WEBVTT - Elizabeth Holmes: From CEO to Victim

0:00:10.920 --> 0:00:15.440
<v Speaker 1>Women across Texas protested the Supreme Court's refusal to block

0:00:15.520 --> 0:00:20.040
<v Speaker 1>a controversial Texas law that outlaws abortions after only six

0:00:20.120 --> 0:00:23.880
<v Speaker 1>weeks of pregnancy. It has a novel mechanism that leaves

0:00:23.920 --> 0:00:27.200
<v Speaker 1>it up to private citizens to enforce the law by

0:00:27.240 --> 0:00:30.440
<v Speaker 1>suing anyone who helps a woman get an abortion. The

0:00:30.520 --> 0:00:34.360
<v Speaker 1>head of Planned Parenthood, Alexis McGill Johnson, says the new

0:00:34.440 --> 0:00:38.720
<v Speaker 1>law will turn people against each other, surveiling people, you know,

0:00:39.000 --> 0:00:42.840
<v Speaker 1>trying to figure out their comings and going sharing confidential information.

0:00:43.320 --> 0:00:47.000
<v Speaker 1>That just is like such a destruction of community, of society,

0:00:47.040 --> 0:00:50.519
<v Speaker 1>of democracy, and the constitution all once it's it's it's horrific.

0:00:50.640 --> 0:00:53.040
<v Speaker 1>By a vote of five to four, with the Conservatives

0:00:53.040 --> 0:00:56.160
<v Speaker 1>and the majority and Chief Justice John Roberts joining the

0:00:56.200 --> 0:00:59.920
<v Speaker 1>liberals and dissent, the Court turned down calls from abortion

0:01:00.080 --> 0:01:03.280
<v Speaker 1>providers to put the law on hold while the legal

0:01:03.320 --> 0:01:07.120
<v Speaker 1>process plays out. Joining me is Carol Sanger, a professor

0:01:07.160 --> 0:01:10.800
<v Speaker 1>at Columbia Law School and a leading scholar of reproductive rights.

0:01:11.520 --> 0:01:14.200
<v Speaker 1>Is this a watershed moment in abortion rights? With the

0:01:14.280 --> 0:01:18.119
<v Speaker 1>Supreme Court allowing a lot to go into effect. That's

0:01:18.120 --> 0:01:22.759
<v Speaker 1>at odds with its precedents protecting abortion rights. Yes, this

0:01:22.880 --> 0:01:26.119
<v Speaker 1>is a watershed moment for abortion rights and possibly other

0:01:26.280 --> 0:01:30.240
<v Speaker 1>rights as well, because what normally would happen is that

0:01:30.280 --> 0:01:34.160
<v Speaker 1>when there's a fragrant violation of Roe or Casey, as

0:01:34.280 --> 0:01:36.839
<v Speaker 1>Justice so tom Or called it, what the court would

0:01:36.840 --> 0:01:39.320
<v Speaker 1>do is say, we have to sort this out and

0:01:39.360 --> 0:01:42.839
<v Speaker 1>decide is this a violation or not? Is six weeks

0:01:42.920 --> 0:01:46.600
<v Speaker 1>too early? Does that violate the viability standard? But while

0:01:46.640 --> 0:01:49.440
<v Speaker 1>we're deciding that, we will not let the law go

0:01:49.520 --> 0:01:53.040
<v Speaker 1>into effect. And that's what's happened. Eight other states have

0:01:53.280 --> 0:01:57.440
<v Speaker 1>passed the week heartbeat bands, and in every one of them,

0:01:57.800 --> 0:02:01.160
<v Speaker 1>lower courts have said, yeah, well, we'll have to decide

0:02:01.240 --> 0:02:04.080
<v Speaker 1>what to do about that. But in the meantime, we're

0:02:04.120 --> 0:02:06.520
<v Speaker 1>not taking away the right to get an abortion. And

0:02:06.600 --> 0:02:10.440
<v Speaker 1>so what's strange about this case is that they didn't

0:02:10.639 --> 0:02:13.600
<v Speaker 1>save the law in that way. The majority opinion was

0:02:13.639 --> 0:02:16.040
<v Speaker 1>a page and a half and said the law might

0:02:16.320 --> 0:02:20.360
<v Speaker 1>or might not be unconstitutional. What implications can you draw

0:02:20.440 --> 0:02:24.640
<v Speaker 1>from it? It is definitely a watershed moment, although it

0:02:24.760 --> 0:02:29.800
<v Speaker 1>is not necessarily the catastrophic watershed moment, by which I

0:02:29.840 --> 0:02:33.800
<v Speaker 1>mean the decision that the court handed down does not

0:02:34.080 --> 0:02:38.240
<v Speaker 1>overturn Row and they're very clear about that, and they say,

0:02:38.280 --> 0:02:42.520
<v Speaker 1>we are not deciding the constitutionality of the law, but

0:02:42.600 --> 0:02:45.519
<v Speaker 1>we just can't give them the relief that the abortion

0:02:45.520 --> 0:02:49.079
<v Speaker 1>clinics want right now. And there's a reason they could

0:02:49.120 --> 0:02:53.000
<v Speaker 1>do that, although nothing compels them to do that, which

0:02:53.120 --> 0:02:57.320
<v Speaker 1>was there's this crazy provision that says this law is

0:02:57.440 --> 0:03:00.359
<v Speaker 1>not going to be enforced by the people who usually

0:03:00.440 --> 0:03:06.360
<v Speaker 1>enforced laws, like prosecutors or government officials. Here anybody, any

0:03:06.440 --> 0:03:09.160
<v Speaker 1>citizen and it doesn't even have to be a Texas citizen,

0:03:09.440 --> 0:03:14.120
<v Speaker 1>can go after another person performing one or aiding and

0:03:14.240 --> 0:03:17.920
<v Speaker 1>a betting in one. So it's a very crazy and

0:03:18.120 --> 0:03:22.280
<v Speaker 1>Justice Roberts called it a novel and complicated provision and

0:03:22.400 --> 0:03:25.520
<v Speaker 1>sort of turns everybody into either a bounty hunter or

0:03:25.639 --> 0:03:29.280
<v Speaker 1>vigilante because you're now supposed to buy on your neighbors

0:03:29.400 --> 0:03:33.040
<v Speaker 1>and figure out who's getting an abortion after six weeks

0:03:33.120 --> 0:03:36.320
<v Speaker 1>and who's helping them. Because you can bring an action

0:03:36.360 --> 0:03:39.520
<v Speaker 1>against anyone who's aids or a bet which is kind

0:03:39.560 --> 0:03:42.920
<v Speaker 1>of language we use with criminal law. Is anyone helping

0:03:42.960 --> 0:03:45.600
<v Speaker 1>the woman along if they are, you can go after

0:03:45.640 --> 0:03:48.880
<v Speaker 1>that person and the penalty is ten thousand dollars if

0:03:48.920 --> 0:03:52.600
<v Speaker 1>you prove that they helped them. So the Texas lawmakers

0:03:52.640 --> 0:03:55.320
<v Speaker 1>here designed the law so that it would be difficult

0:03:55.360 --> 0:03:58.839
<v Speaker 1>to challenge in court. And that's what the dissenters say.

0:03:58.960 --> 0:04:03.520
<v Speaker 1>This was intense really engineered to present not a substantive

0:04:03.560 --> 0:04:06.920
<v Speaker 1>problem with the law, like is six weeks viable? You know,

0:04:07.000 --> 0:04:09.920
<v Speaker 1>what does that do to the viability protection, but to

0:04:10.040 --> 0:04:14.120
<v Speaker 1>throw a real procedural wrench into how we litigate cases.

0:04:14.480 --> 0:04:17.039
<v Speaker 1>So yes, and the court said, we don't even know

0:04:17.080 --> 0:04:19.640
<v Speaker 1>what to do about this because we don't know who

0:04:19.720 --> 0:04:23.120
<v Speaker 1>should be sued, because we can't figure out who's actually

0:04:23.120 --> 0:04:26.719
<v Speaker 1>going to enforce this. So it is novel, that's for sure.

0:04:27.160 --> 0:04:31.680
<v Speaker 1>And it's intentionally done to wreck the legal process to

0:04:31.839 --> 0:04:35.839
<v Speaker 1>make sure that the federal court can't get at the

0:04:35.960 --> 0:04:41.040
<v Speaker 1>constitutional question. The dissenters acknowledge that this was way way

0:04:41.120 --> 0:04:44.680
<v Speaker 1>outside the envelope of anything that's been tried. Are the

0:04:44.800 --> 0:04:49.120
<v Speaker 1>five conservative justice is sort of tipping their hand that

0:04:49.200 --> 0:04:52.360
<v Speaker 1>they'll reverse Roe v. Wade when the case on the

0:04:52.400 --> 0:04:57.320
<v Speaker 1>Mississippi abortion ban is decided in the upcoming term. Well,

0:04:57.400 --> 0:05:01.800
<v Speaker 1>it would seem so, because if had sought at all

0:05:02.000 --> 0:05:04.880
<v Speaker 1>that the point has had a stronger case, they should

0:05:04.920 --> 0:05:08.039
<v Speaker 1>not have let the Texas law go forward. So yes,

0:05:08.080 --> 0:05:12.040
<v Speaker 1>they're tipping their hand in that regard. And remember Texas

0:05:12.120 --> 0:05:15.280
<v Speaker 1>is six weeks in Mississippi puts a fifteen week ban

0:05:15.640 --> 0:05:18.840
<v Speaker 1>on abortion, which suddenly seems like big and generous and

0:05:18.960 --> 0:05:22.400
<v Speaker 1>still fall six weeks short of where Brow and Casey

0:05:22.440 --> 0:05:25.240
<v Speaker 1>would have put the marker. One other thing is it

0:05:25.320 --> 0:05:28.600
<v Speaker 1>shows something else. Lots of people have been saying, well,

0:05:29.000 --> 0:05:31.160
<v Speaker 1>election years coming up, and the Court doesn't want to

0:05:31.160 --> 0:05:33.320
<v Speaker 1>get in law in politics, but it looks like the

0:05:33.360 --> 0:05:36.400
<v Speaker 1>Court is very happy to jump in and stir things

0:05:36.480 --> 0:05:38.560
<v Speaker 1>up a little bit, so they don't seem a bit

0:05:38.680 --> 0:05:42.200
<v Speaker 1>shy of taking on abortion cases, which you know haven't

0:05:42.200 --> 0:05:45.840
<v Speaker 1>been the conventional wisdom. Thanks Carol. That's Carol Sanger of

0:05:45.960 --> 0:05:54.960
<v Speaker 1>Columbia Law School. This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso

0:05:55.400 --> 0:05:59.640
<v Speaker 1>from Bloomberg Radio. I'm the founder and CEO of this company.

0:06:00.040 --> 0:06:02.560
<v Speaker 1>Anything that happens in this company is my responsibility at

0:06:02.560 --> 0:06:05.159
<v Speaker 1>the end of the day. Although Elizabeth Holmes said that

0:06:05.240 --> 0:06:09.120
<v Speaker 1>in sixteen in an interview with NBC Now in a

0:06:09.160 --> 0:06:12.280
<v Speaker 1>courtroom in Silicon Valley where she's fighting to stay out

0:06:12.320 --> 0:06:16.080
<v Speaker 1>of prison, her story has changed. Holmes is on trial

0:06:16.200 --> 0:06:19.960
<v Speaker 1>for defrauding investors and patients after Para No Nos, the

0:06:20.000 --> 0:06:23.599
<v Speaker 1>blood testing startups she created and led, was found to

0:06:23.640 --> 0:06:26.800
<v Speaker 1>be a massive fraud, and her defense is trying to

0:06:26.880 --> 0:06:30.880
<v Speaker 1>transform the former star CEO into a victim who is

0:06:30.920 --> 0:06:34.599
<v Speaker 1>not responsible for the frauds behind the company. Quite a

0:06:34.600 --> 0:06:38.800
<v Speaker 1>different picture from the confident, self made billionaire portrayed in books,

0:06:38.920 --> 0:06:45.080
<v Speaker 1>countless articles, and an HBO documentary. I don't have many secrets,

0:06:45.520 --> 0:06:48.760
<v Speaker 1>but now Holmes is claiming that she kept one secret

0:06:48.880 --> 0:06:52.560
<v Speaker 1>for years, the secret of a decade long campaign of

0:06:52.600 --> 0:06:56.200
<v Speaker 1>abuse by her former boyfriend, the president of Para Nos,

0:06:56.440 --> 0:07:00.919
<v Speaker 1>Sonny Balwani, who has denied any abuse. Joining as Anne Coughlin,

0:07:00.960 --> 0:07:04.320
<v Speaker 1>a professor at the University of Virginia Law School, and

0:07:04.400 --> 0:07:08.160
<v Speaker 1>she claims she was locked in a psychologically, emotionally and

0:07:08.360 --> 0:07:13.360
<v Speaker 1>sexually abusive relationship with Sonny Balwannie. What kind of defense

0:07:13.440 --> 0:07:17.720
<v Speaker 1>might she be raising here? So the recent filings now

0:07:17.760 --> 0:07:20.920
<v Speaker 1>give us a much clearer picture of what the trial

0:07:20.920 --> 0:07:24.280
<v Speaker 1>testimony might look like on her behalf, But we're not

0:07:24.400 --> 0:07:28.200
<v Speaker 1>really sure yet precisely what claims she's going to make.

0:07:28.520 --> 0:07:31.160
<v Speaker 1>It's going to be some kind of claim that she

0:07:31.280 --> 0:07:35.120
<v Speaker 1>lacked the intent to commit the fraud that she's charged with.

0:07:35.200 --> 0:07:37.600
<v Speaker 1>At least that's what I think, but it really is

0:07:37.680 --> 0:07:41.520
<v Speaker 1>a bombshell. With the filings being unsealed, we now know

0:07:41.680 --> 0:07:45.960
<v Speaker 1>that her story is that she was psychologically, physically, and

0:07:46.040 --> 0:07:50.640
<v Speaker 1>perhaps sexually abused by him for many, many years, and

0:07:50.680 --> 0:07:55.080
<v Speaker 1>that because of that abuse, she suffered from post traumatic

0:07:55.120 --> 0:07:59.480
<v Speaker 1>stress disorder other types of mental health disorders that she

0:07:59.560 --> 0:08:04.440
<v Speaker 1>believed are relevant to assessing her liability for the fraud.

0:08:05.000 --> 0:08:08.680
<v Speaker 1>I main question will be whether she intentionally lied to

0:08:08.800 --> 0:08:13.840
<v Speaker 1>deceive people. So how would she frame that defense. There's

0:08:13.880 --> 0:08:17.040
<v Speaker 1>a couple of different claims she could be making. One

0:08:17.400 --> 0:08:22.440
<v Speaker 1>is that she was acting under his dress. That is, yes,

0:08:22.640 --> 0:08:27.120
<v Speaker 1>she would acknowledge she did, in fact make false statements,

0:08:27.480 --> 0:08:31.360
<v Speaker 1>and yes these were false statements of material fact they

0:08:31.400 --> 0:08:34.800
<v Speaker 1>induce investors to rely and give her lots of money.

0:08:35.080 --> 0:08:38.160
<v Speaker 1>So she would acknowledge those basic facts. But she would

0:08:38.200 --> 0:08:41.040
<v Speaker 1>say that she did those things only because she was

0:08:41.080 --> 0:08:44.040
<v Speaker 1>so frightened of him and that he was going to

0:08:44.080 --> 0:08:48.160
<v Speaker 1>abuse her. In other words, the classic Durest defense in

0:08:48.400 --> 0:08:51.679
<v Speaker 1>criminal law, the image is of a person committing a

0:08:51.720 --> 0:08:54.520
<v Speaker 1>crime with a gun into the head, and so his

0:08:54.640 --> 0:08:57.920
<v Speaker 1>abuse would be in this story, analogous to the gun

0:08:57.960 --> 0:09:00.840
<v Speaker 1>to the head, but of course the law will take

0:09:00.880 --> 0:09:04.079
<v Speaker 1>account of other kinds of pressures. Or so she's hoping

0:09:04.400 --> 0:09:07.439
<v Speaker 1>that it's not actually a literal gun to the head

0:09:07.440 --> 0:09:10.719
<v Speaker 1>while she's committing the crime, but that she's doing it

0:09:10.880 --> 0:09:15.360
<v Speaker 1>under a tremendous amount of psychological pressure that was created

0:09:15.360 --> 0:09:18.400
<v Speaker 1>by his past abuse. So that's one claim, it's a

0:09:18.480 --> 0:09:22.320
<v Speaker 1>dressed claim. Another claim that I see perhaps emerging from

0:09:22.320 --> 0:09:27.480
<v Speaker 1>these filings is that she was under his sway again.

0:09:27.559 --> 0:09:30.600
<v Speaker 1>She'd been in this relationship with him. He was an

0:09:30.600 --> 0:09:34.600
<v Speaker 1>older man, and she's telling a story that he was

0:09:35.040 --> 0:09:38.880
<v Speaker 1>the dominant person, that he was again abusive to her

0:09:38.920 --> 0:09:41.960
<v Speaker 1>in various ways, and she might claim that he was

0:09:42.000 --> 0:09:44.840
<v Speaker 1>the mastermind in the sense that he came up with

0:09:44.880 --> 0:09:49.160
<v Speaker 1>the fraud and she was actually relying on him. He

0:09:49.280 --> 0:09:53.559
<v Speaker 1>was telling her while he was running the company with

0:09:53.600 --> 0:09:57.160
<v Speaker 1>her that in fact the technology worked, and she was

0:09:57.280 --> 0:10:00.520
<v Speaker 1>taking his word for it. So that claim would be, Hey,

0:10:00.559 --> 0:10:02.440
<v Speaker 1>wait a minute, I was under the sway of this

0:10:02.559 --> 0:10:07.439
<v Speaker 1>powerful man. He was running the show. He was telling me, Hey,

0:10:07.480 --> 0:10:10.480
<v Speaker 1>this technology works, and I was just sort of the

0:10:10.480 --> 0:10:14.320
<v Speaker 1>face of the company, right. I was the spokesperson that

0:10:14.400 --> 0:10:17.720
<v Speaker 1>was being used for pr purposes, I believed him. So

0:10:17.760 --> 0:10:21.040
<v Speaker 1>that's another claim that she might be making. Bell Wanie

0:10:21.400 --> 0:10:25.160
<v Speaker 1>unequivocally denies this. But can Holmes attorney say whatever they

0:10:25.200 --> 0:10:27.679
<v Speaker 1>want in the courtroom because he's not in the courtroom

0:10:27.880 --> 0:10:30.719
<v Speaker 1>and the government can't call him to testify because they

0:10:30.720 --> 0:10:33.880
<v Speaker 1>were jointly charged and he's facing his own trial early

0:10:33.920 --> 0:10:37.360
<v Speaker 1>next year. Yes, so you're making a fantastic point. This

0:10:37.480 --> 0:10:40.959
<v Speaker 1>is one of those classic he said, she said, cross

0:10:41.040 --> 0:10:45.440
<v Speaker 1>witnesses kind of situation. But in this trial, because of

0:10:45.480 --> 0:10:49.200
<v Speaker 1>the severance and because of his sistem and privilege, we

0:10:49.280 --> 0:10:53.960
<v Speaker 1>will hear her account, perhaps through her own testimony. It

0:10:54.080 --> 0:10:56.920
<v Speaker 1>now looks as though she is very likely to take

0:10:56.960 --> 0:11:01.560
<v Speaker 1>the stand, and certainly through her lawyers arguments and evidence

0:11:01.600 --> 0:11:05.319
<v Speaker 1>that they put on, will hear her side of the story.

0:11:05.360 --> 0:11:08.720
<v Speaker 1>If this is her theory. The testimony on her behalf

0:11:08.720 --> 0:11:12.000
<v Speaker 1>will be that in fact, he was an abusive partner,

0:11:12.520 --> 0:11:15.920
<v Speaker 1>but he will not be available to take the stand

0:11:16.000 --> 0:11:18.800
<v Speaker 1>and to rebut those claims. Now we have to make

0:11:18.840 --> 0:11:23.440
<v Speaker 1>really clear that he adamantly denies that he played the

0:11:23.559 --> 0:11:28.400
<v Speaker 1>role that she is describing. So it is awkward and complicated.

0:11:28.720 --> 0:11:31.720
<v Speaker 1>The government will be looking for I take it a

0:11:31.760 --> 0:11:35.000
<v Speaker 1>whole variety of ways to pick holes in her story.

0:11:35.600 --> 0:11:39.960
<v Speaker 1>And let's be clear, the jury isn't obliged to believe

0:11:40.280 --> 0:11:44.600
<v Speaker 1>this story in the absence of any corroborating evidence on

0:11:44.640 --> 0:11:48.960
<v Speaker 1>her part. So I would imagine that she will need

0:11:49.040 --> 0:11:54.240
<v Speaker 1>to point to examples of behavior by him, things that

0:11:54.360 --> 0:11:59.559
<v Speaker 1>other witnesses observed, you know, perhaps angry or abusive behavior

0:11:59.679 --> 0:12:03.440
<v Speaker 1>by him that they witnessed, and that they could say that, yes,

0:12:03.520 --> 0:12:06.880
<v Speaker 1>he was this type of person. Then two, she may

0:12:06.960 --> 0:12:11.400
<v Speaker 1>have a trove of communications between the two of them

0:12:11.440 --> 0:12:15.319
<v Speaker 1>that support or corroborate her claim that he was abusive.

0:12:15.559 --> 0:12:19.640
<v Speaker 1>You know, you could imagine emails or text messages or

0:12:19.920 --> 0:12:23.920
<v Speaker 1>other kinds of recorded materials that she would offer to

0:12:24.040 --> 0:12:28.720
<v Speaker 1>corroborate her story. This defense strategy seems to be unheard

0:12:28.760 --> 0:12:33.160
<v Speaker 1>of in a white collar fraud case. What potential problems

0:12:33.200 --> 0:12:36.200
<v Speaker 1>do you see? This case seems to me to be

0:12:36.280 --> 0:12:41.640
<v Speaker 1>unique in the following sense. She concealed her relationship with

0:12:41.720 --> 0:12:45.960
<v Speaker 1>Balwani from everyone. It's not just that people were unaware

0:12:46.000 --> 0:12:50.320
<v Speaker 1>that he was abusing her. She also concealed the fact

0:12:50.360 --> 0:12:54.720
<v Speaker 1>that they had a romantic partnership for many, many years.

0:12:55.200 --> 0:12:58.440
<v Speaker 1>People did not know that people in the company investers

0:12:58.440 --> 0:13:01.360
<v Speaker 1>did not know. That concealed the fact that they were

0:13:01.400 --> 0:13:06.080
<v Speaker 1>living together. So it's complicated for her. We didn't even

0:13:06.120 --> 0:13:08.280
<v Speaker 1>know you were in the relationship with this guy, and

0:13:08.360 --> 0:13:11.680
<v Speaker 1>now you're telling us that it was an abusive relationship.

0:13:11.920 --> 0:13:14.480
<v Speaker 1>The point she lied to people about the fact of

0:13:14.520 --> 0:13:18.200
<v Speaker 1>the relationship or omitted to tell people about the fact

0:13:18.240 --> 0:13:20.920
<v Speaker 1>of the relationship, and people are gonna think, hey, well

0:13:21.000 --> 0:13:22.720
<v Speaker 1>wait a minute, and now you're coming in and you

0:13:22.800 --> 0:13:26.120
<v Speaker 1>expect us to believe that he was abusive too, So

0:13:26.200 --> 0:13:29.439
<v Speaker 1>that could be problematic for her. The other thing June

0:13:29.480 --> 0:13:31.679
<v Speaker 1>that I noticed, I was trying to look at the

0:13:31.800 --> 0:13:35.120
<v Speaker 1>date on which their relationship began and the date that

0:13:35.200 --> 0:13:38.680
<v Speaker 1>it ended, because that's one thing that will be important

0:13:38.720 --> 0:13:42.080
<v Speaker 1>to the prosecutors, is to look at the duration of

0:13:42.120 --> 0:13:46.240
<v Speaker 1>the relationship and where she was and where he was

0:13:46.480 --> 0:13:50.120
<v Speaker 1>during the various times that she's claiming that she acted

0:13:50.280 --> 0:13:53.280
<v Speaker 1>under his dress. And it looks to me from the

0:13:53.320 --> 0:13:55.600
<v Speaker 1>stories that I've been reading, that they broke up in

0:13:55.640 --> 0:14:00.400
<v Speaker 1>twenty sixteen, and there's different stories about why he left

0:14:00.440 --> 0:14:04.199
<v Speaker 1>the company, but it looks like they simultaneously broke up

0:14:04.440 --> 0:14:08.920
<v Speaker 1>and he left the company, but after sixteen, she was

0:14:09.000 --> 0:14:15.040
<v Speaker 1>deposed by the SEC in and during that deposition, I

0:14:15.120 --> 0:14:19.320
<v Speaker 1>don't believe she offered any information that suggested that she

0:14:19.480 --> 0:14:24.520
<v Speaker 1>did these things because she was suffering from PTSD or

0:14:24.600 --> 0:14:27.960
<v Speaker 1>some other type of mental health disorder brought on by

0:14:28.080 --> 0:14:30.920
<v Speaker 1>his abuse. You know, to the extent that the prosecution

0:14:31.040 --> 0:14:35.600
<v Speaker 1>is allowed to use the evidence of that deposition to

0:14:35.720 --> 0:14:38.320
<v Speaker 1>cross examine her if she takes the stand, that might

0:14:38.320 --> 0:14:42.200
<v Speaker 1>be again a very effective way of testing doubt on

0:14:42.280 --> 0:14:44.880
<v Speaker 1>her story, which is, hey, wait a minute, suddenly he's

0:14:44.920 --> 0:14:48.520
<v Speaker 1>out of the picture, and yet you're still continuing to

0:14:49.240 --> 0:14:52.880
<v Speaker 1>tell these lives. And so that's the kind of evidence

0:14:52.920 --> 0:14:55.720
<v Speaker 1>that I would expect the prosecution to try to develop

0:14:55.920 --> 0:14:59.200
<v Speaker 1>about her testifying. Her attorneys have told the court they

0:14:59.200 --> 0:15:03.680
<v Speaker 1>expect her to testify. But the defendant testifying is always

0:15:03.680 --> 0:15:06.680
<v Speaker 1>a gamble, is it more so here because of all

0:15:06.760 --> 0:15:11.040
<v Speaker 1>the comments she's made in interviews and that sec deposition

0:15:11.120 --> 0:15:14.240
<v Speaker 1>you mentioned where she said I don't know at least

0:15:14.240 --> 0:15:18.440
<v Speaker 1>six hundred times. So the question is, now she knows

0:15:19.360 --> 0:15:22.600
<v Speaker 1>it's a huge gamble to take the stand, but it

0:15:22.720 --> 0:15:26.640
<v Speaker 1>may be the only chance that she has, in her

0:15:26.760 --> 0:15:29.440
<v Speaker 1>view and the view of her lawyers and of course,

0:15:29.600 --> 0:15:33.320
<v Speaker 1>we don't yet know exactly what other sorts of claims

0:15:33.320 --> 0:15:35.720
<v Speaker 1>they might be able to make. But to the extent

0:15:35.800 --> 0:15:39.680
<v Speaker 1>that they're relying on this history of psychological abuse, she

0:15:39.760 --> 0:15:42.440
<v Speaker 1>pretty much would have to take the stand to make

0:15:42.480 --> 0:15:46.440
<v Speaker 1>it convincing. And then it all will depend on whether

0:15:46.480 --> 0:15:51.480
<v Speaker 1>the jury finds her credible, not based just on her

0:15:51.520 --> 0:15:56.440
<v Speaker 1>testimony on direct examination when she's in control of scripting

0:15:56.680 --> 0:15:59.760
<v Speaker 1>the play, if you will, but on cross examination when

0:16:00.040 --> 0:16:04.480
<v Speaker 1>a point to all kinds of lies that she told

0:16:04.520 --> 0:16:08.760
<v Speaker 1>in the past, for example the sec deposition, she says,

0:16:08.840 --> 0:16:12.040
<v Speaker 1>I don't know, and then suddenly at the trial she's

0:16:12.080 --> 0:16:15.440
<v Speaker 1>telling yet a different story. The argument will be, while

0:16:15.840 --> 0:16:19.800
<v Speaker 1>you were lying, then you're lying. Now you know. She's

0:16:19.800 --> 0:16:22.280
<v Speaker 1>in a very very tough position, but it may be

0:16:22.400 --> 0:16:26.360
<v Speaker 1>her only gamble. Thanks An That's and Covlin of the

0:16:26.480 --> 0:16:29.760
<v Speaker 1>University of Virginia Law School. A jury of seven men

0:16:29.800 --> 0:16:33.200
<v Speaker 1>and five women was chosen this week. It includes at

0:16:33.240 --> 0:16:37.160
<v Speaker 1>least one woman who disclosed personal experience of abuse, the

0:16:37.240 --> 0:16:41.000
<v Speaker 1>subject that may prove central to deciding Holmes guilt or innocence.

0:16:41.400 --> 0:16:45.000
<v Speaker 1>Opening statements will be given on Wednesday, and that's it

0:16:45.080 --> 0:16:47.480
<v Speaker 1>for the edition of the Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you

0:16:47.520 --> 0:16:49.760
<v Speaker 1>can always get the latest legal news on our Bloomberg

0:16:49.840 --> 0:16:53.400
<v Speaker 1>Lawn podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,

0:16:53.600 --> 0:16:58.760
<v Speaker 1>and at www dot bloomberg dot com slash podcast slash Law.

0:16:59.360 --> 0:17:06.640
<v Speaker 1>I'm joom So and you're listening to bloom mhm