Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brussel from Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 1: The fate of former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin is
Speaker 1: now in the hands of the jury. After almost a
Speaker 1: day of closing arguments in a courthouse ring with concrete
Speaker 1: barriers and razor wire and National Guard members on patrol.
Speaker 1: Minneapolis and other cities across the country are bracing for
Speaker 1: the verdict. Joining me is former public defender Krista Groshek,
Speaker 1: managing attorney of Groschek Law in Minneapolis. Give us your
Speaker 1: opinion of the closing arguments in general. My opinion about
Speaker 1: really both sides is that it was just far too long.
Speaker 1: You know. I understand that there was some complex issued
Speaker 1: and I understand that there's a lot of ground to cover,
Speaker 1: but I do think that the cases could have been
Speaker 1: streamlined easier for the jury to really wrap their minds
Speaker 1: around it. I think that a case that could otherwise
Speaker 1: have been argued it from a very emotional point of view,
Speaker 1: was argued from a very technical point of view, which
Speaker 1: I was a little surprised at coming from the prosecution.
Speaker 1: Neither lawyer told the story to the jury looking at
Speaker 1: it from Derek Schovin's eyes, looking at it through George
Speaker 1: Floyd's eye. But nobody really told that story. The prosecution
Speaker 1: did a little. I think they tried their case. They also,
Speaker 1: in very repetitive fashion, told the same story over and
Speaker 1: over again. So given the amount of experts that they had,
Speaker 1: I certainly think that they made their points over and
Speaker 1: over again. And while it was long, you know, I
Speaker 1: think that detracted from their message. I still think that
Speaker 1: they made their point. The prosecution painted Chauvin as a
Speaker 1: rogue actor and kept on, you know, emphasizing that policing
Speaker 1: is not on trial. Also, believe your eyes. So do
Speaker 1: you think those were good points? Well? To believe your eyes?
Speaker 1: You know, that was a repeat from the opening, you know,
Speaker 1: which is really effective. You want to take a scene
Speaker 1: and carried it all the way through to its conclusion,
Speaker 1: pointing out things that support that being as you go along.
Speaker 1: But I was a little suprised in some ways. You know,
Speaker 1: the prosecution say this is you know, policing is not
Speaker 1: on trial. Certainly they wouldn't have to concede that point.
Speaker 1: I don't think they would have had to make it
Speaker 1: in big bowl letters, but they certainly wouldn't have had
Speaker 1: to concede it because so many people are concerned. You
Speaker 1: know that the way Derek Chauvin acted is the way
Speaker 1: police officers act all around the country, and perhaps they
Speaker 1: were trying to sidestep with you know, what could have
Speaker 1: been you know, arguments down the road with regard to
Speaker 1: an appeal. But I just thought it would have been
Speaker 1: better if they left it on said. The defense doesn't
Speaker 1: have the burden obviously, and the defense attorney emphasized that
Speaker 1: and reasonable doubt. Do you think they made any case
Speaker 1: for reasonable debt on the jury's part. I definitely think
Speaker 1: that while at first, Blush it felt a little confusing
Speaker 1: that defense was playing you know, the videos where we
Speaker 1: see you know, Floyd in these compromised positions, crying and pleading.
Speaker 1: At first, Blush it was a questionable why is the
Speaker 1: defense playing this? But he presented a number of different
Speaker 1: body cameras that showed what what the police officers saw
Speaker 1: to see and in particular what Showvin saw when he
Speaker 1: showed up right like, this is what he's confronted with
Speaker 1: um And I thought the defense brought out some other
Speaker 1: unique points that you know, when shown did engage that
Speaker 1: he had his body camera kicked off, you know, there
Speaker 1: was enough force from a kick um. He also tried
Speaker 1: to point out, you know that the police car was
Speaker 1: rocking when there was attempts to put Floyd in the
Speaker 1: back of the car. So I do think the defense
Speaker 1: and brought out things about what actually was happening versus
Speaker 1: what people were perceiving was happening people who on the
Speaker 1: other side of the police car, And that was something
Speaker 1: that the defense alluded to in the opening, and they
Speaker 1: came back and then and then tied that up nicely
Speaker 1: in the clothing. So I do think that the defense
Speaker 1: had a number of things that should give the jury
Speaker 1: pause about, you know, what was happening, why officers responded
Speaker 1: the way that they did, and then you know, what
Speaker 1: do we really know about these medical circumstances. The defense
Speaker 1: pointed out that the prosecution experts came in and they
Speaker 1: didn't present a unified theory. They each sort of had
Speaker 1: their own theories about why they didn't believe that, you know,
Speaker 1: Floyd d died of an overdose or or a heart attack.
