WEBVTT - Bloomberg Law Brief: Split Verdict in Nomura Trial (Audio)

0:00:00.120 --> 0:00:03.560
<v Speaker 1>Now it's time for our daily Bloomberg Law Brief, exploring

0:00:03.640 --> 0:00:06.840
<v Speaker 1>legal issues in the news. Today, Bloomberg Law host June

0:00:06.840 --> 0:00:10.560
<v Speaker 1>Grasso discusses a split verdict in the trial of three

0:00:10.640 --> 0:00:14.440
<v Speaker 1>former Namera Holdings traders who are accused of conspiring to

0:00:14.560 --> 0:00:17.799
<v Speaker 1>light to clients about mortgage bond prices. She speaks to

0:00:18.000 --> 0:00:22.680
<v Speaker 1>John Coffee, a professor at Columbia Law School. Jack, the

0:00:22.840 --> 0:00:26.680
<v Speaker 1>jury acquitted the traders or deadlocked on everything but the

0:00:26.680 --> 0:00:31.639
<v Speaker 1>conspiracy charges. They found Michael Grahman's guilty of conspiracy, Tyler

0:00:31.680 --> 0:00:35.600
<v Speaker 1>Peter's not guilty, and they deadlocked on conspiracy. As far

0:00:35.720 --> 0:00:39.720
<v Speaker 1>as Rod Shapiro, what does that show, Well, let's just

0:00:39.880 --> 0:00:43.600
<v Speaker 1>underlarn how severe defeat this was in reality for the government.

0:00:44.040 --> 0:00:47.280
<v Speaker 1>There were twenty seven counts. They got a conviction on

0:00:47.280 --> 0:00:50.400
<v Speaker 1>one of those seven three as you said, Brahm, and

0:00:50.479 --> 0:00:54.560
<v Speaker 1>twenty three were acquittals. Moreover, this case follows an earlier

0:00:54.600 --> 0:00:59.880
<v Speaker 1>Connecticut case in January involving Jesse Litteck, who was also

0:01:00.080 --> 0:01:03.840
<v Speaker 1>arged with ten counts of very similar kind of misconduct.

0:01:04.160 --> 0:01:08.160
<v Speaker 1>And they're the jury acquitted on nine convicted on one.

0:01:08.680 --> 0:01:11.319
<v Speaker 1>So it looks like the government's having a great deal

0:01:11.400 --> 0:01:17.160
<v Speaker 1>of difficulty convincing the jury that there's something truly culpable here. Uh.

0:01:17.160 --> 0:01:20.839
<v Speaker 1>And I think the fact that they convicted Michael Gramman's

0:01:21.520 --> 0:01:25.080
<v Speaker 1>may be explained by his being the only defendant where

0:01:25.080 --> 0:01:28.880
<v Speaker 1>they had a tape recording of him instructing others on

0:01:28.959 --> 0:01:32.039
<v Speaker 1>how to lie to the clients. That evidence really hit

0:01:32.080 --> 0:01:35.920
<v Speaker 1>the jury, whereas every other case the witnesses testifying for

0:01:36.000 --> 0:01:38.840
<v Speaker 1>the government were cross examined and they had to admit

0:01:38.920 --> 0:01:41.680
<v Speaker 1>they had done the same thing and looked equally bad. Oh.

0:01:41.760 --> 0:01:44.399
<v Speaker 1>That I think left the jury pretty confused. Jack. Does

0:01:44.440 --> 0:01:48.480
<v Speaker 1>this show that the jury didn't buy the theory that

0:01:48.600 --> 0:01:52.600
<v Speaker 1>the puffing and lyne by bond traders is fraud or

0:01:52.960 --> 0:01:57.440
<v Speaker 1>that the prosecutors just didn't give the jury enough evidence. Well,

0:01:57.480 --> 0:01:59.960
<v Speaker 1>we'd have to interview the jurors to really answer their

0:02:00.360 --> 0:02:03.640
<v Speaker 1>But do recall that in the securities fraud case, you

0:02:03.680 --> 0:02:07.160
<v Speaker 1>have to prove not simply that the defendant broke a

0:02:07.280 --> 0:02:10.200
<v Speaker 1>legal rule. You have to prove that he wilfully did so,

0:02:10.440 --> 0:02:13.160
<v Speaker 1>that it was his deliberate intent to violate the law.

0:02:13.560 --> 0:02:15.840
<v Speaker 1>And that may have looked greater, particularly in the case

0:02:15.919 --> 0:02:18.720
<v Speaker 1>of the junior employees who look like they were just

0:02:18.800 --> 0:02:23.360
<v Speaker 1>taking instructions from their superiors. So the wilfulness problem here

0:02:23.480 --> 0:02:26.720
<v Speaker 1>it may have been the biggest obstacle because one defendant

0:02:26.800 --> 0:02:29.200
<v Speaker 1>did look like he'd willfully done this, and they did

0:02:29.240 --> 0:02:32.639
<v Speaker 1>convict him on at least one count. But it does

0:02:32.760 --> 0:02:36.600
<v Speaker 1>look like the government has difficulty explaining why this behavior

0:02:36.720 --> 0:02:39.800
<v Speaker 1>is truly criminal when the defendants keeps saying everybody was

0:02:39.840 --> 0:02:43.480
<v Speaker 1>doing it. That's John Coffey, professor at Columbia Law School,

0:02:43.520 --> 0:02:46.359
<v Speaker 1>speaking to Bloomberg Law host to Gressi and you can

0:02:46.480 --> 0:02:49.480
<v Speaker 1>listen to Bloomberg Law weekdays at one pm most three

0:02:49.600 --> 0:02:52.679
<v Speaker 1>time here on Bloomberg Radio and now among the top

0:02:52.760 --> 0:02:56.239
<v Speaker 1>legal stories from Bloomberg Law. The Supreme Court could say

0:02:56.240 --> 0:02:58.600
<v Speaker 1>as early as today whether it will take up a

0:02:58.680 --> 0:03:02.959
<v Speaker 1>high stakes fight over electoral maps. Democrats and Wisconsin of

0:03:03.040 --> 0:03:06.720
<v Speaker 1>challenge their republican drawing boundaries for state legislative districts of

0:03:06.720 --> 0:03:10.480
<v Speaker 1>Federal Court has struck down the districts as unconstitutional, saying

0:03:10.520 --> 0:03:14.639
<v Speaker 1>they were drawn unfairly to minimize the influence of Democratic voters.

0:03:15.240 --> 0:03:18.360
<v Speaker 1>Jury selection begins today in the corruption trial of Philadelphia's

0:03:18.400 --> 0:03:22.120
<v Speaker 1>top prosecutor. District Attorney Seth Williams is accused of taking

0:03:22.160 --> 0:03:24.760
<v Speaker 1>bribes such as a vacation trip and a sports car

0:03:25.080 --> 0:03:28.440
<v Speaker 1>in exchange for legal favors. Williams has denied any wrongdoing.

0:03:28.720 --> 0:03:31.240
<v Speaker 1>He has decided not to seek a third term as

0:03:31.320 --> 0:03:34.880
<v Speaker 1>district Attorney, and that is this morning's Bloomberg Law Brief.

0:03:34.920 --> 0:03:37.839
<v Speaker 1>You can find more legal news at Bloomberg Law dot

0:03:37.880 --> 0:03:40.880
<v Speaker 1>com and Bloomberg b NA dot com. Attorneys will find

0:03:41.040 --> 0:03:44.520
<v Speaker 1>exceptional legal research and business development tools there as well.

0:03:45.120 --> 0:03:48.000
<v Speaker 1>Visit Bloomberg Law dot com and Bloomberg BNA dot com

0:03:48.040 --> 0:03:49.200
<v Speaker 1>for more information.