WEBVTT - Convicted College Parent Will Appeal

0:00:03.200 --> 0:00:07.960
<v Speaker 1>This is Bloombird Law with June Brussel from Bloombird Radio.

0:00:09.160 --> 0:00:12.399
<v Speaker 1>Thirty three parents caught up in the college admissions cheating

0:00:12.480 --> 0:00:16.120
<v Speaker 1>scandal chose to plead guilty. The first two parents who

0:00:16.239 --> 0:00:19.279
<v Speaker 1>chose to have a jury decide their cases were found

0:00:19.360 --> 0:00:23.240
<v Speaker 1>guilty on all counts, guilty of paying hundreds of thousands

0:00:23.239 --> 0:00:26.040
<v Speaker 1>of dollars in bribes to get their kids into elite

0:00:26.079 --> 0:00:30.720
<v Speaker 1>schools as bogus athletic recruits. Acting you as attorney, Nathaniel

0:00:30.760 --> 0:00:34.120
<v Speaker 1>Mandel said, no one is above the law. They and

0:00:34.159 --> 0:00:38.599
<v Speaker 1>their families enjoy privileges and opportunities that most of us

0:00:38.720 --> 0:00:42.120
<v Speaker 1>can only imagine. Yet they were willing to break the law,

0:00:42.720 --> 0:00:44.720
<v Speaker 1>and the jury has now found that they did break

0:00:44.760 --> 0:00:49.920
<v Speaker 1>the law. The prosecutors had introduced powerful evidence, including secretly

0:00:49.920 --> 0:00:52.920
<v Speaker 1>recorded phone calls between the two men and Rick Singer,

0:00:53.360 --> 0:00:56.160
<v Speaker 1>the ringleader of the scheme. I can send him your

0:00:56.320 --> 0:01:00.560
<v Speaker 1>five hundred thousand that you wired into my account to

0:01:00.920 --> 0:01:04.960
<v Speaker 1>secure the spot for one of your girl joining me,

0:01:05.040 --> 0:01:08.520
<v Speaker 1>is Bloomberg Legal reporter Patricia Hurtano, who covered the trial.

0:01:09.040 --> 0:01:11.240
<v Speaker 1>So pat, how long was the jury out? Well? The

0:01:11.319 --> 0:01:14.880
<v Speaker 1>jury deliberated just a little over ten hours over two days,

0:01:15.200 --> 0:01:19.040
<v Speaker 1>and it was a categorical win for the government. They

0:01:19.200 --> 0:01:22.520
<v Speaker 1>convicted both of these dads who were accused of paying

0:01:22.560 --> 0:01:25.680
<v Speaker 1>bribes to get their kids into elite schools. Convicted of

0:01:25.880 --> 0:01:29.679
<v Speaker 1>every single count. There was one question from the jury,

0:01:29.760 --> 0:01:34.760
<v Speaker 1>and it was a complicated charge encompassing the concept of

0:01:34.959 --> 0:01:39.160
<v Speaker 1>the parents paid bribe to corrupt people, and by doing

0:01:39.200 --> 0:01:44.320
<v Speaker 1>this bribing, they robbed the colleges of the honest services

0:01:44.360 --> 0:01:47.920
<v Speaker 1>of their employees to do their job properly and not

0:01:48.240 --> 0:01:51.200
<v Speaker 1>give slots to kids whose parents paid bribes. And the

0:01:51.280 --> 0:01:54.200
<v Speaker 1>judge basically gave the jury on the smartest board of

0:01:54.240 --> 0:01:57.600
<v Speaker 1>opportunities to convict them just on that one count alone.

0:01:57.880 --> 0:02:00.920
<v Speaker 1>The jury found guilty on everything. The account I was

0:02:01.000 --> 0:02:06.160
<v Speaker 1>quite stunning. Um. The defense had argued vociferously that they

0:02:06.160 --> 0:02:09.200
<v Speaker 1>had not paid bribe and if they had paid money,

0:02:09.480 --> 0:02:14.399
<v Speaker 1>they understood them to be quote unquote donations to these schools.

0:02:14.480 --> 0:02:18.920
<v Speaker 1>So they said, this corrupt college counselor named William Rick Singer,

0:02:18.960 --> 0:02:21.760
<v Speaker 1>who had played guilty and agreed to cooperate against them,

0:02:22.040 --> 0:02:25.080
<v Speaker 1>he was the con man who had lied to them

0:02:25.120 --> 0:02:27.920
<v Speaker 1>and misled them about what the true function of the

0:02:27.919 --> 0:02:31.640
<v Speaker 1>money was going to be. The prosecutors managed to get

0:02:31.680 --> 0:02:36.200
<v Speaker 1>this verdict even without the testimony of the mastermind. How

0:02:36.240 --> 0:02:38.960
<v Speaker 1>did that go? Well, what they did is they did

