WEBVTT - Will Any Parents In College Admissions Scandal Serve Time?

0:00:03.520 --> 0:00:07.040
<v Speaker 1>Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. I'm June Grosso. Every

0:00:07.120 --> 0:00:09.680
<v Speaker 1>day we bring you insight and analysis into the most

0:00:09.720 --> 0:00:12.200
<v Speaker 1>important legal news of the day. You can find more

0:00:12.240 --> 0:00:16.160
<v Speaker 1>episodes of the Bloomberg Law Podcast on Apple podcast, SoundCloud

0:00:16.280 --> 0:00:20.520
<v Speaker 1>and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcasts. The moral outrage

0:00:20.800 --> 0:00:24.360
<v Speaker 1>over wealthy parents getting their kids into college with bribes,

0:00:24.480 --> 0:00:28.760
<v Speaker 1>fixed s a T scores, and fake athletic feats continues unabated,

0:00:28.800 --> 0:00:32.000
<v Speaker 1>more than a week after the college admission scandal was revealed.

0:00:32.320 --> 0:00:35.960
<v Speaker 1>But will that translate into those wealthy parents spending any

0:00:36.000 --> 0:00:38.720
<v Speaker 1>time in jail? Joining me to answer that question and

0:00:38.760 --> 0:00:42.279
<v Speaker 1>more is former federal public defender James Cohen, professor at

0:00:42.360 --> 0:00:45.680
<v Speaker 1>Fordham Law School. So, Jim, is there even a chance

0:00:45.800 --> 0:00:50.640
<v Speaker 1>that one of these parents will serve time in prison? Oh? Absolutely, indeed,

0:00:50.680 --> 0:00:53.680
<v Speaker 1>I would rate the odd jecs. There's a bigger chance

0:00:54.200 --> 0:00:56.840
<v Speaker 1>that they will than that they won't. Really, why do

0:00:56.880 --> 0:01:01.040
<v Speaker 1>you say that, because mostly let'sperts are saying or ageous offense.

0:01:01.680 --> 0:01:05.880
<v Speaker 1>It's the wealthy helping the wealthy, with no regard or

0:01:05.920 --> 0:01:09.000
<v Speaker 1>insight into the fact that that's what they're doing. Now,

0:01:09.080 --> 0:01:11.040
<v Speaker 1>don't get me wrong, I'm not saying any of these

0:01:11.040 --> 0:01:14.360
<v Speaker 1>parents are that. None of these parents struggled over whether

0:01:14.440 --> 0:01:16.600
<v Speaker 1>to do it. And I'm sure there are some people

0:01:16.600 --> 0:01:19.520
<v Speaker 1>out there that struggled and decided not to, but that's

0:01:19.560 --> 0:01:21.640
<v Speaker 1>not the group we're talking about. We're talking about the

0:01:21.640 --> 0:01:24.280
<v Speaker 1>group that struggled and decided to do it. Isn't this

0:01:24.360 --> 0:01:28.440
<v Speaker 1>the type of crime though that is usually plea bargained down.

0:01:28.959 --> 0:01:31.960
<v Speaker 1>The answer is no. I think that the prosecutors rightfully

0:01:32.000 --> 0:01:35.000
<v Speaker 1>want to send a message, as they say, they want

0:01:35.040 --> 0:01:39.039
<v Speaker 1>general deterrence. They want the educational marketplace, so to speak,

0:01:39.480 --> 0:01:44.600
<v Speaker 1>to be perceived as clean and honest by the public.

0:01:45.000 --> 0:01:47.120
<v Speaker 1>I'm not saying there won't be any deals, but I

0:01:47.160 --> 0:01:51.160
<v Speaker 1>am saying that the deals are not going to be fantastic. Uh,

0:01:51.480 --> 0:01:54.720
<v Speaker 1>You're not going to get great deals out of this conduct. So,

0:01:54.760 --> 0:01:57.840
<v Speaker 1>at a court appearance for one of the parents, Greg Abbott,

0:01:57.880 --> 0:02:01.160
<v Speaker 1>the CEO of International Dispensing, who is now on leave,

0:02:01.320 --> 0:02:03.840
<v Speaker 1>when asked how much time he could face by the judge,

0:02:03.880 --> 0:02:06.639
<v Speaker 1>the prosecutor told the judge twelve to twenty four months,

0:02:06.760 --> 0:02:09.920
<v Speaker 1>and Abbot's lawyer told the judge zero to six months.

0:02:10.520 --> 0:02:13.680
<v Speaker 1>You know, defense lawyers want to make sure that their

0:02:13.720 --> 0:02:19.600
<v Speaker 1>client believes that they the defense lawyer, are pitching it downward.

0:02:20.240 --> 0:02:22.679
<v Speaker 1>I try to find out quickly what the guidelines were,

0:02:22.840 --> 0:02:25.720
<v Speaker 1>could not find out. They probably are somewhere in the

0:02:25.840 --> 0:02:27.840
<v Speaker 1>range for both of those that is twelve to twenty

0:02:27.919 --> 0:02:31.200
<v Speaker 1>four and whatever the other one was. But a judge

0:02:31.440 --> 0:02:35.360
<v Speaker 1>is not bound by those guidelines. A judge is going

0:02:35.440 --> 0:02:40.160
<v Speaker 1>to say this is absolutely disgraceful. And I won't say

0:02:40.160 --> 0:02:42.959
<v Speaker 1>throw the book at these people in the sentence. The guidelines,

0:02:43.000 --> 0:02:44.760
<v Speaker 1>let's say, are two years. I'm not saying they're going

0:02:44.800 --> 0:02:48.480
<v Speaker 1>to get five years, but I don't think they discount

0:02:48.560 --> 0:02:51.120
<v Speaker 1>off the guideline. Sentence is going to be very great

0:02:51.160 --> 0:02:54.760
<v Speaker 1>at all. Many of these parents have hired high power

0:02:54.800 --> 0:02:59.799
<v Speaker 1>attorneys in big law firms, and if they're going that route,

0:03:00.000 --> 0:03:03.000
<v Speaker 1>aren't those attorneys going to try to bargain down to

0:03:03.160 --> 0:03:07.640
<v Speaker 1>let's say, community service, a hefty fine and just say,

0:03:07.720 --> 0:03:10.320
<v Speaker 1>you know, if you're not going to do that, Mr prosecutor,

0:03:10.440 --> 0:03:13.280
<v Speaker 1>we're going to trial. And the prosecutors are gonna say,

0:03:13.320 --> 0:03:16.840
<v Speaker 1>bring it on. The prosecutors are going to say, great,

0:03:17.480 --> 0:03:21.160
<v Speaker 1>I need more trial experience, let's do it. These cases

0:03:21.200 --> 0:03:23.440
<v Speaker 1>are not triable for the most part. I don't know

0:03:23.480 --> 0:03:26.040
<v Speaker 1>all the details, but these cases are not what we

0:03:26.120 --> 0:03:30.440
<v Speaker 1>call triable from the defense attorney's perspective. You have some

0:03:30.480 --> 0:03:34.519
<v Speaker 1>people saying, for example, play right. David Mammott wrote a

0:03:34.639 --> 0:03:37.120
<v Speaker 1>letter posted last week in The Hollywood Reporter and support

0:03:37.120 --> 0:03:39.760
<v Speaker 1>of Felicity Huffman and saying, you know, it's just being

0:03:39.800 --> 0:03:42.040
<v Speaker 1>a parent defense. You know it wasn't for me, it

0:03:42.080 --> 0:03:45.240
<v Speaker 1>was from my kid. Yeah, the judge is gonna say,

0:03:45.360 --> 0:03:49.720
<v Speaker 1>did not you of all people should have known better?

0:03:50.440 --> 0:03:54.840
<v Speaker 1>You are people of privilege to the nth degree, and you,

0:03:54.960 --> 0:03:58.360
<v Speaker 1>of all people should know better. Suppose this does go

0:03:58.400 --> 0:04:01.760
<v Speaker 1>to trial. Let's say there is up defense attorney who says,

0:04:01.800 --> 0:04:03.400
<v Speaker 1>all right, we're gonna go to trial if you're not

0:04:03.440 --> 0:04:05.720
<v Speaker 1>going to give us a deal. A deal, right, what

0:04:05.800 --> 0:04:09.160
<v Speaker 1>are the likely defenses at a trial? That's a good question.

0:04:09.440 --> 0:04:12.360
<v Speaker 1>I think it will depend on the case. In some

0:04:12.440 --> 0:04:15.520
<v Speaker 1>of these cases with the tape recordings may not be

0:04:15.640 --> 0:04:19.240
<v Speaker 1>as clear as they are in others, and that would

0:04:19.240 --> 0:04:22.719
<v Speaker 1>be a defense where you never heard the parents say

0:04:23.040 --> 0:04:24.680
<v Speaker 1>I want to do it because I want to corrupt

0:04:24.680 --> 0:04:27.279
<v Speaker 1>the educational system. Right. I mean, that's a silly example,

0:04:27.320 --> 0:04:29.320
<v Speaker 1>but you know there is going to be some wiggle

0:04:29.400 --> 0:04:33.840
<v Speaker 1>room in some of these cases just because. But that

0:04:33.880 --> 0:04:37.200
<v Speaker 1>wiggle room in general is not going to be enough

0:04:37.279 --> 0:04:41.520
<v Speaker 1>to exonerate the parents who participated in this. And I

0:04:41.640 --> 0:04:45.640
<v Speaker 1>suppose that one of the defenses will be if the

0:04:45.720 --> 0:04:49.520
<v Speaker 1>mastermind testifies that he offered it to me. I wasn't

0:04:49.560 --> 0:04:52.240
<v Speaker 1>looking for this kind of deal. I didn't want to

0:04:52.240 --> 0:04:55.080
<v Speaker 1>do this. But he's the bad guy, right, and the

0:04:56.560 --> 0:04:58.760
<v Speaker 1>prosector is going to say, you know, that's exactly right.

0:04:59.200 --> 0:05:01.080
<v Speaker 1>I think it's Skinner is his name. Skinner is a

0:05:01.120 --> 0:05:04.919
<v Speaker 1>bad guy, but so is the defendant on trial. What's

0:05:04.920 --> 0:05:08.400
<v Speaker 1>going on right now? The parents have now hired these

0:05:08.440 --> 0:05:11.159
<v Speaker 1>attorneys there up to parents are lawyering up, as we

0:05:11.240 --> 0:05:15.440
<v Speaker 1>say on TV, parents are lawyering up, and they're going

0:05:15.480 --> 0:05:18.240
<v Speaker 1>to begin some sort of discussions with the prosecutor, at

0:05:18.320 --> 0:05:20.640
<v Speaker 1>least on the issue of bail. I don't think bail

0:05:20.680 --> 0:05:23.839
<v Speaker 1>will be an issue for any of these parents, but

0:05:23.920 --> 0:05:26.520
<v Speaker 1>they're gonna probably have to turn over their passports, which

0:05:26.560 --> 0:05:29.400
<v Speaker 1>is a bit of an indignity. And then they're going

0:05:29.440 --> 0:05:32.320
<v Speaker 1>to set the case for trial. They'll set the case

0:05:32.360 --> 0:05:34.480
<v Speaker 1>for motions, and maybe one or more the lawyers will

0:05:34.480 --> 0:05:38.080
<v Speaker 1>think of some clever grounds for motions. But then at

0:05:38.120 --> 0:05:40.640
<v Speaker 1>some point they're going to arrive in Boston for trial,

0:05:41.240 --> 0:05:44.960
<v Speaker 1>or they're going to arrive somewhere to plead guilty. Because

0:05:44.960 --> 0:05:50.120
<v Speaker 1>it's a practical matter, they cannot ignore the benefits of

0:05:50.200 --> 0:05:55.520
<v Speaker 1>the reduction in the sentencing guidelines for acceptance of responsibility.

0:05:56.200 --> 0:06:00.240
<v Speaker 1>When you're dealing with relatively small amounts of time, which

0:06:00.240 --> 0:06:03.479
<v Speaker 1>we are here, then the two or the three points off,

0:06:03.520 --> 0:06:07.719
<v Speaker 1>depending on what the guideline started at, is going to

0:06:07.839 --> 0:06:13.920
<v Speaker 1>be important. None of the kids who are charged are charged,

0:06:14.000 --> 0:06:17.720
<v Speaker 1>and some of them appeared from the allegations of the prosecutors,

0:06:17.760 --> 0:06:20.960
<v Speaker 1>some of them appeared to be participants in it. Some

0:06:21.040 --> 0:06:23.279
<v Speaker 1>of them didn't know at all. Do you think that

0:06:23.400 --> 0:06:25.680
<v Speaker 1>down the road they'll be charged as well. I think

0:06:25.720 --> 0:06:28.599
<v Speaker 1>that's a possibility. I think it really will depend ultimately

0:06:28.800 --> 0:06:36.039
<v Speaker 1>on the prosecutor's reassessment of the children's involvement versus the

0:06:36.120 --> 0:06:39.520
<v Speaker 1>parents involvement. It wouldn't surprise me at all that as

0:06:39.560 --> 0:06:42.240
<v Speaker 1>the prosecutor gets on top of each of these cases,

0:06:42.640 --> 0:06:45.920
<v Speaker 1>looking at each of them through the new lens, that

0:06:46.000 --> 0:06:49.560
<v Speaker 1>they will say, you know, this child really was participating.

0:06:50.000 --> 0:06:51.800
<v Speaker 1>And by the way, they're not so much children, right.

0:06:51.800 --> 0:06:55.120
<v Speaker 1>How old are these young people. They're eighteen nineteen. They're

0:06:55.120 --> 0:06:58.279
<v Speaker 1>far from adults in any meaningful way, but they're also

0:06:58.320 --> 0:07:01.400
<v Speaker 1>they're not children in any meaningful either. All Right, I'm

0:07:01.400 --> 0:07:04.200
<v Speaker 1>sure the parentsecutor could say, I'm going to give you

0:07:04.240 --> 0:07:07.440
<v Speaker 1>a break because obviously you weren't raised very well. Oh.

0:07:08.279 --> 0:07:10.600
<v Speaker 1>I'm sure they're glad that you're not the judge in

0:07:10.640 --> 0:07:14.520
<v Speaker 1>these cases. Thank you so much, Jim. That's James Cohen,

0:07:14.720 --> 0:07:20.200
<v Speaker 1>professor at Fordham Law School. Thanks for listening to the

0:07:20.200 --> 0:07:23.600
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can subscribe and listen to the

0:07:23.600 --> 0:07:27.520
<v Speaker 1>show on Apple podcast, SoundCloud, and on Bloomberg dot com

0:07:27.600 --> 0:07:31.760
<v Speaker 1>slash podcast. I'm June Brosso. This is Bloomberg