Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 1: Rodney Reid was just days away from being executed when
Speaker 1: he got a stay from Texas's top court. Reid has
Speaker 1: been on death row for decades for the murder of
Speaker 1: Stacy States. He's maintained his innocence through the years, and
Speaker 1: his case has gained national attention, with support from celebrities
Speaker 1: and lawmakers as diverse as Kim Kardashian and Senator Ted Cruz.
Speaker 1: Reid says a DNA test on the murder weapon, a
Speaker 1: belt that was used to strangle Stites, will prove his innocence,
Speaker 1: but the state of Texas has refused. Now whether he's
Speaker 1: executed could ha nge on a decision by the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court on a technical issue whether he filed his appeal
Speaker 1: to the federal courts too late. Joining he is Bloomberg
Speaker 1: Law reporter Jordan Reuben. Jordan tell us a little bit
Speaker 1: about read Rodney Reid has been on death row since
Speaker 1: he was convicted and senced to death for the six
Speaker 1: murder of Stacey Stites, and Reid has maintained his innocence throughout.
Speaker 1: In the latest issue that's brought his case, to Supreme
Speaker 1: Court arguments, is his attempt to get DNA testing on
Speaker 1: crime scene evidence, including the belt that strangled Stites. This
Speaker 1: crucial piece of evidence was not tested. The state has
Speaker 1: reasons that it says it thinks that testing might not
Speaker 1: show anything, But in any event, the state is resisting
Speaker 1: testing and that's what has led to rodney Reads lawsuit
Speaker 1: to try to force the state to do that testing.
Speaker 1: And it's the latest in the line of cases where
Speaker 1: there's a person who's claiming innocence and there's some evidence
Speaker 1: trending in that direction that has gotten the attention of
Speaker 1: people beyond just the legal community. Yeah, it's sort of
Speaker 1: echoes the case against odd Non sayed, that's gotten so
Speaker 1: much attention. So this is a federal civil rights claim,
Speaker 1: that's right. So what happened is this in trying to
Speaker 1: get DNA testing, Rodney Read pursued that claim in the
Speaker 1: state court, but that claim was denied at the trial
Speaker 1: court level and then up through the state criminal appeals court.
Speaker 1: And so after that denial, Rodney Read then filed a
Speaker 1: federal civil rights claim challenging the denial on the state level,
Speaker 1: saying that those state processes violated his due process, and
Speaker 1: so that's the crux of his federal claim. The problem
Speaker 1: is that Texas is saying that he waited too long
Speaker 1: to bring the claim. So the question at the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court is when the statute of limitation starts to run
Speaker 1: for a federal claim that state DNA testing procedures violated
Speaker 1: due process. Does it start to run when the state
Speaker 1: trial court denies testing, or does it start to run
Speaker 1: when the state appeals process has played out? And so
Speaker 1: it's this very technical sort of question that one might
Speaker 1: be tempted to get lost in, but it's a crucial question.
Speaker 1: The answer it depends on whether Rodney Reid and others
Speaker 1: who are claiming innocence can get DNA testing in these
Speaker 1: types of cases. So Red says the clock starts at
Speaker 1: the end of state court litigation denying crime scene evidence testing,
Speaker 1: including appeals, while Texas officials say it starts when the
Speaker 1: state trial court denies testing. How much of a difference
Speaker 1: in time is there in his case between those two
Speaker 1: So we're talking about months or years, depending on which
Speaker 1: aspect of the dispute, because it's broken up in an
Speaker 1: even more detailed way than that, because there are different
Speaker 1: sub arguments to it, But the bottom line is that
Speaker 1: the difference could mean months or years, depending on how
Speaker 1: long the appeal takes the play out, because there's also
Speaker 1: this whole sub issue of if it does end when
Speaker 1: the state appeals process ends, does it end when the
Speaker 1: state High Court denies, or after they deny rehearing on
Speaker 1: top of that, so there's a whole another side issue
Speaker 1: even to the issue that's technical on its face in
Speaker 1: the first instance. But the bottom line is that Read
Speaker 1: needs his test to be the one that wins for
Speaker 1: him to be able to get DNA testing. Was there
Speaker 1: any talk at all during the oral arguments about the
Speaker 1: fact that he claims he's innocent and the DNA test
Speaker 1: could possibly clear him. It's hard to see why you
Speaker 1: wouldn't give someone a DNA test, right, So, in terms
Speaker 1: of kind of the reality of the case, that wasn't
Speaker 1: the subject of the arguments, and that's often the case
Speaker 1: at the SUREME court. Nonetheless, there was a significant amount
Speaker 1: of practical discussion, just in terms of the question of
Speaker 1: why would the state's test make sense as opposed to
Speaker 1: Reads test making sense. Reads lawyers certainly didn't mention the
Speaker 1: innocence aspect during the argument, but there wasn't really this
Speaker 1: straight up question posed to Texas of why don't you
Speaker 1: just do the testing. They're really focused more on the
Speaker 1: technical issue, as is often the a set the court.
