WEBVTT - Procedural Mess in Trump Georgia Trial

0:00:03.200 --> 0:00:08.000
<v Speaker 1>This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio.

0:00:09.880 --> 0:00:15.080
<v Speaker 2>Three United States Senators, we're opening up Pandora's box. I

0:00:15.120 --> 0:00:17.919
<v Speaker 2>think the system in this country is getting off the rails,

0:00:18.560 --> 0:00:20.840
<v Speaker 2>and we have to be careful not to use the

0:00:20.960 --> 0:00:23.560
<v Speaker 2>legal system as a political tool.

0:00:23.760 --> 0:00:26.960
<v Speaker 3>Senator Lindsay Graham says he did nothing wrong in the

0:00:27.000 --> 0:00:31.320
<v Speaker 3>face of the special grand jury report that recommended indictments

0:00:31.360 --> 0:00:36.239
<v Speaker 3>against Graham and several other prominent Republicans. The Special Purpose

0:00:36.280 --> 0:00:40.560
<v Speaker 3>Atlanta Grand Jury investigated twenty twenty election meddling for more

0:00:40.600 --> 0:00:44.839
<v Speaker 3>than two years, hearing testimony from seventy five witnesses, and

0:00:44.960 --> 0:00:48.920
<v Speaker 3>in the report made public on Friday, it recommended indictments

0:00:49.000 --> 0:00:53.120
<v Speaker 3>against twice as many people as the nineteen ultimately charged

0:00:53.159 --> 0:00:57.240
<v Speaker 3>by Fulton County Prosecutor Fanny Willis in her racketeering case.

0:00:57.800 --> 0:01:00.880
<v Speaker 3>Joining me is former federal prosecutor j Ma Garule, a

0:01:00.960 --> 0:01:05.360
<v Speaker 3>professor at Notre Dame Law School, Jimmy. Thirteen grand jurors

0:01:05.440 --> 0:01:09.679
<v Speaker 3>voted to indict Graham, while seven voted not to the

0:01:09.760 --> 0:01:13.800
<v Speaker 3>vote was seventeen to four to indict former Georgia Senator

0:01:13.920 --> 0:01:17.960
<v Speaker 3>David Purdue and fourteen to six to indict former Georgia

0:01:18.040 --> 0:01:21.000
<v Speaker 3>Senator Kelly Loffler. What does it tell you that the

0:01:21.080 --> 0:01:23.200
<v Speaker 3>DA decided not to indict them?

0:01:23.600 --> 0:01:27.120
<v Speaker 1>Well, I think the fact that there were a substantial

0:01:27.200 --> 0:01:30.160
<v Speaker 1>number of members of the grand jury in each of

0:01:30.200 --> 0:01:35.360
<v Speaker 1>these three cases that voted no raised the possibility that

0:01:35.400 --> 0:01:38.959
<v Speaker 1>there could be reasonable doubt if criminal charges were brought

0:01:39.000 --> 0:01:42.400
<v Speaker 1>against these three senators, if they went to trial, that

0:01:42.600 --> 0:01:47.280
<v Speaker 1>members of the trial jury might likewise agree that there

0:01:47.440 --> 0:01:50.600
<v Speaker 1>was insufficient evidence to prosecute. And we're talking about a

0:01:50.760 --> 0:01:54.520
<v Speaker 1>trial jury. All you need is one holdout, one no.

0:01:55.200 --> 0:01:58.400
<v Speaker 1>And so the prosecutor in this case deciding to not

0:01:58.480 --> 0:02:01.800
<v Speaker 1>bring criminal charges with respect to some of the individuals

0:02:01.840 --> 0:02:03.160
<v Speaker 1>that were under investigation.

0:02:04.320 --> 0:02:09.239
<v Speaker 3>Can this information help either the defense or the prosecution either.

0:02:09.080 --> 0:02:12.120
<v Speaker 1>At trial or I don't know that it does. I

0:02:12.120 --> 0:02:14.720
<v Speaker 1>think from a broader perspective, there are a couple of

0:02:14.760 --> 0:02:17.400
<v Speaker 1>interesting takeaways for me. I mean, first of all, the

0:02:17.520 --> 0:02:20.960
<v Speaker 1>fact that as many as thirteen members of the Special

0:02:21.000 --> 0:02:25.920
<v Speaker 1>Grand Jury believe that Senator Graham had engaged in criminal conduct,

0:02:26.360 --> 0:02:30.320
<v Speaker 1>specifically to influence the outcome of the presidential election on

0:02:30.440 --> 0:02:33.640
<v Speaker 1>his face, is very disturbing, I mean very disturbing. And

0:02:33.720 --> 0:02:36.880
<v Speaker 1>then you know, again, several members of the special grand

0:02:36.960 --> 0:02:39.800
<v Speaker 1>jury reached a similar result with respect of these two

0:02:39.840 --> 0:02:42.880
<v Speaker 1>other Georgia senators. And then for me, you know, one

0:02:42.919 --> 0:02:46.600
<v Speaker 1>other aspect of this is that three other individuals that

0:02:46.880 --> 0:02:49.560
<v Speaker 1>again there were grand jurors that one or two indict

0:02:49.919 --> 0:02:52.919
<v Speaker 1>ultimately they were not indicted, were lawyers, and we got

0:02:52.919 --> 0:02:57.800
<v Speaker 1>Boris Epstein, Kleta, Mitchell lynn Wood. These are lawyers. And

0:02:57.880 --> 0:03:01.840
<v Speaker 1>this is in addition to the Milton County indictment that

0:03:02.040 --> 0:03:07.280
<v Speaker 1>has charged nineteen individuals, eight of which were lawyers, and

0:03:07.440 --> 0:03:10.639
<v Speaker 1>so Hessel Hooyer and a law professor. This is very

0:03:10.680 --> 0:03:16.000
<v Speaker 1>disturbing that we have lawyers that are involved directly, indirectly, implicated,

0:03:16.040 --> 0:03:21.360
<v Speaker 1>directly indirectly in criminal activity involving overturning a presidential election.

0:03:21.480 --> 0:03:25.160
<v Speaker 1>I mean, it's just it's an embarrassment. It's shameful for

0:03:25.200 --> 0:03:26.079
<v Speaker 1>the legal profession.

0:03:26.360 --> 0:03:29.320
<v Speaker 3>And in the meantime, the clock is ticking toward the

0:03:29.360 --> 0:03:32.600
<v Speaker 3>trial date of at least two of those attorneys in

0:03:32.639 --> 0:03:36.640
<v Speaker 3>the Georgia Rico case against Donald Trump and eighteen accused

0:03:36.720 --> 0:03:40.160
<v Speaker 3>co conspirators for allegedly trying to overturn the results of

0:03:40.200 --> 0:03:44.520
<v Speaker 3>the twenty twenty presidential elections and defendants Kenneth Chesbro and

0:03:44.640 --> 0:03:48.200
<v Speaker 3>Sidney Powell asked for a speedy trial but not together,

0:03:48.520 --> 0:03:52.200
<v Speaker 3>But on Wednesday, the trial judge Scott McAfee ruled that

0:03:52.280 --> 0:03:53.600
<v Speaker 3>they would be tried together.

0:03:54.080 --> 0:03:56.840
<v Speaker 4>So, based on Westman presented today, I'm not finding the

0:03:56.880 --> 0:04:01.240
<v Speaker 4>severance from mister Chesboro or Powell is necessary to achieve

0:04:01.280 --> 0:04:04.480
<v Speaker 4>a fair determination of the guilty innocence for either defendant

0:04:04.480 --> 0:04:04.760
<v Speaker 4>in this.

0:04:04.800 --> 0:04:08.360
<v Speaker 3>Case, Jimmy, the prosecutors say they'll be testimony from one

0:04:08.440 --> 0:04:12.360
<v Speaker 3>hundred and fifty witnesses and they want all nineteen defendants

0:04:12.560 --> 0:04:15.600
<v Speaker 3>tried together, and that it will take about four months.

0:04:15.880 --> 0:04:19.400
<v Speaker 3>The judge said, more like twice that you've tried reco cases.