0:02:38.960 --> 0:02:42.919
<v Speaker 1>play the wire taps of these parents discussing Lip Singer

0:02:43.080 --> 0:02:47.040
<v Speaker 1>their plan. And John Wilson is the equity executive and

0:02:47.120 --> 0:02:51.119
<v Speaker 1>he was on tape talking to Singer about possibly arranging

0:02:51.160 --> 0:02:54.919
<v Speaker 1>to pay five thousand dollars for each of his two daughters,

0:02:54.960 --> 0:02:59.000
<v Speaker 1>so a million dollars to facilitate his daughter's entrants into

0:02:59.280 --> 0:03:02.240
<v Speaker 1>Stanford and Harvard. And then he asked if he could

0:03:02.280 --> 0:03:04.639
<v Speaker 1>get a two for one deal, so he was haggling

0:03:04.680 --> 0:03:06.640
<v Speaker 1>for a discount, so he didn't want to pay more

0:03:06.680 --> 0:03:09.680
<v Speaker 1>than a million, and the government said that was showing

0:03:09.800 --> 0:03:12.720
<v Speaker 1>his willingness to engage in a dirty deal. And the

0:03:12.760 --> 0:03:15.840
<v Speaker 1>other dad, Gamal abdel Aziz, and he's a former Win

0:03:15.960 --> 0:03:19.880
<v Speaker 1>Resorts executive. He was on tape talking to Singer. Singer

0:03:19.919 --> 0:03:23.000
<v Speaker 1>actually was bragging to him that he wanted to use

0:03:23.040 --> 0:03:26.040
<v Speaker 1>this fake profile that they used to get his daughter

0:03:26.120 --> 0:03:30.600
<v Speaker 1>into USC as they purported basketball star, that he wanted

0:03:30.600 --> 0:03:34.280
<v Speaker 1>to use it for other fake athletes. And Adela Zis

0:03:34.400 --> 0:03:37.120
<v Speaker 1>chuckles and says, I love it. So the government said

0:03:37.200 --> 0:03:40.200
<v Speaker 1>this is the true understanding these two parents had that

0:03:40.280 --> 0:03:43.920
<v Speaker 1>they knowingly understood that Singer was corrupting the process. The

0:03:44.000 --> 0:03:48.280
<v Speaker 1>judge made some evidentially rulings that seemed like points on

0:03:48.360 --> 0:03:51.760
<v Speaker 1>appeal what the government did in this case, and the

0:03:51.840 --> 0:03:55.720
<v Speaker 1>judge allowed it as he allowed the prosecutors to put

0:03:55.720 --> 0:03:59.960
<v Speaker 1>in evidence from other parents, including emails, And then they

0:04:00.160 --> 0:04:02.640
<v Speaker 1>called one of these dads who played guilty. His name

0:04:02.640 --> 0:04:06.600
<v Speaker 1>is Bruce Isaacson. He's a Northern California businessman. He and

0:04:06.640 --> 0:04:09.120
<v Speaker 1>his wife played guilty to pay bribes to Singer to

0:04:09.160 --> 0:04:13.560
<v Speaker 1>get their kids into college. This dad testified about his mindset,

0:04:13.800 --> 0:04:17.880
<v Speaker 1>so the government said, you can infer from the testimony

0:04:17.920 --> 0:04:21.000
<v Speaker 1>of this other dad with these two dads were thinking.

0:04:21.160 --> 0:04:24.680
<v Speaker 1>The defense vociferously argued against this. They said it's unfair.

0:04:25.240 --> 0:04:28.120
<v Speaker 1>Some of the evidence that the defense argued shouldn't have

0:04:28.160 --> 0:04:30.359
<v Speaker 1>been seen by this jury because it had nothing to

0:04:30.360 --> 0:04:35.200
<v Speaker 1>do with these defendants. For example, prosecutors show jurors conversations

0:04:35.200 --> 0:04:39.159
<v Speaker 1>and emails with other parents like Felicity Huffman or Lly

0:04:39.279 --> 0:04:42.919
<v Speaker 1>Laughlin and her husband about their kids that had nothing

0:04:42.960 --> 0:04:45.520
<v Speaker 1>to do with these two defendants kids, and all set

0:04:45.560 --> 0:04:49.520
<v Speaker 1>wire taps of other parents talking to Singer which they

0:04:49.520 --> 0:04:51.880
<v Speaker 1>said had nothing to do with their clients, and the

0:04:52.040 --> 0:04:56.440
<v Speaker 1>judge also limited the evidence that the defendants could bring

0:04:56.520 --> 0:05:00.560
<v Speaker 1>in to make their case right. The defender wanted to

0:05:00.600 --> 0:05:04.320
<v Speaker 1>bring in more evidence of what exactly was going on