Speaker 1: The Chief Justice didn't seem particularly sympathetic to Read's claim.
Speaker 1: So the Chief Justice brought up an interesting issue which
Speaker 1: Texas brought up to, which is that if Red wins
Speaker 1: under his proposed test, that that could cause other people
Speaker 1: bringing claims to suffer, meaning that if the rule is
Speaker 1: as Read says, which is that you need to wait
Speaker 1: until your state appeals court process is done, then that
Speaker 1: would then prevent people who want to bring their claims
Speaker 1: earlier in the process when Texas is saying they have
Speaker 1: to bring them by So the logic is basically Red
Speaker 1: could win his claim here, but if he's successful, even
Speaker 1: if he could get DNA testing, then that would in
Speaker 1: theory hurt people who are trying to get DNA testing
Speaker 1: earlier in the process. That that's the general point that
Speaker 1: Roberts brought up and that Texas argued as well. Did
Speaker 1: you see the courts split in certain ways? Did you
Speaker 1: see justices on either side. I definitely saw justices on
Speaker 1: both sides of the issue. For example, Justice Thomas seems
Speaker 1: the most likely to vote with the state. His question
Speaker 1: to both sides was the same, which was what liberty
Speaker 1: interest was Read even deprived of in the first instance,
Speaker 1: and who deprived him of it? So really this kind
Speaker 1: of threshold question which he suggested the answer to it
Speaker 1: was a negative one for Read, meaning if you can't
Speaker 1: get past that, then Justice Thomas is unlikely to side
Speaker 1: with Read. But he was kind of on his own
Speaker 1: with that. Most of the justices were more so grappling
Speaker 1: with the crux of the issue that was presented in
Speaker 1: the case. But I really didn't get a sense that
Speaker 1: there was a majority coalescing around any particular answer to
Speaker 1: this question, at least at the argument. So it's another
Speaker 1: one of these where we're going to have to wait
Speaker 1: and see. I do think that Read has a shot,
Speaker 1: although you really never know at the court because the
Speaker 1: way that I look at it, say, we're talking about
Speaker 1: a death row inmate, and the Court has been very
Speaker 1: skeptical of claims coming from death rows. Though even though
Speaker 1: there was some support Read at the argument, including from
Speaker 1: Justice Barrett, in some ways he was seemingly agreeing with
Speaker 1: at least part of his claim, which could be a
Speaker 1: good sign for him, for one thing, that would only
Speaker 1: get him potentially to four justices when he would need five.
Speaker 1: And even then you just don't really know. So I
Speaker 1: do think Reid needs to get over that six three hurdle.
Speaker 1: I think that that's possible in the case, but we
Speaker 1: just won't know until we have the decision. So explain
Speaker 1: to me what kind of liberty interest was Thomas looking for.
Speaker 1: Isn't a liberty interest to have a fair trial right?