0:04:19.480 --> 0:04:22.120
<v Speaker 1>What do you think it's hard to imagine a case

0:04:22.320 --> 0:04:25.640
<v Speaker 1>involving the testimony from one hundred and fifty witnesses could

0:04:25.680 --> 0:04:28.240
<v Speaker 1>be conducted in that short period of time. And the

0:04:28.279 --> 0:04:31.240
<v Speaker 1>principal concern is not simply the number of witnesses that's

0:04:31.279 --> 0:04:33.480
<v Speaker 1>a major concern, but the fact that you have nineteen

0:04:33.520 --> 0:04:36.560
<v Speaker 1>defendants that are going to have the opportunity to cross

0:04:36.600 --> 0:04:40.200
<v Speaker 1>examine each and every one of those witnesses. So every

0:04:40.240 --> 0:04:42.680
<v Speaker 1>time the state puts on a witness, they conduct their

0:04:42.680 --> 0:04:46.920
<v Speaker 1>direct examination. Then when it gets to cross examination, conceivably

0:04:47.400 --> 0:04:51.320
<v Speaker 1>nineteen defense lawyers would have questions to ask of that witness,

0:04:51.480 --> 0:04:56.040
<v Speaker 1>and that could take days, weeks even to complete that process.

0:04:56.120 --> 0:05:00.839
<v Speaker 1>And then if there's a redirect again on recross, defense

0:05:00.920 --> 0:05:04.560
<v Speaker 1>lawyers have an opportunity to recross the same witness now

0:05:04.760 --> 0:05:08.680
<v Speaker 1>once again. And so it seems almost unmanageable to me

0:05:09.360 --> 0:05:13.279
<v Speaker 1>as to how a trial of that magnitude, with that

0:05:13.360 --> 0:05:16.760
<v Speaker 1>many defense lawyers, with that many defendants in the courtroom,

0:05:16.880 --> 0:05:19.839
<v Speaker 1>is going to function in any efficient way.

0:05:20.520 --> 0:05:25.440
<v Speaker 3>Fannie Willis in the Teacher's case, tried twelve defendants, So

0:05:25.760 --> 0:05:29.560
<v Speaker 3>how does the judge decide what number is reasonable?

0:05:30.240 --> 0:05:32.920
<v Speaker 1>It's difficult, you know, it's the difficult decision. And I've

0:05:32.960 --> 0:05:37.320
<v Speaker 1>found rather curious the argument that both Kennis Chesbro and

0:05:37.440 --> 0:05:40.440
<v Speaker 1>Sidney Powell, their lawyers have been making, which is something

0:05:40.440 --> 0:05:43.360
<v Speaker 1>along the lines of, well, my client doesn't know Sidney

0:05:43.360 --> 0:05:46.960
<v Speaker 1>Powell and my client wasn't involved in the activities that

0:05:47.080 --> 0:05:51.360
<v Speaker 1>Sidney Powell was allegedly involved in. Well that doesn't matter.

0:05:51.520 --> 0:05:54.599
<v Speaker 1>My response to that is, so what Because the law

0:05:54.880 --> 0:05:59.599
<v Speaker 1>on conspiracy is clear that each co conspirator, it is

0:05:59.640 --> 0:06:03.919
<v Speaker 1>not required that each co conspirator know the identity of

0:06:04.080 --> 0:06:07.520
<v Speaker 1>every other co conspirator in the conspiracy. Nor is it

0:06:07.600 --> 0:06:12.200
<v Speaker 1>required that each conspirator know all of the details of

0:06:12.240 --> 0:06:17.920
<v Speaker 1>the conspiracy. It's enough that the conspirator agreed with someone

0:06:17.960 --> 0:06:23.080
<v Speaker 1>else or others to commit to the objective and the

0:06:23.120 --> 0:06:26.920
<v Speaker 1>purpose and the goal of the conspiracy, and then that's

0:06:26.920 --> 0:06:29.640
<v Speaker 1>the conspiracy that becomes a crime in and of itself.