0:05:04.440 --> 0:05:07.200
<v Speaker 1>at these schools, and they really went after USC, the

0:05:07.279 --> 0:05:10.840
<v Speaker 1>University of Southern California, and they had this v I

0:05:10.880 --> 0:05:14.640
<v Speaker 1>P List which they showed the jury which had all

0:05:14.640 --> 0:05:18.440
<v Speaker 1>these students that were admitted as a similar kind of

0:05:18.600 --> 0:05:22.240
<v Speaker 1>recruited athletes or they're called walk on, So they're not

0:05:22.320 --> 0:05:25.960
<v Speaker 1>the actual star athletes that are you know, national champions,

0:05:26.160 --> 0:05:28.160
<v Speaker 1>but they are students who get in and they get

0:05:28.160 --> 0:05:31.320
<v Speaker 1>to be on the team as like the manager or

0:05:31.520 --> 0:05:34.920
<v Speaker 1>second string for example. And so these two parents would

0:05:34.960 --> 0:05:38.640
<v Speaker 1>argued they should be allowed to show this transactional aspect

0:05:38.760 --> 0:05:42.400
<v Speaker 1>college admissions is about. At USC, they argued that USC

0:05:42.480 --> 0:05:45.760
<v Speaker 1>admitted kids, and they had evidence in this the spreadsheet

0:05:46.279 --> 0:05:49.520
<v Speaker 1>of kids that parents had given donations, including a kid

0:05:49.760 --> 0:05:52.840
<v Speaker 1>whose parents gave USC five million dollars and the kid

0:05:52.920 --> 0:05:56.440
<v Speaker 1>got admitted as a quote unquote walk on tennis recruit.

0:05:56.680 --> 0:06:01.200
<v Speaker 1>But the judge rejected their ability to call USC Athletics

0:06:01.200 --> 0:06:05.920
<v Speaker 1>department officials to really inquire and explore this. You know,

0:06:06.240 --> 0:06:09.120
<v Speaker 1>money talks in the admissions process, and the judge that

0:06:09.320 --> 0:06:11.800
<v Speaker 1>usc was not on trial, so the only thing that

0:06:11.839 --> 0:06:15.000
<v Speaker 1>could really bring out was if you're a recruited athlete,

0:06:15.360 --> 0:06:19.200
<v Speaker 1>you have like anne chance of admission. Some of these

0:06:19.279 --> 0:06:22.680
<v Speaker 1>kids actually get admitted when there's sophomores in high school

0:06:22.800 --> 0:06:25.880
<v Speaker 1>and they get a promise of admissions, of guaranteed admission

0:06:26.160 --> 0:06:28.599
<v Speaker 1>in sophomore year in high school. You did a story

0:06:28.640 --> 0:06:32.279
<v Speaker 1>that there was a debate within the prosecutor's office about

0:06:32.279 --> 0:06:36.000
<v Speaker 1>whether the target singer the mastermind, or use him to

0:06:36.000 --> 0:06:39.960
<v Speaker 1>go after the wealthy parents. And usually prosecutors go up

0:06:40.000 --> 0:06:42.600
<v Speaker 1>the ladder. In this case they went down the ladder.

0:06:43.160 --> 0:06:47.520
<v Speaker 1>Judge Nancy Gertner, who is a retired federal judge in Boston,

0:06:47.720 --> 0:06:50.680
<v Speaker 1>and she's a professor at Harvard Law School, and she

0:06:50.880 --> 0:06:55.280
<v Speaker 1>was saying, that is like using the drug kingpin to

0:06:55.360 --> 0:06:58.520
<v Speaker 1>have them played guilty and testify against his clients, the

0:06:58.560 --> 0:07:00.760
<v Speaker 1>people who buy the drugs rand. This is kind of

0:07:00.760 --> 0:07:05.000
<v Speaker 1>backwards in the philosophy. Now, there was a raging debate.

0:07:05.120 --> 0:07:08.320
<v Speaker 1>I spoke to Andrew Welling, who was the Bostons attorney

0:07:08.600 --> 0:07:12.360
<v Speaker 1>who led the office when they were putting this case together,

0:07:13.160 --> 0:07:16.400
<v Speaker 1>and he said they decided that it would make a

0:07:16.440 --> 0:07:20.360
<v Speaker 1>begger impression against the corrupt parents instead of having a

0:07:20.520 --> 0:07:23.840
<v Speaker 1>learn off case and just going after Singer and have

0:07:24.040 --> 0:07:27.080
<v Speaker 1>him get convicted and then maybe you might be able

0:07:27.120 --> 0:07:30.080
<v Speaker 1>to implicate one or two parents. But they decided to

0:07:30.120 --> 0:07:33.840
<v Speaker 1>go big and make a big, splashy case against all

0:07:33.880 --> 0:07:38.200
<v Speaker 1>these parents because under their philosophy, if this national scandal

0:07:38.320 --> 0:07:42.000
<v Speaker 1>got exposed, it may deter other parents from a perk

0:07:42.080 --> 0:07:46.880
<v Speaker 1>walk or prison jumpsuit. So interesting, thanks, Pat. That's Bloomberg

0:07:46.960 --> 0:07:50.920
<v Speaker 1>Legal reporter Patricia Hurtado. The two fathers are facing years

0:07:50.960 --> 0:07:54.360
<v Speaker 1>in prison at sentencing, in contrast to the parents who

0:07:54.400 --> 0:08:02.560
<v Speaker 1>pled guilty and served only months in prison. This is

0:08:02.640 --> 0:08:08.480
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg Law with June Bresso from Bloomberg Radio. This week,

0:08:08.560 --> 0:08:12.000
<v Speaker 1>the Body Administration was at the Supreme Court arguing to

0:08:12.040 --> 0:08:15.320
<v Speaker 1>reinstate the death sentence for Joe hars Or Nayev, the

0:08:15.360 --> 0:08:17.840
<v Speaker 1>man convicted of setting off one of the bombs that

0:08:18.000 --> 0:08:23.000
<v Speaker 1>killed three people at the Boston marathon. That's despite President

0:08:23.040 --> 0:08:26.640
<v Speaker 1>Biden's opposition to the death penalty. The main issue was

0:08:26.680 --> 0:08:29.240
<v Speaker 1>whether the trial judge should have admitted evidence of a

0:08:29.320 --> 0:08:34.400
<v Speaker 1>triple murder allegedly committed by Sarnajev's older brother, Tamerlin, in

0:08:34.520 --> 0:08:37.760
<v Speaker 1>order to show sar Naiev was acting under the influence

0:08:37.760 --> 0:08:42.640
<v Speaker 1>of his brother. The justices were sharply divided down ideological lines.

0:08:43.000 --> 0:08:46.480
<v Speaker 1>Here are Jonas Says, Elena Kagan, and Brett Kavanaugh. This

0:08:46.600 --> 0:08:51.640
<v Speaker 1>court let in evidence about tamer Lane poking somebody in

0:08:51.679 --> 0:08:55.120
<v Speaker 1>the chest. This court led an evidence about tamer Lane

0:08:55.160 --> 0:08:58.760
<v Speaker 1>shouting at people. This court led an evidence about Tamerlane

0:08:58.760 --> 0:09:03.360
<v Speaker 1>assaulting a former student, a fellow student, all because that

0:09:03.559 --> 0:09:07.080
<v Speaker 1>showed what kind of person Tamerlane was and what kind

0:09:07.080 --> 0:09:10.160
<v Speaker 1>of influence he might have had over his brother. And

0:09:10.240 --> 0:09:14.280
<v Speaker 1>yet this court kept out evidence that tamer Land led

0:09:15.480 --> 0:09:20.560
<v Speaker 1>a crime that that resulted in three murders. And the

0:09:20.640 --> 0:09:23.640
<v Speaker 1>district Court said, we don't know what happened. There's been

0:09:23.679 --> 0:09:27.120
<v Speaker 1>insufficient evidence of who did what, and therefore the theory

0:09:27.200 --> 0:09:31.240
<v Speaker 1>that Tamerlane was the lead player in that is entirely

0:09:31.320 --> 0:09:36.160
<v Speaker 1>unull is unreliable because we don't know when Tadashev had

0:09:36.240 --> 0:09:38.760
<v Speaker 1>all the motive in the world to point the finger

0:09:38.840 --> 0:09:41.800
<v Speaker 1>at the dead guy. There was even a tense exchange

0:09:41.920 --> 0:09:44.719
<v Speaker 1>between the two justices. I just want to make sure

0:09:44.760 --> 0:09:47.800
<v Speaker 1>the premise. I mean the premise was assumed away. The

0:09:47.840 --> 0:09:52.160
<v Speaker 1>premise was assumed away because that's the role of the jury. Well,

0:09:52.280 --> 0:09:55.319
<v Speaker 1>I think it's important to discuss the distrec court's reasoning.

