1
00:00:10,920 --> 00:00:15,440
Speaker 1: Women across Texas protested the Supreme Court's refusal to block

2
00:00:15,520 --> 00:00:20,040
Speaker 1: a controversial Texas law that outlaws abortions after only six

3
00:00:20,120 --> 00:00:23,880
Speaker 1: weeks of pregnancy. It has a novel mechanism that leaves

4
00:00:23,920 --> 00:00:27,200
Speaker 1: it up to private citizens to enforce the law by

5
00:00:27,240 --> 00:00:30,440
Speaker 1: suing anyone who helps a woman get an abortion. The

6
00:00:30,520 --> 00:00:34,360
Speaker 1: head of Planned Parenthood, Alexis McGill Johnson, says the new

7
00:00:34,440 --> 00:00:38,720
Speaker 1: law will turn people against each other, surveiling people, you know,

8
00:00:39,000 --> 00:00:42,840
Speaker 1: trying to figure out their comings and going sharing confidential information.

9
00:00:43,320 --> 00:00:47,000
Speaker 1: That just is like such a destruction of community, of society,

10
00:00:47,040 --> 00:00:50,519
Speaker 1: of democracy, and the constitution all once it's it's it's horrific.

11
00:00:50,640 --> 00:00:53,040
Speaker 1: By a vote of five to four, with the Conservatives

12
00:00:53,040 --> 00:00:56,160
Speaker 1: and the majority and Chief Justice John Roberts joining the

13
00:00:56,200 --> 00:00:59,920
Speaker 1: liberals and dissent, the Court turned down calls from abortion

14
00:01:00,080 --> 00:01:03,280
Speaker 1: providers to put the law on hold while the legal

15
00:01:03,320 --> 00:01:07,120
Speaker 1: process plays out. Joining me is Carol Sanger, a professor

16
00:01:07,160 --> 00:01:10,800
Speaker 1: at Columbia Law School and a leading scholar of reproductive rights.

17
00:01:11,520 --> 00:01:14,200
Speaker 1: Is this a watershed moment in abortion rights? With the

18
00:01:14,280 --> 00:01:18,119
Speaker 1: Supreme Court allowing a lot to go into effect. That's

19
00:01:18,120 --> 00:01:22,759
Speaker 1: at odds with its precedents protecting abortion rights. Yes, this

20
00:01:22,880 --> 00:01:26,119
Speaker 1: is a watershed moment for abortion rights and possibly other

21
00:01:26,280 --> 00:01:30,240
Speaker 1: rights as well, because what normally would happen is that

22
00:01:30,280 --> 00:01:34,160
Speaker 1: when there's a fragrant violation of Roe or Casey, as

23
00:01:34,280 --> 00:01:36,839
Speaker 1: Justice so tom Or called it, what the court would

24
00:01:36,840 --> 00:01:39,320
Speaker 1: do is say, we have to sort this out and

25
00:01:39,360 --> 00:01:42,839
Speaker 1: decide is this a violation or not? Is six weeks

26
00:01:42,920 --> 00:01:46,600
Speaker 1: too early? Does that violate the viability standard? But while

27
00:01:46,640 --> 00:01:49,440
Speaker 1: we're deciding that, we will not let the law go

28
00:01:49,520 --> 00:01:53,040
Speaker 1: into effect. And that's what's happened. Eight other states have

29
00:01:53,280 --> 00:01:57,440
Speaker 1: passed the week heartbeat bands, and in every one of them,

30
00:01:57,800 --> 00:02:01,160
Speaker 1: lower courts have said, yeah, well, we'll have to decide

31
00:02:01,240 --> 00:02:04,080
Speaker 1: what to do about that. But in the meantime, we're

32
00:02:04,120 --> 00:02:06,520
Speaker 1: not taking away the right to get an abortion. And

33
00:02:06,600 --> 00:02:10,440
Speaker 1: so what's strange about this case is that they didn't

34
00:02:10,639 --> 00:02:13,600
Speaker 1: save the law in that way. The majority opinion was

35
00:02:13,639 --> 00:02:16,040
Speaker 1: a page and a half and said the law might

36
00:02:16,320 --> 00:02:20,360
Speaker 1: or might not be unconstitutional. What implications can you draw

37
00:02:20,440 --> 00:02:24,640
Speaker 1: from it? It is definitely a watershed moment, although it