0:06:29.839 --> 0:06:32.920
<v Speaker 1>And then the rule is that all of the overt

0:06:33.000 --> 0:06:37.440
<v Speaker 1>acts in further into the conspiracy, no matter who commits them,

0:06:37.600 --> 0:06:42.600
<v Speaker 1>are attributable and applicable to every other member of the conspiracy.

0:06:43.000 --> 0:06:46.400
<v Speaker 1>And so it just isn't a good legal argument that

0:06:46.440 --> 0:06:49.000
<v Speaker 1>they don't know one another and they didn't work together

0:06:49.560 --> 0:06:54.919
<v Speaker 1>in the conspiracy. It's not a justification for severing their offendans.

0:06:54.920 --> 0:06:57.839
<v Speaker 1>I think the stronger argument is, this case is so massive,

0:06:57.880 --> 0:07:01.280
<v Speaker 1>the evidence is going to be so confusing, so overwhelming,

0:07:01.920 --> 0:07:04.240
<v Speaker 1>that it's going to be difficult for the jurors to

0:07:04.320 --> 0:07:09.000
<v Speaker 1>compartmentalize it all. But even then the counter argument is, well,

0:07:09.040 --> 0:07:11.840
<v Speaker 1>even if you try him separately, the argument is going

0:07:11.880 --> 0:07:14.920
<v Speaker 1>to be they're part of the conspiracy, and therefore the

0:07:14.960 --> 0:07:17.960
<v Speaker 1>prosecutor is going to argue that this evidence of other

0:07:18.040 --> 0:07:20.480
<v Speaker 1>overt acts and other crimes committed by other members of

0:07:20.480 --> 0:07:24.280
<v Speaker 1>the conspiracy. That's relevant, and it's admissible against every other

0:07:24.320 --> 0:07:27.440
<v Speaker 1>member of the conspiracy. Therefore, that's relevant, and we should

0:07:27.440 --> 0:07:30.040
<v Speaker 1>be able to present it at the trial, even if

0:07:30.040 --> 0:07:34.480
<v Speaker 1>it's only a trial of two defendants Chesborough and Sidney Powell.

0:07:34.760 --> 0:07:37.960
<v Speaker 3>So prosecutors said they expected to put on the same

0:07:38.680 --> 0:07:42.400
<v Speaker 3>lengthy case against any of the defendants who are tried separately.

0:07:42.760 --> 0:07:45.760
<v Speaker 3>Would they really put on the same exact evidence if

0:07:45.800 --> 0:07:48.920
<v Speaker 3>they just had let's say Chesbro and Powell and maybe

0:07:48.960 --> 0:07:51.760
<v Speaker 3>John Eastman tried would they really put all that on?

0:07:52.200 --> 0:07:55.840
<v Speaker 1>I think technically speaking, Fannie Willis can make that argument,

0:07:55.920 --> 0:07:59.800
<v Speaker 1>and again the argument would be that they're members of

0:07:59.840 --> 0:08:04.280
<v Speaker 1>the conspiracy, these two individuals, Chesbaro and Powell, and therefore

0:08:04.320 --> 0:08:07.960
<v Speaker 1>crimes committed by the other seventeen members and overt act

0:08:08.000 --> 0:08:10.520
<v Speaker 1>committed by the other seventeen members of the conspiracy are

0:08:10.560 --> 0:08:16.800
<v Speaker 1>relevant and they're admissible against these two defendants Chessboro and Powell.

0:08:17.120 --> 0:08:21.160
<v Speaker 1>So that argument has some legal basis. But I think

0:08:21.200 --> 0:08:26.000
<v Speaker 1>were I really struggle is that from a practical standpoint,

0:08:26.080 --> 0:08:30.920
<v Speaker 1>I just don't know how you manage a trial of

0:08:31.120 --> 0:08:35.520
<v Speaker 1>nineteen defendants. Again, with this opportunity of every defendant having

0:08:35.559 --> 0:08:39.640
<v Speaker 1>the opportunity to cross examine every government witness and potentially

0:08:39.800 --> 0:08:45.080
<v Speaker 1>multiple times, and have that trial be completed in four months,

0:08:45.360 --> 0:08:46.800
<v Speaker 1>it just doesn't seem feasible.

0:08:47.280 --> 0:08:49.600
<v Speaker 3>The judge didn't seem to think it was feasible either,

0:08:49.640 --> 0:08:52.360
<v Speaker 3>But he has to make a decision. He has some

0:08:52.440 --> 0:08:56.559
<v Speaker 3>defendants who ask for a speedy trial, others who say

0:08:56.920 --> 0:09:00.240
<v Speaker 3>they need more time. Could he really force those other

0:09:00.280 --> 0:09:02.880
<v Speaker 3>defendants to go to trial in six weeks?

0:09:03.080 --> 0:09:05.280
<v Speaker 1>Well, he could try to do that, but there's going

0:09:05.320 --> 0:09:07.760
<v Speaker 1>to be an objection, of course, by the other defendants.

0:09:07.800 --> 0:09:10.600
<v Speaker 1>They're going to say, well, we need more time. You know,

0:09:10.840 --> 0:09:14.360
<v Speaker 1>the amount of discovery there are actually one hundred and

0:09:14.360 --> 0:09:18.240
<v Speaker 1>sixty one overt acts that are listed set forth in

0:09:18.360 --> 0:09:22.439
<v Speaker 1>the Fulton County indictment. We need more time to prepare

0:09:22.679 --> 0:09:26.760
<v Speaker 1>to robut that evidence. And so then it becomes more

0:09:26.800 --> 0:09:29.960
<v Speaker 1>of a constitutional due process argument that if we go

0:09:30.040 --> 0:09:35.040
<v Speaker 1>to trial on October twenty third, as Fannie Willis is proposing,

0:09:35.440 --> 0:09:37.720
<v Speaker 1>we're just not going to have time to prepare for trial,

0:09:37.760 --> 0:09:40.760
<v Speaker 1>and therefore the trial is going to violate our due process,

0:09:40.880 --> 0:09:42.200
<v Speaker 1>fundamental fairness rights.

0:09:42.840 --> 0:09:47.320
<v Speaker 3>What I thought was interesting is the prosecutor argued that

0:09:48.200 --> 0:09:52.080
<v Speaker 3>not only would this be inconvenient and perhaps traumatic for

0:09:52.200 --> 0:09:56.559
<v Speaker 3>witnesses to testify more than once, but also that it

0:09:56.600 --> 0:09:59.960
<v Speaker 3>would give an advantage to the defendants who were tried later,

0:10:00.160 --> 0:10:03.440
<v Speaker 3>and that gives the appearance that the system isn't fair.

0:10:03.920 --> 0:10:07.240
<v Speaker 1>That's a very good argument by the prosecution. There's no

0:10:07.400 --> 0:10:11.600
<v Speaker 1>question that the prosecution will be disadvantaged if this trial

0:10:11.840 --> 0:10:16.400
<v Speaker 1>nineteen defendants is broken up into multiple trials, because even

0:10:16.440 --> 0:10:19.719
<v Speaker 1>in the first trial, if Fannie Willis is correct and

0:10:19.760 --> 0:10:21.920
<v Speaker 1>the court permits or to put on one hundred and

0:10:21.960 --> 0:10:25.280
<v Speaker 1>fifty witnesses, then the other seventeen defendants are going to

0:10:25.320 --> 0:10:29.400
<v Speaker 1>have an opportunity to hear that testimony, review that testimony,

0:10:29.559 --> 0:10:33.840
<v Speaker 1>and then prepare of evidence to rebut that testimony in

0:10:33.920 --> 0:10:36.920
<v Speaker 1>their trial. And then there's always the danger when a

0:10:36.960 --> 0:10:40.680
<v Speaker 1>witness testifies more than once that there are going to

0:10:40.720 --> 0:10:44.920
<v Speaker 1>be some inconsistencies, likely some inconsistence in the testimony. They're

0:10:44.960 --> 0:10:48.559
<v Speaker 1>not robots, and so their testimony isn't going to necessarily

0:10:48.600 --> 0:10:53.560
<v Speaker 1>be exactly word verbatim from one trial to another, and

0:10:53.600 --> 0:10:56.680
<v Speaker 1>so any inconsistencies, of course, are going to be seized

0:10:56.720 --> 0:10:59.720
<v Speaker 1>on by the French lawyers to impeach the credibility of

0:10:59.720 --> 0:11:03.040
<v Speaker 1>those witnesses, and then of course that again, you know,

0:11:03.120 --> 0:11:06.320
<v Speaker 1>jeopardizes the state's case. That hurts the states case as well.

