that this juror

219
00:13:23,280 --> 00:13:27,200
Speaker 1: should have immediately been disqualified had he disclosed a history

220
00:13:27,200 --> 00:13:30,520
Speaker 1: of sexual abuse, but that they were denied the opportunity

221
00:13:30,800 --> 00:13:34,840
Speaker 1: to question him about that experience and to determine whether

222
00:13:34,960 --> 00:13:37,880
Speaker 1: or not he really could have been fair and impartial,

223
00:13:38,200 --> 00:13:40,959
Speaker 1: and they could have ultimately decided, as you say, to

224
00:13:41,440 --> 00:13:44,920
Speaker 1: strike him with a peremptory challenge as opposed to a

225
00:13:45,000 --> 00:13:48,520
Speaker 1: challenge for cause, and they were denied that opportunity because

226
00:13:48,800 --> 00:13:52,559
Speaker 1: the juror did not disclose the past history of sexual abuse.

227
00:13:53,200 --> 00:13:57,880
Speaker 1: A retrial would have meant the victims testifying again, the

228
00:13:58,000 --> 00:14:01,560
Speaker 1: state being put to great ex ends with another long trial.

229
00:14:02,120 --> 00:14:07,400
Speaker 1: Were those factors the judge considered in denying a new trial, Well,

230
00:14:07,400 --> 00:14:10,040
Speaker 1: though it's our factors the judge should not have considered.

231
00:14:10,280 --> 00:14:14,080
Speaker 1: The judge really cannot deny the defendant a fair trial here,

232
00:14:14,200 --> 00:14:17,640
Speaker 1: and the issue really simply came down to the question

233
00:14:17,720 --> 00:14:21,680
Speaker 1: of whether or not. After this subsequent post verdict hearing,

234
00:14:22,000 --> 00:14:25,920
Speaker 1: the judge concluded that this juror harbored no bias towards

235
00:14:25,920 --> 00:14:28,520
Speaker 1: the defendant and could have served as a fair and

236
00:14:28,560 --> 00:14:32,400
Speaker 1: impartial juror. That was refinding, and despite the fact that

237
00:14:32,520 --> 00:14:36,600
Speaker 1: the juror did not disclose his past history of sexual abuse,

238
00:14:36,920 --> 00:14:40,240
Speaker 1: the judge concluded that it did not preclude him from

239
00:14:40,240 --> 00:14:43,440
Speaker 1: being fair and impartial and therefore did not change the

240
00:14:43,520 --> 00:14:46,520
Speaker 1: outcome of the verdict. And it's especially interesting in this

241
00:14:46,600 --> 00:14:50,760
Speaker 1: case because this jury gave multiple media interviews saying that

242
00:14:50,800 --> 00:14:53,320
Speaker 1: he was a victim of childhood sexual abuse. That's how

243
00:14:53,360 --> 00:14:56,200
Speaker 1: this whole issue came to light, and he told various

244
00:14:56,240 --> 00:14:59,960
Speaker 1: media outlets that he discussed this experience with fellow juror,

245
00:15:00,320 --> 00:15:05,520
Speaker 1: particularly his difficulty remembering specific details of abuse, just like

246
00:15:05,600 --> 00:15:09,160
Speaker 1: two of the women who testified against Maxwell, he believed,

247
00:15:09,240 --> 00:15:12,480
Speaker 1: He said that his input may have helped other jurors

248
00:15:12,480 --> 00:15:16,200
Speaker 1: believe their testimonies were credible, even if they couldn't recall

249
00:15:16,360 --> 00:15:20,840
Speaker 1: or misremember aspects of the abuse. So the juror acknowledged

250
00:15:20,880 --> 00:15:25,680
Speaker 1: in these post trial interviews that his history of childhood

251
00:15:25,720 --> 00:15:29,320
Speaker 1: sexual abuse was actually discussed during deliberations and may have