38
00:02:24,760 --> 00:02:29,800
Speaker 1: is not necessarily the catastrophic watershed moment, by which I

39
00:02:29,840 --> 00:02:33,800
Speaker 1: mean the decision that the court handed down does not

40
00:02:34,080 --> 00:02:38,240
Speaker 1: overturn Row and they're very clear about that, and they say,

41
00:02:38,280 --> 00:02:42,520
Speaker 1: we are not deciding the constitutionality of the law, but

42
00:02:42,600 --> 00:02:45,519
Speaker 1: we just can't give them the relief that the abortion

43
00:02:45,520 --> 00:02:49,079
Speaker 1: clinics want right now. And there's a reason they could

44
00:02:49,120 --> 00:02:53,000
Speaker 1: do that, although nothing compels them to do that, which

45
00:02:53,120 --> 00:02:57,320
Speaker 1: was there's this crazy provision that says this law is

46
00:02:57,440 --> 00:03:00,359
Speaker 1: not going to be enforced by the people who usually

47
00:03:00,440 --> 00:03:06,360
Speaker 1: enforced laws, like prosecutors or government officials. Here anybody, any

48
00:03:06,440 --> 00:03:09,160
Speaker 1: citizen and it doesn't even have to be a Texas citizen,

49
00:03:09,440 --> 00:03:14,120
Speaker 1: can go after another person performing one or aiding and

50
00:03:14,240 --> 00:03:17,920
Speaker 1: a betting in one. So it's a very crazy and

51
00:03:18,120 --> 00:03:22,280
Speaker 1: Justice Roberts called it a novel and complicated provision and

52
00:03:22,400 --> 00:03:25,520
Speaker 1: sort of turns everybody into either a bounty hunter or

53
00:03:25,639 --> 00:03:29,280
Speaker 1: vigilante because you're now supposed to buy on your neighbors

54
00:03:29,400 --> 00:03:33,040
Speaker 1: and figure out who's getting an abortion after six weeks

55
00:03:33,120 --> 00:03:36,320
Speaker 1: and who's helping them. Because you can bring an action

56
00:03:36,360 --> 00:03:39,520
Speaker 1: against anyone who's aids or a bet which is kind

57
00:03:39,560 --> 00:03:42,920
Speaker 1: of language we use with criminal law. Is anyone helping

58
00:03:42,960 --> 00:03:45,600
Speaker 1: the woman along if they are, you can go after

59
00:03:45,640 --> 00:03:48,880
Speaker 1: that person and the penalty is ten thousand dollars if

60
00:03:48,920 --> 00:03:52,600
Speaker 1: you prove that they helped them. So the Texas lawmakers

61
00:03:52,640 --> 00:03:55,320
Speaker 1: here designed the law so that it would be difficult

62
00:03:55,360 --> 00:03:58,839
Speaker 1: to challenge in court. And that's what the dissenters say.

63
00:03:58,960 --> 00:04:03,520
Speaker 1: This was intense really engineered to present not a substantive

64
00:04:03,560 --> 00:04:06,920
Speaker 1: problem with the law, like is six weeks viable? You know,

65
00:04:07,000 --> 00:04:09,920
Speaker 1: what does that do to the viability protection, but to

66
00:04:10,040 --> 00:04:14,120
Speaker 1: throw a real procedural wrench into how we litigate cases.

67
00:04:14,480 --> 00:04:17,039
Speaker 1: So yes, and the court said, we don't even know

68
00:04:17,080 --> 00:04:19,640
Speaker 1: what to do about this because we don't know who

69
00:04:19,720 --> 00:04:23,120
Speaker 1: should be sued, because we can't figure out who's actually

70
00:04:23,120 --> 00:04:26,719
Speaker 1: going to enforce this. So it is novel, that's for sure.

71
00:04:27,160 --> 00:04:31,680
Speaker 1: And it's intentionally done to wreck the legal process to

72
00:04:31,839 --> 00:04:35,839
Speaker 1: make sure that the federal court can't get at the

73
00:04:35,960 --> 00:04:41,040
Speaker 1: constitutional question. The dissenters acknowledge that this was way way

74
00:04:41,120 --> 00:04:44,680
Speaker 1: outside the envelope of anything that's been tried. Are the

75
00:04:44,800 --> 00:04:49,120
Speaker 1: five conservative justice is sort of tipping their hand that

76
00:04:49,200 --> 00:04:52,360
Speaker 1: they'll reverse Roe v. Wade when the case on the

77
00:04:52,400 --> 00:04:57,320
Speaker 1: Mississippi abortion ban is decided in the upcoming term. Well,

78
00:04:57,400 --> 00:05:01,800
Speaker 1: it would seem so, because if had sought at all

79
00:05:02,000 --> 00:05:04,880
Speaker 1: that the point has had a stronger case, they should

80
00:05:04,920 --> 00:05:08,039
Speaker 1: not have let the Texas law go forward. So yes,

81
00:05:08,080 --> 00:05:12,040
Speaker 1: they're tipping their hand in that regard. And remember Texas

82
00:05:12,120 --> 00:05:15,280
Speaker 1: is six weeks in Mississippi puts a fifteen week ban

83
00:05:15,640 --> 00:05:18,840
Speaker 1: on abortion, which suddenly seems like big and generous and

84
00:05:18,960 --> 00:05:22,400
Speaker 1: still fall six weeks short of where Brow and Casey

85
00:05:22,440 --> 00:05:25,240
Speaker 1: would have put the marker. One other thing is it

86
00:05:25,320 --> 00:05:28,600
Speaker 1: shows something else. Lots of people have been saying, well,

87
00:05:29,000 --> 00:05:31,160
Speaker 1: election years coming up, and the Court doesn't want to

88
00:05:31,160 --> 00:05:33,320
Speaker 1: get in law in politics, but it looks like the

89
00:05:33,360 --> 00:05:36,400
Speaker 1: Court is very happy to jump in and stir things

90
00:05:36,480 --> 00:05:38,560
Speaker 1: up a little bit, so they don't seem a bit

91
00:05:38,680 --> 00:05:42,200
Speaker 1: shy of taking on abortion cases, which you know haven't

92
00:05:42,200 --> 00:05:45,840
Speaker 1: been the conventional wisdom. Thanks Carol. That's Carol Sanger of

93
00:05:45,960 --> 00:05:54,960
Speaker 1: Columbia Law School. This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso

94
00:05:55,400 --> 00:05:59,640
Speaker 1: from Bloomberg Radio. I'm the founder and CEO of this company.

95
00:06:00,040 --> 00:06:02,560
Speaker 1: Anything that happens in this company is my responsibility at

96
00:06:02,560 --> 00:06:05,159
Speaker 1: the end of the day. Although Elizabeth Holmes said that

97
00:06:05,240 --> 00:06:09,120
Speaker 1: in sixteen in an interview with NBC Now in a

98
00:06:09,160 --> 00:06:12,280
Speaker 1: courtroom in Silicon Valley where she's fighting to stay out

99
00:06:12,320 --> 00:06:16,080
Speaker 1: of prison, her story has changed. Holmes is on trial

100
00:06:16,200 --> 00:06:19,960
Speaker 1: for defrauding investors and patients after Para No Nos, the

101
00:06:20,000 --> 00:06:23,599
Speaker 1: blood testing startups she created and led, was found to

102
00:06:23,640 --> 00:06:26,800
Speaker 1: be a massive fraud, and her defense is trying to

103
00:06:26,880 --> 00:06:30,880
Speaker 1: transform the former star CEO into a victim who is

104
00:06:30,920 --> 00:06:34,599
Speaker 1: not responsible for the frauds behind the company. Quite a

105
00:06:34,600 --> 00:06:38,800
Speaker 1: different picture from the confident, self made billionaire portrayed in books,

106
00:06:38,920 --> 00:06:45,080
Speaker 1: countless articles, and an HBO documentary. I don't have many secrets,

107
00:06:45,520 --> 00:06:48,760
Speaker 1: but now Holmes is claiming that she kept one secret

108
00:06:48,880 --> 00:06:52,560
Speaker 1: for years, the secret of a decade long campaign of

109
00:06:52,600 --> 00:06:56,200
Speaker 1: abuse by her former boyfriend, the president of Para Nos,

110
00:06:56,440 --> 00:07:00,919
Speaker 1: Sonny Balwani, who has denied any abuse. Joining as Anne Coughlin,

111
00:07:00,960 --> 00:07:04,320
Speaker 1: a professor at the University of Virginia Law School, and

112
00:07:04,400 --> 00:07:08,160
Speaker 1: she claims she was locked in a psychologically, emotionally and

113
00:07:08,360 --> 00:07:13,360
Speaker 1: sexually abusive relationship with Sonny Balwannie. What kind of defense

114
00:07:13,440 --> 00:07:17,720
Speaker 1: might she be raising here? So the recent filings now

115
00:07:17,760 --> 00:07:20,920
Speaker 1: give us a much clearer picture of what the trial

116
00:07:20,920 --> 00:07:24,280
Speaker 1: testimony might look like on her behalf, But we're not

117
00:07:24,400 --> 00:07:28,200
Speaker 1: really sure yet precisely what claims she's going to make.

118
00:07:28,520 --> 00:07:31,160
Speaker 1: It's going to be some kind of claim that she

119
00:07:31,280 --> 00:07:35,120
Speaker 1: lacked the intent to commit the fraud that she's charged with.

120
00:07:35,200 --> 00:07:37,600
Speaker 1: At least that's what I think, but it really is

121
00:07:37,680 --> 00:07:41,520
Speaker 1: a bombshell. With the filings being unsealed, we now know

122
00:07:41,680 --> 00:07:45,960
Speaker 1: that her story is that she was psychologically, physically, and

123
00:07:46,040 --> 00:07:50,640
Speaker 1: perhaps sexually abused by him for many, many years, and

124
00:07:50,680 --> 00:07:55,080
Speaker 1: that because of that abuse, she suffered from post traumatic

125
00:07:55,120 --> 00:07:59,480
Speaker 1: stress disorder other types of mental health disorders that she

126
00:07:59,560 --> 00:08:04,440
Speaker 1: believed are relevant to assessing her liability for the fraud.

127
00:08:05,000 --> 00:08:08,680
Speaker 1: I main question will be whether she intentionally lied to

128
00:08:08,800 --> 00:08:13,840
Speaker 1: deceive people. So how would she frame that defense. There's

129
00:08:13,880 --> 00:08:17,040
Speaker 1: a couple of different claims she could be making. One

130
00:08:17,400 --> 00:08:22,440
Speaker 1: is that she was acting under his dress. That is, yes,

131
00:08:22,640 --> 00:08:27,120
Speaker 1: she would acknowledge she did, in fact make false statements,

132
00:08:27,480 --> 00:08:31,360
Speaker 1: and yes these were false statements of material fact they

133
00:08:31,400 --> 00:08:34,800
Speaker 1: induce investors to rely and give her lots of money.

134
00:08:35,080 --> 00:08:38,160
Speaker 1: So she would acknowledge those basic facts. But she would

135
00:08:38,200 --> 00:08:41,040
Speaker 1: say that she did those things only because she was

136
00:08:41,080 --> 00:08:44,040
Speaker 1: so frightened of him and that he was going to

137
00:08:44,080 --> 00:08:48,160
Speaker 1: abuse her. In other words, the classic Durest defense in

138
00:08:48,400 --> 00:08:51,679
Speaker 1: criminal law, the image is of a person committing a

139
00:08:51,720 --> 00:08:54,520
Speaker 1: crime with a gun into the head, and so his

140
00:08:54,640 --> 00:08:57,920
Speaker 1: abuse would be in this story, analogous to the gun

141
00:08:57,960 --> 00:09:00,840
Speaker 1: to the head, but of course the law will take

142
00:09:00,880 --> 00:09:04,079
Speaker 1: account of other kinds of pressures. Or so she's hoping

143
00:09:04,400 --> 00:09:07,439
Speaker 1: that it's not actually a literal gun to the head

144
00:09:07,440 --> 00:09:10,719
Speaker 1: while she's committing the crime, but that she's doing it

145
00:09:10,880 --> 00:09:15,360
Speaker 1: under a tremendous amount of psychological pressure that was created

146
00:09:15,360 --> 00:09:18,400
Speaker 1: by his past abuse. So that's one claim, it's a

147
00:09:18,480 --> 00:09:22,320
Speaker 1: dressed claim. Another claim that I see perhaps emerging from

148
00:09:22,320 --> 00:09:27,480
Speaker 1: these filings is that she was under his sway again.

149
00:09:27,559 --> 00:09:30,600
Speaker 1: She'd been in this relationship with him. He was an

150
00:09:30,600 --> 00:09:34,600
Speaker 1: older man, and she's telling a story that he was

151
00:09:35,040 --> 00:09:38,880
Speaker 1: the dominant person, that he was again abusive to her

152
00:09:38,920 --> 00:09:41,960
Speaker 1: in various ways, and she might claim that he was

153
00:09:42,000 --> 00:09:44,840
Speaker 1: the mastermind in the sense that he came up with

154
00:09:44,880 --> 00:09:49,160
Speaker 1: the fraud and she was actually relying on him. He

155
00:09:49,280 --> 00:09:53,559
Speaker 1: was telling her while he was running the company with

156
00:09:53,600 --> 00:09:57,160
Speaker 1: her that in fact the technology worked, and she was

157
00:09:57,280 --> 00:10:00,520
Speaker 1: taking his word for it. So that claim would be, Hey,

158
00:10:00,559 --> 00:10:02,440
Speaker 1: wait a minute, I was under the sway of this

159
00:10:02,559 --> 00:10:07,439
Speaker 1: powerful man. He was running the show. He was telling me, Hey,

160
00:10:07,480 --> 00:10:10,480
Speaker 1: this technology works, and I was just sort of the

161
00:10:10,480 --> 00:10:14,320
Speaker 1: face of the company, right. I was the spokesperson that

162
00:10:14,400 --> 00:10:17,720
Speaker 1: was being used for pr purposes, I believed him. So

163
00:10:17,760 --> 00:10:21,040
Speaker 1: that's another claim that she might be making. Bell Wanie

164
00:10:21,400 --> 00:10:25,160
Speaker 1: unequivocally denies this. But can Holmes attorney say whatever they

165
00:10:25,200 --> 00:10:27,679
Speaker 1: want in the courtroom because he's not in the courtroom

166
00:10:27,880 --> 00:10:30,719
Speaker 1: and the government can't call him to testify because they

167
00:10:30,720 --> 00:10:33,880
Speaker 1: were jointly charged and he's facing his own trial early

168
00:10:33,920 --> 00:10:37,360
Speaker 1: next year. Yes, so you're making a fantastic point. This

169
00:10:37,480 --> 00:10:40,959
Speaker 1: is one of those classic he said, she said, cross

170
00:10:41,040 --> 00:10:45,440
Speaker 1: witnesses kind of situation. But in this trial, because of

171
00:10:45,480 --> 00:10:49,200
Speaker 1: the severance and because of his sistem and privilege, we

172
00:10:49,280 --> 00:10:53,960
Speaker 1: will hear her account, perhaps through her own testimony. It

173
00:10:54,080 --> 00:10:56,920
Speaker 1: now looks as though she is very likely to take

174
00:10:56,960 --> 00:11:01,560
Speaker 1: the stand, and certainly through her lawyers arguments and evidence

175
00:11:01,600 --> 00:11:05,319
Speaker 1: that they put on, will hear her side of the story.

176
00:11:05,360 --> 00:11:08,720
Speaker 1: If this is her theory. The testimony on her behalf

177
00:11:08,720 --> 00:11:12,000
Speaker 1: will be that in fact, he was an abusive partner,

178
00:11:12,520 --> 00:11:15,920
Speaker 1: but he will not be available to take the stand

179
00:11:16,000 --> 00:11:18,800
Speaker 1: and to rebut those claims. Now we have to make

180
00:11:18,840 --> 00:11:23,440
Speaker 1: really clear that he adamantly denies that he played the

181
00:11:23,559 --> 00:11:28,400
Speaker 1: role that she is describing. So it is awkward and complicated.

182
00:11:28,720 --> 00:11:31,720
Speaker 1: The government will be looking for I take it a

183
00:11:31,760 --> 00:11:35,000
Speaker 1: whole variety of ways to pick holes in her story.

184
00:11:35,600 --> 00:11:39,960
Speaker 1: And let's be clear, the jury isn't obliged to believe

185
00:11:40,280 --> 00:11:44,600
Speaker 1: this story in the absence of any corroborating evidence on

186
00:11:44,640 --> 00:11:48,960
Speaker 1: her part. So I would imagine that she will need

187
00:11:49,040 --> 00:11:54,240
Speaker 1: to point to examples of behavior by him, things that

188
00:11:54,360 --> 00:11:59,559
Speaker 1: other witnesses observed, you know, perhaps angry or abusive behavior

189
00:11:59,679 --> 00:12:03,440
Speaker 1: by him that they witnessed, and that they could say that, yes,

190
00:12:03,520 --> 00:12:06,880
Speaker 1: he was this type of person. Then two, she may

191
00:12:06,960 --> 00:12:11,400
Speaker 1: have a trove of communications between the two of them

192
00:12:11,440 --> 00:12:15,319
Speaker 1: that support or corroborate her claim that he was abusive.

193
00:12:15,559 --> 00:12:19,640
Speaker 1: You know, you could imagine emails or text messages or

194
00:12:19,920 --> 00:12:23,920
Speaker 1: other kinds of recorded materials that she would offer to

195
00:12:24,040 --> 00:12:28,720
Speaker 1: corroborate her story. This defense strategy seems to be unheard

196
00:12:28,760 --> 00:12:33,160
Speaker 1: of in a white collar fraud case. What potential problems

197
00:12:33,200 --> 00:12:36,200
Speaker 1: do you see? This case seems to me to be

198
00:12:36,280 --> 00:12:41,640
Speaker 1: unique in the following sense. She concealed her relationship with

199
00:12:41,720 --> 00:12:45,960
Speaker 1: Balwani from everyone. It's not just that people were unaware

200
00:12:46,000 --> 00:12:50,320
Speaker 1: that he was abusing her. She also concealed the fact

201
00:12:50,360 --> 00:12:54,720
Speaker 1: that they had a romantic partnership for many, many years.

202
00:12:55,200 --> 00:12:58,440
Speaker 1: People did not know that people in the company investers

203
00:12:58,440 --> 00:13:01,360
Speaker 1: did not know. That concealed the fact that they were

204
00:13:01,400 --> 00:13:06,080
Speaker 1: living together. So it's complicated for her. We didn't even

205
00:13:06,120 --> 00:13:08,280
Speaker 1: know you were in the relationship with this guy, and

206
00:13:08,360 --> 00:13:11,680
Speaker 1: now you're telling us that it was an abusive relationship.

207
00:13:11,920 --> 00:13:14,480
Speaker 1: The point she lied to people about the fact of

208
00:13:14,520 --> 00:13:18,200
Speaker 1: the relationship or omitted to tell people about the fact

209
00:13:18,240 --> 00:13:20,920
Speaker 1: of the relationship, and people are gonna think, hey, well

210
00:13:21,000 --> 00:13:22,720
Speaker 1: wait a minute, and now you're coming in and you

211
00:13:22,800 --> 00:13:26,120
Speaker 1: expect us to believe that he was abusive too, So

212
00:13:26,200 --> 00:13:29,439
Speaker 1: that could be problematic for her. The other thing June

213
00:13:29,480 --> 00:13:31,679
Speaker 1: that I noticed, I was trying to look at the

214
00:13:31,800 --> 00:13:35,120
Speaker 1: date on which their relationship began and the date that

215
00:13:35,200 --> 00:13:38,680
Speaker 1: it ended, because that's one thing that will be important

216
00:13:38,720 --> 00:13:42,080
Speaker 1: to the prosecutors, is to look at the duration of

217
00:13:42,120 --> 00:13:46,240
Speaker 1: the relationship and where she was and where he was

218
00:13:46,480 --> 00:13:50,120
Speaker 1: during the various times that she's claiming that she acted

219
00:13:50,280 --> 00:13:53,280
Speaker 1: under his dress. And it looks to me from the

220
00:13:53,320 --> 00:13:55,600
Speaker 1: stories that I've been reading, that they broke up in

221
00:13:55,640 --> 00:14:00,400
Speaker 1: twenty sixteen, and there's different stories about why he left

222
00:14:00,440 --> 00:14:04,199
Speaker 1: the company, but it looks like they simultaneously broke up

223
00:14:04,440 --> 00:14:08,920
Speaker 1: and he left the company, but after sixteen, she was

224
00:14:09,000 --> 00:14:15,040
Speaker 1: deposed by the SEC in and during that deposition, I

225
00:14:15,120 --> 00:14:19,320
Speaker 1: don't believe she offered any information that suggested that she

226
00:14:19,480 --> 00:14:24,520
Speaker 1: did these things because she was suffering from PTSD or

227
00:14:24,600 --> 00:14:27,960
Speaker 1: some other type of mental health disorder brought on by

228
00:14:28,080 --> 00:14:30,920
Speaker 1: his abuse. You know, to the extent that the prosecution

229
00:14:31,040 --> 00:14:35,600
Speaker 1: is allowed to use the evidence of that deposition to

230
00:14:35,720 --> 00:14:38,320
Speaker 1: cross examine her if she takes the stand, that might

231
00:14:38,320 --> 00:14:42,200
Speaker 1: be again a very effective way of testing doubt on

232
00:14:42,280 --> 00:14:44,880
Speaker 1: her story, which is, hey, wait a minute, suddenly he's

233
00:14:44,920 --> 00:14:48,520
Speaker 1: out of the picture, and yet you're still continuing to

234
00:14:49,240 --> 00:14:52,880
Speaker 1: tell these lives. And so that's the kind of evidence

235
00:14:52,920 --> 00:14:55,720
Speaker 1: that I would expect the prosecution to try to develop

236
00:14:55,920 --> 00:14:59,200
Speaker 1: about her testifying. Her attorneys have told the court they

237
00:14:59,200 --> 00:15:03,680
Speaker 1: expect her to testify. But the defendant testifying is always

238
00:15:03,680 --> 00:15:06,680
Speaker 1: a gamble, is it more so here because of all

239
00:15:06,760 --> 00:15:11,040
Speaker 1: the comments she's made in interviews and that sec deposition

240
00:15:11,120 --> 00:15:14,240
Speaker 1: you mentioned where she said I don't know at least

241
00:15:14,240 --> 00:15:18,440
Speaker 1: six hundred times. So the question is, now she knows

242
00:15:19,360 --> 00:15:22,600
Speaker 1: it's a huge gamble to take the stand, but it

243
00:15:22,720 --> 00:15:26,640
Speaker 1: may be the only chance that she has, in her

244
00:15:26,760 --> 00:15:29,440
Speaker 1: view and the view of her lawyers and of course,

245
00:15:29,600 --> 00:15:33,320
Speaker 1: we don't yet know exactly what other sorts of claims

246
00:15:33,320 --> 00:15:35,720
Speaker 1: they might be able to make. But to the extent

247
00:15:35,800 --> 00:15:39,680
Speaker 1: that they're relying on this history of psychological abuse, she

248
00:15:39,760 --> 00:15:42,440
Speaker 1: pretty much would have to take the stand to make

249
00:15:42,480 --> 00:15:46,440
Speaker 1: it convincing. And then it all will depend on whether

250
00:15:46,480 --> 00:15:51,480
Speaker 1: the jury finds her credible, not based just on her

251
00:15:51,520 --> 00:15:56,440
Speaker 1: testimony on direct examination when she's in control of scripting

252
00:15:56,680 --> 00:15:59,760
Speaker 1: the play, if you will, but on cross examination when

253
00:16:00,040 --> 00:16:04,480
Speaker 1: a point to all kinds of lies that she told

254
00:16:04,520 --> 00:16:08,760
Speaker 1: in the past, for example the sec deposition, she says,

255
00:16:08,840 --> 00:16:12,040
Speaker 1: I don't know, and then suddenly at the trial she's

256
00:16:12,080 --> 00:16:15,440
Speaker 1: telling yet a different story. The argument will be, while

257
00:16:15,840 --> 00:16:19,800
Speaker 1: you were lying, then you're lying. Now you know. She's

258
00:16:19,800 --> 00:16:22,280
Speaker 1: in a very very tough position, but it may be

259
00:16:22,400 --> 00:16:26,360
Speaker 1: her only gamble. Thanks An That's and Covlin of the

260
00:16:26,480 --> 00:16:29,760
Speaker 1: University of Virginia Law School. A jury of seven men

261
00:16:29,800 --> 00:16:33,200
Speaker 1: and five women was chosen this week. It includes at

262
00:16:33,240 --> 00:16:37,160
Speaker 1: least one woman who disclosed personal experience of abuse, the

263
00:16:37,240 --> 00:16:41,000
Speaker 1: subject that may prove central to deciding Holmes guilt or innocence.

264
00:16:41,400 --> 00:16:45,000
Speaker 1: Opening statements will be given on Wednesday, and that's it

265
00:16:45,080 --> 00:16:47,480
Speaker 1: for the edition of the Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you

266
00:16:47,520 --> 00:16:49,760
Speaker 1: can always get the latest legal news on our Bloomberg

267
00:16:49,840 --> 00:16:53,400
Speaker 1: Lawn podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,

268
00:16:53,600 --> 00:16:58,760
Speaker 1: and at www dot bloomberg dot com slash podcast slash Law.

269
00:16:59,360 --> 00:17:06,640
Speaker 1: I'm joom So and you're listening to bloom mhm