1 00:00:04,000 --> 00:00:08,760 Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brussel from Bloomberg Radio. 2 00:00:10,640 --> 00:00:14,200 Speaker 1: The fate of former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin is 3 00:00:14,240 --> 00:00:17,000 Speaker 1: now in the hands of the jury. After almost a 4 00:00:17,120 --> 00:00:20,680 Speaker 1: day of closing arguments in a courthouse ring with concrete 5 00:00:20,680 --> 00:00:24,800 Speaker 1: barriers and razor wire and National Guard members on patrol. 6 00:00:25,280 --> 00:00:28,800 Speaker 1: Minneapolis and other cities across the country are bracing for 7 00:00:28,840 --> 00:00:32,560 Speaker 1: the verdict. Joining me is former public defender Krista Groshek, 8 00:00:32,880 --> 00:00:37,120 Speaker 1: managing attorney of Groschek Law in Minneapolis. Give us your 9 00:00:37,120 --> 00:00:41,200 Speaker 1: opinion of the closing arguments in general. My opinion about 10 00:00:41,320 --> 00:00:43,480 Speaker 1: really both sides is that it was just far too long. 11 00:00:44,120 --> 00:00:46,760 Speaker 1: You know. I understand that there was some complex issued 12 00:00:47,320 --> 00:00:49,680 Speaker 1: and I understand that there's a lot of ground to cover, 13 00:00:50,159 --> 00:00:52,839 Speaker 1: but I do think that the cases could have been 14 00:00:52,960 --> 00:00:58,440 Speaker 1: streamlined easier for the jury to really wrap their minds 15 00:00:58,440 --> 00:01:02,080 Speaker 1: around it. I think that a case that could otherwise 16 00:01:02,120 --> 00:01:04,680 Speaker 1: have been argued it from a very emotional point of view, 17 00:01:05,319 --> 00:01:07,560 Speaker 1: was argued from a very technical point of view, which 18 00:01:07,680 --> 00:01:10,560 Speaker 1: I was a little surprised at coming from the prosecution. 19 00:01:11,120 --> 00:01:14,440 Speaker 1: Neither lawyer told the story to the jury looking at 20 00:01:14,440 --> 00:01:16,920 Speaker 1: it from Derek Schovin's eyes, looking at it through George 21 00:01:16,959 --> 00:01:20,000 Speaker 1: Floyd's eye. But nobody really told that story. The prosecution 22 00:01:20,000 --> 00:01:23,000 Speaker 1: did a little. I think they tried their case. They also, 23 00:01:23,400 --> 00:01:26,600 Speaker 1: in very repetitive fashion, told the same story over and 24 00:01:26,640 --> 00:01:30,520 Speaker 1: over again. So given the amount of experts that they had, 25 00:01:30,800 --> 00:01:33,480 Speaker 1: I certainly think that they made their points over and 26 00:01:33,520 --> 00:01:36,160 Speaker 1: over again. And while it was long, you know, I 27 00:01:36,160 --> 00:01:38,720 Speaker 1: think that detracted from their message. I still think that 28 00:01:38,760 --> 00:01:42,399 Speaker 1: they made their point. The prosecution painted Chauvin as a 29 00:01:42,480 --> 00:01:45,760 Speaker 1: rogue actor and kept on, you know, emphasizing that policing 30 00:01:45,880 --> 00:01:50,560 Speaker 1: is not on trial. Also, believe your eyes. So do 31 00:01:50,600 --> 00:01:54,400 Speaker 1: you think those were good points? Well? To believe your eyes? 32 00:01:54,520 --> 00:01:57,640 Speaker 1: You know, that was a repeat from the opening, you know, 33 00:01:57,680 --> 00:01:59,920 Speaker 1: which is really effective. You want to take a scene 34 00:02:00,000 --> 00:02:02,040 Speaker 1: and carried it all the way through to its conclusion, 35 00:02:02,640 --> 00:02:05,560 Speaker 1: pointing out things that support that being as you go along. 36 00:02:06,360 --> 00:02:09,200 Speaker 1: But I was a little suprised in some ways. You know, 37 00:02:09,240 --> 00:02:11,560 Speaker 1: the prosecution say this is you know, policing is not 38 00:02:11,639 --> 00:02:16,320 Speaker 1: on trial. Certainly they wouldn't have to concede that point. 39 00:02:16,400 --> 00:02:18,560 Speaker 1: I don't think they would have had to make it 40 00:02:18,639 --> 00:02:21,400 Speaker 1: in big bowl letters, but they certainly wouldn't have had 41 00:02:21,440 --> 00:02:25,320 Speaker 1: to concede it because so many people are concerned. You 42 00:02:25,360 --> 00:02:30,200 Speaker 1: know that the way Derek Chauvin acted is the way 43 00:02:30,200 --> 00:02:33,880 Speaker 1: police officers act all around the country, and perhaps they 44 00:02:33,880 --> 00:02:36,120 Speaker 1: were trying to sidestep with you know, what could have 45 00:02:36,200 --> 00:02:39,440 Speaker 1: been you know, arguments down the road with regard to 46 00:02:39,480 --> 00:02:41,760 Speaker 1: an appeal. But I just thought it would have been 47 00:02:41,800 --> 00:02:45,239 Speaker 1: better if they left it on said. The defense doesn't 48 00:02:45,240 --> 00:02:49,679 Speaker 1: have the burden obviously, and the defense attorney emphasized that 49 00:02:50,320 --> 00:02:53,600 Speaker 1: and reasonable doubt. Do you think they made any case 50 00:02:53,760 --> 00:02:58,360 Speaker 1: for reasonable debt on the jury's part. I definitely think 51 00:02:58,480 --> 00:03:02,399 Speaker 1: that while at first, Blush it felt a little confusing 52 00:03:02,440 --> 00:03:05,080 Speaker 1: that defense was playing you know, the videos where we 53 00:03:05,120 --> 00:03:08,840 Speaker 1: see you know, Floyd in these compromised positions, crying and pleading. 