Speaker 1: But their series didn't exactly come together like a nicely
Speaker 1: coordinated quote for example. So I think the defense got
Speaker 1: some shots in some of it was just hard to
Speaker 1: keep tracking because it was so long. The prosecution had
Speaker 1: so many expert witnesses, and the defense had a few
Speaker 1: expert witnesses. But even their experts seemed to have conceded
Speaker 1: some factors on cross examination. So I wonder if that
Speaker 1: is a big problem for the defense. It wasn't really
Speaker 1: a battle of the experts so much like you see
Speaker 1: in some trials where it's like renowned expert against that
Speaker 1: renowned expert. Yeah, I agree with you. Um. You know,
Speaker 1: in order for experts to be credible, certainly there are
Speaker 1: points that they have to concede. If they don't concede it, well,
Speaker 1: then they lose credibility, right if they're going to maintain
Speaker 1: a certain position that you know, it's contrary to the
Speaker 1: facts or logic. Right. Um, they're generally speaking, in some
Speaker 1: things they need to concede. In this case, these experts
Speaker 1: seem to concede and easily concede. Um, some pretty important
Speaker 1: points I expected, or or believe, And you know, perhaps
Speaker 1: they don't have all the information, but I thought Fowler
Speaker 1: had employed a pannel or was part of a panel
Speaker 1: of other experts that came together to give opinions from
Speaker 1: a holistic point of view. I thought, perhaps suddenly would
Speaker 1: start hearing from these other experts that worked in some
Speaker 1: of these other areas. Right, if it was a heart
Speaker 1: doctor and a lung doctor, and a brain doctor, right,
Speaker 1: and a toxicologist and a medical examiner, if they all
Speaker 1: would set around and looked at everything from their unique
Speaker 1: points of view. I thought, maybe after Follower's testimony, we
Speaker 1: hear the opinions of some of those people to get
Speaker 1: an understanding of why Follower test side the way he did,
Speaker 1: and in fact them have some additional expert opinion evidence
Speaker 1: to both ster its points. But we didn't see that.
Speaker 1: We didn't see that, and obviously you know, we're not
Speaker 1: privy to why um. But I thought that the defense
Speaker 1: at that point then would pull out some of these
Speaker 1: additional ex experts. How important are these closing arguments? As
Speaker 1: a practicing attorney, I like to believe the closing arguments
Speaker 1: are what can make the difference, and in many cases
Speaker 1: where there's complex information, I believe that it is. You know,
Speaker 1: sometimes it's hard to see exactly where a defense attorney
Speaker 1: is going after there's a plethora of questions asked, and
Speaker 1: it's about topics that you know, lay people or even
Speaker 1: the lawyers you know, uh have it addressed or become
Speaker 1: familiar with before. So I do think closing arguments make
Speaker 1: a really big difference. I think opening statements are also
Speaker 1: equally important, so you know, the tenor of it, the themes, uh, storytelling.
Speaker 1: I think it's super important. And we didn't see a
Speaker 1: lot of that from either side here really, um, I
Speaker 1: think closing arguments do have the potential to make or
Speaker 1: break a case. I do. And so you know, I
Speaker 1: know that you thought they went too long and they
Speaker 1: didn't tell a great story, but did they get their
Speaker 1: points across? I think each side, yes, got their points across,
Speaker 1: and I think each side sort of went about it
Speaker 1: in the same way, which is pretty interesting to me.
Speaker 1: It was almost like the attorney's match their style, right Like,
Speaker 1: typically speaking, we see prosecutors being a little bit more
Speaker 1: focused on the elements, maybe a little bit more rigid,
Speaker 1: maybe a little bit more dry, and then you know,
Speaker 1: generally speaking, we see defense attorneys things very color boll
Speaker 1: and telling a lot of stories and really digging into
Speaker 1: some of those visceral elements. We didn't see that here,
Speaker 1: and perhaps that was strategic on sur Nelton's part that
Speaker 1: he was going to meet each one of their arguments
Speaker 1: step by step, he was going to go through it categorically.