Speaker 1: So to kind of back up with that, and again,
Speaker 1: the interest is the denial of testing, and that the
Speaker 1: fact that the state process was unfair from Red's view,
Speaker 1: that's the crux of his claim. And that the person
Speaker 1: who was doing the denial, which is also an important
Speaker 1: part of Thomas's point, the question of who exactly is
Speaker 1: depriving him of that interest in this case, read is
Speaker 1: suing the district attorney who controls the evidence that could
Speaker 1: be tested. So that's a little bit more of a
Speaker 1: potentially interesting question just in terms of who is the
Speaker 1: one depriving someone of that right. Again, this is really
Speaker 1: something that Thomas was kind of off on his own
Speaker 1: with and I think is unlikely to dominate the decision
Speaker 1: at least based on the argument. So that's really the
Speaker 1: issue there that Thomas was getting at, to go beyond
Speaker 1: the oral arguments for a moment. Read is also pointing
Speaker 1: to an alternative perpetrator, the victim's husband, who was a
Speaker 1: police officer at the time. Read has brought evidence forth
Speaker 1: saying that the police officer knew about an affair that
Speaker 1: Read was having with the victim. And this becomes a
Speaker 1: bit of a he said, He said, although there is
Speaker 1: evidence from others supporting it now, but really it's a
Speaker 1: matter of new evidence coming forth and looking at it
Speaker 1: in a new way, which often happens in the post
Speaker 1: conviction context, not just potentially absolving Read, but pointing the
Speaker 1: finger at this alternative perpetrator, Jimmy Sinnel, the former police officer,
Speaker 1: who I should add was later convicted after being charged
Speaker 1: with sexual assault of a woman on duty in a
Speaker 1: case unrelated to this one. So that's something else that
Speaker 1: Read is pointing to. So the facts sort of scream
Speaker 1: out here, but it's a it's a technical issue for
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court exactly. It's going to come down to
Speaker 1: this technical issue in a way that I think is
Speaker 1: fairly understandable compared to some of the cases that the
Speaker 1: justice are usually taking on, but nonetheless still potentially of
Speaker 1: yours and even more significant issue hiding behind it. So
Speaker 1: you've covered a lot of these cases involving death row inmates,
Speaker 1: and are the justices, the conservative justices, perhaps concern that
Speaker 1: inmates are just trying to postpone their executions. That's certainly
Speaker 1: what they've said in a number of cases, and that issue.
Speaker 1: I wouldn't say that that dominated this argument, but it
Speaker 1: did come up, even if it wasn't really directly relevant,
Speaker 1: and that in itself shows how much of a concern
Speaker 1: it is from part of the court and from a
Speaker 1: state Texas, And so as I see it in any
Speaker 1: case being brought by a death row prisoner, that's the
Speaker 1: hurdle that they need to get around, no matter what
Speaker 1: the question presented is in a case, whether it's statute
Speaker 1: of limitations or something else. I think in reality that
Speaker 1: is what is driving the majority of the court in
Speaker 1: these cases. And so in this case, someone like read
Speaker 1: needs not just really to prevail on the legal issue
Speaker 1: in his case, but to convince the court that he's
Speaker 1: not just doing something in a sort of untoward or
Speaker 1: underhanded way in the majority's view. Also on Tuesday, the
Speaker 1: majority rejected an unrelated Texas death row appeal. Tell us
Speaker 1: about that, sure, that was the case of Andre Thomas.
Speaker 1: That was another death row case from Texas, as you said,
Speaker 1: And so that was a petition that the Court denied
Speaker 1: over dissent from the three Democratic appointees Soda my Or,
Speaker 1: Kagan and the new Justice Jackson filling in there for
Speaker 1: Justice Bryers. You see that split continue and the issue
Speaker 1: there was a matter of jury bias that the jurors
Speaker 1: in this case, it freely came out that they were
Speaker 1: opposed to interracial relationships. And the defendant in the case
Speaker 1: was black and the victim was white. I should say
Speaker 1: that that's the same dynamic that was at play in
Speaker 1: the Read case as well. Although the racial issue was
Speaker 1: not squarely presented in Read. Still, the Supreme Court wound
Speaker 1: up denying this petition over descent as usual. The Court
Speaker 1: doesn't give a reason for the denial, but in the
Speaker 1: three justice descent written by sodomy Or, she said courts
Speaker 1: have a duty to confront racial animus in the system
Speaker 1: and lamented that the Court didn't do something with this case.
