1 00:00:00,480 --> 00:00:05,279 Speaker 1: You're listening to Bloomberg Law with June Grasso from Bloomberg 2 00:00:05,400 --> 00:00:08,400 Speaker 1: Radio at cheering his schedule to go to trial next 3 00:00:08,440 --> 00:00:12,039 Speaker 1: month to face a one million dollar lawsuit accusing him 4 00:00:12,039 --> 00:00:15,440 Speaker 1: of ripping off Marvin Gay's soul classic Let's Get It 5 00:00:15,480 --> 00:00:19,759 Speaker 1: On in his hit song thinking out Loud, Baby Man 6 00:00:20,920 --> 00:00:32,440 Speaker 1: had stoopul us hard twenty three, I'm thinking about people 7 00:00:32,680 --> 00:00:48,520 Speaker 1: fool Then then steer Way dry a hole back full 8 00:00:49,800 --> 00:00:53,240 Speaker 1: and led Zeppelin's copyright win in the long running battle 9 00:00:53,320 --> 00:00:56,600 Speaker 1: over its classic song Stairway to Heaven, will let shecher 10 00:00:56,680 --> 00:00:59,720 Speaker 1: and keep the jury from hearing his hit song side 11 00:00:59,720 --> 00:01:03,240 Speaker 1: by side with Marvin Gay's classic Terry. Let's start with 12 00:01:03,280 --> 00:01:05,920 Speaker 1: the Stairway to Heaven case because the judge and the 13 00:01:06,000 --> 00:01:09,040 Speaker 1: shearing trial is relying on that case, which the Supreme 14 00:01:09,040 --> 00:01:12,119 Speaker 1: Court recently refused to take an appeal from. Why did 15 00:01:12,120 --> 00:01:15,600 Speaker 1: the jury not here the recordings of Stairway to Heaven 16 00:01:15,840 --> 00:01:19,360 Speaker 1: and Taurusts, which led Zeppelin was accused of copying in 17 00:01:19,400 --> 00:01:24,360 Speaker 1: the led Zeppelin case, the actual song that was copyrighted 18 00:01:24,600 --> 00:01:29,720 Speaker 1: by the band Tours was never deposited in their copyright office. 19 00:01:30,160 --> 00:01:34,200 Speaker 1: What the band copyright it was? The sheet music and 20 00:01:34,280 --> 00:01:37,280 Speaker 1: they deposited with the Copyright Office in Washington, d C. 21 00:01:37,840 --> 00:01:40,560 Speaker 1: A copy of the sheet music, as this was required. 22 00:01:40,560 --> 00:01:43,400 Speaker 1: Whatever you're getting copyright on, you have to give a 23 00:01:43,400 --> 00:01:46,480 Speaker 1: copy of that to the Library of Congress. The original 24 00:01:46,520 --> 00:01:48,560 Speaker 1: idea by Thomas Jefferson was this was a way of 25 00:01:48,560 --> 00:01:51,720 Speaker 1: building out the Library of Congress's collection. But it's still 26 00:01:51,720 --> 00:01:55,280 Speaker 1: required to this day. And so that's why it led Zeppelin. 27 00:01:55,480 --> 00:01:59,320 Speaker 1: The recording the album could not be played because that 28 00:01:59,440 --> 00:02:02,480 Speaker 1: was not was copyrighted. What was copyrighted was the sheet music. 29 00:02:02,560 --> 00:02:05,680 Speaker 1: And it took the Ninth Circuit a while to get 30 00:02:05,760 --> 00:02:09,880 Speaker 1: to that decision, and this court in at Sharon's case 31 00:02:10,200 --> 00:02:15,040 Speaker 1: deliberately waited to see what the outcome on that issue 32 00:02:15,040 --> 00:02:18,240 Speaker 1: would be of the Ninth Circuit because the exact same 33 00:02:18,360 --> 00:02:20,440 Speaker 1: issue had been raised by Ed Sharon as part of 34 00:02:20,440 --> 00:02:23,919 Speaker 1: his defense to the copyright lawsuit that Towns and Family 35 00:02:23,960 --> 00:02:28,040 Speaker 1: had brought against his song Thinking Out Loud. And so 36 00:02:28,840 --> 00:02:33,640 Speaker 1: once the led Zeppelin decision was made, the judge in 37 00:02:33,880 --> 00:02:38,239 Speaker 1: Ed Shearan's case decided to go with that president and 38 00:02:38,600 --> 00:02:43,160 Speaker 1: prohibited the actual Marvin Gay recording Let's Get It On 39 00:02:43,720 --> 00:02:47,600 Speaker 1: from being played in courtroom to the jurors our artists 40 00:02:47,600 --> 00:02:52,440 Speaker 1: now filing sound recordings with the Copyright Office as well. Yes, 41 00:02:52,560 --> 00:02:56,520 Speaker 1: so some basic copyright law background. You do not have 42 00:02:56,639 --> 00:03:00,639 Speaker 1: to register a work to be entitled to a copyright 43 00:03:00,720 --> 00:03:05,119 Speaker 1: on it. There are a lot of advantages to registering 44 00:03:05,240 --> 00:03:08,680 Speaker 1: a work when it comes to a lawsuit. It gets 45 00:03:08,680 --> 00:03:12,280 Speaker 1: you into federal court, it gets you statutory damages, It 46 00:03:12,400 --> 00:03:17,079 Speaker 1: potentially could get you attorney sees. There's some proof benefits. 47 00:03:17,320 --> 00:03:19,639 Speaker 1: There's a presumption that you have a copyright, but that 48 00:03:19,840 --> 00:03:23,320 Speaker 1: you do not actually have to go and register a copyright. 49 00:03:23,840 --> 00:03:26,480 Speaker 1: And for reasons that I can't explain because I was 50 00:03:26,600 --> 00:03:29,000 Speaker 1: a young child and not practiced lawyer at the time, 51 00:03:29,320 --> 00:03:32,240 Speaker 1: there was a time in recent US history where bands 52 00:03:32,400 --> 00:03:37,680 Speaker 1: would only register the sheet music and not the actual recording, 53 00:03:38,240 --> 00:03:43,360 Speaker 1: and that was commonplace. Subsequent to that time, the thinking 54 00:03:43,400 --> 00:03:47,720 Speaker 1: with respect to copyright registrations has changed, and for the 55 00:03:47,760 --> 00:03:51,160 Speaker 1: most part universally, but for the most part now, the 56 00:03:51,200 --> 00:03:54,600 Speaker 1: advice being given by copyright attorneys to recording artist is 57 00:03:54,920 --> 00:03:57,880 Speaker 1: you should register at the Copyright Office both the sheet 58 00:03:57,960 --> 00:04:01,280 Speaker 1: music and the sound recording, which of course requires you 59 00:04:01,320 --> 00:04:04,920 Speaker 1: to give the copyright office a copy of the sheet 60 00:04:05,000 --> 00:04:07,520 Speaker 1: music and a copy of the of the recording not 61 00:04:07,680 --> 00:04:12,200 Speaker 1: exactly an onerous burden. Yes, there is a minor fee involved, 62 00:04:12,200 --> 00:04:15,320 Speaker 1: but even that's not particularly onerous. That's the new thinking 63 00:04:15,760 --> 00:04:20,560 Speaker 1: with respect to how to go about reregistoring copyrights in music. 64 00:04:21,320 --> 00:04:23,120 Speaker 1: It is not a change that was made at the 65 00:04:23,120 --> 00:04:26,640 Speaker 1: copyright office. It's just a change in practice being recommended 66 00:04:26,640 --> 00:04:30,240 Speaker 1: by copyright attorney. So in future cases, jurors will be 67 00:04:30,279 --> 00:04:32,880 Speaker 1: able to hear the sound recordings of the songs that 68 00:04:33,000 --> 00:04:38,160 Speaker 1: copyright infringement trials absolutely. Keep in mind that the songs 69 00:04:38,240 --> 00:04:41,960 Speaker 1: that we mostly see being put forward as having been 70 00:04:42,000 --> 00:04:45,640 Speaker 1: infringed in recent times, such as Marvin Gaye Let's Get 71 00:04:45,720 --> 00:04:49,039 Speaker 1: Dot are much older songs. I think Let's Get It 72 00:04:49,040 --> 00:04:52,880 Speaker 1: On was from seventy three years so in the Blurred 73 00:04:52,920 --> 00:04:56,320 Speaker 1: Lines case, remember the song there by Marvin Gaye was 74 00:04:56,360 --> 00:05:00,080 Speaker 1: also from the seventies. Songs that are being written and 75 00:05:00,160 --> 00:05:05,960 Speaker 1: recorded now typically are being registered in both the sheet 76 00:05:06,040 --> 00:05:10,240 Speaker 1: music form and the recording form, and so we eventually 77 00:05:10,760 --> 00:05:13,919 Speaker 1: will see lawsuits in which the jury gets to actually 78 00:05:13,960 --> 00:05:18,680 Speaker 1: listen to the music that was recorded sound that was 79 00:05:18,880 --> 00:05:21,560 Speaker 1: registered with the copyright off Why does it seem that 80 00:05:21,680 --> 00:05:27,560 Speaker 1: defendants don't want the jury to hear the actual sound recording, 81 00:05:28,000 --> 00:05:31,839 Speaker 1: whereas plaintiffs do. In other words, in this case, sheerance 82 00:05:31,880 --> 00:05:35,919 Speaker 1: council doesn't want the music to be played well, I 83 00:05:35,920 --> 00:05:38,920 Speaker 1: think ed shearings lawyers would probably say that it might 84 00:05:39,279 --> 00:05:44,400 Speaker 1: contaminate the jury's deliberation. What is actually copyrighted is not 85 00:05:44,560 --> 00:05:48,440 Speaker 1: that recorded sound. That's not what that issue. What that 86 00:05:48,560 --> 00:05:51,640 Speaker 1: issue is on the page of the sheet music. And 87 00:05:51,720 --> 00:05:54,159 Speaker 1: to the extent that you have allegations, as you do 88 00:05:54,320 --> 00:05:57,640 Speaker 1: in the sharing case, to the effect that the rhythm, 89 00:05:57,960 --> 00:06:02,320 Speaker 1: the harmony, the base law, the backup course, the tempo, 90 00:06:02,400 --> 00:06:06,840 Speaker 1: the syncopation, the looping, we're all infringed. Jury is more 91 00:06:06,920 --> 00:06:10,440 Speaker 1: likely to find infringement listening to the sound recording because 92 00:06:10,480 --> 00:06:13,400 Speaker 1: many of those elements are simply not present in the 93 00:06:13,440 --> 00:06:17,400 Speaker 1: sheet music. And I have seen actual copies of sheet 94 00:06:17,480 --> 00:06:21,320 Speaker 1: music deposits of various famous songs over the years at 95 00:06:21,360 --> 00:06:24,520 Speaker 1: the copyright reacher's office, and you would be shocked at 96 00:06:24,520 --> 00:06:27,760 Speaker 1: how bare bones they are. It can often be nothing 97 00:06:27,839 --> 00:06:31,640 Speaker 1: more than the tune, the overarching scene telling you what 98 00:06:31,760 --> 00:06:34,400 Speaker 1: kind it's played in. You know it's four or four time, 99 00:06:34,680 --> 00:06:37,840 Speaker 1: And that's always shocked me. But so much of the 100 00:06:37,880 --> 00:06:41,839 Speaker 1: work that is done in found recordings over the years. 101 00:06:42,120 --> 00:06:45,320 Speaker 1: Happens in a studio and not on paper, and that's 102 00:06:45,320 --> 00:06:47,800 Speaker 1: why beth practice probably is now to make sure that 103 00:06:47,839 --> 00:06:50,799 Speaker 1: you're registering the found recording as well as the sheet music. 104 00:06:51,040 --> 00:06:53,960 Speaker 1: Unless jurors can read music, I don't see how they 105 00:06:54,000 --> 00:06:57,200 Speaker 1: can compare all those elements that you talked about. Do 106 00:06:57,279 --> 00:07:01,159 Speaker 1: they take their opinions in from the experts, That's exactly 107 00:07:01,160 --> 00:07:04,720 Speaker 1: how it's done. It's about do they take their opinions 108 00:07:04,720 --> 00:07:09,039 Speaker 1: in from the experts. That's exactly how it's done. Experts 109 00:07:09,200 --> 00:07:13,360 Speaker 1: now play an outsized role in copyright infringement cases in 110 00:07:13,400 --> 00:07:16,840 Speaker 1: the music area. Both sides will have an expert. The 111 00:07:16,920 --> 00:07:21,000 Speaker 1: experts will come in and explain what the sheet music 112 00:07:21,080 --> 00:07:24,160 Speaker 1: means and what the notations mean, and they will, in 113 00:07:24,320 --> 00:07:27,960 Speaker 1: limited circumstances, be able to sit there at a keyboard 114 00:07:28,120 --> 00:07:31,440 Speaker 1: in the courtroom and pound out the note. That is 115 00:07:31,480 --> 00:07:34,840 Speaker 1: not the same as playing the sound recording, and it's 116 00:07:34,880 --> 00:07:37,280 Speaker 1: not always allowed by a judge, but it is a 117 00:07:37,440 --> 00:07:41,480 Speaker 1: frequent compromise that courts make so that the jurors, who 118 00:07:41,640 --> 00:07:45,480 Speaker 1: you are correct, often will not have the ability to 119 00:07:45,560 --> 00:07:48,920 Speaker 1: read sheet music. That will give them some understanding what's 120 00:07:48,960 --> 00:07:52,760 Speaker 1: going on, but it's usually tightly controlled as to what 121 00:07:52,920 --> 00:07:56,080 Speaker 1: can be played by the expert, even in those circumstances 122 00:07:56,080 --> 00:08:00,480 Speaker 1: where it's allowed. Ed. Sharon has been sued before for 123 00:08:00,560 --> 00:08:04,440 Speaker 1: copyright infringement. Will that come up at this trial? You know, 124 00:08:04,600 --> 00:08:08,280 Speaker 1: defendants at Shurance Sharon's counsel, we're very concerned about that, 125 00:08:08,320 --> 00:08:11,640 Speaker 1: because you're correct, he's been a defendant multiple lawsuits which 126 00:08:11,720 --> 00:08:15,240 Speaker 1: should have no bearing on the current lawsuit because the 127 00:08:15,280 --> 00:08:18,280 Speaker 1: facts are different from case to case. And so the 128 00:08:18,320 --> 00:08:20,960 Speaker 1: defense counsel made a motion what is referred to as 129 00:08:20,960 --> 00:08:24,600 Speaker 1: an eliminate motion in advance a trial, asking that the 130 00:08:24,640 --> 00:08:29,120 Speaker 1: judge enter and order barring all references to those other 131 00:08:29,320 --> 00:08:33,920 Speaker 1: copyright infringement lawsuits against Mr Sharon, and the court just 132 00:08:34,080 --> 00:08:37,240 Speaker 1: recently granted that request. So the court has entered an 133 00:08:37,360 --> 00:08:41,480 Speaker 1: order saying that plaintiff may not at any time bring 134 00:08:41,559 --> 00:08:45,520 Speaker 1: up or make reference to other cases in which AT 135 00:08:45,520 --> 00:08:49,240 Speaker 1: Sharon was involved with respect the copyright. Now the Sharon 136 00:08:49,320 --> 00:08:52,959 Speaker 1: trial is scheduled to start next month, is it likely 137 00:08:53,000 --> 00:08:56,840 Speaker 1: to go off as schedule? So at the time that 138 00:08:57,440 --> 00:09:04,160 Speaker 1: Judge Stanton set November ten, fild date, the Federal Court 139 00:09:04,160 --> 00:09:06,600 Speaker 1: in New York City, which is called the United States 140 00:09:06,640 --> 00:09:09,880 Speaker 1: District Corps for the Southern District New York had reopened 141 00:09:10,400 --> 00:09:15,520 Speaker 1: the courthouse for business, and individual judges were making their 142 00:09:15,520 --> 00:09:17,560 Speaker 1: own decisions as to whether or not to go forward 143 00:09:17,640 --> 00:09:19,719 Speaker 1: jury trial. And the sharing case is going to be 144 00:09:19,760 --> 00:09:24,400 Speaker 1: a jury trial. Judge Stanton felt comfortable conducting a jury 145 00:09:24,400 --> 00:09:28,280 Speaker 1: trial live in person in his courtroom, and so he 146 00:09:28,360 --> 00:09:31,000 Speaker 1: set November ten of the date. And keep in mind, 147 00:09:31,040 --> 00:09:34,480 Speaker 1: this case was first filed two thousand sixteen, so it's 148 00:09:34,520 --> 00:09:37,280 Speaker 1: been four years at some point, just as delayed as 149 00:09:37,320 --> 00:09:40,880 Speaker 1: justice denied. And so I understand the judges thinking in 150 00:09:40,920 --> 00:09:44,000 Speaker 1: that reguard. And at the time he said it, New 151 00:09:44,080 --> 00:09:49,760 Speaker 1: York seemed to have moved past the worst parts of 152 00:09:49,800 --> 00:09:53,760 Speaker 1: the COVID nineteen pandemic and was doing relatively well. What 153 00:09:53,840 --> 00:09:56,200 Speaker 1: the judge did not take into account is New York 154 00:09:56,240 --> 00:10:01,360 Speaker 1: state quarantine travel restriction. And so just a couple of 155 00:10:01,400 --> 00:10:05,440 Speaker 1: weeks ago the defendants filed a motion would Judge Stanton 156 00:10:05,559 --> 00:10:08,760 Speaker 1: pointing out to him that even though he had told 157 00:10:08,800 --> 00:10:11,120 Speaker 1: them he was not going to delay the trial past 158 00:10:11,160 --> 00:10:14,520 Speaker 1: to hum pretense that Ed Sharon is a UK resident. 159 00:10:14,600 --> 00:10:17,320 Speaker 1: He's in the UK, some of his lawyers and some 160 00:10:17,480 --> 00:10:21,040 Speaker 1: of his witnesses are UK residents, and that they are 161 00:10:21,440 --> 00:10:24,560 Speaker 1: prohibited because a matter of law, from flying from the 162 00:10:24,679 --> 00:10:27,679 Speaker 1: UK to New York. They also pointed out that the 163 00:10:27,760 --> 00:10:31,160 Speaker 1: plaintiff as a California resident and the lawyer for plantiff 164 00:10:31,160 --> 00:10:34,920 Speaker 1: as a California resident, and California is on New York 165 00:10:35,000 --> 00:10:38,520 Speaker 1: state quarantine list because of the high instance continuing of 166 00:10:38,600 --> 00:10:41,840 Speaker 1: COVID nineteen inflections in California, and therefore those lawyers and 167 00:10:41,920 --> 00:10:43,760 Speaker 1: the planeff would have to come to New York and 168 00:10:43,840 --> 00:10:48,120 Speaker 1: quarantine for fourteen days ahead of the trial. And defendants 169 00:10:48,200 --> 00:10:50,680 Speaker 1: pointed out all these facts to the court and said, 170 00:10:50,840 --> 00:10:53,520 Speaker 1: in light of all this, we should probably continue to 171 00:10:53,559 --> 00:10:56,200 Speaker 1: trial because there's no way at least the UK residents 172 00:10:56,240 --> 00:10:58,559 Speaker 1: can get there. It seems like a good argument will 173 00:10:58,640 --> 00:11:02,080 Speaker 1: keep track of what happens there. Thanks Terry. That's Terence 174 00:11:02,160 --> 00:11:07,000 Speaker 1: Ross of Captain Eugen Rosenman. This week, the Supreme Court 175 00:11:07,040 --> 00:11:10,400 Speaker 1: added a few cases to its docket. One involving law 176 00:11:10,480 --> 00:11:14,040 Speaker 1: enforcement chasing after someone and going into their home in 177 00:11:14,120 --> 00:11:17,800 Speaker 1: what's called hot pursuit without a warrant. Joining me is 178 00:11:17,880 --> 00:11:21,600 Speaker 1: Jordan Reuben Bloomberg Law Editor. So Jordan tell us about 179 00:11:21,720 --> 00:11:25,600 Speaker 1: this case of hot pursuit. The court is going to consider. So. 180 00:11:25,760 --> 00:11:29,199 Speaker 1: In this case, a man named Arthur Lang was driving 181 00:11:29,320 --> 00:11:33,560 Speaker 1: in Sonoma, California, and an officer followed him home, into 182 00:11:33,679 --> 00:11:38,760 Speaker 1: his driveway and eventually into his garage. After that, Lang 183 00:11:38,920 --> 00:11:42,640 Speaker 1: was convicted of d u y. Lang's argument is that 184 00:11:42,760 --> 00:11:46,360 Speaker 1: the officer wasn't allowed to pursue him into his home 185 00:11:46,760 --> 00:11:50,160 Speaker 1: without a warrant because Lang was only suspected of having 186 00:11:50,559 --> 00:11:53,920 Speaker 1: committed a misdemeanor. And so that raises the issue whether 187 00:11:54,000 --> 00:11:57,400 Speaker 1: law enforcement can enter a home without a warrant in 188 00:11:57,480 --> 00:12:01,200 Speaker 1: hot pursuit of someone suspected of committing a misdemeanor. The 189 00:12:01,200 --> 00:12:05,359 Speaker 1: Court has said that officers can do so when investigating felonies, 190 00:12:05,440 --> 00:12:09,079 Speaker 1: but not minor traffic violations, and so this case presents 191 00:12:09,200 --> 00:12:13,240 Speaker 1: something in the middle. Misdemeanor pursuits is hot pursuit the 192 00:12:13,320 --> 00:12:19,920 Speaker 1: same as exigent circumstances explain those two concepts. So, of 193 00:12:19,960 --> 00:12:23,679 Speaker 1: course the Fourth Amendment can protect people in their homes 194 00:12:23,679 --> 00:12:26,640 Speaker 1: from law enforcement coming in without a warrant. But there 195 00:12:26,679 --> 00:12:29,720 Speaker 1: are exceptions to the warrant requirement. One of them is 196 00:12:29,880 --> 00:12:34,000 Speaker 1: exigent circumstances, and that arises when safe For example, there's 197 00:12:34,000 --> 00:12:37,559 Speaker 1: a suspect who's running away and they're running into a 198 00:12:37,679 --> 00:12:41,320 Speaker 1: home now, and that's when someone is committing a felony 199 00:12:41,400 --> 00:12:45,000 Speaker 1: and law enforcement is allowed to pursue them under what's 200 00:12:45,040 --> 00:12:48,120 Speaker 1: called the hot pursuit doctrine into the home. And so 201 00:12:48,160 --> 00:12:53,200 Speaker 1: the Supreme Court has upheld that exigent circumstances exception to 202 00:12:53,400 --> 00:12:56,640 Speaker 1: the Fourth Amendment, where officers can then pursue people into 203 00:12:56,720 --> 00:12:59,599 Speaker 1: a home when they're suspected of committing a felony and 204 00:12:59,679 --> 00:13:03,040 Speaker 1: office or can do that even without a warrants. So 205 00:13:03,080 --> 00:13:05,880 Speaker 1: the question here is whether they can do that with 206 00:13:05,920 --> 00:13:11,280 Speaker 1: a misdemeanor exactly. Is there a generally accepted rule across 207 00:13:11,320 --> 00:13:14,920 Speaker 1: the country about this. So there's not, and that's what 208 00:13:15,120 --> 00:13:18,120 Speaker 1: prompted the Supreme Court to take the case. That's usually 209 00:13:18,120 --> 00:13:20,560 Speaker 1: why the Supreme Court will take up the case as 210 00:13:20,600 --> 00:13:23,480 Speaker 1: a general rule when different courts around the country have 211 00:13:23,640 --> 00:13:27,320 Speaker 1: reached different conclusions. And so courts across the country have 212 00:13:27,400 --> 00:13:32,800 Speaker 1: interpreted that differently. Some apply a categorical rule saying that 213 00:13:32,880 --> 00:13:36,480 Speaker 1: law enforcement is allowed to conduct these hot pursuits and 214 00:13:36,559 --> 00:13:40,240 Speaker 1: misdemeanor cases just like they are in felonies, and some 215 00:13:40,400 --> 00:13:43,400 Speaker 1: other courts around the country hold differently. And so the 216 00:13:43,480 --> 00:13:45,880 Speaker 1: question in front of the Court now is whether this 217 00:13:46,400 --> 00:13:50,880 Speaker 1: categorical rule allowing these hot pursuits in misdemeanor cases is 218 00:13:50,920 --> 00:13:53,200 Speaker 1: okay in the same way that the Court has said 219 00:13:53,240 --> 00:13:58,000 Speaker 1: it's okay for felonies, and our misdemeanors more common than felonies, 220 00:13:58,800 --> 00:14:01,960 Speaker 1: much much, much more common. And so that's why this 221 00:14:02,080 --> 00:14:05,079 Speaker 1: is an important case for the justices to take up. 222 00:14:05,440 --> 00:14:09,160 Speaker 1: Sometimes felny, more serious cases get more attention, and for 223 00:14:09,240 --> 00:14:13,280 Speaker 1: good reasons sometimes, but the reality is that misdemeanors are 224 00:14:13,400 --> 00:14:16,880 Speaker 1: by far the most common basis for arrest. And so 225 00:14:17,360 --> 00:14:20,360 Speaker 1: even if the court's ruling here won't have the biggest 226 00:14:20,760 --> 00:14:24,160 Speaker 1: impact perhaps in terms of something like a murder case, 227 00:14:24,240 --> 00:14:27,320 Speaker 1: in terms of the sheer volume of cases, the impact 228 00:14:27,360 --> 00:14:31,040 Speaker 1: could be much broader than an average case. So, now 229 00:14:31,040 --> 00:14:34,080 Speaker 1: this involves privacy interests, as you mentioned, and in the 230 00:14:34,120 --> 00:14:38,920 Speaker 1: past the Supreme Court has been very protective of privacy 231 00:14:39,080 --> 00:14:44,840 Speaker 1: interests in the home, especially against intrusion by law enforcement. 232 00:14:45,920 --> 00:14:48,920 Speaker 1: That's right, and so we'll see to what extent that's 233 00:14:48,960 --> 00:14:52,040 Speaker 1: going to be true in this context, whether they're going 234 00:14:52,120 --> 00:14:55,160 Speaker 1: to apply the rules they have upheld in the felony 235 00:14:55,240 --> 00:15:01,160 Speaker 1: context to the misdemeanor context, or whether Pepe will essentially 236 00:15:01,200 --> 00:15:05,320 Speaker 1: have more protections in their home one suspected of committing 237 00:15:05,360 --> 00:15:08,400 Speaker 1: misdemeanors than they do of committing felonies, at least when 238 00:15:08,400 --> 00:15:11,280 Speaker 1: it comes to this hot pursuit doctrine. So the National 239 00:15:11,360 --> 00:15:14,920 Speaker 1: Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers filed an amikas brief here 240 00:15:15,520 --> 00:15:18,560 Speaker 1: asking the court to take the case. Isn't there a 241 00:15:18,600 --> 00:15:21,920 Speaker 1: fear that the court will say, yes, you, you can 242 00:15:22,080 --> 00:15:25,720 Speaker 1: engage in hot pursuit for a misdemeanor. There's certainly the 243 00:15:25,760 --> 00:15:28,720 Speaker 1: possibility that the court could hold that, and that's what 244 00:15:28,800 --> 00:15:32,239 Speaker 1: courts have held around the country. So in those jurisdictions, 245 00:15:32,280 --> 00:15:35,360 Speaker 1: the court would only be affirming what's already the rule. 246 00:15:35,720 --> 00:15:38,240 Speaker 1: But one thing that's important that the Supreme Court can 247 00:15:38,280 --> 00:15:41,280 Speaker 1: do here is that it can announce a uniform rule 248 00:15:41,360 --> 00:15:44,160 Speaker 1: to apply around the country, so that there aren't different 249 00:15:44,240 --> 00:15:48,400 Speaker 1: rules that apply to a person allegedly committing a misdemeanor 250 00:15:48,440 --> 00:15:51,680 Speaker 1: in one state versus another. So, regardless of how the 251 00:15:51,720 --> 00:15:54,280 Speaker 1: court comes down, there could be some benefit to there 252 00:15:54,280 --> 00:15:58,120 Speaker 1: being some uniformity around the country. Jordan, Is there any 253 00:15:58,200 --> 00:16:02,760 Speaker 1: distinction between the garage and the house? So it's an 254 00:16:02,800 --> 00:16:06,560 Speaker 1: interesting question. It might depend on sort of a case 255 00:16:06,560 --> 00:16:09,360 Speaker 1: by case basis in terms of whether the garage is 256 00:16:09,440 --> 00:16:13,240 Speaker 1: detached from the house. But in a case where you're 257 00:16:13,280 --> 00:16:15,600 Speaker 1: talking about the garage that's a part of the house, 258 00:16:15,640 --> 00:16:19,800 Speaker 1: there wouldn't be a distinction. Where it becomes more interesting 259 00:16:19,880 --> 00:16:22,640 Speaker 1: and what brings up potentially different fact patterns is when 260 00:16:22,640 --> 00:16:25,600 Speaker 1: you're talking about a detached garage and how far away 261 00:16:25,640 --> 00:16:28,640 Speaker 1: that is from the house. In different sorts of fact 262 00:16:28,720 --> 00:16:32,200 Speaker 1: patterns can spin out that way. Jordan. In another case 263 00:16:32,200 --> 00:16:35,680 Speaker 1: involving a home, the Supreme Court decided not to take 264 00:16:35,680 --> 00:16:38,560 Speaker 1: a Fourth Amendment case that would have clarified the rules 265 00:16:38,600 --> 00:16:43,000 Speaker 1: for law enforcement entering the area surrounding a home without 266 00:16:43,000 --> 00:16:46,760 Speaker 1: a warrant. Tell us about that case, right, So this 267 00:16:46,840 --> 00:16:50,640 Speaker 1: case comes from Vermont and a defendant named Clyde Bovat, 268 00:16:51,000 --> 00:16:55,360 Speaker 1: and he was convicted of something called deer jacking, which 269 00:16:55,440 --> 00:16:58,400 Speaker 1: is basically an illegal hunting of deer, that's what they 270 00:16:58,440 --> 00:17:02,560 Speaker 1: called it there in Verman. And he had a garage 271 00:17:02,600 --> 00:17:05,480 Speaker 1: that was detached from the home, and that gave rise 272 00:17:05,560 --> 00:17:09,320 Speaker 1: to one of these more interesting fact patterns, and his 273 00:17:09,440 --> 00:17:13,560 Speaker 1: motion to suppress was denied in the Supreme Court wound 274 00:17:13,640 --> 00:17:18,760 Speaker 1: up rejecting his case. Any idea why the Court rejected 275 00:17:18,800 --> 00:17:23,800 Speaker 1: this case but took the other case. Well, they present 276 00:17:23,920 --> 00:17:29,440 Speaker 1: different discrete legal issues, and the Court almost never explained 277 00:17:29,480 --> 00:17:32,800 Speaker 1: itself when it's just denying a case. But one thing 278 00:17:32,840 --> 00:17:36,080 Speaker 1: that was interesting in the Bovat case here is that 279 00:17:36,640 --> 00:17:39,720 Speaker 1: in connection with the denial, there was a statement issued 280 00:17:39,760 --> 00:17:43,760 Speaker 1: by Justice Forsage that was joined by Justice sodomyor in 281 00:17:43,880 --> 00:17:47,160 Speaker 1: Justice Kagan, expressing some of their views about how they 282 00:17:47,200 --> 00:17:51,639 Speaker 1: were concerned that Mr Bovat's rights were violated in this case. 283 00:17:51,760 --> 00:17:56,040 Speaker 1: Even if they didn't necessarily disagree with whether the case 284 00:17:56,080 --> 00:17:59,000 Speaker 1: should be taken up or not, it was a statement. 285 00:17:59,040 --> 00:18:02,240 Speaker 1: It wasn't a it wasn't a dissent, but it was 286 00:18:02,280 --> 00:18:05,880 Speaker 1: a statement respecting the denial, and they took the opportunity 287 00:18:05,960 --> 00:18:09,200 Speaker 1: there to talk about what they saw as some constitutional 288 00:18:09,280 --> 00:18:13,000 Speaker 1: issues with the Vermont State Court ruling that ruled against 289 00:18:13,080 --> 00:18:15,320 Speaker 1: both that. Yeah, we should note that it takes four 290 00:18:15,400 --> 00:18:18,040 Speaker 1: Supreme Court justices to take a case, so they might 291 00:18:18,040 --> 00:18:21,480 Speaker 1: have been one justice short there. So let's talk about 292 00:18:21,640 --> 00:18:25,160 Speaker 1: the state court. The state court decision was based on 293 00:18:25,480 --> 00:18:29,600 Speaker 1: the plane view doctrine. That's right, and so that's another 294 00:18:30,160 --> 00:18:34,520 Speaker 1: Fourth Amendment doctrine that can wind up in some ways 295 00:18:34,520 --> 00:18:37,680 Speaker 1: some people might think is contradicting what some of your 296 00:18:38,000 --> 00:18:41,000 Speaker 1: otherwise Fourth Amendment rights might be. And what the plane 297 00:18:41,040 --> 00:18:44,200 Speaker 1: view doctrine essentially says is that if if an officer 298 00:18:44,520 --> 00:18:47,520 Speaker 1: is in a place where they're legally allowed to be, 299 00:18:48,080 --> 00:18:52,680 Speaker 1: then they're allowed to essentially go off of whatever information 300 00:18:52,680 --> 00:18:54,880 Speaker 1: they see there. And to illustrate that by way of 301 00:18:55,240 --> 00:18:59,159 Speaker 1: what happened in this case, when the game wardens in 302 00:18:59,320 --> 00:19:03,600 Speaker 1: Vermont why to Mr Bovat's house, when they went up 303 00:19:03,640 --> 00:19:06,480 Speaker 1: to his detached garage, they looked through the window and 304 00:19:06,520 --> 00:19:09,639 Speaker 1: they saw evidence on his truck that wound up paying 305 00:19:09,720 --> 00:19:14,119 Speaker 1: him to these hunting violations. And in upholding the rejection 306 00:19:14,200 --> 00:19:18,040 Speaker 1: of Bovat's motion to suppress the evidence there, what the 307 00:19:18,119 --> 00:19:21,800 Speaker 1: Vermont Stake Court said is that because the officers were 308 00:19:21,880 --> 00:19:23,800 Speaker 1: in a place where they are allowed to be when 309 00:19:23,800 --> 00:19:27,160 Speaker 1: they were looking into the garage, under the plane view doctrine, 310 00:19:27,400 --> 00:19:30,399 Speaker 1: they were allowed to then get a warrant based on 311 00:19:30,480 --> 00:19:33,640 Speaker 1: the information they saw when they were peering into the garage. 312 00:19:33,680 --> 00:19:38,320 Speaker 1: There is there any discussion or disagreement about whether the 313 00:19:38,400 --> 00:19:42,480 Speaker 1: officers are allowed to come onto your property. Well, that's 314 00:19:42,520 --> 00:19:45,960 Speaker 1: what Justice Gorsage was getting at in his separate statement, 315 00:19:46,119 --> 00:19:50,120 Speaker 1: and he brought up a case from two thousand thirteen 316 00:19:50,160 --> 00:19:52,680 Speaker 1: that the U. S. Supreme Court decided that involved drug 317 00:19:52,720 --> 00:19:56,639 Speaker 1: sniffing dogs. That what the court did there was that 318 00:19:56,800 --> 00:20:00,480 Speaker 1: essentially established more protections not just within the home, but 319 00:20:00,760 --> 00:20:04,560 Speaker 1: within the area immediately outside the home called the curtilage, 320 00:20:04,640 --> 00:20:07,800 Speaker 1: which is also protected like the inside of the home 321 00:20:07,960 --> 00:20:10,800 Speaker 1: is under the Fourth Amendment. And so what Justice Corsich 322 00:20:10,880 --> 00:20:13,480 Speaker 1: was getting at and his statement was essentially that the 323 00:20:13,560 --> 00:20:18,399 Speaker 1: Vermont State Court ignored this U. S. Supreme Court case 324 00:20:18,760 --> 00:20:22,080 Speaker 1: in saying that the officers were okay based on the 325 00:20:22,080 --> 00:20:25,240 Speaker 1: plane views the doctrine justice course, which was essentially saying 326 00:20:25,320 --> 00:20:28,280 Speaker 1: that the Vermont Court gave the U. S. Supreme Court 327 00:20:28,320 --> 00:20:32,679 Speaker 1: ruling short shrift in ignoring this curtilage protection of the 328 00:20:32,760 --> 00:20:36,119 Speaker 1: justice had upheld before. I remember the oral arguments in 329 00:20:36,119 --> 00:20:39,600 Speaker 1: that case, specifically because Justice Scalia asked a lot of 330 00:20:39,680 --> 00:20:44,040 Speaker 1: questions about the curtilage and the drug sniffing dogs being 331 00:20:44,240 --> 00:20:47,480 Speaker 1: on the curtilage, and you know, the curtilage, it's part 332 00:20:47,520 --> 00:20:52,280 Speaker 1: of the house, that's right, And so that's Justice Corsages point. 333 00:20:52,440 --> 00:20:56,040 Speaker 1: And so even though it wasn't a decent justice course 334 00:20:56,160 --> 00:20:59,320 Speaker 1: is just statement. Again, joined by the two other justices, 335 00:20:59,400 --> 00:21:02,720 Speaker 1: Keagan and so To Mayor essentially served as a warning 336 00:21:02,840 --> 00:21:05,760 Speaker 1: for speak courts like Vermont and other courts that might 337 00:21:05,800 --> 00:21:09,359 Speaker 1: will similarly to give the curtilage more thought than the 338 00:21:09,440 --> 00:21:13,080 Speaker 1: Vermont Court did in this case. Joran, let's talk now 339 00:21:13,119 --> 00:21:17,000 Speaker 1: about your interviews with some of the advocates before the court. 340 00:21:17,640 --> 00:21:21,000 Speaker 1: You talked to two of the lawyers who argued in 341 00:21:21,560 --> 00:21:24,720 Speaker 1: the first argument session of the October term, So tell 342 00:21:24,800 --> 00:21:30,120 Speaker 1: us about their experiences. How was it to argue over 343 00:21:30,160 --> 00:21:33,880 Speaker 1: the phone? So it's really interesting to hear from lawyers 344 00:21:33,880 --> 00:21:37,800 Speaker 1: who participated in what was really a rare events, not 345 00:21:37,880 --> 00:21:40,159 Speaker 1: just being able to argue in front of the Supreme Court, 346 00:21:40,240 --> 00:21:43,400 Speaker 1: but doing so during the pandemic, when the justices are 347 00:21:43,400 --> 00:21:47,919 Speaker 1: holding arguments remotely due to pandemic precautions, they're not holding 348 00:21:48,240 --> 00:21:50,920 Speaker 1: arguments in the court. And so this raises the whole 349 00:21:51,400 --> 00:21:54,679 Speaker 1: post of issues, some of them just technological issues that 350 00:21:54,760 --> 00:21:58,040 Speaker 1: can raise a bunch of concerns for lawyers heading into 351 00:21:58,080 --> 00:22:00,680 Speaker 1: an argument, like making sure you have the right foam 352 00:22:00,680 --> 00:22:03,399 Speaker 1: line that you might not have ahead of the argument, 353 00:22:03,480 --> 00:22:06,520 Speaker 1: something as simple as that. That is yet another thing 354 00:22:06,600 --> 00:22:09,000 Speaker 1: that a lawyer needs to prepare for in addition to 355 00:22:09,080 --> 00:22:12,000 Speaker 1: the actually knowing the substance of a case, which might 356 00:22:12,040 --> 00:22:14,919 Speaker 1: be the only thing that a lawyers worried about in 357 00:22:15,320 --> 00:22:18,000 Speaker 1: normal times heading into an argument. So that was one 358 00:22:18,000 --> 00:22:20,479 Speaker 1: of the interesting thing and talking to them about and 359 00:22:20,520 --> 00:22:24,520 Speaker 1: just having this added layer of this technological issue which 360 00:22:24,520 --> 00:22:26,320 Speaker 1: all of us around the country are dealing with in 361 00:22:26,400 --> 00:22:29,199 Speaker 1: our own jobs, and learned that it applies to these 362 00:22:29,400 --> 00:22:32,520 Speaker 1: pandemic Supreme Court arguments too. I like to know some 363 00:22:32,600 --> 00:22:36,119 Speaker 1: of the details of this. So last term, when they 364 00:22:36,160 --> 00:22:39,080 Speaker 1: started with these arguments, some of the lawyers got dressed 365 00:22:39,160 --> 00:22:42,440 Speaker 1: up as if they were in court. Do most lawyers 366 00:22:42,520 --> 00:22:45,520 Speaker 1: do that now? Or are they casual since no one 367 00:22:45,560 --> 00:22:49,000 Speaker 1: can see them? Well, right, no one can see them. 368 00:22:49,000 --> 00:22:52,320 Speaker 1: But was what was interesting about this October argument session 369 00:22:52,359 --> 00:22:56,680 Speaker 1: in particular, was that the court artist, who's usually sketching 370 00:22:56,680 --> 00:22:59,199 Speaker 1: the justices and the lawyers at the Supreme Court art 371 00:22:59,280 --> 00:23:02,960 Speaker 1: lean sketches of the people who are arguing at home 372 00:23:03,000 --> 00:23:04,800 Speaker 1: this time as well, and so we got an inside 373 00:23:04,800 --> 00:23:08,600 Speaker 1: look at people's home offices or from whoever they were arguing. 374 00:23:08,640 --> 00:23:11,360 Speaker 1: We saw a lot of people are actually quite casual 375 00:23:11,400 --> 00:23:14,120 Speaker 1: and how they presented their arguments in terms of how 376 00:23:14,160 --> 00:23:17,800 Speaker 1: they were addressed, so different people's personalities came through that 377 00:23:17,800 --> 00:23:20,560 Speaker 1: way and their arguments to not everyone was just wearing 378 00:23:20,560 --> 00:23:23,119 Speaker 1: the usual suits. So that was an interesting feature of 379 00:23:23,160 --> 00:23:27,199 Speaker 1: these pandemic arguments that you don't usually see in normal times. 380 00:23:27,240 --> 00:23:31,280 Speaker 1: And also one lawyer you spoke to said that with 381 00:23:31,359 --> 00:23:33,840 Speaker 1: the way that they do it over the phone, Chief 382 00:23:33,880 --> 00:23:37,919 Speaker 1: Justice Roberts goes in order of seniority to each of 383 00:23:37,960 --> 00:23:39,879 Speaker 1: the justices, so you don't have a lot of the 384 00:23:39,960 --> 00:23:45,160 Speaker 1: cross talk or justices cutting into one another. So one 385 00:23:45,200 --> 00:23:47,520 Speaker 1: of the lawyers you spoke to said, you can't get 386 00:23:47,520 --> 00:23:50,520 Speaker 1: a feel from the questions as to whether this is 387 00:23:50,560 --> 00:23:53,320 Speaker 1: something that justices really care about or it's just their 388 00:23:53,359 --> 00:23:57,359 Speaker 1: turn that's right. So this sery atom or in order 389 00:23:57,480 --> 00:24:01,560 Speaker 1: questioning that the justices are doing in order to keep order. 390 00:24:02,040 --> 00:24:05,040 Speaker 1: During these telephone arguments where everyone can't see each other, 391 00:24:05,520 --> 00:24:09,360 Speaker 1: there's really intense debate over whether that's a good thing 392 00:24:09,440 --> 00:24:11,879 Speaker 1: or not. On the one hand, some people see it 393 00:24:11,920 --> 00:24:14,600 Speaker 1: as a good thing because all of the justices get 394 00:24:14,680 --> 00:24:18,000 Speaker 1: to ask their questions. The in court argument sessions are 395 00:24:18,000 --> 00:24:20,720 Speaker 1: really a chaotic free from all where you have Chief 396 00:24:20,760 --> 00:24:24,240 Speaker 1: Justice Roberts playing traffic cop and making sure some people 397 00:24:24,280 --> 00:24:28,400 Speaker 1: aren't interrupting others, and people get to answer their questions 398 00:24:28,440 --> 00:24:32,679 Speaker 1: and lawyers get to complete their answers, and so a 399 00:24:32,720 --> 00:24:36,560 Speaker 1: good thing some people think, anyways, that the questions actually 400 00:24:36,600 --> 00:24:39,760 Speaker 1: get to be asked and then fully answered, at least 401 00:24:39,800 --> 00:24:43,560 Speaker 1: within the time period that they allow for answers. On 402 00:24:43,600 --> 00:24:48,399 Speaker 1: the other hand, as you're alluding to, if justices just 403 00:24:48,480 --> 00:24:52,119 Speaker 1: get to ask their questions in order, oftentimes they'll have 404 00:24:52,240 --> 00:24:55,280 Speaker 1: these questions prepared in advance, it seems then they're not 405 00:24:55,320 --> 00:24:58,320 Speaker 1: really engaging in the normal back and forth which is 406 00:24:58,359 --> 00:25:01,200 Speaker 1: supposed to be the whole point of the oral argument, 407 00:25:01,240 --> 00:25:04,040 Speaker 1: into flesh out concerns in real time. And some of 408 00:25:04,040 --> 00:25:06,600 Speaker 1: that is happening during these arguments, but they're really more 409 00:25:07,040 --> 00:25:09,800 Speaker 1: canned in a sense, and so one wonders to some 410 00:25:09,960 --> 00:25:13,239 Speaker 1: extent how useful they are in terms of justice, is 411 00:25:13,320 --> 00:25:17,160 Speaker 1: really getting to dig deep into issues like they normally 412 00:25:17,200 --> 00:25:21,400 Speaker 1: would in an in person argument. And my favorite topic 413 00:25:21,520 --> 00:25:24,439 Speaker 1: is always food. And I know that some of the 414 00:25:24,520 --> 00:25:27,600 Speaker 1: lawyers they have a certain regiment in the morning, a 415 00:25:27,760 --> 00:25:30,960 Speaker 1: routine they go through tell us about the breakfast that 416 00:25:31,119 --> 00:25:34,440 Speaker 1: some of the lawyers were telling you about. Right again, 417 00:25:34,520 --> 00:25:36,720 Speaker 1: So that's another thing that you wouldn't think that you'd 418 00:25:36,720 --> 00:25:39,320 Speaker 1: be talking to the Supreme Court lawyers about But there's 419 00:25:39,320 --> 00:25:42,359 Speaker 1: apparently a lot of discussion about this too. What to 420 00:25:42,400 --> 00:25:44,600 Speaker 1: eat on the morning of an argument. I learned in 421 00:25:45,040 --> 00:25:47,000 Speaker 1: talking to one of the lawyers who argued that there's 422 00:25:47,040 --> 00:25:50,600 Speaker 1: apparently a lot of literature about this that's out there, 423 00:25:50,640 --> 00:25:53,399 Speaker 1: and so the it's it's well known, I think to 424 00:25:53,520 --> 00:25:56,359 Speaker 1: some who follow these arguments that lawyers will do moot 425 00:25:56,440 --> 00:25:59,160 Speaker 1: courts and prepare the substance of the arguments that they're 426 00:25:59,160 --> 00:26:01,720 Speaker 1: going to make in front of the justices. But what 427 00:26:01,760 --> 00:26:04,480 Speaker 1: the lawyers we spoke who talked about mooting the food 428 00:26:04,480 --> 00:26:06,280 Speaker 1: you're going to eat so you can simulate the day 429 00:26:06,280 --> 00:26:08,640 Speaker 1: of the argument and know how you're gonna feel. Then 430 00:26:08,680 --> 00:26:10,720 Speaker 1: in mooding what you're going to wear, as we talked 431 00:26:10,760 --> 00:26:13,160 Speaker 1: about before, so you know how you're going to feel 432 00:26:13,200 --> 00:26:16,439 Speaker 1: in that sense as well. So really it covers the 433 00:26:16,440 --> 00:26:19,200 Speaker 1: gamut all the different things that lawyers are thinking about 434 00:26:19,240 --> 00:26:21,920 Speaker 1: these days, just like the rest of us, even though 435 00:26:21,960 --> 00:26:26,960 Speaker 1: we're all remote. So is there a favorite breakfast choice? Well, 436 00:26:26,960 --> 00:26:30,000 Speaker 1: oatmeal came up during the conversation that we had in 437 00:26:30,119 --> 00:26:33,440 Speaker 1: terms of that just being something that's kind of bland 438 00:26:33,480 --> 00:26:37,399 Speaker 1: and won't cause any issues during the argument, but it 439 00:26:37,560 --> 00:26:40,040 Speaker 1: is a matter of taste and everyone does seem to 440 00:26:40,080 --> 00:26:44,680 Speaker 1: have their own way about handling that. Yeah. Interesting, And finally, 441 00:26:45,119 --> 00:26:50,639 Speaker 1: did anyone mention the absence of Justice Ginsburg? Oh? Sure? 442 00:26:51,320 --> 00:26:55,080 Speaker 1: An interesting thing about these cases that were argued this 443 00:26:55,160 --> 00:26:57,600 Speaker 1: month in October is that they were supposed to be 444 00:26:57,760 --> 00:27:01,080 Speaker 1: argued at the end of last and when Justice Ginsburg 445 00:27:01,200 --> 00:27:04,560 Speaker 1: was still alive and on the court. And so unfortunately 446 00:27:04,640 --> 00:27:07,119 Speaker 1: for the lawyers that they were telling it, they missed 447 00:27:07,119 --> 00:27:10,640 Speaker 1: out on this chance to argue in front of Justice Ginsburg, 448 00:27:10,720 --> 00:27:14,080 Speaker 1: even saying nothing of the relevance to how she might 449 00:27:14,080 --> 00:27:18,880 Speaker 1: have ruled in their respective cases. Just having missed out 450 00:27:19,000 --> 00:27:22,040 Speaker 1: on arguing in front of that historic figure, even over 451 00:27:22,080 --> 00:27:25,040 Speaker 1: the phone, is something that these lawyers missed. Thanks so much, 452 00:27:25,160 --> 00:27:28,920 Speaker 1: Jordan's that's Bloomberg Law Editor Jordan Ruben And that's it 453 00:27:29,040 --> 00:27:32,120 Speaker 1: for the edition of the Bloomberg Law Show. I'm June Grosso. 454 00:27:32,280 --> 00:27:34,639 Speaker 1: Thanks so much for listening, and remember to tune to 455 00:27:34,680 --> 00:27:37,520 Speaker 1: The Bloomberg Law Show every week night at ten pm 456 00:27:37,560 --> 00:27:40,000 Speaker 1: Eastern right here on Bloomberg Radio.