WEBVTT - Sheldon Silver Walks Free After Appeals Cout Win (Audio)

0:00:00.160 --> 0:00:04.080
<v Speaker 1>Thank you. Charlie Sheldon Silver, the once powerful Speaker of

0:00:04.080 --> 0:00:06.800
<v Speaker 1>the New York State Assembly, has been given a reprieve

0:00:06.960 --> 0:00:10.040
<v Speaker 1>by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Silver was convicted

0:00:10.080 --> 0:00:13.320
<v Speaker 1>of bribery in twenty fifteen for taking four million dollars

0:00:13.320 --> 0:00:16.120
<v Speaker 1>in kickbacks and was sentenced to twelve years in prison.

0:00:16.440 --> 0:00:19.800
<v Speaker 1>He was at on bail pending his appeal, which he won. Today,

0:00:20.280 --> 0:00:24.400
<v Speaker 1>the Manhattan Appeals Court tossed Silver's conviction because the instructions

0:00:24.440 --> 0:00:26.960
<v Speaker 1>given to the jury did not comport with the Supreme

0:00:27.000 --> 0:00:30.639
<v Speaker 1>Court ruling last year. Silver does not have a get

0:00:30.640 --> 0:00:34.199
<v Speaker 1>out of jail free card, though the Manhattan US Attorney,

0:00:34.240 --> 0:00:37.760
<v Speaker 1>the acting Manhattan U s Attorney, says Silver will be retried.

0:00:38.240 --> 0:00:40.920
<v Speaker 1>Joining me to discuss the case and its repercussions is

0:00:40.960 --> 0:00:43.720
<v Speaker 1>former federal prosecutor Robert Mintz, the head of the white

0:00:43.720 --> 0:00:47.400
<v Speaker 1>collar and criminal investigations practice at McCarter and English, and

0:00:47.479 --> 0:00:51.320
<v Speaker 1>Jeffrey Bell and a professor at William and Mary Law School, Bob.

0:00:51.400 --> 0:00:54.480
<v Speaker 1>The Supreme Court case that caused this reversal was the

0:00:54.520 --> 0:00:58.800
<v Speaker 1>case involving Bob McDonald, a former Republican governor of Virginia.

0:00:59.200 --> 0:01:04.520
<v Speaker 1>What did the court rule there that case June was

0:01:04.640 --> 0:01:09.200
<v Speaker 1>one that really had a strong impact on the government's

0:01:09.240 --> 0:01:12.679
<v Speaker 1>ability to bring these types of honest services fraud cases

0:01:13.120 --> 0:01:16.720
<v Speaker 1>because what it did is it redefined what constituted an

0:01:16.760 --> 0:01:20.160
<v Speaker 1>official act. In that case, the facts were pretty straightforward.

0:01:20.200 --> 0:01:24.440
<v Speaker 1>It was clear that the governor of Virginia, Governor Robert McDonald,

0:01:24.440 --> 0:01:27.120
<v Speaker 1>had had received a hundred and seventy five thou dollars

0:01:27.120 --> 0:01:29.600
<v Speaker 1>in loans and gifts from a business men, and in

0:01:29.720 --> 0:01:32.440
<v Speaker 1>exchange for that, what he did is he set up

0:01:32.480 --> 0:01:36.360
<v Speaker 1>meetings and provided the use of the Governor's mansion in

0:01:36.440 --> 0:01:39.920
<v Speaker 1>order to try to promote this nutritional supplement on behalf

0:01:39.959 --> 0:01:42.160
<v Speaker 1>of the businessmen who had given him those gifts. And

0:01:42.240 --> 0:01:47.280
<v Speaker 1>the question was whether that type of conduct, setting up meetings,

0:01:47.280 --> 0:01:51.280
<v Speaker 1>providing the governor's mansion, whether that type of conduct constituted

0:01:51.320 --> 0:01:54.080
<v Speaker 1>what what is an official act under the statute on

0:01:54.160 --> 0:01:56.400
<v Speaker 1>The Supreme Court held that it did not, that it

0:01:56.480 --> 0:01:58.760
<v Speaker 1>was too close to the line of what would be

0:01:58.880 --> 0:02:04.720
<v Speaker 1>normal constituents and services, and therefore that conviction was overturned. Jeff,

0:02:04.920 --> 0:02:08.600
<v Speaker 1>is this reversal really a surprise? Former Manhattan US Attorney

0:02:08.600 --> 0:02:12.200
<v Speaker 1>Pre Barrara said in the panel discussion in October that

0:02:12.360 --> 0:02:17.600
<v Speaker 1>the McDonald case might muck up the verdict in Silver, Yes,

0:02:17.720 --> 0:02:20.040
<v Speaker 1>I agree it did. It was likely it would muck

0:02:20.080 --> 0:02:21.280
<v Speaker 1>it up, and it did muck it up, and I

0:02:21.320 --> 0:02:23.560
<v Speaker 1>agree with you that it was not a surprise. I mean,

0:02:23.600 --> 0:02:27.840
<v Speaker 1>the lower courts we're using a jury instruction to define

0:02:27.960 --> 0:02:33.280
<v Speaker 1>official act throughout the country that was much looser than

0:02:33.360 --> 0:02:35.959
<v Speaker 1>the jury instruction that has to come now after the

0:02:36.040 --> 0:02:40.560
<v Speaker 1>McDonald case. Essentially, official act was defined prior to McDonald

0:02:40.680 --> 0:02:45.400
<v Speaker 1>as any act taken in an official capacity, and after McDonald,

0:02:45.800 --> 0:02:49.519
<v Speaker 1>as Bob says, there's a much narrower definition. And so

0:02:49.680 --> 0:02:52.560
<v Speaker 1>the jury is that decided cases in this interim period.

0:02:52.880 --> 0:02:56.119
<v Speaker 1>We're all using a jury instruction that the McDonald case

0:02:56.120 --> 0:02:59.360
<v Speaker 1>says was too friendly to the government. And so the

0:02:59.400 --> 0:03:01.840
<v Speaker 1>defendants and those cases have a very strong argument on appeal,

0:03:01.919 --> 0:03:04.880
<v Speaker 1>just like Mr Silver did, that they should get a

0:03:04.880 --> 0:03:09.720
<v Speaker 1>new trial with the proper jury instruction, Bob, Are the

0:03:09.800 --> 0:03:14.960
<v Speaker 1>facts in this case that the prosecution presented different enough

0:03:15.120 --> 0:03:17.240
<v Speaker 1>from the McDonald case. Is there enough of a quid

0:03:17.280 --> 0:03:21.079
<v Speaker 1>pro quo and official acts that they have a good

0:03:21.160 --> 0:03:25.920
<v Speaker 1>chance of getting a conviction the second time around? Well,

0:03:25.960 --> 0:03:30.680
<v Speaker 1>the facts are very different. The case of Sheldon Silver

0:03:31.160 --> 0:03:34.600
<v Speaker 1>essentially involved two criminal schemes where the governmental legs he

0:03:34.639 --> 0:03:39.000
<v Speaker 1>abused his position for personal gain. One of them involved

0:03:39.560 --> 0:03:42.680
<v Speaker 1>UH performing favers for a doctor in exchange for the

0:03:42.760 --> 0:03:47.600
<v Speaker 1>doctor referring methothelium with patients to Silver's law firm, and

0:03:47.640 --> 0:03:52.400
<v Speaker 1>the other UH involved to real estate developers who Silver

0:03:52.520 --> 0:03:56.520
<v Speaker 1>was allegedly providing favors for again in exchange for referral fees,

0:03:56.560 --> 0:03:59.280
<v Speaker 1>and as a result, according to the government, these schemes

0:03:59.280 --> 0:04:03.480
<v Speaker 1>produced about million dollars in referral fees for Silver. And

0:04:03.560 --> 0:04:06.720
<v Speaker 1>the question in these in each of these cases is

0:04:06.760 --> 0:04:09.040
<v Speaker 1>with the new instruction that would have to be given

0:04:09.520 --> 0:04:13.000
<v Speaker 1>pursuant to the McDonald case, would the jury still have

0:04:13.200 --> 0:04:16.800
<v Speaker 1>convicted Sheldon Silver. And we're going to find out, obviously,

0:04:16.839 --> 0:04:19.840
<v Speaker 1>because he's going to be retried according to the U. S.

0:04:19.839 --> 0:04:22.760
<v Speaker 1>Attorney UM in the Southern District. But the facts I

0:04:22.800 --> 0:04:26.080
<v Speaker 1>think are pretty strong here. Uh. There are some issues

0:04:26.120 --> 0:04:30.240
<v Speaker 1>about statued limitations because some of the conduct occurred outside

0:04:30.240 --> 0:04:32.880
<v Speaker 1>the five year Statute, and there'll be some issues about

0:04:32.920 --> 0:04:36.560
<v Speaker 1>whether all of that comes in UM. But again turns

0:04:36.760 --> 0:04:42.080
<v Speaker 1>on whether the favors that were performed by Silver constitute

0:04:42.440 --> 0:04:46.680
<v Speaker 1>official acts within this narrower definition that the McDonald court

0:04:46.720 --> 0:04:50.440
<v Speaker 1>handed down Jeff. This ruling comes just days after the

0:04:50.480 --> 0:04:54.480
<v Speaker 1>same court upheld the bribery conviction of former Brooklyn Assemblyman

0:04:54.560 --> 0:04:59.240
<v Speaker 1>William Boylan Jr. On similar grounds. Questioning the jury instructions,

0:05:00.040 --> 0:05:03.280
<v Speaker 1>what was the difference between the two cases? All right, well,

0:05:03.279 --> 0:05:05.240
<v Speaker 1>this this is a question I'm not prepared for us.

0:05:05.279 --> 0:05:06.719
<v Speaker 1>I'm not gonna answer this one, but I will. I

0:05:06.720 --> 0:05:10.039
<v Speaker 1>wanted to comment on your previous question to Bob Mints

0:05:10.360 --> 0:05:12.920
<v Speaker 1>on on what will happen going forward with the Silver case.

0:05:12.960 --> 0:05:15.880
<v Speaker 1>If you remember, in the McDonald case, the attorneys that

0:05:15.960 --> 0:05:18.400
<v Speaker 1>prosecuted the case wanted to go forward on that case

0:05:18.440 --> 0:05:21.559
<v Speaker 1>and retry him as well, and it was according to leaks,

0:05:21.600 --> 0:05:25.280
<v Speaker 1>it was the Department of Justice Main headquarters that overruled that.

0:05:25.640 --> 0:05:28.400
<v Speaker 1>And so I think there's still we're still to see

0:05:28.720 --> 0:05:31.080
<v Speaker 1>if the case against Silver as were tried. I unfortunately

0:05:31.120 --> 0:05:32.800
<v Speaker 1>don't know the facts of the case of your reference.

0:05:32.920 --> 0:05:35.320
<v Speaker 1>I can't comment on the differences there. Bob, Do you

0:05:35.360 --> 0:05:38.440
<v Speaker 1>know that case. It's not quite as as well known

0:05:38.560 --> 0:05:43.279
<v Speaker 1>as the Silver case. But let's take the conviction of

0:05:43.360 --> 0:05:46.760
<v Speaker 1>former New York Senate leader Dean Skelos. Is that in

0:05:46.839 --> 0:05:52.400
<v Speaker 1>jeopardy now because he was convicted on extortion, bribering conspiracy charges,

0:05:52.400 --> 0:05:55.520
<v Speaker 1>and he too is cited the McDonald ruling in his appeal,

0:05:55.600 --> 0:05:59.359
<v Speaker 1>which is pending. Yeah, I mean, every single case that

0:05:59.400 --> 0:06:02.320
<v Speaker 1>has come down own um, where there was a conviction

0:06:02.560 --> 0:06:05.960
<v Speaker 1>prior to McDonald, you can bet that defense lawyers are

0:06:06.000 --> 0:06:10.440
<v Speaker 1>going to argue that those instructions um were flawed. And

0:06:10.760 --> 0:06:13.480
<v Speaker 1>it's important to bear in mind that even in this

0:06:13.520 --> 0:06:17.360
<v Speaker 1>case where the conviction was reversed, the Supreme Court, uh,

0:06:17.920 --> 0:06:20.760
<v Speaker 1>the Second Circuit rather is not saying that there was

0:06:20.839 --> 0:06:24.479
<v Speaker 1>insufficient evidence to gain a conviction. They're just saying that

0:06:24.640 --> 0:06:28.359
<v Speaker 1>a reasonable jury might have gone either way if the

0:06:28.400 --> 0:06:32.280
<v Speaker 1>instructions had been properly delivered. So I think with with

0:06:32.320 --> 0:06:35.600
<v Speaker 1>the with the Silver case, and and with Dean Skelots,

0:06:35.640 --> 0:06:38.200
<v Speaker 1>those are cases that, um, we're just gonna have to

0:06:38.240 --> 0:06:40.719
<v Speaker 1>see how they play out. I think it's very difficult

0:06:40.760 --> 0:06:44.240
<v Speaker 1>to predict whether there'll be a conviction again with the

0:06:44.360 --> 0:06:49.359
<v Speaker 1>narrower instructions that are now mandated by the McDonald decision. Jeff,

0:06:49.480 --> 0:06:54.440
<v Speaker 1>can you explain in simple terms how much narrower the

0:06:54.440 --> 0:06:58.000
<v Speaker 1>the instructions are now I mean, and and what the

0:06:58.040 --> 0:07:03.440
<v Speaker 1>purpose of of the narrowing is sure. The Supreme Court,

0:07:03.640 --> 0:07:05.520
<v Speaker 1>I think the way they looked at the McDonald case

0:07:05.640 --> 0:07:08.400
<v Speaker 1>was they were alarmed that the jury instruction in that

0:07:08.480 --> 0:07:11.120
<v Speaker 1>case that said if you give a politician any money

0:07:11.160 --> 0:07:13.800
<v Speaker 1>in exchange for official acts, and if you would define

0:07:13.840 --> 0:07:17.280
<v Speaker 1>official act as anything the government official does in an

0:07:17.320 --> 0:07:21.240
<v Speaker 1>official capacity, that it looked like that would make almost

0:07:21.240 --> 0:07:26.200
<v Speaker 1>every politician at jeopardy for being criminally prosecuted, because politicians,

0:07:26.240 --> 0:07:29.840
<v Speaker 1>as we unfortunately know, are constantly receiving money from donors

0:07:29.880 --> 0:07:33.760
<v Speaker 1>and the like, and they're then providing access and favors

0:07:33.800 --> 0:07:37.280
<v Speaker 1>to those donors. And it seemed like the jury instructions

0:07:37.280 --> 0:07:40.520
<v Speaker 1>allowed juries to convict if you gave a politician some

0:07:40.560 --> 0:07:43.240
<v Speaker 1>money and the politician gave you access in a meeting

0:07:43.360 --> 0:07:46.760
<v Speaker 1>or something like that that other constituents did not receive.

0:07:47.120 --> 0:07:48.960
<v Speaker 1>The Supreme Court kind of blinked at that. Even though

0:07:48.960 --> 0:07:51.480
<v Speaker 1>the statute that they were working under could have covered

0:07:51.520 --> 0:07:54.440
<v Speaker 1>that conduct, Streme Court didn't didn't want that to be

0:07:54.480 --> 0:07:57.320
<v Speaker 1>the case, and so they interpreted the statute more narrowly

0:07:57.360 --> 0:08:00.080
<v Speaker 1>and said, it's not enough to just get access, to

0:08:00.160 --> 0:08:01.920
<v Speaker 1>just get a meeting, to just get a phone call

0:08:02.040 --> 0:08:04.400
<v Speaker 1>from your politician. When you give them money, it has

0:08:04.440 --> 0:08:07.760
<v Speaker 1>to be that the politician promised to give you some

0:08:08.160 --> 0:08:12.160
<v Speaker 1>actual official result, right, So like there is something, I'm sorry,

0:08:12.160 --> 0:08:14.160
<v Speaker 1>I'm gonna have to I'm gonna have to stop me there.

0:08:14.200 --> 0:08:16.960
<v Speaker 1>I'm sure we'll be discussing this McDonald case over and

0:08:17.040 --> 0:08:20.200
<v Speaker 1>over again. Thank you, Jeff Bell and Professor William and

0:08:20.240 --> 0:08:22.520
<v Speaker 1>Mary Law School and Bob Man's head of the White

0:08:22.520 --> 0:08:25.760
<v Speaker 1>Color and Criminal Investigations Unit at McCarter and English