252
00:15:29,440 --> 00:15:32,920
Speaker 1: swayed other jurors in reaching their verdict. But that is

253
00:15:32,960 --> 00:15:36,000
Speaker 1: not something that the judge asked the juror about during

254
00:15:36,000 --> 00:15:39,320
Speaker 1: this post trial hearing, and that's because judges are not

255
00:15:39,400 --> 00:15:42,240
Speaker 1: permitted to ask jurors about anything that goes on in

256
00:15:42,240 --> 00:15:45,800
Speaker 1: the jury room about those deliberations, So that area of

257
00:15:45,800 --> 00:15:49,680
Speaker 1: inquiry was not something that came up during the hearing. Instead,

258
00:15:49,760 --> 00:15:52,640
Speaker 1: the judge focused on how it was that this juror

259
00:15:52,680 --> 00:15:55,080
Speaker 1: failed to disclose the fact that he had been a

260
00:15:55,160 --> 00:15:57,640
Speaker 1: victim of childhood sexual abuse, and his answer to that

261
00:15:57,720 --> 00:16:00,000
Speaker 1: was simply that he rushed to answer the jury question

262
00:16:00,000 --> 00:16:02,000
Speaker 1: and there did not pay close attention to it, and

263
00:16:02,120 --> 00:16:04,760
Speaker 1: that it was an honest mistake. The key to that

264
00:16:04,880 --> 00:16:08,440
Speaker 1: finding was the judge believing the juror that it was

265
00:16:08,480 --> 00:16:11,240
Speaker 1: an honest mistake and that it was not an attempt

266
00:16:11,280 --> 00:16:14,560
Speaker 1: by this juror to try to get on the jury

267
00:16:14,600 --> 00:16:17,360
Speaker 1: in order to be an advocate for the victims. This

268
00:16:17,440 --> 00:16:20,760
Speaker 1: is most likely going to be appealed to the second Circuit.

269
00:16:21,360 --> 00:16:24,640
Speaker 1: What are the chances of the second circuit reversing what

270
00:16:24,720 --> 00:16:29,160
Speaker 1: a trial judge decided at the hearing? The judge made

271
00:16:29,160 --> 00:16:32,640
Speaker 1: a credibility finding as to whether or not this curor

272
00:16:32,760 --> 00:16:36,240
Speaker 1: intentionally withheld that information and whether or not that juror

273
00:16:36,320 --> 00:16:39,040
Speaker 1: could have been fair and impartial. And it's difficult for

274
00:16:39,080 --> 00:16:42,360
Speaker 1: the Court of Appeals to turn around and reverse that

275
00:16:42,520 --> 00:16:45,560
Speaker 1: ruling because it is one of credibility and it was

276
00:16:45,600 --> 00:16:48,920
Speaker 1: a trial judge who was there during that testimony. And

277
00:16:48,960 --> 00:16:50,960
Speaker 1: you add on top of that the fact that it

278
00:16:51,080 --> 00:16:53,960
Speaker 1: is rare for judges to order new trials in the

279
00:16:53,960 --> 00:16:57,000
Speaker 1: event of juror misconduct. They're really loath to have to

280
00:16:57,040 --> 00:17:00,280
Speaker 1: do that because it does require trying the case all

281
00:17:00,280 --> 00:17:03,960
Speaker 1: over again, and in this particular case, subjecting the victims

282
00:17:04,000 --> 00:17:07,679
Speaker 1: of sexual abuse to yet another trial, yet another ordeal,

283
00:17:07,760 --> 00:17:11,440
Speaker 1: yet another cross examination by the defense, so that undoubtedly

284
00:17:11,800 --> 00:17:14,040
Speaker 1: somewhere was in the back of the judge's mind in

285
00:17:14,119 --> 00:17:18,840
Speaker 1: making this decision. During misconduct after a conviction is always rare.