0:11:06.679 --> 0:11:10.680
<v Speaker 3>The attorneys for Sidney Powell and Kenneth Chesbrow seem to

0:11:10.679 --> 0:11:14.160
<v Speaker 3>be competing for which defendant had more evidence against them

0:11:14.200 --> 0:11:17.600
<v Speaker 3>and would be more disadvantaged by being tried together. Does

0:11:17.640 --> 0:11:21.960
<v Speaker 3>that indicate there might be conflicting defenses when they're tried together.

0:11:22.760 --> 0:11:25.720
<v Speaker 1>Well, there could be, and there's already kind of some

0:11:26.200 --> 0:11:30.720
<v Speaker 1>murmurings to that effect at the hearing where Chesburrow's attorney

0:11:30.800 --> 0:11:32.600
<v Speaker 1>is kind of pointing to and saying, you know, we

0:11:32.600 --> 0:11:35.480
<v Speaker 1>weren't involved in the crazy stuff that Sidney Powell's doing,

0:11:35.720 --> 0:11:38.000
<v Speaker 1>and so it's kind of again we're beginning to see

0:11:38.120 --> 0:11:41.120
<v Speaker 1>the code defend is pointing the finger at one another.

0:11:41.720 --> 0:11:45.120
<v Speaker 1>That of course, I think actually benefits the prosecution. But

0:11:45.240 --> 0:11:49.120
<v Speaker 1>it's complicated in terms of if the court decides that

0:11:49.280 --> 0:11:53.599
<v Speaker 1>nineteen defendants tried in a single trial is just unmanageable,

0:11:54.040 --> 0:11:56.280
<v Speaker 1>then the question is, well, how do you divide it up?

0:11:56.360 --> 0:11:59.560
<v Speaker 1>Do you divide the trial up based upon groups of

0:11:59.600 --> 0:12:03.640
<v Speaker 1>defendents that were engaged and involved in similar criminal activity,

0:12:03.800 --> 0:12:06.800
<v Speaker 1>such as the fake elector scheme. Let's try all of

0:12:06.800 --> 0:12:10.720
<v Speaker 1>those defendants together, and then with respect to other defendants

0:12:10.760 --> 0:12:14.240
<v Speaker 1>that we're involved in other kind of unique aspects of

0:12:14.360 --> 0:12:18.000
<v Speaker 1>the subplots of the broader conspiracy, will try them separately.

0:12:18.200 --> 0:12:21.840
<v Speaker 1>It could very well fall along those lines. So at

0:12:21.880 --> 0:12:23.880
<v Speaker 1>the end of the day, well, certainly, you know it's

0:12:23.880 --> 0:12:26.480
<v Speaker 1>not going to be a single trial because Chesboro and

0:12:26.640 --> 0:12:28.840
<v Speaker 1>Palla are going to be tried separately. But with respect

0:12:28.880 --> 0:12:31.760
<v Speaker 1>to the remaining seventeen defendants, I think it's conceivable that

0:12:31.840 --> 0:12:34.440
<v Speaker 1>they could be divided up by the court based upon

0:12:34.640 --> 0:12:37.800
<v Speaker 1>kind of their criminal activity that's similar in kind, and

0:12:37.840 --> 0:12:42.280
<v Speaker 1>that could result in maybe two or three additional separate trials.

0:12:42.720 --> 0:12:47.280
<v Speaker 3>Chessbro's attorney said, the prosecutors clearly want Trump sitting at

0:12:47.280 --> 0:12:49.880
<v Speaker 3>the table with the other defendants, so I.

0:12:49.840 --> 0:12:54.959
<v Speaker 1>Thought, yes, so, yeah, exactly, So that's not unusual. I mean,

0:12:55.120 --> 0:12:57.760
<v Speaker 1>in any conspiracy, you certainly want the head of the

0:12:57.840 --> 0:13:01.240
<v Speaker 1>criminal enterprise at the table. I mean, you want all

0:13:01.280 --> 0:13:03.880
<v Speaker 1>of the defendants that were involved in the criminal enterprise

0:13:04.040 --> 0:13:07.480
<v Speaker 1>to be at the table. The practical reality is, though,

0:13:07.720 --> 0:13:12.200
<v Speaker 1>at some point, it just becomes unwieldy and unmanageable. If

0:13:12.280 --> 0:13:16.840
<v Speaker 1>the scope of the conspiracy is so broad and encompasses

0:13:17.000 --> 0:13:22.319
<v Speaker 1>so many participants, so many co conspirators, as this particular

0:13:22.880 --> 0:13:27.320
<v Speaker 1>enterprise does, that it just becomes unwilling and unmanageable to

0:13:28.200 --> 0:13:31.680
<v Speaker 1>have them tried in a single criminal trial.

0:13:31.920 --> 0:13:34.000
<v Speaker 3>Do you think the judge was right in refusing to

0:13:34.080 --> 0:13:36.280
<v Speaker 3>sever Powell in Chesburro's trials?

0:13:36.760 --> 0:13:38.800
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, I think so. I don't think that there's a

0:13:38.960 --> 0:13:42.920
<v Speaker 1>compelling due process argument that if you try the two

0:13:42.960 --> 0:13:46.079
<v Speaker 1>of them together that somehow that's going to violate the

0:13:46.160 --> 0:13:50.360
<v Speaker 1>due process rights of Chesburo. And the court said so much.

0:13:50.400 --> 0:13:52.839
<v Speaker 1>You know, the court on the record made that point.

0:13:52.960 --> 0:13:55.760
<v Speaker 1>He just was not convinced that it would be unfair

0:13:56.000 --> 0:13:58.080
<v Speaker 1>to try the two of them together. So I think

0:13:58.160 --> 0:14:01.800
<v Speaker 1>that decision and that ruling a sound ruling. What I'm

0:14:01.840 --> 0:14:04.800
<v Speaker 1>waiting to see is what he decides. I think he

0:14:04.880 --> 0:14:08.960
<v Speaker 1>gave Fannie Willis, the prosecutor, until Tuesday to file some

0:14:09.200 --> 0:14:12.840
<v Speaker 1>additional materials and arguments on having all of the defendants

0:14:12.840 --> 0:14:16.760
<v Speaker 1>tried together. On October twenty three, I think he's probably

0:14:16.760 --> 0:14:19.880
<v Speaker 1>going to reject that argument, and then the question is

0:14:19.920 --> 0:14:21.640
<v Speaker 1>how is he going to divide up the rest of

0:14:21.680 --> 0:14:23.760
<v Speaker 1>the defendants, and I think it's likely going to be

0:14:24.080 --> 0:14:27.320
<v Speaker 1>two or three additional separate trials.

0:14:27.520 --> 0:14:30.880
<v Speaker 3>Thanks so much, Jimmy. That's Professor Jimmy Garul of Notre

0:14:30.960 --> 0:14:33.320
<v Speaker 3>Dame Law School. And that's it for this edition of

0:14:33.360 --> 0:14:36.000
<v Speaker 3>The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always get the

0:14:36.080 --> 0:14:39.280
<v Speaker 3>latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can

0:14:39.320 --> 0:14:43.560
<v Speaker 3>find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at www dot

0:14:43.560 --> 0:14:47.760
<v Speaker 3>Bloomberg dot com slash podcast Slash Law, and remember to

0:14:47.800 --> 0:14:50.840
<v Speaker 3>tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight at ten

0:14:50.920 --> 0:14:54.680
<v Speaker 3>pm Wall Street Time. I'm Jumi Grosso and you're listening

0:14:54.760 --> 0:14:55.400
<v Speaker 3>to Bloomberg