Speaker 1: So I do think in that way then the argument
Speaker 1: felt pretty equally yoked, and certainly in terms of time,
Speaker 1: but definitely in terms of how much they covered. Each
Speaker 1: side went into great detail and oftentimes revisited, you know,
Speaker 1: different categories to make their voices heard and their points known.
Speaker 1: So I would say I think each side got to
Speaker 1: what they needed to get done, and they were very
Speaker 1: thorough about it. What about the requirement that the use
Speaker 1: of force was unreasonable, Well, I think that's quite frankly
Speaker 1: was the weaker part of their Tas you know, Chauvin's
Speaker 1: out is that he was reasonable and the force that
Speaker 1: he chose to employ to be digging outside of that,
Speaker 1: that's becomes a real problem for him. And when it
Speaker 1: comes to you know, the experts that test side for
Speaker 1: the defense, you know, he said some things that made
Speaker 1: it difficult for the jury, I think, to want to
Speaker 1: trust him, like how he was resting comfortably on the ground,
Speaker 1: and how putting somebody down in a prom position isn't
Speaker 1: a useful force. And then he had to walk those
Speaker 1: things back and then did do so without being pressed
Speaker 1: too hard um by the prosecutors. So I do like
Speaker 1: what what Mr Nelson did when it came to the
Speaker 1: closing argument, going back to those manuals, going back to
Speaker 1: the actual training materials, and you know that brings out
Speaker 1: a fair amount of bias. I think as it relates
Speaker 1: to the States experts that tried really really hard to
Speaker 1: distance themselves from Showman as far as they could. So well,
Speaker 1: I think the defenses expert witness perhaps UM didn't give
Speaker 1: them as much play as they'd hoped. I do think
Speaker 1: they did a nice job. Would be exhibits UM and
Speaker 1: the training materials that are in evidence and that the
Speaker 1: jury will have an opportunity to look at, you know,
Speaker 1: upposing personal and review. Would you explain the differences between
Speaker 1: the of the three charges that he's facing, what they
Speaker 1: have to prove in each sure so as it relates
Speaker 1: to UM, the felony murder the top count where you
Speaker 1: know there's a much higher maximum penalty. Should the prosecution
Speaker 1: get a conviction, then they can ask for upward departures
Speaker 1: and what not to try to get culture to that maximum.
Speaker 1: They have to prove that he was intentionally committing an
Speaker 1: assault and in this case was intactually making it so
Speaker 1: George Floyd couldn't breathe. If they can prove that right,
Speaker 1: then they're in a good position to then say, yep,
Speaker 1: and Chauvin was a substantial um uh cause of Floyd's
Speaker 1: death and therefore because he intentionally employed UM acts that
Speaker 1: then UM caused him not to breathe, he's guilty of
Speaker 1: what came later, and that being the death right for
Speaker 1: some UM defense attorneys in the circle of that that
Speaker 1: I'm in first UM UM that that certainly has been
Speaker 1: thought to be a more difficult path to the jury,
Speaker 1: especially mon there was you know, commotion at the scene
Speaker 1: and some resistance for sure that was captured by Floyd. UM.
Speaker 1: So basically I think that the jury would have to
Speaker 1: believe that showing a bad guy, that that he's a
Speaker 1: bad scene top that, UM he was on the force,
Speaker 1: and UM he decided in that moment when there's a
Speaker 1: bunch of people around his big videotape and you know,
Speaker 1: other members of his force and he has his has
Speaker 1: his body came on that that he is going to
Speaker 1: intentionally make it Solf White can't breathe. I think that's
Speaker 1: a hard sell. UM but it's certainly is possible in
Speaker 1: the climate in which we find ourselves. Right. And then
Speaker 1: there's the prave mind murder to crave mind murder as
Speaker 1: the controversial charge of a person essentially UM taking a
Speaker 1: risk UM that is so great that it could endanger
Speaker 1: people and and and essentially kill people. Right. Um. The
Speaker 1: examples that we've cited UM in Minnesota previous to our
Speaker 1: recent Appellate Court ruling have UM covered things like giving
Speaker 1: drugs to somebody UM and then that causes their death. So,
Speaker 1: for example, the other passenger and Mr Floyd's car car
Speaker 1: who employed UM use of the Fifth Amendment and chose
Speaker 1: not to testify and not answer one question because his
Speaker 1: lawyer effectively argued that for him to even put himself
Speaker 1: in the car puts himself in a position where he's
Speaker 1: looking at charges, and certainly to potentially admit that he
Speaker 1: gave Mr Floyd the drug puts him in a spot
Speaker 1: where he could be facing charges of the crave mind murder. Right.
Speaker 1: Another example previous to our recent Court Court of Appeals
Speaker 1: ruling of the crave mind murder is driving a hundred
Speaker 1: miles through downtown and causing you know, the death of
Speaker 1: somebody you didn't intend to, and you certainly didn't point
Speaker 1: your acts toward one particular person. But but in effect,
Speaker 1: nonetheless you're depraved mind caused the death. Right. And then
Speaker 1: we've got manslaughter too, which in some other states um
Speaker 1: has been called involuntary manslaughter. So you don't have any
Speaker 1: intent to cause the death, but you consciously take a
Speaker 1: risk um that that you should know right in dangers
Speaker 1: a person's life. Um. That was the most recent charge
Speaker 1: for the officer in Brooklyn Center here in Minnesota, where
Speaker 1: she claims that she thought she had her taser but
Speaker 1: she grabbed her gun. Um. And without getting into the
Speaker 1: weeds and commenting on that case, you know that case
Speaker 1: is going to turn on whether or not she consciously
Speaker 1: took her risk. Right. And so the lowest charge is
Speaker 1: of course the easiest charge in which the jury could
Speaker 1: reach a conviction from Mr Chauvin, because mealing out his
Speaker 1: neck for that long under all the circumstances that has
Speaker 1: been pointed out could be him taking a conscious risk
Speaker 1: that then caused the death of Mr Floyd. Thanks stud
Speaker 1: that's Krista Groschek of Grosseek Lawn, Minneapolis. First Domino has
Speaker 1: fallen in the Johnstice Department's investigation into the deadly January
Speaker 1: six insurrection. A founding member of the far right group
Speaker 1: the Oathkeepers has entered the first guilty place stemming from
Speaker 1: the Capitol riot and has agreed to cooperate with the
Speaker 1: Jostice Department. John Schaefer entered his guilty plea on Friday
Speaker 1: to two counts, including obstruction of an official proceeding joining
Speaker 1: me is Bloomberg Legal reporter David Yaffee bellany what do
Speaker 1: we know about John Schaefer? So we know that John
Speaker 1: Schaefer was among the hundreds of Donald Trump supporters who
Speaker 1: stormed the Capitol on January six, that he's affiliated with
Speaker 1: the Oathkeepers. He is which is one of the far
Speaker 1: right wing groups that was heavily involved in the riot.
Speaker 1: He was wearing an Oathkeeper's cap when he entered the Capital.
Speaker 1: He is described by the Justice Department as a lifetime
Speaker 1: founding member of the Oathkeeper is kind of a central
Speaker 1: figure in the organization, and we now know um that
Speaker 1: he is the first of the hundreds of people charged
Speaker 1: in the Capital riot to to plead guilty and agree
Speaker 1: to cooperate in the Justice Department's investigation. What did he
Speaker 1: admit to in his play? So he admitted to storming
Speaker 1: the capital and to you know, breaking laws in the
Speaker 1: process of doing that. You know, he was also a
Speaker 1: huge specific things like using kind of a chemical spray
Speaker 1: as he forced his way in. So he's admitting to
Speaker 1: having done that as well. And he's you know, crucially
Speaker 1: promising to work with investigators they seek to kind of
Speaker 1: to build bigger cases and and and take down people
Speaker 1: who were involved in the riot. So this play is
Speaker 1: being looked on as a breakthrough. Why so in any
Speaker 1: major investigation, you need people to cooperate um your goals
Speaker 1: not just to kind of get the low hanging fruit
Speaker 1: in this case, you know, the people who post itselfies
Speaker 1: of of themselves storming the capital, but but also to
Speaker 1: use them use what they know to kind of go
Speaker 1: after people who may have been more intimately involved in
Speaker 1: the kind of orchestrating the crime in this case as
Speaker 1: the siege of the Capitol. And I think, you know,
Speaker 1: we don't know what Schaefer knows and you know, what
Speaker 1: evidence he might be able to supply to investigators, but
Speaker 1: one of the largest conspiracy cases stemming from from this
Speaker 1: investigation targets about a dozen members of the Outhkeepers, not
Speaker 1: including Schaefer, and so it's reasonable to speculate that the
Speaker 1: SAIDs might be hoping that Schaefer can sort of shine