286
00:17:18,880 --> 00:17:21,359
Speaker 1: It's not unheard of, but it doesn't happen all the time,

287
00:17:21,680 --> 00:17:23,960
Speaker 1: and the defense likes to jump on these because it's

288
00:17:24,000 --> 00:17:27,439
Speaker 1: an opportunity really to overturn the conviction even before an

289
00:17:27,440 --> 00:17:30,080
Speaker 1: appeal is filed, based on their claim that the ger

290
00:17:30,160 --> 00:17:34,520
Speaker 1: misconduct denied their client a completely unbiased jury. From the

291
00:17:34,600 --> 00:17:38,840
Speaker 1: prosecution standpoint, it is their absolute worst nightmare because it

292
00:17:38,880 --> 00:17:43,240
Speaker 1: has the potential to unravel the conviction almost immediately after

293
00:17:43,280 --> 00:17:47,280
Speaker 1: a lengthy, high stakes trial, which is exactly what happened here.

294
00:17:47,480 --> 00:17:53,520
Speaker 1: Thanks Bob. That's Robert McCarter and English US antitrust chiefs

295
00:17:53,640 --> 00:17:58,040
Speaker 1: voice support for an American crackdown on gatekeeper tech giants.

296
00:17:58,080 --> 00:18:01,760
Speaker 1: Promising stricter deal reviews. This just a week after the

297
00:18:01,800 --> 00:18:04,679
Speaker 1: European Union reached a deal reigning in the likes of

298
00:18:04,720 --> 00:18:08,400
Speaker 1: Google and meta platforms. Joining me is Jennifer Rey Bloomberger

299
00:18:08,440 --> 00:18:12,879
Speaker 1: Intelligence senior litigation analyst. Jen tell us what Jonathan Cantor,

300
00:18:13,040 --> 00:18:16,520
Speaker 1: the head of the Justice Department's antitrust Division, has been

301
00:18:16,560 --> 00:18:20,200
Speaker 1: saying lately about mrger enforcement. So recently, he's been talking

302
00:18:20,240 --> 00:18:23,520
Speaker 1: a lot about how to bolster merger enforcement, you know,

303
00:18:23,560 --> 00:18:26,399
Speaker 1: before these deals are even done, to try to stem

304
00:18:26,400 --> 00:18:28,760
Speaker 1: the tide that some belief has occurred over the last

305
00:18:28,760 --> 00:18:31,600
Speaker 1: ten to twenty years of allowing too many murgers to

306
00:18:31,640 --> 00:18:35,000
Speaker 1: go forward, and many industries that are overly concentrated. And

307
00:18:35,040 --> 00:18:37,160
Speaker 1: he's focused on a lot of different areas, but one

308
00:18:37,200 --> 00:18:40,040
Speaker 1: in particular he talks about a lot is preventing the

309
00:18:40,080 --> 00:18:42,760
Speaker 1: acquisition of a nascent competitor that's kind of a new

310
00:18:42,800 --> 00:18:45,160
Speaker 1: small company that's sort of up and coming and has

311
00:18:45,240 --> 00:18:47,920
Speaker 1: yet to develop, that is bought by a potential rival,

312
00:18:48,040 --> 00:18:50,320
Speaker 1: a company that weigh down the road. If this nascent

313
00:18:50,320 --> 00:18:54,240
Speaker 1: competitor developed, became more vibrant, became you know, a bigger

314
00:18:54,359 --> 00:18:56,960
Speaker 1: rival would be able to challenge the incumbent, and so

315
00:18:57,240 --> 00:19:01,200
Speaker 1: particularly in the big tech platform we're old. What has

316
00:19:01,280 --> 00:19:03,840
Speaker 1: been observed is that over the years, these big tech

317
00:19:03,880 --> 00:19:06,520
Speaker 1: platforms have been able to sort of watch the market

318
00:19:06,600 --> 00:19:09,399
Speaker 1: and watch for these potential threats and still buy them

319
00:19:09,440 --> 00:19:12,320
Speaker 1: up when they're really small, you know, not making great

320
00:19:12,359 --> 00:19:15,600
Speaker 1: revenues or profits, and then gobble them up before they

321
00:19:15,600 --> 00:19:17,600
Speaker 1: can get big and compete with them, or you know,

322
00:19:17,720 --> 00:19:20,240
Speaker 1: take them under their wing and develop them, but still

323
00:19:20,280 --> 00:19:22,679
Speaker 1: as part of their company and not as a rival.

