WEBVTT - Derek Chauvin Murder Conviction and Sentencing

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

0:00:09.039 --> 0:00:11.000
<v Speaker 1>We the jury in the above entitled matter as to

0:00:11.080 --> 0:00:14.680
<v Speaker 1>count one unintentional second degree murder while committing a felony,

0:00:15.040 --> 0:00:18.119
<v Speaker 1>find the defendant guilty. This verdict agreed to this twentieth

0:00:18.200 --> 0:00:22.640
<v Speaker 1>day of April PM. As that guilty verdict for the

0:00:22.720 --> 0:00:26.000
<v Speaker 1>murder of George Floyd was read in the Minneapolis courtroom

0:00:26.040 --> 0:00:29.880
<v Speaker 1>and broadcast to the country. Former police officer Derek Chauvin

0:00:29.920 --> 0:00:34.760
<v Speaker 1>displayed no reaction, but outside the heavily fortified and guarded courthouse,

0:00:35.040 --> 0:00:37.760
<v Speaker 1>the crowd erupted at the announcement of the jury's verdict

0:00:37.760 --> 0:00:47.760
<v Speaker 1>of guilt on all three counts, and jury convicted Chauvin

0:00:47.800 --> 0:00:51.400
<v Speaker 1>of all three charges second degree murder, third degree murder,

0:00:51.440 --> 0:00:54.960
<v Speaker 1>and second degree manslaughter for cutting off Floyd's air supply

0:00:55.040 --> 0:00:58.360
<v Speaker 1>on May as he lay handcuffed and pleading for mercy.

0:00:58.840 --> 0:01:02.120
<v Speaker 1>The verdict, reached after less than eleven hours of deliberation,

0:01:02.560 --> 0:01:06.120
<v Speaker 1>came eleven months after the graphic footage of Chauvin Floyd

0:01:06.120 --> 0:01:10.039
<v Speaker 1>went viral. The conviction could mean decades in prison for

0:01:10.120 --> 0:01:13.039
<v Speaker 1>the forty five year old Chauvin. Joining me as former

0:01:13.120 --> 0:01:17.120
<v Speaker 1>federal prosecutor Robert Mints, a partner Ma Carter in English?

0:01:17.440 --> 0:01:20.399
<v Speaker 1>What's your reaction to this? What I would call a

0:01:20.520 --> 0:01:24.600
<v Speaker 1>quick verdict and slam dung for the prosecution. It was

0:01:24.680 --> 0:01:28.360
<v Speaker 1>a very quick verdict. Usually jurors take their time to

0:01:28.480 --> 0:01:31.960
<v Speaker 1>methodically go through all of the evidence that is presented

0:01:32.280 --> 0:01:35.080
<v Speaker 1>before them during the trial, even if they know at

0:01:35.120 --> 0:01:38.080
<v Speaker 1>the beginning of their deliberation how this might end. So

0:01:38.200 --> 0:01:40.880
<v Speaker 1>this was a very quick verdict given the amount of

0:01:40.920 --> 0:01:45.200
<v Speaker 1>evidence and the complexity of the scientific and expert testimony

0:01:45.560 --> 0:01:48.000
<v Speaker 1>that the jurors heard. But at the same time, it's

0:01:48.040 --> 0:01:51.520
<v Speaker 1>not It's hardly a surprise. I think those nine and

0:01:51.520 --> 0:01:55.960
<v Speaker 1>a half minutes that videotape was really the star witness

0:01:56.000 --> 0:01:59.600
<v Speaker 1>for the prosecution. It was the most compelling evidence and ultimately,

0:01:59.640 --> 0:02:02.840
<v Speaker 1>I think was so seared into the minds of jurors

0:02:02.840 --> 0:02:06.440
<v Speaker 1>that it was very difficult for the defense to overcome. Bob,

0:02:06.600 --> 0:02:11.000
<v Speaker 1>is there any conflict in finding guilty on all three

0:02:11.040 --> 0:02:14.120
<v Speaker 1>of the charges where there is a depraved mind but

0:02:14.280 --> 0:02:17.239
<v Speaker 1>also intent to commit a felony? Is there any kind

0:02:17.280 --> 0:02:21.840
<v Speaker 1>of internal inconsistency? I don't think so. All three of

0:02:21.880 --> 0:02:27.000
<v Speaker 1>them required different levels of recklessness. None of them required

0:02:27.040 --> 0:02:30.400
<v Speaker 1>an intense to murder. The second degree murder charge, which

0:02:30.480 --> 0:02:34.120
<v Speaker 1>is the most serious charge, required an intense to commit

0:02:34.160 --> 0:02:36.880
<v Speaker 1>assault or a felony, which was in this case was

0:02:36.880 --> 0:02:40.360
<v Speaker 1>a sault. And in this case they found that the

0:02:40.360 --> 0:02:44.240
<v Speaker 1>the officer, Officer Shovin, had intended to commit an assault

0:02:44.400 --> 0:02:48.000
<v Speaker 1>on George Floyd, and that that substantially led to his death.