54 00:03:09,280 --> 00:03:11,080 Speaker 1: At first, Blush it was a questionable why is the 55 00:03:11,120 --> 00:03:15,200 Speaker 1: defense playing this? But he presented a number of different 56 00:03:15,600 --> 00:03:19,480 Speaker 1: body cameras that showed what what the police officers saw 57 00:03:19,639 --> 00:03:21,680 Speaker 1: to see and in particular what Showvin saw when he 58 00:03:21,720 --> 00:03:25,120 Speaker 1: showed up right like, this is what he's confronted with 59 00:03:26,000 --> 00:03:27,680 Speaker 1: um And I thought the defense brought out some other 60 00:03:27,760 --> 00:03:30,160 Speaker 1: unique points that you know, when shown did engage that 61 00:03:30,280 --> 00:03:32,320 Speaker 1: he had his body camera kicked off, you know, there 62 00:03:32,360 --> 00:03:35,119 Speaker 1: was enough force from a kick um. He also tried 63 00:03:35,160 --> 00:03:36,880 Speaker 1: to point out, you know that the police car was 64 00:03:37,000 --> 00:03:40,240 Speaker 1: rocking when there was attempts to put Floyd in the 65 00:03:40,240 --> 00:03:42,960 Speaker 1: back of the car. So I do think the defense 66 00:03:43,000 --> 00:03:47,880 Speaker 1: and brought out things about what actually was happening versus 67 00:03:48,040 --> 00:03:51,040 Speaker 1: what people were perceiving was happening people who on the 68 00:03:51,040 --> 00:03:52,880 Speaker 1: other side of the police car, And that was something 69 00:03:52,920 --> 00:03:55,640 Speaker 1: that the defense alluded to in the opening, and they 70 00:03:55,680 --> 00:03:57,880 Speaker 1: came back and then and then tied that up nicely 71 00:03:57,920 --> 00:04:00,680 Speaker 1: in the clothing. So I do think that the defense 72 00:04:00,720 --> 00:04:04,240 Speaker 1: had a number of things that should give the jury 73 00:04:04,320 --> 00:04:08,680 Speaker 1: pause about, you know, what was happening, why officers responded 74 00:04:08,680 --> 00:04:10,400 Speaker 1: the way that they did, and then you know, what 75 00:04:10,480 --> 00:04:14,280 Speaker 1: do we really know about these medical circumstances. The defense 76 00:04:14,280 --> 00:04:18,719 Speaker 1: pointed out that the prosecution experts came in and they 77 00:04:18,800 --> 00:04:22,000 Speaker 1: didn't present a unified theory. They each sort of had 78 00:04:22,000 --> 00:04:25,760 Speaker 1: their own theories about why they didn't believe that, you know, 79 00:04:25,800 --> 00:04:28,920 Speaker 1: Floyd d died of an overdose or or a heart attack. 80 00:04:29,400 --> 00:04:33,640 Speaker 1: But their series didn't exactly come together like a nicely 81 00:04:33,760 --> 00:04:37,120 Speaker 1: coordinated quote for example. So I think the defense got 82 00:04:37,120 --> 00:04:39,839 Speaker 1: some shots in some of it was just hard to 83 00:04:39,920 --> 00:04:43,160 Speaker 1: keep tracking because it was so long. The prosecution had 84 00:04:43,279 --> 00:04:47,200 Speaker 1: so many expert witnesses, and the defense had a few 85 00:04:47,279 --> 00:04:52,039 Speaker 1: expert witnesses. But even their experts seemed to have conceded 86 00:04:52,480 --> 00:04:56,440 Speaker 1: some factors on cross examination. So I wonder if that 87 00:04:56,640 --> 00:04:59,200 Speaker 1: is a big problem for the defense. It wasn't really 88 00:04:59,200 --> 00:05:01,479 Speaker 1: a battle of the experts so much like you see 89 00:05:01,520 --> 00:05:04,080 Speaker 1: in some trials where it's like renowned expert against that 90 00:05:04,160 --> 00:05:08,120 Speaker 1: renowned expert. Yeah, I agree with you. Um. You know, 91 00:05:08,120 --> 00:05:10,400 Speaker 1: in order for experts to be credible, certainly there are 92 00:05:10,680 --> 00:05:14,560 Speaker 1: points that they have to concede. If they don't concede it, well, 93 00:05:14,600 --> 00:05:16,880 Speaker 1: then they lose credibility, right if they're going to maintain 94 00:05:17,920 --> 00:05:20,719 Speaker 1: a certain position that you know, it's contrary to the 95 00:05:20,760 --> 00:05:24,760 Speaker 1: facts or logic. Right. Um, they're generally speaking, in some 96 00:05:24,800 --> 00:05:27,160 Speaker 1: things they need to concede. In this case, these experts 97 00:05:27,320 --> 00:05:32,120 Speaker 1: seem to concede and easily concede. Um, some pretty important 98 00:05:32,160 --> 00:05:36,880 Speaker 1: points I expected, or or believe, And you know, perhaps 99 00:05:36,880 --> 00:05:39,400 Speaker 1: they don't have all the information, but I thought Fowler 100 00:05:39,760 --> 00:05:43,160 Speaker 1: had employed a pannel or was part of a panel 101 00:05:43,200 --> 00:05:47,880 Speaker 1: of other experts that came together to give opinions from 102 00:05:47,880 --> 00:05:51,080 Speaker 1: a holistic point of view. I thought, perhaps suddenly would 103 00:05:51,080 --> 00:05:55,800 Speaker 1: start hearing from these other experts that worked in some 104 00:05:55,880 --> 00:05:59,320 Speaker 1: of these other areas. Right, if it was a heart 105 00:05:59,360 --> 00:06:03,000 Speaker 1: doctor and a lung doctor, and a brain doctor, right, 106 00:06:03,080 --> 00:06:05,840 Speaker 1: and a toxicologist and a medical examiner, if they all 107 00:06:05,880 --> 00:06:09,400 Speaker 1: would set around and looked at everything from their unique 108 00:06:09,400 --> 00:06:12,960 Speaker 1: points of view. I thought, maybe after Follower's testimony, we 109 00:06:13,120 --> 00:06:16,320 Speaker 1: hear the opinions of some of those people to get 110 00:06:16,320 --> 00:06:20,120 Speaker 1: an understanding of why Follower test side the way he did, 111 00:06:20,240 --> 00:06:23,239 Speaker 1: and in fact them have some additional expert opinion evidence 112 00:06:23,279 --> 00:06:25,680 Speaker 1: to both ster its points. But we didn't see that. 113 00:06:25,960 --> 00:06:28,159 Speaker 1: We didn't see that, and obviously you know, we're not 114 00:06:28,240 --> 00:06:31,120 Speaker 1: privy to why um. But I thought that the defense 115 00:06:31,160 --> 00:06:33,400 Speaker 1: at that point then would pull out some of these 116 00:06:33,400 --> 00:06:38,480 Speaker 1: additional ex experts. How important are these closing arguments? As 117 00:06:38,520 --> 00:06:43,000 Speaker 1: a practicing attorney, I like to believe the closing arguments 118 00:06:43,000 --> 00:06:45,440 Speaker 1: are what can make the difference, and in many cases 119 00:06:45,440 --> 00:06:49,320 Speaker 1: where there's complex information, I believe that it is. You know, 120 00:06:50,120 --> 00:06:53,000 Speaker 1: sometimes it's hard to see exactly where a defense attorney 121 00:06:53,040 --> 00:06:56,240 Speaker 1: is going after there's a plethora of questions asked, and 122 00:06:56,680 --> 00:06:59,000 Speaker 1: it's about topics that you know, lay people or even 123 00:06:59,000 --> 00:07:02,760 Speaker 1: the lawyers you know, uh have it addressed or become 124 00:07:02,800 --> 00:07:06,680 Speaker 1: familiar with before. So I do think closing arguments make 125 00:07:06,680 --> 00:07:09,520 Speaker 1: a really big difference. I think opening statements are also 126 00:07:09,600 --> 00:07:16,680 Speaker 1: equally important, so you know, the tenor of it, the themes, uh, storytelling. 127 00:07:16,720 --> 00:07:19,520 Speaker 1: I think it's super important. And we didn't see a 128 00:07:19,560 --> 00:07:23,400 Speaker 1: lot of that from either side here really, um, I 129 00:07:23,440 --> 00:07:26,040 Speaker 1: think closing arguments do have the potential to make or 130 00:07:26,080 --> 00:07:28,920 Speaker 1: break a case. I do. And so you know, I 131 00:07:28,960 --> 00:07:31,240 Speaker 1: know that you thought they went too long and they 132 00:07:31,240 --> 00:07:33,920 Speaker 1: didn't tell a great story, but did they get their 133 00:07:34,040 --> 00:07:37,800 Speaker 1: points across? I think each side, yes, got their points across, 134 00:07:37,880 --> 00:07:40,480 Speaker 1: and I think each side sort of went about it 135 00:07:40,520 --> 00:07:42,400 Speaker 1: in the same way, which is pretty interesting to me. 136 00:07:42,880 --> 00:07:47,720 Speaker 1: It was almost like the attorney's match their style, right Like, 137 00:07:47,960 --> 00:07:51,320 Speaker 1: typically speaking, we see prosecutors being a little bit more 138 00:07:51,760 --> 00:07:54,360 Speaker 1: focused on the elements, maybe a little bit more rigid, 139 00:07:54,440 --> 00:07:57,040 Speaker 1: maybe a little bit more dry, and then you know, 140 00:07:57,120 --> 00:08:00,200 Speaker 1: generally speaking, we see defense attorneys things very color boll 141 00:08:00,320 --> 00:08:03,840 Speaker 1: and telling a lot of stories and really digging into 142 00:08:03,880 --> 00:08:06,480 Speaker 1: some of those visceral elements. We didn't see that here, 143 00:08:06,800 --> 00:08:09,880 Speaker 1: and perhaps that was strategic on sur Nelton's part that 144 00:08:10,000 --> 00:08:13,000 Speaker 1: he was going to meet each one of their arguments 145 00:08:13,120 --> 00:08:16,040 Speaker 1: step by step, he was going to go through it categorically. 146 00:08:16,360 --> 00:08:18,760 Speaker 1: So I do think in that way then the argument 147 00:08:18,880 --> 00:08:22,080 Speaker 1: felt pretty equally yoked, and certainly in terms of time, 148 00:08:22,800 --> 00:08:26,440 Speaker 1: but definitely in terms of how much they covered. Each 149 00:08:26,440 --> 00:08:30,240 Speaker 1: side went into great detail and oftentimes revisited, you know, 150 00:08:30,360 --> 00:08:33,640 Speaker 1: different categories to make their voices heard and their points known. 151 00:08:33,760 --> 00:08:36,520 Speaker 1: So I would say I think each side got to 152 00:08:36,600 --> 00:08:38,800 Speaker 1: what they needed to get done, and they were very 153 00:08:38,800 --> 00:08:42,960 Speaker 1: thorough about it. What about the requirement that the use 154 00:08:43,000 --> 00:08:47,120 Speaker 1: of force was unreasonable, Well, I think that's quite frankly 155 00:08:47,200 --> 00:08:49,240 Speaker 1: was the weaker part of their Tas you know, Chauvin's 156 00:08:49,280 --> 00:08:52,880 Speaker 1: out is that he was reasonable and the force that 157 00:08:52,920 --> 00:08:55,440 Speaker 1: he chose to employ to be digging outside of that, 158 00:08:55,480 --> 00:08:57,880 Speaker 1: that's becomes a real problem for him. And when it 159 00:08:57,920 --> 00:09:00,440 Speaker 1: comes to you know, the experts that test side for 160 00:09:00,480 --> 00:09:03,000 Speaker 1: the defense, you know, he said some things that made 161 00:09:03,000 --> 00:09:04,960 Speaker 1: it difficult for the jury, I think, to want to 162 00:09:04,960 --> 00:09:08,040 Speaker 1: trust him, like how he was resting comfortably on the ground, 163 00:09:08,360 --> 00:09:10,880 Speaker 1: and how putting somebody down in a prom position isn't 164 00:09:10,880 --> 00:09:13,240 Speaker 1: a useful force. And then he had to walk those 165 00:09:13,240 --> 00:09:16,240 Speaker 1: things back and then did do so without being pressed 166 00:09:16,240 --> 00:09:19,840 Speaker 1: too hard um by the prosecutors. So I do like 167 00:09:20,040 --> 00:09:22,760 Speaker 1: what what Mr Nelson did when it came to the 168 00:09:22,760 --> 00:09:26,000 Speaker 1: closing argument, going back to those manuals, going back to 169 00:09:26,240 --> 00:09:30,320 Speaker 1: the actual training materials, and you know that brings out 170 00:09:30,360 --> 00:09:32,959 Speaker 1: a fair amount of bias. I think as it relates 171 00:09:33,000 --> 00:09:35,439 Speaker 1: to the States experts that tried really really hard to 172 00:09:35,559 --> 00:09:39,880 Speaker 1: distance themselves from Showman as far as they could. So well, 173 00:09:39,920 --> 00:09:45,000 Speaker 1: I think the defenses expert witness perhaps UM didn't give 174 00:09:45,080 --> 00:09:48,360 Speaker 1: them as much play as they'd hoped. I do think 175 00:09:48,360 --> 00:09:50,560 Speaker 1: they did a nice job. Would be exhibits UM and 176 00:09:50,600 --> 00:09:52,959 Speaker 1: the training materials that are in evidence and that the 177 00:09:53,040 --> 00:09:55,320 Speaker 1: jury will have an opportunity to look at, you know, 178 00:09:55,440 --> 00:09:59,760 Speaker 1: upposing personal and review. Would you explain the differences between 179 00:09:59,880 --> 00:10:03,600 Speaker 1: the of the three charges that he's facing, what they 180 00:10:03,600 --> 00:10:07,160 Speaker 1: have to prove in each sure so as it relates 181 00:10:07,200 --> 00:10:11,640 Speaker 1: to UM, the felony murder the top count where you 182 00:10:11,640 --> 00:10:15,720 Speaker 1: know there's a much higher maximum penalty. Should the prosecution 183 00:10:15,760 --> 00:10:18,800 Speaker 1: get a conviction, then they can ask for upward departures 184 00:10:18,840 --> 00:10:22,199 Speaker 1: and what not to try to get culture to that maximum. 185 00:10:22,320 --> 00:10:24,680 Speaker 1: They have to prove that he was intentionally committing an 186 00:10:24,720 --> 00:10:28,199 Speaker 1: assault and in this case was intactually making it so 187 00:10:28,360 --> 00:10:32,959 Speaker 1: George Floyd couldn't breathe. If they can prove that right, 188 00:10:33,520 --> 00:10:35,800 Speaker 1: then they're in a good position to then say, yep, 189 00:10:35,960 --> 00:10:41,439 Speaker 1: and Chauvin was a substantial um uh cause of Floyd's 190 00:10:41,480 --> 00:10:46,440 Speaker 1: death and therefore because he intentionally employed UM acts that 191 00:10:46,520 --> 00:10:50,360 Speaker 1: then UM caused him not to breathe, he's guilty of 192 00:10:50,520 --> 00:10:54,640 Speaker 1: what came later, and that being the death right for 193 00:10:54,920 --> 00:10:58,720 Speaker 1: some UM defense attorneys in the circle of that that 194 00:10:58,840 --> 00:11:02,920 Speaker 1: I'm in first UM UM that that certainly has been 195 00:11:02,960 --> 00:11:05,880 Speaker 1: thought to be a more difficult path to the jury, 196 00:11:06,840 --> 00:11:09,680 Speaker 1: especially mon there was you know, commotion at the scene 197 00:11:09,800 --> 00:11:14,040 Speaker 1: and some resistance for sure that was captured by Floyd. UM. 198 00:11:14,120 --> 00:11:16,440 Speaker 1: So basically I think that the jury would have to 199 00:11:16,480 --> 00:11:19,920 Speaker 1: believe that showing a bad guy, that that he's a 200 00:11:19,960 --> 00:11:23,120 Speaker 1: bad scene top that, UM he was on the force, 201 00:11:23,360 --> 00:11:26,240 Speaker 1: and UM he decided in that moment when there's a 202 00:11:26,240 --> 00:11:29,160 Speaker 1: bunch of people around his big videotape and you know, 203 00:11:29,280 --> 00:11:32,400 Speaker 1: other members of his force and he has his has 204 00:11:32,400 --> 00:11:35,200 Speaker 1: his body came on that that he is going to 205 00:11:35,320 --> 00:11:38,479 Speaker 1: intentionally make it Solf White can't breathe. I think that's 206 00:11:38,520 --> 00:11:41,559 Speaker 1: a hard sell. UM but it's certainly is possible in 207 00:11:41,640 --> 00:11:44,439 Speaker 1: the climate in which we find ourselves. Right. And then 208 00:11:44,440 --> 00:11:46,720 Speaker 1: there's the prave mind murder to crave mind murder as 209 00:11:46,720 --> 00:11:52,360 Speaker 1: the controversial charge of a person essentially UM taking a 210 00:11:52,480 --> 00:11:56,000 Speaker 1: risk UM that is so great that it could endanger 211 00:11:56,120 --> 00:12:00,120 Speaker 1: people and and and essentially kill people. Right. Um. The 212 00:12:00,160 --> 00:12:04,560 Speaker 1: examples that we've cited UM in Minnesota previous to our 213 00:12:04,600 --> 00:12:10,040 Speaker 1: recent Appellate Court ruling have UM covered things like giving 214 00:12:10,080 --> 00:12:13,920 Speaker 1: drugs to somebody UM and then that causes their death. So, 215 00:12:14,040 --> 00:12:17,800 Speaker 1: for example, the other passenger and Mr Floyd's car car 216 00:12:17,840 --> 00:12:21,679 Speaker 1: who employed UM use of the Fifth Amendment and chose 217 00:12:21,720 --> 00:12:24,599 Speaker 1: not to testify and not answer one question because his 218 00:12:24,720 --> 00:12:27,280 Speaker 1: lawyer effectively argued that for him to even put himself 219 00:12:27,280 --> 00:12:30,000 Speaker 1: in the car puts himself in a position where he's 220 00:12:30,040 --> 00:12:33,320 Speaker 1: looking at charges, and certainly to potentially admit that he 221 00:12:33,360 --> 00:12:36,040 Speaker 1: gave Mr Floyd the drug puts him in a spot 222 00:12:36,080 --> 00:12:38,880 Speaker 1: where he could be facing charges of the crave mind murder. Right. 223 00:12:39,480 --> 00:12:42,720 Speaker 1: Another example previous to our recent Court Court of Appeals 224 00:12:42,800 --> 00:12:45,400 Speaker 1: ruling of the crave mind murder is driving a hundred 225 00:12:45,400 --> 00:12:49,480 Speaker 1: miles through downtown and causing you know, the death of 226 00:12:49,559 --> 00:12:52,520 Speaker 1: somebody you didn't intend to, and you certainly didn't point 227 00:12:52,559 --> 00:12:56,440 Speaker 1: your acts toward one particular person. But but in effect, 228 00:12:56,520 --> 00:13:00,640 Speaker 1: nonetheless you're depraved mind caused the death. Right. And then 229 00:13:00,640 --> 00:13:05,320 Speaker 1: we've got manslaughter too, which in some other states um 230 00:13:05,640 --> 00:13:09,480 Speaker 1: has been called involuntary manslaughter. So you don't have any 231 00:13:09,520 --> 00:13:14,319 Speaker 1: intent to cause the death, but you consciously take a 232 00:13:14,480 --> 00:13:19,800 Speaker 1: risk um that that you should know right in dangers 233 00:13:19,920 --> 00:13:23,080 Speaker 1: a person's life. Um. That was the most recent charge 234 00:13:23,640 --> 00:13:26,360 Speaker 1: for the officer in Brooklyn Center here in Minnesota, where 235 00:13:26,360 --> 00:13:29,000 Speaker 1: she claims that she thought she had her taser but 236 00:13:29,120 --> 00:13:32,079 Speaker 1: she grabbed her gun. Um. And without getting into the 237 00:13:32,120 --> 00:13:34,560 Speaker 1: weeds and commenting on that case, you know that case 238 00:13:34,640 --> 00:13:37,079 Speaker 1: is going to turn on whether or not she consciously 239 00:13:37,120 --> 00:13:41,920 Speaker 1: took her risk. Right. And so the lowest charge is 240 00:13:42,120 --> 00:13:44,760 Speaker 1: of course the easiest charge in which the jury could 241 00:13:45,160 --> 00:13:49,120 Speaker 1: reach a conviction from Mr Chauvin, because mealing out his 242 00:13:49,240 --> 00:13:51,880 Speaker 1: neck for that long under all the circumstances that has 243 00:13:51,880 --> 00:13:55,840 Speaker 1: been pointed out could be him taking a conscious risk 244 00:13:56,320 --> 00:14:00,280 Speaker 1: that then caused the death of Mr Floyd. Thanks stud 245 00:14:00,320 --> 00:14:06,040 Speaker 1: that's Krista Groschek of Grosseek Lawn, Minneapolis. First Domino has 246 00:14:06,080 --> 00:14:09,960 Speaker 1: fallen in the Johnstice Department's investigation into the deadly January 247 00:14:10,040 --> 00:14:13,760 Speaker 1: six insurrection. A founding member of the far right group 248 00:14:13,800 --> 00:14:16,960 Speaker 1: the Oathkeepers has entered the first guilty place stemming from 249 00:14:17,000 --> 00:14:20,040 Speaker 1: the Capitol riot and has agreed to cooperate with the 250 00:14:20,120 --> 00:14:24,320 Speaker 1: Jostice Department. John Schaefer entered his guilty plea on Friday 251 00:14:24,360 --> 00:14:28,320 Speaker 1: to two counts, including obstruction of an official proceeding joining 252 00:14:28,360 --> 00:14:31,800 Speaker 1: me is Bloomberg Legal reporter David Yaffee bellany what do 253 00:14:31,880 --> 00:14:35,720 Speaker 1: we know about John Schaefer? So we know that John 254 00:14:35,720 --> 00:14:39,800 Speaker 1: Schaefer was among the hundreds of Donald Trump supporters who 255 00:14:39,960 --> 00:14:44,720 Speaker 1: stormed the Capitol on January six, that he's affiliated with 256 00:14:44,760 --> 00:14:47,000 Speaker 1: the Oathkeepers. He is which is one of the far 257 00:14:47,120 --> 00:14:50,720 Speaker 1: right wing groups that was heavily involved in the riot. 258 00:14:50,840 --> 00:14:54,600 Speaker 1: He was wearing an Oathkeeper's cap when he entered the Capital. 259 00:14:55,240 --> 00:14:58,320 Speaker 1: He is described by the Justice Department as a lifetime 260 00:14:58,440 --> 00:15:00,800 Speaker 1: founding member of the Oathkeeper is kind of a central 261 00:15:00,880 --> 00:15:05,160 Speaker 1: figure in the organization, and we now know um that 262 00:15:05,240 --> 00:15:08,040 Speaker 1: he is the first of the hundreds of people charged 263 00:15:08,080 --> 00:15:10,800 Speaker 1: in the Capital riot to to plead guilty and agree 264 00:15:10,840 --> 00:15:14,800 Speaker 1: to cooperate in the Justice Department's investigation. What did he 265 00:15:14,840 --> 00:15:19,560 Speaker 1: admit to in his play? So he admitted to storming 266 00:15:19,600 --> 00:15:22,160 Speaker 1: the capital and to you know, breaking laws in the 267 00:15:22,200 --> 00:15:25,720 Speaker 1: process of doing that. You know, he was also a 268 00:15:25,800 --> 00:15:29,240 Speaker 1: huge specific things like using kind of a chemical spray 269 00:15:29,320 --> 00:15:32,239 Speaker 1: as he forced his way in. So he's admitting to 270 00:15:32,360 --> 00:15:36,320 Speaker 1: having done that as well. And he's you know, crucially 271 00:15:36,720 --> 00:15:40,480 Speaker 1: promising to work with investigators they seek to kind of 272 00:15:40,520 --> 00:15:43,320 Speaker 1: to build bigger cases and and and take down people 273 00:15:43,320 --> 00:15:46,640 Speaker 1: who were involved in the riot. So this play is 274 00:15:46,680 --> 00:15:51,760 Speaker 1: being looked on as a breakthrough. Why so in any 275 00:15:51,800 --> 00:15:56,360 Speaker 1: major investigation, you need people to cooperate um your goals 276 00:15:56,400 --> 00:15:58,880 Speaker 1: not just to kind of get the low hanging fruit 277 00:15:59,000 --> 00:16:02,080 Speaker 1: in this case, you know, the people who post itselfies 278 00:16:02,160 --> 00:16:05,560 Speaker 1: of of themselves storming the capital, but but also to 279 00:16:05,920 --> 00:16:08,080 Speaker 1: use them use what they know to kind of go 280 00:16:08,200 --> 00:16:11,760 Speaker 1: after people who may have been more intimately involved in 281 00:16:11,880 --> 00:16:14,400 Speaker 1: the kind of orchestrating the crime in this case as 282 00:16:14,480 --> 00:16:17,240 Speaker 1: the siege of the Capitol. And I think, you know, 283 00:16:17,520 --> 00:16:20,400 Speaker 1: we don't know what Schaefer knows and you know, what 284 00:16:20,520 --> 00:16:23,080 Speaker 1: evidence he might be able to supply to investigators, but 285 00:16:23,960 --> 00:16:28,360 Speaker 1: one of the largest conspiracy cases stemming from from this 286 00:16:28,600 --> 00:16:33,280 Speaker 1: investigation targets about a dozen members of the Outhkeepers, not 287 00:16:33,360 --> 00:16:37,160 Speaker 1: including Schaefer, and so it's reasonable to speculate that the 288 00:16:37,240 --> 00:16:40,080 Speaker 1: SAIDs might be hoping that Schaefer can sort of shine 289 00:16:40,080 --> 00:16:42,680 Speaker 1: a light on on what those other members of the 290 00:16:42,720 --> 00:16:45,360 Speaker 1: militia we're doing and help them kind of build that 291 00:16:45,480 --> 00:16:48,680 Speaker 1: bigger case that really targets the people who may have 292 00:16:48,800 --> 00:16:52,240 Speaker 1: orchestrated the riot. So that would work even if he 293 00:16:52,320 --> 00:16:57,120 Speaker 1: had a minor role in orchestrating it all depends on 294 00:16:57,160 --> 00:16:59,440 Speaker 1: what he knows. I mean, he hasn't been charged as 295 00:16:59,480 --> 00:17:03,080 Speaker 1: part of the that conspiracy, which suggests that prosecutors don't 296 00:17:03,120 --> 00:17:05,720 Speaker 1: think that he was actually involved in it, though of 297 00:17:05,760 --> 00:17:09,160 Speaker 1: course maybe they do, and they've just refrained from charging him, 298 00:17:09,200 --> 00:17:11,680 Speaker 1: and you know, are just hoping to get the information 299 00:17:11,720 --> 00:17:14,080 Speaker 1: that he has. But we just the answer is, we 300 00:17:14,160 --> 00:17:16,080 Speaker 1: just really don't know. I mean, this could be this 301 00:17:16,160 --> 00:17:17,520 Speaker 1: could be a you know, turn out to be a 302 00:17:17,560 --> 00:17:21,040 Speaker 1: relatively minor plea deal. It doesn't yield much information. But 303 00:17:21,640 --> 00:17:24,600 Speaker 1: you know, given the way that the Justice Department trumpeted 304 00:17:24,680 --> 00:17:28,040 Speaker 1: this announcement, given the fact that it's the first plea 305 00:17:28,080 --> 00:17:31,439 Speaker 1: deal they've reached, they clearly prioritized and tried to move quickly. 306 00:17:31,440 --> 00:17:33,240 Speaker 1: One would assume that they think they're going to get 307 00:17:33,240 --> 00:17:36,600 Speaker 1: something good out of this in the form of intelligence 308 00:17:36,760 --> 00:17:40,200 Speaker 1: on other members of the Oathkeepers, or maybe somebody who 309 00:17:40,240 --> 00:17:42,840 Speaker 1: can just kind of explain on a broader level how 310 00:17:42,880 --> 00:17:46,560 Speaker 1: the militia works, UM, which could could help prosecutors buildicate. 311 00:17:47,000 --> 00:17:50,280 Speaker 1: So he was not among that group of oath Keepers 312 00:17:50,640 --> 00:17:53,760 Speaker 1: who were in some kind of formation and they each 313 00:17:53,800 --> 00:17:56,720 Speaker 1: had their hand on the shoulder of the one in 314 00:17:56,800 --> 00:17:59,600 Speaker 1: front of them. No, he was not. He was not 315 00:17:59,720 --> 00:18:03,359 Speaker 1: part of that kind of military style formation that stormed 316 00:18:03,359 --> 00:18:06,760 Speaker 1: the capital. He was charged separately from that group. Do 317 00:18:06,800 --> 00:18:10,760 Speaker 1: you know how many conspiracy cases have been charged? UM? 318 00:18:10,760 --> 00:18:13,760 Speaker 1: I can't remember the exact number of conspiracy cases, but 319 00:18:14,000 --> 00:18:17,679 Speaker 1: the biggest case to have emerged from the investigation is 320 00:18:17,920 --> 00:18:21,400 Speaker 1: the twelve those Keepers who have been charged in Washington 321 00:18:21,600 --> 00:18:25,639 Speaker 1: with a conspiracy to lacey each to the Capitol. UM. 322 00:18:25,680 --> 00:18:27,879 Speaker 1: A group of Proud Boys has also been charged in 323 00:18:27,960 --> 00:18:31,560 Speaker 1: a smaller conspiracy case. UM. And those are kind of 324 00:18:31,600 --> 00:18:35,880 Speaker 1: the two sort of central cases UM that has kind 325 00:18:35,920 --> 00:18:38,760 Speaker 1: of risen to the surface in the investigation so far. 326 00:18:39,440 --> 00:18:42,960 Speaker 1: Do you know what charges are being considered, what the 327 00:18:43,000 --> 00:18:47,560 Speaker 1: most serious charges being considered are, and so there's you know, 328 00:18:47,600 --> 00:18:51,040 Speaker 1: a conspiracy charges is very serious. Um, there's also talk 329 00:18:51,080 --> 00:18:54,119 Speaker 1: of potential sedition charges, which is a kind of not 330 00:18:54,200 --> 00:18:57,560 Speaker 1: quite unprecedented, but a very rare type of charge level 331 00:18:57,560 --> 00:19:00,880 Speaker 1: against anybody and UM that would care area long sentence, 332 00:19:00,920 --> 00:19:03,200 Speaker 1: I can't. I think I think about ten years. And 333 00:19:03,359 --> 00:19:05,280 Speaker 1: so those are those are the sorts of kind of 334 00:19:05,400 --> 00:19:08,359 Speaker 1: surious accusations that some of these rioters you're facing, I 335 00:19:08,400 --> 00:19:10,960 Speaker 1: mean all the some are being charged with assaulting police officers, 336 00:19:10,960 --> 00:19:13,640 Speaker 1: which is serious. You know, there's been there are two 337 00:19:13,640 --> 00:19:17,440 Speaker 1: people who were charged with assaulting officers, including the officer 338 00:19:17,520 --> 00:19:20,440 Speaker 1: Bryan Sickniks, who later died of injuries that he sustained 339 00:19:20,440 --> 00:19:22,920 Speaker 1: at the capital. And it's possible that those two men 340 00:19:23,000 --> 00:19:25,560 Speaker 1: could face selling the murder charges at some point, which 341 00:19:25,560 --> 00:19:28,919 Speaker 1: should obviously be very serious. That's basically the spectrum. The 342 00:19:28,920 --> 00:19:32,280 Speaker 1: most common charges are things like obstruction of an official proceeding, 343 00:19:32,280 --> 00:19:34,879 Speaker 1: which is something that Schafer pled guilty to, you know, 344 00:19:35,040 --> 00:19:38,600 Speaker 1: disorderly conduct, you know, entering official grounds that permission, that 345 00:19:38,680 --> 00:19:40,159 Speaker 1: sort of thing. But then a level up from that 346 00:19:40,320 --> 00:19:44,760 Speaker 1: you have conspiracy, potential tradition charges we haven't seen yet, 347 00:19:44,800 --> 00:19:47,960 Speaker 1: you know, Selny murder in that one case, assaulting officers 348 00:19:47,960 --> 00:19:51,639 Speaker 1: in other cases. So that's basically the spectrum. At the 349 00:19:51,720 --> 00:19:55,080 Speaker 1: beginning of this, there was more talk and people knew 350 00:19:55,119 --> 00:19:59,360 Speaker 1: more about the Proud Boys than the oath Keepers. Does 351 00:19:59,359 --> 00:20:01,879 Speaker 1: it seem as if that has sort of changed and 352 00:20:01,920 --> 00:20:05,880 Speaker 1: the oath Keepers have emerged as the more dangerous if 353 00:20:05,920 --> 00:20:08,439 Speaker 1: you will group, Well, I don't. I don't think we 354 00:20:08,480 --> 00:20:10,240 Speaker 1: need to, you know, parse between the two of them. 355 00:20:10,240 --> 00:20:12,959 Speaker 1: I mean, prosecutors have charged members of both groups. If 356 00:20:12,960 --> 00:20:15,439 Speaker 1: you look at the numbers. Yes, more Oathkeepers have been 357 00:20:15,520 --> 00:20:17,640 Speaker 1: charged and the Proud Boys, but it's not by some 358 00:20:18,080 --> 00:20:21,600 Speaker 1: ridiculous margins. And Proud Boys have been charged with conspiring 359 00:20:21,800 --> 00:20:24,680 Speaker 1: to ride at the Capitol as well. Um, so really 360 00:20:24,720 --> 00:20:27,479 Speaker 1: both groups have been have been targeted. Though you're right, 361 00:20:27,640 --> 00:20:31,840 Speaker 1: certainly the case the Oathkeepers were less known beforehand. Um, 362 00:20:32,000 --> 00:20:35,119 Speaker 1: they just hadn't gotten as much publicity. The other thing 363 00:20:35,160 --> 00:20:37,720 Speaker 1: that's worth remembering is we're still a relatively earlier looks 364 00:20:37,760 --> 00:20:41,919 Speaker 1: likely to be a year's long investigation. There could be 365 00:20:42,320 --> 00:20:45,240 Speaker 1: cases that prosecutors are building that we don't know about yet. 366 00:20:45,640 --> 00:20:49,160 Speaker 1: It could be that the Proud Boice conspiracy case ends 367 00:20:49,280 --> 00:20:53,360 Speaker 1: up becoming bigger than the Oathkeepers conspiracy case, as more 368 00:20:53,440 --> 00:20:57,520 Speaker 1: descendants are added as the investigation progresses. Even though it 369 00:20:57,560 --> 00:20:59,320 Speaker 1: feels like this has been going on for a long 370 00:20:59,400 --> 00:21:01,480 Speaker 1: time and have as it's been going on for months, 371 00:21:01,520 --> 00:21:03,720 Speaker 1: we've only just gotten out of the stage where the 372 00:21:03,720 --> 00:21:07,000 Speaker 1: prosecutors are really just taking down will hang fruit. We're 373 00:21:07,040 --> 00:21:09,159 Speaker 1: now getting into the sick of the kind of longer 374 00:21:09,320 --> 00:21:13,879 Speaker 1: term investigations, sort of utilizing a more complex law enforcement 375 00:21:13,920 --> 00:21:16,720 Speaker 1: tools that are going to take you know, potentially months 376 00:21:16,720 --> 00:21:19,720 Speaker 1: and months as Justice Department trying to get to the 377 00:21:19,720 --> 00:21:23,359 Speaker 1: bottom of what happened. When the government told the court 378 00:21:23,480 --> 00:21:27,679 Speaker 1: that they were pursuing this plea deal, they wrote that 379 00:21:27,840 --> 00:21:31,800 Speaker 1: plea terms have required extensive review and approval at various 380 00:21:31,880 --> 00:21:34,840 Speaker 1: levels of government. I thought it was interesting because that 381 00:21:34,920 --> 00:21:37,160 Speaker 1: must be true of all cases. But do you think 382 00:21:37,160 --> 00:21:40,199 Speaker 1: that there's more review going on than normal? Yeah, I 383 00:21:40,200 --> 00:21:42,560 Speaker 1: think there certainly is. I mean, this is a politically 384 00:21:42,600 --> 00:21:46,320 Speaker 1: sensitive investigation, you know, it's it's one of the central 385 00:21:46,400 --> 00:21:50,960 Speaker 1: priorities of you know, Merrick Garland's tenure at the Justice Department, 386 00:21:51,359 --> 00:21:53,639 Speaker 1: and so it you know, it stands to reason that 387 00:21:53,800 --> 00:21:57,800 Speaker 1: the first plea deal to emerge from this massively important 388 00:21:57,880 --> 00:22:02,159 Speaker 1: investigation would see more scrutiny than just a run of 389 00:22:02,200 --> 00:22:05,800 Speaker 1: the mill plea deal involving somebody who's committed of, you know, 390 00:22:05,920 --> 00:22:09,399 Speaker 1: a less public crime. Do you have any sense of 391 00:22:09,920 --> 00:22:13,520 Speaker 1: who the government will deal with and who they won't 392 00:22:13,560 --> 00:22:16,480 Speaker 1: deal with. I'm wondering if there is just some people 393 00:22:16,520 --> 00:22:19,840 Speaker 1: that they won't deal with. Yeah, I mean, it depends 394 00:22:19,880 --> 00:22:22,200 Speaker 1: on it depends on what the people have been accused of. 395 00:22:22,240 --> 00:22:24,680 Speaker 1: You know, they're unlikely to cut a super nice deal 396 00:22:24,760 --> 00:22:27,440 Speaker 1: with the very top person with the othkeepers who they 397 00:22:27,440 --> 00:22:31,480 Speaker 1: think was, you know, behind the orchestration of the riot, 398 00:22:31,640 --> 00:22:35,800 Speaker 1: because you know that's the person who they want to target. UM. 399 00:22:35,880 --> 00:22:37,479 Speaker 1: And you know, you can almost think of this as 400 00:22:37,520 --> 00:22:42,800 Speaker 1: like an organized crime investigation where they flip people lower 401 00:22:42,960 --> 00:22:45,040 Speaker 1: in the pyramid as a way to getting to the 402 00:22:45,040 --> 00:22:48,399 Speaker 1: people at the top. UM. I think that's probably the 403 00:22:48,440 --> 00:22:51,439 Speaker 1: approach that the Justice Department is taking. And you know, 404 00:22:51,520 --> 00:22:54,399 Speaker 1: there there's also a sense, a sort of broader sense 405 00:22:54,440 --> 00:22:58,800 Speaker 1: that there are crucial gradations that people weren't totally conscious 406 00:22:58,840 --> 00:23:02,320 Speaker 1: of on January X between different levels and this conduct. 407 00:23:02,400 --> 00:23:04,000 Speaker 1: It is the capitol. I mean, you had people who 408 00:23:04,080 --> 00:23:09,000 Speaker 1: were assaulting police officers vandalizing the building, and who are 409 00:23:09,040 --> 00:23:10,879 Speaker 1: maybe even planning with ahead of time. And then you 410 00:23:10,920 --> 00:23:12,919 Speaker 1: had people who were just kind of showed up at 411 00:23:12,920 --> 00:23:15,119 Speaker 1: the rally and then kind of follow the crowd inside 412 00:23:15,160 --> 00:23:18,359 Speaker 1: and sort of wandered around aimlessly inside the capital and 413 00:23:18,400 --> 00:23:22,840 Speaker 1: them left. And those are different types of criminal conduct, 414 00:23:22,960 --> 00:23:25,520 Speaker 1: and they're being treated differently, And if you're in the 415 00:23:25,600 --> 00:23:28,960 Speaker 1: latter category, I think you're you're likely to get more 416 00:23:28,960 --> 00:23:33,600 Speaker 1: sympathetic treatment. Is law enforcement going after everyone they can 417 00:23:33,680 --> 00:23:37,400 Speaker 1: identify or are they just ignoring the people that, as 418 00:23:37,440 --> 00:23:40,080 Speaker 1: you say, maybe just walked in with the crowd and 419 00:23:40,160 --> 00:23:43,879 Speaker 1: walked through. There have been reports that there's internal debate 420 00:23:43,960 --> 00:23:47,400 Speaker 1: within the Justice Department over whether to go after everybody. 421 00:23:47,440 --> 00:23:51,240 Speaker 1: But in the public statements that prosecutors have made to 422 00:23:51,280 --> 00:23:54,520 Speaker 1: the press, they have insisted that they are going after everybody, 423 00:23:54,640 --> 00:23:57,120 Speaker 1: but you set foot in the Capitol that day, they 424 00:23:57,119 --> 00:23:59,560 Speaker 1: have their eye on you. Now, it's certainly the case 425 00:23:59,600 --> 00:24:01,360 Speaker 1: that there were people in the Capitol that day will 426 00:24:01,400 --> 00:24:05,480 Speaker 1: never get caught. Um not everybody's face was captured in 427 00:24:05,560 --> 00:24:08,480 Speaker 1: video footage. It was a huge crowd, and I think 428 00:24:08,520 --> 00:24:11,440 Speaker 1: prosecutors have come to acknowledge that they're not going to 429 00:24:11,680 --> 00:24:16,040 Speaker 1: track down every last person. Several people have been are 430 00:24:16,160 --> 00:24:20,280 Speaker 1: being held in jail pending trial, and I don't know 431 00:24:20,320 --> 00:24:24,280 Speaker 1: if it's because they're in different jurisdictions. It doesn't seem 432 00:24:24,320 --> 00:24:27,760 Speaker 1: as if there's any kind of ryan more reason for 433 00:24:27,840 --> 00:24:30,360 Speaker 1: who's being kept in as far as the people who 434 00:24:30,480 --> 00:24:33,560 Speaker 1: were the faces of it. For example, the guy who 435 00:24:33,640 --> 00:24:36,959 Speaker 1: was in Nancy Pelosi's office is being held, but the 436 00:24:37,000 --> 00:24:41,280 Speaker 1: guy who stole the podium is not being held. Yeah, 437 00:24:41,280 --> 00:24:43,320 Speaker 1: I mean this is the subject of a lot of 438 00:24:43,320 --> 00:24:46,480 Speaker 1: a lot of courtroom debate. I mean, first worth noting 439 00:24:46,520 --> 00:24:49,080 Speaker 1: that some of the people who were initially the faces 440 00:24:49,119 --> 00:24:52,439 Speaker 1: of the riot, um, you know, are now no longer 441 00:24:52,600 --> 00:24:55,840 Speaker 1: the kind of major targets of the prosecutors, right, I mean, 442 00:24:55,880 --> 00:24:58,800 Speaker 1: as as the Justice Department becomes more interested in who 443 00:24:58,840 --> 00:25:02,880 Speaker 1: planned the riot and less interested in who was photographed 444 00:25:02,880 --> 00:25:06,159 Speaker 1: in the most obnoxious way on January six, you know, 445 00:25:06,200 --> 00:25:09,520 Speaker 1: the priorities change basically. But yeah, no, there's a lot 446 00:25:09,520 --> 00:25:11,880 Speaker 1: of databas who should be held pending trials, who should 447 00:25:11,880 --> 00:25:14,679 Speaker 1: be granted bail. The DC Circuit, the Appeals Court, the 448 00:25:14,720 --> 00:25:17,520 Speaker 1: Federal Appeals Court, and DC issued ruling a couple of 449 00:25:17,560 --> 00:25:21,240 Speaker 1: weeks ago that sort of articulated the distinction between people 450 00:25:21,280 --> 00:25:25,480 Speaker 1: who just walked in and people who committed more serious 451 00:25:25,520 --> 00:25:30,720 Speaker 1: crimes inside and basically said that, you know, if you 452 00:25:30,960 --> 00:25:33,639 Speaker 1: fall into the less serious category, then you know, you 453 00:25:33,640 --> 00:25:36,399 Speaker 1: should probably be granted sail. And so that was a 454 00:25:36,440 --> 00:25:39,240 Speaker 1: really helpful ruling for defense lawyers, and it has been 455 00:25:39,280 --> 00:25:42,479 Speaker 1: invoked repeatedly in the court over the last few weeks 456 00:25:42,920 --> 00:25:45,680 Speaker 1: um as defense lawyers have argued that their clients shouldn't 457 00:25:45,680 --> 00:25:50,000 Speaker 1: be held pending trial. But you know, all of the 458 00:25:50,040 --> 00:25:53,080 Speaker 1: factors that go into a bail decision by here, you know, 459 00:25:53,160 --> 00:25:55,199 Speaker 1: does the person have a criminal record, are they a 460 00:25:55,200 --> 00:25:59,200 Speaker 1: flight risk? How serious was the crime? You know, how 461 00:25:59,200 --> 00:26:01,160 Speaker 1: good are their lawyer? Is it making the case for them? 462 00:26:01,200 --> 00:26:03,960 Speaker 1: You know, were they able to mobilize you know, you 463 00:26:04,000 --> 00:26:07,399 Speaker 1: know character witnesses who could testify to the fact that 464 00:26:07,480 --> 00:26:09,680 Speaker 1: the person wouldn't be held. You know what mood was 465 00:26:09,720 --> 00:26:12,360 Speaker 1: the judge in that day. You know, it's not it's 466 00:26:12,400 --> 00:26:16,600 Speaker 1: not an exact science, but there are these gradations of 467 00:26:16,680 --> 00:26:19,440 Speaker 1: conduct at the Capitol that I think are the primary 468 00:26:19,520 --> 00:26:22,960 Speaker 1: driving force of who gets fail and who doesn't. It's 469 00:26:22,960 --> 00:26:25,359 Speaker 1: as simple as if you committed the more serious crime, 470 00:26:25,520 --> 00:26:28,280 Speaker 1: you're less likely to get failed. I also want to 471 00:26:28,280 --> 00:26:31,840 Speaker 1: touch on another topic, tell us about what happened in 472 00:26:31,880 --> 00:26:35,159 Speaker 1: the death of Ashley Babbitt. So, you know, this was 473 00:26:35,200 --> 00:26:38,000 Speaker 1: a viral video that circulated the day of the riot 474 00:26:38,040 --> 00:26:41,720 Speaker 1: and which was incredibly disturbing. You could see Ashley, Ashley Babbitt, 475 00:26:41,720 --> 00:26:44,600 Speaker 1: who is one of the people who stormed the capitol um, 476 00:26:44,760 --> 00:26:48,879 Speaker 1: sort of stand up inside a doorway with a broken 477 00:26:48,920 --> 00:26:52,760 Speaker 1: window inside the Capitol and then get shot and follow 478 00:26:52,800 --> 00:26:55,199 Speaker 1: the ground. And she later died. And so she was 479 00:26:55,200 --> 00:26:57,560 Speaker 1: one of the handful of people who who died as 480 00:26:57,600 --> 00:27:00,200 Speaker 1: a result of the violence of the Capitol. U in 481 00:27:00,240 --> 00:27:04,040 Speaker 1: the Justice Department announced last week that it wasn't going 482 00:27:04,080 --> 00:27:08,959 Speaker 1: to bring charges against the officer, the Capitol police officer 483 00:27:09,040 --> 00:27:12,960 Speaker 1: who shot her. That basically they were unable to find 484 00:27:13,000 --> 00:27:16,680 Speaker 1: any evidence supporting the idea that the officer had had 485 00:27:16,720 --> 00:27:19,560 Speaker 1: broken a law or you know, not acted in a 486 00:27:19,600 --> 00:27:23,239 Speaker 1: reasonable way when when he shot her. Thanks David. That's 487 00:27:23,280 --> 00:27:27,159 Speaker 1: Bloomberg Legal reporter David Jaffie Beleni And that's it for 488 00:27:27,160 --> 00:27:29,919 Speaker 1: the edition of the Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can 489 00:27:29,920 --> 00:27:32,919 Speaker 1: always at the latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law Podcast. 490 00:27:33,200 --> 00:27:36,879 Speaker 1: Please subscribe. I'm June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg