1
00:00:03,200 --> 00:00:07,960
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio.

2
00:00:09,600 --> 00:00:13,400
Speaker 1: Former President Donald Trump liked to brag about the conservative

3
00:00:13,440 --> 00:00:17,080
Speaker 1: imprint he left on the Federal Judiciary, appointing two hundred

4
00:00:17,160 --> 00:00:19,919
Speaker 1: thirty judges to the bench who were mostly white men,

5
00:00:20,680 --> 00:00:25,919
Speaker 1: who percentage wise has done better than me with judges.

6
00:00:26,000 --> 00:00:31,760
Speaker 1: Tell I'll give you a hit. He appointed one hundred

7
00:00:31,840 --> 00:00:36,879
Speaker 1: percent of the federal judges and one hundred percent of

8
00:00:36,920 --> 00:00:45,560
Speaker 1: the United States Supreme Court George Washington. Now President Joe

9
00:00:45,600 --> 00:00:49,000
Speaker 1: Biden is moving faster than any modern day president to

10
00:00:49,080 --> 00:00:53,680
Speaker 1: reshape the judiciary, announcing a slate of racially diverse nominees

11
00:00:53,720 --> 00:00:57,240
Speaker 1: with a wide range of professional experience. Not a single

12
00:00:57,280 --> 00:01:00,320
Speaker 1: white man made the list, composed entirely of women and

13
00:01:00,400 --> 00:01:03,200
Speaker 1: people of color, and more than a third who served

14
00:01:03,240 --> 00:01:06,560
Speaker 1: as public defenders. Joining me is Professor Leah Littman of

15
00:01:06,600 --> 00:01:09,960
Speaker 1: the University of Michigan Law School. Lea tell us about

16
00:01:10,000 --> 00:01:13,080
Speaker 1: the list of nine women and two men. I think

17
00:01:13,120 --> 00:01:16,959
Speaker 1: that the nominees are exceptionally diversed along several acts. I

18
00:01:17,000 --> 00:01:19,399
Speaker 1: think one of the most important metrics of diversity is

19
00:01:19,440 --> 00:01:22,440
Speaker 1: professional diversity. What type of career they've had thus far,

20
00:01:22,920 --> 00:01:26,880
Speaker 1: it's no secrets that the federal courts contains this number

21
00:01:27,160 --> 00:01:30,360
Speaker 1: of public defenders, and that it's where it has public

22
00:01:30,400 --> 00:01:33,440
Speaker 1: defenders appointed to the federal courts. Two of the three

23
00:01:33,520 --> 00:01:36,120
Speaker 1: presidents nominees to the federal courts of the fields are

24
00:01:36,160 --> 00:01:39,639
Speaker 1: former public defenders, so that by itself is just huge.

25
00:01:39,840 --> 00:01:42,480
Speaker 1: I mean, there's something like less than eight percent of

26
00:01:42,640 --> 00:01:45,600
Speaker 1: currently serving Court of Appeals judges are formal public defenders,

27
00:01:45,880 --> 00:01:48,920
Speaker 1: less than three percent of district judges who are currently

28
00:01:48,960 --> 00:01:52,279
Speaker 1: serving our former public senders, and two of the seven

29
00:01:52,280 --> 00:01:54,760
Speaker 1: nominees to the district courts for former public defenders. So

30
00:01:54,840 --> 00:01:57,840
Speaker 1: the professional diversity is quite striking. In addition to the

31
00:01:57,840 --> 00:02:00,560
Speaker 1: public defenders, you have people who have worked for the

32
00:02:00,680 --> 00:02:03,720
Speaker 1: city and local governments, and so that is also notable.

33
00:02:04,160 --> 00:02:08,120
Speaker 1: The nominees are also demographically diverse. Nine at the eleven

34
00:02:08,160 --> 00:02:12,359
Speaker 1: nominees were women. Thirty percent of all federal judges are

35
00:02:12,360 --> 00:02:15,280
Speaker 1: currently women. There have only been eight black women to

36
00:02:15,360 --> 00:02:19,120
Speaker 1: ever serve as Court of Appeals judges. All three of

37
00:02:19,240 --> 00:02:23,600
Speaker 1: the President's Court of Appeals nominees were black women, including

38
00:02:23,960 --> 00:02:26,880
Speaker 1: judges who would be the first and only black judges

39
00:02:27,000 --> 00:02:29,240
Speaker 1: on that Court of Appeals. So the Court of Appeals

40
00:02:29,240 --> 00:02:32,239
Speaker 1: for the Federal Circuit has never had a black judge.

41
00:02:32,320 --> 00:02:35,040
Speaker 1: Tiffany Cunningham would be the first black judge on that circuit.

42
00:02:35,320 --> 00:02:39,079
Speaker 1: There are currently no black judges serving on the Seventh Circuit,

43
00:02:39,200 --> 00:02:44,320
Speaker 1: a jurisdiction that it's crude Wisconsin and Illinois, and so

44
00:02:44,919 --> 00:02:48,240
Speaker 1: Judge Campus Jackson of the Lulalu would be, you know,

45
00:02:48,320 --> 00:02:50,600
Speaker 1: the only black judge on that court. So I think

46
00:02:50,639 --> 00:02:54,359
Speaker 1: that you know, the nominees would diversify in a lot

47
00:02:54,360 --> 00:02:57,480
Speaker 1: of ways, integrate the courts of appeal, and also add

48
00:02:57,560 --> 00:03:02,960
Speaker 1: considerable professional diversity as well. Former President Trump was quite

49
00:03:03,000 --> 00:03:08,360
Speaker 1: successful in helping to make the federal judiciary more conservative.

50
00:03:08,680 --> 00:03:11,600
Speaker 1: This is just the first strike for Biden, but doesn't

51
00:03:11,600 --> 00:03:17,360
Speaker 1: even make a dent in diversifying the federal bench. I

52
00:03:17,400 --> 00:03:22,080
Speaker 1: think these nominees alone won't make a huge dent just

53
00:03:22,280 --> 00:03:25,000
Speaker 1: because they're small number. But it will make a dent

54
00:03:25,240 --> 00:03:28,600
Speaker 1: because it will integrate several courts of the field that

55
00:03:28,720 --> 00:03:33,080
Speaker 1: don't currently have black judges. So it's significant for that reason.

56
00:03:33,440 --> 00:03:36,640
Speaker 1: It's also significant that several of the district court nominees

57
00:03:36,920 --> 00:03:39,840
Speaker 1: will be the first. It will result in you know,

58
00:03:39,880 --> 00:03:43,800
Speaker 1: the first musclim American federal judge anywhere, the first Asian

59
00:03:43,800 --> 00:03:46,240
Speaker 1: American woman to serve on the DC District Court, the

60
00:03:46,280 --> 00:03:48,440
Speaker 1: first Black woman to serve on the Maryland District course.

61
00:03:48,520 --> 00:03:52,440
Speaker 1: So I think that those are significant achievements and milestones,

62
00:03:52,640 --> 00:03:55,880
Speaker 1: even if numerically speaking, these eleven nominees are not going

63
00:03:55,920 --> 00:03:58,480
Speaker 1: to make a huge dent given the two hundred plus

64
00:03:58,520 --> 00:04:02,160
Speaker 1: Trump nominees. Progress of the activists had been pushing for

65
00:04:02,320 --> 00:04:06,560
Speaker 1: more judges from non traditional backgrounds, as you mentioned, explain

66
00:04:06,640 --> 00:04:11,640
Speaker 1: why that's important. It's important for a few reasons. One

67
00:04:12,040 --> 00:04:15,720
Speaker 1: is it provides for a very different perspective on legal system.

68
00:04:15,800 --> 00:04:18,839
Speaker 1: If you have spent time representing people against the government,

69
00:04:18,960 --> 00:04:21,880
Speaker 1: then if you're someone who has spent representing the government

70
00:04:21,920 --> 00:04:24,720
Speaker 1: and arguing for more government power, if you're someone who

71
00:04:24,800 --> 00:04:28,440
Speaker 1: has seen let's say, less salutary uses of government power,

72
00:04:28,480 --> 00:04:31,720
Speaker 1: then you might be more rightfully skeptical about some exercises

73
00:04:31,760 --> 00:04:35,200
Speaker 1: of government power, or more understanding about different kinds of

74
00:04:35,240 --> 00:04:37,960
Speaker 1: litigants who come before the federal court. There has also

75
00:04:38,000 --> 00:04:42,599
Speaker 1: been some very important empirical research that suggests judges who

76
00:04:42,680 --> 00:04:46,799
Speaker 1: formally represented corporate interests are served as prosecutors are most

77
00:04:46,839 --> 00:04:51,680
Speaker 1: likely to rule against employees and against workers, and so

78
00:04:51,720 --> 00:04:54,520
Speaker 1: we know that some of the professional experience is some

79
00:04:54,640 --> 00:04:57,560
Speaker 1: indication about how they are actually going to decide in

80
00:04:57,680 --> 00:05:01,240
Speaker 1: view pieces in the federal courts. Do you think that

81
00:05:01,320 --> 00:05:06,520
Speaker 1: President Biden was thinking of the evenly split Senate when

82
00:05:06,520 --> 00:05:10,000
Speaker 1: this list was approved. Is there a possibility that any

83
00:05:10,080 --> 00:05:14,440
Speaker 1: of these will be difficult confirmations? So, I don't think

84
00:05:14,440 --> 00:05:17,440
Speaker 1: there's any reason to think that any of these nominees

85
00:05:17,560 --> 00:05:22,040
Speaker 1: will be difficult confirmations. They are all exceptionally well credentials,

86
00:05:22,600 --> 00:05:26,520
Speaker 1: very well regarded, So there's no reason to think that

87
00:05:26,560 --> 00:05:30,080
Speaker 1: these nominees will have difficult confirmations. You know they are

88
00:05:30,160 --> 00:05:33,800
Speaker 1: different and that they have different professional backgrounds, but I

89
00:05:33,839 --> 00:05:37,200
Speaker 1: don't think that should be a cause for a difficult

90
00:05:37,240 --> 00:05:41,520
Speaker 1: Senate confirmation when it seemed like the Democratic Party and

91
00:05:41,560 --> 00:05:44,359
Speaker 1: the leader of the Democratic Party indicated that's something that

92
00:05:44,400 --> 00:05:47,640
Speaker 1: they value. Do you think that progressives will be happy

93
00:05:47,800 --> 00:05:51,240
Speaker 1: with this list? I think that foreign initial lists they

94
00:05:51,240 --> 00:05:54,839
Speaker 1: are and they should be very happy. Um, I don't

95
00:05:55,279 --> 00:05:57,080
Speaker 1: you know. I'm sure that we all have things that

96
00:05:57,120 --> 00:05:59,240
Speaker 1: we would like to see in the next batch of nominees.

97
00:05:59,360 --> 00:06:02,000
Speaker 1: I think I personally would like it if more of

98
00:06:02,040 --> 00:06:04,800
Speaker 1: the District Court nominees had more similar profiles to the

99
00:06:04,800 --> 00:06:07,760
Speaker 1: Court of Appeals nominees as far as their professional background,

100
00:06:08,400 --> 00:06:11,160
Speaker 1: um and age. But it's it's a list that I'm

101
00:06:11,240 --> 00:06:13,600
Speaker 1: very happy with as an initialist is that I hope

102
00:06:13,640 --> 00:06:16,640
Speaker 1: other progressives are as well. Under former President Trump, there

103
00:06:16,680 --> 00:06:19,760
Speaker 1: was an effort to get judges who were very young

104
00:06:19,839 --> 00:06:22,560
Speaker 1: who would be on the bench for decades. Are these

105
00:06:22,640 --> 00:06:25,000
Speaker 1: judges young? So that is part of what I was

106
00:06:25,000 --> 00:06:27,799
Speaker 1: alluding to when I said I hope that the District

107
00:06:27,839 --> 00:06:31,400
Speaker 1: Court nominees in the future more closely resemble the Court

108
00:06:31,440 --> 00:06:35,200
Speaker 1: of Appeals nominees. The Court of Appeals nominees are in

109
00:06:35,240 --> 00:06:38,880
Speaker 1: their early forties or their fifties. The District Court nominees

110
00:06:38,920 --> 00:06:41,200
Speaker 1: are actually on the older side. That still makes for

111
00:06:41,279 --> 00:06:46,000
Speaker 1: nominees that are substantially older than most of President Trump's nominees.

112
00:06:46,080 --> 00:06:49,480
Speaker 1: He was nominating many judges in their thirties and many

113
00:06:49,520 --> 00:06:52,320
Speaker 1: Court of Appeals nominees in their early forties. Very few

114
00:06:52,360 --> 00:06:55,159
Speaker 1: judges were appointed while they were over fifties. So I

115
00:06:55,200 --> 00:06:58,920
Speaker 1: think that perhaps future batches could involve judges who are

116
00:06:59,360 --> 00:07:02,960
Speaker 1: more close resembling the age brackets from which President Trump

117
00:07:03,040 --> 00:07:05,560
Speaker 1: was drawing. But still the Court of Appeals nominees from

118
00:07:05,560 --> 00:07:10,040
Speaker 1: this batch are trending in that direction. Former President Obama

119
00:07:10,200 --> 00:07:13,320
Speaker 1: insisted on having the A B A the American Bar

120
00:07:13,400 --> 00:07:18,800
Speaker 1: Association review the judicial candidates. Biden is not requiring that.

121
00:07:19,360 --> 00:07:21,720
Speaker 1: Do you think that has any impact at all? It's

122
00:07:21,720 --> 00:07:25,119
Speaker 1: not clear that it will or that it should, given

123
00:07:25,160 --> 00:07:28,040
Speaker 1: patch at least one prior administration discarded the A B

124
00:07:28,200 --> 00:07:32,000
Speaker 1: A rating system, and given that there's again some evidence

125
00:07:32,040 --> 00:07:35,800
Speaker 1: of that rating system have historically operated to the detriment

126
00:07:36,000 --> 00:07:41,600
Speaker 1: of groups who are not historically represented in the federal judiciary.

127
00:07:41,800 --> 00:07:44,160
Speaker 1: And I think there are all, you know, good reasons

128
00:07:44,160 --> 00:07:48,120
Speaker 1: by the administration is not requiring abi A setting. Federal

129
00:07:48,200 --> 00:07:51,760
Speaker 1: Judge Katangi Brown Jackson was on the short list for

130
00:07:51,800 --> 00:07:55,600
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court even before Biden put her on this

131
00:07:55,680 --> 00:07:58,720
Speaker 1: list for the DC Appellate Court, which is considered a

132
00:07:58,760 --> 00:08:02,200
Speaker 1: feeder court to the Supreme Court. I think she has

133
00:08:02,280 --> 00:08:07,120
Speaker 1: one very possible future Supreme Court nominee. Her background is

134
00:08:07,200 --> 00:08:10,440
Speaker 1: everything that the President has been. You know, he's interested

135
00:08:10,480 --> 00:08:13,160
Speaker 1: in someone who has served as a public defender. Some

136
00:08:13,840 --> 00:08:17,680
Speaker 1: senacing commission would add some needed demographic diversities to the

137
00:08:17,720 --> 00:08:20,679
Speaker 1: Supreme Court. So she's going to be one of several

138
00:08:20,720 --> 00:08:23,840
Speaker 1: candidates I'd imagined, but likely one of the fronts. Tell

139
00:08:23,880 --> 00:08:26,720
Speaker 1: us a little more about her background, So, Gootanti Brown

140
00:08:26,800 --> 00:08:30,160
Speaker 1: Jackson graduated from Harvard College and Harvard Law School. She

141
00:08:30,200 --> 00:08:32,920
Speaker 1: was an editor on the Harvard Law Review. She clerked

142
00:08:32,920 --> 00:08:36,120
Speaker 1: for judges on every level of the federal court, at

143
00:08:35,880 --> 00:08:38,760
Speaker 1: the District Court where she currently serves on the Court

144
00:08:38,760 --> 00:08:41,160
Speaker 1: of Appeals, and then for the U Supreme Court. She

145
00:08:41,240 --> 00:08:44,199
Speaker 1: clerked for Justice prior Um. She's also clerked for both

146
00:08:44,720 --> 00:08:49,400
Speaker 1: Democratic appointees on the courts and Republican appointees on the Court.

147
00:08:49,640 --> 00:08:52,880
Speaker 1: After clerking, she worked as a public defender. Since becoming

148
00:08:52,880 --> 00:08:55,920
Speaker 1: a judge, she has served on the United States Sentencing Commission,

149
00:08:56,200 --> 00:09:00,360
Speaker 1: which creates rules and regulations defering all federal sentences. So

150
00:09:00,720 --> 00:09:03,880
Speaker 1: she has really worked in a bunch of different areas.

151
00:09:04,120 --> 00:09:06,240
Speaker 1: In addition to public defense and as the judge of

152
00:09:06,240 --> 00:09:08,880
Speaker 1: Defense Commission, she also worked at the law firm Morson

153
00:09:08,880 --> 00:09:11,679
Speaker 1: and Forester her So she's really worked in many different

154
00:09:11,679 --> 00:09:15,760
Speaker 1: sectors of the legal profession and has really achieved much

155
00:09:15,760 --> 00:09:17,840
Speaker 1: of what there is to chieve in the legal profession.

156
00:09:17,840 --> 00:09:21,199
Speaker 1: As well as a d C. District Court judge, Judge

157
00:09:21,280 --> 00:09:24,280
Speaker 1: Jackson has been involved in a lot of high profile cases.

158
00:09:24,840 --> 00:09:28,959
Speaker 1: She's ruled against the Trump administration several times, including in

159
00:09:29,000 --> 00:09:32,960
Speaker 1: the case involving former White House counsel Don McGann, where

160
00:09:33,000 --> 00:09:36,760
Speaker 1: she wrote that presidents are not kings. I wonder if

161
00:09:36,760 --> 00:09:41,680
Speaker 1: that might cause her any problems during confirmation hearings. I

162
00:09:41,679 --> 00:09:43,719
Speaker 1: don't think that it should cause her any problems. I mean,

163
00:09:43,760 --> 00:09:47,280
Speaker 1: her opinions are very well regarded, you know, in the UH,

164
00:09:47,320 --> 00:09:50,280
Speaker 1: in legal circles, and so even though she's been involved

165
00:09:50,320 --> 00:09:52,760
Speaker 1: in some high profile cases, the way that she has

166
00:09:52,760 --> 00:09:55,160
Speaker 1: resolved them, you know, has garnered her a lot of respect.

167
00:09:55,760 --> 00:10:00,120
Speaker 1: Is it helpful to have out there the names of

168
00:10:00,320 --> 00:10:04,640
Speaker 1: the people who are likely to replace a justice. I

169
00:10:04,679 --> 00:10:07,680
Speaker 1: think it's a complicated question. I think we, on one hand,

170
00:10:07,720 --> 00:10:11,720
Speaker 1: don't really want to turn presidential elections into judicial elections

171
00:10:11,760 --> 00:10:13,839
Speaker 1: as well. You know, federal sends are supposed to be

172
00:10:14,080 --> 00:10:16,920
Speaker 1: appointed as confirmed, not running for office, and putting them

173
00:10:16,920 --> 00:10:19,080
Speaker 1: off the ticket I think might struct people as not

174
00:10:19,200 --> 00:10:23,480
Speaker 1: a great way to run a constitutional democracy. Um. You know.

175
00:10:23,559 --> 00:10:26,559
Speaker 1: On the other hand, I think that, uh, it's probably

176
00:10:26,559 --> 00:10:28,920
Speaker 1: good for people to understand that the two parties are

177
00:10:28,920 --> 00:10:32,480
Speaker 1: appointing very different people to the federal court um, and

178
00:10:32,520 --> 00:10:36,480
Speaker 1: so having people understand who are possible contenters, you know,

179
00:10:37,320 --> 00:10:39,679
Speaker 1: under one party is then the other um. It might

180
00:10:39,679 --> 00:10:41,439
Speaker 1: be helpful in that respect, But I think it's a

181
00:10:41,440 --> 00:10:46,520
Speaker 1: really complicated question. In announcing the list, President Biden emphasized

182
00:10:46,559 --> 00:10:49,439
Speaker 1: that this was the earliest batch of court picks by

183
00:10:49,440 --> 00:10:53,720
Speaker 1: a new administration. Is there a reason why he's emphasizing that.

184
00:10:54,080 --> 00:10:58,480
Speaker 1: Is it because the President Obama was criticized for acting

185
00:10:58,520 --> 00:11:01,520
Speaker 1: too slowly? Yeah? I think not only was Pugnent Obama

186
00:11:01,559 --> 00:11:04,240
Speaker 1: criticized for acting toe slowly, but he was criticized because

187
00:11:04,240 --> 00:11:08,480
Speaker 1: he didn't place enough emphasis on appointing federal judges. We

188
00:11:08,520 --> 00:11:12,000
Speaker 1: saw Presidents Trump and Senate Majority leaders and Senate Majority

189
00:11:12,040 --> 00:11:14,319
Speaker 1: Leader Mitch McConnell places a lot of emphasis on confirming

190
00:11:14,320 --> 00:11:16,559
Speaker 1: as many judges as they could, And I think people

191
00:11:16,640 --> 00:11:19,800
Speaker 1: wanted to see a democratic administration values the federal courts

192
00:11:20,080 --> 00:11:22,200
Speaker 1: to the same extent and with the same seal as

193
00:11:22,240 --> 00:11:25,680
Speaker 1: the loss repulplicate administration is. Mitch McConnell had said at

194
00:11:25,720 --> 00:11:28,360
Speaker 1: one point, I'm not leaving any vacancy open, and they

195
00:11:28,400 --> 00:11:32,840
Speaker 1: really packed the courts whenever they could. Well, Joe Biden

196
00:11:32,960 --> 00:11:37,960
Speaker 1: have enough vacancies to be able to to change the

197
00:11:38,040 --> 00:11:40,320
Speaker 1: courts to you know, to flip the courts back to

198
00:11:40,600 --> 00:11:44,600
Speaker 1: more liberal rather than more conservative. I think that that

199
00:11:44,640 --> 00:11:46,880
Speaker 1: remains to be seen. UM. A lot of it depends

200
00:11:47,040 --> 00:11:50,280
Speaker 1: on whether federal judges who are currently eligible to take

201
00:11:50,320 --> 00:11:53,360
Speaker 1: senior status or retired do so. UM. Some of its

202
00:11:53,440 --> 00:11:57,000
Speaker 1: depends on whether you know a Congress might explore adding

203
00:11:57,040 --> 00:12:00,360
Speaker 1: additional judge ships to district judges, as the judiciary compics

204
00:12:00,360 --> 00:12:03,120
Speaker 1: have called for. UM. But I think whether you know

205
00:12:03,160 --> 00:12:07,040
Speaker 1: President Biden is able to make uh, you know, huge

206
00:12:07,080 --> 00:12:08,920
Speaker 1: talk on the federal courts in the same way the

207
00:12:08,920 --> 00:12:13,080
Speaker 1: President Trump does depends UM on those things which are

208
00:12:13,080 --> 00:12:16,480
Speaker 1: a little bit outside of his control and also that

209
00:12:16,600 --> 00:12:18,800
Speaker 1: we just don't know about yet. Thanks for being the

210
00:12:18,840 --> 00:12:21,760
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Law Show. Leah. That's Professor Leah Littman of the

211
00:12:21,840 --> 00:12:27,359
Speaker 1: University of Michigan Law School. In a downtown Minneapolis courthouse

212
00:12:27,400 --> 00:12:31,640
Speaker 1: that has been fortified with concrete barriers, fences and barbed wire,

213
00:12:32,160 --> 00:12:35,120
Speaker 1: Testimony began this week in the trial of former police

214
00:12:35,160 --> 00:12:38,920
Speaker 1: officer Derek Chauvin on charges of murder and manslaughter in

215
00:12:38,960 --> 00:12:42,240
Speaker 1: the death of George Floyd, a death that ignited months

216
00:12:42,280 --> 00:12:46,200
Speaker 1: of protests for racial justice and against police brutality. The

217
00:12:46,240 --> 00:12:49,800
Speaker 1: prosecution began its opening statement with the video seen around

218
00:12:49,800 --> 00:12:53,000
Speaker 1: the world of Chauvin pressing his knee into Floyd's neck

219
00:12:53,280 --> 00:12:57,280
Speaker 1: for nine minutes in twenty nine seconds. Prosecutor Jerry Blackwell

220
00:12:57,360 --> 00:13:00,560
Speaker 1: said that Chauvin didn't let up eve and after a

221
00:13:00,640 --> 00:13:04,320
Speaker 1: handcuffed Floyd said twenty seven times that he couldn't breathe.

222
00:13:05,200 --> 00:13:11,480
Speaker 1: You will learn that on May Mr Derek Chavin betrayed

223
00:13:11,559 --> 00:13:18,920
Speaker 1: this badge when he used excessive and unreasonable force up

224
00:13:18,920 --> 00:13:23,360
Speaker 1: on the body Mr George Floyd. But defense attorney Eric

225
00:13:23,400 --> 00:13:26,840
Speaker 1: Nelson said that Chauvin was not to blame for Floyd's death.

226
00:13:27,679 --> 00:13:31,240
Speaker 1: The evidence will show that Mr Floyd died of a

227
00:13:31,280 --> 00:13:35,880
Speaker 1: cardiac arrhythmia that occurred as a result of hypertension, his

228
00:13:36,040 --> 00:13:40,880
Speaker 1: coronary disease, the ingestion of methemphetamine and fentanel, and the

229
00:13:40,920 --> 00:13:44,960
Speaker 1: adrenaline throwing flowing through his body. Joining me as former

230
00:13:45,000 --> 00:13:50,800
Speaker 1: public defender Krista Groschek, managing attorney of Groshek Lawn, Minneapolis, CHRISTI,

231
00:13:50,880 --> 00:13:53,280
Speaker 1: what do you think of the prosecution strategy of not

232
00:13:53,440 --> 00:13:58,199
Speaker 1: waiting playing the entire video during the opening statement. It

233
00:13:58,240 --> 00:14:00,640
Speaker 1: was a great strategy for the practice custion. I mean,

234
00:14:00,640 --> 00:14:03,160
Speaker 1: that's the most compelling piece of evidence that they have,

235
00:14:03,520 --> 00:14:07,040
Speaker 1: and the way that they sort of encapsulated that center

236
00:14:07,080 --> 00:14:10,120
Speaker 1: piece was with colorful language, like the word play. They

237
00:14:10,160 --> 00:14:13,600
Speaker 1: talked about how Chauvin betrayed is badge. He wouldn't let up,

238
00:14:13,640 --> 00:14:15,840
Speaker 1: he wouldn't get up. We heard that over and over again.

239
00:14:16,400 --> 00:14:19,520
Speaker 1: We talked about how bystanders called the police on the police,

240
00:14:19,760 --> 00:14:23,240
Speaker 1: we heard about the blood choke. That video, you know,

241
00:14:23,400 --> 00:14:26,920
Speaker 1: ensconced with that word play was very effective. It's a

242
00:14:26,920 --> 00:14:30,359
Speaker 1: hard video to watch, no doubt. What about the defenses

243
00:14:30,480 --> 00:14:35,240
Speaker 1: opening statement and does it show the strategy ahead? Well,

244
00:14:35,280 --> 00:14:38,320
Speaker 1: I think it was a foreshadowing, as most opening statements

245
00:14:38,320 --> 00:14:40,960
Speaker 1: are about where the defense is going to go, and

246
00:14:41,080 --> 00:14:43,720
Speaker 1: we really haven't heard much about that in some of

247
00:14:43,760 --> 00:14:45,800
Speaker 1: the pre trial motions. So what we were able to

248
00:14:45,920 --> 00:14:49,640
Speaker 1: learn is that the defense plans to push on this

249
00:14:49,720 --> 00:14:53,000
Speaker 1: idea that because of where the bystanders who did the

250
00:14:53,040 --> 00:14:56,760
Speaker 1: filming were positioned, you couldn't see what was happening on

251
00:14:56,800 --> 00:15:00,400
Speaker 1: the other side of the police car. You couldn't see

252
00:15:00,760 --> 00:15:03,080
Speaker 1: what was happening with his legs. He couldn't see what

253
00:15:03,120 --> 00:15:05,480
Speaker 1: the officers were doing. You just see, you know, sort

254
00:15:05,520 --> 00:15:08,960
Speaker 1: of his head and shovin around her about his neck

255
00:15:09,000 --> 00:15:12,160
Speaker 1: and back. The defense also talked about the whole part

256
00:15:12,200 --> 00:15:15,840
Speaker 1: of the story being the fifteen minutes before bystanders started

257
00:15:15,840 --> 00:15:19,080
Speaker 1: filming with Floyd in this position. They talked about the

258
00:15:19,120 --> 00:15:22,840
Speaker 1: whole story being captured on a city camera perched atop

259
00:15:23,080 --> 00:15:25,960
Speaker 1: a high pole. They talked about the whole story being

260
00:15:26,160 --> 00:15:30,320
Speaker 1: floyd longstanding use of drugs, his medical conditions, and they

261
00:15:30,320 --> 00:15:32,960
Speaker 1: talk about how, you know, use of force is something

262
00:15:33,080 --> 00:15:36,040
Speaker 1: that even police officers don't like, but it's a necessary

263
00:15:36,080 --> 00:15:40,360
Speaker 1: podfit job. It was a very netered, I think, and

264
00:15:40,720 --> 00:15:44,880
Speaker 1: mindful opening. And you know, really what I think Nelson

265
00:15:44,960 --> 00:15:48,480
Speaker 1: was doing was he's trying to step back the emotion

266
00:15:49,080 --> 00:15:53,000
Speaker 1: that that video certainly caused hers to feel and get them,

267
00:15:53,200 --> 00:15:56,840
Speaker 1: you know, thinking in their brains about common sense, the

268
00:15:56,880 --> 00:15:59,640
Speaker 1: whole story. You even use some legal terms like totality

269
00:15:59,640 --> 00:16:02,440
Speaker 1: of the scumstances. And then he focused a lot on

270
00:16:02,480 --> 00:16:07,120
Speaker 1: causation as to those medical issues, as to being diagnosed

271
00:16:07,120 --> 00:16:12,280
Speaker 1: with COVID, having heart issues, us for the opioids. He

272
00:16:12,360 --> 00:16:16,160
Speaker 1: talked about the County medical examiner's findings about how it

273
00:16:16,240 --> 00:16:20,120
Speaker 1: wasn't a really clear cut case of cause of death,

274
00:16:20,240 --> 00:16:23,360
Speaker 1: and he talked about how once that sort of tenuous

275
00:16:23,400 --> 00:16:26,920
Speaker 1: finding was made, then prosecutors went out and shocked the case,

276
00:16:26,960 --> 00:16:29,640
Speaker 1: if you will, to try to get more medical examine

277
00:16:29,640 --> 00:16:32,880
Speaker 1: our opinions because they didn't like Bakers. And so I

278
00:16:33,120 --> 00:16:35,720
Speaker 1: think it was a very like I said, a very needed,

279
00:16:36,240 --> 00:16:40,280
Speaker 1: a very thoughtful approach about how jurors really need to

280
00:16:40,280 --> 00:16:42,160
Speaker 1: get into their brains and get out of their hearts

281
00:16:42,200 --> 00:16:45,440
Speaker 1: and emotions to decide this case. So, is the central

282
00:16:45,520 --> 00:16:49,840
Speaker 1: question in the case going to be what caused Floyd's death?

283
00:16:50,320 --> 00:16:53,760
Speaker 1: Something that the medical experts are going to testify about. Well,

284
00:16:53,800 --> 00:16:57,080
Speaker 1: this case should be about causation. This case should not

285
00:16:57,240 --> 00:17:01,200
Speaker 1: be about unauthorized use of force or or we heard

286
00:17:01,240 --> 00:17:03,760
Speaker 1: over and over again on the productures opening nine nine,

287
00:17:04,280 --> 00:17:07,600
Speaker 1: this case is sort of flip from the traditional case.

288
00:17:07,800 --> 00:17:11,040
Speaker 1: So typically speaking, prosecutors are all about, you know, this

289
00:17:11,160 --> 00:17:14,000
Speaker 1: is the law black, and why let's put the illegal

290
00:17:14,080 --> 00:17:16,560
Speaker 1: questions out there and answer the illegal questions without emotions.

291
00:17:16,680 --> 00:17:20,359
Speaker 1: Well it's not flips. Prosecutors are talking about all of

292
00:17:20,440 --> 00:17:25,400
Speaker 1: the things that amount to making an emotional decision. Police brutality.

293
00:17:25,920 --> 00:17:28,720
Speaker 1: They did say that it shouldn't be about race, but

294
00:17:29,040 --> 00:17:31,520
Speaker 1: of course everybody in there is thinking that's what it's about.

295
00:17:31,560 --> 00:17:35,119
Speaker 1: So we see the prosecution talking about a lot of things,

296
00:17:35,200 --> 00:17:38,760
Speaker 1: but they didn't talk a whole lot about causation. They

297
00:17:38,840 --> 00:17:41,600
Speaker 1: referenced it briefly and that he's been a drug user,

298
00:17:41,720 --> 00:17:44,240
Speaker 1: but that's not what caused its death. The defense is

299
00:17:44,320 --> 00:17:46,680
Speaker 1: arguing that that is in fact what you see here,

300
00:17:47,040 --> 00:17:50,199
Speaker 1: and that's based upon medical evidence, based upon what was

301
00:17:50,240 --> 00:17:52,800
Speaker 1: found during the course of the autopsy. One of the

302
00:17:52,920 --> 00:17:57,040
Speaker 1: things that's interesting about Baker's autopsy is that his heart

303
00:17:57,080 --> 00:18:00,639
Speaker 1: was so unremarkable. The pictures weren't even taken of George

304
00:18:00,640 --> 00:18:04,440
Speaker 1: Floyd's heart, which again is like a causation factor there

305
00:18:04,480 --> 00:18:07,399
Speaker 1: as well. So we should be talking about causation, and

306
00:18:07,480 --> 00:18:10,000
Speaker 1: that's what the law said. If Derek Chavin didn't cause

307
00:18:10,080 --> 00:18:13,200
Speaker 1: his death by the actions that he took, whether they're distasteful,

308
00:18:13,240 --> 00:18:15,639
Speaker 1: whether we don't like it, whether we think that we

309
00:18:15,720 --> 00:18:19,280
Speaker 1: have a broken, biased, racist system, he didn't cause the death.

310
00:18:19,280 --> 00:18:22,639
Speaker 1: He's not guilty, and that's what this trial should be about.

311
00:18:22,680 --> 00:18:24,680
Speaker 1: And the focus really should be on what the experts

312
00:18:24,680 --> 00:18:27,240
Speaker 1: have to say and which experts the jury believes them one.

313
00:18:27,480 --> 00:18:30,879
Speaker 1: So with the question of causation at the forefront, this

314
00:18:30,960 --> 00:18:33,280
Speaker 1: is going to end up being a battle of the experts,

315
00:18:33,359 --> 00:18:35,560
Speaker 1: right it should be. It shouldn't be about all this emotion.

316
00:18:35,640 --> 00:18:38,000
Speaker 1: It shouldn't be about betraying the grade. It shouldn't be

317
00:18:38,040 --> 00:18:40,520
Speaker 1: about a blood show cold in the number of minutes.

318
00:18:40,640 --> 00:18:43,520
Speaker 1: It should be about causation. And the experts are the

319
00:18:43,560 --> 00:18:46,520
Speaker 1: really only ones that can educate the jury about whether

320
00:18:46,600 --> 00:18:49,120
Speaker 1: or not the state can prove that case. The defense

321
00:18:49,280 --> 00:18:52,959
Speaker 1: in the opening statement said that Chauvin did what he

322
00:18:53,080 --> 00:18:55,639
Speaker 1: was trained to do. Do you think he's going to

323
00:18:55,680 --> 00:18:59,399
Speaker 1: try to make the argument that this was something that was,

324
00:19:00,040 --> 00:19:03,280
Speaker 1: you know, an authorized show cold or whatever. Is he

325
00:19:03,359 --> 00:19:06,679
Speaker 1: going to try to make that argument? I think so,

326
00:19:06,800 --> 00:19:09,000
Speaker 1: And I think he's going to do that based upon

327
00:19:09,480 --> 00:19:14,240
Speaker 1: a reference to that May arrest of flood, where he

328
00:19:14,280 --> 00:19:17,720
Speaker 1: acted really similarly and you know, it was really out

329
00:19:17,760 --> 00:19:21,560
Speaker 1: of control, based upon what seems to have been at

330
00:19:21,600 --> 00:19:24,520
Speaker 1: that point his use of fentanyl, the very same fentinel

331
00:19:24,640 --> 00:19:27,720
Speaker 1: till a year prior. So then yeah, I do think

332
00:19:27,720 --> 00:19:30,919
Speaker 1: they're going to bring in information and testimony that the

333
00:19:31,040 --> 00:19:33,320
Speaker 1: only choice in an officer has is to try to

334
00:19:33,359 --> 00:19:37,840
Speaker 1: subdue that ARRESTI to avoid potential harm to direct and

335
00:19:38,040 --> 00:19:40,159
Speaker 1: or others. So I do think that's exactly where the

336
00:19:40,200 --> 00:19:44,000
Speaker 1: defense is going. Is that wise because if you look

337
00:19:44,040 --> 00:19:48,119
Speaker 1: at that prior incident, in that incident, the police talked

338
00:19:48,200 --> 00:19:52,000
Speaker 1: him down, they arrested him without any real incidents. So

339
00:19:52,440 --> 00:19:56,040
Speaker 1: does that backfire on the defense. Well, I think the

340
00:19:56,040 --> 00:19:58,240
Speaker 1: defense is duck with the fact that this is what

341
00:19:58,359 --> 00:20:02,000
Speaker 1: children chose to do under the circumstances. Things that are

342
00:20:02,040 --> 00:20:06,119
Speaker 1: different invent from the May nineteen event is that we

343
00:20:06,200 --> 00:20:09,520
Speaker 1: do have video footage where there was fifteen minutes of

344
00:20:10,000 --> 00:20:11,960
Speaker 1: back and forth not wanting to get in the car,

345
00:20:12,119 --> 00:20:14,760
Speaker 1: the car I think, actually moving. It can be seen

346
00:20:14,760 --> 00:20:17,560
Speaker 1: in the video that the police vehicle was moving because

347
00:20:17,600 --> 00:20:21,200
Speaker 1: there was enough resistance comployd at that time. So I

348
00:20:21,240 --> 00:20:25,280
Speaker 1: think there is a difference in how those two events

349
00:20:25,280 --> 00:20:27,840
Speaker 1: played out. And it was at that point when things

350
00:20:27,840 --> 00:20:30,159
Speaker 1: were starting to ramp up that Cholvin shows up on

351
00:20:30,200 --> 00:20:33,280
Speaker 1: the scene. He's the senior officer. He decides that he

352
00:20:33,400 --> 00:20:37,520
Speaker 1: could be safe in the situation where Mr Floyd is experiencing,

353
00:20:37,600 --> 00:20:40,480
Speaker 1: you know, some kind of delirium and given his size,

354
00:20:40,560 --> 00:20:42,960
Speaker 1: could be dangerous. So I think the defensive stuck with that.

355
00:20:43,040 --> 00:20:44,359
Speaker 1: I think they have to work with that, and I

356
00:20:44,400 --> 00:20:47,880
Speaker 1: think on cross examination they can deal with the police

357
00:20:47,960 --> 00:20:52,000
Speaker 1: chief criticism of how Chauvin behaved from the point that

358
00:20:52,119 --> 00:20:54,240
Speaker 1: of course the police are going to endorse it. Now

359
00:20:54,600 --> 00:20:57,840
Speaker 1: to do so, would you know, implicate many others, not

360
00:20:57,920 --> 00:21:00,320
Speaker 1: just Show, but everybody you know pushed that, and it's

361
00:21:00,359 --> 00:21:02,280
Speaker 1: doing what they can do to distance and stuff from

362
00:21:02,280 --> 00:21:05,080
Speaker 1: Show then right down to the use of force experts

363
00:21:05,119 --> 00:21:09,000
Speaker 1: and to people in the Minneapolis Police Department. Nobody's aligning

364
00:21:09,040 --> 00:21:11,000
Speaker 1: with him. And you know, I think Nelson can argue

365
00:21:11,000 --> 00:21:14,639
Speaker 1: that those people did that strategically for themselves and for

366
00:21:14,720 --> 00:21:18,040
Speaker 1: the department. Is there anything remarkable in the defense or

367
00:21:18,119 --> 00:21:20,600
Speaker 1: is this the kind of defense that we've seen before

368
00:21:20,720 --> 00:21:25,560
Speaker 1: in cases where police officers are defendants. I believe that

369
00:21:25,720 --> 00:21:28,000
Speaker 1: in these cases that have come before, you know, we've

370
00:21:28,000 --> 00:21:30,800
Speaker 1: seen a lot of not guilty verdicts, a lot He's

371
00:21:30,800 --> 00:21:33,320
Speaker 1: seen a lot of officers not even charged, like the

372
00:21:33,520 --> 00:21:36,639
Speaker 1: Eric Garner officers, they weren't even charged, and you know

373
00:21:36,680 --> 00:21:40,080
Speaker 1: that's a similar case. And so yeah, I believe the

374
00:21:40,119 --> 00:21:42,600
Speaker 1: defense finds themselves in a position where they have to say,

375
00:21:42,800 --> 00:21:46,280
Speaker 1: given their specific training, given their experience, given what they

376
00:21:46,320 --> 00:21:49,400
Speaker 1: know of the risks and dangers of encountering people under

377
00:21:49,400 --> 00:21:52,440
Speaker 1: the influence on the street, that they need to take precautions,

378
00:21:52,480 --> 00:21:55,879
Speaker 1: and they make these split second decisions. Now, the prosecution

379
00:21:55,920 --> 00:21:58,960
Speaker 1: is anticipating the argument you heard in the opening statement, right,

380
00:21:59,080 --> 00:22:01,560
Speaker 1: there was no split second decision here, And they break

381
00:22:01,600 --> 00:22:03,400
Speaker 1: down the second and say there was of the five

382
00:22:04,880 --> 00:22:08,440
Speaker 1: sections that were available for split second decision making, there

383
00:22:08,480 --> 00:22:11,040
Speaker 1: was no split second to anything as a long sort

384
00:22:11,040 --> 00:22:15,320
Speaker 1: of prolonged, continued decision. But to answer your question, I

385
00:22:15,359 --> 00:22:17,560
Speaker 1: believe the strategy is un effective and I think it's

386
00:22:17,600 --> 00:22:20,800
Speaker 1: what's allowed for officers to receive not jokey verdicts and

387
00:22:21,000 --> 00:22:25,359
Speaker 1: no charges at all. The judge allowed prosecutors to add

388
00:22:25,359 --> 00:22:28,800
Speaker 1: a third degree murder charge to the charges of second

389
00:22:28,800 --> 00:22:32,240
Speaker 1: degree murder and manslaughter. Does that give the jury a

390
00:22:32,320 --> 00:22:35,440
Speaker 1: compromise position or a middle ground if if they can't

391
00:22:35,480 --> 00:22:38,760
Speaker 1: come to a decision on the more serious charge. It does.

392
00:22:39,000 --> 00:22:42,680
Speaker 1: Third degree the prave mind murder is an interesting charge

393
00:22:43,119 --> 00:22:46,520
Speaker 1: in that two months ago, it was not a viable

394
00:22:46,600 --> 00:22:51,520
Speaker 1: charge based upon Minnesota's case law hundred year history of

395
00:22:51,720 --> 00:22:56,680
Speaker 1: applying that charge. Generally speaking, that charge was only appropriate

396
00:22:56,760 --> 00:23:00,040
Speaker 1: when a person drove a hundred miles three crowd of

397
00:23:00,119 --> 00:23:03,800
Speaker 1: downtown streets, whether their actions were just the praved mind crazy,

398
00:23:03,840 --> 00:23:06,119
Speaker 1: but they weren't directed at one person. There was a

399
00:23:06,119 --> 00:23:09,920
Speaker 1: police officer, Mohammed Nur who was convicted all the depraved mind.

400
00:23:10,400 --> 00:23:15,680
Speaker 1: When that happened, defense attorneys and in most people engaged

401
00:23:15,760 --> 00:23:18,240
Speaker 1: in leave the work in the state felt that at

402
00:23:18,280 --> 00:23:20,240
Speaker 1: the time he appealed it to the Pelot Court, that

403
00:23:20,280 --> 00:23:23,359
Speaker 1: would have been overturned because it just didn't fit, didn't

404
00:23:23,359 --> 00:23:27,280
Speaker 1: fit the definition of third degree. While our Pelot Court

405
00:23:27,600 --> 00:23:31,240
Speaker 1: chastised a Hill for throwing that charge out, and even

406
00:23:31,280 --> 00:23:34,200
Speaker 1: in light of that history, the court went to great

407
00:23:34,240 --> 00:23:36,600
Speaker 1: lengths to they know what should apply, and they did

408
00:23:36,600 --> 00:23:39,439
Speaker 1: that very close in time too. When Mr Schaubin was

409
00:23:39,440 --> 00:23:44,400
Speaker 1: going to trial, they instructed Judge k Hill, essentially um

410
00:23:44,400 --> 00:23:47,280
Speaker 1: that he must put that charge back into play, and

411
00:23:47,320 --> 00:23:51,000
Speaker 1: he sort of the grudgingly did so, even though Mr

412
00:23:51,119 --> 00:23:53,080
Speaker 1: Nura is appealing that to the Supreme Court, and we

413
00:23:53,080 --> 00:23:56,320
Speaker 1: don't have an answer as to what will happen on

414
00:23:56,359 --> 00:23:58,439
Speaker 1: that case. And then if there is a conviction here,

415
00:23:58,480 --> 00:24:01,119
Speaker 1: what will happen on this case? And so yes, it

416
00:24:01,200 --> 00:24:05,719
Speaker 1: becomes an easier charge for the jury to use um

417
00:24:05,760 --> 00:24:09,000
Speaker 1: in terms of putting a conviction on Mr Chauvin. And

418
00:24:09,080 --> 00:24:11,640
Speaker 1: that's because they don't have to find that he intentionally

419
00:24:11,680 --> 00:24:14,200
Speaker 1: did anything to say he was out of his head,

420
00:24:14,359 --> 00:24:17,440
Speaker 1: he was the praise, he was acting crazy, he wasn't thinking,

421
00:24:17,920 --> 00:24:20,240
Speaker 1: and he did something that he shouldn't tell that. Still

422
00:24:20,680 --> 00:24:23,000
Speaker 1: they self to prove that he caused the death though

423
00:24:23,119 --> 00:24:26,160
Speaker 1: by those actions, but it does make the first part

424
00:24:26,160 --> 00:24:30,159
Speaker 1: of their finding easier. The secondary charge requires that the

425
00:24:30,200 --> 00:24:33,879
Speaker 1: state proved that Mr Chaubin had intense to assault, that

426
00:24:33,920 --> 00:24:37,880
Speaker 1: he had intent to make it some Mr Foye couldn't breathe,

427
00:24:38,240 --> 00:24:41,040
Speaker 1: and I think fact it's harder to do when you, you

428
00:24:40,800 --> 00:24:43,680
Speaker 1: you know, start looking at Nelson's arguments. He was doing

429
00:24:43,680 --> 00:24:46,080
Speaker 1: what he was trained to do. There was resistance of

430
00:24:46,080 --> 00:24:49,240
Speaker 1: the arrest. So if the jury isn't of the mind

431
00:24:49,280 --> 00:24:51,879
Speaker 1: to say he had the intent to assault, then the

432
00:24:51,960 --> 00:24:55,679
Speaker 1: third degree murder charge becomes much more viable because the

433
00:24:55,760 --> 00:24:58,399
Speaker 1: jury can just say, well, he was out of his mind,

434
00:24:58,800 --> 00:25:02,680
Speaker 1: he was doing something you know was imminently dangerous to life.

435
00:25:02,720 --> 00:25:05,320
Speaker 1: We know that, and it caused the death of Mr Floyd.

436
00:25:05,359 --> 00:25:08,199
Speaker 1: Now again I stressed, they still have to believe that

437
00:25:08,240 --> 00:25:10,919
Speaker 1: what he did cause the death, and and if in

438
00:25:10,960 --> 00:25:13,879
Speaker 1: fact they can't make that finding, and even with a

439
00:25:13,960 --> 00:25:17,320
Speaker 1: third degree, they should return with a verdict of not guilty.

440
00:25:17,600 --> 00:25:22,560
Speaker 1: How effective are the prosecution's first witnesses, most of them

441
00:25:22,640 --> 00:25:25,439
Speaker 1: people who were watching what happened. I think it's a

442
00:25:25,440 --> 00:25:28,399
Speaker 1: good move for the prosecution. Is sort of this lumping

443
00:25:28,480 --> 00:25:31,639
Speaker 1: up of emotion, right they started with the video, can't

444
00:25:31,640 --> 00:25:34,960
Speaker 1: get any more intense than that, and then they're bringing

445
00:25:34,960 --> 00:25:38,480
Speaker 1: the jurors to the scene to where this man died,

446
00:25:39,040 --> 00:25:41,560
Speaker 1: and they are seeing that through the eyes of these

447
00:25:41,560 --> 00:25:46,800
Speaker 1: witnesses who are obviously very emotionally moved, who still you know,

448
00:25:46,880 --> 00:25:50,439
Speaker 1: are exhibiting emotion on the stand. I mean, their whole case.

449
00:25:50,520 --> 00:25:55,320
Speaker 1: The centerpieces the video, and it's ensconced by the experience

450
00:25:55,640 --> 00:25:58,040
Speaker 1: and the emotions of the people that were there. So

451
00:25:58,119 --> 00:26:01,440
Speaker 1: I think it's a it's a very consistent and smart

452
00:26:01,480 --> 00:26:03,720
Speaker 1: way for the prosecution to put their case in. It's

453
00:26:03,840 --> 00:26:08,280
Speaker 1: very effective. Thanks Krista. That's Krista Grosseek, managing attorney of

454
00:26:08,320 --> 00:26:10,840
Speaker 1: grossek Law. And that's it for the sedition of The

455
00:26:10,880 --> 00:26:13,960
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always at the latest

456
00:26:14,040 --> 00:26:17,080
Speaker 1: legal news on our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find

457
00:26:17,080 --> 00:26:21,280
Speaker 1: them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at www dot bloomberg

458
00:26:21,320 --> 00:26:25,159
Speaker 1: dot com slash podcast slash Law. I'm June grosse O.

459
00:26:25,359 --> 00:26:27,480
Speaker 1: Thanks so much for listening, and placed it into The

460
00:26:27,480 --> 00:26:29,680
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Law Show every week night at ten p m.

461
00:26:29,760 --> 00:26:31,800
Speaker 1: Eastern right here on Bloomberg Radio