324
00:19:22,880 --> 00:19:25,720
Speaker 1: And so he in particular is focusing on trying to

325
00:19:25,760 --> 00:19:28,960
Speaker 1: do better as a merger enforcer to see these deals,

326
00:19:29,000 --> 00:19:31,760
Speaker 1: to catch these deals, and to try to stop these

327
00:19:31,760 --> 00:19:34,960
Speaker 1: deals before they get closed. How is this different from

328
00:19:35,000 --> 00:19:39,720
Speaker 1: what we heard before with say, Facebook and WhatsApp? Isn't

329
00:19:39,720 --> 00:19:42,560
Speaker 1: it the same message? Yes, it really is generally the

330
00:19:42,600 --> 00:19:46,359
Speaker 1: same message message, But we're just talking about enforcing prior

331
00:19:46,440 --> 00:19:48,800
Speaker 1: to the act. You know, with Facebook, they're going back

332
00:19:48,840 --> 00:19:52,160
Speaker 1: and they're challenging consummated deals that occurred a long time ago,

333
00:19:52,240 --> 00:19:54,160
Speaker 1: and what they're saying is, hey, we made a mistake

334
00:19:54,200 --> 00:19:57,600
Speaker 1: back then when Facebook acquired What's happened when Facebook acquired

335
00:19:57,600 --> 00:20:00,679
Speaker 1: Instagram and we basically cleared it through the agencies, we

336
00:20:00,720 --> 00:20:03,199
Speaker 1: made a mistake and we shouldn't have. These were nascent

337
00:20:03,200 --> 00:20:05,240
Speaker 1: competitors that may have been able to come up and

338
00:20:05,280 --> 00:20:08,720
Speaker 1: be arrival to Facebook. The FTC has suit Facebook now

339
00:20:08,760 --> 00:20:10,960
Speaker 1: to try to unwind these deals. That's going to be

340
00:20:11,040 --> 00:20:13,640
Speaker 1: working its way through court for some time. And what

341
00:20:13,680 --> 00:20:16,080
Speaker 1: the agencies are saying now is we need to stop

342
00:20:16,080 --> 00:20:18,439
Speaker 1: the mergers before they actually close. We need to be

343
00:20:18,520 --> 00:20:22,439
Speaker 1: more vigilant when they're first proposed about understanding that this

344
00:20:22,600 --> 00:20:26,280
Speaker 1: small company that's being bought is a company that could actually,

345
00:20:26,560 --> 00:20:29,080
Speaker 1: if given the time, could flourish and become a rival

346
00:20:29,280 --> 00:20:31,919
Speaker 1: to the company that's buying it. The EU always seems

347
00:20:31,960 --> 00:20:34,159
Speaker 1: to be ahead of the curve on these things. What

348
00:20:34,240 --> 00:20:37,680
Speaker 1: happened in the EU, so in the EU UH there

349
00:20:37,760 --> 00:20:41,280
Speaker 1: was political agreement between the European Commission and the Parliament

350
00:20:41,440 --> 00:20:45,320
Speaker 1: on new legislation called the Digital Markets Act. It's actually

351
00:20:45,359 --> 00:20:48,000
Speaker 1: quite similar to legislation that's being considered here in the

352
00:20:48,080 --> 00:20:51,320
Speaker 1: United States as well. But what that legislation is intended

353
00:20:51,359 --> 00:20:55,760
Speaker 1: to do is create a more fair playing field for

354
00:20:55,920 --> 00:20:58,960
Speaker 1: digital platforms and smaller companies that work with them or

355
00:20:59,040 --> 00:21:02,159
Speaker 1: may compete with them. And what it does generally is

356
00:21:02,200 --> 00:21:07,359
Speaker 1: prohibit self preferencing conduct by the platforms, for instance, using

357
00:21:07,400 --> 00:21:09,479
Speaker 1: the data of a company you compete with but that

358
00:21:09,560 --> 00:21:12,920
Speaker 1: also relies on you as a digital platform to benefit

359
00:21:12,960 --> 00:21:16,240
Speaker 1: your own products and services, or let's say, in search results,

360
00:21:16,400 --> 00:21:18,640
Speaker 1: pushing your own products up to the top of search

361
00:21:18,680 --> 00:21:23,160
Speaker 1: results if it's not warranted or merited. Also prohibit certain

362
00:21:23,240 --> 00:21:26,120
Speaker 1: kinds of discrimination, for instance, of the company is using

363
00:21:26,200 --> 00:21:28,400
Speaker 1: some of your products but not all of your products,

364
00:21:28,440 --> 00:21:31,000
Speaker 1: you're you're giving them a harder time or favoring the

365
00:21:31,040 --> 00:21:33,919
Speaker 1: companies that actually do use your full range of products.

366
00:21:33,960 --> 00:21:37,879
Speaker 1: And also required certain amount of interoperability between companies and

367
00:21:37,880 --> 00:21:41,320
Speaker 1: their rivals and other third parties. So that law moved

368
00:21:41,440 --> 00:21:44,399
Speaker 1: much closer to actually being enacted, and it actually looks

369
00:21:44,440 --> 00:21:47,359
Speaker 1: like it might be so some of these big tech platforms,

370
00:21:47,359 --> 00:21:49,520
Speaker 1: because right now it really only covers a handful of

371
00:21:49,520 --> 00:21:52,280
Speaker 1: the really big digital platforms, may actually have to come

372
00:21:52,280 --> 00:21:55,760
Speaker 1: in compliance with this law. Sometime in two thousand twenty three,

373
00:21:56,080 --> 00:21:58,680
Speaker 1: maybe early two thousand twenty four, you said, the US

374
00:21:58,720 --> 00:22:01,800
Speaker 1: has a similar bill. How similar is it? You know,

375
00:22:01,880 --> 00:22:04,639
Speaker 1: it's it's quite similar. It's called the American Innovation and

376
00:22:04,760 --> 00:22:07,240
Speaker 1: Choice Online Act. And now it's a little farther away.

377
00:22:07,280 --> 00:22:09,480
Speaker 1: You know, we obviously in the United States, we have

378
00:22:09,560 --> 00:22:13,240
Speaker 1: a different process um and you need bipartisan backing really

379
00:22:13,240 --> 00:22:16,760
Speaker 1: for any bill to today to become enacted and become law.

380
00:22:17,080 --> 00:22:19,359
Speaker 1: So we're a little bit farther behind. But this bill

381
00:22:19,440 --> 00:22:23,119
Speaker 1: actually has been voted through the Senate Judiciary Committee and

382
00:22:23,160 --> 00:22:26,959
Speaker 1: has pretty strong bipartisan backing, very similar to the Digital

383
00:22:27,000 --> 00:22:30,520
Speaker 1: Markets Act. It also would ban self preferencing by big

384
00:22:30,560 --> 00:22:35,160
Speaker 1: tech platforms. Right now, it really only covers Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google,

385
00:22:35,200 --> 00:22:38,000
Speaker 1: and maybe Microsoft that's a little bit unclear. Has a

386
00:22:38,000 --> 00:22:40,960
Speaker 1: few affirmative defenses for certain kind of conduct, but really

387
00:22:41,040 --> 00:22:44,400
Speaker 1: very limited. I believe that it does have some prospects,

388
00:22:44,440 --> 00:22:47,919
Speaker 1: but I don't necessarily think as it's written today it

389
00:22:48,000 --> 00:22:50,560
Speaker 1: could actually get through a floor vote in the Senate

390
00:22:50,600 --> 00:22:53,040
Speaker 1: and even in the House and become law. In the

391
00:22:53,080 --> 00:22:55,280
Speaker 1: committee it was sixteen to six in the votes. It

392
00:22:55,359 --> 00:22:58,520
Speaker 1: was all Democrats and then some Republicans, but many of

393
00:22:58,520 --> 00:23:01,359
Speaker 1: the yes votes were sort of contingent. Yes is that

394
00:23:01,400 --> 00:23:03,080
Speaker 1: we want to keep working on it. We think it

395
00:23:03,119 --> 00:23:06,159
Speaker 1: needs improvement or change before we'd actually vote yes on

396
00:23:06,200 --> 00:23:08,720
Speaker 1: the floor, So it means it's still developing and changing

397
00:23:08,720 --> 00:23:10,520
Speaker 1: and so we're going to have to see, you know,

398
00:23:10,680 --> 00:23:14,080
Speaker 1: where that comes out before we understand how strong it

399
00:23:14,160 --> 00:23:16,200
Speaker 1: is and if it's really as tough as the Digital

400
00:23:16,200 --> 00:23:19,960
Speaker 1: Markets Act is. We heard that under the Biden administration,

401
00:23:20,000 --> 00:23:23,760
Speaker 1: antitrust enforcement was going to be tougher. Have we seen

402
00:23:23,840 --> 00:23:26,480
Speaker 1: that or is it too soon? You know? I think

403
00:23:26,520 --> 00:23:29,200
Speaker 1: we have seen it. And it's remarkable because law moves

404
00:23:29,280 --> 00:23:32,199
Speaker 1: very slowly, in a particular, anti trust law moves very slowly.

405
00:23:32,400 --> 00:23:34,960
Speaker 1: But in particular, the Department of Justice has been really

406
00:23:35,000 --> 00:23:38,880
Speaker 1: aggressive and they've been quite successful in suing to try

407
00:23:38,920 --> 00:23:41,639
Speaker 1: to block mergers and then getting those deals to go

408
00:23:41,840 --> 00:23:45,280
Speaker 1: to abandonment rather than actually taking their resources to litigate

409
00:23:45,280 --> 00:23:47,600
Speaker 1: through which is for the Department of Justice an ideal

410
00:23:47,640 --> 00:23:50,440
Speaker 1: outcome because they get what they want, they kill the deal,

411
00:23:50,520 --> 00:23:52,640
Speaker 1: but they don't have to use their resources to litigate

412
00:23:52,640 --> 00:23:55,159
Speaker 1: all through court. They've been very active. Now the Federal

413
00:23:55,160 --> 00:23:58,240
Speaker 1: Trade Commission, I believe will become much more active. Um

414
00:23:58,560 --> 00:24:01,919
Speaker 1: The chairs hands have and tied for some time because

415
00:24:01,960 --> 00:24:04,399
Speaker 1: they don't have their full slate of five commissioners. They

416
00:24:04,440 --> 00:24:07,760
Speaker 1: have a deadlock of two Republicans and two Democrats. Now

417
00:24:07,760 --> 00:24:10,679
Speaker 1: they have sued to block a few mergers on mostly

418
00:24:10,760 --> 00:24:13,520
Speaker 1: unanimous votes, so they've been able to get some bipartisan

419
00:24:13,560 --> 00:24:16,080
Speaker 1: agreement there. But I do think they will become more

420
00:24:16,080 --> 00:24:21,879
Speaker 1: aggressive and more activist interventionist once the fifth Democrat is confirmed.

421
00:24:22,400 --> 00:24:26,800
Speaker 1: Thanks Jen. That's Jennifer Free, Bloomberg Intelligence Senior litigation analyst