0:02:48.400 --> 0:02:51.720
<v Speaker 1>The other charges are sort of lesser included offenses in

0:02:51.760 --> 0:02:55.640
<v Speaker 1>the sense that they require less of a tie between

0:02:55.680 --> 0:02:58.520
<v Speaker 1>the conduct of the officer and the death. Their more

0:02:58.560 --> 0:03:01.600
<v Speaker 1>recklessness and neglige, and they were thrown in there by

0:03:01.639 --> 0:03:04.239
<v Speaker 1>the prosecution in case they could not get jurorsy and

0:03:04.440 --> 0:03:08.640
<v Speaker 1>unanimously agree that the conduct of the officer was in

0:03:08.680 --> 0:03:11.720
<v Speaker 1>fact a criming of itself, that he assaulted George Floyd.

0:03:11.960 --> 0:03:14.480
<v Speaker 1>And those other charges were there because they would allow

0:03:14.880 --> 0:03:17.840
<v Speaker 1>the jurors to still convict even if they did not

0:03:18.000 --> 0:03:20.600
<v Speaker 1>find that there was an intent to commit a felony

0:03:20.840 --> 0:03:26.400
<v Speaker 1>by former officers. Chauvin. What testimony stood out in the

0:03:26.480 --> 0:03:30.920
<v Speaker 1>prosecution's case, Well, the prosecution had a case that was

0:03:31.040 --> 0:03:35.440
<v Speaker 1>really fairly straightforward, and I think the video tape was

0:03:35.600 --> 0:03:38.600
<v Speaker 1>the best and most compelling evidence for them that nine

0:03:38.600 --> 0:03:42.200
<v Speaker 1>and a half minutes where you saw former officers Chauvin

0:03:42.280 --> 0:03:45.360
<v Speaker 1>kneeling on the neck of George Floyd was something that

0:03:45.440 --> 0:03:49.040
<v Speaker 1>was very, very difficult to watch. The defense tried to

0:03:49.120 --> 0:03:52.440
<v Speaker 1>shift the focus of jurors on to all the events

0:03:52.440 --> 0:03:55.720
<v Speaker 1>that led up to that particular moment where they were

0:03:55.960 --> 0:03:59.240
<v Speaker 1>subduing him for nine and a half minutes. The defense

0:03:59.320 --> 0:04:02.720
<v Speaker 1>tried to play up the fact that police officers are

0:04:02.880 --> 0:04:09.440
<v Speaker 1>subject to situations that are inherently difficult to predict, their dangerous.

0:04:09.520 --> 0:04:12.600
<v Speaker 1>You don't always know what a defendant is going to

0:04:12.680 --> 0:04:15.000
<v Speaker 1>do during the course of an arrest, and trying to

0:04:15.040 --> 0:04:19.080
<v Speaker 1>convince jurors that the conduct was reasonable, but that video

0:04:19.360 --> 0:04:22.960
<v Speaker 1>was difficult to overcome the visual image of kneeling i

0:04:23.120 --> 0:04:26.560
<v Speaker 1>George Floyd's neck while a crowd gathered and people started

0:04:26.600 --> 0:04:28.920
<v Speaker 1>to hold up their cell phones at videotape what was

0:04:28.960 --> 0:04:32.560
<v Speaker 1>going on? Sensing that something there was very wrong. I

0:04:32.600 --> 0:04:34.960
<v Speaker 1>think that was just too much for jurors to ignore

0:04:35.480 --> 0:04:38.279
<v Speaker 1>the fact that the blue wall sort of collapsed in

0:04:38.360 --> 0:04:41.480
<v Speaker 1>this trial. Do you think this verdict will have an

0:04:41.520 --> 0:04:45.279
<v Speaker 1>impact on other trials or in real life? I think

0:04:45.320 --> 0:04:47.560
<v Speaker 1>that it will. We have to be mindful of fact

0:04:47.640 --> 0:04:50.800
<v Speaker 1>that most police officers act within the law that they

0:04:50.880 --> 0:04:55.600
<v Speaker 1>use only reasonable force when arresting individuals. But in this case,

0:04:55.640 --> 0:05:00.040
<v Speaker 1>the conduct was so egregious that even officers was in

0:05:00.080 --> 0:05:04.159
<v Speaker 1>the Minnesota Police Department could not come to after Chauvin's defense,

0:05:04.640 --> 0:05:07.040
<v Speaker 1>I think there was a lot of pressure, public pressure

0:05:07.040 --> 0:05:09.560
<v Speaker 1>that was being brought to bear on the department, and

0:05:09.640 --> 0:05:13.360
<v Speaker 1>it was necessary that they step up and testify as

0:05:13.400 --> 0:05:16.840
<v Speaker 1>they felt was accurate and reasonable in terms of whether

0:05:16.920 --> 0:05:20.239
<v Speaker 1>or not the police conduct was defensible. And in this case,

0:05:20.360 --> 0:05:23.560
<v Speaker 1>the officers who testified and they have the prosecution clearly

0:05:23.640 --> 0:05:26.159
<v Speaker 1>crossed that line. As you said, they crossed the blue line.

