1 00:00:03,120 --> 00:00:07,960 Speaker 1: This is Bloombird Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio. 2 00:00:10,760 --> 00:00:14,480 Speaker 1: For six weeks, the Alex Murdoch case has attracted true 3 00:00:14,480 --> 00:00:18,479 Speaker 1: crime fans a murder with no real physical evidence, not 4 00:00:18,600 --> 00:00:21,840 Speaker 1: even a weapon or bloody close, but a case showing 5 00:00:21,880 --> 00:00:25,960 Speaker 1: the strands of old world power, money and privilege in 6 00:00:26,040 --> 00:00:31,040 Speaker 1: rural South Carolina, and the strands of New world greed, addiction, 7 00:00:31,120 --> 00:00:35,839 Speaker 1: and egocentric behavior. After hearing more than seventy five witnesses, 8 00:00:35,880 --> 00:00:39,960 Speaker 1: the jury deliberated for less than three hours before finding 9 00:00:40,040 --> 00:00:43,080 Speaker 1: Murdoch guilty of killing his twenty two year old son 10 00:00:43,200 --> 00:00:46,720 Speaker 1: Paul with two shotgun blasts and his fifty two year 11 00:00:46,720 --> 00:00:51,400 Speaker 1: old wife, Maggie with four or five rifle shots. At sentencing, 12 00:00:51,520 --> 00:00:56,520 Speaker 1: Murdah maintained his innocence. I'm innocent. I would never hurt 13 00:00:56,600 --> 00:00:59,360 Speaker 1: my wife Maggie, and I would never hurt my son 14 00:00:59,400 --> 00:01:03,000 Speaker 1: Paul Paul. But Judge Clifton Newman handed down the harshest 15 00:01:03,040 --> 00:01:08,280 Speaker 1: possible sentence he could consecutive life sentences without parole. A 16 00:01:08,440 --> 00:01:13,480 Speaker 1: sentence you to prison for murder in hand for the 17 00:01:13,520 --> 00:01:18,560 Speaker 1: rest of your natural life. Those sentences will run consecutive. 18 00:01:19,240 --> 00:01:23,520 Speaker 1: Defense attorneys Dick Carputlian and Jim Griffin say they'll appeal 19 00:01:23,560 --> 00:01:26,760 Speaker 1: the conviction based on the judge's decision to allow in 20 00:01:26,959 --> 00:01:32,000 Speaker 1: evidence of Murdaugh's past financial misdeeds. Once they got that 21 00:01:32,640 --> 00:01:36,640 Speaker 1: character character information, as he's a thief, he's a liar, 22 00:01:37,080 --> 00:01:41,160 Speaker 1: then it dictated this jury had to think he was 23 00:01:41,200 --> 00:01:44,959 Speaker 1: aspicable human being and not to be believed. So it 24 00:01:45,080 --> 00:01:50,360 Speaker 1: was about character, it wasn't about motives. So as a result, 25 00:01:50,440 --> 00:01:54,040 Speaker 1: our options were limited. Joining me as former federal prosecutor 26 00:01:54,200 --> 00:01:58,560 Speaker 1: Jessica Roth, a professor at Cardozo Law School. There was 27 00:01:58,680 --> 00:02:04,000 Speaker 1: no direct evidence, no murder weapon, no blood soaked evidence, 28 00:02:04,080 --> 00:02:08,320 Speaker 1: no physical evidence at all. Well, there was obviously the 29 00:02:08,440 --> 00:02:11,959 Speaker 1: evidence of the crime scene, the bodies of the victims, 30 00:02:12,120 --> 00:02:14,840 Speaker 1: and there was a lot of evidence introduced, i think 31 00:02:14,840 --> 00:02:18,440 Speaker 1: in the nature of photographs and evidence about the autopsies 32 00:02:18,720 --> 00:02:20,600 Speaker 1: to show the state of the victims. And there was 33 00:02:20,680 --> 00:02:24,639 Speaker 1: significant expert testimony dedicated to showing the kinds of bullets 34 00:02:24,720 --> 00:02:26,760 Speaker 1: that were used in the trajectory of the bullet and 35 00:02:26,800 --> 00:02:30,400 Speaker 1: the positioning of the victims introduced by the prosecution in 36 00:02:30,480 --> 00:02:33,840 Speaker 1: part to support the theory that the victims were taken 37 00:02:33,880 --> 00:02:36,959 Speaker 1: by surprise and that there was no evidence of defensive 38 00:02:36,960 --> 00:02:41,720 Speaker 1: wounds to suggest that they knew their assailant, and you 39 00:02:41,919 --> 00:02:45,760 Speaker 1: weren't expecting harm from anyone else. So there was evidence 40 00:02:45,880 --> 00:02:48,160 Speaker 1: sort of about the state of the victim. There was 41 00:02:48,200 --> 00:02:51,680 Speaker 1: also evidence in the nature of this very important cell 42 00:02:51,720 --> 00:02:55,040 Speaker 1: phone video that Paul Murdoch, who was one of the victims, 43 00:02:55,040 --> 00:03:00,400 Speaker 1: the defendant's son, took moments before the time at which 44 00:03:00,400 --> 00:03:03,440 Speaker 1: the prosecution placed some time of death for both victims. 45 00:03:03,800 --> 00:03:07,840 Speaker 1: And on that video, which Paul took mostly of a 46 00:03:08,000 --> 00:03:11,120 Speaker 1: dog that had been entrusted to the Murdoch family by 47 00:03:11,160 --> 00:03:14,960 Speaker 1: a friend of Paul. Do you hear Paul talking and 48 00:03:15,120 --> 00:03:17,800 Speaker 1: showing the dog he was examining, in particular the dog's 49 00:03:17,840 --> 00:03:20,160 Speaker 1: tail for his friend who was concerned about the condition 50 00:03:20,160 --> 00:03:22,359 Speaker 1: of the dog's tail. And you hear Maggie, who was 51 00:03:22,400 --> 00:03:25,400 Speaker 1: the other victim, the defendant's wife, speaking, and then you 52 00:03:25,480 --> 00:03:28,239 Speaker 1: also hear a third voice. And that was what was 53 00:03:28,280 --> 00:03:32,880 Speaker 1: so significant about that video because numerous witnesses identified that 54 00:03:33,040 --> 00:03:37,000 Speaker 1: third voice just heard, not seen, that was identified as 55 00:03:37,000 --> 00:03:40,800 Speaker 1: being the defendant, Alec Murdoch, and so that placed him 56 00:03:41,000 --> 00:03:43,560 Speaker 1: at the kennels which was the scene of the crime, 57 00:03:44,080 --> 00:03:48,240 Speaker 1: just minutes before the murders allegedly happened. So that was 58 00:03:48,480 --> 00:03:51,800 Speaker 1: probably the single most important piece of evidence in the 59 00:03:51,960 --> 00:03:55,680 Speaker 1: entire case, was that cell phone video. The coroner said 60 00:03:56,000 --> 00:04:00,320 Speaker 1: that the victims were killed between eight pm and ten pm, 61 00:04:00,400 --> 00:04:06,240 Speaker 1: but the prosecution used the victim's phone usage to pinpoint 62 00:04:06,280 --> 00:04:09,480 Speaker 1: the time of death to eight forty nine. That was 63 00:04:09,520 --> 00:04:13,440 Speaker 1: pretty elaborate, wasn't it using that data? So the time 64 00:04:13,480 --> 00:04:17,159 Speaker 1: of death was pinned by the prosecution to