Speaker 1: a light on on what those other members of the
Speaker 1: militia we're doing and help them kind of build that
Speaker 1: bigger case that really targets the people who may have
Speaker 1: orchestrated the riot. So that would work even if he
Speaker 1: had a minor role in orchestrating it all depends on
Speaker 1: what he knows. I mean, he hasn't been charged as
Speaker 1: part of the that conspiracy, which suggests that prosecutors don't
Speaker 1: think that he was actually involved in it, though of
Speaker 1: course maybe they do, and they've just refrained from charging him,
Speaker 1: and you know, are just hoping to get the information
Speaker 1: that he has. But we just the answer is, we
Speaker 1: just really don't know. I mean, this could be this
Speaker 1: could be a you know, turn out to be a
Speaker 1: relatively minor plea deal. It doesn't yield much information. But
Speaker 1: you know, given the way that the Justice Department trumpeted
Speaker 1: this announcement, given the fact that it's the first plea
Speaker 1: deal they've reached, they clearly prioritized and tried to move quickly.
Speaker 1: One would assume that they think they're going to get
Speaker 1: something good out of this in the form of intelligence
Speaker 1: on other members of the Oathkeepers, or maybe somebody who
Speaker 1: can just kind of explain on a broader level how
Speaker 1: the militia works, UM, which could could help prosecutors buildicate.
Speaker 1: So he was not among that group of oath Keepers
Speaker 1: who were in some kind of formation and they each
Speaker 1: had their hand on the shoulder of the one in
Speaker 1: front of them. No, he was not. He was not
Speaker 1: part of that kind of military style formation that stormed
Speaker 1: the capital. He was charged separately from that group. Do
Speaker 1: you know how many conspiracy cases have been charged? UM?
Speaker 1: I can't remember the exact number of conspiracy cases, but
Speaker 1: the biggest case to have emerged from the investigation is
Speaker 1: the twelve those Keepers who have been charged in Washington
Speaker 1: with a conspiracy to lacey each to the Capitol. UM.
Speaker 1: A group of Proud Boys has also been charged in
Speaker 1: a smaller conspiracy case. UM. And those are kind of
Speaker 1: the two sort of central cases UM that has kind
Speaker 1: of risen to the surface in the investigation so far.
Speaker 1: Do you know what charges are being considered, what the
Speaker 1: most serious charges being considered are, and so there's you know,
Speaker 1: a conspiracy charges is very serious. Um, there's also talk
Speaker 1: of potential sedition charges, which is a kind of not
Speaker 1: quite unprecedented, but a very rare type of charge level
Speaker 1: against anybody and UM that would care area long sentence,
Speaker 1: I can't. I think I think about ten years. And
Speaker 1: so those are those are the sorts of kind of
Speaker 1: surious accusations that some of these rioters you're facing, I
Speaker 1: mean all the some are being charged with assaulting police officers,
Speaker 1: which is serious. You know, there's been there are two
Speaker 1: people who were charged with assaulting officers, including the officer
Speaker 1: Bryan Sickniks, who later died of injuries that he sustained
Speaker 1: at the capital. And it's possible that those two men
Speaker 1: could face selling the murder charges at some point, which
Speaker 1: should obviously be very serious. That's basically the spectrum. The
Speaker 1: most common charges are things like obstruction of an official proceeding,
Speaker 1: which is something that Schafer pled guilty to, you know,
Speaker 1: disorderly conduct, you know, entering official grounds that permission, that
Speaker 1: sort of thing. But then a level up from that
Speaker 1: you have conspiracy, potential tradition charges we haven't seen yet,
Speaker 1: you know, Selny murder in that one case, assaulting officers
Speaker 1: in other cases. So that's basically the spectrum. At the
Speaker 1: beginning of this, there was more talk and people knew
Speaker 1: more about the Proud Boys than the oath Keepers. Does
Speaker 1: it seem as if that has sort of changed and
Speaker 1: the oath Keepers have emerged as the more dangerous if
Speaker 1: you will group, Well, I don't. I don't think we
Speaker 1: need to, you know, parse between the two of them.
Speaker 1: I mean, prosecutors have charged members of both groups. If
Speaker 1: you look at the numbers. Yes, more Oathkeepers have been
Speaker 1: charged and the Proud Boys, but it's not by some
Speaker 1: ridiculous margins. And Proud Boys have been charged with conspiring
Speaker 1: to ride at the Capitol as well. Um, so really
Speaker 1: both groups have been have been targeted. Though you're right,
Speaker 1: certainly the case the Oathkeepers were less known beforehand. Um,
Speaker 1: they just hadn't gotten as much publicity. The other thing
Speaker 1: that's worth remembering is we're still a relatively earlier looks
Speaker 1: likely to be a year's long investigation. There could be
Speaker 1: cases that prosecutors are building that we don't know about yet.
Speaker 1: It could be that the Proud Boice conspiracy case ends
Speaker 1: up becoming bigger than the Oathkeepers conspiracy case, as more
Speaker 1: descendants are added as the investigation progresses. Even though it
Speaker 1: feels like this has been going on for a long
Speaker 1: time and have as it's been going on for months,
Speaker 1: we've only just gotten out of the stage where the
Speaker 1: prosecutors are really just taking down will hang fruit. We're
Speaker 1: now getting into the sick of the kind of longer
Speaker 1: term investigations, sort of utilizing a more complex law enforcement
Speaker 1: tools that are going to take you know, potentially months
Speaker 1: and months as Justice Department trying to get to the
Speaker 1: bottom of what happened. When the government told the court
Speaker 1: that they were pursuing this plea deal, they wrote that
Speaker 1: plea terms have required extensive review and approval at various
Speaker 1: levels of government. I thought it was interesting because that
Speaker 1: must be true of all cases. But do you think
Speaker 1: that there's more review going on than normal? Yeah, I
Speaker 1: think there certainly is. I mean, this is a politically
Speaker 1: sensitive investigation, you know, it's it's one of the central
Speaker 1: priorities of you know, Merrick Garland's tenure at the Justice Department,
Speaker 1: and so it you know, it stands to reason that
Speaker 1: the first plea deal to emerge from this massively important
Speaker 1: investigation would see more scrutiny than just a run of
Speaker 1: the mill plea deal involving somebody who's committed of, you know,
Speaker 1: a less public crime. Do you have any sense of
Speaker 1: who the government will deal with and who they won't
Speaker 1: deal with. I'm wondering if there is just some people
Speaker 1: that they won't deal with. Yeah, I mean, it depends
Speaker 1: on it depends on what the people have been accused of.
Speaker 1: You know, they're unlikely to cut a super nice deal
Speaker 1: with the very top person with the othkeepers who they
Speaker 1: think was, you know, behind the orchestration of the riot,
Speaker 1: because you know that's the person who they want to target. UM.
Speaker 1: And you know, you can almost think of this as
Speaker 1: like an organized crime investigation where they flip people lower
Speaker 1: in the pyramid as a way to getting to the
Speaker 1: people at the top. UM. I think that's probably the
Speaker 1: approach that the Justice Department is taking. And you know,
Speaker 1: there there's also a sense, a sort of broader sense
Speaker 1: that there are crucial gradations that people weren't totally conscious
Speaker 1: of on January X between different levels and this conduct.
Speaker 1: It is the capitol. I mean, you had people who
Speaker 1: were assaulting police officers vandalizing the building, and who are
Speaker 1: maybe even planning with ahead of time. And then you
Speaker 1: had people who were just kind of showed up at
Speaker 1: the rally and then kind of follow the crowd inside
Speaker 1: and sort of wandered around aimlessly inside the capital and
Speaker 1: them left. And those are different types of criminal conduct,
Speaker 1: and they're being treated differently, And if you're in the
Speaker 1: latter category, I think you're you're likely to get more
Speaker 1: sympathetic treatment. Is law enforcement going after everyone they can
Speaker 1: identify or are they just ignoring the people that, as
Speaker 1: you say, maybe just walked in with the crowd and
Speaker 1: walked through. There have been reports that there's internal debate
Speaker 1: within the Justice Department over whether to go after everybody.
Speaker 1: But in the public statements that prosecutors have made to
Speaker 1: the press, they have insisted that they are going after everybody,
Speaker 1: but you set foot in the Capitol that day, they
Speaker 1: have their eye on you. Now, it's certainly the case
Speaker 1: that there were people in the Capitol that day will
Speaker 1: never get caught. Um not everybody's face was captured in
Speaker 1: video footage. It was a huge crowd, and I think
Speaker 1: prosecutors have come to acknowledge that they're not going to
Speaker 1: track down every last person. Several people have been are
Speaker 1: being held in jail pending trial, and I don't know
Speaker 1: if it's because they're in different jurisdictions. It doesn't seem
Speaker 1: as if there's any kind of ryan more reason for
Speaker 1: who's being kept in as far as the people who
Speaker 1: were the faces of it. For example, the guy who
Speaker 1: was in Nancy Pelosi's office is being held, but the
Speaker 1: guy who stole the podium is not being held. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean this is the subject of a lot of
Speaker 1: a lot of courtroom debate. I mean, first worth noting
Speaker 1: that some of the people who were initially the faces
Speaker 1: of the riot, um, you know, are now no longer
Speaker 1: the kind of major targets of the prosecutors, right, I mean,
Speaker 1: as as the Justice Department becomes more interested in who
Speaker 1: planned the riot and less interested in who was photographed
Speaker 1: in the most obnoxious way on January six, you know,
Speaker 1: the priorities change basically. But yeah, no, there's a lot
Speaker 1: of databas who should be held pending trials, who should
Speaker 1: be granted bail. The DC Circuit, the Appeals Court, the
Speaker 1: Federal Appeals Court, and DC issued ruling a couple of
Speaker 1: weeks ago that sort of articulated the distinction between people
Speaker 1: who just walked in and people who committed more serious
Speaker 1: crimes inside and basically said that, you know, if you
Speaker 1: fall into the less serious category, then you know, you
Speaker 1: should probably be granted sail. And so that was a
Speaker 1: really helpful ruling for defense lawyers, and it has been
Speaker 1: invoked repeatedly in the court over the last few weeks
Speaker 1: um as defense lawyers have argued that their clients shouldn't
Speaker 1: be held pending trial. But you know, all of the
Speaker 1: factors that go into a bail decision by here, you know,
Speaker 1: does the person have a criminal record, are they a
Speaker 1: flight risk? How serious was the crime? You know, how
Speaker 1: good are their lawyer? Is it making the case for them?
Speaker 1: You know, were they able to mobilize you know, you
Speaker 1: know character witnesses who could testify to the fact that
Speaker 1: the person wouldn't be held. You know what mood was
Speaker 1: the judge in that day. You know, it's not it's
Speaker 1: not an exact science, but there are these gradations of
Speaker 1: conduct at the Capitol that I think are the primary
Speaker 1: driving force of who gets fail and who doesn't. It's
Speaker 1: as simple as if you committed the more serious crime,
Speaker 1: you're less likely to get failed. I also want to
Speaker 1: touch on another topic, tell us about what happened in
Speaker 1: the death of Ashley Babbitt. So, you know, this was
Speaker 1: a viral video that circulated the day of the riot
Speaker 1: and which was incredibly disturbing. You could see Ashley, Ashley Babbitt,
Speaker 1: who is one of the people who stormed the capitol um,
Speaker 1: sort of stand up inside a doorway with a broken
Speaker 1: window inside the Capitol and then get shot and follow
Speaker 1: the ground. And she later died. And so she was
Speaker 1: one of the handful of people who who died as
Speaker 1: a result of the violence of the Capitol. U in
Speaker 1: the Justice Department announced last week that it wasn't going
Speaker 1: to bring charges against the officer, the Capitol police officer
Speaker 1: who shot her. That basically they were unable to find
Speaker 1: any evidence supporting the idea that the officer had had
Speaker 1: broken a law or you know, not acted in a
Speaker 1: reasonable way when when he shot her. Thanks David. That's
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Legal reporter David Jaffie Beleni And that's it for
Speaker 1: the edition of the Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can
Speaker 1: always at the latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law Podcast.
Speaker 1: Please subscribe. I'm June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg