1
00:00:03,200 --> 00:00:08,000
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio.

2
00:00:10,360 --> 00:00:14,680
Speaker 2: Insurrection is a broad term, and if there's some debate

3
00:00:14,720 --> 00:00:17,640
Speaker 2: about it, I suppose that will go into the decision.

4
00:00:17,680 --> 00:00:21,080
Speaker 2: And then eventually what we would be deciding whether there

5
00:00:21,120 --> 00:00:24,040
Speaker 2: was an insurrection when one president did something as opposed

6
00:00:24,040 --> 00:00:26,320
Speaker 2: to when somebody else did something else.

7
00:00:26,360 --> 00:00:26,920
Speaker 3: And what do we do?

8
00:00:26,960 --> 00:00:31,120
Speaker 2: Do we wait until near the time of counting the

9
00:00:31,160 --> 00:00:34,400
Speaker 2: ballots and sort of go through which states are valid

10
00:00:34,440 --> 00:00:35,360
Speaker 2: and which states aren't.

11
00:00:35,880 --> 00:00:39,559
Speaker 1: Chief Justice John Roberts expressed the concern that seemed to

12
00:00:39,800 --> 00:00:44,080
Speaker 1: underlie the oral arguments over Colorado kicking Donald Trump off

13
00:00:44,120 --> 00:00:47,800
Speaker 1: the ballot for engaging in an insurrection. The Supreme Court

14
00:00:47,840 --> 00:00:50,560
Speaker 1: doesn't want to be in the business of deciding every

15
00:00:50,680 --> 00:00:55,120
Speaker 1: challenge over ballot access of presidential candidates. With the consequent

16
00:00:55,240 --> 00:00:59,040
Speaker 1: political ramifications, there seemed to be little doubt that the

17
00:00:59,080 --> 00:01:02,080
Speaker 1: Court will vote to keep Trump on the ballot, As

18
00:01:02,120 --> 00:01:06,280
Speaker 1: both liberal and conservative justices questioned whether a state can

19
00:01:06,400 --> 00:01:10,440
Speaker 1: enforce Section three of the Fourteenth Amendment, a provision barring

20
00:01:10,480 --> 00:01:14,559
Speaker 1: those who engaged in insurrection from holding office. Here's Justice

21
00:01:14,560 --> 00:01:15,440
Speaker 1: Elena Kagan.

22
00:01:15,840 --> 00:01:18,160
Speaker 3: I think that the question that you have to confront

23
00:01:18,640 --> 00:01:21,240
Speaker 3: is why a single state should decide who gets to

24
00:01:21,280 --> 00:01:24,360
Speaker 3: be president of the United States. In other words, you know,

25
00:01:24,480 --> 00:01:27,720
Speaker 3: this question of whether a former president is disqualified for

26
00:01:27,800 --> 00:01:33,000
Speaker 3: insurrection to be president again is just say it. It

27
00:01:33,080 --> 00:01:34,440
Speaker 3: sounds awfully national.

28
00:01:34,840 --> 00:01:37,760
Speaker 1: As for the question of whether Trump had engaged in

29
00:01:37,800 --> 00:01:41,840
Speaker 1: an insurrection, in two hours of oral arguments, only one

30
00:01:42,120 --> 00:01:46,440
Speaker 1: Justice Katanji Brown Jackson asked that question of Trump's attorney

31
00:01:46,680 --> 00:01:47,560
Speaker 1: Jonathan Mitchell.

32
00:01:47,920 --> 00:01:50,520
Speaker 2: For an insurrection, there needs to be an organized, concerted

33
00:01:50,560 --> 00:01:53,840
Speaker 2: effort to overthrow the government of the United States through violence.

34
00:01:54,280 --> 00:01:57,560
Speaker 1: And this point is that a chaotic effort to overthrow

35
00:01:57,600 --> 00:01:58,920
Speaker 1: the government is not an insurrection.

36
00:01:59,040 --> 00:02:00,840
Speaker 4: Well, we didn't see that it's an effort to overthrow

37
00:02:00,880 --> 00:02:01,640
Speaker 4: the government.

38
00:02:01,320 --> 00:02:02,400
Speaker 5: Either of Justice Jackson.

39
00:02:02,640 --> 00:02:05,760
Speaker 1: My guest is election law expert Derek Muller, a professor

40
00:02:05,760 --> 00:02:09,760
Speaker 1: at Notre Dame Law School. Broad question. First, does it

41
00:02:09,800 --> 00:02:13,640
Speaker 1: appear that the justices are going to rule that Colorado

42
00:02:13,880 --> 00:02:18,359
Speaker 1: can't disqualify Trump from the ballot, perhaps even unanimously.

43
00:02:18,919 --> 00:02:20,799
Speaker 4: Yeah, I think it's going to be an unanimous or

44
00:02:20,840 --> 00:02:24,520
Speaker 4: near unanimous decision reversing the Colorado Supreme Court. Here, the

45
00:02:24,720 --> 00:02:28,280
Speaker 4: justices across the ideological spectrum seemed concerned about the notion

46
00:02:28,400 --> 00:02:31,440
Speaker 4: that one state could have such an outsized influence and

47
00:02:31,560 --> 00:02:34,680
Speaker 4: a presidential election to have such an influence on the

48
00:02:34,680 --> 00:02:38,000
Speaker 4: rest of the process, and to do so without any

49
00:02:38,080 --> 00:02:42,360
Speaker 4: guidance from Congress. The presidency's unique office. It's not just

50
00:02:42,520 --> 00:02:44,880
Speaker 4: an office out of one state, but an office that

51
00:02:45,120 --> 00:02:47,520
Speaker 4: comes from the choices of many states making the decision.

52
00:02:47,800 --> 00:02:50,320
Speaker 4: I think the notion that the Supreme Court would be

53
00:02:50,320 --> 00:02:53,480
Speaker 4: expected to clean up those messes if different states reached

54
00:02:53,520 --> 00:02:55,760
Speaker 4: different resolutions, or that every time there was a challenge

55
00:02:55,760 --> 00:02:57,560
Speaker 4: it would end up a the Supreme Court store was

56
00:02:57,600 --> 00:02:59,840
Speaker 4: certainly unattractive to them. So I think there's a lot

57
00:02:59,840 --> 00:03:02,000
Speaker 4: of consensus that Trump's name will appear.

58
00:03:01,720 --> 00:03:02,200
Speaker 5: On the ballot.

59
00:03:02,480 --> 00:03:06,000
Speaker 1: Let's discuss some of the arguments that Trump raised. He'd

60
00:03:06,120 --> 00:03:09,720
Speaker 1: argue that the president isn't covered by the Insurrection clause

61
00:03:10,040 --> 00:03:13,120
Speaker 1: because the president is not an officer of the United

62
00:03:13,160 --> 00:03:16,440
Speaker 1: States as defined in that clause. And there was a

63
00:03:16,440 --> 00:03:19,640
Speaker 1: lot of discussion of what is an officer does a

64
00:03:19,680 --> 00:03:23,160
Speaker 1: president qualify? And Justice Neil Gorsich basically gave a history

65
00:03:23,240 --> 00:03:26,440
Speaker 1: lesson at one point don the term officer versus office.

66
00:03:26,800 --> 00:03:28,880
Speaker 4: Yeah, I mean, I think Justice Gorsuch was worried about

67
00:03:28,880 --> 00:03:32,240
Speaker 4: some of what I described as pedantic originalism. We're worried

68
00:03:32,240 --> 00:03:35,800
Speaker 4: about parsing these terms of such fine precision. Now that

69
00:03:35,960 --> 00:03:39,480
Speaker 4: said Justice Jackson spent a significant amount of time at argument,

70
00:03:39,800 --> 00:03:43,840
Speaker 4: suggests that the history at the time shows that the

71
00:03:43,880 --> 00:03:48,280
Speaker 4: Reconstruction Congress was really worried about state offices and about

72
00:03:48,360 --> 00:03:53,240
Speaker 4: state factions of ex Confederates gathering together and retaking parts

73
00:03:53,280 --> 00:03:55,840
Speaker 4: of the government. And if that's the case, the fact

74
00:03:55,920 --> 00:03:59,160
Speaker 4: that the word president is not listed among those offices

75
00:03:59,200 --> 00:04:03,680
Speaker 4: suggest that the Framers were not terribly worried about the

76
00:04:03,680 --> 00:04:06,120
Speaker 4: presidency at all. And if that's the case, the inference

77
00:04:06,120 --> 00:04:08,320
Speaker 4: should be the presidency was just not of their concern

78
00:04:08,360 --> 00:04:11,000
Speaker 4: and therefore not one of those offices covered. So while

79
00:04:11,040 --> 00:04:13,200
Speaker 4: she spoke up about that proposition, it's not clear how

80
00:04:13,200 --> 00:04:14,640
Speaker 4: many other justices would agree with her.

81
00:04:14,960 --> 00:04:18,120
Speaker 1: What about kicking this over to Congress and saying that

82
00:04:18,480 --> 00:04:20,960
Speaker 1: Congress has to enforce Section three.

83
00:04:21,480 --> 00:04:24,719
Speaker 4: Yeah, there were versions of the congressional enforcement question that

84
00:04:24,800 --> 00:04:28,279
Speaker 4: came up. Justice Kavanaugh seemed to lean most strongly into

85
00:04:28,360 --> 00:04:32,160
Speaker 4: an eighteen sixty nine decision called Griffin's Case, which involved

86
00:04:32,560 --> 00:04:36,680
Speaker 4: then Chief Justice Chase, who was riding circuit at the

87
00:04:36,680 --> 00:04:40,320
Speaker 4: lower court, issuing a decision effectively saying Congress needs to

88
00:04:40,360 --> 00:04:43,680
Speaker 4: do this, and nobody else can do this without congressional involvement.

89
00:04:43,880 --> 00:04:45,400
Speaker 4: It's not clear there was a lot of support for that.

90
00:04:45,440 --> 00:04:48,479
Speaker 4: Justice set of my own particular pushed back on that argument,

91
00:04:48,640 --> 00:04:51,560
Speaker 4: but there was broad consensus on a different dimension, and

92
00:04:51,680 --> 00:04:55,560
Speaker 4: several justices expressed concern that one state could enforce this

93
00:04:55,640 --> 00:04:59,359
Speaker 4: in a presidential election without some kind of federal guidance

94
00:04:59,440 --> 00:05:01,880
Speaker 4: or federal ar oversight. That not necessarily clear what that

95
00:05:01,920 --> 00:05:04,400
Speaker 4: would look like, but I think the concern that states

96
00:05:04,400 --> 00:05:06,640
Speaker 4: could go about this on their own in a presidential

97
00:05:06,640 --> 00:05:09,240
Speaker 4: election to keep a candidate off and again have an

98
00:05:09,279 --> 00:05:13,159
Speaker 4: effective exclusion that could carry over to other states was

99
00:05:13,200 --> 00:05:16,279
Speaker 4: problematic and a reason why the uniquely national office the

100
00:05:16,279 --> 00:05:20,719
Speaker 4: presidency required perhaps unique congressional legislation to implement it in

101
00:05:20,760 --> 00:05:21,320
Speaker 4: such a case.

102
00:05:21,680 --> 00:05:24,880
Speaker 1: Just as Kavanaugh gave what i'll call a little speech

103
00:05:25,400 --> 00:05:31,320
Speaker 1: about democracy and the importance of not disenfranchising voters, do

104
00:05:31,400 --> 00:05:34,679
Speaker 1: you think that underlies all this? And it's really more

105
00:05:35,000 --> 00:05:38,719
Speaker 1: a political consideration that the Court doesn't want to be

106
00:05:38,880 --> 00:05:42,240
Speaker 1: the one to say no, this person can't be on

107
00:05:42,320 --> 00:05:42,839
Speaker 1: the ballot.

108
00:05:43,120 --> 00:05:45,479
Speaker 4: Yeah, I mean there are some radiations of this to

109
00:05:45,600 --> 00:05:48,600
Speaker 4: think about. There's one level, which is, in the case

110
00:05:48,600 --> 00:05:52,479
Speaker 4: of ambiguity or uncertainty, how confident do we have to

111
00:05:52,480 --> 00:05:55,520
Speaker 4: be about this result before we're going to exclude somebody's

112
00:05:55,520 --> 00:05:57,520
Speaker 4: course such and some others. Yeah, did question a little

113
00:05:57,520 --> 00:06:01,560
Speaker 4: bit more broadly about the consequence of this decision, And

114
00:06:01,640 --> 00:06:04,599
Speaker 4: I think the consequences could be viewed in those terms

115
00:06:04,600 --> 00:06:07,359
Speaker 4: of the people making a decision that people voting, but

116
00:06:07,440 --> 00:06:10,200
Speaker 4: also in terms of very real concerns about the Court's

117
00:06:10,279 --> 00:06:13,520
Speaker 4: involvement in the case. And while it wasn't as overt

118
00:06:13,560 --> 00:06:16,120
Speaker 4: in these terms, I think there is a concern from

119
00:06:16,160 --> 00:06:19,080
Speaker 4: the Court that if it's asked on a regular basis

120
00:06:19,120 --> 00:06:23,240
Speaker 4: to adjudicate the qualifications and candidacies of presidential candidates, it

121
00:06:23,279 --> 00:06:25,320
Speaker 4: puts itself in a very difficult spot and it finds

122
00:06:25,320 --> 00:06:27,800
Speaker 4: its healthy arbiter of decisions that we typically think are

123
00:06:27,839 --> 00:06:30,840
Speaker 4: left to the political process. So there was an undercurrent

124
00:06:31,120 --> 00:06:34,200
Speaker 4: of allowing the political process to play out. But I

125
00:06:34,200 --> 00:06:37,960
Speaker 4: think part of that was more skepticism that these states

126
00:06:37,960 --> 00:06:40,080
Speaker 4: had done the right thing, or that the Supreme Court

127
00:06:40,120 --> 00:06:42,200
Speaker 4: was the right place to do it, rather than maybe

128
00:06:42,279 --> 00:06:44,520
Speaker 4: just some affirmation that states should be able to do

129
00:06:44,560 --> 00:06:45,280
Speaker 4: what they want.

130
00:06:45,480 --> 00:06:48,160
Speaker 1: Do you think there's a fear sort of like echoes

131
00:06:48,160 --> 00:06:50,240
Speaker 1: of Bush v. Gore, we don't want to be in

132
00:06:50,279 --> 00:06:50,920
Speaker 1: that position.

133
00:06:51,440 --> 00:06:53,040
Speaker 4: Yeah, I think there are echoes of that. I think

134
00:06:53,080 --> 00:06:55,480
Speaker 4: to be sure, I think the Court, since Bush Versus,

135
00:06:55,839 --> 00:06:59,919
Speaker 4: was certainly acutely aware of the consequences of being an

136
00:07:00,040 --> 00:07:03,880
Speaker 4: involved in decisions like this. Now Colorado Supreme Court's decision

137
00:07:04,200 --> 00:07:06,800
Speaker 4: puts the United States Supreme Court in a difficult place.

138
00:07:06,960 --> 00:07:10,160
Speaker 4: Right if it acts or if it doesn't act, it

139
00:07:10,280 --> 00:07:13,119
Speaker 4: finds itself on one side of a political question or another.

140
00:07:13,520 --> 00:07:15,200
Speaker 4: So that's why I think I was somewhat heartened to

141
00:07:15,240 --> 00:07:18,560
Speaker 4: see the Supreme Court justices coalescing around arguments with one

142
00:07:18,560 --> 00:07:22,320
Speaker 4: another and supporting a sort of singular output. So I

143
00:07:22,320 --> 00:07:23,960
Speaker 4: think there's going to be a lot of effort to

144
00:07:24,040 --> 00:07:27,760
Speaker 4: coalace around a clear decision from the Court the percurium,

145
00:07:28,080 --> 00:07:31,600
Speaker 4: ideally unanimous decision that resolves the issue at least for

146
00:07:31,800 --> 00:07:35,800
Speaker 4: presidential candidates or some set of federal candidates, and moves

147
00:07:35,840 --> 00:07:38,440
Speaker 4: on to say that the political process needs to resolve it.

148
00:07:38,480 --> 00:07:40,720
Speaker 4: And that might be unsatisfying to some, but I think

149
00:07:40,840 --> 00:07:42,840
Speaker 4: at the top level I think the Court is aware

150
00:07:42,960 --> 00:07:45,640
Speaker 4: that it doesn't want to be viewed as overtly partisan,

151
00:07:45,880 --> 00:07:47,680
Speaker 4: and whatever it can do to mitigate that, it will

152
00:07:47,680 --> 00:07:48,440
Speaker 4: definitely try to do.

153
00:07:48,760 --> 00:07:51,760
Speaker 1: So do you have any idea what path they'll choose

154
00:07:51,800 --> 00:07:52,440
Speaker 1: to get there?

155
00:07:52,680 --> 00:07:55,880
Speaker 4: Yeah, I think the goal will probably be something along

156
00:07:55,920 --> 00:07:59,120
Speaker 4: the lines of this notion that the presidency is a

157
00:07:59,240 --> 00:08:03,280
Speaker 4: unique national office. The Court has its precedence saying that

158
00:08:03,320 --> 00:08:06,120
Speaker 4: states have less of an interest in patrolling the ballot

159
00:08:06,400 --> 00:08:09,600
Speaker 4: for those kinds of candidacies because it is a unique

160
00:08:09,680 --> 00:08:14,200
Speaker 4: national office. That there are concerns about how states administer

161
00:08:14,320 --> 00:08:18,480
Speaker 4: this inconsistently, or that if there's one state that moves first,

162
00:08:18,560 --> 00:08:22,080
Speaker 4: how does that affect other states? And those practical consequences

163
00:08:22,240 --> 00:08:25,600
Speaker 4: are significant enough to suggest that Congress needs to be

164
00:08:25,640 --> 00:08:28,480
Speaker 4: the one to provide guidance and rules in this context.

165
00:08:28,480 --> 00:08:29,200
Speaker 5: At least it.

166
00:08:29,080 --> 00:08:31,360
Speaker 4: Comes to Section three of the fourteenth Amendment. So it

167
00:08:31,400 --> 00:08:33,960
Speaker 4: will be I think something that is a little bit

168
00:08:34,000 --> 00:08:37,680
Speaker 4: more election law heavy than Section three heavy, but something

169
00:08:37,720 --> 00:08:41,079
Speaker 4: that reflects these concerns that presidential elections are unique and

170
00:08:41,160 --> 00:08:44,120
Speaker 4: require some kind of federal guidance before they can be

171
00:08:44,160 --> 00:08:46,120
Speaker 4: regulated in the way that Colorado tried to do.

172
00:08:46,160 --> 00:08:49,640
Speaker 1: Here, there was only one question about what's at the

173
00:08:49,679 --> 00:08:54,400
Speaker 1: heart of this Colorado case? Did Donald Trump engage in

174
00:08:54,440 --> 00:08:58,720
Speaker 1: an insurrection? And after an hour Justice Katanji Brown Jackson

175
00:08:59,080 --> 00:09:02,000
Speaker 1: pose that question, and then it sort of disappeared, never.

176
00:09:02,480 --> 00:09:03,160
Speaker 6: More to be heard.

177
00:09:03,559 --> 00:09:06,040
Speaker 4: Yes, I think there was very little appetite on the

178
00:09:06,080 --> 00:09:09,439
Speaker 4: court to be talking about engaging in insurrection. About the

179
00:09:09,480 --> 00:09:13,559
Speaker 4: First Amendment issues, There was almost no discussion about those topics.

180
00:09:13,720 --> 00:09:17,840
Speaker 4: There was some brief discussions about what insurrection was. Trump's

181
00:09:17,840 --> 00:09:20,040
Speaker 4: attorney did mention that, you know, it was enous act

182
00:09:20,320 --> 00:09:22,440
Speaker 4: from an the l acts committed that day, so some

183
00:09:22,600 --> 00:09:25,319
Speaker 4: condemnation there. And so the court did avoid some of

184
00:09:25,360 --> 00:09:30,040
Speaker 4: those really thorny in the weeds, fact intensive or disputed questions,

185
00:09:30,360 --> 00:09:33,480
Speaker 4: focusing instead on a variety of other topics that they

186
00:09:33,480 --> 00:09:36,239
Speaker 4: could coalesce around. And so while it might have surprised

187
00:09:36,240 --> 00:09:38,280
Speaker 4: people that they think a lot more attention, it was

188
00:09:38,280 --> 00:09:40,280
Speaker 4: not terribly surprising to me. I think that was the

189
00:09:40,320 --> 00:09:42,000
Speaker 4: issue that they wanted to avoid the most of all

190
00:09:42,080 --> 00:09:46,079
Speaker 4: messy facts with deep political consequences. If they can decide

191
00:09:46,160 --> 00:09:47,720
Speaker 4: on pure law, all the better for them.

192
00:09:48,200 --> 00:09:50,640
Speaker 1: There was sort of a warning from the attorney for

193
00:09:51,080 --> 00:09:54,720
Speaker 1: the Colorado voters. He said, if Colorado loses this case,

194
00:09:55,200 --> 00:09:57,960
Speaker 1: the issue could come back with a vengeance. If Trump

195
00:09:58,040 --> 00:10:01,200
Speaker 1: was elected president and then members of Congress have to

196
00:10:01,240 --> 00:10:04,319
Speaker 1: decide whether to let him take office, do you think

197
00:10:04,320 --> 00:10:06,880
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court is going to leave that question open?

198
00:10:07,240 --> 00:10:09,120
Speaker 4: It seems like they might, you know, the question of

199
00:10:09,120 --> 00:10:11,480
Speaker 4: whether or not Congress on January sixth, twenty twenty five

200
00:10:11,520 --> 00:10:14,240
Speaker 4: will count electoral votes or try to object to them

201
00:10:14,240 --> 00:10:16,520
Speaker 4: and refuse to count them is certainly an open one.

202
00:10:16,600 --> 00:10:19,400
Speaker 4: And then there's the separate question about what happens after

203
00:10:19,400 --> 00:10:22,080
Speaker 4: Trump takes office. Will there'll be lawsuits to challenge his

204
00:10:22,120 --> 00:10:25,320
Speaker 4: official action? And if so, what did those challenges look like?

205
00:10:25,559 --> 00:10:28,040
Speaker 4: So if the court moves in the direction that we

206
00:10:28,080 --> 00:10:31,480
Speaker 4: anticipate it's moving, it seems that it's more a valid

207
00:10:31,480 --> 00:10:35,680
Speaker 4: access issue and less an issue of disqualification Intersection three.

208
00:10:35,760 --> 00:10:38,160
Speaker 4: But it does leave the door open for another day

209
00:10:38,200 --> 00:10:39,960
Speaker 4: the resolve these questions.

210
00:10:39,559 --> 00:10:43,480
Speaker 1: After this argument, and how the justices seem to be

211
00:10:43,880 --> 00:10:45,480
Speaker 1: fleeing for the exits.

212
00:10:45,559 --> 00:10:47,360
Speaker 5: In my opinion, do you.

213
00:10:47,320 --> 00:10:51,600
Speaker 1: Think that when Trump makes a request for sirchiari from

214
00:10:51,640 --> 00:10:56,439
Speaker 1: the DC Circuit Court decision rejecting his claims of presidential immunity.

215
00:10:56,640 --> 00:10:59,160
Speaker 1: Do you think that they'll refuse to take that case

216
00:10:59,280 --> 00:11:02,640
Speaker 1: or they'll be four hardy souls who want to address

217
00:11:02,679 --> 00:11:03,400
Speaker 1: that issue.

218
00:11:03,600 --> 00:11:06,520
Speaker 4: Yeah, I don't know. You know if I'm thinking what

219
00:11:06,559 --> 00:11:08,480
Speaker 4: the court might do here, and maybe I'm wrong, But

220
00:11:08,880 --> 00:11:11,319
Speaker 4: you issue a decision in a couple of weeks on

221
00:11:11,559 --> 00:11:13,439
Speaker 4: this case saying Trump can appear on the ballot, and

222
00:11:13,520 --> 00:11:16,320
Speaker 4: the same day you deny sircerari in the immunity case

223
00:11:16,360 --> 00:11:19,680
Speaker 4: and essentially say the DC Circuit opinion stands and he

224
00:11:19,720 --> 00:11:23,280
Speaker 4: can be subject to criminal prosecution. So in both cases,

225
00:11:23,320 --> 00:11:25,959
Speaker 4: the Court would be letting the political and legal process

226
00:11:26,040 --> 00:11:28,240
Speaker 4: play out without needing to step in.

227
00:11:28,360 --> 00:11:28,560
Speaker 6: Now.

228
00:11:28,679 --> 00:11:30,320
Speaker 4: I don't know if they're going to do that. There

229
00:11:30,400 --> 00:11:33,640
Speaker 4: might be some interest in addressing the immunity issues at

230
00:11:33,720 --> 00:11:36,560
Speaker 4: some level from some justices in the court, but that

231
00:11:36,640 --> 00:11:38,480
Speaker 4: is kind of a wait and see approach. We don't

232
00:11:38,640 --> 00:11:40,800
Speaker 4: quite know how these two cases might relate to one another,

233
00:11:40,880 --> 00:11:43,280
Speaker 4: but there definitely seem to be linked to some degree.

234
00:11:43,480 --> 00:11:45,560
Speaker 1: At least we won't have too long to wait and

235
00:11:45,600 --> 00:11:48,160
Speaker 1: see what the Supreme Court does with this. Thanks so

236
00:11:48,240 --> 00:11:51,520
Speaker 1: much for the conversation, Derek. That's Professor Derek Muller of

237
00:11:51,600 --> 00:11:55,680
Speaker 1: Notre Dame Law School. Coming up. One apparent victory, one defeat.

238
00:11:56,040 --> 00:11:58,720
Speaker 1: We'll take a look at why Trump lost his presidential

239
00:11:58,760 --> 00:12:02,439
Speaker 1: immunity arguments the DC Appellate Court. I'm June Grosso and

240
00:12:02,480 --> 00:12:04,960
Speaker 1: you're listening to Bloomberg and they.

241
00:12:04,880 --> 00:12:09,040
Speaker 7: Talked about threat to democracy. That's your real threat to democracy.

242
00:12:10,000 --> 00:12:12,560
Speaker 7: And I feel that as a president you have to

243
00:12:12,559 --> 00:12:16,400
Speaker 7: have immunity, very simple, and if you doubt, as an example,

244
00:12:16,440 --> 00:12:20,000
Speaker 7: if this case, we're lost on an immunity and I

245
00:12:20,080 --> 00:12:24,320
Speaker 7: did nothing wrong, absolutely nothing wrong. I'm working for the country.

246
00:12:24,600 --> 00:12:28,920
Speaker 1: But the DC's Circuit Court of Appeals definitively rejected former

247
00:12:29,000 --> 00:12:32,679
Speaker 1: President Donald Trump's claims that the office of the presidency

248
00:12:33,080 --> 00:12:37,160
Speaker 1: shields him from criminal prosecution. In a unanimous ruling, the

249
00:12:37,200 --> 00:12:40,560
Speaker 1: three judge panel found that quote, for the purpose of

250
00:12:40,600 --> 00:12:45,440
Speaker 1: this criminal case, former President Trump has become citizen Trump,

251
00:12:45,640 --> 00:12:49,199
Speaker 1: moving him one step closer to standing trial for trying

252
00:12:49,240 --> 00:12:52,680
Speaker 1: to overturn the twenty twenty election. The judges made their

253
00:12:52,720 --> 00:12:56,800
Speaker 1: skepticism of Trump's immunity claims clear during the oral arguments

254
00:12:56,880 --> 00:12:59,920
Speaker 1: last month. Here's Judge Karen Lacraft Henderson.

255
00:13:00,360 --> 00:13:06,280
Speaker 8: I think it's paradoxical to say that his constitutional duty

256
00:13:06,679 --> 00:13:10,800
Speaker 8: to take care that the laws be faithfully executed allows

257
00:13:10,880 --> 00:13:15,760
Speaker 8: him to violate criminal laws.

258
00:13:15,440 --> 00:13:19,240
Speaker 1: And in their opinion, the judges repeatedly used Trump's former

259
00:13:19,320 --> 00:13:23,360
Speaker 1: words and positions against him, for example, pointing out that

260
00:13:23,480 --> 00:13:26,800
Speaker 1: during his impeachment, Trump had argued that he could still

261
00:13:26,840 --> 00:13:30,840
Speaker 1: be criminally charged, something Judge Florence Pan brought out during

262
00:13:30,840 --> 00:13:32,000
Speaker 1: the oral arguments.

263
00:13:32,280 --> 00:13:35,760
Speaker 9: You took the position or your client did, during the

264
00:13:35,760 --> 00:13:40,200
Speaker 9: impeachment proceedings that there would be an option for criminal

265
00:13:40,240 --> 00:13:43,520
Speaker 9: prosecution later, and it's in the congressional record. And I

266
00:13:43,520 --> 00:13:46,200
Speaker 9: guess the question is what has changed or why have

267
00:13:46,200 --> 00:13:47,120
Speaker 9: you changed your position.

268
00:13:47,640 --> 00:13:50,120
Speaker 1: The Court put the ruling on hold so that Trump

269
00:13:50,120 --> 00:13:52,920
Speaker 1: can appeal to the Supreme Court, but they gave him

270
00:13:52,960 --> 00:13:56,640
Speaker 1: a tight deadline, only giving him until Monday to file

271
00:13:56,679 --> 00:14:00,560
Speaker 1: the appeal, joining me his former federal prosecutor, just A. Wrath,

272
00:14:00,679 --> 00:14:04,319
Speaker 1: a professor at Cardozo Law School. The court said, our

273
00:14:04,360 --> 00:14:08,640
Speaker 1: analysis is guided by the Constitution, federal statutes, and history,

274
00:14:08,720 --> 00:14:12,640
Speaker 1: as well as concerns of public policy. What's your impression

275
00:14:12,800 --> 00:14:14,679
Speaker 1: broadly of the opinion.

276
00:14:15,400 --> 00:14:18,760
Speaker 10: My opinion is that it is a resounding rejection of

277
00:14:18,760 --> 00:14:22,400
Speaker 10: Trump's claim of immunity from criminal prosecution. And that it's

278
00:14:22,400 --> 00:14:26,320
Speaker 10: an extremely thorough well written and well reasoned opinion that

279
00:14:26,520 --> 00:14:29,720
Speaker 10: is unanimous, issued on behalf of a panel that included

280
00:14:29,800 --> 00:14:33,320
Speaker 10: one judge appointed by a Republican president, all speaking in

281
00:14:33,360 --> 00:14:36,520
Speaker 10: one calm but clear voice, holding that a former president

282
00:14:36,600 --> 00:14:37,720
Speaker 10: is not above the law.

283
00:14:38,400 --> 00:14:42,920
Speaker 1: They address all of Trump's arguments for immunity and shoot

284
00:14:42,920 --> 00:14:46,200
Speaker 1: them down one by one, starting with his argument that

285
00:14:46,440 --> 00:14:48,920
Speaker 1: separation of powers immunizes him.

286
00:14:49,600 --> 00:14:53,320
Speaker 10: The court took that argument seriously and addressed it thoroughly,

287
00:14:53,720 --> 00:14:57,480
Speaker 10: but found that there was no problem in separation of

288
00:14:57,520 --> 00:15:03,000
Speaker 10: powers concerns with a form president being held criminally responsible

289
00:15:03,280 --> 00:15:06,240
Speaker 10: for actions taken while in office that were in violation

290
00:15:06,560 --> 00:15:11,040
Speaker 10: of federal criminal laws passed by the United States Congress.

291
00:15:11,360 --> 00:15:14,760
Speaker 10: And it cited precedents in which presidential actions had been

292
00:15:14,800 --> 00:15:19,280
Speaker 10: subject to judicial review, including former President truman seizure of

293
00:15:19,320 --> 00:15:21,560
Speaker 10: the steel mills, and the Court said it did not

294
00:15:21,840 --> 00:15:26,080
Speaker 10: find that separation of powers concerns prevented the Court from

295
00:15:26,080 --> 00:15:30,080
Speaker 10: exercising oversight through the adjudication of the criminal laws over

296
00:15:30,200 --> 00:15:33,480
Speaker 10: acts committed by a former president while in office that

297
00:15:33,600 --> 00:15:35,440
Speaker 10: in fact were violations of criminal law.

298
00:15:36,040 --> 00:15:38,880
Speaker 1: As you mentioned, there was a measured tone, but I

299
00:15:38,960 --> 00:15:41,920
Speaker 1: thought that the tone was a little less measured when

300
00:15:41,920 --> 00:15:46,200
Speaker 1: they had concerns about quote at bottom, former President Trump's

301
00:15:46,240 --> 00:15:50,240
Speaker 1: stance would collapse our system of separated powers by placing

302
00:15:50,280 --> 00:15:54,120
Speaker 1: the president beyond the reach of all three branches. At

303
00:15:54,160 --> 00:15:58,400
Speaker 1: different points, I just thought that they raised some heightened concerns.

304
00:15:58,960 --> 00:16:02,520
Speaker 10: They certainly concerns, and there were a number of really

305
00:16:02,680 --> 00:16:06,400
Speaker 10: striking portions of the opinion that in a sense, in

306
00:16:06,440 --> 00:16:09,720
Speaker 10: a very measured way, I thought, expressed a sense of

307
00:16:09,800 --> 00:16:13,640
Speaker 10: outrage over the implications of the former president's arguments. So

308
00:16:13,760 --> 00:16:16,160
Speaker 10: you just read one portion of it. There's another portion

309
00:16:16,240 --> 00:16:19,040
Speaker 10: where the court said it would be a striking paradox

310
00:16:19,080 --> 00:16:22,120
Speaker 10: if the president, who alone is vested with the constitutional

311
00:16:22,240 --> 00:16:25,640
Speaker 10: duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed,

312
00:16:25,960 --> 00:16:29,800
Speaker 10: were the sole officer capable of defying those laws with impunity.

313
00:16:30,160 --> 00:16:32,040
Speaker 10: So there are a number of statements like that that

314
00:16:32,120 --> 00:16:36,600
Speaker 10: are just really strong rejections of the notion that a

315
00:16:36,680 --> 00:16:41,440
Speaker 10: former president would be immune from prosecution and from his

316
00:16:41,520 --> 00:16:43,120
Speaker 10: actions being reviewed by the court.

317
00:16:43,880 --> 00:16:48,640
Speaker 1: They also took on policy considerations that he'd raised. Trump's

318
00:16:48,680 --> 00:16:51,760
Speaker 1: lawyer had said, and Trump himself has said this that

319
00:16:52,000 --> 00:16:57,080
Speaker 1: if presidents didn't have immunity, it would risk chilling their actions,

320
00:16:57,120 --> 00:17:01,560
Speaker 1: and that presidents would be routinely indicted after they left office.

321
00:17:01,920 --> 00:17:06,280
Speaker 10: Yes, the court did take into account those policy considerations

322
00:17:06,640 --> 00:17:11,359
Speaker 10: and said that not only was there no historical precedent

323
00:17:11,520 --> 00:17:16,119
Speaker 10: for immunity from criminal prosecution of the kind that former

324
00:17:16,160 --> 00:17:21,600
Speaker 10: President Trump thought, but that these policy considerations did not

325
00:17:21,720 --> 00:17:25,679
Speaker 10: weigh in favor of recognizing such immunity for the first

326
00:17:25,680 --> 00:17:29,120
Speaker 10: time in this case. They said that it has always

327
00:17:29,160 --> 00:17:33,280
Speaker 10: been understood that former presidents could be subject to criminal

328
00:17:33,320 --> 00:17:36,960
Speaker 10: prosecution when they left office. For example, that's why former

329
00:17:37,000 --> 00:17:41,480
Speaker 10: President Ford pardoned former President Nixon. They cited the example

330
00:17:41,600 --> 00:17:44,240
Speaker 10: of former President Bill Clinton, who entered into an agreement

331
00:17:44,280 --> 00:17:46,960
Speaker 10: with the Special Council who had been investigating him with

332
00:17:47,160 --> 00:17:51,240
Speaker 10: various sanctions, including forfeiting his law license, in part to

333
00:17:51,359 --> 00:17:54,800
Speaker 10: settle the prospect of a future criminal prosecution. And then,

334
00:17:54,840 --> 00:17:59,400
Speaker 10: most importantly, they cited statements by attorneys for former President

335
00:17:59,440 --> 00:18:03,200
Speaker 10: Trump during his impeachment trial his second impeachment trial, where

336
00:18:03,240 --> 00:18:06,719
Speaker 10: they argued that impeachment was not the proper remedy, but

337
00:18:06,920 --> 00:18:10,439
Speaker 10: rather the possibility of a criminal prosecution would be the

338
00:18:10,480 --> 00:18:14,200
Speaker 10: proper remedy. And so they said these examples that point

339
00:18:14,240 --> 00:18:18,040
Speaker 10: toward an understanding that former presidents could be subject to

340
00:18:18,080 --> 00:18:22,760
Speaker 10: criminal prosecution when they left office for acts taken while president,

341
00:18:23,280 --> 00:18:26,800
Speaker 10: and that there was no suggestion in the historical record

342
00:18:26,880 --> 00:18:30,719
Speaker 10: that that prospect had chilled presidents while they were in

343
00:18:30,840 --> 00:18:35,959
Speaker 10: office from exercising their duties without too much concern. And

344
00:18:36,000 --> 00:18:37,920
Speaker 10: in fact, there was a quote from the District court

345
00:18:37,960 --> 00:18:40,639
Speaker 10: opinion that I just thought was very telling. The District

346
00:18:40,680 --> 00:18:44,560
Speaker 10: Court had said, every president will face difficult decisions, whether

347
00:18:44,640 --> 00:18:47,360
Speaker 10: to intentionally commit a federal crime should not be one

348
00:18:47,359 --> 00:18:51,879
Speaker 10: of them. And the DC Circuit quoted that language saying, basically,

349
00:18:51,960 --> 00:18:54,520
Speaker 10: they don't think that they're holding that there is no

350
00:18:54,560 --> 00:18:58,879
Speaker 10: immunity from criminal prosecution is going to actually chill presidents

351
00:18:58,920 --> 00:19:00,520
Speaker 10: in the exercise of their due.

352
00:19:00,880 --> 00:19:05,320
Speaker 1: During the oral arguments, Trump's lawyer spent seemed like most

353
00:19:05,320 --> 00:19:09,240
Speaker 1: of the time on the impeachment clause and this argument

354
00:19:09,359 --> 00:19:13,760
Speaker 1: that Donald Trump would first have to have been convicted

355
00:19:14,040 --> 00:19:19,600
Speaker 1: by the Senate in order to then be tried criminally

356
00:19:19,760 --> 00:19:23,040
Speaker 1: after he left office. And they took that on and

357
00:19:23,080 --> 00:19:27,160
Speaker 1: they said, the strongest evidence against Trump's claim of immunity

358
00:19:27,200 --> 00:19:30,320
Speaker 1: is found in the words of the Constitution's impeachment clause.

359
00:19:31,400 --> 00:19:34,480
Speaker 10: They did treat thoroughly this argument that he could not

360
00:19:34,640 --> 00:19:38,520
Speaker 10: be prosecuted criminally because he had not been convicted in

361
00:19:38,560 --> 00:19:41,880
Speaker 10: the Senate relying on the impeachment clause. They addressed it

362
00:19:41,960 --> 00:19:45,440
Speaker 10: thoroughly and said that they rejected it, that they thought

363
00:19:45,480 --> 00:19:48,560
Speaker 10: it was a strained reading of the clause that he offered,

364
00:19:48,920 --> 00:19:52,840
Speaker 10: and that although the clause makes clear that a president

365
00:19:53,000 --> 00:19:58,040
Speaker 10: can be criminally prosecuted after being impeached and convicted, that

366
00:19:58,240 --> 00:20:01,320
Speaker 10: the negative implication that Trump was arguing from that clause

367
00:20:01,320 --> 00:20:03,960
Speaker 10: that he could only be crivitally prosecuted if he had

368
00:20:03,960 --> 00:20:08,040
Speaker 10: been convicted in the Senate following impeachment simply did not follow.

369
00:20:08,520 --> 00:20:12,800
Speaker 1: So in the opinion, you had the legal arguments based

370
00:20:12,800 --> 00:20:17,040
Speaker 1: on precedent and history and the Constitution, and then there

371
00:20:17,040 --> 00:20:21,440
Speaker 1: were this sort of logical, sensible arguments, and one here

372
00:20:21,640 --> 00:20:24,240
Speaker 1: was that, you know, the founders knew how to grant

373
00:20:24,240 --> 00:20:27,840
Speaker 1: immunity if they wanted to, and they didn't want to.

374
00:20:27,880 --> 00:20:30,840
Speaker 10: Hear, Yes, absolutely, they cited to other portions of the

375
00:20:30,880 --> 00:20:34,520
Speaker 10: Constitution that were explicit about granted immunity, for example, with

376
00:20:34,560 --> 00:20:36,800
Speaker 10: respect to the speach and Debate clause and making clear

377
00:20:37,000 --> 00:20:39,960
Speaker 10: that there would be immunity there for actions in the

378
00:20:40,000 --> 00:20:42,600
Speaker 10: course of speech and debate by members of Congress. And

379
00:20:42,680 --> 00:20:45,440
Speaker 10: so if the framers knew how to be explicit about

380
00:20:45,480 --> 00:20:48,320
Speaker 10: grants of immunity, it follows that if they didn't explicitly

381
00:20:48,359 --> 00:20:51,680
Speaker 10: grant it to presidents in this context, that it doesn't exist.

382
00:20:51,880 --> 00:20:54,800
Speaker 1: The Court put the ruling on holds so that Trump

383
00:20:54,880 --> 00:20:57,679
Speaker 1: could appeal to the Supreme Court, but they put him

384
00:20:57,680 --> 00:21:00,719
Speaker 1: on a really tight deadline, giving him only six days

385
00:21:00,760 --> 00:21:03,280
Speaker 1: to do that. Do you think they were looking at

386
00:21:03,320 --> 00:21:05,879
Speaker 1: his strategy of delayed delay delay.

387
00:21:06,600 --> 00:21:09,679
Speaker 10: I can't speak to what was in the judge's vines

388
00:21:09,880 --> 00:21:13,080
Speaker 10: in their decision about the timing here, it is notable

389
00:21:13,119 --> 00:21:15,720
Speaker 10: that they gave him a short time frame in which

390
00:21:15,760 --> 00:21:18,880
Speaker 10: to appeal to the US Supreme Court before they would

391
00:21:18,920 --> 00:21:22,160
Speaker 10: issue the mandate. I think it speaks to the urgency

392
00:21:22,320 --> 00:21:25,240
Speaker 10: of the matters involved in this case when you see

393
00:21:25,280 --> 00:21:29,119
Speaker 10: that sense of the significance of this case throughout the

394
00:21:29,160 --> 00:21:33,600
Speaker 10: Court's opinion, when it talks about how the alleged conduct

395
00:21:33,800 --> 00:21:37,760
Speaker 10: was an effort to overturn the results of a democratic

396
00:21:38,160 --> 00:21:42,520
Speaker 10: election and the public's interest in the enforcement of criminal laws.

397
00:21:42,600 --> 00:21:46,240
Speaker 10: So I think that those substantive aspects of the case

398
00:21:46,840 --> 00:21:48,920
Speaker 10: may carry over to the court sense of what is

399
00:21:48,960 --> 00:21:53,199
Speaker 10: an appropriate time frame in which to allow resort to

400
00:21:53,240 --> 00:21:56,560
Speaker 10: further appellate review before the case goes forward in the

401
00:21:56,600 --> 00:21:57,440
Speaker 10: district court.

402
00:21:57,600 --> 00:21:59,639
Speaker 1: No one knows whether the Supreme Court will take the

403
00:21:59,680 --> 00:22:02,639
Speaker 1: case or not, but they already have a couple of

404
00:22:02,920 --> 00:22:07,159
Speaker 1: Trump cases on the docket, including the case over Colorado

405
00:22:07,280 --> 00:22:10,200
Speaker 1: Barringham from the ballot. What would be your guess as

406
00:22:10,240 --> 00:22:12,000
Speaker 1: to whether they'll take the case or not.

407
00:22:12,680 --> 00:22:17,080
Speaker 10: This is such a well reasoned and thoughtful opinion that

408
00:22:17,200 --> 00:22:20,560
Speaker 10: I think they are very compelling reasons why the Court

409
00:22:20,640 --> 00:22:24,119
Speaker 10: wouldn't take this case up. There's no circuit split on

410
00:22:24,160 --> 00:22:28,440
Speaker 10: this issue, and they certainly have their plateful with other

411
00:22:28,560 --> 00:22:31,600
Speaker 10: really important the cases that they need to decide, including

412
00:22:31,920 --> 00:22:35,600
Speaker 10: the ballot access question. On the other hand, this is

413
00:22:35,640 --> 00:22:39,919
Speaker 10: an enormously significant issue whether a former president is entitled

414
00:22:39,960 --> 00:22:43,920
Speaker 10: to immunity from criminal prosecution. One could imagine that Justice

415
00:22:43,960 --> 00:22:46,359
Speaker 10: is saying this is an issue on which we should opine.

416
00:22:46,920 --> 00:22:50,320
Speaker 10: But on the other hand, unless there are enough justices

417
00:22:50,359 --> 00:22:53,159
Speaker 10: who think that the DC's circuit opinion is wrong, then

418
00:22:53,200 --> 00:22:56,000
Speaker 10: I could also see them letting the DC opinion be

419
00:22:56,119 --> 00:22:57,440
Speaker 10: the final word on this subject.

420
00:22:57,960 --> 00:23:02,399
Speaker 1: So Timing is everything here, because the federal election case

421
00:23:03,040 --> 00:23:05,880
Speaker 1: was on from March fourth, but then the judge had

422
00:23:05,920 --> 00:23:08,280
Speaker 1: to take it off the calendar because of this appeal

423
00:23:08,400 --> 00:23:12,159
Speaker 1: on the immunity issue. If the Supreme Court decides not

424
00:23:12,240 --> 00:23:14,879
Speaker 1: to take the case, how fast could the trial be

425
00:23:14,920 --> 00:23:17,600
Speaker 1: put back on the calendar and move forward.

426
00:23:18,080 --> 00:23:21,320
Speaker 10: Well, the Trial court has indicated that she will give

427
00:23:21,520 --> 00:23:26,000
Speaker 10: the former president additional time to respond to motions that

428
00:23:26,040 --> 00:23:29,560
Speaker 10: were filed by the Special Council. To file any additional

429
00:23:29,600 --> 00:23:33,960
Speaker 10: motions on his own behalf time that but for the

430
00:23:34,080 --> 00:23:37,960
Speaker 10: stay of the trial court proceedings, he would have had

431
00:23:37,960 --> 00:23:41,040
Speaker 10: to work on these motions in this last month or so,

432
00:23:41,040 --> 00:23:44,159
Speaker 10: So she's going to give him that time. That means

433
00:23:44,200 --> 00:23:47,760
Speaker 10: we're probably looking at some time at the earliest in

434
00:23:47,880 --> 00:23:52,359
Speaker 10: late summer, perhaps late July, early August, for a trial date.

435
00:23:52,760 --> 00:23:55,560
Speaker 10: But we really don't know what's going to happen. I mean,

436
00:23:55,560 --> 00:23:57,800
Speaker 10: if the US Supreme Court were to take the case

437
00:23:57,840 --> 00:24:00,640
Speaker 10: in grant to stay, that would mean that things would

438
00:24:00,680 --> 00:24:04,080
Speaker 10: remain frozen. We really don't know, But we do see

439
00:24:04,160 --> 00:24:07,280
Speaker 10: coming from the Trial Court in DC, Judge Chutkin every

440
00:24:07,280 --> 00:24:10,440
Speaker 10: effort to move the case along as expeditiously as possible,

441
00:24:10,760 --> 00:24:12,480
Speaker 10: So I think we may have a better sense by

442
00:24:12,560 --> 00:24:16,439
Speaker 10: next week, by Monday, when and if Trump files an

443
00:24:16,480 --> 00:24:19,240
Speaker 10: application in the US Supreme Court for a stay, whether

444
00:24:19,240 --> 00:24:21,560
Speaker 10: that's going to happen, I expect it will, and then

445
00:24:21,600 --> 00:24:23,960
Speaker 10: I would imagine within a week or so after that,

446
00:24:24,160 --> 00:24:26,520
Speaker 10: perhaps we would have some indication from the US Supreme

447
00:24:26,520 --> 00:24:28,560
Speaker 10: Court about how quickly they're going to move, and if

448
00:24:28,560 --> 00:24:30,400
Speaker 10: they're not going to take the case at all, then

449
00:24:30,560 --> 00:24:33,120
Speaker 10: things may start proceeding even more quickly in the trial court.

450
00:24:33,359 --> 00:24:36,280
Speaker 1: I think everyone is anticipating that Trump will file in

451
00:24:36,320 --> 00:24:40,080
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court, but we'll know definitively on Monday. Thanks

452
00:24:40,119 --> 00:24:44,240
Speaker 1: so much, Jessica. That's Professor Jessica Roth of Cardozo Law School.

453
00:24:44,600 --> 00:24:48,040
Speaker 1: Coming up next, the landmark conviction of a Michigan mother

454
00:24:48,280 --> 00:24:51,440
Speaker 1: for murderers committed by her son. I'm June Grosso and

455
00:24:51,480 --> 00:24:52,600
Speaker 1: you're listening to Bloomberg.

456
00:24:53,760 --> 00:24:57,159
Speaker 6: We find the defendant guilty of involuntary manslaughter, Guilty of

457
00:24:57,160 --> 00:25:02,119
Speaker 6: in manslaughter, guilty of involuntary mans guilty of involuntary manslaughter.

458
00:25:02,400 --> 00:25:06,840
Speaker 1: Jennifer Crumbley found guilty of four counts of involuntary manslaughter,

459
00:25:07,160 --> 00:25:10,359
Speaker 1: one for each of the students her teenage son murdered

460
00:25:10,440 --> 00:25:13,000
Speaker 1: in a shooting rampage at a Michigan high school in

461
00:25:13,040 --> 00:25:17,160
Speaker 1: twenty twenty one, a historic verdict the first parent ever

462
00:25:17,240 --> 00:25:20,800
Speaker 1: held criminally responsible for a school shooting carried out by

463
00:25:20,800 --> 00:25:21,440
Speaker 1: her child.

464
00:25:21,840 --> 00:25:24,399
Speaker 11: Jennifer Crumbley didn't pull the sugar of it, but she

465
00:25:24,680 --> 00:25:26,359
Speaker 11: is responsible for those debts.

466
00:25:27,040 --> 00:25:31,159
Speaker 1: Prosecutors Mark Keast and Karen MacDonald argued that Crumbly was

467
00:25:31,240 --> 00:25:35,240
Speaker 1: responsible because she and her husband ignored her son Ethan's

468
00:25:35,240 --> 00:25:39,080
Speaker 1: mental health struggles, bought him the handgun used in the shootings,

469
00:25:39,280 --> 00:25:43,160
Speaker 1: and disregarded the concerns of school counselors about his behavior.

470
00:25:43,760 --> 00:25:46,480
Speaker 1: Just hours before the attacks, she walked to.

471
00:25:46,560 --> 00:25:52,359
Speaker 12: Law school when just the smallest, smallest of things could

472
00:25:52,440 --> 00:25:58,040
Speaker 12: have said, couldn't have helped Hannah and Tate and Madison

473
00:25:58,320 --> 00:25:58,920
Speaker 12: and Justin.

474
00:25:59,400 --> 00:26:02,560
Speaker 1: Crumbley took the stand in her own defense and testified

475
00:26:02,600 --> 00:26:05,680
Speaker 1: that she didn't see herself as a failure as a parent.

476
00:26:06,320 --> 00:26:09,439
Speaker 13: I trusted him and I felt like I had an

477
00:26:09,480 --> 00:26:11,480
Speaker 13: open door and he can come to me about anything.

478
00:26:12,800 --> 00:26:15,399
Speaker 13: I mean, I fell as a family where three of

479
00:26:15,480 --> 00:26:19,000
Speaker 13: us were really close. Of course, I look back after

480
00:26:19,040 --> 00:26:22,920
Speaker 13: this all happened, and I've asked myself if I would

481
00:26:23,000 --> 00:26:25,159
Speaker 13: do anything differently, and I wouldn't have.

482
00:26:25,560 --> 00:26:29,800
Speaker 1: And the cross examination seemed to reinforce the prosecution's case.

483
00:26:30,160 --> 00:26:34,040
Speaker 11: When your son texted you that he was seeing demons

484
00:26:34,960 --> 00:26:39,000
Speaker 11: in bulls flying off the shelves, that was in the

485
00:26:39,000 --> 00:26:42,080
Speaker 11: spring of two thousand and twenty twenty. When you recall

486
00:26:42,119 --> 00:26:44,399
Speaker 11: it evidence right, correct, You don't dispute that that was

487
00:26:44,400 --> 00:26:47,800
Speaker 11: on your phone. No, you don't dispute that at some

488
00:26:47,920 --> 00:26:49,400
Speaker 11: point you read those messages.

489
00:26:50,280 --> 00:26:50,320
Speaker 7: No.

490
00:26:51,160 --> 00:26:55,000
Speaker 1: After eleven hours of deliberations, the jury found Crumbly guilty

491
00:26:55,000 --> 00:26:59,240
Speaker 1: of involuntary manslaughter. Craig Shilling, who's seventeen year old son

492
00:26:59,520 --> 00:27:02,679
Speaker 1: Justin was killed in the shooting, said Crumbly would not

493
00:27:02,760 --> 00:27:05,280
Speaker 1: be sitting in prison if she had done her job

494
00:27:05,320 --> 00:27:05,919
Speaker 1: as a parent.

495
00:27:06,480 --> 00:27:10,280
Speaker 14: And this is your twice to have a child, and

496
00:27:11,200 --> 00:27:13,080
Speaker 14: you cannot choose to not take care of your child.

497
00:27:13,119 --> 00:27:15,840
Speaker 14: You cannot choose and not nurture your child. You cannot

498
00:27:15,920 --> 00:27:21,720
Speaker 14: choose to take your own interests over your child, especially

499
00:27:21,800 --> 00:27:23,440
Speaker 14: when it comes to mental health.

500
00:27:24,040 --> 00:27:26,760
Speaker 1: Joining me is Echo Yanka, a professor at the University

501
00:27:26,800 --> 00:27:30,040
Speaker 1: of Michigan Law School. In a real sense, was it

502
00:27:30,200 --> 00:27:33,920
Speaker 1: Jennifer Crumbly's parenting that was on trial here.

503
00:27:34,280 --> 00:27:36,640
Speaker 5: I think the prosecution painted a picture of her as

504
00:27:36,680 --> 00:27:41,280
Speaker 5: an indifferent, callous parent, one who is more interested in

505
00:27:41,320 --> 00:27:46,200
Speaker 5: her forces and hobbies, her extramarital affairs than getting her

506
00:27:46,280 --> 00:27:49,400
Speaker 5: child to help that he explicitly seemed to be seeking.

507
00:27:49,760 --> 00:27:52,400
Speaker 5: But of course the prosecution knews that being a bad

508
00:27:52,440 --> 00:27:55,439
Speaker 5: parent is not by self illegal, and having that be

509
00:27:55,520 --> 00:27:59,439
Speaker 5: the only line of argument would be not just legally insufficient,

510
00:28:00,000 --> 00:28:03,600
Speaker 5: probably unpalatable, And so they really made a point that

511
00:28:03,920 --> 00:28:05,840
Speaker 5: it's not just that she is a bad parent, it's

512
00:28:05,840 --> 00:28:09,520
Speaker 5: that she had opportunity after opportunity to do something to

513
00:28:09,560 --> 00:28:13,280
Speaker 5: avoid these killings, and that even given a million little

514
00:28:13,280 --> 00:28:16,480
Speaker 5: moments where she could have saved those lives, she did nothing.

515
00:28:17,119 --> 00:28:21,160
Speaker 1: The prosecution had so much evidence against Crumbly, from her

516
00:28:21,280 --> 00:28:24,840
Speaker 1: son's text, that she didn't answer, to journal entries, to

517
00:28:25,000 --> 00:28:27,560
Speaker 1: videos of her at the shooting range with her son.

518
00:28:28,040 --> 00:28:30,760
Speaker 1: What was the best evidence? In your mind?

519
00:28:31,480 --> 00:28:33,520
Speaker 5: I think you put your finger exactly on it that.

520
00:28:33,600 --> 00:28:36,160
Speaker 5: As the prosecution tried to hammer home, it just seems

521
00:28:36,200 --> 00:28:38,360
Speaker 5: like there were a million moments where she could have

522
00:28:38,520 --> 00:28:41,280
Speaker 5: done something given of the help he needs. There's a moment,

523
00:28:41,280 --> 00:28:45,800
Speaker 5: for example, when he is caught searching online about ammunition,

524
00:28:45,960 --> 00:28:47,760
Speaker 5: and she texts back, you know, I don't care if

525
00:28:47,800 --> 00:28:50,240
Speaker 5: you do this, just don't get caught, you know, Lol.

526
00:28:50,600 --> 00:28:53,120
Speaker 5: But if you ask me, this single moment, the single

527
00:28:53,240 --> 00:28:56,240
Speaker 5: moment that was the most powerful, when I talked to friends,

528
00:28:56,280 --> 00:28:58,960
Speaker 5: when I debate with legal colleagues, and frankly just around

529
00:28:59,000 --> 00:29:01,800
Speaker 5: the dinner table, I would say the fact that the

530
00:29:01,840 --> 00:29:05,280
Speaker 5: school called her in that very day when Ethan is

531
00:29:05,440 --> 00:29:08,920
Speaker 5: drawing pictures of violence and death, and they asked the

532
00:29:08,960 --> 00:29:12,760
Speaker 5: Crumbleys to take even home, and depending on who you believe,

533
00:29:12,800 --> 00:29:15,920
Speaker 5: they either refuse or together they decide not to do it,

534
00:29:16,080 --> 00:29:18,520
Speaker 5: but in any case they walk out of there knowing

535
00:29:18,600 --> 00:29:19,400
Speaker 5: he had a weapon.

536
00:29:19,720 --> 00:29:23,280
Speaker 1: The four person told NBC that she was swayed by

537
00:29:23,280 --> 00:29:26,640
Speaker 1: the belief that Crumbley was the last person who had

538
00:29:26,680 --> 00:29:31,160
Speaker 1: custody of the gun and that therefore she was responsible

539
00:29:31,200 --> 00:29:35,320
Speaker 1: for it. And I'm wondering if that is faulty reasoning.

540
00:29:35,640 --> 00:29:37,880
Speaker 1: I mean, can you really draw a conclusion of guilt

541
00:29:37,920 --> 00:29:40,760
Speaker 1: from the last information that the prosecution has?

542
00:29:41,320 --> 00:29:43,719
Speaker 5: So I feel torn about that. I'll say why. On

543
00:29:43,760 --> 00:29:47,920
Speaker 5: the one hand, clearly part of the background of because

544
00:29:47,960 --> 00:29:51,680
Speaker 5: part of the overall theory of her involunteer manslaughter rest

545
00:29:51,760 --> 00:29:54,720
Speaker 5: on her negligence, and that rests on the idea that

546
00:29:54,760 --> 00:29:57,720
Speaker 5: an ordinary person would have known that was going to

547
00:29:57,720 --> 00:30:00,600
Speaker 5: do this. An ordinary person should have seen that this

548
00:30:00,720 --> 00:30:04,200
Speaker 5: danger existed. And so the fact that the parents knew

549
00:30:04,240 --> 00:30:06,200
Speaker 5: that there was a weapon, that the parents didn't tell

550
00:30:06,240 --> 00:30:09,080
Speaker 5: the school, that the parents could have, for example, locked

551
00:30:09,120 --> 00:30:11,080
Speaker 5: up the gun, all those things are in the mix.

552
00:30:11,200 --> 00:30:14,680
Speaker 5: But I do worry about a jury foreman. You know,

553
00:30:15,120 --> 00:30:17,160
Speaker 5: if I were a defense were on appeal, you might

554
00:30:17,200 --> 00:30:21,280
Speaker 5: think such reasoning assumes evidence not in fact, and it's

555
00:30:21,320 --> 00:30:24,479
Speaker 5: not clear that it is a legally relevant standard. So

556
00:30:24,720 --> 00:30:28,360
Speaker 5: I think I understand the feeling behind it. But if

557
00:30:28,360 --> 00:30:31,080
Speaker 5: that sentence is literally true, you know it's going to

558
00:30:31,120 --> 00:30:33,040
Speaker 5: give the defense something to hold on.

559
00:30:33,280 --> 00:30:36,120
Speaker 1: Crumbly took the stand in her own defense. As you know,

560
00:30:36,640 --> 00:30:39,440
Speaker 1: often when that happens, the whole focus of the jury

561
00:30:39,600 --> 00:30:43,080
Speaker 1: is on the credibility of the defendant, and she didn't

562
00:30:43,120 --> 00:30:45,720
Speaker 1: come across well on the stand. Listen to what the

563
00:30:45,800 --> 00:30:48,680
Speaker 1: jury four person told NBC.

564
00:30:48,880 --> 00:30:51,840
Speaker 6: At the time. I tried to take her as she

565
00:30:51,880 --> 00:30:56,080
Speaker 6: gave herself, but once we went into deliberation, it became

566
00:30:56,200 --> 00:31:01,720
Speaker 6: clear that she wasn't a super really witness in this case.

567
00:31:02,360 --> 00:31:06,640
Speaker 5: Look, her testimony was not great. I thought the worst

568
00:31:06,680 --> 00:31:08,959
Speaker 5: moment was when she was asked what she would do

569
00:31:09,000 --> 00:31:11,880
Speaker 5: differently today, and her answer was nothing.

570
00:31:12,040 --> 00:31:12,240
Speaker 13: Right.

571
00:31:12,280 --> 00:31:14,320
Speaker 5: I understand the impulse her answers, I just didn't do

572
00:31:14,360 --> 00:31:17,800
Speaker 5: anything wrong. But when you're staring at, you know, a

573
00:31:17,920 --> 00:31:21,320
Speaker 5: day where four children were killed and seven more were injured,

574
00:31:21,920 --> 00:31:25,920
Speaker 5: that answer just feals callous. So I definitely worried about that.

575
00:31:25,920 --> 00:31:28,720
Speaker 5: That being said, look, the defense had a great legal

576
00:31:28,760 --> 00:31:30,560
Speaker 5: principle on which they were lying, but they had a

577
00:31:30,560 --> 00:31:33,800
Speaker 5: really tough task because the prosecution had really tainted her.

578
00:31:34,240 --> 00:31:37,600
Speaker 5: Is callous bordering on monstrous, and I think the defense

579
00:31:37,720 --> 00:31:40,840
Speaker 5: felt a lot of pressure to humanize her. The only

580
00:31:41,280 --> 00:31:43,600
Speaker 5: image that the jurors had in their minds was of

581
00:31:43,680 --> 00:31:46,160
Speaker 5: a parent who just didn't care about her son and

582
00:31:46,200 --> 00:31:49,520
Speaker 5: her son's danger to others, And so I understand why

583
00:31:49,560 --> 00:31:52,440
Speaker 5: they felt strategically like they had to do something to

584
00:31:52,480 --> 00:31:55,040
Speaker 5: claw back an image of a human mother who was

585
00:31:55,080 --> 00:31:56,040
Speaker 5: doing her best.

586
00:31:56,320 --> 00:31:59,120
Speaker 1: He said the defense had a good theory. Tell me

587
00:31:59,160 --> 00:31:59,880
Speaker 1: what the theory is.

588
00:32:00,520 --> 00:32:03,160
Speaker 5: Well, the defense I think had two prongs. The second

589
00:32:03,200 --> 00:32:05,640
Speaker 5: wave just talked about that. Look, I mean, there's a

590
00:32:05,720 --> 00:32:08,200
Speaker 5: kind of human instinct. This is a mother doing our best.

591
00:32:08,240 --> 00:32:11,640
Speaker 5: And moreover, you're saying a reasonable person could have foreseen this.

592
00:32:11,800 --> 00:32:15,200
Speaker 5: You're asking a mother to foresee something that mothers might

593
00:32:15,240 --> 00:32:17,960
Speaker 5: think is bordering on unthinkable. You're asking a mom to

594
00:32:17,960 --> 00:32:21,160
Speaker 5: foresee that her son will be monstrous, will be a

595
00:32:21,200 --> 00:32:23,840
Speaker 5: mass shooter. And so that has a kind of I

596
00:32:23,840 --> 00:32:25,920
Speaker 5: wouldn't say it's the very point of the legal theory,

597
00:32:25,920 --> 00:32:28,160
Speaker 5: but it has a kind of diffuse tug on a

598
00:32:28,200 --> 00:32:31,080
Speaker 5: juror's heart that truly requiring a mother to see that

599
00:32:31,520 --> 00:32:34,360
Speaker 5: is a strain. But the core of the defense theory

600
00:32:34,520 --> 00:32:38,280
Speaker 5: really is the first year legal principle, the one that

601
00:32:38,360 --> 00:32:41,360
Speaker 5: you learn when you're starting law school that you are

602
00:32:41,520 --> 00:32:44,520
Speaker 5: just not responsible for the actions of another. That when

603
00:32:44,600 --> 00:32:48,240
Speaker 5: somebody who's a responsible agent acts, it severs the causal change.

604
00:32:48,560 --> 00:32:50,800
Speaker 5: And I think the defense really thought at the end

605
00:32:50,800 --> 00:32:53,920
Speaker 5: of the day that not only as a legal matter,

606
00:32:54,120 --> 00:32:56,680
Speaker 5: but as a social and moral matter, that has a

607
00:32:56,720 --> 00:32:58,360
Speaker 5: lot of weight in people's minds.

608
00:32:58,800 --> 00:33:01,760
Speaker 1: Do you think that this case provides a blueprint to

609
00:33:01,840 --> 00:33:06,000
Speaker 1: other prosecutors and we'll see more parents being charged for

610
00:33:06,120 --> 00:33:07,800
Speaker 1: the criminal acts of their children.

611
00:33:08,680 --> 00:33:10,360
Speaker 5: Yeah, this is a question I've been asked a lot,

612
00:33:10,640 --> 00:33:13,920
Speaker 5: and you know, I struggle to answer it. Well. On

613
00:33:14,000 --> 00:33:16,760
Speaker 5: the one hand, as we've discussed, this case has such

614
00:33:16,840 --> 00:33:21,360
Speaker 5: degregious facts, such heartrending facts where moment after moment, things

615
00:33:21,360 --> 00:33:25,080
Speaker 5: were going wrong, and to be honest, perhaps it's just

616
00:33:25,120 --> 00:33:28,320
Speaker 5: an extraordinary case with extraordinary facts, you know, as lawyers say,

617
00:33:28,560 --> 00:33:31,480
Speaker 5: the kind of case that should be confined to its facts.

618
00:33:31,680 --> 00:33:33,800
Speaker 5: On the other hand, you know, the life of the

619
00:33:33,880 --> 00:33:38,400
Speaker 5: law's precedent. Lawyers argue by analogy, and prosecutors certainly do too.

620
00:33:38,480 --> 00:33:41,280
Speaker 5: And once a prosecutor has this precedent in the world,

621
00:33:41,400 --> 00:33:44,160
Speaker 5: it's impossible to imagine they won't use it. And further,

622
00:33:44,240 --> 00:33:46,000
Speaker 5: as I've said before, and I think is really important,

623
00:33:46,320 --> 00:33:49,160
Speaker 5: prosecutors can use these things in ways that are much

624
00:33:49,240 --> 00:33:53,040
Speaker 5: less spectacular and visible than a Krumley case. Right, So,

625
00:33:53,080 --> 00:33:55,720
Speaker 5: in the Crumbley case, the whole nation, indeed the whole

626
00:33:55,720 --> 00:33:58,080
Speaker 5: world is interesting because the facts are so visceral. But

627
00:33:58,160 --> 00:34:00,160
Speaker 5: we won't see the case where the prosecutor has a

628
00:34:00,240 --> 00:34:03,640
Speaker 5: parent who thinks they have a legal defense and says, look,

629
00:34:03,920 --> 00:34:05,960
Speaker 5: I'm going to offer you three years, but if you

630
00:34:06,160 --> 00:34:09,239
Speaker 5: don't accept the fleet bargain, I'm going to prosecute you

631
00:34:09,280 --> 00:34:12,479
Speaker 5: for fifteen or twenty and if that person pleads out,

632
00:34:12,760 --> 00:34:15,839
Speaker 5: they may be giving up on their legal defenses. They

633
00:34:15,840 --> 00:34:18,560
Speaker 5: may serve many years in jail, and it will be

634
00:34:18,640 --> 00:34:21,239
Speaker 5: quite invisible, it will be quite under the radar. And

635
00:34:21,280 --> 00:34:22,560
Speaker 5: I worry about those cases.

636
00:34:22,800 --> 00:34:26,080
Speaker 1: As far as appellate issues, you mentioned one, Do you

637
00:34:26,120 --> 00:34:28,600
Speaker 1: see any obvious appellet issues?

638
00:34:28,920 --> 00:34:31,040
Speaker 5: There are going to be some, right, I mean, I

639
00:34:31,080 --> 00:34:35,040
Speaker 5: do think the format of the jury speaking, you know,

640
00:34:35,080 --> 00:34:38,760
Speaker 5: because there's a reason turies deliberate in secret. That statement

641
00:34:38,840 --> 00:34:41,080
Speaker 5: that she thought Jennifer Crumbling Will was last to handle

642
00:34:41,680 --> 00:34:44,239
Speaker 5: the gun might be worrying. They're always going to be

643
00:34:44,280 --> 00:34:47,600
Speaker 5: issues on which the judge ruled, in particular some of

644
00:34:47,600 --> 00:34:50,080
Speaker 5: the evidence the judge let in, some of the really

645
00:34:50,239 --> 00:34:53,719
Speaker 5: really gut wrenching photographic evidence. Surely some part of the

646
00:34:53,719 --> 00:34:56,720
Speaker 5: appeal will be that bad evidence was more prejudicial than broken.

647
00:34:56,920 --> 00:34:57,080
Speaker 10: You know.

648
00:34:57,120 --> 00:34:59,920
Speaker 5: The argument will be something like everybody knows that Keeping

649
00:35:00,040 --> 00:35:04,040
Speaker 5: committed this horrible act. There was no need to see

650
00:35:04,160 --> 00:35:06,840
Speaker 5: the result of it, right, There was no real addition

651
00:35:06,960 --> 00:35:09,840
Speaker 5: by seeing the pictures. It just emotionally, it's like the jurors.

652
00:35:09,880 --> 00:35:12,320
Speaker 5: But I think ultimately the thing on which you appeal

653
00:35:12,800 --> 00:35:15,680
Speaker 5: is the legal principle. I mean, if this goes all

654
00:35:15,680 --> 00:35:17,880
Speaker 5: the way up to the Michigan Supreme Court asking the

655
00:35:17,920 --> 00:35:22,759
Speaker 5: Supreme Court to reinforce the legal norm that one just

656
00:35:22,840 --> 00:35:25,200
Speaker 5: can't be responsible for another person's act, you know, the

657
00:35:25,719 --> 00:35:28,280
Speaker 5: hypothetically parents who are doing their best but are afraid

658
00:35:28,280 --> 00:35:31,680
Speaker 5: that their children are tempted to violence. At some point

659
00:35:31,719 --> 00:35:34,480
Speaker 5: they get to say, I've done what I can. His

660
00:35:34,600 --> 00:35:35,279
Speaker 5: actions are his.

661
00:35:35,480 --> 00:35:39,439
Speaker 1: Now, the father's trial is coming up. Will he learn

662
00:35:39,520 --> 00:35:43,520
Speaker 1: from what happened here? Can he use different strategies, you know,

663
00:35:43,680 --> 00:35:46,759
Speaker 1: change things up for his trial, or maybe even try

664
00:35:46,760 --> 00:35:47,399
Speaker 1: to plead out.

665
00:35:47,719 --> 00:35:50,160
Speaker 5: Yeah, it's a great question. You know, my mind is

666
00:35:50,160 --> 00:35:53,920
Speaker 5: spinning about that too. Obviously, the parents are the ones

667
00:35:53,920 --> 00:35:57,880
Speaker 5: in the most pain, and Jennifer Crumbley was convicted. But

668
00:35:57,960 --> 00:36:00,480
Speaker 5: other than those people, nobody had a word today than

669
00:36:00,600 --> 00:36:03,720
Speaker 5: James Crumley. Right now, I would say every case is different.

670
00:36:04,000 --> 00:36:06,480
Speaker 5: You know, this case was supposed to be tried together

671
00:36:06,920 --> 00:36:09,920
Speaker 5: until really almost the last minute where they decided to

672
00:36:10,000 --> 00:36:13,439
Speaker 5: separate the cases. And presumably that's because each of them

673
00:36:13,480 --> 00:36:15,759
Speaker 5: thinks that or at least one of them thought that

674
00:36:15,800 --> 00:36:18,360
Speaker 5: they were more damning facts towards the other right. So

675
00:36:18,400 --> 00:36:21,760
Speaker 5: you saw Jennifer argue that it was the father James

676
00:36:21,800 --> 00:36:23,360
Speaker 5: who bought the god and he is the one in

677
00:36:23,440 --> 00:36:25,879
Speaker 5: charge of blocking it up. And presumably his team will

678
00:36:25,920 --> 00:36:29,080
Speaker 5: have arguments about why she's more culpable, and most importantly,

679
00:36:29,080 --> 00:36:31,320
Speaker 5: every jury is different, right, But it seems to me

680
00:36:31,400 --> 00:36:33,840
Speaker 5: the most obviously that'll happened given a conviction is that

681
00:36:33,920 --> 00:36:36,640
Speaker 5: his team will move for a change up venue. They'll

682
00:36:36,680 --> 00:36:39,880
Speaker 5: just think this poisons It was already such an emotional

683
00:36:39,960 --> 00:36:43,440
Speaker 5: and difficult case, so visible, that the conviction is just

684
00:36:43,760 --> 00:36:45,920
Speaker 5: too poisonous for them. And then a part of me

685
00:36:46,000 --> 00:36:49,120
Speaker 5: really does wonder if at this late hour, if they

686
00:36:49,160 --> 00:36:51,480
Speaker 5: really would reach out for a plea bargain and if

687
00:36:51,480 --> 00:36:53,719
Speaker 5: Frank Is the prosecution would think there's anything be gained

688
00:36:53,760 --> 00:36:55,880
Speaker 5: after they've already done all the work to take the

689
00:36:55,960 --> 00:36:56,920
Speaker 5: case to trial.

690
00:36:57,000 --> 00:37:00,760
Speaker 1: Once thanks so much for sharing your insights, Echo Yanka,

691
00:37:00,840 --> 00:37:04,400
Speaker 1: a professor at the University of Michigan Law School. Jennifer

692
00:37:04,440 --> 00:37:07,799
Speaker 1: Crumbley will be sentenced on April ninth. She faces a

693
00:37:07,880 --> 00:37:12,600
Speaker 1: maximum fifteen years in prison. Ethan Crumbley is already serving

694
00:37:12,640 --> 00:37:16,440
Speaker 1: a life sentence after pleading guilty in the case, and

695
00:37:16,480 --> 00:37:18,960
Speaker 1: that's it. For this edition of the Bloomberg Law Podcast.

696
00:37:19,320 --> 00:37:21,680
Speaker 1: Remember you can always get the latest legal news by

697
00:37:21,719 --> 00:37:25,560
Speaker 1: subscribing and listening to the show on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,

698
00:37:25,840 --> 00:37:29,680
Speaker 1: and at Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast, slash Law. I'm

699
00:37:29,760 --> 00:37:32,160
Speaker 1: June Grosso, and this is Bloomberg