0:05:26.200 --> 0:05:29.479
<v Speaker 1>They testified for the prosecution saying that the conduct of

0:05:29.520 --> 0:05:33.360
<v Speaker 1>their former colleague was unreasonable. It then became a battle

0:05:33.400 --> 0:05:36.240
<v Speaker 1>of the experts as to whether or not that unreasonable

0:05:36.279 --> 0:05:40.559
<v Speaker 1>conduct substantially led to George Floyd's death. You know, since

0:05:40.839 --> 0:05:45.600
<v Speaker 1>before the trial, the defense has been stacking up different

0:05:45.720 --> 0:05:49.760
<v Speaker 1>kinds of objections, and so it seems as if there'll

0:05:49.800 --> 0:05:53.880
<v Speaker 1>be a lot of issues for appeal. Yeah, there always

0:05:54.000 --> 0:05:57.720
<v Speaker 1>are appeals in criminal cases. It never happens that someone

0:05:57.760 --> 0:06:00.279
<v Speaker 1>goes to trial and doesn't try to appeal. That can action.

0:06:00.360 --> 0:06:04.120
<v Speaker 1>It's almost automatically something that is taken up because there

0:06:04.120 --> 0:06:06.320
<v Speaker 1>are so many judgment calls that are made during the

0:06:06.320 --> 0:06:09.000
<v Speaker 1>course of the trial, in terms of jury instructions, in

0:06:09.080 --> 0:06:11.599
<v Speaker 1>terms of what evidence is admitted and not admitted. There

0:06:11.600 --> 0:06:14.080
<v Speaker 1>are always issues that they can take up on appeal

0:06:14.480 --> 0:06:16.760
<v Speaker 1>in this case. You know, for example, there's a question

0:06:17.000 --> 0:06:19.000
<v Speaker 1>whether or not think jury should have been moved outside

0:06:19.000 --> 0:06:21.080
<v Speaker 1>of downtown Minneapolis, but there should have been a change

0:06:21.080 --> 0:06:24.240
<v Speaker 1>of venue. Could officer show and have gotten a fair

0:06:24.279 --> 0:06:28.400
<v Speaker 1>trial in front of jurors from downtown Minneapolis. You know,

0:06:28.480 --> 0:06:30.520
<v Speaker 1>that's gonna be one issue certainly that we can expect

0:06:30.520 --> 0:06:34.200
<v Speaker 1>to see. Thanks Bob. That's Robert Mints of McCarter in English.

0:06:34.440 --> 0:06:39.760
<v Speaker 1>Coming up next, possible sentences for Derek Chauvin. The jury

0:06:39.800 --> 0:06:44.039
<v Speaker 1>convicted Chauvin on all three charges, a conviction that could

0:06:44.080 --> 0:06:46.800
<v Speaker 1>mean decades in prison for the forty five year old

0:06:46.880 --> 0:06:50.680
<v Speaker 1>Chauvin when he's sentenced in eight weeks. Joining me is

0:06:50.720 --> 0:06:54.640
<v Speaker 1>former republic defender Krista Groshek, managing attorney of Gross Check

0:06:54.760 --> 0:06:58.320
<v Speaker 1>Law in Minneapolis. So what do you think was the

0:06:58.320 --> 0:07:02.560
<v Speaker 1>biggest factor in a verdict? Well, I think it all

0:07:02.600 --> 0:07:06.440
<v Speaker 1>came down to the number of experts, the credibility of

0:07:06.440 --> 0:07:10.800
<v Speaker 1>the experts, and the intensity of that expert testimony. I mean,

0:07:11.280 --> 0:07:14.840
<v Speaker 1>the States presented a number of experts as it relates

0:07:14.880 --> 0:07:17.800
<v Speaker 1>to the use of force, and then they presented additional

0:07:17.880 --> 0:07:20.320
<v Speaker 1>experts as it related to causation. And I think that

0:07:20.760 --> 0:07:23.880
<v Speaker 1>while Tobin is a I believe a breathing expert or

0:07:23.960 --> 0:07:27.600
<v Speaker 1>a lung doctor, a pulminologist, he gave some really good

0:07:27.600 --> 0:07:30.400
<v Speaker 1>testimony that really broke things down for the jury and

0:07:30.400 --> 0:07:32.680
<v Speaker 1>they could clearly understand its point. You know, there was

0:07:32.680 --> 0:07:35.080
<v Speaker 1>also a fair amount of emotion too, as it related

0:07:35.120 --> 0:07:37.800
<v Speaker 1>to what the bystanders thought and saw and felt at

0:07:37.800 --> 0:07:39.880
<v Speaker 1>the time. So I think the States had a lot

0:07:39.920 --> 0:07:42.160
<v Speaker 1>of things working for them in their favor, and it

0:07:42.200 --> 0:07:44.400
<v Speaker 1>all came together during the course of the trial. And again,

0:07:44.440 --> 0:07:46.600
<v Speaker 1>you never know what this is gonna look like until

0:07:46.600 --> 0:07:49.160
<v Speaker 1>people sit down and start talking, and you know, you

0:07:49.200 --> 0:07:52.960
<v Speaker 1>make arguments and exhibits go in. I think it all

0:07:53.040 --> 0:07:56.440
<v Speaker 1>just kind of sell their way. Is it unusual that

0:07:56.520 --> 0:07:59.600
<v Speaker 1>they were able to come to a decision so quickly

0:08:00.000 --> 0:08:03.480
<v Speaker 1>on these three different charges? What do you think happened

0:08:03.520 --> 0:08:06.960
<v Speaker 1>back there? If I had to guess, which obviously I

0:08:07.000 --> 0:08:09.720
<v Speaker 1>am the feedback I've gotten from juries is that when

0:08:09.760 --> 0:08:12.840
<v Speaker 1>there's a situation where there's a top count and then

0:08:12.840 --> 0:08:15.200
<v Speaker 1>a middle and then a lower count, if they find

0:08:15.320 --> 0:08:18.200
<v Speaker 1>that the defendant is guilty on the top count, then

0:08:18.200 --> 0:08:21.080
<v Speaker 1>everything goes like a like a line of dominoes. Right,

0:08:21.320 --> 0:08:24.200
<v Speaker 1>they don't bother getting into the analysis of the lower counts,

0:08:24.280 --> 0:08:27.480
<v Speaker 1>because that they've decided that he's guilty on the top counts,

0:08:27.520 --> 0:08:29.600
<v Speaker 1>then it just flows that he's guilty on the other

0:08:29.640 --> 0:08:35.040
<v Speaker 1>accounts as well. What kind of sentence is Chauvin facing, Well,

0:08:35.200 --> 0:08:38.960
<v Speaker 1>what's not great for him is that while the murder

0:08:39.000 --> 0:08:42.440
<v Speaker 1>two and murder three each carry that hundred and fifty

0:08:42.559 --> 0:08:47.360
<v Speaker 1>months mandatory minimum, the maximum on murder two is forty

0:08:47.440 --> 0:08:51.920
<v Speaker 1>years versus twenty five on three, and ten on the

0:08:51.920 --> 0:08:56.560
<v Speaker 1>man's laughter too. So potentially he's looking at because the

0:08:56.600 --> 0:08:59.079
<v Speaker 1>top count is the governing count, right, and it will

0:08:59.120 --> 0:09:01.920
<v Speaker 1>be the governing sent the other charges will merge for

0:09:02.000 --> 0:09:05.240
<v Speaker 1>the purposes of sentencings. It's a prosecution and successful and

0:09:05.240 --> 0:09:08.760
<v Speaker 1>it's did for an aggravated sentence and upload departure to

0:09:08.880 --> 0:09:12.040
<v Speaker 1>go to prison for forty years. I thought the Minnesota

0:09:12.240 --> 0:09:16.400
<v Speaker 1>sentencing guidelines recommended twelve and a half years for each

0:09:16.480 --> 0:09:20.240
<v Speaker 1>murder charge they do so for murder three and murder two.

0:09:20.280 --> 0:09:24.600
<v Speaker 1>Of the mandatory minimum sentence for both is that twelve

0:09:24.640 --> 0:09:27.520
<v Speaker 1>and a half years, that hundred and fifty months. However,

0:09:28.120 --> 0:09:31.320
<v Speaker 1>the prosecution can say, judge, don't give him a guideline sentence.

0:09:31.400 --> 0:09:34.360
<v Speaker 1>This was much more egregious on your typical case. And

0:09:34.400 --> 0:09:38.120
<v Speaker 1>here's all the reasons why we heard information about how

0:09:38.160 --> 0:09:40.320
<v Speaker 1>you know police officers are considered to be in a

0:09:40.480 --> 0:09:43.640
<v Speaker 1>position of trust and authority, that there were children present

0:09:43.679 --> 0:09:45.960
<v Speaker 1>in the area. And I expect the prosecution will have

0:09:46.040 --> 0:09:49.800
<v Speaker 1>a very lengthy list of factors as to why they

0:09:49.840 --> 0:09:52.320
<v Speaker 1>believe the judge should give him more than that hundred

0:09:52.360 --> 0:09:56.240
<v Speaker 1>and fifty months. And with that top count that murder too,

0:09:56.360 --> 0:09:59.040
<v Speaker 1>they have up to forty years. I mean, the prosecution

0:09:59.080 --> 0:10:02.360
<v Speaker 1>can ask for double triple. We see that happening up

0:10:02.360 --> 0:10:04.920
<v Speaker 1>their amount in terms of departures. You know, they laugh

0:10:05.040 --> 0:10:08.800
<v Speaker 1>for the maximum sentence. Do you think the judge here

0:10:09.000 --> 0:10:12.319
<v Speaker 1>is likely to give a sentence like that. I think

0:10:12.360 --> 0:10:14.240
<v Speaker 1>the judge will give it a lot of thought. I

0:10:14.240 --> 0:10:17.839
<v Speaker 1>think it's very likely that Judge Cahill was seriously entertained

0:10:18.720 --> 0:10:23.280
<v Speaker 1>um that possibility. Judge Cahill isn't afraid to sentence people

0:10:23.640 --> 0:10:26.600
<v Speaker 1>um to terms of imprisonments that are longer than the

0:10:26.600 --> 0:10:30.200
<v Speaker 1>guidelines that he believed that that's recommended. What we didn't

0:10:30.240 --> 0:10:35.040
<v Speaker 1>see here is a Blakely or a sentencing jury and panel.

0:10:35.120 --> 0:10:38.080
<v Speaker 1>Typically speaking, if there's a finding of guilt, then the

0:10:38.120 --> 0:10:40.839
<v Speaker 1>defendant can said, like to have my Blakely hearing now.

0:10:41.720 --> 0:10:46.280
<v Speaker 1>And it's my understanding that um that either isn't going

0:10:46.320 --> 0:10:49.160
<v Speaker 1>to happen, or that that Blakely issue was waived and

0:10:49.240 --> 0:10:52.480
<v Speaker 1>Judge Cahill is going to make that decision. Typically speaking,

0:10:52.520 --> 0:10:54.920
<v Speaker 1>juries really don't have a sense for whether or not

0:10:54.960 --> 0:10:57.440
<v Speaker 1>there's aggravating factors because it was bad enough for them

0:10:57.480 --> 0:10:59.440
<v Speaker 1>to convict, and they don't have a sense of other

0:10:59.520 --> 0:11:01.240
<v Speaker 1>cases that you know, go in and out of that

0:11:01.320 --> 0:11:04.959
<v Speaker 1>courthouse and what the typical case is. So it's not

0:11:05.040 --> 0:11:07.840
<v Speaker 1>unusual for a defendant to waive that sentencing jury and

0:11:07.920 --> 0:11:11.040
<v Speaker 1>argue those issues to the court. The defense almost from

0:11:11.080 --> 0:11:14.199
<v Speaker 1>the beginning was raising issues that seemed like there will

0:11:14.280 --> 0:11:15.959
<v Speaker 1>be a pellet issues. Do you see a lot of

0:11:15.960 --> 0:11:18.400
<v Speaker 1>a pellet issues here? I said, a ton of a

0:11:18.480 --> 0:11:23.640
<v Speaker 1>pellet issues here. I mean everything from the initial requests

0:11:23.679 --> 0:11:28.600
<v Speaker 1>for change of venue. Um to the settlement issues that

0:11:28.679 --> 0:11:32.040
<v Speaker 1>we saw surfacing early on right in a sparing with

0:11:32.160 --> 0:11:35.800
<v Speaker 1>jury selection, we have the issues of process storial misconduct.

0:11:36.160 --> 0:11:38.640
<v Speaker 1>The desfense frequently complained and we saw this during the trial.

0:11:39.000 --> 0:11:41.600
<v Speaker 1>I just got this right, or oh I don't have

0:11:41.720 --> 0:11:45.439
<v Speaker 1>the amended exhibit right, or oh they gave us discovery

0:11:45.559 --> 0:11:48.240
<v Speaker 1>in what they were calling discovery soup right where everything

0:11:48.280 --> 0:11:50.240
<v Speaker 1>was a mess and so the new information that they

0:11:50.240 --> 0:11:54.320
<v Speaker 1>were disclosing couldn't be found. There's also the issue of

0:11:54.520 --> 0:11:59.400
<v Speaker 1>the Brooklyn Center police officer who got charged with second

0:11:59.400 --> 0:12:02.600
<v Speaker 1>degree man. Slaughter says she was reaching for her chaser,

0:12:02.640 --> 0:12:05.400
<v Speaker 1>reached for her gun. Um, there was a request of

0:12:05.440 --> 0:12:07.880
<v Speaker 1>what you the jury the judge that no said no,

0:12:08.480 --> 0:12:12.040
<v Speaker 1>There was NUMSUS requests for miss Trow and there was

0:12:12.280 --> 0:12:15.840
<v Speaker 1>a last request even I believe after closing arguments occurred

0:12:16.559 --> 0:12:20.719
<v Speaker 1>based upon um the very public words of California Representative

0:12:20.760 --> 0:12:27.239
<v Speaker 1>Maxine Waters, who was saying that a jury a Furson acquittal, Um,

0:12:27.280 --> 0:12:29.839
<v Speaker 1>you know, people should take to the streets and protests,

0:12:29.880 --> 0:12:35.040
<v Speaker 1>which could amount to jury intimidation. On one hand, said hey,

0:12:35.080 --> 0:12:36.959
<v Speaker 1>you may have a good appeal issue there, but then

0:12:36.960 --> 0:12:39.720
<v Speaker 1>denied the miss trout on the ground that well, nobody

0:12:39.760 --> 0:12:44.439
<v Speaker 1>listens to you know, a representative from California. UM. So,

0:12:44.880 --> 0:12:48.000
<v Speaker 1>I think there's just a number of things that children

0:12:48.000 --> 0:12:51.400
<v Speaker 1>can appeal. We can even look at that reinstatement at

0:12:51.400 --> 0:12:53.760
<v Speaker 1>the third degree murder charge that Judge Cahill was red

0:12:53.880 --> 0:12:59.760
<v Speaker 1>sent to put in place that overturned centuries worth of decisions,

0:12:59.760 --> 0:13:02.040
<v Speaker 1>that that you can't use that charge in the way

0:13:02.080 --> 0:13:05.080
<v Speaker 1>it was used here in this case. So I think

0:13:05.200 --> 0:13:07.800
<v Speaker 1>Chauvin has you know, a number of issues to contest

0:13:08.640 --> 0:13:11.520
<v Speaker 1>for his appeal, and you know that doesn't even take

0:13:11.520 --> 0:13:14.960
<v Speaker 1>into account the typical appellate issues that are existing now

0:13:15.000 --> 0:13:18.320
<v Speaker 1>on the day of COVID and maths and separation and

0:13:18.440 --> 0:13:21.760
<v Speaker 1>can't see people's faces. I mean, there's a lot here

0:13:21.800 --> 0:13:24.360
<v Speaker 1>that he can make hay with down the road. Will

0:13:24.400 --> 0:13:27.440
<v Speaker 1>this trial in any way affect the trot the upcoming

0:13:27.480 --> 0:13:30.920
<v Speaker 1>trial of the three other police officers, I mean, will

0:13:30.960 --> 0:13:34.880
<v Speaker 1>there be any kind of plea deals offered? Now? Perhaps

0:13:35.080 --> 0:13:38.920
<v Speaker 1>the defense attorneys will consult their clients and say, hey,

0:13:38.960 --> 0:13:41.080
<v Speaker 1>you know, this is how it went down with regard

0:13:41.160 --> 0:13:44.840
<v Speaker 1>to Mr Chauvin. I don't know how co ordinated um

0:13:44.920 --> 0:13:48.880
<v Speaker 1>the defense attorneys are with regard to sharing experts. Um,

0:13:48.960 --> 0:13:51.600
<v Speaker 1>I know that the defense attorneys representing the three other

0:13:51.640 --> 0:13:57.120
<v Speaker 1>individuals are seasoned, accomplished, very dynamic characters that may have

0:13:57.200 --> 0:13:59.679
<v Speaker 1>in fact sought off their own experts and pursue the

0:13:59.720 --> 0:14:02.800
<v Speaker 1>case in a much different fashion, knowing of course, that

0:14:03.440 --> 0:14:07.439
<v Speaker 1>their clients are situated much differently, right, and and much

0:14:07.480 --> 0:14:09.760
<v Speaker 1>of money of them being rookies, many of them not

0:14:09.920 --> 0:14:12.720
<v Speaker 1>calling the shots with Chauvin. You know the main guy

0:14:12.760 --> 0:14:17.000
<v Speaker 1>on the scene. Thanks Krista. That's Krista Groschek of Groschek Law.

0:14:18.679 --> 0:14:21.920
<v Speaker 1>In Battle. New York Governor Andrew Cuomo is now the

0:14:21.960 --> 0:14:26.200
<v Speaker 1>subject of four investigations. The latest is an investigation by

0:14:26.200 --> 0:14:30.120
<v Speaker 1>the New York State Attorney General, Letitia James into Cuomo's

0:14:30.200 --> 0:14:34.920
<v Speaker 1>use of state resources for his book American Crisis Leadership

0:14:35.000 --> 0:14:38.480
<v Speaker 1>Lessons from the COVID nineteen Pandemic. Joining me is Bloomberg

0:14:38.520 --> 0:14:41.720
<v Speaker 1>Legal reporter Patricia Hurtado. So Pat tell us about this

0:14:41.840 --> 0:14:46.880
<v Speaker 1>latest investigation. Well, Cuomo allegedly, according to The New York Times,

0:14:47.000 --> 0:14:51.680
<v Speaker 1>you stafford to help write and do edit and make

0:14:51.760 --> 0:14:56.240
<v Speaker 1>copies on his book. So the New York Times suggested

0:14:56.320 --> 0:14:59.960
<v Speaker 1>that there might be an impropriety there that government employee,

0:15:00.400 --> 0:15:05.720
<v Speaker 1>and expenditures were made on government time for his purposes

0:15:05.800 --> 0:15:09.040
<v Speaker 1>of writing his book and getting his book published. So

0:15:09.560 --> 0:15:12.040
<v Speaker 1>as results of that um, the New York Times wrote

0:15:12.040 --> 0:15:15.280
<v Speaker 1>a story about it, and the New York State Controller

0:15:15.960 --> 0:15:19.880
<v Speaker 1>recommended that this possibly be a new avenue to investigate

0:15:19.960 --> 0:15:23.640
<v Speaker 1>Kama and if there was anything improper, did he suggest

0:15:23.680 --> 0:15:29.000
<v Speaker 1>that to the attorney general. Basically, he authorized the opening

0:15:29.120 --> 0:15:33.600
<v Speaker 1>of an investigation the big controller, the state controller has

0:15:33.640 --> 0:15:37.600
<v Speaker 1>to recommend that the Attorney General investigates, so he authorized

0:15:37.680 --> 0:15:41.400
<v Speaker 1>her to launch an inquiry into whether state resources were

0:15:41.520 --> 0:15:46.040
<v Speaker 1>used for Cuomo's pandemic book. I assume that a lot

0:15:46.080 --> 0:15:49.160
<v Speaker 1>of people at work have things copied, and if you

0:15:49.240 --> 0:15:52.240
<v Speaker 1>have an assistant, you have an assistant copy some personal things.

0:15:52.720 --> 0:15:54.960
<v Speaker 1>Is it that picky you know what they're talking about,

0:15:55.040 --> 0:15:57.320
<v Speaker 1>or is it much more well, it depends on who

0:15:57.400 --> 0:16:00.240
<v Speaker 1>you're talking to. I mean, the Times and some of

0:16:00.280 --> 0:16:04.440
<v Speaker 1>the employees were alleging that this was work that was

0:16:04.800 --> 0:16:09.520
<v Speaker 1>done during office hours and it was unseemly and improper.

0:16:10.040 --> 0:16:13.920
<v Speaker 1>Now the governor has claimed that this was minor work,

0:16:14.640 --> 0:16:18.760
<v Speaker 1>It was incidental. It was people who volunteered to copy

0:16:18.960 --> 0:16:22.400
<v Speaker 1>edit and look over, you know, look at a draft

0:16:22.520 --> 0:16:26.760
<v Speaker 1>of a chapter and that this didn't merit any kind

0:16:26.800 --> 0:16:29.920
<v Speaker 1>of possible you know, there wasn't in any kind of

0:16:29.960 --> 0:16:35.160
<v Speaker 1>flagrant violation of any state laws or any violations of impropriety.

0:16:35.760 --> 0:16:39.040
<v Speaker 1>And in fact, the governor his staff came out with

0:16:39.160 --> 0:16:43.320
<v Speaker 1>a very strong comment after this happened, and they actually

0:16:43.400 --> 0:16:47.520
<v Speaker 1>his spokesman Rich as a Party said, we've officially jumped

0:16:47.600 --> 0:16:51.720
<v Speaker 1>a shark. The idea that there was criminality involved here

0:16:51.880 --> 0:16:55.200
<v Speaker 1>is patently observed on a space and it's just furthering

0:16:55.320 --> 0:16:58.520
<v Speaker 1>of a political pylon. So it depends on who you're

0:16:58.560 --> 0:17:02.200
<v Speaker 1>looking for. But you know, there's a series of avenues

0:17:02.240 --> 0:17:05.840
<v Speaker 1>of investigation that that the governor is subject to. So

0:17:05.920 --> 0:17:09.440
<v Speaker 1>he's being looked at for possible sexual harassment and at

0:17:09.480 --> 0:17:14.639
<v Speaker 1>work as the governor by a impeachment committee formed by

0:17:14.640 --> 0:17:17.760
<v Speaker 1>the state Assembly, and he's also the subject of a

0:17:17.800 --> 0:17:23.000
<v Speaker 1>separate investigation being conducted by a law firm by Latitia James,

0:17:23.000 --> 0:17:27.159
<v Speaker 1>the attorney General. And then he's also been investigated for

0:17:27.280 --> 0:17:32.320
<v Speaker 1>alleged in the States and proprieties involving possible misreporting of

0:17:32.440 --> 0:17:36.480
<v Speaker 1>nursing home depths last year during the pandemic. So you know,

0:17:36.640 --> 0:17:40.439
<v Speaker 1>it just seems to show that Chromo isn't walking away

0:17:40.520 --> 0:17:45.440
<v Speaker 1>anytime soon from allegations of impropriety. You know, in his actions,

0:17:45.480 --> 0:17:49.360
<v Speaker 1>I guess he's opened himself up to possible claims that

0:17:49.520 --> 0:17:52.239
<v Speaker 1>he has improperly used his job. And this is just

0:17:52.280 --> 0:17:56.439
<v Speaker 1>another one. Do we know where those other investigations stand

0:17:56.560 --> 0:17:59.399
<v Speaker 1>right now? You know, I think that this is in

0:17:59.600 --> 0:18:03.480
<v Speaker 1>for a long haul. It's unclear how long the investigation

0:18:03.560 --> 0:18:06.000
<v Speaker 1>is going to take. What is clear is it's probably

0:18:06.040 --> 0:18:08.600
<v Speaker 1>going to take a long time. And the reason I

0:18:08.680 --> 0:18:12.360
<v Speaker 1>say this is because Latitia James, the Attorney General, when

0:18:12.400 --> 0:18:16.320
<v Speaker 1>she did an investigation of what happened with the nursing

0:18:16.359 --> 0:18:20.040
<v Speaker 1>home death, she started it in March of last year

0:18:20.080 --> 0:18:22.960
<v Speaker 1>and it it finally came out in January. So is

0:18:23.000 --> 0:18:26.240
<v Speaker 1>a month long process. And these things are pretty detailed.

0:18:26.720 --> 0:18:30.800
<v Speaker 1>So it's unclear how long it will take. But you know,

0:18:30.920 --> 0:18:36.399
<v Speaker 1>certainly a federal investigation of the nursing home reporting that

0:18:36.600 --> 0:18:38.640
<v Speaker 1>is being done by the Eastern District of New York

0:18:38.680 --> 0:18:42.479
<v Speaker 1>and Brooklyn and the FBI, that's likely to take a

0:18:42.640 --> 0:18:45.360
<v Speaker 1>very long time. And we do know that the impeachment

0:18:45.560 --> 0:18:49.480
<v Speaker 1>investigation that's being done for the State Assembly, they said

0:18:49.480 --> 0:18:51.639
<v Speaker 1>that it could take months, and so they're on the

0:18:51.680 --> 0:18:55.040
<v Speaker 1>record same month. I imagine it's going to be a

0:18:55.080 --> 0:18:58.560
<v Speaker 1>while before we hear anything. But they've also said that

0:18:58.640 --> 0:19:01.280
<v Speaker 1>this is another element that is going to be investigated

0:19:01.320 --> 0:19:06.120
<v Speaker 1>by both the Impeachment Assembly and investigation as well as

0:19:06.440 --> 0:19:08.919
<v Speaker 1>now Kiss James is going to start one. So it

0:19:08.960 --> 0:19:11.600
<v Speaker 1>seems like Cuomo is just going to try to ride

0:19:11.640 --> 0:19:14.800
<v Speaker 1>the whole thing out. Yeah, and in meantime, he's it

0:19:14.840 --> 0:19:17.720
<v Speaker 1>looks like Pomo might end up being like a political

0:19:17.760 --> 0:19:21.280
<v Speaker 1>pinata here. Do we know how much he made for

0:19:21.320 --> 0:19:24.840
<v Speaker 1>this book. It was at the height of his popularity

0:19:25.040 --> 0:19:29.120
<v Speaker 1>during COVID that he made the deal. He will not

0:19:29.280 --> 0:19:32.359
<v Speaker 1>say how much he earns, but he said that everybody

0:19:32.560 --> 0:19:36.520
<v Speaker 1>has constantly asked him about his taxes, and he's released

0:19:36.560 --> 0:19:41.560
<v Speaker 1>his tax information. So he calls this Albany politics at

0:19:41.560 --> 0:19:43.919
<v Speaker 1>its worst, and he says that the Controller and the

0:19:44.000 --> 0:19:46.840
<v Speaker 1>a G have spoken to people about running for governor

0:19:46.920 --> 0:19:50.960
<v Speaker 1>and it's unethical for them to wield criminal referral authority

0:19:51.280 --> 0:19:53.960
<v Speaker 1>for their political self interests. So you can see that

0:19:54.040 --> 0:19:56.720
<v Speaker 1>he's calling this out that claiming this is all just

0:19:56.840 --> 0:20:01.359
<v Speaker 1>payback for people who possibly want to run for Thanks Pat,

0:20:01.760 --> 0:20:05.399
<v Speaker 1>that's Bloomberg Legal reporter Patricia Hurtado. And that's it for

0:20:05.400 --> 0:20:08.000
<v Speaker 1>the edition of the Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can

0:20:08.040 --> 0:20:10.920
<v Speaker 1>always get the latest legal news on a Bloomberg Law podcast.

0:20:11.119 --> 0:20:13.960
<v Speaker 1>You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at

0:20:14.119 --> 0:20:19.320
<v Speaker 1>www dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast slash Law. I'm

0:20:19.400 --> 0:20:21.960
<v Speaker 1>June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg