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

2
00:00:09,960 --> 00:00:13,360
Speaker 1: A former police officer in Minnesota, Kim Potter, is facing

3
00:00:13,400 --> 00:00:16,560
Speaker 1: a second degree manslaughter charge for the shooting death of

4
00:00:16,600 --> 00:00:19,560
Speaker 1: a twenty year old black man, Dante Right, on Sunday.

5
00:00:19,960 --> 00:00:23,200
Speaker 1: Police say Right was pulled over for expired tags, but

6
00:00:23,280 --> 00:00:25,840
Speaker 1: they tried to arrest him after discovering he had an

7
00:00:25,880 --> 00:00:29,600
Speaker 1: outstanding warrant for failure to appear in court on charges

8
00:00:29,640 --> 00:00:32,280
Speaker 1: that he fled from officers and possessed a gun without

9
00:00:32,280 --> 00:00:35,480
Speaker 1: a permit. There have been four nights of protests over

10
00:00:35,520 --> 00:00:38,920
Speaker 1: the shooting, which was captured on videotape. The city's former

11
00:00:38,960 --> 00:00:42,640
Speaker 1: police chief says Potter mistakenly fired her handgun when she

12
00:00:42,720 --> 00:00:45,680
Speaker 1: meant to use her taser. Both the chief and Potter

13
00:00:45,800 --> 00:00:50,080
Speaker 1: resigned on Tuesday. Wright's family members and black community leaders

14
00:00:50,120 --> 00:00:54,680
Speaker 1: are calling for more serious charges. Nikima Levy Armstrong, a

15
00:00:54,760 --> 00:00:58,720
Speaker 1: civil rights lawyer and activist in Minneapolis, says Potter should

16
00:00:58,720 --> 00:01:01,480
Speaker 1: be held to a higher stand undered. Kim Potter is

17
00:01:01,520 --> 00:01:03,400
Speaker 1: a twenty six year veteran. The fact that she was

18
00:01:03,440 --> 00:01:06,319
Speaker 1: a field training officer and she should have known better

19
00:01:06,920 --> 00:01:10,319
Speaker 1: um in terms of distinguishing between a taser and a gun.

20
00:01:10,360 --> 00:01:12,880
Speaker 1: I do not believe that it was an accident. Joining

21
00:01:12,920 --> 00:01:16,759
Speaker 1: me as former federal prosecutor Eli Hoenig, what's your reaction

22
00:01:16,880 --> 00:01:20,280
Speaker 1: to the filing of the charges so quickly? Everything is

23
00:01:20,280 --> 00:01:23,600
Speaker 1: moving very very quickly with this case. The first of all,

24
00:01:23,600 --> 00:01:26,440
Speaker 1: the police released the body camera within twenty four hours

25
00:01:26,440 --> 00:01:28,880
Speaker 1: of the incident, which is faster than I've ever seen

26
00:01:28,920 --> 00:01:30,920
Speaker 1: body camera footage released. I think that was a good

27
00:01:30,920 --> 00:01:35,000
Speaker 1: and necessary step. Then they brought the charge just days later.

28
00:01:35,400 --> 00:01:38,319
Speaker 1: The initial charge right now is a manslaughter charge under

29
00:01:38,360 --> 00:01:41,959
Speaker 1: Minnesota law. It essentially charges what we call culpable negligence,

30
00:01:42,040 --> 00:01:46,480
Speaker 1: meaning that the officer created a grossly unreasonable risk. Not

31
00:01:46,560 --> 00:01:50,880
Speaker 1: that the officer intended necessarily to kill Mr. Wright, but

32
00:01:50,960 --> 00:01:54,080
Speaker 1: that she created a grossly unreasonable risk. So that'll be

33
00:01:54,120 --> 00:01:56,920
Speaker 1: an interesting question for the jury. Is there any possibility

34
00:01:57,000 --> 00:02:01,800
Speaker 1: that that the prosecutors may add charges as time goes on?

35
00:02:02,600 --> 00:02:06,520
Speaker 1: That absolutely is a possibility. Prosecutors frequently, especially in a

36
00:02:06,600 --> 00:02:09,520
Speaker 1: high profile case, or whether there's some need or impetus

37
00:02:09,560 --> 00:02:13,160
Speaker 1: to make an arrest quickly, will charge the most readily provable,

38
00:02:13,240 --> 00:02:16,639
Speaker 1: sort of most easily provable, lowest charge just to get

39
00:02:16,639 --> 00:02:18,560
Speaker 1: a charge on the books to make an arrest, and

40
00:02:18,600 --> 00:02:22,840
Speaker 1: then as the investigation progresses, prosecutors not uncommonly will add

41
00:02:22,919 --> 00:02:26,600
Speaker 1: charges or upgrade charges, or in some instances downgrade or

42
00:02:26,639 --> 00:02:29,880
Speaker 1: even dismiss charges as the evidence dictates. And just as

43
00:02:29,919 --> 00:02:33,280
Speaker 1: one example, this was done essentially with Derek Chulfin and

44
00:02:33,280 --> 00:02:35,680
Speaker 1: the George Floyd case. He was initially charged with actually

45
00:02:35,680 --> 00:02:39,359
Speaker 1: the same manslaughter charge that not charged against this officer,

46
00:02:39,960 --> 00:02:42,000
Speaker 1: as well as a third degree murder charge, and then

47
00:02:42,160 --> 00:02:45,799
Speaker 1: later prosecutors added a higher charge, a second degree murder charge.

48
00:02:45,800 --> 00:02:49,679
Speaker 1: So that's quite common. Does it seem though, that this

49
00:02:49,880 --> 00:02:54,760
Speaker 1: charge is the appropriate one here, because looking at the footage,

50
00:02:55,560 --> 00:02:58,760
Speaker 1: it seems like, however reckless it was, it was a mistake,

51
00:02:58,840 --> 00:03:03,080
Speaker 1: it was an intentional on her part. So this is

52
00:03:03,080 --> 00:03:05,880
Speaker 1: why I think this charge is appropriate. At the moment,

53
00:03:06,600 --> 00:03:12,519
Speaker 1: an act can be both accidental and negligent. So, for example,

54
00:03:12,600 --> 00:03:14,240
Speaker 1: if somebody were to get behind the wheel of a

55
00:03:14,240 --> 00:03:17,800
Speaker 1: car while severely impaired and then God forbid, hit a

56
00:03:17,880 --> 00:03:21,440
Speaker 1: person and kill that person, that would be an accident.

57
00:03:21,639 --> 00:03:25,080
Speaker 1: The driver didn't didn't intend to hit until somebody, But

58
00:03:25,160 --> 00:03:28,320
Speaker 1: it also would be culpable negligence. It would be manslaughter

59
00:03:28,360 --> 00:03:31,960
Speaker 1: because by getting behind the wheel with a severe impair

60
00:03:32,160 --> 00:03:36,240
Speaker 1: in severely impaired condition, you are creating and undo a

61
00:03:36,280 --> 00:03:40,360
Speaker 1: gross unreasonable risk. So there is room in the law

62
00:03:40,440 --> 00:03:43,040
Speaker 1: to charge somebody with a crime, even if it's an accident,

63
00:03:43,160 --> 00:03:47,920
Speaker 1: if that person also acted grossly negligently. This is such

64
00:03:47,960 --> 00:03:52,320
Speaker 1: a high profile case, but in other circumstances it seems

65
00:03:52,360 --> 00:03:55,480
Speaker 1: like it would be a good case for a plea deal. Look,

66
00:03:55,520 --> 00:03:58,760
Speaker 1: the vast majority of cases do end up pleading guilty.

67
00:03:58,840 --> 00:04:01,800
Speaker 1: This case could be different, however, because the stakes are

68
00:04:01,840 --> 00:04:04,080
Speaker 1: so high for both sides. I mean, on the one hand,

69
00:04:04,240 --> 00:04:06,400
Speaker 1: there's a lot of value I think from the prosecutor's

70
00:04:06,480 --> 00:04:09,240
Speaker 1: perspective in getting a guilty plea, because you lock in

71
00:04:09,280 --> 00:04:11,720
Speaker 1: the conviction, you get the person to admit guilt. On

72
00:04:11,760 --> 00:04:14,360
Speaker 1: the other hand, for the former police officer who has

73
00:04:14,360 --> 00:04:17,000
Speaker 1: been charged, if she gets convicted, she's looking it up

74
00:04:17,040 --> 00:04:19,159
Speaker 1: to ten years in prison, and if she sees a

75
00:04:19,160 --> 00:04:22,039
Speaker 1: way to sort of cut her risk and take a

76
00:04:22,040 --> 00:04:24,800
Speaker 1: plea deal and maybe limit herself to a much shorter

77
00:04:24,880 --> 00:04:27,360
Speaker 1: time in prison, I think she'll have to think hard

78
00:04:27,360 --> 00:04:31,880
Speaker 1: about that. There's been some reporting that Derek Chauvin tried

79
00:04:32,000 --> 00:04:35,000
Speaker 1: to get a plea deal. Do you have any information

80
00:04:35,040 --> 00:04:38,360
Speaker 1: about that. Well, I've seen what's been reported publicly that

81
00:04:38,400 --> 00:04:41,000
Speaker 1: he was interested in pleading guilty to a ten year charge.

82
00:04:41,040 --> 00:04:43,360
Speaker 1: But then William Barr, who at the time was Attorney

83
00:04:43,360 --> 00:04:46,760
Speaker 1: General of the United States, said no. And for anyone

84
00:04:46,839 --> 00:04:49,080
Speaker 1: wondering why would Bill barb be involved in this, this

85
00:04:49,160 --> 00:04:52,600
Speaker 1: is a state charge because any defendant in that position

86
00:04:52,680 --> 00:04:55,080
Speaker 1: is only going to take the charge if he knows

87
00:04:55,160 --> 00:04:57,200
Speaker 1: that he won't be charged by anybody else, because the

88
00:04:57,240 --> 00:04:59,840
Speaker 1: Feds still can charge Derek Schauvin. And so, in a

89
00:05:00,000 --> 00:05:03,120
Speaker 1: of words, as a practical matter, the Chauvin and his

90
00:05:03,200 --> 00:05:05,120
Speaker 1: lawyer would say, look, we're not taking a plea unless

91
00:05:05,120 --> 00:05:07,280
Speaker 1: the state of Minnesota signs off and d o J

92
00:05:07,440 --> 00:05:09,160
Speaker 1: signs off, because I don't want to plead guilty in

93
00:05:09,200 --> 00:05:12,080
Speaker 1: Minnesota and then get hit with a new charge by defense.

94
00:05:12,160 --> 00:05:14,719
Speaker 1: And so Bill Barr said no. Uh. And I think

95
00:05:14,760 --> 00:05:17,360
Speaker 1: he probably made the right decision there, because I think

96
00:05:17,400 --> 00:05:21,240
Speaker 1: ten years would have probably been widely perceived as as

97
00:05:21,360 --> 00:05:25,960
Speaker 1: not justice, not not sufficient for Derek Chauvin. Coming up

98
00:05:26,000 --> 00:05:29,000
Speaker 1: next on the Bloomberg Law Show, I'll continue this conversation

99
00:05:29,080 --> 00:05:32,240
Speaker 1: with former federal prosecutor Elie Honig, and we'll take a

100
00:05:32,279 --> 00:05:35,640
Speaker 1: look at the Derek Chauvin murder trial. The defense wrapped

101
00:05:35,680 --> 00:05:39,560
Speaker 1: up its case today without putting Derek Chauvin on the stand.

102
00:05:39,880 --> 00:05:42,080
Speaker 1: So how did the defense do? Were they able to

103
00:05:42,160 --> 00:05:46,080
Speaker 1: score any points? Not? Well, I don't think the defense

104
00:05:46,160 --> 00:05:48,720
Speaker 1: has done spectacularly well in any sense. First of all,

105
00:05:48,720 --> 00:05:50,960
Speaker 1: we all we have to keep in mind no defendant

106
00:05:51,000 --> 00:05:54,360
Speaker 1: ever has any burden of proof whatsoever. Defendants can put

107
00:05:54,400 --> 00:05:56,800
Speaker 1: on no case at all and just say the prosecution

108
00:05:56,839 --> 00:05:59,080
Speaker 1: hasn't met its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

109
00:05:59,080 --> 00:06:01,360
Speaker 1: That actually happens. I have done trials where the defendant

110
00:06:01,360 --> 00:06:03,080
Speaker 1: has said, no case, your honor, We're just going to

111
00:06:03,240 --> 00:06:05,840
Speaker 1: argue they haven't proven it. So every defendant has the

112
00:06:05,920 --> 00:06:08,159
Speaker 1: right to do that. That said, Chauvin has decided to

113
00:06:08,200 --> 00:06:11,560
Speaker 1: try to put on a fairly robust case here. I

114
00:06:11,680 --> 00:06:15,240
Speaker 1: just am not persuaded by the witnesses. I don't believe

115
00:06:15,320 --> 00:06:19,680
Speaker 1: the jury will be either. You had the medical witness

116
00:06:20,000 --> 00:06:23,440
Speaker 1: who testified essentially that George Floyd's death was caused by

117
00:06:23,520 --> 00:06:27,000
Speaker 1: everything but Derek Chauvin up to an including carbon monoxide, which,

118
00:06:27,040 --> 00:06:30,680
Speaker 1: when cross examined, he revealed he had no data, no science,

119
00:06:31,040 --> 00:06:34,120
Speaker 1: no facts behind whatsoever other than the fact that George

120
00:06:34,120 --> 00:06:36,720
Speaker 1: Floyd was down by a car which we don't even

121
00:06:36,760 --> 00:06:39,200
Speaker 1: know if it was running. So I don't think the

122
00:06:39,240 --> 00:06:43,080
Speaker 1: defense experts have been remarkably persuasive. But again, remember it's

123
00:06:43,080 --> 00:06:45,599
Speaker 1: not an athletic event where you asked who has more points.

124
00:06:45,680 --> 00:06:48,599
Speaker 1: All the defense has to do here is create reasonable doubt.

125
00:06:49,080 --> 00:06:51,440
Speaker 1: Just didn't live up to the battles of the experts

126
00:06:51,440 --> 00:06:55,040
Speaker 1: that I've seen in a lot of trials. I mean,

127
00:06:55,120 --> 00:06:57,080
Speaker 1: is there a reason why it seems as if the

128
00:06:57,120 --> 00:07:02,600
Speaker 1: prosecution's experts were much more qualified than the defense. Well,

129
00:07:02,640 --> 00:07:04,960
Speaker 1: typically a case being high profile, I would just think

130
00:07:05,040 --> 00:07:08,160
Speaker 1: logically would would attract more attention, right because experts would

131
00:07:08,160 --> 00:07:09,560
Speaker 1: want to be seen and say, look at me, I

132
00:07:09,600 --> 00:07:11,960
Speaker 1: testified in this famous trial that you've all heard of,

133
00:07:12,000 --> 00:07:14,560
Speaker 1: So hire me in the future. If I had to guess,

134
00:07:14,600 --> 00:07:16,040
Speaker 1: I would say a lot of it is probably just

135
00:07:16,080 --> 00:07:17,840
Speaker 1: the merits of the case. I think it's hard to

136
00:07:17,880 --> 00:07:20,760
Speaker 1: find a police officer, for example, who will come in

137
00:07:20,800 --> 00:07:22,720
Speaker 1: and say I found Derek Chovin's use of force to

138
00:07:22,720 --> 00:07:25,720
Speaker 1: be appropriate and necessary like that one witness broad who

139
00:07:25,800 --> 00:07:27,520
Speaker 1: was his last name? Did I thought that was very

140
00:07:27,640 --> 00:07:30,200
Speaker 1: dubious testimony. I think it's much much easier based on

141
00:07:30,240 --> 00:07:33,600
Speaker 1: the many police officers I know personally, they all think

142
00:07:33,640 --> 00:07:36,080
Speaker 1: that this was an unreasonable use of force. So I

143
00:07:36,080 --> 00:07:38,840
Speaker 1: think it's it's largely a function of the fact. And

144
00:07:38,880 --> 00:07:42,440
Speaker 1: one thing that's important to remember, June, expert witnesses are

145
00:07:42,520 --> 00:07:46,360
Speaker 1: not magic. The jury will be told specifically, you are

146
00:07:46,400 --> 00:07:49,360
Speaker 1: not to give an expert witness anymore or less credibility

147
00:07:49,440 --> 00:07:51,160
Speaker 1: or credence than you would to any other way. Is

148
00:07:51,200 --> 00:07:54,040
Speaker 1: simply because they're experts. It's just a label we put

149
00:07:54,040 --> 00:07:56,040
Speaker 1: on them that allows them to give their opinion. But

150
00:07:56,480 --> 00:07:59,680
Speaker 1: you can and must evaluate their testimony. Is it reasonable,

151
00:07:59,760 --> 00:08:03,040
Speaker 1: is it logical? Is it supported by the facts as

152
00:08:03,040 --> 00:08:07,000
Speaker 1: you would any other witness. So although these witnesses have

153
00:08:07,080 --> 00:08:09,320
Speaker 1: the label expert on them, the jury is still free

154
00:08:09,360 --> 00:08:13,240
Speaker 1: to disregard them. Considering the resources of the that the

155
00:08:13,280 --> 00:08:15,960
Speaker 1: prosecution has put into the case and the resources that

156
00:08:16,000 --> 00:08:19,240
Speaker 1: the defense has. But it seems like the prosecution has

157
00:08:19,280 --> 00:08:23,160
Speaker 1: just overwhelmed the defense with the number of attorneys, the

158
00:08:23,200 --> 00:08:28,040
Speaker 1: preparation of the witnesses, etcetera. Well, I agree the prosecution

159
00:08:28,080 --> 00:08:31,480
Speaker 1: has put on more and better evidence than than the defense,

160
00:08:31,600 --> 00:08:33,719
Speaker 1: keeping in mind that the prosecution fares that burden of

161
00:08:33,800 --> 00:08:36,720
Speaker 1: proof beyond a reasonable doubt. UM. I do think it's

162
00:08:36,760 --> 00:08:40,320
Speaker 1: actually interesting the numbers game here, the four prosecutors versus

163
00:08:40,400 --> 00:08:43,440
Speaker 1: the one defense lawyer. I actually don't love that dynamic

164
00:08:43,480 --> 00:08:46,079
Speaker 1: for prosecutors. When I was a prosecutor, we were always

165
00:08:46,080 --> 00:08:48,520
Speaker 1: wary of looking like we were overdoing it on a case,

166
00:08:48,520 --> 00:08:51,880
Speaker 1: and we never put more than three prosecutors on a case.

167
00:08:51,920 --> 00:08:55,240
Speaker 1: And only the biggest cases, I mean, your major organized

168
00:08:55,280 --> 00:08:57,880
Speaker 1: crime or terrorism cases would even have three. Typically you

169
00:08:57,920 --> 00:09:00,640
Speaker 1: have two prosecutors because we didn't want to look like, well,

170
00:09:00,679 --> 00:09:03,000
Speaker 1: why is half the office here doing this case. And

171
00:09:03,040 --> 00:09:05,520
Speaker 1: I think it's also an interesting strategy by the defense

172
00:09:05,559 --> 00:09:07,920
Speaker 1: to only have one lawyer. We've only seen Eric Nelson

173
00:09:08,000 --> 00:09:09,640
Speaker 1: stand up for the defense. It looks like he has

174
00:09:09,679 --> 00:09:11,880
Speaker 1: an aid or somebody there in the courtroom, but that

175
00:09:11,960 --> 00:09:14,240
Speaker 1: sort of paints the picture of a man alone, you know,

176
00:09:14,280 --> 00:09:16,920
Speaker 1: sort of nobly defending his charge. That said, I think

177
00:09:16,920 --> 00:09:19,559
Speaker 1: we're talking about sort of your courtroom dynamic more than

178
00:09:19,559 --> 00:09:22,400
Speaker 1: anything else. UM. One thing that we don't know that

179
00:09:22,440 --> 00:09:24,440
Speaker 1: it would be interesting to me is what kind of

180
00:09:24,440 --> 00:09:27,640
Speaker 1: resources does Derek Chauven have here? A lot of times

181
00:09:27,640 --> 00:09:30,240
Speaker 1: police officers and former police officers are able to use

182
00:09:31,000 --> 00:09:34,760
Speaker 1: money from unions even if they're out of the union. Now, um,

183
00:09:34,800 --> 00:09:37,200
Speaker 1: it's not clear who's paying Eric Nelson's bill. It's not

184
00:09:37,240 --> 00:09:39,800
Speaker 1: clear who's willing to work for free. Some of the

185
00:09:39,840 --> 00:09:42,800
Speaker 1: prosecution witnesses the experts that they had volunteered to work

186
00:09:42,840 --> 00:09:45,440
Speaker 1: for free because they felt strongly about this case. So

187
00:09:45,559 --> 00:09:47,520
Speaker 1: I do agree though there's been a mismatch in both

188
00:09:47,520 --> 00:09:50,520
Speaker 1: the quantity and quality of evidence. But again, remember it's

189
00:09:50,559 --> 00:09:52,679
Speaker 1: not who has more and better evidence, it has the

190
00:09:52,720 --> 00:09:55,920
Speaker 1: prosecution met its burdened beyond a reasonable doubt. Something that

191
00:09:56,000 --> 00:10:02,480
Speaker 1: I found extraordinary is the testimony of George Floyd's brother

192
00:10:02,920 --> 00:10:07,360
Speaker 1: in what's called this spark of life, which allows the

193
00:10:07,400 --> 00:10:12,959
Speaker 1: prosecution to give life and dimension to the victim, something

194
00:10:12,960 --> 00:10:16,080
Speaker 1: that you don't normally see in most cases until it's

195
00:10:16,280 --> 00:10:21,200
Speaker 1: time for sentencing. That was very unusual testimony because most

196
00:10:21,280 --> 00:10:24,480
Speaker 1: courts in the country would not allow it. Minnesota has

197
00:10:24,559 --> 00:10:27,199
Speaker 1: this UNI or I don't know if they're the only state,

198
00:10:27,240 --> 00:10:30,800
Speaker 1: but Minnesota has this unusual law statute, this spark of

199
00:10:30,880 --> 00:10:34,920
Speaker 1: Life statute, which actually was passed decades ago UM in

200
00:10:34,960 --> 00:10:38,080
Speaker 1: relation to a case involving a murder of a police officer,

201
00:10:38,520 --> 00:10:41,439
Speaker 1: and the legislature decided that in case in murder cases,

202
00:10:42,040 --> 00:10:45,280
Speaker 1: the jury should get to hear from a relative of

203
00:10:45,360 --> 00:10:49,520
Speaker 1: the victim to humanize the victim. But in most jurisdictions,

204
00:10:49,520 --> 00:10:53,920
Speaker 1: including federal courts, that would never be admissible because it's sympathy. Uh,

205
00:10:54,160 --> 00:10:56,800
Speaker 1: it's it's it's an emotional appeal, but it has no

206
00:10:57,480 --> 00:11:01,080
Speaker 1: relevance to the disputed fact. I mean, what what George

207
00:11:01,120 --> 00:11:04,840
Speaker 1: Floyd's brother remembers about him, and how fond but he

208
00:11:04,880 --> 00:11:07,199
Speaker 1: remembers him, and how much he loved him has no,

209
00:11:07,800 --> 00:11:11,720
Speaker 1: strictly speaking, no logical connection to whether Derek Chauvin's acts

210
00:11:11,880 --> 00:11:14,240
Speaker 1: constituted murder or not. But this is a law on

211
00:11:14,280 --> 00:11:17,040
Speaker 1: the books in Minnesota, and I thought the prosecution used

212
00:11:17,080 --> 00:11:19,680
Speaker 1: it effectively without overdoing it. I thought they were smart

213
00:11:19,760 --> 00:11:24,000
Speaker 1: to call the brother felonis um because he was emotional,

214
00:11:24,120 --> 00:11:26,560
Speaker 1: but he he wasn't over the top. And I think

215
00:11:26,559 --> 00:11:28,800
Speaker 1: you want to be wary there as the prosecutor, of

216
00:11:29,640 --> 00:11:33,160
Speaker 1: appearing too overtly to try to play on emotions, because

217
00:11:33,240 --> 00:11:36,959
Speaker 1: ultimately emotion matters. But most juries, when it comes down

218
00:11:37,000 --> 00:11:39,199
Speaker 1: to it, are looking pretty closely at the facts, and

219
00:11:39,520 --> 00:11:42,320
Speaker 1: I think attempts to bring too much emotion into play

220
00:11:42,440 --> 00:11:47,600
Speaker 1: ten ten backfire. So there was some speculation that Derek

221
00:11:47,720 --> 00:11:52,240
Speaker 1: Chauvin might take the stand and considering that the defense

222
00:11:52,280 --> 00:11:55,079
Speaker 1: has not been going as well as some might have fought,

223
00:11:55,480 --> 00:11:58,040
Speaker 1: but he decided not to. Think there was a wise decision.

224
00:11:58,880 --> 00:12:02,400
Speaker 1: I do defendants very rarely take the stand in their

225
00:12:02,400 --> 00:12:04,559
Speaker 1: own trials. I know in movies and TV we always

226
00:12:04,559 --> 00:12:06,959
Speaker 1: see that dramatic moment when the defendant takes the stand

227
00:12:06,960 --> 00:12:10,120
Speaker 1: and has to defend himself against the prosecutor. But reality is,

228
00:12:10,160 --> 00:12:13,960
Speaker 1: defendants rarely do take the stand because it's so so risky.

229
00:12:14,320 --> 00:12:17,960
Speaker 1: I guess the only argument in favor of Chauvin taking

230
00:12:17,960 --> 00:12:20,360
Speaker 1: the stand here is well, perhaps if he got one

231
00:12:20,480 --> 00:12:22,640
Speaker 1: juror who liked him or felt sorry for him, that

232
00:12:22,720 --> 00:12:25,360
Speaker 1: juror would decide uh not to vote guilty, and that

233
00:12:25,400 --> 00:12:28,400
Speaker 1: could result in a hung jury. Remember, a jury verdict

234
00:12:28,480 --> 00:12:30,280
Speaker 1: has to be unanimous to all the zero to convict

235
00:12:30,440 --> 00:12:33,360
Speaker 1: or quit. Anything in between is a deadlock, hung jury

236
00:12:33,360 --> 00:12:37,000
Speaker 1: and a mistrial, which is as a practical matter, he

237
00:12:37,040 --> 00:12:38,800
Speaker 1: win for the defense. So that would be the sort

238
00:12:38,840 --> 00:12:41,360
Speaker 1: of hail merry nature of this, But it would have

239
00:12:41,400 --> 00:12:43,280
Speaker 1: been so risky for him to take the stand. I mean,

240
00:12:43,679 --> 00:12:46,160
Speaker 1: the prosecution likely would have been able to cross examine

241
00:12:46,200 --> 00:12:50,000
Speaker 1: him on prior complaints against him for force. Uh. They

242
00:12:50,040 --> 00:12:52,280
Speaker 1: certainly would have played that video for him, And it

243
00:12:52,280 --> 00:12:54,520
Speaker 1: would have been devastating to have to, you know, make

244
00:12:54,600 --> 00:12:57,520
Speaker 1: him watch that video after George Floyd has stopped speaking

245
00:12:57,520 --> 00:12:59,439
Speaker 1: and stopped moving, and so you're still on him here right.

246
00:12:59,640 --> 00:13:01,440
Speaker 1: You know, you hadn't heard him speak in a minute,

247
00:13:01,440 --> 00:13:03,000
Speaker 1: you hadn't heard him speak in two minutes, and you

248
00:13:03,320 --> 00:13:06,040
Speaker 1: kept that knee on on his neck. It would have

249
00:13:06,080 --> 00:13:08,360
Speaker 1: just been a stating class examination. I think it would

250
00:13:08,360 --> 00:13:10,560
Speaker 1: have been too risky, and I think it was probably

251
00:13:10,640 --> 00:13:13,680
Speaker 1: the prudent move for him not to testify. Thanks Ellie.

252
00:13:14,000 --> 00:13:19,719
Speaker 1: That's former federal prosecutor Ellie Honig. After successfully transitioning to

253
00:13:19,800 --> 00:13:22,880
Speaker 1: remote work for more than a year, many businesses are

254
00:13:22,920 --> 00:13:26,800
Speaker 1: rethinking the future of a fully in person workforce. Twitter

255
00:13:26,840 --> 00:13:29,400
Speaker 1: and Microsoft are among the tech companies that have said

256
00:13:29,480 --> 00:13:33,400
Speaker 1: some employees can continue to work from remote locations permanently

257
00:13:33,720 --> 00:13:37,720
Speaker 1: even after the pandemic is controlled. But suppose your employer

258
00:13:37,840 --> 00:13:40,640
Speaker 1: insist that you return to the office full time, what

259
00:13:40,720 --> 00:13:43,640
Speaker 1: are your options joining me as Michael Schmidt, Vice chair

260
00:13:43,679 --> 00:13:47,520
Speaker 1: of the Labor and Employment Practice at Coson O'Connor. The

261
00:13:47,679 --> 00:13:52,480
Speaker 1: overarching question is whether an employer can force employees to

262
00:13:52,600 --> 00:13:55,360
Speaker 1: go back to work after they've been working from home

263
00:13:55,679 --> 00:13:59,320
Speaker 1: due to COVID. So the general answer to that is

264
00:14:00,080 --> 00:14:04,160
Speaker 1: whether you're asking about simple return to work or if

265
00:14:04,240 --> 00:14:07,920
Speaker 1: you are asking about whether an employer can require that

266
00:14:08,000 --> 00:14:13,600
Speaker 1: an employee be vaccinated before returning to work, the overarching

267
00:14:13,679 --> 00:14:17,320
Speaker 1: answer is really the same employers at the moment are

268
00:14:17,440 --> 00:14:21,360
Speaker 1: able to require employees to return to work subject to

269
00:14:21,560 --> 00:14:27,760
Speaker 1: obligations to accommodate both disability issues as well as sincerely

270
00:14:27,800 --> 00:14:32,760
Speaker 1: held religious objections to coming back to the offers or

271
00:14:32,880 --> 00:14:35,560
Speaker 1: or getting vaccinated as a condition to coming back to

272
00:14:35,600 --> 00:14:39,320
Speaker 1: the office. So, as far as disabilities are you referring

273
00:14:39,360 --> 00:14:44,280
Speaker 1: to disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act or other

274
00:14:44,320 --> 00:14:47,680
Speaker 1: disabilities that may arise because of COVID. The important thing

275
00:14:47,720 --> 00:14:49,920
Speaker 1: to take away is that we're not just talking about

276
00:14:49,960 --> 00:14:53,000
Speaker 1: federal law. Part of the issue is, and what makes

277
00:14:53,040 --> 00:14:55,960
Speaker 1: this somewhat complicated like other areas of employment law, is

278
00:14:56,000 --> 00:14:59,080
Speaker 1: that this area is so dependent on state and local

279
00:14:59,160 --> 00:15:02,239
Speaker 1: law as wealth you're looking at the Americans with Disabilities

280
00:15:02,280 --> 00:15:05,160
Speaker 1: Act on the federal level certainly, but you're also in

281
00:15:05,240 --> 00:15:08,880
Speaker 1: states like New York or California and other states that

282
00:15:09,000 --> 00:15:14,240
Speaker 1: have their own statutory schemes dealing with reasonable accommodation requirements

283
00:15:14,280 --> 00:15:19,240
Speaker 1: and disability discrimination protection. So if somebody has a particular

284
00:15:19,320 --> 00:15:24,480
Speaker 1: medical condition, physical or mental that for some reason precludes

285
00:15:24,560 --> 00:15:27,240
Speaker 1: them from going into the office, or in case of

286
00:15:27,240 --> 00:15:30,920
Speaker 1: a vaccine, precludes them from becoming vaccinated at the time.

287
00:15:31,400 --> 00:15:34,920
Speaker 1: Suppose someone's a senior citizen and doesn't want to return

288
00:15:34,960 --> 00:15:39,359
Speaker 1: to the office because of fears that they're more vulnerable

289
00:15:39,400 --> 00:15:43,960
Speaker 1: to COVID. Would that require some kind of accommodation. Well,

290
00:15:44,000 --> 00:15:46,440
Speaker 1: that's where it gets a little tricky, because you need

291
00:15:46,480 --> 00:15:51,880
Speaker 1: to distinguish those who have a covered disability, a covered

292
00:15:51,920 --> 00:15:56,560
Speaker 1: medical condition versus those who just have generalized fears about

293
00:15:56,720 --> 00:15:59,960
Speaker 1: leaving the home or generalized fears about going to the workplace.

294
00:16:00,120 --> 00:16:03,920
Speaker 1: Is simply because they have this generalized fear, or simply

295
00:16:04,000 --> 00:16:07,560
Speaker 1: because they may be part of a group, uh such

296
00:16:07,600 --> 00:16:11,760
Speaker 1: as of a certain age or a certain vulnerability. So

297
00:16:12,240 --> 00:16:14,920
Speaker 1: you know, part of the difficulty is having to distinguish

298
00:16:14,960 --> 00:16:17,560
Speaker 1: between those buckets and for those people who don't have

299
00:16:17,600 --> 00:16:22,800
Speaker 1: a covered disability that entitles them to potentially an accommodation. UH.

300
00:16:22,840 --> 00:16:26,400
Speaker 1: Employees are not able to necessarily just say well, I'm

301
00:16:26,480 --> 00:16:30,000
Speaker 1: uncomfortable or have a generalized fear that something might happen

302
00:16:30,600 --> 00:16:34,760
Speaker 1: UH and therefore be protected from UH from from complying

303
00:16:34,760 --> 00:16:36,240
Speaker 1: with a rule that they need to come back to

304
00:16:36,280 --> 00:16:41,400
Speaker 1: the office. Suppose they believe that their workplace is not safe,

305
00:16:41,440 --> 00:16:47,280
Speaker 1: that the workplace is not taking enough for cautions against COVID, Well,

306
00:16:47,320 --> 00:16:49,720
Speaker 1: certainly we're gonna see a lot of that. Um. You know,

307
00:16:50,120 --> 00:16:52,440
Speaker 1: they're gonna be a lot of employees who either return

308
00:16:52,480 --> 00:16:54,880
Speaker 1: to the office or don't return to the office. And

309
00:16:55,120 --> 00:16:58,600
Speaker 1: based on what they see or hear or understand, they're

310
00:16:58,600 --> 00:17:02,400
Speaker 1: gonna be raising issues regarding protocols and safety. People may

311
00:17:02,400 --> 00:17:05,520
Speaker 1: not be wearing masks, or the company is not enforcing

312
00:17:05,600 --> 00:17:09,959
Speaker 1: social distancing requirements or other protocols UH. So much of

313
00:17:10,000 --> 00:17:15,080
Speaker 1: this is about balancing UH, communication and the psychology of

314
00:17:15,119 --> 00:17:17,200
Speaker 1: all this. It's not just about what is the law

315
00:17:17,320 --> 00:17:21,440
Speaker 1: technically require one side to do or not do. There

316
00:17:21,520 --> 00:17:24,320
Speaker 1: is a psychology that comes along with the workforce that

317
00:17:24,359 --> 00:17:27,199
Speaker 1: employers need to accept, and there also has to be

318
00:17:27,240 --> 00:17:31,760
Speaker 1: some understanding that employees those uncomfortable or not are gonna

319
00:17:31,800 --> 00:17:34,439
Speaker 1: be raising issues like you just mentioned, and has to

320
00:17:34,440 --> 00:17:38,080
Speaker 1: be a means for addressing them, for taking them seriously. UH.

321
00:17:38,119 --> 00:17:40,760
Speaker 1: And that's what employers should do. They should have an

322
00:17:40,760 --> 00:17:44,480
Speaker 1: avenue for people to raise concerns or raise complaints about

323
00:17:44,520 --> 00:17:48,320
Speaker 1: protocols and other safety issues. At the end of the day,

324
00:17:48,359 --> 00:17:52,200
Speaker 1: if the employer does look into those issues and does

325
00:17:52,320 --> 00:17:56,560
Speaker 1: follow best practices and available guidance, and again, it just

326
00:17:56,680 --> 00:17:59,480
Speaker 1: becomes a situation where the employee is saying, I'm just

327
00:17:59,560 --> 00:18:01,760
Speaker 1: not come sorta will come into the workplace, I'm just

328
00:18:01,840 --> 00:18:05,879
Speaker 1: not comfortable leaving the home and working UM and no

329
00:18:06,040 --> 00:18:09,840
Speaker 1: accommodation is needed and there really is no UM particular

330
00:18:09,920 --> 00:18:14,520
Speaker 1: protocol or issue that is challenging the safety and health

331
00:18:14,560 --> 00:18:17,840
Speaker 1: of the workplace. UM, the employee may not be protected

332
00:18:17,880 --> 00:18:22,199
Speaker 1: in those situations. What about the employee reporting the conditions

333
00:18:22,240 --> 00:18:27,000
Speaker 1: to OSHA, that's certainly another avenue. UH. It's all about communication.

334
00:18:27,320 --> 00:18:31,440
Speaker 1: I find that many issues can be addressed and resolved

335
00:18:31,480 --> 00:18:34,440
Speaker 1: between employer and employee. But there's no question that there

336
00:18:34,480 --> 00:18:39,240
Speaker 1: are government agencies out there, including OSHA, who are there

337
00:18:39,280 --> 00:18:45,720
Speaker 1: to receive complaints that employees may have about unsafe workplace conditions, UH,

338
00:18:45,760 --> 00:18:49,359
Speaker 1: And that's certainly an opportunity for employees to raise it

339
00:18:49,400 --> 00:18:52,040
Speaker 1: externally if that's what they want to do, in which case,

340
00:18:52,160 --> 00:18:55,480
Speaker 1: you know, OSHA or whatever the federal or state agency

341
00:18:55,960 --> 00:18:59,439
Speaker 1: UH will be will likely contact the employer and do

342
00:18:59,520 --> 00:19:02,840
Speaker 1: its own and investigation into the issue. Suppose an employer

343
00:19:02,960 --> 00:19:06,480
Speaker 1: fires an employee because they won't return to the workplace.

344
00:19:07,119 --> 00:19:10,280
Speaker 1: Are they entitled to unemployment? I know that President Biden

345
00:19:10,359 --> 00:19:14,159
Speaker 1: said something about this. Are they entitled to unemployment or

346
00:19:14,240 --> 00:19:19,480
Speaker 1: there's certain parameters. Well, that's the unemployment issue. Notwithstanding the

347
00:19:19,720 --> 00:19:22,920
Speaker 1: discussion on the federal level, the unemployment issue is also

348
00:19:23,080 --> 00:19:26,240
Speaker 1: very much a state by state concerns, So UH the

349
00:19:26,400 --> 00:19:29,719
Speaker 1: rules will vary depending on the particular state you're in

350
00:19:29,720 --> 00:19:32,280
Speaker 1: in the state unemployment scheme you're talking about. But from

351
00:19:32,320 --> 00:19:36,240
Speaker 1: a general rule standpoint, as we know, typically if somebody

352
00:19:36,440 --> 00:19:41,879
Speaker 1: resigns and resigns without reason uh refuses to work, UM,

353
00:19:41,920 --> 00:19:44,840
Speaker 1: they're not going to be entitled necessarily to unemployment insurance.

354
00:19:44,880 --> 00:19:48,320
Speaker 1: But what many jurisdictions are doing, and what the federal

355
00:19:48,440 --> 00:19:51,240
Speaker 1: government is talking about doing is making an exception there

356
00:19:51,280 --> 00:19:53,879
Speaker 1: if the reason that you are not coming back to

357
00:19:53,960 --> 00:19:59,040
Speaker 1: work is due to a good faith belief, good faith

358
00:19:59,080 --> 00:20:02,840
Speaker 1: objective belief UH that there is something about the workplace

359
00:20:02,880 --> 00:20:05,399
Speaker 1: you're being asked to return to that is not safe

360
00:20:05,400 --> 00:20:07,479
Speaker 1: and is not healthy for you to do so. In

361
00:20:07,520 --> 00:20:10,320
Speaker 1: those cases, if you refuse to return to that kind

362
00:20:10,359 --> 00:20:13,919
Speaker 1: of workplace UH, in many situations, you will not be

363
00:20:14,040 --> 00:20:17,960
Speaker 1: denied the opportunity to obtain unemployment insurance. Going back to

364
00:20:18,080 --> 00:20:21,720
Speaker 1: vaccinations which you mentioned, Let's say an employer says all

365
00:20:21,760 --> 00:20:26,040
Speaker 1: employees have to be vaccinated before returning to work. If

366
00:20:26,080 --> 00:20:29,800
Speaker 1: an employee has a religious objection, what happens The e

367
00:20:29,960 --> 00:20:33,360
Speaker 1: o C, which is a federal government agency that handles

368
00:20:33,920 --> 00:20:38,960
Speaker 1: disability related UH Title seven related issues and accommodations. The

369
00:20:39,000 --> 00:20:42,159
Speaker 1: e o C put out guidances past December on this

370
00:20:42,359 --> 00:20:46,320
Speaker 1: very issue mandatory vaccine policies and putting aside the disability

371
00:20:46,359 --> 00:20:49,119
Speaker 1: issue we just talked about. If an employee has a

372
00:20:49,160 --> 00:20:53,160
Speaker 1: sincerely held religious belief or practice that prevents them from

373
00:20:53,160 --> 00:20:56,879
Speaker 1: being vaccinated, the employer is required to engage in in

374
00:20:56,920 --> 00:21:00,320
Speaker 1: an interactive process to see if an accommodation and be

375
00:21:00,760 --> 00:21:04,520
Speaker 1: given without there being an undue hardship or without there

376
00:21:04,520 --> 00:21:08,639
Speaker 1: being a direct threat by not being vaccinated. This is

377
00:21:08,720 --> 00:21:12,960
Speaker 1: very much an individualized assessment. An employer should not be

378
00:21:13,160 --> 00:21:15,879
Speaker 1: simply knee jerk in its reaction to that kind of

379
00:21:15,920 --> 00:21:18,919
Speaker 1: objection being raised, which also means that they can't just

380
00:21:19,000 --> 00:21:23,800
Speaker 1: automatically fire them or discipline them for refusing to be vaccinated.

381
00:21:23,840 --> 00:21:26,280
Speaker 1: They'll have to go through this process of well, what's

382
00:21:26,320 --> 00:21:29,199
Speaker 1: the nature of the position. Can the position continue to

383
00:21:29,280 --> 00:21:33,160
Speaker 1: be worked at remotely? Um? What are the essential functions

384
00:21:33,200 --> 00:21:35,400
Speaker 1: of the job. So the bottom line is there needs

385
00:21:35,440 --> 00:21:38,600
Speaker 1: to be an interactive process in response to any religious

386
00:21:38,640 --> 00:21:43,480
Speaker 1: objection being raised, and only after that process is exhausted

387
00:21:43,920 --> 00:21:47,400
Speaker 1: UH and the the appropriate boxes are checked by the company,

388
00:21:47,760 --> 00:21:51,720
Speaker 1: can an employer perhaps discipline up to an including termination.

389
00:21:52,160 --> 00:21:55,600
Speaker 1: UH terminate an employee based on a religious objection to

390
00:21:55,800 --> 00:22:00,760
Speaker 1: getting vaccinated. Suppose it's not a religious objection. Suppose an

391
00:22:00,800 --> 00:22:06,480
Speaker 1: employee just has a generalized objection to vaccinations. Do they

392
00:22:06,480 --> 00:22:09,000
Speaker 1: also have to be treated in the same way? Well,

393
00:22:09,200 --> 00:22:12,800
Speaker 1: very much the same answer as with the disability issues.

394
00:22:12,880 --> 00:22:15,479
Speaker 1: And I can tell you there is this lingering issue

395
00:22:15,520 --> 00:22:18,400
Speaker 1: out there that a lot of people are necessarily talking about,

396
00:22:18,480 --> 00:22:21,400
Speaker 1: and that has to do with the whole emergency use

397
00:22:21,480 --> 00:22:26,200
Speaker 1: authorization process that these vaccines were approved by the FDA

398
00:22:26,280 --> 00:22:28,639
Speaker 1: in the first place, and as part of that process,

399
00:22:28,680 --> 00:22:32,119
Speaker 1: the f d A rules suggests that recipients of a

400
00:22:32,200 --> 00:22:35,800
Speaker 1: vaccine UH must be told that they have the right

401
00:22:35,880 --> 00:22:39,199
Speaker 1: to refuse to get a vaccine. So there are a

402
00:22:39,200 --> 00:22:42,440
Speaker 1: lot of us out here that are waiting for additional

403
00:22:42,480 --> 00:22:46,520
Speaker 1: guidance from the appropriate government entities as to the relationship

404
00:22:46,560 --> 00:22:51,560
Speaker 1: between those f DA rules and an employer's ability to

405
00:22:52,119 --> 00:22:57,040
Speaker 1: have a mandatory vaccine policy or engage in certain workplace rules.

406
00:22:57,320 --> 00:23:01,240
Speaker 1: But putting that issue aside to your specific question, it's

407
00:23:01,320 --> 00:23:03,840
Speaker 1: very much the same as a disability context if someone

408
00:23:03,920 --> 00:23:08,880
Speaker 1: just has a generalized objection there against vaccines, or too

409
00:23:08,880 --> 00:23:11,480
Speaker 1: early in the process where I'm not that comfortable to

410
00:23:11,520 --> 00:23:15,480
Speaker 1: get vaccinated just yet. Those are not concerns that are

411
00:23:15,520 --> 00:23:18,639
Speaker 1: typically protected by law that have to be accommodated at

412
00:23:18,640 --> 00:23:22,200
Speaker 1: the moment. Have you been getting a lot of inquiries

413
00:23:22,520 --> 00:23:27,680
Speaker 1: from employers during COVID about problems they're having management issues

414
00:23:27,880 --> 00:23:30,760
Speaker 1: with people working from home? I have, and and this

415
00:23:30,840 --> 00:23:33,639
Speaker 1: is certainly the time where a lot of companies are

416
00:23:33,720 --> 00:23:37,280
Speaker 1: thinking about the types of questions that you're asking thinking about.

417
00:23:37,760 --> 00:23:39,600
Speaker 1: You know, we'd love to get to a place in

418
00:23:39,640 --> 00:23:42,600
Speaker 1: the world where we can come back to whatever normalcy

419
00:23:42,640 --> 00:23:45,800
Speaker 1: there was pre pandemic and start to get some of

420
00:23:45,840 --> 00:23:49,600
Speaker 1: the benefits that we had by having in person interaction

421
00:23:49,720 --> 00:23:54,000
Speaker 1: and team meetings and mentorships UH physically in the office,

422
00:23:54,280 --> 00:23:56,840
Speaker 1: while recognizing, as I said before, there still is this

423
00:23:56,960 --> 00:24:01,960
Speaker 1: psychology lag where people are not completely comfortable UH returning

424
00:24:02,000 --> 00:24:05,000
Speaker 1: to the office just yet, are not completely comfortable getting

425
00:24:05,080 --> 00:24:08,560
Speaker 1: vaccinated yet, so they're trying to figure out should they

426
00:24:08,680 --> 00:24:12,320
Speaker 1: have any type of mandatory return to work or mandatory

427
00:24:12,400 --> 00:24:16,400
Speaker 1: vaccine policy, and if so, when they should do it. UM.

428
00:24:16,440 --> 00:24:19,080
Speaker 1: I think most of the employers that I've been speaking

429
00:24:19,119 --> 00:24:23,800
Speaker 1: with are leaning toward promoting the benefits of vaccination, perhaps

430
00:24:23,880 --> 00:24:29,280
Speaker 1: in many cases creating appropriate incentive programs to have employees

431
00:24:29,600 --> 00:24:32,480
Speaker 1: get vaccinated. UM. But I still think as we're here

432
00:24:32,480 --> 00:24:37,119
Speaker 1: in April of one, I think fewer employers are yet

433
00:24:37,200 --> 00:24:40,879
Speaker 1: going the root of UH imposing a mandatory return to

434
00:24:40,920 --> 00:24:44,800
Speaker 1: work and a mandatory vaccine policy right now. I think

435
00:24:44,800 --> 00:24:47,280
Speaker 1: the biggest issue again is is sort of you know,

436
00:24:47,400 --> 00:24:51,560
Speaker 1: the this balancing act and recognizing that it's not all illegal,

437
00:24:52,000 --> 00:24:54,280
Speaker 1: that there is you know, a lot of practical and

438
00:24:54,320 --> 00:24:57,960
Speaker 1: a lot of psychological impacts that that are at play

439
00:24:58,040 --> 00:25:00,800
Speaker 1: here and at at the end of the day, if

440
00:25:00,840 --> 00:25:03,879
Speaker 1: you're going to be mandating any of these things, whether

441
00:25:03,920 --> 00:25:07,399
Speaker 1: it's returning to the physical office getting vaccinated, you do

442
00:25:07,560 --> 00:25:11,719
Speaker 1: have to keep in mind the requirements for accommodating disability

443
00:25:11,760 --> 00:25:15,520
Speaker 1: and religious objections. Thanks Mike. That's Michael Schmidt of Cozon

444
00:25:15,600 --> 00:25:18,040
Speaker 1: O'Connor and that's it for the edition of the Bloomberg

445
00:25:18,080 --> 00:25:20,760
Speaker 1: Lawn Show. Remember you can always at the latest legal

446
00:25:20,800 --> 00:25:23,440
Speaker 1: news on our Bloomberg Lawn podcast. You can find them

447
00:25:23,440 --> 00:25:28,040
Speaker 1: on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at www dot Bloomberg dot com,

448
00:25:28,080 --> 00:25:31,959
Speaker 1: slash podcast slash Law. I'm June Grosso and you're listening

449
00:25:32,000 --> 00:25:32,760
Speaker 1: to Bloomberg