1
00:00:03,200 --> 00:00:07,960
Speaker 1: This is Bloombird Law with June Brussel from Bloombird Radio.

2
00:00:09,160 --> 00:00:12,399
Speaker 1: Thirty three parents caught up in the college admissions cheating

3
00:00:12,480 --> 00:00:16,120
Speaker 1: scandal chose to plead guilty. The first two parents who

4
00:00:16,239 --> 00:00:19,279
Speaker 1: chose to have a jury decide their cases were found

5
00:00:19,360 --> 00:00:23,240
Speaker 1: guilty on all counts, guilty of paying hundreds of thousands

6
00:00:23,239 --> 00:00:26,040
Speaker 1: of dollars in bribes to get their kids into elite

7
00:00:26,079 --> 00:00:30,720
Speaker 1: schools as bogus athletic recruits. Acting you as attorney, Nathaniel

8
00:00:30,760 --> 00:00:34,120
Speaker 1: Mandel said, no one is above the law. They and

9
00:00:34,159 --> 00:00:38,599
Speaker 1: their families enjoy privileges and opportunities that most of us

10
00:00:38,720 --> 00:00:42,120
Speaker 1: can only imagine. Yet they were willing to break the law,

11
00:00:42,720 --> 00:00:44,720
Speaker 1: and the jury has now found that they did break

12
00:00:44,760 --> 00:00:49,920
Speaker 1: the law. The prosecutors had introduced powerful evidence, including secretly

13
00:00:49,920 --> 00:00:52,920
Speaker 1: recorded phone calls between the two men and Rick Singer,

14
00:00:53,360 --> 00:00:56,160
Speaker 1: the ringleader of the scheme. I can send him your

15
00:00:56,320 --> 00:01:00,560
Speaker 1: five hundred thousand that you wired into my account to

16
00:01:00,920 --> 00:01:04,960
Speaker 1: secure the spot for one of your girl joining me,

17
00:01:05,040 --> 00:01:08,520
Speaker 1: is Bloomberg Legal reporter Patricia Hurtano, who covered the trial.

18
00:01:09,040 --> 00:01:11,240
Speaker 1: So pat, how long was the jury out? Well? The

19
00:01:11,319 --> 00:01:14,880
Speaker 1: jury deliberated just a little over ten hours over two days,

20
00:01:15,200 --> 00:01:19,040
Speaker 1: and it was a categorical win for the government. They

21
00:01:19,200 --> 00:01:22,520
Speaker 1: convicted both of these dads who were accused of paying

22
00:01:22,560 --> 00:01:25,680
Speaker 1: bribes to get their kids into elite schools. Convicted of

23
00:01:25,880 --> 00:01:29,679
Speaker 1: every single count. There was one question from the jury,

24
00:01:29,760 --> 00:01:34,760
Speaker 1: and it was a complicated charge encompassing the concept of

25
00:01:34,959 --> 00:01:39,160
Speaker 1: the parents paid bribe to corrupt people, and by doing

26
00:01:39,200 --> 00:01:44,320
Speaker 1: this bribing, they robbed the colleges of the honest services

27
00:01:44,360 --> 00:01:47,920
Speaker 1: of their employees to do their job properly and not

28
00:01:48,240 --> 00:01:51,200
Speaker 1: give slots to kids whose parents paid bribes. And the

29
00:01:51,280 --> 00:01:54,200
Speaker 1: judge basically gave the jury on the smartest board of

30
00:01:54,240 --> 00:01:57,600
Speaker 1: opportunities to convict them just on that one count alone.

31
00:01:57,880 --> 00:02:00,920
Speaker 1: The jury found guilty on everything. The account I was

32
00:02:01,000 --> 00:02:06,160
Speaker 1: quite stunning. Um. The defense had argued vociferously that they

33
00:02:06,160 --> 00:02:09,200
Speaker 1: had not paid bribe and if they had paid money,

34
00:02:09,480 --> 00:02:14,399
Speaker 1: they understood them to be quote unquote donations to these schools.

35
00:02:14,480 --> 00:02:18,920
Speaker 1: So they said, this corrupt college counselor named William Rick Singer,

36
00:02:18,960 --> 00:02:21,760
Speaker 1: who had played guilty and agreed to cooperate against them,

37
00:02:22,040 --> 00:02:25,080
Speaker 1: he was the con man who had lied to them

38
00:02:25,120 --> 00:02:27,920
Speaker 1: and misled them about what the true function of the

39
00:02:27,919 --> 00:02:31,640
Speaker 1: money was going to be. The prosecutors managed to get

40
00:02:31,680 --> 00:02:36,200
Speaker 1: this verdict even without the testimony of the mastermind. How

41
00:02:36,240 --> 00:02:38,960
Speaker 1: did that go? Well, what they did is they did

