WEBVTT - Weinstein Convicted of Rape in Landmark #MeToo Case

0:00:00.560 --> 0:00:05.360
<v Speaker 1>This is Bloomberg Law with June Grassoe from Bloomberg Radio.

0:00:05.600 --> 0:00:09.560
<v Speaker 1>More than two years after allegations against Harvey Weinstein sparked

0:00:09.560 --> 0:00:12.880
<v Speaker 1>the Me Too movement, the Hollywood power broker is behind

0:00:12.960 --> 0:00:16.520
<v Speaker 1>bars after being convicted of rape and a criminal sexual

0:00:16.560 --> 0:00:19.640
<v Speaker 1>act by a New York jury. Wine Stein was cleared

0:00:19.640 --> 0:00:23.239
<v Speaker 1>of the most severe charges, predatory sexual assault and rape

0:00:23.280 --> 0:00:27.400
<v Speaker 1>in the first degree. Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr.

0:00:27.480 --> 0:00:30.680
<v Speaker 1>Said the vertical change the legal landscape for victims of

0:00:30.720 --> 0:00:35.680
<v Speaker 1>sexual abuse. I hope that survivors will see that in

0:00:35.720 --> 0:00:40.240
<v Speaker 1>this justice system, prosecutors, judges and juries will believe them

0:00:40.880 --> 0:00:44.959
<v Speaker 1>even when the facts are not simple, and even when

0:00:44.960 --> 0:00:48.400
<v Speaker 1>the dynamics of the relationships between the survivors and the

0:00:48.479 --> 0:00:52.200
<v Speaker 1>abuser are complicated. Joining me is Corey Stern, a partner

0:00:52.200 --> 0:00:56.880
<v Speaker 1>at Levi Koonigsberg. So much attention has been placed on

0:00:56.960 --> 0:01:00.240
<v Speaker 1>this case that started the meat too movement? What does

0:01:00.280 --> 0:01:04.319
<v Speaker 1>the verdict signify beyond the case? I think it signifies

0:01:04.480 --> 0:01:08.400
<v Speaker 1>a couple of things. One um that definitely add credibility

0:01:08.680 --> 0:01:13.120
<v Speaker 1>and credence to victims voices. You know, five years ago,

0:01:13.319 --> 0:01:16.039
<v Speaker 1>ten years ago, three years ago. I'm not sure that

0:01:16.880 --> 0:01:20.800
<v Speaker 1>a prosecution would have even occurred on these charges that

0:01:21.040 --> 0:01:24.560
<v Speaker 1>happened so long ago, and to I'm not sure a

0:01:24.640 --> 0:01:27.240
<v Speaker 1>jury would have convicted on any of the charges. But

0:01:27.440 --> 0:01:32.880
<v Speaker 1>now it's it's clear that juries prosecutors the country generally

0:01:33.360 --> 0:01:37.679
<v Speaker 1>is not going to stand for types of crimes, these

0:01:37.680 --> 0:01:40.040
<v Speaker 1>types of action. You know, it's it shows how much

0:01:40.120 --> 0:01:44.920
<v Speaker 1>prosecutors have changed their thinking. And number two, I think

0:01:44.959 --> 0:01:48.640
<v Speaker 1>it's it's a testament to how much society has changed.

0:01:49.040 --> 0:01:52.280
<v Speaker 1>We right now are talking about a verdict that occurred

0:01:52.280 --> 0:01:55.280
<v Speaker 1>by a man against a number of women. But it

0:01:55.280 --> 0:01:58.040
<v Speaker 1>wouldn't be surprising if the next trial, if the next

0:01:58.080 --> 0:02:01.520
<v Speaker 1>chapter included male on men elk crimes or you know,

0:02:02.080 --> 0:02:05.040
<v Speaker 1>whereas before some people wouldn't have even given those types

0:02:05.080 --> 0:02:09.160
<v Speaker 1>of those types of cases, those types of allegations, any credence.

0:02:09.200 --> 0:02:11.360
<v Speaker 1>Just society has changed a lot for the better. So

0:02:11.440 --> 0:02:14.200
<v Speaker 1>people's voices are being heard, and you know, this jury

0:02:14.280 --> 0:02:17.480
<v Speaker 1>has spoken to that. In this case because of New

0:02:17.560 --> 0:02:21.480
<v Speaker 1>York law, other women were allowed to testify about a pattern,

0:02:22.040 --> 0:02:26.000
<v Speaker 1>some relating to alleged attacks a quarter century ago. Do

0:02:26.040 --> 0:02:29.320
<v Speaker 1>you think in another case where it's just one victim

0:02:29.480 --> 0:02:33.639
<v Speaker 1>and one defendant, it would be a similar outcome. I do.

0:02:33.840 --> 0:02:38.960
<v Speaker 1>And in fact, in this case, those bolstering witnesses and

0:02:39.120 --> 0:02:43.040
<v Speaker 1>the charges that they were being brought to provide evidence

0:02:43.120 --> 0:02:45.919
<v Speaker 1>to support those were the charges that he was found

0:02:45.919 --> 0:02:49.600
<v Speaker 1>not guilty of. And so the jury obviously split its

0:02:49.720 --> 0:02:52.080
<v Speaker 1>verdict in some way and didn't find them guilty on

0:02:52.120 --> 0:02:56.160
<v Speaker 1>every charge. But um, I don't think that it was

0:02:56.240 --> 0:03:00.360
<v Speaker 1>that evidence that was what compelled this jury to find

0:03:00.440 --> 0:03:03.200
<v Speaker 1>him guilty. I think they took the testimony of the

0:03:03.280 --> 0:03:09.440
<v Speaker 1>actual victims in the case, um, and they found sufficient

0:03:09.480 --> 0:03:12.920
<v Speaker 1>evidence from those statements alone, not from anybody else, but

0:03:13.000 --> 0:03:17.559
<v Speaker 1>from those statements alone, to convictims. So I think absolutely,

0:03:17.560 --> 0:03:22.000
<v Speaker 1>going forward, even without the bolstering type evidence, victims will

0:03:22.040 --> 0:03:25.760
<v Speaker 1>have their day and perpetrators like Mr Weinstein will possibly

0:03:25.840 --> 0:03:28.720
<v Speaker 1>and likely be found guilty. The jury hasn't spoken, so

0:03:28.840 --> 0:03:31.480
<v Speaker 1>no one knows what the jury was thinking with that

0:03:31.600 --> 0:03:35.640
<v Speaker 1>split verdict. But explain what the logical reasoning would say

0:03:35.680 --> 0:03:39.520
<v Speaker 1>about it. Yeah, I mean, in my experience trying cases,

0:03:40.000 --> 0:03:43.880
<v Speaker 1>you know, sometimes you have jurors, ten jurs eight jurors,

0:03:43.920 --> 0:03:48.960
<v Speaker 1>twelve jurors, and they don't agree on everything, and you

0:03:49.000 --> 0:03:53.200
<v Speaker 1>have people that dig in on their various positions and

0:03:53.440 --> 0:03:58.000
<v Speaker 1>what ultimately becomes the verdict is oftentimes a compromise amongst

0:03:58.080 --> 0:04:01.640
<v Speaker 1>the jurors, and it strikes me in this case that

0:04:01.720 --> 0:04:05.200
<v Speaker 1>there were likely some jurors that felt he had probably

0:04:05.240 --> 0:04:08.000
<v Speaker 1>done some things that were bad, but whether that rose

0:04:08.080 --> 0:04:10.880
<v Speaker 1>to the level of a criminal act, you know, there

0:04:10.920 --> 0:04:14.640
<v Speaker 1>may have been some some doubt about that. And then

0:04:14.680 --> 0:04:17.880
<v Speaker 1>you likely had others who thought that he was guilty

0:04:17.920 --> 0:04:20.240
<v Speaker 1>of everything and one of the worst people ever to

0:04:20.400 --> 0:04:22.479
<v Speaker 1>walk the face of the earth. And because of the

0:04:22.520 --> 0:04:26.559
<v Speaker 1>amount of time that went by in deliberations, because last

0:04:26.600 --> 0:04:29.279
<v Speaker 1>week there was a note to the judge that said,

0:04:29.560 --> 0:04:32.800
<v Speaker 1>if we're unanimous on one or two charges but not

0:04:32.960 --> 0:04:35.640
<v Speaker 1>unanimous on the others, can we be hung on the others?

0:04:36.240 --> 0:04:39.440
<v Speaker 1>It strikes me that this jury took its role seriously

0:04:39.600 --> 0:04:42.400
<v Speaker 1>as a group and that there was likely some compromise

0:04:42.480 --> 0:04:45.400
<v Speaker 1>involved in terms of what they found him guilty for

0:04:45.760 --> 0:04:48.640
<v Speaker 1>and what they exonerated him on. They didn't take very

0:04:48.720 --> 0:04:52.280
<v Speaker 1>long after getting what's called the dynamite charge by the judge,

0:04:52.279 --> 0:04:54.000
<v Speaker 1>where the judge said, go back and try to come

0:04:54.040 --> 0:04:57.440
<v Speaker 1>to an agreement, So they didn't take very long to

0:04:57.520 --> 0:05:00.560
<v Speaker 1>come to an agreement after that, whereas on Friday they

0:05:00.560 --> 0:05:03.599
<v Speaker 1>said that they were split. Yeah, I mean you also

0:05:03.680 --> 0:05:06.560
<v Speaker 1>had you know, it was a weekend, and so had

0:05:06.640 --> 0:05:10.640
<v Speaker 1>on Wednesday they've been at the exact same place and

0:05:10.880 --> 0:05:13.200
<v Speaker 1>come to the judge and said, hey, we're split and

0:05:13.320 --> 0:05:15.719
<v Speaker 1>we can't come to a verdict on these charges. I'm

0:05:15.720 --> 0:05:17.720
<v Speaker 1>not sure that there would have been the same result

0:05:17.800 --> 0:05:21.440
<v Speaker 1>the next Thursday, you know, twenty four hours later or less,

0:05:21.880 --> 0:05:23.880
<v Speaker 1>where they did reach a verdict. I think you had

0:05:23.960 --> 0:05:28.080
<v Speaker 1>people that had time to really think, to ponder the evidence.

0:05:28.160 --> 0:05:30.640
<v Speaker 1>And it's not that they were necessarily talking to anybody

0:05:30.680 --> 0:05:33.080
<v Speaker 1>about it or reading about it. It's just, you know,

0:05:33.120 --> 0:05:35.360
<v Speaker 1>you're dealing with this trial for such a long time.

0:05:35.400 --> 0:05:37.400
<v Speaker 1>You're sitting through all the evidence, and then you get

0:05:37.440 --> 0:05:39.680
<v Speaker 1>that that charge by the judge, which is like a

0:05:39.680 --> 0:05:43.080
<v Speaker 1>hammer coming down on you. And you get to spend

0:05:43.080 --> 0:05:46.840
<v Speaker 1>your weekend away at home with your family, and and

0:05:46.920 --> 0:05:50.000
<v Speaker 1>you have some time away from the jury itself, away

0:05:50.080 --> 0:05:52.599
<v Speaker 1>from the deliberations, and you really get to think. And

0:05:53.120 --> 0:05:55.240
<v Speaker 1>I was not surprised that they actually came to a

0:05:55.360 --> 0:05:59.000
<v Speaker 1>verdict as early as they were able to. I think

0:05:59.040 --> 0:06:01.719
<v Speaker 1>that when you are able to take a few steps

0:06:01.760 --> 0:06:05.560
<v Speaker 1>away from that room, from that group, from those deliberations,

0:06:05.600 --> 0:06:09.000
<v Speaker 1>from your position, from everyone's position, and you ask yourself,

0:06:09.040 --> 0:06:10.880
<v Speaker 1>you know, you know, what the heck am I doing here?

0:06:10.880 --> 0:06:13.440
<v Speaker 1>And what do I really think? Sometimes it's easier to

0:06:13.480 --> 0:06:15.039
<v Speaker 1>do with a little bit of time away, and so

0:06:15.080 --> 0:06:17.560
<v Speaker 1>I think the timing of it makes sense. I think

0:06:17.560 --> 0:06:20.799
<v Speaker 1>the verdict makes sense, and I'm not at all surprised.

0:06:20.880 --> 0:06:24.120
<v Speaker 1>I've been talking to Corey Stern, a partner at Levi Koenigsberg,

0:06:24.320 --> 0:06:28.800
<v Speaker 1>about the verdict today against Harvey Weinstein. Cross examinations in

0:06:28.839 --> 0:06:32.680
<v Speaker 1>this case were really tough, and d A Cyrus Vans

0:06:32.720 --> 0:06:36.320
<v Speaker 1>seemed to suggest that might change in the future. Do

0:06:36.360 --> 0:06:39.560
<v Speaker 1>you think that cross examinations in the future will really

0:06:39.640 --> 0:06:42.719
<v Speaker 1>be that much different, because you know, they still have

0:06:42.760 --> 0:06:45.880
<v Speaker 1>a job to do. I don't think so. I mean

0:06:45.880 --> 0:06:49.960
<v Speaker 1>I watched or listen to some of the cross examinations

0:06:50.200 --> 0:06:52.640
<v Speaker 1>in this case, and you know, I thought that the

0:06:52.720 --> 0:06:55.840
<v Speaker 1>defense lawyers were extremely skillful. One of the worst things

0:06:55.839 --> 0:06:59.520
<v Speaker 1>for Harvey Weinstein in in trying to potentially appeal this

0:06:59.640 --> 0:07:02.839
<v Speaker 1>verdict is how good of a job as lawyers did. Um.

0:07:02.880 --> 0:07:05.440
<v Speaker 1>You know, it's really difficult to challenge a verdict when

0:07:05.440 --> 0:07:08.000
<v Speaker 1>the jury clearly is able to find you not guilty

0:07:08.040 --> 0:07:09.960
<v Speaker 1>of at least some of the things you're being charged with.

0:07:10.520 --> 0:07:13.320
<v Speaker 1>I think there's a way in which across examination can

0:07:13.360 --> 0:07:17.160
<v Speaker 1>take place that is respectful or as respectful as possible

0:07:17.200 --> 0:07:20.320
<v Speaker 1>under the circumstances. I also think that lawyers have their

0:07:20.360 --> 0:07:23.200
<v Speaker 1>own personal styles, and you have some lawyers that are

0:07:23.280 --> 0:07:28.600
<v Speaker 1>just genuinely aggressive, and they're aggressive whether it's across examination,

0:07:28.600 --> 0:07:32.160
<v Speaker 1>they're aggressive, regardless of whether it's an expert witness. They're

0:07:32.160 --> 0:07:35.040
<v Speaker 1>just aggressive by nature. And then you have other lawyers who,

0:07:35.360 --> 0:07:38.360
<v Speaker 1>either based on the region that they practice or sort

0:07:38.400 --> 0:07:40.440
<v Speaker 1>of the way they were raised as a lawyer, you know,

0:07:40.480 --> 0:07:44.240
<v Speaker 1>they're less aggressive and they're more conversational or humble, or

0:07:44.480 --> 0:07:47.440
<v Speaker 1>they don't come across in the same aggressive way. So

0:07:47.600 --> 0:07:51.280
<v Speaker 1>I don't necessarily think it's a strategy to destroy women

0:07:51.440 --> 0:07:54.600
<v Speaker 1>on cross examination who claims of the victims. And now

0:07:54.640 --> 0:07:57.320
<v Speaker 1>that's going to change. I think that, if anything, maybe

0:07:57.320 --> 0:08:00.200
<v Speaker 1>people who are more aggressive will find a way to

0:08:00.800 --> 0:08:03.160
<v Speaker 1>dial it down a bit. But I don't think you're

0:08:03.160 --> 0:08:07.000
<v Speaker 1>going to stop seeing pretty intense cross examinations when someone's

0:08:07.040 --> 0:08:09.880
<v Speaker 1>liberty is on the line, When someone's freedom is on

0:08:09.920 --> 0:08:12.960
<v Speaker 1>the line, is there one thing or two that you

0:08:12.960 --> 0:08:17.520
<v Speaker 1>can point to that the prosecution did, either strategy wise

0:08:17.840 --> 0:08:21.840
<v Speaker 1>or in the courtroom that led to this verdict. I

0:08:21.880 --> 0:08:27.320
<v Speaker 1>think that they very much allowed the victims to tell

0:08:27.320 --> 0:08:31.000
<v Speaker 1>their story, and they didn't try and convince or to

0:08:31.240 --> 0:08:35.400
<v Speaker 1>coax the victims into only telling part of the story

0:08:35.520 --> 0:08:37.800
<v Speaker 1>so as to not get to the parts that were

0:08:37.840 --> 0:08:40.080
<v Speaker 1>not good for them. So, for instance, you know, you

0:08:40.160 --> 0:08:43.160
<v Speaker 1>have a victim who claims to have been assaulted or

0:08:43.280 --> 0:08:46.520
<v Speaker 1>raped by Mr Weinstein and then weeks later or even

0:08:46.600 --> 0:08:49.520
<v Speaker 1>less is with him again, and even in one instance

0:08:49.520 --> 0:08:52.320
<v Speaker 1>had sex with him again consensually. It would be much

0:08:52.320 --> 0:08:56.000
<v Speaker 1>easier to try and keep that information out the post assault,

0:08:56.240 --> 0:09:00.520
<v Speaker 1>post rape, post bad conduct moment, because is it's not

0:09:00.559 --> 0:09:02.520
<v Speaker 1>good for your case. It's not good for a jury

0:09:02.559 --> 0:09:05.000
<v Speaker 1>to hear a I was raped, but be a few

0:09:05.000 --> 0:09:07.040
<v Speaker 1>weeks later, a few days later, I decided to have

0:09:07.080 --> 0:09:10.200
<v Speaker 1>sex with him. So I think that the prosecution owned

0:09:10.600 --> 0:09:13.079
<v Speaker 1>all of the facts, not just the facts that were

0:09:13.120 --> 0:09:17.160
<v Speaker 1>good for its case, and I think that by doing so,

0:09:17.760 --> 0:09:20.200
<v Speaker 1>they were able to take some of the fire from

0:09:20.200 --> 0:09:22.880
<v Speaker 1>what the defendants could have done on cross examination had

0:09:22.880 --> 0:09:25.040
<v Speaker 1>they not owned it on the front end. So, for instance,

0:09:25.200 --> 0:09:27.440
<v Speaker 1>it's always easier if if you put out there the

0:09:27.480 --> 0:09:30.280
<v Speaker 1>bad facts before your adversary in the courtroom gets too

0:09:30.520 --> 0:09:32.520
<v Speaker 1>and I think they did that really well. Here. As

0:09:32.520 --> 0:09:34.920
<v Speaker 1>far as appeal, the defense attorney said, definitely, they're going

0:09:35.000 --> 0:09:38.120
<v Speaker 1>to appeal this. Are there any grounds that stand out

0:09:38.160 --> 0:09:41.320
<v Speaker 1>to you for appeal here? I mean, the one that

0:09:41.600 --> 0:09:45.880
<v Speaker 1>the one that is most most likely to have any

0:09:45.960 --> 0:09:49.000
<v Speaker 1>merit um, although I don't think it will work, is

0:09:50.040 --> 0:09:54.199
<v Speaker 1>the fact that the jury was not sequestered, and it

0:09:54.720 --> 0:09:57.480
<v Speaker 1>you know, it was a pretty highly publicized trial. Throughout

0:09:57.600 --> 0:10:00.120
<v Speaker 1>the trial. I mean, I spoke about the trial on

0:10:00.240 --> 0:10:03.080
<v Speaker 1>various media's and you know, there are hundreds of lawyers

0:10:03.160 --> 0:10:06.320
<v Speaker 1>that were asked to comment um, at least locally in

0:10:06.400 --> 0:10:09.320
<v Speaker 1>New York. It was on the news virtually every day.

0:10:09.360 --> 0:10:12.480
<v Speaker 1>The defense lawyer in the case wrote an article for

0:10:12.760 --> 0:10:16.439
<v Speaker 1>I think the you know, for for a national magazine

0:10:16.480 --> 0:10:19.040
<v Speaker 1>on the eve of the verdict about, you know, her

0:10:19.080 --> 0:10:21.880
<v Speaker 1>client deserving a fair a fair shot from the jury

0:10:23.080 --> 0:10:25.559
<v Speaker 1>and so, you know, if if it had been me

0:10:25.720 --> 0:10:28.560
<v Speaker 1>as the judge, and again I'm not being critical of anybody,

0:10:28.559 --> 0:10:30.440
<v Speaker 1>but just to answer your question, I mean, I think

0:10:30.480 --> 0:10:35.000
<v Speaker 1>that sequestering the jury may have made some sense. And

0:10:35.160 --> 0:10:37.600
<v Speaker 1>if I were the defense in the case, I would

0:10:37.679 --> 0:10:40.640
<v Speaker 1>argue that there's just no way living in the city

0:10:40.679 --> 0:10:43.839
<v Speaker 1>wherever every juror must live in order to qualify to

0:10:43.920 --> 0:10:46.760
<v Speaker 1>be a jurist for this trial, that there's no way

0:10:46.760 --> 0:10:49.920
<v Speaker 1>living in the city they could not have been influenced

0:10:50.040 --> 0:10:53.560
<v Speaker 1>or at least been exposed to media coverage of the

0:10:53.600 --> 0:10:56.960
<v Speaker 1>case throughout the pendency of the trial. Once he faces

0:10:57.000 --> 0:10:59.880
<v Speaker 1>a five to twenty five years sentence for the criminals

0:11:00.000 --> 0:11:02.920
<v Speaker 1>actual act and as long as four years on a

0:11:03.000 --> 0:11:07.080
<v Speaker 1>third degree rape count, any way of telling how the

0:11:07.200 --> 0:11:11.680
<v Speaker 1>judge will handle this well, I mean, obviously it's a

0:11:11.760 --> 0:11:14.600
<v Speaker 1>maximum of about twenty nine years thirty years if it's

0:11:14.679 --> 0:11:19.880
<v Speaker 1>to run um consecutively. Uh, if a judge were to

0:11:19.960 --> 0:11:23.000
<v Speaker 1>run the sentence concurrently, it could be up to twenty

0:11:23.040 --> 0:11:27.000
<v Speaker 1>five years. You know, Mr Weinstein doesn't have any real

0:11:27.040 --> 0:11:29.679
<v Speaker 1>criminal record. Um, if you were to if you were

0:11:29.720 --> 0:11:31.120
<v Speaker 1>to take his name out of it, and if you

0:11:31.160 --> 0:11:33.600
<v Speaker 1>were to take all the publicity associated with the case

0:11:33.600 --> 0:11:35.160
<v Speaker 1>out of it, and you would have just sort of

0:11:35.840 --> 0:11:40.200
<v Speaker 1>mark it up as as as defendant X, and you know,

0:11:40.280 --> 0:11:42.720
<v Speaker 1>what would this person be looking at in terms of

0:11:42.720 --> 0:11:46.360
<v Speaker 1>a sentence. My best guess is it won't be the maximum,

0:11:46.400 --> 0:11:49.720
<v Speaker 1>but it also won't be too light, somewhere between ten

0:11:49.960 --> 0:11:53.080
<v Speaker 1>to twelve maybe ten to fifteen years to run concurrently

0:11:53.080 --> 0:11:56.240
<v Speaker 1>would be my guests. But again, you know, the judge

0:11:56.280 --> 0:12:00.199
<v Speaker 1>might find that there are some extraneous circumstance, as the

0:12:00.280 --> 0:12:02.839
<v Speaker 1>judge might have been moved in a way by some

0:12:02.920 --> 0:12:06.800
<v Speaker 1>of the support testimony from other victims whose cases could

0:12:06.800 --> 0:12:10.400
<v Speaker 1>not be brought because of the statute of limitations. So

0:12:10.440 --> 0:12:13.200
<v Speaker 1>it's possible that it's that it's it's the maximum. But

0:12:13.280 --> 0:12:16.000
<v Speaker 1>my guess is it's not going to be. The judge

0:12:16.080 --> 0:12:19.960
<v Speaker 1>remanded Harvey Weinstein it's and turned down the defense request.

0:12:20.080 --> 0:12:22.320
<v Speaker 1>Is that any indication of how he might rule, whether

0:12:22.360 --> 0:12:25.120
<v Speaker 1>it's going to be, you know, tough or more lenient.

0:12:26.040 --> 0:12:28.079
<v Speaker 1>I don't think so. I mean, obviously, if if it's

0:12:28.120 --> 0:12:31.440
<v Speaker 1>indicative of anything, it would be tougher rather than more lenient.

0:12:31.520 --> 0:12:34.440
<v Speaker 1>That's just, you know, sort of obvious. But you know,

0:12:34.480 --> 0:12:37.880
<v Speaker 1>this man was just convicted of two serious felonies and

0:12:38.240 --> 0:12:42.120
<v Speaker 1>he's facing up to twenty nine years in jail. He

0:12:42.200 --> 0:12:44.720
<v Speaker 1>was permitted to be out on bond during the pendency

0:12:44.720 --> 0:12:46.400
<v Speaker 1>of his trial, but the trial is now over and

0:12:46.480 --> 0:12:49.679
<v Speaker 1>he's been convicted, and so I don't think that it's

0:12:49.679 --> 0:12:52.480
<v Speaker 1>as strong there's any strong argument for him to be

0:12:52.640 --> 0:12:55.520
<v Speaker 1>permitted to stay out of jail now that he's been convicted,

0:12:55.760 --> 0:12:58.040
<v Speaker 1>And I would chalk that more up to that's kind

0:12:58.040 --> 0:13:00.120
<v Speaker 1>of the right thing to do under the circumstances. Is

0:13:00.120 --> 0:13:03.600
<v Speaker 1>irrespective of who the defendant is, irrespective of how he

0:13:03.679 --> 0:13:06.120
<v Speaker 1>may have never been in trouble before, irrespective of how

0:13:06.200 --> 0:13:09.120
<v Speaker 1>much money he has or how much bond he's able

0:13:09.160 --> 0:13:12.720
<v Speaker 1>to put up. Um. I wouldn't read too much into that.

0:13:12.800 --> 0:13:15.080
<v Speaker 1>I think that, if anything, it's just the right thing

0:13:15.120 --> 0:13:17.600
<v Speaker 1>to do. If someone was going to read, you know,

0:13:17.679 --> 0:13:20.200
<v Speaker 1>sort of the tea leaves on it, obviously to judge

0:13:20.360 --> 0:13:22.960
<v Speaker 1>would be seen as being more strict and and and

0:13:23.040 --> 0:13:26.760
<v Speaker 1>more likely to to you know, to to sentence him

0:13:26.840 --> 0:13:29.400
<v Speaker 1>to a more severe sentence. But I just see it

0:13:29.440 --> 0:13:31.880
<v Speaker 1>as what I would normally expect in a case where

0:13:31.920 --> 0:13:35.240
<v Speaker 1>someone's been convicted of two crimes that involve you know,

0:13:35.320 --> 0:13:38.640
<v Speaker 1>DV and sexual act. Thanks Corey. That's Corey Stern, a

0:13:38.720 --> 0:13:41.520
<v Speaker 1>partner at Levi Konigsberg. Remember you can listen to the

0:13:41.559 --> 0:13:44.080
<v Speaker 1>latest legal topics in the news anytime on our Bloomberg

0:13:44.160 --> 0:13:48.360
<v Speaker 1>Law podcast. Just go to iTunes, SoundCloud or Bloomberg dot Com,

0:13:48.400 --> 0:13:52.360
<v Speaker 1>slash podcast, slash Law. I'm John Russo and this is

0:13:52.360 --> 0:13:54.160
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg Ye