1
00:00:00,560 --> 00:00:05,360
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grassoe from Bloomberg Radio.

2
00:00:05,600 --> 00:00:09,560
Speaker 1: More than two years after allegations against Harvey Weinstein sparked

3
00:00:09,560 --> 00:00:12,880
Speaker 1: the Me Too movement, the Hollywood power broker is behind

4
00:00:12,960 --> 00:00:16,520
Speaker 1: bars after being convicted of rape and a criminal sexual

5
00:00:16,560 --> 00:00:19,640
Speaker 1: act by a New York jury. Wine Stein was cleared

6
00:00:19,640 --> 00:00:23,239
Speaker 1: of the most severe charges, predatory sexual assault and rape

7
00:00:23,280 --> 00:00:27,400
Speaker 1: in the first degree. Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr.

8
00:00:27,480 --> 00:00:30,680
Speaker 1: Said the vertical change the legal landscape for victims of

9
00:00:30,720 --> 00:00:35,680
Speaker 1: sexual abuse. I hope that survivors will see that in

10
00:00:35,720 --> 00:00:40,240
Speaker 1: this justice system, prosecutors, judges and juries will believe them

11
00:00:40,880 --> 00:00:44,959
Speaker 1: even when the facts are not simple, and even when

12
00:00:44,960 --> 00:00:48,400
Speaker 1: the dynamics of the relationships between the survivors and the

13
00:00:48,479 --> 00:00:52,200
Speaker 1: abuser are complicated. Joining me is Corey Stern, a partner

14
00:00:52,200 --> 00:00:56,880
Speaker 1: at Levi Koonigsberg. So much attention has been placed on

15
00:00:56,960 --> 00:01:00,240
Speaker 1: this case that started the meat too movement? What does

16
00:01:00,280 --> 00:01:04,319
Speaker 1: the verdict signify beyond the case? I think it signifies

17
00:01:04,480 --> 00:01:08,400
Speaker 1: a couple of things. One um that definitely add credibility

18
00:01:08,680 --> 00:01:13,120
Speaker 1: and credence to victims voices. You know, five years ago,

19
00:01:13,319 --> 00:01:16,039
Speaker 1: ten years ago, three years ago. I'm not sure that

20
00:01:16,880 --> 00:01:20,800
Speaker 1: a prosecution would have even occurred on these charges that

21
00:01:21,040 --> 00:01:24,560
Speaker 1: happened so long ago, and to I'm not sure a

22
00:01:24,640 --> 00:01:27,240
Speaker 1: jury would have convicted on any of the charges. But

23
00:01:27,440 --> 00:01:32,880
Speaker 1: now it's it's clear that juries prosecutors the country generally

24
00:01:33,360 --> 00:01:37,679
Speaker 1: is not going to stand for types of crimes, these

25
00:01:37,680 --> 00:01:40,040
Speaker 1: types of action. You know, it's it shows how much

26
00:01:40,120 --> 00:01:44,920
Speaker 1: prosecutors have changed their thinking. And number two, I think

27
00:01:44,959 --> 00:01:48,640
Speaker 1: it's it's a testament to how much society has changed.

28
00:01:49,040 --> 00:01:52,280
Speaker 1: We right now are talking about a verdict that occurred

29
00:01:52,280 --> 00:01:55,280
Speaker 1: by a man against a number of women. But it

30
00:01:55,280 --> 00:01:58,040
Speaker 1: wouldn't be surprising if the next trial, if the next

31
00:01:58,080 --> 00:02:01,520
Speaker 1: chapter included male on men elk crimes or you know,

32
00:02:02,080 --> 00:02:05,040
Speaker 1: whereas before some people wouldn't have even given those types

33
00:02:05,080 --> 00:02:09,160
Speaker 1: of those types of cases, those types of allegations, any credence.

34
00:02:09,200 --> 00:02:11,360
Speaker 1: Just society has changed a lot for the better. So

35
00:02:11,440 --> 00:02:14,200
Speaker 1: people's voices are being heard, and you know, this jury

36
00:02:14,280 --> 00:02:17,480
Speaker 1: has spoken to that. In this case because of New

37
00:02:17,560 --> 00:02:21,480
Speaker 1: York law, other women were allowed to testify about a pattern,

38
00:02:22,040 --> 00:02:26,000
Speaker 1: some relating to alleged attacks a quarter century ago. Do

39
00:02:26,040 --> 00:02:29,320
Speaker 1: you think in another case where it's just one victim

40
00:02:29,480 --> 00:02:33,639
Speaker 1: and one defendant, it would be a similar outcome. I do.

41
00:02:33,840 --> 00:02:38,960
Speaker 1: And in fact, in this case, those bolstering witnesses and

42
00:02:39,120 --> 00:02:43,040
Speaker 1: the charges that they were being brought to provide evidence

43
00:02:43,120 --> 00:02:45,919
Speaker 1: to support those were the charges that he was found

44
00:02:45,919 --> 00:02:49,600
Speaker 1: not guilty of. And so the jury obviously split its

45
00:02:49,720 --> 00:02:52,080
Speaker 1: verdict in some way and didn't find them guilty on

46
00:02:52,120 --> 00:02:56,160
Speaker 1: every charge. But um, I don't think that it was

47
00:02:56,240 --> 00:03:00,360
Speaker 1: that evidence that was what compelled this jury to find

48
00:03:00,440 --> 00:03:03,200
Speaker 1: him guilty. I think they took the testimony of the

49
00:03:03,280 --> 00:03:09,440
Speaker 1: actual victims in the case, um, and they found sufficient

50
00:03:09,480 --> 00:03:12,920
Speaker 1: evidence from those statements alone, not from anybody else, but

51
00:03:13,000 --> 00:03:17,559
Speaker 1: from those statements alone, to convictims. So I think absolutely,

52
00:03:17,560 --> 00:03:22,000
Speaker 1: going forward, even without the bolstering type evidence, victims will

53
00:03:22,040 --> 00:03:25,760
Speaker 1: have their day and perpetrators like Mr Weinstein will possibly

54
00:03:25,840 --> 00:03:28,720
Speaker 1: and likely be found guilty. The jury hasn't spoken, so

55
00:03:28,840 --> 00:03:31,480
Speaker 1: no one knows what the jury was thinking with that

56
00:03:31,600 --> 00:03:35,640
Speaker 1: split verdict. But explain what the logical reasoning would say

57
00:03:35,680 --> 00:03:39,520
Speaker 1: about it. Yeah, I mean, in my experience trying cases,

58
00:03:40,000 --> 00:03:43,880
Speaker 1: you know, sometimes you have jurors, ten jurs eight jurors,

59
00:03:43,920 --> 00:03:48,960
Speaker 1: twelve jurors, and they don't agree on everything, and you

60
00:03:49,000 --> 00:03:53,200
Speaker 1: have people that dig in on their various positions and

61
00:03:53,440 --> 00:03:58,000
Speaker 1: what ultimately becomes the verdict is oftentimes a compromise amongst

62
00:03:58,080 --> 00:04:01,640
Speaker 1: the jurors, and it strikes me in this case that

63
00:04:01,720 --> 00:04:05,200
Speaker 1: there were likely some jurors that felt he had probably

64
00:04:05,240 --> 00:04:08,000
Speaker 1: done some things that were bad, but whether that rose

65
00:04:08,080 --> 00:04:10,880
Speaker 1: to the level of a criminal act, you know, there

66
00:04:10,920 --> 00:04:14,640
Speaker 1: may have been some some doubt about that. And then

67
00:04:14,680 --> 00:04:17,880
Speaker 1: you likely had others who thought that he was guilty

68
00:04:17,920 --> 00:04:20,240
Speaker 1: of everything and one of the worst people ever to

69
00:04:20,400 --> 00:04:22,479
Speaker 1: walk the face of the earth. And because of the

70
00:04:22,520 --> 00:04:26,559
Speaker 1: amount of time that went by in deliberations, because last

71
00:04:26,600 --> 00:04:29,279
Speaker 1: week there was a note to the judge that said,

72
00:04:29,560 --> 00:04:32,800
Speaker 1: if we're unanimous on one or two charges but not

73
00:04:32,960 --> 00:04:35,640
Speaker 1: unanimous on the others, can we be hung on the others?

74
00:04:36,240 --> 00:04:39,440
Speaker 1: It strikes me that this jury took its role seriously

75
00:04:39,600 --> 00:04:42,400
Speaker 1: as a group and that there was likely some compromise

76
00:04:42,480 --> 00:04:45,400
Speaker 1: involved in terms of what they found him guilty for

77
00:04:45,760 --> 00:04:48,640
Speaker 1: and what they exonerated him on. They didn't take very

78
00:04:48,720 --> 00:04:52,280
Speaker 1: long after getting what's called the dynamite charge by the judge,

79
00:04:52,279 --> 00:04:54,000
Speaker 1: where the judge said, go back and try to come

80
00:04:54,040 --> 00:04:57,440
Speaker 1: to an agreement, So they didn't take very long to

81
00:04:57,520 --> 00:05:00,560
Speaker 1: come to an agreement after that, whereas on Friday they

82
00:05:00,560 --> 00:05:03,599
Speaker 1: said that they were split. Yeah, I mean you also

83
00:05:03,680 --> 00:05:06,560
Speaker 1: had you know, it was a weekend, and so had

84
00:05:06,640 --> 00:05:10,640
Speaker 1: on Wednesday they've been at the exact same place and

85
00:05:10,880 --> 00:05:13,200
Speaker 1: come to the judge and said, hey, we're split and

86
00:05:13,320 --> 00:05:15,719
Speaker 1: we can't come to a verdict on these charges. I'm

87
00:05:15,720 --> 00:05:17,720
Speaker 1: not sure that there would have been the same result

88
00:05:17,800 --> 00:05:21,440
Speaker 1: the next Thursday, you know, twenty four hours later or less,

89
00:05:21,880 --> 00:05:23,880
Speaker 1: where they did reach a verdict. I think you had

90
00:05:23,960 --> 00:05:28,080
Speaker 1: people that had time to really think, to ponder the evidence.

91
00:05:28,160 --> 00:05:30,640
Speaker 1: And it's not that they were necessarily talking to anybody

92
00:05:30,680 --> 00:05:33,080
Speaker 1: about it or reading about it. It's just, you know,

93
00:05:33,120 --> 00:05:35,360
Speaker 1: you're dealing with this trial for such a long time.

94
00:05:35,400 --> 00:05:37,400
Speaker 1: You're sitting through all the evidence, and then you get

95
00:05:37,440 --> 00:05:39,680
Speaker 1: that that charge by the judge, which is like a

96
00:05:39,680 --> 00:05:43,080
Speaker 1: hammer coming down on you. And you get to spend

97
00:05:43,080 --> 00:05:46,840
Speaker 1: your weekend away at home with your family, and and

98
00:05:46,920 --> 00:05:50,000
Speaker 1: you have some time away from the jury itself, away

99
00:05:50,080 --> 00:05:52,599
Speaker 1: from the deliberations, and you really get to think. And

100
00:05:53,120 --> 00:05:55,240
Speaker 1: I was not surprised that they actually came to a

101
00:05:55,360 --> 00:05:59,000
Speaker 1: verdict as early as they were able to. I think

102
00:05:59,040 --> 00:06:01,719
Speaker 1: that when you are able to take a few steps

103
00:06:01,760 --> 00:06:05,560
Speaker 1: away from that room, from that group, from those deliberations,

104
00:06:05,600 --> 00:06:09,000
Speaker 1: from your position, from everyone's position, and you ask yourself,

105
00:06:09,040 --> 00:06:10,880
Speaker 1: you know, you know, what the heck am I doing here?

106
00:06:10,880 --> 00:06:13,440
Speaker 1: And what do I really think? Sometimes it's easier to

107
00:06:13,480 --> 00:06:15,039
Speaker 1: do with a little bit of time away, and so

108
00:06:15,080 --> 00:06:17,560
Speaker 1: I think the timing of it makes sense. I think

109
00:06:17,560 --> 00:06:20,799
Speaker 1: the verdict makes sense, and I'm not at all surprised.

110
00:06:20,880 --> 00:06:24,120
Speaker 1: I've been talking to Corey Stern, a partner at Levi Koenigsberg,

111
00:06:24,320 --> 00:06:28,800
Speaker 1: about the verdict today against Harvey Weinstein. Cross examinations in

112
00:06:28,839 --> 00:06:32,680
Speaker 1: this case were really tough, and d A Cyrus Vans

113
00:06:32,720 --> 00:06:36,320
Speaker 1: seemed to suggest that might change in the future. Do

114
00:06:36,360 --> 00:06:39,560
Speaker 1: you think that cross examinations in the future will really

115
00:06:39,640 --> 00:06:42,719
Speaker 1: be that much different, because you know, they still have

116
00:06:42,760 --> 00:06:45,880
Speaker 1: a job to do. I don't think so. I mean

117
00:06:45,880 --> 00:06:49,960
Speaker 1: I watched or listen to some of the cross examinations

118
00:06:50,200 --> 00:06:52,640
Speaker 1: in this case, and you know, I thought that the

119
00:06:52,720 --> 00:06:55,840
Speaker 1: defense lawyers were extremely skillful. One of the worst things

120
00:06:55,839 --> 00:06:59,520
Speaker 1: for Harvey Weinstein in in trying to potentially appeal this

121
00:06:59,640 --> 00:07:02,839
Speaker 1: verdict is how good of a job as lawyers did. Um.

122
00:07:02,880 --> 00:07:05,440
Speaker 1: You know, it's really difficult to challenge a verdict when

123
00:07:05,440 --> 00:07:08,000
Speaker 1: the jury clearly is able to find you not guilty

124
00:07:08,040 --> 00:07:09,960
Speaker 1: of at least some of the things you're being charged with.

125
00:07:10,520 --> 00:07:13,320
Speaker 1: I think there's a way in which across examination can

126
00:07:13,360 --> 00:07:17,160
Speaker 1: take place that is respectful or as respectful as possible

127
00:07:17,200 --> 00:07:20,320
Speaker 1: under the circumstances. I also think that lawyers have their

128
00:07:20,360 --> 00:07:23,200
Speaker 1: own personal styles, and you have some lawyers that are

129
00:07:23,280 --> 00:07:28,600
Speaker 1: just genuinely aggressive, and they're aggressive whether it's across examination,

130
00:07:28,600 --> 00:07:32,160
Speaker 1: they're aggressive, regardless of whether it's an expert witness. They're

131
00:07:32,160 --> 00:07:35,040
Speaker 1: just aggressive by nature. And then you have other lawyers who,

132
00:07:35,360 --> 00:07:38,360
Speaker 1: either based on the region that they practice or sort

133
00:07:38,400 --> 00:07:40,440
Speaker 1: of the way they were raised as a lawyer, you know,

134
00:07:40,480 --> 00:07:44,240
Speaker 1: they're less aggressive and they're more conversational or humble, or

135
00:07:44,480 --> 00:07:47,440
Speaker 1: they don't come across in the same aggressive way. So

136
00:07:47,600 --> 00:07:51,280
Speaker 1: I don't necessarily think it's a strategy to destroy women

137
00:07:51,440 --> 00:07:54,600
Speaker 1: on cross examination who claims of the victims. And now

138
00:07:54,640 --> 00:07:57,320
Speaker 1: that's going to change. I think that, if anything, maybe

139
00:07:57,320 --> 00:08:00,200
Speaker 1: people who are more aggressive will find a way to

140
00:08:00,800 --> 00:08:03,160
Speaker 1: dial it down a bit. But I don't think you're

141
00:08:03,160 --> 00:08:07,000
Speaker 1: going to stop seeing pretty intense cross examinations when someone's

142
00:08:07,040 --> 00:08:09,880
Speaker 1: liberty is on the line, When someone's freedom is on

143
00:08:09,920 --> 00:08:12,960
Speaker 1: the line, is there one thing or two that you

144
00:08:12,960 --> 00:08:17,520
Speaker 1: can point to that the prosecution did, either strategy wise

145
00:08:17,840 --> 00:08:21,840
Speaker 1: or in the courtroom that led to this verdict. I

146
00:08:21,880 --> 00:08:27,320
Speaker 1: think that they very much allowed the victims to tell

147
00:08:27,320 --> 00:08:31,000
Speaker 1: their story, and they didn't try and convince or to

148
00:08:31,240 --> 00:08:35,400
Speaker 1: coax the victims into only telling part of the story

149
00:08:35,520 --> 00:08:37,800
Speaker 1: so as to not get to the parts that were

150
00:08:37,840 --> 00:08:40,080
Speaker 1: not good for them. So, for instance, you know, you

151
00:08:40,160 --> 00:08:43,160
Speaker 1: have a victim who claims to have been assaulted or

152
00:08:43,280 --> 00:08:46,520
Speaker 1: raped by Mr Weinstein and then weeks later or even

153
00:08:46,600 --> 00:08:49,520
Speaker 1: less is with him again, and even in one instance

154
00:08:49,520 --> 00:08:52,320
Speaker 1: had sex with him again consensually. It would be much

155
00:08:52,320 --> 00:08:56,000
Speaker 1: easier to try and keep that information out the post assault,

156
00:08:56,240 --> 00:09:00,520
Speaker 1: post rape, post bad conduct moment, because is it's not

157
00:09:00,559 --> 00:09:02,520
Speaker 1: good for your case. It's not good for a jury

158
00:09:02,559 --> 00:09:05,000
Speaker 1: to hear a I was raped, but be a few

159
00:09:05,000 --> 00:09:07,040
Speaker 1: weeks later, a few days later, I decided to have

160
00:09:07,080 --> 00:09:10,200
Speaker 1: sex with him. So I think that the prosecution owned

161
00:09:10,600 --> 00:09:13,079
Speaker 1: all of the facts, not just the facts that were

162
00:09:13,120 --> 00:09:17,160
Speaker 1: good for its case, and I think that by doing so,

163
00:09:17,760 --> 00:09:20,200
Speaker 1: they were able to take some of the fire from

164
00:09:20,200 --> 00:09:22,880
Speaker 1: what the defendants could have done on cross examination had

165
00:09:22,880 --> 00:09:25,040
Speaker 1: they not owned it on the front end. So, for instance,

166
00:09:25,200 --> 00:09:27,440
Speaker 1: it's always easier if if you put out there the

167
00:09:27,480 --> 00:09:30,280
Speaker 1: bad facts before your adversary in the courtroom gets too

168
00:09:30,520 --> 00:09:32,520
Speaker 1: and I think they did that really well. Here. As

169
00:09:32,520 --> 00:09:34,920
Speaker 1: far as appeal, the defense attorney said, definitely, they're going

170
00:09:35,000 --> 00:09:38,120
Speaker 1: to appeal this. Are there any grounds that stand out

171
00:09:38,160 --> 00:09:41,320
Speaker 1: to you for appeal here? I mean, the one that

172
00:09:41,600 --> 00:09:45,880
Speaker 1: the one that is most most likely to have any

173
00:09:45,960 --> 00:09:49,000
Speaker 1: merit um, although I don't think it will work, is

174
00:09:50,040 --> 00:09:54,199
Speaker 1: the fact that the jury was not sequestered, and it

175
00:09:54,720 --> 00:09:57,480
Speaker 1: you know, it was a pretty highly publicized trial. Throughout

176
00:09:57,600 --> 00:10:00,120
Speaker 1: the trial. I mean, I spoke about the trial on

177
00:10:00,240 --> 00:10:03,080
Speaker 1: various media's and you know, there are hundreds of lawyers

178
00:10:03,160 --> 00:10:06,320
Speaker 1: that were asked to comment um, at least locally in

179
00:10:06,400 --> 00:10:09,320
Speaker 1: New York. It was on the news virtually every day.

180
00:10:09,360 --> 00:10:12,480
Speaker 1: The defense lawyer in the case wrote an article for

181
00:10:12,760 --> 00:10:16,439
Speaker 1: I think the you know, for for a national magazine

182
00:10:16,480 --> 00:10:19,040
Speaker 1: on the eve of the verdict about, you know, her

183
00:10:19,080 --> 00:10:21,880
Speaker 1: client deserving a fair a fair shot from the jury

184
00:10:23,080 --> 00:10:25,559
Speaker 1: and so, you know, if if it had been me

185
00:10:25,720 --> 00:10:28,560
Speaker 1: as the judge, and again I'm not being critical of anybody,

186
00:10:28,559 --> 00:10:30,440
Speaker 1: but just to answer your question, I mean, I think

187
00:10:30,480 --> 00:10:35,000
Speaker 1: that sequestering the jury may have made some sense. And

188
00:10:35,160 --> 00:10:37,600
Speaker 1: if I were the defense in the case, I would

189
00:10:37,679 --> 00:10:40,640
Speaker 1: argue that there's just no way living in the city

190
00:10:40,679 --> 00:10:43,839
Speaker 1: wherever every juror must live in order to qualify to

191
00:10:43,920 --> 00:10:46,760
Speaker 1: be a jurist for this trial, that there's no way

192
00:10:46,760 --> 00:10:49,920
Speaker 1: living in the city they could not have been influenced

193
00:10:50,040 --> 00:10:53,560
Speaker 1: or at least been exposed to media coverage of the

194
00:10:53,600 --> 00:10:56,960
Speaker 1: case throughout the pendency of the trial. Once he faces

195
00:10:57,000 --> 00:10:59,880
Speaker 1: a five to twenty five years sentence for the criminals

196
00:11:00,000 --> 00:11:02,920
Speaker 1: actual act and as long as four years on a

197
00:11:03,000 --> 00:11:07,080
Speaker 1: third degree rape count, any way of telling how the

198
00:11:07,200 --> 00:11:11,680
Speaker 1: judge will handle this well, I mean, obviously it's a

199
00:11:11,760 --> 00:11:14,600
Speaker 1: maximum of about twenty nine years thirty years if it's

200
00:11:14,679 --> 00:11:19,880
Speaker 1: to run um consecutively. Uh, if a judge were to

201
00:11:19,960 --> 00:11:23,000
Speaker 1: run the sentence concurrently, it could be up to twenty

202
00:11:23,040 --> 00:11:27,000
Speaker 1: five years. You know, Mr Weinstein doesn't have any real

203
00:11:27,040 --> 00:11:29,679
Speaker 1: criminal record. Um, if you were to if you were

204
00:11:29,720 --> 00:11:31,120
Speaker 1: to take his name out of it, and if you

205
00:11:31,160 --> 00:11:33,600
Speaker 1: were to take all the publicity associated with the case

206
00:11:33,600 --> 00:11:35,160
Speaker 1: out of it, and you would have just sort of

207
00:11:35,840 --> 00:11:40,200
Speaker 1: mark it up as as as defendant X, and you know,

208
00:11:40,280 --> 00:11:42,720
Speaker 1: what would this person be looking at in terms of

209
00:11:42,720 --> 00:11:46,360
Speaker 1: a sentence. My best guess is it won't be the maximum,

210
00:11:46,400 --> 00:11:49,720
Speaker 1: but it also won't be too light, somewhere between ten

211
00:11:49,960 --> 00:11:53,080
Speaker 1: to twelve maybe ten to fifteen years to run concurrently

212
00:11:53,080 --> 00:11:56,240
Speaker 1: would be my guests. But again, you know, the judge

213
00:11:56,280 --> 00:12:00,199
Speaker 1: might find that there are some extraneous circumstance, as the

214
00:12:00,280 --> 00:12:02,839
Speaker 1: judge might have been moved in a way by some

215
00:12:02,920 --> 00:12:06,800
Speaker 1: of the support testimony from other victims whose cases could

216
00:12:06,800 --> 00:12:10,400
Speaker 1: not be brought because of the statute of limitations. So

217
00:12:10,440 --> 00:12:13,200
Speaker 1: it's possible that it's that it's it's the maximum. But

218
00:12:13,280 --> 00:12:16,000
Speaker 1: my guess is it's not going to be. The judge

219
00:12:16,080 --> 00:12:19,960
Speaker 1: remanded Harvey Weinstein it's and turned down the defense request.

220
00:12:20,080 --> 00:12:22,320
Speaker 1: Is that any indication of how he might rule, whether

221
00:12:22,360 --> 00:12:25,120
Speaker 1: it's going to be, you know, tough or more lenient.

222
00:12:26,040 --> 00:12:28,079
Speaker 1: I don't think so. I mean, obviously, if if it's

223
00:12:28,120 --> 00:12:31,440
Speaker 1: indicative of anything, it would be tougher rather than more lenient.

224
00:12:31,520 --> 00:12:34,440
Speaker 1: That's just, you know, sort of obvious. But you know,

225
00:12:34,480 --> 00:12:37,880
Speaker 1: this man was just convicted of two serious felonies and

226
00:12:38,240 --> 00:12:42,120
Speaker 1: he's facing up to twenty nine years in jail. He

227
00:12:42,200 --> 00:12:44,720
Speaker 1: was permitted to be out on bond during the pendency

228
00:12:44,720 --> 00:12:46,400
Speaker 1: of his trial, but the trial is now over and

229
00:12:46,480 --> 00:12:49,679
Speaker 1: he's been convicted, and so I don't think that it's

230
00:12:49,679 --> 00:12:52,480
Speaker 1: as strong there's any strong argument for him to be

231
00:12:52,640 --> 00:12:55,520
Speaker 1: permitted to stay out of jail now that he's been convicted,

232
00:12:55,760 --> 00:12:58,040
Speaker 1: And I would chalk that more up to that's kind

233
00:12:58,040 --> 00:13:00,120
Speaker 1: of the right thing to do under the circumstances. Is

234
00:13:00,120 --> 00:13:03,600
Speaker 1: irrespective of who the defendant is, irrespective of how he

235
00:13:03,679 --> 00:13:06,120
Speaker 1: may have never been in trouble before, irrespective of how

236
00:13:06,200 --> 00:13:09,120
Speaker 1: much money he has or how much bond he's able

237
00:13:09,160 --> 00:13:12,720
Speaker 1: to put up. Um. I wouldn't read too much into that.

238
00:13:12,800 --> 00:13:15,080
Speaker 1: I think that, if anything, it's just the right thing

239
00:13:15,120 --> 00:13:17,600
Speaker 1: to do. If someone was going to read, you know,

240
00:13:17,679 --> 00:13:20,200
Speaker 1: sort of the tea leaves on it, obviously to judge

241
00:13:20,360 --> 00:13:22,960
Speaker 1: would be seen as being more strict and and and

242
00:13:23,040 --> 00:13:26,760
Speaker 1: more likely to to you know, to to sentence him

243
00:13:26,840 --> 00:13:29,400
Speaker 1: to a more severe sentence. But I just see it

244
00:13:29,440 --> 00:13:31,880
Speaker 1: as what I would normally expect in a case where

245
00:13:31,920 --> 00:13:35,240
Speaker 1: someone's been convicted of two crimes that involve you know,

246
00:13:35,320 --> 00:13:38,640
Speaker 1: DV and sexual act. Thanks Corey. That's Corey Stern, a

247
00:13:38,720 --> 00:13:41,520
Speaker 1: partner at Levi Konigsberg. Remember you can listen to the

248
00:13:41,559 --> 00:13:44,080
Speaker 1: latest legal topics in the news anytime on our Bloomberg

249
00:13:44,160 --> 00:13:48,360
Speaker 1: Law podcast. Just go to iTunes, SoundCloud or Bloomberg dot Com,

250
00:13:48,400 --> 00:13:52,360
Speaker 1: slash podcast, slash Law. I'm John Russo and this is

251
00:13:52,360 --> 00:13:54,160
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Ye