42
00:02:38,960 --> 00:02:42,919
Speaker 1: play the wire taps of these parents discussing Lip Singer

43
00:02:43,080 --> 00:02:47,040
Speaker 1: their plan. And John Wilson is the equity executive and

44
00:02:47,120 --> 00:02:51,119
Speaker 1: he was on tape talking to Singer about possibly arranging

45
00:02:51,160 --> 00:02:54,919
Speaker 1: to pay five thousand dollars for each of his two daughters,

46
00:02:54,960 --> 00:02:59,000
Speaker 1: so a million dollars to facilitate his daughter's entrants into

47
00:02:59,280 --> 00:03:02,240
Speaker 1: Stanford and Harvard. And then he asked if he could

48
00:03:02,280 --> 00:03:04,639
Speaker 1: get a two for one deal, so he was haggling

49
00:03:04,680 --> 00:03:06,640
Speaker 1: for a discount, so he didn't want to pay more

50
00:03:06,680 --> 00:03:09,680
Speaker 1: than a million, and the government said that was showing

51
00:03:09,800 --> 00:03:12,720
Speaker 1: his willingness to engage in a dirty deal. And the

52
00:03:12,760 --> 00:03:15,840
Speaker 1: other dad, Gamal abdel Aziz, and he's a former Win

53
00:03:15,960 --> 00:03:19,880
Speaker 1: Resorts executive. He was on tape talking to Singer. Singer

54
00:03:19,919 --> 00:03:23,000
Speaker 1: actually was bragging to him that he wanted to use

55
00:03:23,040 --> 00:03:26,040
Speaker 1: this fake profile that they used to get his daughter

56
00:03:26,120 --> 00:03:30,600
Speaker 1: into USC as they purported basketball star, that he wanted

57
00:03:30,600 --> 00:03:34,280
Speaker 1: to use it for other fake athletes. And Adela Zis

58
00:03:34,400 --> 00:03:37,120
Speaker 1: chuckles and says, I love it. So the government said

59
00:03:37,200 --> 00:03:40,200
Speaker 1: this is the true understanding these two parents had that

60
00:03:40,280 --> 00:03:43,920
Speaker 1: they knowingly understood that Singer was corrupting the process. The

61
00:03:44,000 --> 00:03:48,280
Speaker 1: judge made some evidentially rulings that seemed like points on

62
00:03:48,360 --> 00:03:51,760
Speaker 1: appeal what the government did in this case, and the

63
00:03:51,840 --> 00:03:55,720
Speaker 1: judge allowed it as he allowed the prosecutors to put

64
00:03:55,720 --> 00:03:59,960
Speaker 1: in evidence from other parents, including emails, And then they

65
00:04:00,160 --> 00:04:02,640
Speaker 1: called one of these dads who played guilty. His name

66
00:04:02,640 --> 00:04:06,600
Speaker 1: is Bruce Isaacson. He's a Northern California businessman. He and

67
00:04:06,640 --> 00:04:09,120
Speaker 1: his wife played guilty to pay bribes to Singer to

68
00:04:09,160 --> 00:04:13,560
Speaker 1: get their kids into college. This dad testified about his mindset,

69
00:04:13,800 --> 00:04:17,880
Speaker 1: so the government said, you can infer from the testimony

70
00:04:17,920 --> 00:04:21,000
Speaker 1: of this other dad with these two dads were thinking.

71
00:04:21,160 --> 00:04:24,680
Speaker 1: The defense vociferously argued against this. They said it's unfair.

72
00:04:25,240 --> 00:04:28,120
Speaker 1: Some of the evidence that the defense argued shouldn't have

73
00:04:28,160 --> 00:04:30,359
Speaker 1: been seen by this jury because it had nothing to

74
00:04:30,360 --> 00:04:35,200
Speaker 1: do with these defendants. For example, prosecutors show jurors conversations

75
00:04:35,200 --> 00:04:39,159
Speaker 1: and emails with other parents like Felicity Huffman or Lly

76
00:04:39,279 --> 00:04:42,919
Speaker 1: Laughlin and her husband about their kids that had nothing

77
00:04:42,960 --> 00:04:45,520
Speaker 1: to do with these two defendants kids, and all set

78
00:04:45,560 --> 00:04:49,520
Speaker 1: wire taps of other parents talking to Singer which they

79
00:04:49,520 --> 00:04:51,880
Speaker 1: said had nothing to do with their clients, and the

80
00:04:52,040 --> 00:04:56,440
Speaker 1: judge also limited the evidence that the defendants could bring

81
00:04:56,520 --> 00:05:00,560
Speaker 1: in to make their case right. The defender wanted to

82
00:05:00,600 --> 00:05:04,320
Speaker 1: bring in more evidence of what exactly was going on

83
00:05:04,440 --> 00:05:07,200
Speaker 1: at these schools, and they really went after USC, the

84
00:05:07,279 --> 00:05:10,840
Speaker 1: University of Southern California, and they had this v I

85
00:05:10,880 --> 00:05:14,640
Speaker 1: P List which they showed the jury which had all

86
00:05:14,640 --> 00:05:18,440
Speaker 1: these students that were admitted as a similar kind of

87
00:05:18,600 --> 00:05:22,240
Speaker 1: recruited athletes or they're called walk on, So they're not

88
00:05:22,320 --> 00:05:25,960
Speaker 1: the actual star athletes that are you know, national champions,

89
00:05:26,160 --> 00:05:28,160
Speaker 1: but they are students who get in and they get

90
00:05:28,160 --> 00:05:31,320
Speaker 1: to be on the team as like the manager or

91
00:05:31,520 --> 00:05:34,920
Speaker 1: second string for example. And so these two parents would

92
00:05:34,960 --> 00:05:38,640
Speaker 1: argued they should be allowed to show this transactional aspect

93
00:05:38,760 --> 00:05:42,400
Speaker 1: college admissions is about. At USC, they argued that USC

94
00:05:42,480 --> 00:05:45,760
Speaker 1: admitted kids, and they had evidence in this the spreadsheet

95
00:05:46,279 --> 00:05:49,520
Speaker 1: of kids that parents had given donations, including a kid

96
00:05:49,760 --> 00:05:52,840
Speaker 1: whose parents gave USC five million dollars and the kid

97
00:05:52,920 --> 00:05:56,440
Speaker 1: got admitted as a quote unquote walk on tennis recruit.

98
00:05:56,680 --> 00:06:01,200
Speaker 1: But the judge rejected their ability to call USC Athletics

99
00:06:01,200 --> 00:06:05,920
Speaker 1: department officials to really inquire and explore this. You know,

100
00:06:06,240 --> 00:06:09,120
Speaker 1: money talks in the admissions process, and the judge that

101
00:06:09,320 --> 00:06:11,800
Speaker 1: usc was not on trial, so the only thing that

102
00:06:11,839 --> 00:06:15,000
Speaker 1: could really bring out was if you're a recruited athlete,

103
00:06:15,360 --> 00:06:19,200
Speaker 1: you have like anne chance of admission. Some of these

104
00:06:19,279 --> 00:06:22,680
Speaker 1: kids actually get admitted when there's sophomores in high school

105
00:06:22,800 --> 00:06:25,880
Speaker 1: and they get a promise of admissions, of guaranteed admission

106
00:06:26,160 --> 00:06:28,599
Speaker 1: in sophomore year in high school. You did a story

107
00:06:28,640 --> 00:06:32,279
Speaker 1: that there was a debate within the prosecutor's office about

108
00:06:32,279 --> 00:06:36,000
Speaker 1: whether the target singer the mastermind, or use him to

109
00:06:36,000 --> 00:06:39,960
Speaker 1: go after the wealthy parents. And usually prosecutors go up

110
00:06:40,000 --> 00:06:42,600
Speaker 1: the ladder. In this case they went down the ladder.

111
00:06:43,160 --> 00:06:47,520
Speaker 1: Judge Nancy Gertner, who is a retired federal judge in Boston,

112
00:06:47,720 --> 00:06:50,680
Speaker 1: and she's a professor at Harvard Law School, and she

113
00:06:50,880 --> 00:06:55,280
Speaker 1: was saying, that is like using the drug kingpin to

114
00:06:55,360 --> 00:06:58,520
Speaker 1: have them played guilty and testify against his clients, the

115
00:06:58,560 --> 00:07:00,760
Speaker 1: people who buy the drugs rand. This is kind of

116
00:07:00,760 --> 00:07:05,000
Speaker 1: backwards in the philosophy. Now, there was a raging debate.

117
00:07:05,120 --> 00:07:08,320
Speaker 1: I spoke to Andrew Welling, who was the Bostons attorney

118
00:07:08,600 --> 00:07:12,360
Speaker 1: who led the office when they were putting this case together,

119
00:07:13,160 --> 00:07:16,400
Speaker 1: and he said they decided that it would make a

120
00:07:16,440 --> 00:07:20,360
Speaker 1: begger impression against the corrupt parents instead of having a

121
00:07:20,520 --> 00:07:23,840
Speaker 1: learn off case and just going after Singer and have

122
00:07:24,040 --> 00:07:27,080
Speaker 1: him get convicted and then maybe you might be able

123
00:07:27,120 --> 00:07:30,080
Speaker 1: to implicate one or two parents. But they decided to

124
00:07:30,120 --> 00:07:33,840
Speaker 1: go big and make a big, splashy case against all

125
00:07:33,880 --> 00:07:38,200
Speaker 1: these parents because under their philosophy, if this national scandal

126
00:07:38,320 --> 00:07:42,000
Speaker 1: got exposed, it may deter other parents from a perk

127
00:07:42,080 --> 00:07:46,880
Speaker 1: walk or prison jumpsuit. So interesting, thanks, Pat. That's Bloomberg

128
00:07:46,960 --> 00:07:50,920
Speaker 1: Legal reporter Patricia Hurtado. The two fathers are facing years

129
00:07:50,960 --> 00:07:54,360
Speaker 1: in prison at sentencing, in contrast to the parents who

130
00:07:54,400 --> 00:08:02,560
Speaker 1: pled guilty and served only months in prison. This is

131
00:08:02,640 --> 00:08:08,480
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Law with June Bresso from Bloomberg Radio. This week,

132
00:08:08,560 --> 00:08:12,000
Speaker 1: the Body Administration was at the Supreme Court arguing to

133
00:08:12,040 --> 00:08:15,320
Speaker 1: reinstate the death sentence for Joe hars Or Nayev, the

134
00:08:15,360 --> 00:08:17,840
Speaker 1: man convicted of setting off one of the bombs that

135
00:08:18,000 --> 00:08:23,000
Speaker 1: killed three people at the Boston marathon. That's despite President

136
00:08:23,040 --> 00:08:26,640
Speaker 1: Biden's opposition to the death penalty. The main issue was

137
00:08:26,680 --> 00:08:29,240
Speaker 1: whether the trial judge should have admitted evidence of a

138
00:08:29,320 --> 00:08:34,400
Speaker 1: triple murder allegedly committed by Sarnajev's older brother, Tamerlin, in

139
00:08:34,520 --> 00:08:37,760
Speaker 1: order to show sar Naiev was acting under the influence

140
00:08:37,760 --> 00:08:42,640
Speaker 1: of his brother. The justices were sharply divided down ideological lines.

141
00:08:43,000 --> 00:08:46,480
Speaker 1: Here are Jonas Says, Elena Kagan, and Brett Kavanaugh. This

142
00:08:46,600 --> 00:08:51,640
Speaker 1: court let in evidence about tamer Lane poking somebody in

143
00:08:51,679 --> 00:08:55,120
Speaker 1: the chest. This court led an evidence about tamer Lane

144
00:08:55,160 --> 00:08:58,760
Speaker 1: shouting at people. This court led an evidence about Tamerlane

145
00:08:58,760 --> 00:09:03,360
Speaker 1: assaulting a former student, a fellow student, all because that

146
00:09:03,559 --> 00:09:07,080
Speaker 1: showed what kind of person Tamerlane was and what kind

147
00:09:07,080 --> 00:09:10,160
Speaker 1: of influence he might have had over his brother. And

148
00:09:10,240 --> 00:09:14,280
Speaker 1: yet this court kept out evidence that tamer Land led

149
00:09:15,480 --> 00:09:20,560
Speaker 1: a crime that that resulted in three murders. And the

150
00:09:20,640 --> 00:09:23,640
Speaker 1: district Court said, we don't know what happened. There's been

151
00:09:23,679 --> 00:09:27,120
Speaker 1: insufficient evidence of who did what, and therefore the theory

152
00:09:27,200 --> 00:09:31,240
Speaker 1: that Tamerlane was the lead player in that is entirely

153
00:09:31,320 --> 00:09:36,160
Speaker 1: unull is unreliable because we don't know when Tadashev had

154
00:09:36,240 --> 00:09:38,760
Speaker 1: all the motive in the world to point the finger

155
00:09:38,840 --> 00:09:41,800
Speaker 1: at the dead guy. There was even a tense exchange

156
00:09:41,920 --> 00:09:44,719
Speaker 1: between the two justices. I just want to make sure

157
00:09:44,760 --> 00:09:47,800
Speaker 1: the premise. I mean the premise was assumed away. The

158
00:09:47,840 --> 00:09:52,160
Speaker 1: premise was assumed away because that's the role of the jury. Well,

159
00:09:52,280 --> 00:09:55,319
Speaker 1: I think it's important to discuss the distrec court's reasoning.

160
00:09:55,880 --> 00:09:58,440
Speaker 1: Joining me to analyze the arguments is John Bloom, a

161
00:09:58,440 --> 00:10:01,440
Speaker 1: professor at Cornell Law School and director of the Corneill

162
00:10:01,520 --> 00:10:04,320
Speaker 1: Death Penalty Project. So, John, why did the Court of

163
00:10:04,360 --> 00:10:08,920
Speaker 1: Appeals throw out Sarnayev's death sentence? The United States Court

164
00:10:08,920 --> 00:10:12,359
Speaker 1: of Appeals for the First Circuit left undisturbed the guilty convictions,

165
00:10:12,520 --> 00:10:15,400
Speaker 1: but reversed the death sentence on two independent bases. The

166
00:10:15,480 --> 00:10:18,280
Speaker 1: first was that the judge and made a legal error

167
00:10:18,440 --> 00:10:21,439
Speaker 1: in refusing to either question or allow the lawyers to

168
00:10:21,559 --> 00:10:25,240
Speaker 1: question the jurors about the content of the pre tropicality

169
00:10:25,280 --> 00:10:27,720
Speaker 1: to which they've been exposed to during the trial. The

170
00:10:27,800 --> 00:10:31,040
Speaker 1: second basis was that the First Circuit determined that the

171
00:10:31,080 --> 00:10:36,200
Speaker 1: trial judge should have allowed evidence that Scenariev's brother previously

172
00:10:36,240 --> 00:10:38,959
Speaker 1: committed to several homicides in Massachusetts, and they wanted to

173
00:10:39,000 --> 00:10:42,280
Speaker 1: admit that evidence of proof that brother had been previously

174
00:10:42,400 --> 00:10:46,920
Speaker 1: radicalized and was acting on his radicalized beliefs, and that

175
00:10:47,040 --> 00:10:50,000
Speaker 1: he's the one who radicalized the scenariev and he was

176
00:10:50,040 --> 00:10:52,760
Speaker 1: the primary planner of the crimes. They wanted to use

177
00:10:52,840 --> 00:10:55,040
Speaker 1: that evocace. It went to basically their theory at the

178
00:10:55,080 --> 00:10:58,320
Speaker 1: case was that Snario was the least culpable the two brothers.

179
00:10:58,679 --> 00:11:03,360
Speaker 1: His brother was planned and included and groomed him to participate. Here,

180
00:11:03,400 --> 00:11:07,640
Speaker 1: the Biden administration is arguing to reinstate the death sentence.

181
00:11:08,040 --> 00:11:12,440
Speaker 1: When Biden ran on ending the federal death penalty and

182
00:11:12,480 --> 00:11:17,520
Speaker 1: in July the Attorney General placed a moratorium on federal executions,

183
00:11:18,200 --> 00:11:22,280
Speaker 1: why do you suppose the Biden administration is taking this position. Well,

184
00:11:22,400 --> 00:11:25,079
Speaker 1: I mean, there is some mystery to it. In theory,

185
00:11:25,200 --> 00:11:28,200
Speaker 1: you could draw a distinction between saying we're not going

186
00:11:28,200 --> 00:11:30,920
Speaker 1: to pursue the death only going forward, We're not going

187
00:11:30,960 --> 00:11:35,600
Speaker 1: to allow any executions going forward, but nevertheless, we're not

188
00:11:35,720 --> 00:11:40,360
Speaker 1: going to try and disturb previous convictions and descindances which

189
00:11:40,400 --> 00:11:43,320
Speaker 1: have been imposed. I think some of it is because

190
00:11:43,440 --> 00:11:47,319
Speaker 1: they didn't actually seek surceerarias the Trump administration that asked

191
00:11:47,320 --> 00:11:50,000
Speaker 1: the government to review the decision of the First Circuit.

192
00:11:50,200 --> 00:11:53,240
Speaker 1: The Supreme Court had already made that decision when Biden

193
00:11:53,360 --> 00:11:56,600
Speaker 1: became president, and maybe they just didn't want to withdraw

194
00:11:56,640 --> 00:11:59,400
Speaker 1: it at the time, but there definitely is some head

195
00:11:59,400 --> 00:12:01,560
Speaker 1: scratching and long about some of them. There was only

196
00:12:01,600 --> 00:12:06,920
Speaker 1: one Justice Amy Coney Barrett, that raised this issue. Mr Fagan.

197
00:12:07,000 --> 00:12:09,839
Speaker 1: I'm wondering what the government's end game is here. So

198
00:12:09,880 --> 00:12:13,600
Speaker 1: the government has declared a moratorium on executions, but you're

199
00:12:13,640 --> 00:12:17,800
Speaker 1: here defending his death sentences and if you win, presumably

200
00:12:17,880 --> 00:12:21,880
Speaker 1: that means that he is relegated to living under the

201
00:12:21,920 --> 00:12:24,440
Speaker 1: threat of a death sentence that the government doesn't plan

202
00:12:24,559 --> 00:12:26,760
Speaker 1: to carry out. Well, let me she's right about that.

203
00:12:26,880 --> 00:12:30,600
Speaker 1: Technically that's not legally relevant to the question for the court.

204
00:12:30,679 --> 00:12:32,880
Speaker 1: But you could ask the same question about well, why

205
00:12:32,960 --> 00:12:36,240
Speaker 1: they take it. This case wouldn't normally meet the rules

206
00:12:36,280 --> 00:12:38,720
Speaker 1: for surerari review. It's not an issue about which the

207
00:12:38,760 --> 00:12:41,520
Speaker 1: lower court in either, one about which there was some

208
00:12:41,559 --> 00:12:45,880
Speaker 1: confusion about. The Court historically has said we don't engage

209
00:12:45,920 --> 00:12:48,520
Speaker 1: in error correction. We don't decide to hear cases just

210
00:12:48,520 --> 00:12:50,640
Speaker 1: because we think the lower court got it wrong. There's

211
00:12:50,640 --> 00:12:54,480
Speaker 1: got to be some so overarching legal rule mistake that

212
00:12:54,559 --> 00:12:58,160
Speaker 1: needs clarification or revision. Less not an issue here either.

213
00:12:58,240 --> 00:13:01,440
Speaker 1: So they clearly granted hurt in this case primarily for

214
00:13:01,440 --> 00:13:04,360
Speaker 1: the purpose, most likely because the majority of them don't

215
00:13:04,400 --> 00:13:07,679
Speaker 1: like the result of air circuit reached. The bulk of

216
00:13:07,760 --> 00:13:11,439
Speaker 1: the argument concerned the judge's failure to admit the evidence

217
00:13:11,480 --> 00:13:16,120
Speaker 1: of the triple murder. What were the justice's main concerns? Well,

218
00:13:16,360 --> 00:13:19,640
Speaker 1: the conservative justice has raised some questions about, well, was

219
00:13:19,720 --> 00:13:23,040
Speaker 1: the evidence reliable? Do we really know what Tamerlin did?

220
00:13:23,559 --> 00:13:25,800
Speaker 1: To come back to that as well, they used the

221
00:13:25,840 --> 00:13:28,880
Speaker 1: same evidence that Scenarios lawyers wanted to present a trial

222
00:13:28,920 --> 00:13:31,480
Speaker 1: as basis to convince a judge there was probable costs

223
00:13:31,480 --> 00:13:33,360
Speaker 1: to conduct a search. So they were saying with the

224
00:13:33,400 --> 00:13:36,120
Speaker 1: government here said it was reliable in one context. But

225
00:13:36,200 --> 00:13:38,439
Speaker 1: yet when scenario and admitted his trial, they said he

226
00:13:38,440 --> 00:13:41,600
Speaker 1: could admit it. Some of the more conservative justice as well,

227
00:13:41,640 --> 00:13:43,480
Speaker 1: you know, this would turn into a mini trial and

228
00:13:43,720 --> 00:13:46,080
Speaker 1: what he did? You know? And who did what? I mean,

229
00:13:46,120 --> 00:13:49,080
Speaker 1: I think that concern was overblown, But nevertheless it was

230
00:13:49,120 --> 00:13:53,040
Speaker 1: stated some of the liberal justices, like Justice Elena Kagan,

231
00:13:53,440 --> 00:13:56,960
Speaker 1: we're trying to make a case for having that evidence

232
00:13:57,400 --> 00:14:01,400
Speaker 1: be admitted. Justice Kagan said it was a classic case

233
00:14:01,520 --> 00:14:04,360
Speaker 1: for resolution by a jury. Well, I mean, I think

234
00:14:04,360 --> 00:14:07,240
Speaker 1: her point there was, Yeah, Okay, So a jury should

235
00:14:07,240 --> 00:14:10,679
Speaker 1: have been permitted to consider this and come to their

236
00:14:10,679 --> 00:14:14,840
Speaker 1: own conclusion about whether the defense theory about who radicalized

237
00:14:14,840 --> 00:14:17,040
Speaker 1: too and who was the primary planner of this was

238
00:14:17,120 --> 00:14:19,320
Speaker 1: right or wrong, and whether it would make a difference

239
00:14:19,320 --> 00:14:21,360
Speaker 1: than whether he should be sentenced to death or not.

240
00:14:21,600 --> 00:14:23,600
Speaker 1: I think the defense point is, well, what to judge

241
00:14:23,600 --> 00:14:27,760
Speaker 1: deprived the jury of the opportunity to decide both what

242
00:14:27,800 --> 00:14:31,320
Speaker 1: the brother did and what was its legal significance in

243
00:14:31,440 --> 00:14:35,440
Speaker 1: terms of determining the defendants moral culpability. Why do you

244
00:14:35,480 --> 00:14:39,520
Speaker 1: think there was so little talk about the second part

245
00:14:39,680 --> 00:14:43,600
Speaker 1: of the First Circuits concerns, which is that the judge

246
00:14:43,680 --> 00:14:49,160
Speaker 1: didn't sufficiently question jurors about their exposure to extensive pre

247
00:14:49,240 --> 00:14:54,080
Speaker 1: trial publicity. Well, I think primarily because that was the

248
00:14:54,160 --> 00:14:57,440
Speaker 1: weaker of the two links in the First Circuits decisions. Generally,

249
00:14:57,520 --> 00:15:00,120
Speaker 1: we give trialject just a lot of discretion on what

250
00:15:00,280 --> 00:15:03,280
Speaker 1: you hear about publicity to sort of manage the trial.

251
00:15:03,360 --> 00:15:06,000
Speaker 1: There's been a number of different high profile trials, you know,

252
00:15:06,000 --> 00:15:08,320
Speaker 1: over the years, and the Supreme Courts repeatedly said, like

253
00:15:08,360 --> 00:15:10,520
Speaker 1: the trial judges kind of their he or sheet is

254
00:15:10,560 --> 00:15:13,560
Speaker 1: in the best place to decide what the move is

255
00:15:13,720 --> 00:15:16,320
Speaker 1: and what the effect of this is. Normally, you know,

256
00:15:16,360 --> 00:15:18,320
Speaker 1: the courts of helic courts are kind of reluctant to

257
00:15:18,400 --> 00:15:21,080
Speaker 1: micro manage that. So I think both sides seem to

258
00:15:21,120 --> 00:15:24,760
Speaker 1: believe that the more difficult question was should be evidence

259
00:15:24,800 --> 00:15:28,040
Speaker 1: a bit admitted of the triple homicide? So does it

260
00:15:28,120 --> 00:15:30,640
Speaker 1: appear as if there are six votes to reverse the

261
00:15:30,680 --> 00:15:33,760
Speaker 1: first circuit and reinstate the death penalty. I mean, if

262
00:15:33,760 --> 00:15:36,480
Speaker 1: all you were doing was listening to the oral argument,

263
00:15:36,520 --> 00:15:38,760
Speaker 1: I think that was the only be consider you would say,

264
00:15:38,960 --> 00:15:41,240
Speaker 1: I think that most likely the Supreme Court is going

265
00:15:41,280 --> 00:15:43,160
Speaker 1: to reverse. But of course, you know the Supreme Court

266
00:15:43,200 --> 00:15:45,160
Speaker 1: is most likely to reverse from the fact that they

267
00:15:45,240 --> 00:15:48,240
Speaker 1: grant certain when they grant her ferrari, they grant sir

268
00:15:48,400 --> 00:15:50,840
Speaker 1: to reverse about eighty percent of the time, just the

269
00:15:50,920 --> 00:15:53,160
Speaker 1: pure statistics of it. They see a little where they

270
00:15:53,160 --> 00:15:54,960
Speaker 1: think a lower court got it right, they don't usually

271
00:15:55,120 --> 00:15:58,280
Speaker 1: decide to hear the case, so they can say, okay,

272
00:15:58,320 --> 00:15:59,920
Speaker 1: first Circuit, we just want you to know with the

273
00:16:00,000 --> 00:16:01,680
Speaker 1: you're doing a hell of a job there. So just

274
00:16:01,760 --> 00:16:03,480
Speaker 1: from that you would know that most life that the

275
00:16:03,480 --> 00:16:05,440
Speaker 1: Government's going to prevail if you just listen to the

276
00:16:05,560 --> 00:16:08,520
Speaker 1: oral argument, you would think, Okay, the government's a pretty

277
00:16:08,520 --> 00:16:10,600
Speaker 1: good chance they're going to prevail. But you know, there

278
00:16:10,600 --> 00:16:12,680
Speaker 1: have been a number of cases where they didn't turn

279
00:16:12,680 --> 00:16:16,920
Speaker 1: out exactly like people anticipated in oral argument, and this,

280
00:16:17,520 --> 00:16:19,480
Speaker 1: you know, potentially could be one of them. It's one

281
00:16:19,480 --> 00:16:21,880
Speaker 1: thing to sort of ask questions advantage. It's another to

282
00:16:21,880 --> 00:16:24,720
Speaker 1: sit down and write an opinion in the case that

283
00:16:24,800 --> 00:16:27,760
Speaker 1: makes sense and you can square with prod pressed. So

284
00:16:28,200 --> 00:16:32,440
Speaker 1: let's say sar Nayev wins at the Supreme Court. What

285
00:16:32,480 --> 00:16:35,440
Speaker 1: would happen then? Then I think the government would have

286
00:16:35,480 --> 00:16:38,560
Speaker 1: to decide are they going to retry and or are

287
00:16:38,640 --> 00:16:41,040
Speaker 1: they just going to allow him to service sentence of

288
00:16:41,080 --> 00:16:43,480
Speaker 1: life without parole. I mean, I think it's important to

289
00:16:43,480 --> 00:16:45,960
Speaker 1: bear in mind that his conviction is intact. He's going

290
00:16:46,040 --> 00:16:47,760
Speaker 1: to be in prison for the rest of his life

291
00:16:47,800 --> 00:16:50,640
Speaker 1: no matter what. It's just a question of whether his

292
00:16:50,880 --> 00:16:53,960
Speaker 1: time in prison is going to end from a natural

293
00:16:54,000 --> 00:16:58,560
Speaker 1: death or from a death by execution. If the government wins,

294
00:16:58,840 --> 00:17:03,080
Speaker 1: are there other appeal that Sarnayev could press. Yes, he

295
00:17:03,160 --> 00:17:06,040
Speaker 1: hasn't been through what we normally would call federal post

296
00:17:06,040 --> 00:17:09,680
Speaker 1: conviction review or twifty five proceedings, so they would still

297
00:17:09,800 --> 00:17:13,200
Speaker 1: need to be additional proceedings to look at the quality

298
00:17:13,200 --> 00:17:15,359
Speaker 1: of the representation. Was he denied the rights of the

299
00:17:15,359 --> 00:17:18,520
Speaker 1: effective since the council, Was there any type of prosecutorial

300
00:17:18,640 --> 00:17:21,520
Speaker 1: misconduct we don't know about, and things like that. So

301
00:17:21,960 --> 00:17:25,360
Speaker 1: even if he loses and this appeal, there still will

302
00:17:25,400 --> 00:17:28,879
Speaker 1: be multiple years of litigation before they don't even leave

303
00:17:28,920 --> 00:17:30,960
Speaker 1: a question of whether the destance Gond be carried out.

304
00:17:31,240 --> 00:17:33,639
Speaker 1: When you say multiple years, are are we talking like

305
00:17:33,680 --> 00:17:36,080
Speaker 1: a decade on average? Yeah, I would say we're talking

306
00:17:36,160 --> 00:17:40,120
Speaker 1: to least a decade. Cases normally moved relatively slowly through

307
00:17:40,400 --> 00:17:43,480
Speaker 1: post conviction review. There has to be a new team

308
00:17:43,480 --> 00:17:45,360
Speaker 1: of lawyers is going to have to be appointed. They're

309
00:17:45,359 --> 00:17:47,240
Speaker 1: gonna have to get up to speed in the case.

310
00:17:47,280 --> 00:17:49,800
Speaker 1: They're gonna have to be given the opportunity to do

311
00:17:50,000 --> 00:17:53,760
Speaker 1: an investigation to examine what happened, what trial council didn't

312
00:17:53,840 --> 00:17:57,240
Speaker 1: didn't do, what the prostitution didn't didn't do. So regards

313
00:17:57,240 --> 00:17:59,680
Speaker 1: to what happens here, there will be years of litigation.

314
00:18:00,680 --> 00:18:06,400
Speaker 1: Our death penalty opponents disappointed that Biden so far has

315
00:18:06,480 --> 00:18:10,959
Speaker 1: declined to commute federal death row sentences to life in prison.

316
00:18:11,840 --> 00:18:14,280
Speaker 1: I wouldn't read that much into that either. I mean, normally,

317
00:18:14,880 --> 00:18:17,520
Speaker 1: you know governors or presidents when they commute sentences, they

318
00:18:17,640 --> 00:18:19,159
Speaker 1: sort of do it on the way out of office

319
00:18:19,200 --> 00:18:21,200
Speaker 1: as opposed to on the way in. When you've seen

320
00:18:21,240 --> 00:18:23,520
Speaker 1: that at the state level, when there's been like significant

321
00:18:23,600 --> 00:18:26,840
Speaker 1: numbers of commutations when there was in Illinois, and the

322
00:18:27,680 --> 00:18:30,720
Speaker 1: governors have usually done that near the end of their term.

323
00:18:31,040 --> 00:18:33,760
Speaker 1: So again I wouldn't read too much into that either.

324
00:18:34,200 --> 00:18:36,120
Speaker 1: Thanks so much for being on the Bloomberg Laws Show.

325
00:18:36,560 --> 00:18:40,480
Speaker 1: That's Professor John bloom director of the Corneilled Death Penalty Project,

326
00:18:40,800 --> 00:18:43,080
Speaker 1: And that's it for this edition of the Bloomberg Law Show.

327
00:18:43,359 --> 00:18:45,520
Speaker 1: Remember you can always get the latest legal news on

328
00:18:45,560 --> 00:18:49,719
Speaker 1: our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,

329
00:18:49,840 --> 00:18:54,960
Speaker 1: and at www dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcasts Slash Law,

330
00:18:55,400 --> 00:18:58,120
Speaker 1: and remember to join us weeknights at ten pm Wall

331
00:18:58,160 --> 00:19:01,359
Speaker 1: Street Time for the Bloomberg Law Show. Oh I'm June Basso,

332
00:19:01,560 --> 00:19:03,119
Speaker 1: and you're listening to Bloomberg