the time 65 00:04:17,320 --> 00:04:20,800 Speaker 1: when the cell phones were both victims locked for the 66 00:04:20,920 --> 00:04:25,960 Speaker 1: last time. And while it's certainly not the case that 67 00:04:26,360 --> 00:04:29,000 Speaker 1: when you stop using your phone and it therefore locks, 68 00:04:29,080 --> 00:04:31,919 Speaker 1: that you're necessarily dead, and that was in fact an 69 00:04:32,000 --> 00:04:35,239 Speaker 1: argument that the defense made in closing that we shouldn't 70 00:04:35,240 --> 00:04:38,719 Speaker 1: accept that as meaning death. And nevertheless, I think was 71 00:04:38,880 --> 00:04:42,640 Speaker 1: persuasive evidence that it is likely that the defendants died 72 00:04:42,680 --> 00:04:45,760 Speaker 1: around the time that their phones locked for the last time, 73 00:04:46,160 --> 00:04:50,040 Speaker 1: because the other evidence of their phone usage suggested that 74 00:04:50,120 --> 00:04:53,720 Speaker 1: they were people who were using their phones fairly continuously. 75 00:04:54,160 --> 00:04:57,839 Speaker 1: And so although it's possible that they remained alive for 76 00:04:57,960 --> 00:05:01,080 Speaker 1: some significant period of time after their phone locked for 77 00:05:01,120 --> 00:05:04,640 Speaker 1: the last time, when one looks at their cell phone 78 00:05:04,880 --> 00:05:08,840 Speaker 1: usage overall and then appreciates that the phones locked at 79 00:05:08,880 --> 00:05:11,840 Speaker 1: this moment in time in the context of their overall 80 00:05:11,839 --> 00:05:15,920 Speaker 1: cell phone usage, it's plausible that that was when they died, 81 00:05:15,960 --> 00:05:18,440 Speaker 1: when the phones locked for the last time. And that's 82 00:05:18,560 --> 00:05:21,280 Speaker 1: particularly the case given that, as I mentioned, a moment ago, 83 00:05:21,360 --> 00:05:24,680 Speaker 1: Paul had taken this video of his friend's dog, and 84 00:05:24,720 --> 00:05:27,640 Speaker 1: he had been actively communicating by his phone with his 85 00:05:27,720 --> 00:05:30,320 Speaker 1: friend about the dog, and the friend was asking for 86 00:05:30,360 --> 00:05:33,360 Speaker 1: Paul to send him the video right away. And so 87 00:05:33,400 --> 00:05:36,279 Speaker 1: given that Paul did not, and the friend then followed 88 00:05:36,360 --> 00:05:39,160 Speaker 1: up with messages that Paul did not respond to, friend 89 00:05:39,160 --> 00:05:42,000 Speaker 1: followed up saying send me the video that supported the 90 00:05:42,040 --> 00:05:46,200 Speaker 1: prosecution's argument that Paul's death happened. Write about them. Much 91 00:05:46,200 --> 00:05:49,760 Speaker 1: has been made of the fact that Murdo took the stand. 92 00:05:50,120 --> 00:05:52,400 Speaker 1: A lot of people have been looking back on this, 93 00:05:52,560 --> 00:05:57,200 Speaker 1: including the South Carolina Attorney General. He said Alex Murda 94 00:05:57,320 --> 00:06:02,159 Speaker 1: taking the stand was a fatal move in his murder trial. Well, 95 00:06:02,160 --> 00:06:05,679 Speaker 1: I think one other really important part of this case 96 00:06:05,800 --> 00:06:08,800 Speaker 1: that I need to mention, particularly following our discussion of 97 00:06:08,839 --> 00:06:12,080 Speaker 1: the cell phone video, is that the defendant had told 98 00:06:12,240 --> 00:06:15,320 Speaker 1: police officers that he had not been at the Kennel's 99 00:06:15,440 --> 00:06:18,600 Speaker 1: the night of the murders with his wife and his son. 100 00:06:19,000 --> 00:06:22,760 Speaker 1: And so the significance of the cell phone video was 101 00:06:22,880 --> 00:06:25,400 Speaker 1: partly that it placed the defendant at the scene of 102 00:06:25,440 --> 00:06:29,640 Speaker 1: the crime moments before the moment where the prosecutors contended 103 00:06:29,680 --> 00:06:32,880 Speaker 1: that the murders happened, but also that the defendant denied 104 00:06:32,960 --> 00:06:36,120 Speaker 1: having been there, and that was essentially disproven by the 105 00:06:36,160 --> 00:06:39,400 Speaker 1: cell phone video, which he didn't know existed when he 106 00:06:39,440 --> 00:06:42,800 Speaker 1: first spoke to police officers. So he had lied on 107 00:06:42,839 --> 00:06:45,080 Speaker 1: the night of the murders when he first spoke to 108 00:06:45,120 --> 00:06:48,320 Speaker 1: police about when he had last seen Maggie and Paul, 109 00:06:48,640 --> 00:06:52,000 Speaker 1: and then he continued to tell that lie for several 110 00:06:52,040 --> 00:06:55,440 Speaker 1: months thereafter. And so it was the combination of the 111 00:06:55,520 --> 00:06:59,000 Speaker 1: video putting him there at the scene moments before and 112 00:06:59,160 --> 00:07:01,919 Speaker 1: his denial of having been there when he didn't know 113 00:07:02,000 --> 00:07:04,800 Speaker 1: about the existence of the video that I think was 114 00:07:04,920 --> 00:07:09,760 Speaker 1: really critical to the prosecution's case here. And so when 115 00:07:09,800 --> 00:07:13,720 Speaker 1: you understand in context that the defendant had denied being 116 00:07:13,880 --> 00:07:18,400 Speaker 1: at the kennels repeatedly, and then several witnesses at the 117 00:07:18,480 --> 00:07:22,960 Speaker 1: trial identified his voice as being the third voice heard 118 00:07:23,000 --> 00:07:25,760 Speaker 1: on that video, that was so crucial because it was 119 00:07:25,800 --> 00:07:28,040 Speaker 1: so close to the time of death at the place 120 00:07:28,080 --> 00:07:31,400 Speaker 1: of the deaths, the defendant, or at least the defense attorneys, 121 00:07:31,440 --> 00:07:34,400 Speaker 1: seemed to think that he had to offer an explanation 122 00:07:35,000 --> 00:07:38,800 Speaker 1: for why he had lied about not having been there 123 00:07:39,200 --> 00:07:42,600 Speaker 1: moments before the killings. I still don't get the motive 124 00:07:42,640 --> 00:07:46,240 Speaker 1: here that the prosecutors put forth. He killed his wife 125 00:07:46,240 --> 00:07:50,440 Speaker 1: and son to distract from his financial crimes. So their 126 00:07:50,560 --> 00:07:54,080 Speaker 1: theory of motive, I think developed over the course of 127 00:07:54,120 --> 00:07:57,960 Speaker 1: the trial. It always started with this idea that there 128 00:07:58,120 --> 00:08:02,040 Speaker 1: was a reckoning coming for the pendants, based in large 129 00:08:02,160 --> 00:08:07,520 Speaker 1: part on his financial crimes and misdeeds. He had stolen 130 00:08:07,640 --> 00:08:12,000 Speaker 1: from his law partners. He had stolen from his clients, 131 00:08:12,040 --> 00:08:16,840 Speaker 1: including people who were the young children of his former 132 00:08:16,880 --> 00:08:22,200 Speaker 1: housekeeper who died while working on his estate. He had 133 00:08:22,200 --> 00:08:26,040 Speaker 1: stolen from all of these people, and the moment of 134 00:08:26,120 --> 00:08:30,400 Speaker 1: reckoning for those crimes was imminently upon him. That was 135 00:08:30,440 --> 00:08:34,559 Speaker 1: the prosecution's theory, and that theory was supported by not 136 00:08:34,600 --> 00:08:37,880 Speaker 1: only the evidence to establish that he had committed those crimes, 137 00:08:38,320 --> 00:08:41,480 Speaker 1: but also that he had been confronted by the chief 138 00:08:41,480 --> 00:08:45,200 Speaker 1: financial officer of his law firm the very day of 139 00:08:45,240 --> 00:08:49,720 Speaker 1: the murders, so that afternoon, he was confronted about hundreds 140 00:08:49,760 --> 00:08:53,520 Speaker 1: of thousands of dollars that he had misappropriated from the firm, 141 00:08:53,800 --> 00:08:57,240 Speaker 1: so that, according to the prosecution's theory, was part of 142 00:08:57,280 --> 00:09:01,200 Speaker 1: the trigger for him to react, act and try to 143 00:09:01,240 --> 00:09:04,680 Speaker 1: find a way out, even if not a permanent way out, 144 00:09:04,880 --> 00:09:08,720 Speaker 1: something that would distract attention and essentially get people off 145 00:09:08,760 --> 00:09:11,440 Speaker 1: his back for some period of time, so that he 146 00:09:11,480 --> 00:09:14,920 Speaker 1: could perhaps figure out how to sort of shift money 147 00:09:14,920 --> 00:09:17,160 Speaker 1: around one more time, as he had done many times 148 00:09:17,160 --> 00:09:19,880 Speaker 1: in the past, by borrowing from people or perhaps feeling 149 00:09:19,920 --> 00:09:23,800 Speaker 1: from others to replenish the coffers or to satisfy some people, 150 00:09:24,120 --> 00:09:27,000 Speaker 1: and the idea would be that he would be perceived 151 00:09:27,080 --> 00:09:31,120 Speaker 1: as the grieving widower and poor father whose son had 152 00:09:31,120 --> 00:09:33,640 Speaker 1: been murdered, and so he would get a little bit 153 00:09:33,679 --> 00:09:38,359 Speaker 1: of breathing room and forbearance. That was chiefly the prosecution's 154 00:09:38,400 --> 00:09:42,880 Speaker 1: theory coming into the case. As the trial continued, they 155 00:09:42,920 --> 00:09:46,600 Speaker 1: added some more layers to that theory of motive, and 156 00:09:46,720 --> 00:09:49,480 Speaker 1: I think added on the idea that he was concerned 157 00:09:49,520 --> 00:09:53,600 Speaker 1: about his own reputation and standing and that of his 158 00:09:53,760 --> 00:09:57,520 Speaker 1: family in the community. He was from a long line 159 00:09:57,840 --> 00:10:02,520 Speaker 1: of respected lawyer years in the community. His father had 160 00:10:02,520 --> 00:10:06,079 Speaker 1: been the head prosecutor in the county, as had his grandfather. 161 00:10:06,520 --> 00:10:09,920 Speaker 1: He himself had been an assistance prosecutor in the county, 162 00:10:10,280 --> 00:10:13,080 Speaker 1: and so part of the theories seemed to become that 163 00:10:13,240 --> 00:10:18,200 Speaker 1: it was the fear of reputational harm and prestige that 164 00:10:18,559 --> 00:10:22,560 Speaker 1: went into his motivations in reacting the way he did. 165 00:10:23,240 --> 00:10:27,160 Speaker 1: It was nearly six weeks of testimony from seventy five witnesses, 166 00:10:27,840 --> 00:10:32,080 Speaker 1: but the jury came back in just three hours, And 167 00:10:32,280 --> 00:10:36,720 Speaker 1: according to the jurors afterwards, they said that they said 168 00:10:36,760 --> 00:10:41,000 Speaker 1: a prayer, they took an initial anonymous vote, and in 169 00:10:41,040 --> 00:10:44,280 Speaker 1: that vote, two jurors thought he was not guilty, and 170 00:10:44,480 --> 00:10:48,040 Speaker 1: one juror had not made up his or her mind. 171 00:10:48,480 --> 00:10:52,160 Speaker 1: And then they said that within forty five minutes, the 172 00:10:52,240 --> 00:10:55,400 Speaker 1: jurors who wanted to vote guilty had convinced the other 173 00:10:55,440 --> 00:10:58,160 Speaker 1: three they don't have to do anything, But wouldn't it 174 00:10:58,200 --> 00:11:01,360 Speaker 1: seem logical to go through the evidence and, you know, 175 00:11:01,440 --> 00:11:04,760 Speaker 1: look it through before deciding that a man is guilty 176 00:11:04,760 --> 00:11:09,360 Speaker 1: of killing his wife and child. I was very surprised 177 00:11:09,360 --> 00:11:12,800 Speaker 1: by the speed of the verdict. I truly was shocked 178 00:11:12,840 --> 00:11:14,560 Speaker 1: that it came back as quickly as it did. I 179 00:11:14,600 --> 00:11:18,200 Speaker 1: did not expect that. What I thought when I first 180 00:11:18,280 --> 00:11:20,280 Speaker 1: heard that they had reached a verdict at quickly and 181 00:11:20,400 --> 00:11:23,000 Speaker 1: had heard what the verdict was, was that the jury 182 00:11:23,679 --> 00:11:27,400 Speaker 1: must have seen this as a fairly straightforward case at 183 00:11:27,400 --> 00:11:30,120 Speaker 1: the end of the day, that despite the weeks of 184 00:11:30,160 --> 00:11:33,360 Speaker 1: testimony and the many witnesses and exhibits that were offered, 185 00:11:33,679 --> 00:11:37,320 Speaker 1: that it came down to only a few pieces of 186 00:11:37,360 --> 00:11:41,040 Speaker 1: evidence that were critical to their deliberations, And I suspected 187 00:11:41,080 --> 00:11:44,679 Speaker 1: it was that video that Paul took at the kennels 188 00:11:44,720 --> 00:11:47,200 Speaker 1: that placed the defendants at the scene of the crime 189 00:11:47,240 --> 00:11:49,720 Speaker 1: a few minutes before the time of death, and the 190 00:11:49,760 --> 00:11:54,120 Speaker 1: defendants denial, repeated denial until he was confronted with that 191 00:11:54,200 --> 00:11:57,160 Speaker 1: cell phone video and the witnesses who identified his voice 192 00:11:57,200 --> 00:12:00,800 Speaker 1: as having been on that video, that it effectively came 193 00:12:00,840 --> 00:12:03,040 Speaker 1: down to those two things, That why would he have 194 00:12:03,280 --> 00:12:06,320 Speaker 1: denied having been there, which seems like such a crucial 195 00:12:06,360 --> 00:12:09,600 Speaker 1: piece of evidence to provide to law enforcement to look 196 00:12:09,640 --> 00:12:12,120 Speaker 1: for the killers of your wife and son, And that 197 00:12:12,240 --> 00:12:15,160 Speaker 1: much of the other evidence in the case in a 198 00:12:15,240 --> 00:12:20,240 Speaker 1: sense was peripheral to those basic elements. And the jurors 199 00:12:20,280 --> 00:12:23,640 Speaker 1: who were interviewed since the verdict came down the extent 200 00:12:23,679 --> 00:12:28,199 Speaker 1: i've heard their comments, they have corroborated so there comments 201 00:12:28,200 --> 00:12:31,040 Speaker 1: have supported why inferred, which was that it was really 202 00:12:31,120 --> 00:12:34,360 Speaker 1: quite straightforward to them. And I have heard one make 203 00:12:34,400 --> 00:12:38,880 Speaker 1: additional comments about their deliberation, saying that there were some 204 00:12:39,000 --> 00:12:43,240 Speaker 1: jurors who initially were not ready to vote for guilty, 205 00:12:43,640 --> 00:12:46,560 Speaker 1: but not from a firm conviction that the defendant was 206 00:12:46,640 --> 00:12:49,960 Speaker 1: not guilty, but rather that they just had some questions 207 00:12:50,000 --> 00:12:53,120 Speaker 1: they wanted to work through in discussions with the other 208 00:12:53,200 --> 00:12:56,040 Speaker 1: jurors and reviewing the evidence before they got to a 209 00:12:56,120 --> 00:13:00,320 Speaker 1: place where they felt comfortable voting guilty, and that that 210 00:13:00,440 --> 00:13:03,200 Speaker 1: was interesting to add on to what had previously been said, 211 00:13:03,200 --> 00:13:06,920 Speaker 1: because I too had heard about that initial vote and 212 00:13:07,280 --> 00:13:10,360 Speaker 1: didn't understand how somebody who may have been committed to 213 00:13:10,520 --> 00:13:13,320 Speaker 1: not guilty would have come around so quickly. But to 214 00:13:13,440 --> 00:13:16,280 Speaker 1: now hear the additional comments, it sounds like it wasn't 215 00:13:16,320 --> 00:13:19,680 Speaker 1: so much that there were two jurors committed to not guilty, 216 00:13:20,000 --> 00:13:23,800 Speaker 1: but rather that they were too not yet ready that 217 00:13:23,840 --> 00:13:27,320 Speaker 1: makes sense guilty, which is different. Let's talk about the appeal. 218 00:13:28,120 --> 00:13:31,480 Speaker 1: What the defense attorneys have said is they're going to 219 00:13:31,520 --> 00:13:34,960 Speaker 1: appeal around the question of whether the judge was too 220 00:13:35,000 --> 00:13:40,600 Speaker 1: permissive in allowing evidence of his past financial wrongdoing and lies. 221 00:13:41,040 --> 00:13:44,359 Speaker 1: They said there was no significant evidence linking his financial 222 00:13:44,440 --> 00:13:48,320 Speaker 1: crimes to the motive for murder, and that the prosecutors 223 00:13:48,400 --> 00:13:51,960 Speaker 1: said they needed to establish his motive. Then they ended 224 00:13:52,040 --> 00:13:54,440 Speaker 1: up using it to show he was a liar in 225 00:13:54,480 --> 00:13:57,360 Speaker 1: a conman, and so when he took the stand, the 226 00:13:57,480 --> 00:13:59,760 Speaker 1: jurors were already convinced that he was a liar in 227 00:13:59,760 --> 00:14:03,280 Speaker 1: a then because of all the evidence of financial crimes. 228 00:14:03,360 --> 00:14:05,679 Speaker 1: So I think the most significant issue out appeal will 229 00:14:05,760 --> 00:14:09,360 Speaker 1: be this evidence three question of whether the judge correctly 230 00:14:09,640 --> 00:14:12,520 Speaker 1: allowed the prosecutors to put in the evidence about his 231 00:14:12,600 --> 00:14:16,440 Speaker 1: financial crime. It was introduced on this theory that it 232 00:14:16,679 --> 00:14:21,840 Speaker 1: established motive for the crime, and the jury was I believe, 233 00:14:21,960 --> 00:14:25,440 Speaker 1: instructed that they should only consider it for purposes of 234 00:14:25,600 --> 00:14:28,680 Speaker 1: establishing his motives. There are a couple of issues though, 235 00:14:28,720 --> 00:14:31,720 Speaker 1: in terms of evaluating the likelihood of success on an 236 00:14:31,760 --> 00:14:36,080 Speaker 1: appeal with respect to this evidence. One is, even if 237 00:14:36,120 --> 00:14:39,320 Speaker 1: a reviewing court were to find that the judge did 238 00:14:39,400 --> 00:14:44,200 Speaker 1: commit error in his analysis in permitting it, I think 239 00:14:44,320 --> 00:14:47,280 Speaker 1: it would be subject to harmless error review, and the 240 00:14:47,440 --> 00:14:50,680 Speaker 1: court would look at through the other evidence in the case, 241 00:14:50,880 --> 00:14:52,560 Speaker 1: and if the court thought that at the end of 242 00:14:52,560 --> 00:14:55,800 Speaker 1: the day the other evidence was overwhelming, it would not 243 00:14:55,880 --> 00:14:58,560 Speaker 1: reverse even if it thought that the trial court had 244 00:14:58,600 --> 00:15:02,520 Speaker 1: committed error. The second issue is that because the defendant 245 00:15:02,600 --> 00:15:07,240 Speaker 1: took the stand, evidence about, or questions about, and those 246 00:15:07,280 --> 00:15:12,120 Speaker 1: other crimes to a significant extent would have been permissible 247 00:15:12,160 --> 00:15:16,640 Speaker 1: to impeach him. And so, in a sense, the issue 248 00:15:17,400 --> 00:15:21,680 Speaker 1: may have been partially waived because the defendant decided to 249 00:15:21,680 --> 00:15:24,160 Speaker 1: take the stand, and so the jury would have heard 250 00:15:24,200 --> 00:15:29,520 Speaker 1: about these lies and frauds as a basis for impeaching 251 00:15:29,640 --> 00:15:34,720 Speaker 1: his truthful character as a witness, And given that as 252 00:15:34,800 --> 00:15:37,840 Speaker 1: part of the record, I think that's an additional reason 253 00:15:37,920 --> 00:15:41,040 Speaker 1: why a court may be hesitant to or may not 254 00:15:41,120 --> 00:15:44,280 Speaker 1: find a basis for a reversal here. Now, so the 255 00:15:44,360 --> 00:15:46,960 Speaker 1: defense says, tell me if this will be considered at all. 256 00:15:47,000 --> 00:15:50,520 Speaker 1: The defense says that once all that evidence of his 257 00:15:50,600 --> 00:15:53,920 Speaker 1: financial crimes came in, he had no choice but to 258 00:15:53,920 --> 00:15:56,880 Speaker 1: take the stand and rebut it as best he could. 259 00:15:57,280 --> 00:16:01,120 Speaker 1: That was the calculus that they made. But he could 260 00:16:01,160 --> 00:16:05,320 Speaker 1: have remained silenced and held the government to its burden 261 00:16:05,360 --> 00:16:08,440 Speaker 1: of proof beyond a reasonable doubt that he did commit 262 00:16:08,520 --> 00:16:13,040 Speaker 1: the crime and preserve the issue more cleanly for appeal 263 00:16:13,560 --> 00:16:17,680 Speaker 1: on the judge's ruling to permit the other act evidence 264 00:16:17,720 --> 00:16:21,920 Speaker 1: to come in to prove motive. Once he took the stand, 265 00:16:22,400 --> 00:16:26,000 Speaker 1: I think the argument on appeal becomes much harder to make. 266 00:16:26,520 --> 00:16:30,240 Speaker 1: One of Murdah's lawyers, Jim Griffin, said he's confident they'll 267 00:16:30,280 --> 00:16:34,120 Speaker 1: succeed on federal grounds if their appeal falls at the 268 00:16:34,160 --> 00:16:37,680 Speaker 1: state level, and he based that on the state asking 269 00:16:38,200 --> 00:16:42,440 Speaker 1: Murdah about why he didn't come forward and tell law 270 00:16:42,560 --> 00:16:45,120 Speaker 1: enforcement where he was at the time of the kennel 271 00:16:45,240 --> 00:16:49,520 Speaker 1: video after he was arrested, saying that US Supreme Court 272 00:16:49,560 --> 00:16:53,400 Speaker 1: cases are clear that post arrest silence can't be used 273 00:16:53,440 --> 00:16:57,160 Speaker 1: against you. Is that a convincing argument? Well, I would 274 00:16:57,200 --> 00:16:59,880 Speaker 1: want to read the appellate briefs before offering a firm opinion, 275 00:17:00,120 --> 00:17:03,120 Speaker 1: but my initial reaction is that I don't think the 276 00:17:03,200 --> 00:17:07,479 Speaker 1: claim is that strong. It is true that prosecutors cannot 277 00:17:07,560 --> 00:17:11,359 Speaker 1: comment on a defendant's silence when the defendant elects not 278 00:17:11,440 --> 00:17:14,440 Speaker 1: to testify a trial, or if a defendant elects to 279 00:17:14,520 --> 00:17:18,120 Speaker 1: remain silent upon arrest, but the situation is different when 280 00:17:18,119 --> 00:17:21,640 Speaker 1: a defendant tells a lie before any arrest has occurred, 281 00:17:22,119 --> 00:17:25,440 Speaker 1: and maintains that lie repeatedly for a period of time 282 00:17:25,480 --> 00:17:28,000 Speaker 1: before any arrest. So, in other words, the case law 283 00:17:28,040 --> 00:17:32,879 Speaker 1: distinguishes between pre arrest silence and post arrest silence. The 284 00:17:32,920 --> 00:17:35,920 Speaker 1: case law also draws a distinction between prosecutors using a 285 00:17:36,000 --> 00:17:39,679 Speaker 1: defendant's silence as substantive evidence in their case in chief 286 00:17:40,200 --> 00:17:43,200 Speaker 1: and using it to impeach a defendant who testifies, and 287 00:17:43,440 --> 00:17:47,040 Speaker 1: courts allow prosecutors more leeway to use statements to impeach 288 00:17:47,200 --> 00:17:51,280 Speaker 1: and also give prosecutors considerably more leeway to use pre 289 00:17:51,440 --> 00:17:55,359 Speaker 1: arrest silence. In the murder case, the defendant repeatedly lied 290 00:17:55,440 --> 00:17:58,800 Speaker 1: about his whereabouts on the knights of the murders, specifically 291 00:17:58,840 --> 00:18:00,960 Speaker 1: denying that he had been at the kennels where the 292 00:18:01,000 --> 00:18:04,280 Speaker 1: murders took place, in a series of interviews with police, 293 00:18:04,680 --> 00:18:07,960 Speaker 1: all of which occurred well before he was arrested and 294 00:18:08,040 --> 00:18:10,359 Speaker 1: when he was not in custody, and he met with 295 00:18:11,520 --> 00:18:15,080 Speaker 1: investigators several times over the course of those months, long 296 00:18:15,119 --> 00:18:18,280 Speaker 1: before he was ever arrested for the murders, and I 297 00:18:18,320 --> 00:18:22,000 Speaker 1: believe that the prosecution referenced those lies and noted his 298 00:18:22,119 --> 00:18:25,919 Speaker 1: failure to correct them primarily when they were impeaching Murdo 299 00:18:26,040 --> 00:18:28,239 Speaker 1: once he took the stand at his trial, So I 300 00:18:28,280 --> 00:18:30,760 Speaker 1: think it's likely that the court would view these to 301 00:18:30,840 --> 00:18:35,720 Speaker 1: be permissible uses of pre arrest statements to impeach. To 302 00:18:35,760 --> 00:18:40,320 Speaker 1: the extent that the prosecution also explicitly or implicitly suggested 303 00:18:40,359 --> 00:18:43,560 Speaker 1: that Murdoch should have corrected his prior statements after he 304 00:18:43,600 --> 00:18:46,640 Speaker 1: was arrested. I think those comments would likely be more 305 00:18:46,680 --> 00:18:49,920 Speaker 1: problematic for the prosecution and harder to defend on appeal. 306 00:18:50,119 --> 00:18:53,200 Speaker 1: But I think even then, Murdo arguably opened the door 307 00:18:53,400 --> 00:18:56,560 Speaker 1: to that subject when he testified that he had attempted 308 00:18:56,760 --> 00:18:59,760 Speaker 1: post his arrest to reach out to prosecutors to correct 309 00:18:59,760 --> 00:19:03,040 Speaker 1: his prior statement, and he's testified that they had rebuffed 310 00:19:03,040 --> 00:19:05,440 Speaker 1: his efforts to communicate with them. So I would want 311 00:19:05,480 --> 00:19:08,159 Speaker 1: to look carefully at the trial record to see exactly 312 00:19:08,520 --> 00:19:11,720 Speaker 1: how and when these questions were asked of murder and 313 00:19:11,760 --> 00:19:15,800 Speaker 1: how prosecutors used his testimony about the failure to correct 314 00:19:15,800 --> 00:19:18,439 Speaker 1: in their closing. But based on what I recall about 315 00:19:18,560 --> 00:19:21,439 Speaker 1: the trial, I think that the defense likely faces an 316 00:19:21,480 --> 00:19:25,880 Speaker 1: uphill battle on these arguments, primarily because the defendant took 317 00:19:25,920 --> 00:19:29,080 Speaker 1: the stand and because most of the statements in question 318 00:19:29,160 --> 00:19:33,600 Speaker 1: happened well before he was arrested. The odds of getting 319 00:19:33,720 --> 00:19:38,240 Speaker 1: a conviction like this overturned on appeal are pretty slim, 320 00:19:38,320 --> 00:19:42,520 Speaker 1: aren't they. Yeah, I mean it is hard to overturn 321 00:19:42,640 --> 00:19:47,840 Speaker 1: a conviction based on an evidentiary ruling, which is I 322 00:19:47,880 --> 00:19:50,080 Speaker 1: think going to be one of the main bases for 323 00:19:50,119 --> 00:19:52,640 Speaker 1: the appeal. As I said, it's going to be subject 324 00:19:52,720 --> 00:19:57,320 Speaker 1: to harmless error review and also abusive discretion review in 325 00:19:57,440 --> 00:20:00,240 Speaker 1: terms of whether or not it actually was error. I 326 00:20:00,320 --> 00:20:03,320 Speaker 1: do think in the context of this case, it was 327 00:20:03,520 --> 00:20:08,040 Speaker 1: necessary for the government to provide some evidence that established motive, 328 00:20:08,440 --> 00:20:11,200 Speaker 1: even if it was not a perfect motive or didn't 329 00:20:11,280 --> 00:20:15,040 Speaker 1: fully explain the defendant's conduct. I think the question will 330 00:20:15,119 --> 00:20:19,320 Speaker 1: be in significant part about how much evidence was admitted 331 00:20:19,400 --> 00:20:22,560 Speaker 1: to establish this motive. In other words, there were quite 332 00:20:22,600 --> 00:20:26,280 Speaker 1: a few witnesses that went on at considerable length, and 333 00:20:26,320 --> 00:20:30,959 Speaker 1: the questioning of the defendant about his financial frauds was extensive, 334 00:20:31,160 --> 00:20:33,399 Speaker 1: and I could see a reviewing court looking at that 335 00:20:33,440 --> 00:20:36,320 Speaker 1: record and saying this was too much or more than 336 00:20:36,440 --> 00:20:39,399 Speaker 1: was necessary to establish motive. But again, there is a 337 00:20:39,440 --> 00:20:42,600 Speaker 1: great deal of deference to the decisions of the trial court. 338 00:20:42,640 --> 00:20:45,600 Speaker 1: Whose closest to the facts and to the trial in 339 00:20:45,680 --> 00:20:49,280 Speaker 1: making those determinations. And then again there is the harmless 340 00:20:49,359 --> 00:20:53,480 Speaker 1: error review as well. Thanks Jessica. That's Professor Jessica Roth 341 00:20:53,680 --> 00:20:59,080 Speaker 1: of Cardozo Law School. Another member of Sam Bankman Freed's 342 00:20:59,080 --> 00:21:04,200 Speaker 1: inner circle has become a prosecution witness. Former FTX engineering 343 00:21:04,280 --> 00:21:08,640 Speaker 1: chief Nishad Singh pleaded guilty last week to six criminal counts, 344 00:21:08,920 --> 00:21:12,639 Speaker 1: including wire fraud, conspiracy to commit securities fraud, and a 345 00:21:12,720 --> 00:21:16,159 Speaker 1: campaign finance law violation, as part of a deal to 346 00:21:16,240 --> 00:21:20,080 Speaker 1: work with prosecutors against his old boss. He was the 347 00:21:20,080 --> 00:21:23,760 Speaker 1: third close associate of Bankman Free to flip against him. 348 00:21:24,160 --> 00:21:27,639 Speaker 1: The plea followed a revised indictment against Bankman Freed that 349 00:21:27,720 --> 00:21:30,880 Speaker 1: featured four new charges and a wealth of fresh detail 350 00:21:31,200 --> 00:21:35,840 Speaker 1: focused on an alleged plot to shape US crypto policy. Meanwhile, 351 00:21:35,880 --> 00:21:40,320 Speaker 1: a protracted struggle over Bankman Freed's bail conditions highlights the 352 00:21:40,359 --> 00:21:45,560 Speaker 1: growing complexity of such matters as communication technologies evolve. Joining 353 00:21:45,600 --> 00:21:49,760 Speaker 1: me as Bloomberg legal reporter Crystal Mesh SBF has already 354 00:21:50,080 --> 00:21:54,000 Speaker 1: angered the judge. Tell us why there's no debate about 355 00:21:54,119 --> 00:21:56,680 Speaker 1: what he actually did? That he logged onto a virtual 356 00:21:56,800 --> 00:22:02,000 Speaker 1: private network in late January or early February, which the 357 00:22:02,080 --> 00:22:05,000 Speaker 1: government took opposition too. He says it was to watch 358 00:22:05,480 --> 00:22:09,080 Speaker 1: the NFL Conference championship games in the Super Bowl. But 359 00:22:09,200 --> 00:22:11,360 Speaker 1: as others have pointed out, and the judge pointed out, 360 00:22:11,520 --> 00:22:15,359 Speaker 1: these were games that were aired. You didn't need subscription 361 00:22:15,400 --> 00:22:18,040 Speaker 1: to anything to watch these games, So it kind of 362 00:22:18,160 --> 00:22:21,399 Speaker 1: looks weird. The judge wasn't sure, you know, wanted to 363 00:22:21,440 --> 00:22:23,879 Speaker 1: know why he did this. He was definitely skeptical that 364 00:22:23,960 --> 00:22:25,840 Speaker 1: he had done that. But it led to a kind 365 00:22:25,840 --> 00:22:30,240 Speaker 1: of an interesting exchange between the judge and Dan Bankman 366 00:22:30,280 --> 00:22:32,639 Speaker 1: Freeds lawyers, who kind of said, you know, if they 367 00:22:32,640 --> 00:22:35,000 Speaker 1: don't have a TV in their house, you know, their 368 00:22:35,040 --> 00:22:37,400 Speaker 1: law professors, you know, they kind of wished they had 369 00:22:37,400 --> 00:22:39,560 Speaker 1: bought them a TV at Best Buy. But it kind 370 00:22:39,560 --> 00:22:42,760 Speaker 1: of illustrated the kind of technological divide between the judge 371 00:22:42,840 --> 00:22:46,359 Speaker 1: and you know, the defendant and judge Kaplan is well 372 00:22:46,440 --> 00:22:50,920 Speaker 1: known in the courthouse in Lower Manhattan for forbidding any 373 00:22:50,920 --> 00:22:54,240 Speaker 1: sort of electronics in his courtroom at all times. So 374 00:22:54,880 --> 00:22:59,240 Speaker 1: very interesting exchange. So why is the judge so concerned 375 00:22:59,640 --> 00:23:06,080 Speaker 1: that Bankman Freed has access to the Internet or VPN? 376 00:23:06,160 --> 00:23:09,840 Speaker 1: Why I mean, what is his basic concern? So it 377 00:23:09,920 --> 00:23:13,000 Speaker 1: seems the overarching concern, which is, you know, a common 378 00:23:13,040 --> 00:23:17,840 Speaker 1: concern in most criminal cases, is his attempts to contact 379 00:23:18,320 --> 00:23:22,400 Speaker 1: others involved, including the the receiver in the bankruptcy case, 380 00:23:22,880 --> 00:23:25,639 Speaker 1: and possibly move assets around that they may not know 381 00:23:26,000 --> 00:23:29,800 Speaker 1: are out there. So not clear that any of that 382 00:23:29,840 --> 00:23:34,199 Speaker 1: had actually happened. But the judge nonetheless was skeptical. And 383 00:23:34,520 --> 00:23:37,200 Speaker 1: what was very interesting is something you know se very 384 00:23:37,200 --> 00:23:40,280 Speaker 1: often is the prosecutors had kind of come to an 385 00:23:40,280 --> 00:23:43,200 Speaker 1: agreement with the defense. They said, we're happy and comfortable 386 00:23:43,200 --> 00:23:46,119 Speaker 1: with these kind of restrictions. The judge said, no, this 387 00:23:46,280 --> 00:23:48,760 Speaker 1: is not good enough. This guy's smarter than this, and 388 00:23:48,840 --> 00:23:51,680 Speaker 1: you need to kind of rate him in more athlete. 389 00:23:52,240 --> 00:23:55,040 Speaker 1: At a bail hearing in February, the judge noted that 390 00:23:55,160 --> 00:23:58,520 Speaker 1: encrypted letters sent by the imprisoned Mary, Queen of Scott's 391 00:23:58,520 --> 00:24:02,280 Speaker 1: had only recently been ciphered. You don't think this defendant 392 00:24:02,359 --> 00:24:06,960 Speaker 1: is bright enough to encrypt something without a computer, So yeah, 393 00:24:07,040 --> 00:24:11,800 Speaker 1: quite a moment. At the hearing, the proposed bail package 394 00:24:12,080 --> 00:24:15,119 Speaker 1: would limit him to a single monitored cell phone and 395 00:24:15,200 --> 00:24:18,600 Speaker 1: a laptop, and his lawyer said that was draconian. I 396 00:24:18,680 --> 00:24:20,840 Speaker 1: mean Why isn't that enough If he were in prison, 397 00:24:20,960 --> 00:24:24,120 Speaker 1: he wouldn't even have that. Sure, many have argued that 398 00:24:24,119 --> 00:24:26,800 Speaker 1: that's you know, this is a common restriction on people. 399 00:24:26,920 --> 00:24:31,720 Speaker 1: Certainly many people involved in cryptocurrency related prosecutions and things 400 00:24:31,760 --> 00:24:34,119 Speaker 1: like that have had kind of restrictions like this. So 401 00:24:35,520 --> 00:24:38,040 Speaker 1: you know, many legal experts question whether really this was 402 00:24:38,119 --> 00:24:43,960 Speaker 1: draconian indeed, and you know, several days later, the two 403 00:24:44,000 --> 00:24:46,040 Speaker 1: sides came up when an agreement. It's going to limit 404 00:24:46,119 --> 00:24:49,840 Speaker 1: him to a flip phone or a non smartphone, and 405 00:24:49,840 --> 00:24:52,000 Speaker 1: then he'll be able to, you know, communicate with his 406 00:24:52,160 --> 00:24:56,600 Speaker 1: lawyers in order to prepare his defense, but he's going 407 00:24:56,640 --> 00:24:59,280 Speaker 1: to be kind of restricted to voice calls and text 408 00:24:59,359 --> 00:25:02,800 Speaker 1: messages for the most part. What is his bail package. 409 00:25:04,119 --> 00:25:06,720 Speaker 1: It's a two hundred and fifty million dollars bond, but 410 00:25:07,200 --> 00:25:10,879 Speaker 1: secured by his parents' home and two other parties that 411 00:25:10,960 --> 00:25:14,640 Speaker 1: we've learned the identities of last month. He didn't actually 412 00:25:14,680 --> 00:25:16,520 Speaker 1: have to put up any money. Is what's called a 413 00:25:16,560 --> 00:25:20,480 Speaker 1: personal recognissance bond. And you know it's only that money 414 00:25:20,520 --> 00:25:24,000 Speaker 1: only comes into the scenario if he should not show 415 00:25:24,040 --> 00:25:27,960 Speaker 1: up record. The prosecution and defense have jointly proposed a 416 00:25:28,000 --> 00:25:31,560 Speaker 1: pair of tech consultants. What are they supposed to be doing. Yes, 417 00:25:31,720 --> 00:25:34,720 Speaker 1: the judge basically suggested this during the last bail hearing. 418 00:25:34,760 --> 00:25:36,919 Speaker 1: He said, well, maybe you should have somebody come in 419 00:25:36,960 --> 00:25:40,720 Speaker 1: and advised me on how to structure these technical limitations 420 00:25:40,800 --> 00:25:45,760 Speaker 1: on him. And they brought in a FBI agent who 421 00:25:45,840 --> 00:25:49,400 Speaker 1: spent time managing a firm of special and digital forensics. 422 00:25:49,480 --> 00:25:54,400 Speaker 1: They also have another digital forensics consultant for nineteen years 423 00:25:54,760 --> 00:25:59,160 Speaker 1: who kind of helped authenticate so Alex Rodriguez his text 424 00:25:59,160 --> 00:26:04,320 Speaker 1: message in arbitration over his alleged use of PDSUM. So 425 00:26:04,480 --> 00:26:06,919 Speaker 1: they're going to advise the judge kind of on how 426 00:26:07,359 --> 00:26:09,639 Speaker 1: this should go and if there are any restrictions that 427 00:26:09,680 --> 00:26:12,320 Speaker 1: should be implemented. I mean, it appears that this whole 428 00:26:12,359 --> 00:26:15,600 Speaker 1: thing has come to a conclusion for the most part, 429 00:26:15,880 --> 00:26:18,520 Speaker 1: with the proposal that came out last week on Friday 430 00:26:18,880 --> 00:26:21,320 Speaker 1: for him to use the flip phone. Is Sagan, it's 431 00:26:21,359 --> 00:26:24,840 Speaker 1: the flip phone? And does he have access to a computer. Yes, 432 00:26:24,960 --> 00:26:28,679 Speaker 1: he does have access to I believe a single laptop 433 00:26:29,280 --> 00:26:32,040 Speaker 1: that he can He can he has to log on 434 00:26:32,240 --> 00:26:35,960 Speaker 1: through a virtual private network that allow him access in 435 00:26:36,080 --> 00:26:39,879 Speaker 1: certain two categories. You know, they've listed the certain things 436 00:26:39,960 --> 00:26:44,680 Speaker 1: Netflix or Dash make baseball. So yeah, so he will 437 00:26:44,720 --> 00:26:48,399 Speaker 1: have no lack of entertainment while he's at his parents' 438 00:26:48,480 --> 00:26:53,120 Speaker 1: house with the monitoring bracelet. And when's the trial scheduled? 439 00:26:53,440 --> 00:26:57,199 Speaker 1: Trial is currently scheduled to start in October. Obviously that 440 00:26:57,240 --> 00:27:00,640 Speaker 1: could change at any time. I wouldn't be surprised, especially 441 00:27:00,680 --> 00:27:03,440 Speaker 1: as discovery starts to come in. So now let's talk 442 00:27:03,440 --> 00:27:07,800 Speaker 1: about the case more broadly. The prosecution appears to be 443 00:27:08,000 --> 00:27:12,399 Speaker 1: flipping keysnesses from his inner circle. Tell us about the 444 00:27:12,440 --> 00:27:16,760 Speaker 1: witnesses that have already called agreed to cooperate. Yeah, sure, 445 00:27:16,840 --> 00:27:20,199 Speaker 1: so we had the early please of Gary Wong and 446 00:27:20,320 --> 00:27:25,080 Speaker 1: Carol and Ellison were two key please that happened very early. 447 00:27:25,119 --> 00:27:30,680 Speaker 1: It actually happened before we had seen him charged in private, 448 00:27:31,080 --> 00:27:33,080 Speaker 1: and then they were later on field. But later this 449 00:27:33,119 --> 00:27:37,480 Speaker 1: week Nichad Sing, the former engineering chief, leading guilty before 450 00:27:37,560 --> 00:27:41,120 Speaker 1: Judge Kaplan and admitted that he you know, that he 451 00:27:41,119 --> 00:27:45,880 Speaker 1: helped compose code that enabled the asset to be transferred 452 00:27:45,880 --> 00:27:49,360 Speaker 1: to almy to research. So those are very three, very 453 00:27:49,440 --> 00:27:55,080 Speaker 1: big keys to the prosecutor's case. Obviously, any single cooperator 454 00:27:55,480 --> 00:27:58,400 Speaker 1: who pleads and agrees to cooperate in the criminal case 455 00:27:59,080 --> 00:28:02,159 Speaker 1: is a big part of the prosecution, and it is 456 00:28:02,600 --> 00:28:05,760 Speaker 1: hard for the defense to overcome. But three is going 457 00:28:05,800 --> 00:28:10,480 Speaker 1: to be really a tall order for Sembec than free 458 00:28:10,560 --> 00:28:13,880 Speaker 1: to fight at any trial. And tell us about the 459 00:28:14,080 --> 00:28:18,840 Speaker 1: revised indictment was that the result of these please, it 460 00:28:19,000 --> 00:28:22,679 Speaker 1: seems like it had added. So the initial indictment was 461 00:28:22,800 --> 00:28:26,280 Speaker 1: very bare bones. Indictments only really out laid the charges 462 00:28:26,320 --> 00:28:28,840 Speaker 1: against them and the elements of the charges, not really 463 00:28:28,920 --> 00:28:33,639 Speaker 1: specifically what had been done that was really detailed in 464 00:28:33,800 --> 00:28:37,679 Speaker 1: the SEC complaint, And this kind of was more of 465 00:28:37,760 --> 00:28:41,880 Speaker 1: a comprehensive indictment that really it seemed to have taken 466 00:28:42,280 --> 00:28:46,960 Speaker 1: what they learned from Ellison Wong and incorporated into the allegations. 467 00:28:47,120 --> 00:28:51,200 Speaker 1: It added more allegations of fraud, more detailed allegations of 468 00:28:51,240 --> 00:28:57,000 Speaker 1: the political donation scheme. So it's a much more detailed 469 00:28:57,040 --> 00:29:00,560 Speaker 1: look at what the government tends to prove the trial, Chris, 470 00:29:00,600 --> 00:29:03,800 Speaker 1: we've heard Bankman Freed say many times that he didn't 471 00:29:03,840 --> 00:29:07,400 Speaker 1: do anything wrong. Is there any indication what his defense 472 00:29:07,560 --> 00:29:10,640 Speaker 1: is going to be not so much in detail. I mean, 473 00:29:10,680 --> 00:29:13,440 Speaker 1: I think you've kind of he rowed in on what 474 00:29:13,480 --> 00:29:16,640 Speaker 1: we've heard from him publicly that he didn't have the 475 00:29:16,720 --> 00:29:19,320 Speaker 1: intense to do anything wrong. He wasn't doing that. But 476 00:29:19,800 --> 00:29:24,080 Speaker 1: what we've learned from the cooperators and the prosecutors is, 477 00:29:24,280 --> 00:29:26,720 Speaker 1: you know, it's going to be hard for him to fight. Um, 478 00:29:26,840 --> 00:29:29,960 Speaker 1: we are anxiously awaiting to hear, you know, some of 479 00:29:30,000 --> 00:29:33,120 Speaker 1: the details of his defense. I'm pretty sure they need 480 00:29:33,200 --> 00:29:36,760 Speaker 1: to start filing um pre trial motions next month so 481 00:29:36,840 --> 00:29:38,600 Speaker 1: that those are going to give us an idea of 482 00:29:38,640 --> 00:29:41,840 Speaker 1: how he attempts to fight as a trial. Certainly they're 483 00:29:41,840 --> 00:29:45,880 Speaker 1: going to attempt to attack the credibility of the cooperators, 484 00:29:45,920 --> 00:29:49,480 Speaker 1: which is a pretty common tactic in any criminal trial. 485 00:29:50,120 --> 00:29:52,320 Speaker 1: But it's it's questionable as to how they're going to 486 00:29:52,400 --> 00:29:55,560 Speaker 1: be able to do that and what other what other 487 00:29:55,600 --> 00:29:58,480 Speaker 1: defenses were going to rely on. Has there been any 488 00:29:58,520 --> 00:30:01,880 Speaker 1: talk about a plea deal with him, Not that we've 489 00:30:01,920 --> 00:30:09,120 Speaker 1: heard yet. You know, certainly one would assume that first 490 00:30:09,120 --> 00:30:12,240 Speaker 1: has been made or at least discussed. We've heard no 491 00:30:12,400 --> 00:30:16,760 Speaker 1: reports of discussions, and he's at this point is an 492 00:30:16,760 --> 00:30:19,720 Speaker 1: indicating fully intensive place to charge. So just to go 493 00:30:19,800 --> 00:30:23,320 Speaker 1: back to the electronics, is the judge being stricter with 494 00:30:23,440 --> 00:30:27,880 Speaker 1: him than he would another defendant who's at on bail, 495 00:30:28,160 --> 00:30:31,600 Speaker 1: you know, with access to all these different kinds of devices, 496 00:30:31,720 --> 00:30:34,960 Speaker 1: maybe even at home, is he being stricter with him 497 00:30:35,320 --> 00:30:41,480 Speaker 1: because of his knowledge. That's hard to say. One could 498 00:30:41,560 --> 00:30:44,480 Speaker 1: argue that he's certainly he's treating him kind of the 499 00:30:44,520 --> 00:30:46,880 Speaker 1: way he would treat any other defendant who's kind of 500 00:30:46,920 --> 00:30:49,840 Speaker 1: accused of these kind of things. But given what he 501 00:30:49,920 --> 00:30:53,760 Speaker 1: said during the bail hearings, there's another level of sophistication 502 00:30:54,200 --> 00:30:56,680 Speaker 1: that the judge is indicated he thinks that Sam Banks 503 00:30:56,680 --> 00:30:59,560 Speaker 1: and Freed has that might make him treat him a 504 00:30:59,560 --> 00:31:03,240 Speaker 1: little princely than another defendant. But again, Judge Kaplan is 505 00:31:03,280 --> 00:31:09,480 Speaker 1: not exactly known for being light handed, and it's hard 506 00:31:09,520 --> 00:31:12,040 Speaker 1: to say whether he is treating him any differently than 507 00:31:12,080 --> 00:31:14,920 Speaker 1: he would treat another defendant, and especially when in this 508 00:31:15,160 --> 00:31:18,200 Speaker 1: edition accused the beast kind of crime. Thanks so much, Chris. 509 00:31:18,560 --> 00:31:22,120 Speaker 1: That's Bloomberg Legal reporter christ Mesh, and that's it for 510 00:31:22,160 --> 00:31:24,840 Speaker 1: this edition of the Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can 511 00:31:24,880 --> 00:31:27,320 Speaker 1: always get the latest legal news by subscribing to the 512 00:31:27,320 --> 00:31:31,600 Speaker 1: Bloomberg Law Podcast or downloading this show at Bloomberg dot com, 513 00:31:31,600 --> 00:31:35,360 Speaker 1: slash podcast Slash Law. I'm June Bronze and you're listening 514 00:31:35,360 --> 00:31:36,000 Speaker 1: to Bloomberg