0:09:55.880 --> 0:09:58.440
<v Speaker 1>Joining me to analyze the arguments is John Bloom, a

0:09:58.440 --> 0:10:01.440
<v Speaker 1>professor at Cornell Law School and director of the Corneill

0:10:01.520 --> 0:10:04.320
<v Speaker 1>Death Penalty Project. So, John, why did the Court of

0:10:04.360 --> 0:10:08.920
<v Speaker 1>Appeals throw out Sarnayev's death sentence? The United States Court

0:10:08.920 --> 0:10:12.359
<v Speaker 1>of Appeals for the First Circuit left undisturbed the guilty convictions,

0:10:12.520 --> 0:10:15.400
<v Speaker 1>but reversed the death sentence on two independent bases. The

0:10:15.480 --> 0:10:18.280
<v Speaker 1>first was that the judge and made a legal error

0:10:18.440 --> 0:10:21.439
<v Speaker 1>in refusing to either question or allow the lawyers to

0:10:21.559 --> 0:10:25.240
<v Speaker 1>question the jurors about the content of the pre tropicality

0:10:25.280 --> 0:10:27.720
<v Speaker 1>to which they've been exposed to during the trial. The

0:10:27.800 --> 0:10:31.040
<v Speaker 1>second basis was that the First Circuit determined that the

0:10:31.080 --> 0:10:36.200
<v Speaker 1>trial judge should have allowed evidence that Scenariev's brother previously

0:10:36.240 --> 0:10:38.959
<v Speaker 1>committed to several homicides in Massachusetts, and they wanted to

0:10:39.000 --> 0:10:42.280
<v Speaker 1>admit that evidence of proof that brother had been previously

0:10:42.400 --> 0:10:46.920
<v Speaker 1>radicalized and was acting on his radicalized beliefs, and that

0:10:47.040 --> 0:10:50.000
<v Speaker 1>he's the one who radicalized the scenariev and he was

0:10:50.040 --> 0:10:52.760
<v Speaker 1>the primary planner of the crimes. They wanted to use

0:10:52.840 --> 0:10:55.040
<v Speaker 1>that evocace. It went to basically their theory at the

0:10:55.080 --> 0:10:58.320
<v Speaker 1>case was that Snario was the least culpable the two brothers.

0:10:58.679 --> 0:11:03.360
<v Speaker 1>His brother was planned and included and groomed him to participate. Here,

0:11:03.400 --> 0:11:07.640
<v Speaker 1>the Biden administration is arguing to reinstate the death sentence.

0:11:08.040 --> 0:11:12.440
<v Speaker 1>When Biden ran on ending the federal death penalty and

0:11:12.480 --> 0:11:17.520
<v Speaker 1>in July the Attorney General placed a moratorium on federal executions,

0:11:18.200 --> 0:11:22.280
<v Speaker 1>why do you suppose the Biden administration is taking this position. Well,

0:11:22.400 --> 0:11:25.079
<v Speaker 1>I mean, there is some mystery to it. In theory,

0:11:25.200 --> 0:11:28.200
<v Speaker 1>you could draw a distinction between saying we're not going

0:11:28.200 --> 0:11:30.920
<v Speaker 1>to pursue the death only going forward, We're not going

0:11:30.960 --> 0:11:35.600
<v Speaker 1>to allow any executions going forward, but nevertheless, we're not

0:11:35.720 --> 0:11:40.360
<v Speaker 1>going to try and disturb previous convictions and descindances which

0:11:40.400 --> 0:11:43.320
<v Speaker 1>have been imposed. I think some of it is because

0:11:43.440 --> 0:11:47.319
<v Speaker 1>they didn't actually seek surceerarias the Trump administration that asked

0:11:47.320 --> 0:11:50.000
<v Speaker 1>the government to review the decision of the First Circuit.

0:11:50.200 --> 0:11:53.240
<v Speaker 1>The Supreme Court had already made that decision when Biden

0:11:53.360 --> 0:11:56.600
<v Speaker 1>became president, and maybe they just didn't want to withdraw

0:11:56.640 --> 0:11:59.400
<v Speaker 1>it at the time, but there definitely is some head

0:11:59.400 --> 0:12:01.560
<v Speaker 1>scratching and long about some of them. There was only

0:12:01.600 --> 0:12:06.920
<v Speaker 1>one Justice Amy Coney Barrett, that raised this issue. Mr Fagan.

0:12:07.000 --> 0:12:09.839
<v Speaker 1>I'm wondering what the government's end game is here. So

0:12:09.880 --> 0:12:13.600
<v Speaker 1>the government has declared a moratorium on executions, but you're

0:12:13.640 --> 0:12:17.800
<v Speaker 1>here defending his death sentences and if you win, presumably

0:12:17.880 --> 0:12:21.880
<v Speaker 1>that means that he is relegated to living under the

0:12:21.920 --> 0:12:24.440
<v Speaker 1>threat of a death sentence that the government doesn't plan

0:12:24.559 --> 0:12:26.760
<v Speaker 1>to carry out. Well, let me she's right about that.

0:12:26.880 --> 0:12:30.600
<v Speaker 1>Technically that's not legally relevant to the question for the court.

0:12:30.679 --> 0:12:32.880
<v Speaker 1>But you could ask the same question about well, why

0:12:32.960 --> 0:12:36.240
<v Speaker 1>they take it. This case wouldn't normally meet the rules

0:12:36.280 --> 0:12:38.720
<v Speaker 1>for surerari review. It's not an issue about which the

0:12:38.760 --> 0:12:41.520
<v Speaker 1>lower court in either, one about which there was some

0:12:41.559 --> 0:12:45.880
<v Speaker 1>confusion about. The Court historically has said we don't engage

0:12:45.920 --> 0:12:48.520
<v Speaker 1>in error correction. We don't decide to hear cases just

0:12:48.520 --> 0:12:50.640
<v Speaker 1>because we think the lower court got it wrong. There's

0:12:50.640 --> 0:12:54.480
<v Speaker 1>got to be some so overarching legal rule mistake that

0:12:54.559 --> 0:12:58.160
<v Speaker 1>needs clarification or revision. Less not an issue here either.

0:12:58.240 --> 0:13:01.440
<v Speaker 1>So they clearly granted hurt in this case primarily for

0:13:01.440 --> 0:13:04.360
<v Speaker 1>the purpose, most likely because the majority of them don't

0:13:04.400 --> 0:13:07.679
<v Speaker 1>like the result of air circuit reached. The bulk of

0:13:07.760 --> 0:13:11.439
<v Speaker 1>the argument concerned the judge's failure to admit the evidence

0:13:11.480 --> 0:13:16.120
<v Speaker 1>of the triple murder. What were the justice's main concerns? Well,

0:13:16.360 --> 0:13:19.640
<v Speaker 1>the conservative justice has raised some questions about, well, was

0:13:19.720 --> 0:13:23.040
<v Speaker 1>the evidence reliable? Do we really know what Tamerlin did?

0:13:23.559 --> 0:13:25.800
<v Speaker 1>To come back to that as well, they used the

0:13:25.840 --> 0:13:28.880
<v Speaker 1>same evidence that Scenarios lawyers wanted to present a trial

0:13:28.920 --> 0:13:31.480
<v Speaker 1>as basis to convince a judge there was probable costs

0:13:31.480 --> 0:13:33.360
<v Speaker 1>to conduct a search. So they were saying with the

0:13:33.400 --> 0:13:36.120
<v Speaker 1>government here said it was reliable in one context. But

0:13:36.200 --> 0:13:38.439
<v Speaker 1>yet when scenario and admitted his trial, they said he

0:13:38.440 --> 0:13:41.600
<v Speaker 1>could admit it. Some of the more conservative justice as well,

0:13:41.640 --> 0:13:43.480
<v Speaker 1>you know, this would turn into a mini trial and

0:13:43.720 --> 0:13:46.080
<v Speaker 1>what he did? You know? And who did what? I mean,

0:13:46.120 --> 0:13:49.080
<v Speaker 1>I think that concern was overblown, But nevertheless it was

0:13:49.120 --> 0:13:53.040
<v Speaker 1>stated some of the liberal justices, like Justice Elena Kagan,

0:13:53.440 --> 0:13:56.960
<v Speaker 1>we're trying to make a case for having that evidence

0:13:57.400 --> 0:14:01.400
<v Speaker 1>be admitted. Justice Kagan said it was a classic case

0:14:01.520 --> 0:14:04.360
<v Speaker 1>for resolution by a jury. Well, I mean, I think

0:14:04.360 --> 0:14:07.240
<v Speaker 1>her point there was, Yeah, Okay, So a jury should

0:14:07.240 --> 0:14:10.679
<v Speaker 1>have been permitted to consider this and come to their

0:14:10.679 --> 0:14:14.840
<v Speaker 1>own conclusion about whether the defense theory about who radicalized

0:14:14.840 --> 0:14:17.040
<v Speaker 1>too and who was the primary planner of this was

0:14:17.120 --> 0:14:19.320
<v Speaker 1>right or wrong, and whether it would make a difference

0:14:19.320 --> 0:14:21.360
<v Speaker 1>than whether he should be sentenced to death or not.

0:14:21.600 --> 0:14:23.600
<v Speaker 1>I think the defense point is, well, what to judge

0:14:23.600 --> 0:14:27.760
<v Speaker 1>deprived the jury of the opportunity to decide both what

0:14:27.800 --> 0:14:31.320
<v Speaker 1>the brother did and what was its legal significance in

0:14:31.440 --> 0:14:35.440
<v Speaker 1>terms of determining the defendants moral culpability. Why do you

0:14:35.480 --> 0:14:39.520
<v Speaker 1>think there was so little talk about the second part

0:14:39.680 --> 0:14:43.600
<v Speaker 1>of the First Circuits concerns, which is that the judge

0:14:43.680 --> 0:14:49.160
<v Speaker 1>didn't sufficiently question jurors about their exposure to extensive pre

0:14:49.240 --> 0:14:54.080
<v Speaker 1>trial publicity. Well, I think primarily because that was the

0:14:54.160 --> 0:14:57.440
<v Speaker 1>weaker of the two links in the First Circuits decisions. Generally,

0:14:57.520 --> 0:15:00.120
<v Speaker 1>we give trialject just a lot of discretion on what

0:15:00.280 --> 0:15:03.280
<v Speaker 1>you hear about publicity to sort of manage the trial.

0:15:03.360 --> 0:15:06.000
<v Speaker 1>There's been a number of different high profile trials, you know,

0:15:06.000 --> 0:15:08.320
<v Speaker 1>over the years, and the Supreme Courts repeatedly said, like

0:15:08.360 --> 0:15:10.520
<v Speaker 1>the trial judges kind of their he or sheet is

0:15:10.560 --> 0:15:13.560
<v Speaker 1>in the best place to decide what the move is

0:15:13.720 --> 0:15:16.320
<v Speaker 1>and what the effect of this is. Normally, you know,

0:15:16.360 --> 0:15:18.320
<v Speaker 1>the courts of helic courts are kind of reluctant to

0:15:18.400 --> 0:15:21.080
<v Speaker 1>micro manage that. So I think both sides seem to

0:15:21.120 --> 0:15:24.760
<v Speaker 1>believe that the more difficult question was should be evidence

0:15:24.800 --> 0:15:28.040
<v Speaker 1>a bit admitted of the triple homicide? So does it

0:15:28.120 --> 0:15:30.640
<v Speaker 1>appear as if there are six votes to reverse the

0:15:30.680 --> 0:15:33.760
<v Speaker 1>first circuit and reinstate the death penalty. I mean, if

0:15:33.760 --> 0:15:36.480
<v Speaker 1>all you were doing was listening to the oral argument,

0:15:36.520 --> 0:15:38.760
<v Speaker 1>I think that was the only be consider you would say,

0:15:38.960 --> 0:15:41.240
<v Speaker 1>I think that most likely the Supreme Court is going

0:15:41.280 --> 0:15:43.160
<v Speaker 1>to reverse. But of course, you know the Supreme Court

0:15:43.200 --> 0:15:45.160
<v Speaker 1>is most likely to reverse from the fact that they

0:15:45.240 --> 0:15:48.240
<v Speaker 1>grant certain when they grant her ferrari, they grant sir

0:15:48.400 --> 0:15:50.840
<v Speaker 1>to reverse about eighty percent of the time, just the

0:15:50.920 --> 0:15:53.160
<v Speaker 1>pure statistics of it. They see a little where they

0:15:53.160 --> 0:15:54.960
<v Speaker 1>think a lower court got it right, they don't usually

0:15:55.120 --> 0:15:58.280
<v Speaker 1>decide to hear the case, so they can say, okay,

0:15:58.320 --> 0:15:59.920
<v Speaker 1>first Circuit, we just want you to know with the

0:16:00.000 --> 0:16:01.680
<v Speaker 1>you're doing a hell of a job there. So just

0:16:01.760 --> 0:16:03.480
<v Speaker 1>from that you would know that most life that the

0:16:03.480 --> 0:16:05.440
<v Speaker 1>Government's going to prevail if you just listen to the

0:16:05.560 --> 0:16:08.520
<v Speaker 1>oral argument, you would think, Okay, the government's a pretty

0:16:08.520 --> 0:16:10.600
<v Speaker 1>good chance they're going to prevail. But you know, there

0:16:10.600 --> 0:16:12.680
<v Speaker 1>have been a number of cases where they didn't turn

0:16:12.680 --> 0:16:16.920
<v Speaker 1>out exactly like people anticipated in oral argument, and this,

0:16:17.520 --> 0:16:19.480
<v Speaker 1>you know, potentially could be one of them. It's one

0:16:19.480 --> 0:16:21.880
<v Speaker 1>thing to sort of ask questions advantage. It's another to

0:16:21.880 --> 0:16:24.720
<v Speaker 1>sit down and write an opinion in the case that

0:16:24.800 --> 0:16:27.760
<v Speaker 1>makes sense and you can square with prod pressed. So

0:16:28.200 --> 0:16:32.440
<v Speaker 1>let's say sar Nayev wins at the Supreme Court. What

0:16:32.480 --> 0:16:35.440
<v Speaker 1>would happen then? Then I think the government would have

0:16:35.480 --> 0:16:38.560
<v Speaker 1>to decide are they going to retry and or are

0:16:38.640 --> 0:16:41.040
<v Speaker 1>they just going to allow him to service sentence of

0:16:41.080 --> 0:16:43.480
<v Speaker 1>life without parole. I mean, I think it's important to

0:16:43.480 --> 0:16:45.960
<v Speaker 1>bear in mind that his conviction is intact. He's going

0:16:46.040 --> 0:16:47.760
<v Speaker 1>to be in prison for the rest of his life

0:16:47.800 --> 0:16:50.640
<v Speaker 1>no matter what. It's just a question of whether his

0:16:50.880 --> 0:16:53.960
<v Speaker 1>time in prison is going to end from a natural

0:16:54.000 --> 0:16:58.560
<v Speaker 1>death or from a death by execution. If the government wins,

0:16:58.840 --> 0:17:03.080
<v Speaker 1>are there other appeal that Sarnayev could press. Yes, he

0:17:03.160 --> 0:17:06.040
<v Speaker 1>hasn't been through what we normally would call federal post

0:17:06.040 --> 0:17:09.680
<v Speaker 1>conviction review or twifty five proceedings, so they would still

0:17:09.800 --> 0:17:13.200
<v Speaker 1>need to be additional proceedings to look at the quality

0:17:13.200 --> 0:17:15.359
<v Speaker 1>of the representation. Was he denied the rights of the

0:17:15.359 --> 0:17:18.520
<v Speaker 1>effective since the council, Was there any type of prosecutorial

0:17:18.640 --> 0:17:21.520
<v Speaker 1>misconduct we don't know about, and things like that. So

0:17:21.960 --> 0:17:25.360
<v Speaker 1>even if he loses and this appeal, there still will

0:17:25.400 --> 0:17:28.879
<v Speaker 1>be multiple years of litigation before they don't even leave

0:17:28.920 --> 0:17:30.960
<v Speaker 1>a question of whether the destance Gond be carried out.

0:17:31.240 --> 0:17:33.639
<v Speaker 1>When you say multiple years, are are we talking like

0:17:33.680 --> 0:17:36.080
<v Speaker 1>a decade on average? Yeah, I would say we're talking

0:17:36.160 --> 0:17:40.120
<v Speaker 1>to least a decade. Cases normally moved relatively slowly through

0:17:40.400 --> 0:17:43.480
<v Speaker 1>post conviction review. There has to be a new team

0:17:43.480 --> 0:17:45.360
<v Speaker 1>of lawyers is going to have to be appointed. They're

0:17:45.359 --> 0:17:47.240
<v Speaker 1>gonna have to get up to speed in the case.

0:17:47.280 --> 0:17:49.800
<v Speaker 1>They're gonna have to be given the opportunity to do

0:17:50.000 --> 0:17:53.760
<v Speaker 1>an investigation to examine what happened, what trial council didn't

0:17:53.840 --> 0:17:57.240
<v Speaker 1>didn't do, what the prostitution didn't didn't do. So regards

0:17:57.240 --> 0:17:59.680
<v Speaker 1>to what happens here, there will be years of litigation.

0:18:00.680 --> 0:18:06.400
<v Speaker 1>Our death penalty opponents disappointed that Biden so far has

0:18:06.480 --> 0:18:10.959
<v Speaker 1>declined to commute federal death row sentences to life in prison.

0:18:11.840 --> 0:18:14.280
<v Speaker 1>I wouldn't read that much into that either. I mean, normally,

0:18:14.880 --> 0:18:17.520
<v Speaker 1>you know governors or presidents when they commute sentences, they

0:18:17.640 --> 0:18:19.159
<v Speaker 1>sort of do it on the way out of office

0:18:19.200 --> 0:18:21.200
<v Speaker 1>as opposed to on the way in. When you've seen

0:18:21.240 --> 0:18:23.520
<v Speaker 1>that at the state level, when there's been like significant

0:18:23.600 --> 0:18:26.840
<v Speaker 1>numbers of commutations when there was in Illinois, and the

0:18:27.680 --> 0:18:30.720
<v Speaker 1>governors have usually done that near the end of their term.

0:18:31.040 --> 0:18:33.760
<v Speaker 1>So again I wouldn't read too much into that either.

0:18:34.200 --> 0:18:36.120
<v Speaker 1>Thanks so much for being on the Bloomberg Laws Show.

0:18:36.560 --> 0:18:40.480
<v Speaker 1>That's Professor John bloom director of the Corneilled Death Penalty Project,

0:18:40.800 --> 0:18:43.080
<v Speaker 1>And that's it for this edition of the Bloomberg Law Show.

0:18:43.359 --> 0:18:45.520
<v Speaker 1>Remember you can always get the latest legal news on

0:18:45.560 --> 0:18:49.719
<v Speaker 1>our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,

0:18:49.840 --> 0:18:54.960
<v Speaker 1>and at www dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcasts Slash Law,

0:18:55.400 --> 0:18:58.120
<v Speaker 1>and remember to join us weeknights at ten pm Wall

0:18:58.160 --> 0:19:01.359
<v Speaker 1>Street Time for the Bloomberg Law Show. Oh I'm June Basso,

0:19:01.560 --> 0:19:03.119
<v Speaker 1>and you're listening to Bloomberg