Speaker 1: So Jordan's. Are there other death row inmate cases coming
Speaker 1: up this term? There isn't any one case that I
Speaker 1: think is really being watched in that way. But the
Speaker 1: thing about these death penalty cases is that they're often
Speaker 1: coming up on the emergency docket, or the shadow docket
Speaker 1: as it's called. So a lot of times what's prompting
Speaker 1: a case to come to the Supreme Court is the
Speaker 1: setting of an execution date. And so there certainly are
Speaker 1: execution dates that are set across the country. We're seeing
Speaker 1: we've seen that kind of schedule fill up, especially as
Speaker 1: the pandemic has waned in some executions have been postponed,
Speaker 1: especially on the state level. So that's really what I
Speaker 1: think is going to be driving this litigation. Anytime that
Speaker 1: there's an execution set, you can expect litigation coming up
Speaker 1: to the court on a quick basis, although that's not
Speaker 1: necessarily something that's forecasted ahead of time, and so people
Speaker 1: like myself just have to be ready for that. And
Speaker 1: I don't know if you can answer this question, but
Speaker 1: it seems to me just looking generally at the cases
Speaker 1: as they come up, that usually the death row inmate fails. Oh. Absolutely,
Speaker 1: there's no question about that. Sometimes the question to my
Speaker 1: mind is really is there even going to be a
Speaker 1: dissent in the case. And so it's certainly I think
Speaker 1: an uphill battle for any claim coming from death row
Speaker 1: for reasons that we discussed earlier about the court seeing
Speaker 1: death throw inmates is simply wanting to delay the inevitable
Speaker 1: as opposed to raising a meritorious legal claim. Thanks so much,
Speaker 1: Jordan's that's Bloomberg Laws, Jordan Reuben. It's the first seditious
Speaker 1: conspiracy trial over the January six capital riot, the most
Speaker 1: serious charge to emerge. Prosecutors say five members of the
Speaker 1: right wing militia group the Oath Keepers, planned an armed
Speaker 1: rebellion on January six. They allege that founder Stewart Rhodes
Speaker 1: led the conspiracy that started with calls to reject the
Speaker 1: election outcome, including an appearance on Info Wars. It's it's
Speaker 1: either President Trump is concouraged and bolstered strength and the
Speaker 1: duty must do, or we wind up in a bloody fight.
Speaker 1: We all know that the fight's coming. Joining me is
Speaker 1: former federal prosecutor Jimmy Grula, a professor at Notre Dame Laws.
Speaker 1: Cool their charge with seditious conspiracy and prosecutions for seditious
Speaker 1: conspiracy are pretty rare, So tell us about that, Well,
Speaker 1: they are rare, and you know, historically they have focused
Speaker 1: on attempts by certain groups, certain individuals attempting to overthrow
Speaker 1: the government, but the seditious conspiracy statute doesn't require that.
Speaker 1: In fact, the theory that the government is pursuing here
Speaker 1: is that the oath Keepers, including Stuart Rhodes, the leader
Speaker 1: of the oath Keepers, agreed enter into an agreement a
Speaker 1: conspiracy to use force to prevent, hinder, or delay the
Speaker 1: execution of the laws of the United States, specifically involving
Speaker 1: the peaceful transfer of power. So critical to the government's
Speaker 1: case it has to prove this element of agreement. They
Speaker 1: have to prove that two or more individuals agreed to
Speaker 1: use force again to prevent delay the peaceful transfer power
Speaker 1: from then President Trump to President of like Biden. I
Speaker 1: think that there there is compelling evidence to that effect,
Speaker 1: including the words of Stuart Rhodes and other defendants. So
Speaker 1: they're using their own words against them, specifically kind of
Speaker 1: encrypted communications during real time, you know, on January six
Speaker 1: and prior leading up to January six, where they're making
Speaker 1: some very incriminating statements regarding their efforts their intentions to
Speaker 1: block this transfer of power from one president to the next.
Speaker 1: You also have, and this image has been in my
Speaker 1: mind since January six. You have the oath keepers moving
Speaker 1: in stacked military formation, in full on gear and you know,
Speaker 1: and moving together through that whole crowd. But what about
Speaker 1: the fact that Stewart Rose and a couple of the
Speaker 1: others stayed outside. Yeah, what's really interesting aboutspiracy law is
Speaker 1: that the conspiracy doesn't have to be successful. The plan
Speaker 1: doesn't even have to be a good plan and effective plan.
Speaker 1: It's enough if two or more individuals agree to violate
Speaker 1: the law. And so even though Stewart Rhodes himself did
Speaker 1: not breach go into the capital building, that's not necessary.
Speaker 1: It's not necessary to prove that in order to support
Speaker 1: a conviction for conspiracy. It's the agreement, it's the understanding,
Speaker 1: it's the planning that is the heart the center of
Speaker 1: the conspiracy chart here. So it's no no defense really
Speaker 1: that well, he didn't, you know, breach the capital, He
Speaker 1: wasn't part of this stacked group of balth keepers that
Speaker 1: entered into the capital. He could still be convicted for
Speaker 1: conspiracy despite that, so the defense has argued that there
Speaker 1: was no plan to attack the capital. They went to
Speaker 1: d C to provide security for some events, and they
Speaker 1: were preparing for orders from Trump, which never came. It's
Speaker 1: an interesting defense, and I don't think it's going to
Speaker 1: be a successful one. And so apparently the claim is, well,
Speaker 1: we went to Washington, d C. We transported firearms and
Speaker 1: ammunition other weapons for the purpose of preventing the peaceful
Speaker 1: transfer of power, but we were waiting for the president
Speaker 1: to give us the green light to proceed and we
Speaker 1: never got the green light from the president for seed. Well,
Speaker 1: that's still not going to be a defense. If they
Speaker 1: had the agreement, they had the intent to delay, again
Speaker 1: hinder the application of the law, the enforcement of the law,
Speaker 1: then that's the crime, whether or not they actually were
Speaker 1: successful in doing it, whether or not they actually received
Speaker 1: some instruction from the presidents to go forward and executing
Speaker 1: their plan. The fact that they had a plan, they
Speaker 1: agree to the plan is the thrust of the conspiracy charge,
Speaker 1: not the successful execution of the plan. So I don't
Speaker 1: think that defense is going to be successful in preventing
Speaker 1: their conviction. His defense lawyer says, that Stewart Rhodes plans
Speaker 1: to testify in his own defense. He is a graduate
Speaker 1: of Yale Law School, but there are so many things
Speaker 1: that he's going to have to explain away. Yeah, it's
Speaker 1: a very dangerous strategy. In most criminal cases, a vast
Speaker 1: majority of criminal cases, defense lawyers really advise or clients
Speaker 1: and not take the stand because once they take the
Speaker 1: stand and they open themselves up to cross examination. And
Speaker 1: so I'm sure the d o J lawyers are well
Speaker 1: prepared to cross examined Stewart Roads. They have a good
Speaker 1: idea of what he's going to say, what his defense
Speaker 1: is going to be, and I'm sure they have prior conversations,
Speaker 1: tape recordings, et cetera of what he said in the
Speaker 1: past that they're going to use to impeach his claims
Speaker 1: of oh, I didn't have the intent. You know, it's
Speaker 1: to prevent the peaceful transfer of power. So it's a
Speaker 1: very very dangerous strategy and it actually could blow up
Speaker 1: in Stewart Road's face and actually make it easier to
Speaker 1: convict him. So what's the hardest part of this case
Speaker 1: for the prosecution. Again, it's going to be the intent,
Speaker 1: you know, did they have actually have the intent. The
Speaker 1: defendants of claim that, oh, this was just um boastful statements,
Speaker 1: this was First Amendment protected free speech, but as the
Speaker 1: evidence clearly shows that it was more than that. For example,
Speaker 1: with respect to one of the defendants, one of the
Speaker 1: oath keepers that that pled guilty to seditious conspiracy, there
Speaker 1: was evidence that he brought an an, a R fifteen rifle,
Speaker 1: a nine millimeter pistol, approximately two hundred rounds of ammunition,
Speaker 1: body armor, a camouflaged combat uniform, pepper spray all to
Speaker 1: the Washington, d C. Area. And so to suggest, oh, well,
Speaker 1: we didn't have the intent to engage in violence to
Speaker 1: prevent the peaceful transfer of power, that is contradicted by
Speaker 1: this efvidence, are bringing you know, lethal weapons, two hundred
Speaker 1: rounds of ammunition, And that wasn't for a peaceful protest,
Speaker 1: That wasn't for simply exercising one's First Amendment right to
Speaker 1: challenge and protest against the government. This is evidence of
Speaker 1: an intent to engage in violent conduct. What do you
Speaker 1: think of the defense using Donald Trump and saying we
Speaker 1: were waiting for him to invoke the Insurrection Act, we
Speaker 1: were waiting for orders from him that never came well.
Speaker 1: Part of it doesn't make sense because the Insurrection Act
Speaker 1: basically um provides the president with the authority to deploy
Speaker 1: the US military domestically to suppress an insurrection or rebellion,
Speaker 1: so again, to deploy U S military forces, or to
Speaker 1: deploy the state militia, which would be the State National Guard.
Speaker 1: There's nothing in the Insurrection Act, any of the provisions
Speaker 1: of the Insurrection Act that would apply to a private
Speaker 1: militia such as the Oath Keepers. It just doesn't apply
Speaker 1: to that situation. And for him to say, for forty
Speaker 1: Stewart Roach to say, oh, somehow that would have legitimized
Speaker 1: our action, for the president who invoke the Insurrection Act
Speaker 1: against this private militia, when the Interaction Act doesn't apply
Speaker 1: to private militias, It's just it's just not a very
Speaker 1: compelling persuasive argument. It just doesn't appear that that the
Speaker 1: Insurrection Act applies to private militia in the first instance. So, Jimmy,
Speaker 1: I look at this. They did all this planning, and
Speaker 1: yet they have shapes, They have so much, so much
Speaker 1: evidence that they created themselves, tapes and pictures and selfies.
Speaker 1: I just what were they thinking? Well, I mean that's
Speaker 1: the you know, the criminals of the fact that the
Speaker 1: criminals are caught, they're arrested, they're prosecuted. It's not because
Speaker 1: they're smart. I mean, it's very often it's they they
Speaker 1: think that they that they smartest person in the room.
Speaker 1: They think that they can get away with what they're doing.
Speaker 1: But but here there's such a strong trail of evidence,
Speaker 1: admissions by the different defendants, you know, caught on tape,
Speaker 1: their own words, I mean, they're they're likely to be
Speaker 1: convicted by their own words and their own conduct. You know,
Speaker 1: typically in criminal cases it's going to be other witnesses
Speaker 1: that are going to testify as to what they saw,
Speaker 1: and the rye witnesses and so on. Here it looks
Speaker 1: like the defendants could be convicted based upon their own words,
Speaker 1: their own admissions, their own conduct, the bringing off weapons,
Speaker 1: history of weapons in the DC area to be used later,
Speaker 1: uh to challenge again to to to participate in this
Speaker 1: act of of insurrection. So I think that they have
Speaker 1: a very very tough task ahead to try to convince
Speaker 1: the jury of their innocence despite their own words that
Speaker 1: that really speak to the contrary. Is there a included
Speaker 1: charge if the jury does not find seditious conspiracy. Well,
Speaker 1: you know, keep in mind that's not the only charge.
Speaker 1: So seditious conspiracy is is the principal charge. It's the
Speaker 1: most serious charge, and it carries a penalty of up
Speaker 1: to twenty years. But they've also been charged with obstruction
Speaker 1: of an official proceeding and conspiracy to prevent U d
Speaker 1: CUM officers from discharging their Capital Police from discharging their duties.
Speaker 1: So even if somehow that offense were to prevail, would
Speaker 1: be a reasonable doubt on the suspicious seditious conspiracy charge.
Speaker 1: There are two other felony charges that they're facing as well,
Speaker 1: and that the jury could could end up finding them
Speaker 1: liable for uh, you know, as well. So it could
Speaker 1: be all three charges or maybe seditious conspiracy or maybe
Speaker 1: one or both of the other two charges as well.
Speaker 1: So how high are the stakes for the government to
Speaker 1: get the can fiction on seditious conspiracy. The last time
Speaker 1: there was a conviction on seditious conspiracy was nearly thirty
Speaker 1: years ago against the Islamic militants who plotted to bomb
Speaker 1: New York City landmarks. So it's been a while. There's
Speaker 1: a lot of pressure, There's no question there's a lot
Speaker 1: of pressure on the d o J prosecutors. I mean
Speaker 1: if they fail, if the jury were to come back
Speaker 1: and quit these individuals, then it's certainly going to give
Speaker 1: a lot of fuel to the critics of the wide administration,
Speaker 1: the critics of the o J, the critics of the FBI,
Speaker 1: that these were all trumped up charges, that this was
Speaker 1: an overreach by the Department of Justice, and effect it
Speaker 1: would kind of lend legitimacy, if you will, to the
Speaker 1: actions taken on January six. So look, they're not criminal.
Speaker 1: If they were criminal, then these individuals would have been convicted,
Speaker 1: and if it's going to give an argument to really
Speaker 1: kind of minimize the seriousness of the attack on the U. S. Capital.
Speaker 1: Thanks Jimmy. That's Professor Jimmy Grule of Notre Dame Law School.
Speaker 1: And that's it for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show.
Speaker 1: Remember you can always get the latest legal news, honor
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,
Speaker 1: and at www dot Bloomberg dot com, Slash podcast, Slash Law,
Speaker 1: and remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every
Speaker 1: week night at ten bm Wall Street time. I'm June
Speaker 1: Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg