WEBVTT - Trump Contentious Hearing & Adnan Syed Conviction Reinstated 0:00:03.200 --> 0:00:08.000 This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio. 0:00:10.360 --> 0:00:12.840 In the first court here and in nearly a year, 0:00:13.240 --> 0:00:16.239 a lawyer for Donald Trump clashed with the judge in 0:00:16.280 --> 0:00:21.200 the federal election interference prosecution of the former president. Prosecutors 0:00:21.200 --> 0:00:24.560 and defense lawyers are bitterly at odds over the next 0:00:24.600 --> 0:00:27.960 steps in the case. After the Supreme Court narrowed the 0:00:28.000 --> 0:00:31.720 scope of the prosecution by ruling that former presidents are 0:00:31.960 --> 0:00:36.120 entitled to broad immunity from criminal charges. There were several 0:00:36.240 --> 0:00:41.240 tens exchanges between Judge Tanya Chuckkin and Trump lawyer John Lauro, 0:00:41.720 --> 0:00:45.840 particularly when he referenced the November election. We're talking about 0:00:45.840 --> 0:00:49.640 the presidency of the United States, Laura said. At one point, 0:00:50.080 --> 0:00:53.479 Chuckkins shot back, I'm not talking about the presidency of 0:00:53.520 --> 0:00:56.639 the United States. I'm talking about a fore count indictment. 0:00:57.000 --> 0:01:00.400 Joining me is Zoe Tillman, Bloomberg senior reporter who is 0:01:00.440 --> 0:01:03.720 at the hearing and is joining us from the courthouse. ZOEA. 0:01:03.760 --> 0:01:07.200 I understand it was pretty contentious between the judge and 0:01:07.640 --> 0:01:08.520 Trump's attorney. 0:01:08.840 --> 0:01:12.000 Yeah, that's right. You know, I think that the defense 0:01:12.120 --> 0:01:14.920 really wanted to come out swinging, saying that they think 0:01:14.920 --> 0:01:18.160 that the Special Council is rushing and trying to move 0:01:18.200 --> 0:01:22.880 things too fast and prejudice them by going first, essentially 0:01:23.000 --> 0:01:25.040 to try and make their case for why the indictment 0:01:25.080 --> 0:01:28.120 should move forward after the Supreme Court's immunity ruling, and 0:01:28.560 --> 0:01:31.520 the Judge repeatedly said, you know, I don't want to 0:01:31.520 --> 0:01:35.160 hear rhetoric. I want to hear legal arguments. It doesn't 0:01:35.160 --> 0:01:39.160 seem like there's rushing and you know, references to the election. 0:01:39.319 --> 0:01:42.960 The judge made clear that she was deeply uninterested considering 0:01:43.200 --> 0:01:45.960 the electoral calendar and deciding what to do next. So 0:01:46.000 --> 0:01:47.360 those are all tension points. 0:01:47.400 --> 0:01:51.400 Today, there was a dispute about which side will file 0:01:51.480 --> 0:01:55.520 briefs first. The Special Council wants to submit a brief 0:01:55.560 --> 0:01:59.960 first on why it's superseding indictment complies with the sup 0:02:00.040 --> 0:02:03.600 Frame Court's immunity decision, and it would include a lot 0:02:03.640 --> 0:02:08.240 of evidence like grand jury transcripts and FBI notes on 0:02:08.360 --> 0:02:09.360 witness interviews. 0:02:09.880 --> 0:02:12.960 They wanted to essentially lay out the facts and the 0:02:13.000 --> 0:02:16.600 evidence that they're going to present as part of this 0:02:16.720 --> 0:02:20.840 next stage of the case and then argue why those 0:02:21.000 --> 0:02:24.920 all survive the immunity decision. Either because they are not 0:02:25.120 --> 0:02:29.120 official acts by Trump as president, or even if they are, 0:02:29.639 --> 0:02:32.880 why they sort of overcome the presumption of immunity that 0:02:32.880 --> 0:02:35.400 the Supreme Court laid out for sort of non core 0:02:35.919 --> 0:02:39.080 official acts by a president. And so they argued that 0:02:39.200 --> 0:02:42.200 the most efficient way to do this, rather than wait 0:02:42.280 --> 0:02:46.000 for Trump to file emotion to dismiss the incitement, which 0:02:46.040 --> 0:02:48.040 would be the normal course of action, would be for 0:02:48.080 --> 0:02:51.680 them to preemptively sort of lay out their case, make 0:02:51.720 --> 0:02:56.000 the argument for why it is legally valid under the 0:02:56.000 --> 0:02:59.360 immunity framework, and then have Trump respond to that. 0:03:00.120 --> 0:03:03.400 So did the judge decide whether to proceed in that 0:03:03.440 --> 0:03:05.160 way with them filing the brief first. 0:03:05.560 --> 0:03:08.000 She did not. She said that she hoped to set 0:03:08.000 --> 0:03:11.080 a schedule later in the day or at least soon, 0:03:11.760 --> 0:03:14.440 And you know, agreed with Trump's lawyers that this would 0:03:14.480 --> 0:03:16.359 sort of be going out of order. That's the normal 0:03:16.400 --> 0:03:19.480 course of business, and the normal rules would call for 0:03:19.520 --> 0:03:22.200 the defense to go first and sort of raise the 0:03:22.240 --> 0:03:24.520 points they want to raise about what is sufficient in 0:03:24.560 --> 0:03:27.640 the new indictments. But as the judgment also noted, you know, 0:03:27.840 --> 0:03:31.200 just because normal course of action doesn't mean that they 0:03:31.360 --> 0:03:34.800 can't change up the order and the government argued that 0:03:35.200 --> 0:03:40.560 this would avoid multiple potential appeals by Trump's lawyers, versus 0:03:40.760 --> 0:03:43.360 putting everything sort of in one package and then whoever 0:03:43.440 --> 0:03:46.840 loses can take all of that up to the DC circuit. 0:03:47.280 --> 0:03:50.240 So it seemed as if the judge and the prosecution 0:03:50.480 --> 0:03:53.720 acknowledge that no matter what happened, there was going to 0:03:53.720 --> 0:03:56.520 be an appeal, and that the prosecution was just trying 0:03:56.520 --> 0:03:58.440 to keep it down to one appeal. 0:03:58.720 --> 0:04:02.080 That's right. Basically, Trump lawyers talked about wanting to handle 0:04:02.120 --> 0:04:05.240 this in a couple stages where they first want to 0:04:05.360 --> 0:04:09.560 argue that by keeping allegations about Donald Trump's efforts to 0:04:09.640 --> 0:04:14.120 pressure then Vice President Mike Pence in the indictment, that 0:04:14.120 --> 0:04:19.200 that conduct specifically is still official acts not entitled to immunity. 0:04:19.560 --> 0:04:21.839 And if that's the case, they argue, that means that 0:04:21.960 --> 0:04:25.440 this new grand jury that returned the superseding indictment was 0:04:25.560 --> 0:04:28.640 tainted and the entire indictment should be tossed up. And 0:04:28.680 --> 0:04:32.000 then if the judge disagrees and says that the Pence 0:04:32.279 --> 0:04:35.000 information can stay in, then they would go to a 0:04:35.080 --> 0:04:37.880 next round of briefing as to why other parts of 0:04:37.920 --> 0:04:41.560 the indictment bill fail. Out of the immunity test. But yees, 0:04:41.600 --> 0:04:45.440 I think everyone agreed that whatever happens, whatever jun Tutkin does, 0:04:45.480 --> 0:04:47.719 will be appealed, and she at one point even said 0:04:47.760 --> 0:04:50.320 that she thought it was a quote exercise in futility 0:04:50.640 --> 0:04:53.200 to try to set some kind of trial schedule because 0:04:53.240 --> 0:04:55.560 it just doesn't matter, and everything we put on hold 0:04:55.560 --> 0:04:57.440 again when it goes up to the circuit or the 0:04:57.440 --> 0:04:58.160 Supreme courtance. 0:04:58.680 --> 0:05:03.000 Trump's lawyers took the position that the whole case has 0:05:03.040 --> 0:05:07.560 to fall if Trump's interactions with Mike Pence are immune 0:05:07.560 --> 0:05:11.360 from prosecution, and did the judge disagree with the defense 0:05:11.520 --> 0:05:14.400 interpretation of the Supreme Court decision? 0:05:14.920 --> 0:05:17.520 Not in so many words, but she suggested that she 0:05:17.600 --> 0:05:20.039 didn't think that it was clear cut that that was 0:05:20.120 --> 0:05:23.680 definitely off limits and that it was official acts and 0:05:24.120 --> 0:05:28.360 immune from prosecution. I think a few times she indicated 0:05:28.400 --> 0:05:31.799 that what exactly the Supreme Court had to say about 0:05:31.800 --> 0:05:34.800 the indictment was not as sort of clear cut as 0:05:34.839 --> 0:05:39.240 Trump's lawyers suggested it was, and that it had to be, 0:05:39.400 --> 0:05:43.120 you know, a fact based determination as opposed to just 0:05:43.360 --> 0:05:46.720 a decision on the wall about whether that that part 0:05:46.720 --> 0:05:50.359 of the indictment is wholesale off limits to prosecutors or not. 0:05:50.800 --> 0:05:53.480 Anyone who read that decision knows it's not clear cut. 0:05:53.520 --> 0:05:57.280 There's not much that's clear cut in that decision. Now. Also, 0:05:57.800 --> 0:06:01.400 the Trump lawyers did not try before for this to 0:06:01.960 --> 0:06:07.040 make an argument that the Special Counsel's appointment is unconstitutional, 0:06:07.400 --> 0:06:10.279 but now they want to make that argument here they do. 0:06:11.040 --> 0:06:13.640 There was definitely some tense back and forth about that 0:06:13.720 --> 0:06:17.400 as well, you know, with the judge and the prosecutor 0:06:17.480 --> 0:06:20.520 from Jack's miss Office, Tom Wyndham, basically saying that they 0:06:20.560 --> 0:06:24.320 actually missed the deadline to raise that argument before the 0:06:24.400 --> 0:06:28.279 case was paused during the immunity fights. But regardless, you know, 0:06:28.360 --> 0:06:31.880 Judge Chuckkin is going to give them some time to 0:06:32.200 --> 0:06:36.080 raise that argument, but she already signaled that it's an 0:06:36.160 --> 0:06:39.520 uphill battle for them. They noted, you know, that Judge 0:06:39.560 --> 0:06:43.080 Eileen Cannon and Florida had just missed the other case 0:06:43.120 --> 0:06:46.760 that miss Office brought regarding Trump's handling class by documents 0:06:46.760 --> 0:06:50.599 on the appointment's clause issue, and that Justice Thomas, in 0:06:50.640 --> 0:06:53.719 a concurring opinion in the immunity case, had mentioned that 0:06:53.800 --> 0:06:57.599 issue as one of interests him at least. And Trump 0:06:57.720 --> 0:07:01.200 lawyer said, well, these two things you know, really make 0:07:01.279 --> 0:07:03.800 this an important issue for us to approach now. And 0:07:03.880 --> 0:07:06.480 Judge Chuckkins said, I don't know about that. She said 0:07:06.480 --> 0:07:09.279 that she thought Judge Cannon's opinion on this issue was 0:07:09.440 --> 0:07:13.000 not quote, particularly persuasive. So I think we got an 0:07:13.040 --> 0:07:17.239 indication that she's not inclined to join Judge Cannon and Florida. 0:07:17.280 --> 0:07:20.720 And there's also finding PC Circuit president on this issue. 0:07:20.880 --> 0:07:23.720 So regardless of what she thinks about Judge Cannon's opinion, 0:07:24.160 --> 0:07:26.440 her hands are tied here. But they'll be able to 0:07:26.520 --> 0:07:30.240 raise it, but you unlikely to succeed, at least not 0:07:30.960 --> 0:07:32.720 in the way that they did in Florida. 0:07:32.960 --> 0:07:35.520 Is there still an attempt to move the case forward 0:07:35.600 --> 0:07:38.640 quickly even though it's obvious that it can't be tried 0:07:38.680 --> 0:07:42.960 before the election. Or are the prosecutors sort of a 0:07:42.960 --> 0:07:44.720 little bit more laid back about it? 0:07:45.200 --> 0:07:47.960 You know, it's interesting when they put in writing what 0:07:48.000 --> 0:07:50.400 they wanted to do next ahead of this hearing, the 0:07:50.440 --> 0:07:54.440 government noticeably did not commit to a certain date when 0:07:54.440 --> 0:07:56.320 they wanted things to get started. They just said that 0:07:56.360 --> 0:07:58.960 we're prepared to move as quickly as the judge wants 0:07:59.000 --> 0:08:02.400 us to. In court today, Judge Chuckkins said, you got 0:08:02.440 --> 0:08:04.560 to give me more than that. You know, how quickly 0:08:04.920 --> 0:08:07.560 are you prepared to really move and they said three weeks, 0:08:07.600 --> 0:08:10.400 two to three weeks, probably three weeks, so you know, 0:08:10.920 --> 0:08:13.920 that's that is quite fast. And I think it's really 0:08:13.960 --> 0:08:18.360 now a question of is the judge inclined to go 0:08:18.440 --> 0:08:22.440 with that schedule and sort of move things forward and 0:08:22.600 --> 0:08:26.880 have you know, new pleadings and aspects of this fight 0:08:27.000 --> 0:08:31.520 play out publicly before the election, or is she inclined 0:08:31.560 --> 0:08:34.640 to go with the sort of slower pace post election 0:08:34.760 --> 0:08:36.800 schedule that Trump's lawyers have proposed. 0:08:37.120 --> 0:08:40.760 And at one point, did Trump's lawyer actually say that 0:08:40.840 --> 0:08:44.840 they didn't want sensitive information coming out before the election? 0:08:45.600 --> 0:08:48.360 You know what Trump lay, John Laurro said a few 0:08:48.360 --> 0:08:52.400 times because he referred to this quick, sensitive time, and 0:08:52.480 --> 0:08:54.440 he brought that up a few times, and the judge 0:08:54.440 --> 0:08:57.079 finally said, let's talk about what you're talking about here. 0:08:57.160 --> 0:09:00.440 You're talking about the election. She goes, you know, I 0:09:00.520 --> 0:09:03.040 understand that there's an election coming, but and this is 0:09:03.040 --> 0:09:05.800 the point that she's made before the election does not 0:09:06.000 --> 0:09:09.280 dictate my schedule. It's not relevant to the schedule that 0:09:09.320 --> 0:09:12.040 I'm setting here. And at one point she even said 0:09:12.080 --> 0:09:15.760 to trumpflar. She accused them of trying to drag this 0:09:15.960 --> 0:09:19.600 out to avoid influencing the election, and you know, their 0:09:19.679 --> 0:09:22.320 argument was that they didn't want the government to sort 0:09:22.320 --> 0:09:25.560 of go first, right, So the implication was that they 0:09:25.600 --> 0:09:29.240 were trying to delay this anything coming out that might 0:09:29.280 --> 0:09:32.360 be hurtful to Trump's campaign before the election. And John 0:09:32.400 --> 0:09:34.600 Laurier pushed back on that and said, no, no, that's 0:09:34.600 --> 0:09:36.160 not what we're trying to do here. We just think 0:09:36.200 --> 0:09:39.320 that the Supreme Court has required us to give these 0:09:39.440 --> 0:09:43.840 very weighty issues related to the presidency careful considerations. That 0:09:43.920 --> 0:09:46.720 it was clear, you know, she was trying to unwrap 0:09:46.880 --> 0:09:48.920 what she said was really the subtext of what they 0:09:48.920 --> 0:09:51.439 were saying. When Dunlaer kept talking about this being a 0:09:51.520 --> 0:09:52.520 sensitive time. 0:09:52.880 --> 0:09:55.360 No surprise that they're trying to delay the case, as 0:09:55.360 --> 0:09:59.360 they've delayed every case so far. Was there any talk 0:09:59.480 --> 0:10:03.880 of whold an evidentiary hearing? Perhaps before the election. 0:10:04.200 --> 0:10:06.800 There was, but it didn't sound like that something that 0:10:06.800 --> 0:10:10.679 would happen anytime here from lawyer John Morrow talked about 0:10:11.000 --> 0:10:14.200 at some point their clients should have the ability to 0:10:14.720 --> 0:10:18.880 question the Special Counsel's witnesses and test their evidence as 0:10:18.920 --> 0:10:22.600 this immunity fight plays out, but neither side was really 0:10:22.679 --> 0:10:27.760 pushing for that kind of airing of evidence or testimony 0:10:28.320 --> 0:10:29.199 in the near future. 0:10:29.960 --> 0:10:31.640 So what's the next thing that will happen. 0:10:32.240 --> 0:10:34.440 So what we're waiting for now is for the judge 0:10:34.440 --> 0:10:38.800 to enter a scheduling order and it will indicate sort 0:10:38.800 --> 0:10:41.679 of who wins and loses this round, at least when 0:10:41.720 --> 0:10:44.760 it comes to timing, and will see, you know, if 0:10:44.800 --> 0:10:48.040 she sets any deadlines before November fifth, that's really the 0:10:48.080 --> 0:10:51.720 most important operative date right now, and what order she 0:10:51.840 --> 0:10:54.200 puts things in, if she has breathed to do sort 0:10:54.200 --> 0:10:56.640 of all at once, or if she staggers them. But 0:10:56.720 --> 0:11:01.040 we're not really expecting any other surprises on just when 0:11:01.080 --> 0:11:04.040 those first deadlines are Judge Chuckkin. 0:11:04.480 --> 0:11:09.080 Judge Chuckkins seems like a no nonsense judge. Judge Chuckkins 0:11:09.160 --> 0:11:11.960 seems like a no nonsense judge. 0:11:12.600 --> 0:11:15.880 She does, and you know, I think as a reporter 0:11:16.600 --> 0:11:20.040 watching her, you could sense the frustration that she had 0:11:20.280 --> 0:11:23.520 with some of the ways that Trump's lawyers were framing 0:11:23.920 --> 0:11:26.600 their arguments. You At one point she told John Laura 0:11:26.840 --> 0:11:28.640 to sort of cool it with the rhetoric, and he 0:11:29.040 --> 0:11:31.080 pushed back and said this is not rhetoric. These are 0:11:31.160 --> 0:11:32.040 legal arguments. 0:11:32.240 --> 0:11:35.760 Thanks so much, Zoe for taking us inside the courtroom. 0:11:36.320 --> 0:11:40.400 That's Bloomberg Senior reporter Zoe Tillman coming up next on 0:11:40.440 --> 0:11:44.440 the Bloomberg Law Show. Another twist and turn in the 0:11:44.480 --> 0:11:48.640 odd non Sayyed case, the legal saga that gained national 0:11:48.640 --> 0:11:53.040 attention through the podcast serial. I'm June Grosso and you're 0:11:53.120 --> 0:11:57.720 listening to Bloomberg. Yet another twist and turn in the 0:11:57.760 --> 0:12:01.720 odd non Sayyed case, a llegal saga that gained national 0:12:01.760 --> 0:12:05.600 attention through the hit podcast serial. After more than two 0:12:05.679 --> 0:12:09.480 decades in prison, Sayed was freed in September of twenty 0:12:09.520 --> 0:12:13.640 twenty two when a Baltimore judge overturned his conviction for 0:12:13.720 --> 0:12:16.560 the murder of his ex girlfriend at the request of 0:12:16.640 --> 0:12:20.559 Baltimore prosecutors, who said they found flaws in the evidence 0:12:20.640 --> 0:12:24.679 used against him at trial. But now Siyed is once 0:12:24.720 --> 0:12:30.080 again facing prison. His conviction has been reinstated after the 0:12:30.120 --> 0:12:33.840 Maryland Supreme Court, in a four to three decision, ruled 0:12:33.840 --> 0:12:37.120 that the earlier proceedings had violated the rights of the 0:12:37.200 --> 0:12:41.160 victim's family because they weren't given enough notice of the 0:12:41.200 --> 0:12:44.160 time of the hearing. Joining me as trial attorney David 0:12:44.280 --> 0:12:48.559 Ring of Tailor and Ring in Los Angeles. If prosecutors 0:12:48.600 --> 0:12:52.680 decide that they've wrongfully convicted someone, shouldn't it be their 0:12:52.720 --> 0:12:55.880 decision to drop the charges? I mean, why should a 0:12:55.880 --> 0:12:57.079 court make that decision? 0:12:57.760 --> 0:13:00.120 The court has a say in that because the or 0:13:00.120 --> 0:13:02.760 it's the ultimate gatekeeper. You know, we have to have 0:13:02.880 --> 0:13:05.520 checks and balances. Look, most of the time, if the 0:13:05.559 --> 0:13:08.600 prosecution comes in and says, hey, you know, this guy's 0:13:08.640 --> 0:13:12.080 wrongfully convicted, the vast majority of the time, the court's 0:13:12.120 --> 0:13:15.080 going to agree with them and drop the charges. But 0:13:15.600 --> 0:13:17.920 this court still has to sign off on it. There 0:13:17.960 --> 0:13:20.360 still has to be some sort of hearing, and it's 0:13:20.440 --> 0:13:22.720 just a way to have checks and balances to make 0:13:22.760 --> 0:13:25.760 sure that everyone's playing fairly in the system. 0:13:26.200 --> 0:13:29.200 So in this case, the issue is that the victim's brother, 0:13:29.679 --> 0:13:33.160 who spoke at the hearing by video conference from his 0:13:33.360 --> 0:13:36.840 house in California, he argued that you should have gotten 0:13:36.840 --> 0:13:40.720 more notice of the proceeding. He was given notice on 0:13:40.840 --> 0:13:42.760 Friday about a Monday hearing. 0:13:43.280 --> 0:13:46.160 That was the issue. But here's the bigger picture on 0:13:46.200 --> 0:13:49.680 that issue. Because the way it's kind of framed sometimes 0:13:49.679 --> 0:13:51.200 in the media, it's like well, what's the big deal? 0:13:51.240 --> 0:13:55.440 He beared by zoom. But that hearing was a monumental hearing. 0:13:55.800 --> 0:13:59.040 That was a hearing where the prosecution basically came into 0:13:59.120 --> 0:14:02.800 court and said, hey, Court, we want to drop these charges, 0:14:02.840 --> 0:14:06.439 we want to have this conviction overturned. And what Maryland's 0:14:06.559 --> 0:14:09.920 highest court has said in respond to that was, if 0:14:09.920 --> 0:14:13.000 you're going to have a hearing like that, the victim 0:14:13.200 --> 0:14:16.760 or the victim's representative absolutely has a right not only 0:14:16.800 --> 0:14:20.400 to be there in person, but to be heard. And 0:14:20.440 --> 0:14:23.200 that's a big part of this ruling is that you know, 0:14:23.480 --> 0:14:27.000 the victim's brother, mister Lee, he was in California. He 0:14:27.120 --> 0:14:29.800 was given notice on a Friday to be there Monday. 0:14:30.040 --> 0:14:32.520 He had an attorney who was representing him. They said, hey, 0:14:32.520 --> 0:14:34.280 give us another week. We want to be there in 0:14:34.320 --> 0:14:36.480 person and we want to be heard. And they weren't 0:14:36.520 --> 0:14:39.560 given that opportunity. And the key to this decision is 0:14:39.640 --> 0:14:43.240 if he had been given time to come to Baltimore 0:14:43.360 --> 0:14:46.600 to appear in court with his lawyer, the lawyer has 0:14:46.640 --> 0:14:49.720 a right to argue in basically in the shoes of 0:14:49.720 --> 0:14:52.960 the victim and say why is this conviction being dropped? 0:14:53.360 --> 0:14:56.520 There's plenty of evidence here, this guy did it, there's 0:14:56.560 --> 0:14:59.000 no new evidence to drop it, and they basically have 0:14:59.240 --> 0:15:03.560 a right to challenge the prosecution's decision to drop the case. 0:15:03.800 --> 0:15:06.400 That's where this decision is so important. 0:15:07.080 --> 0:15:10.680 There's no set time for the notice to a victim 0:15:10.800 --> 0:15:14.360 in Maryland law. So how did the Maryland Supreme Court 0:15:14.680 --> 0:15:17.880 decide what notice is enough? And how did they. 0:15:17.880 --> 0:15:21.520 Come to that it's a reasonableness standard. And so basically, 0:15:21.640 --> 0:15:24.640 in a very close decision four to three, the Supreme 0:15:24.680 --> 0:15:29.920 Court said it's not reasonable to tell the victims representative 0:15:30.000 --> 0:15:32.880 on a Friday that you're having a hearing on a 0:15:32.960 --> 0:15:35.880 Monday and say, oh, gee, but you can appear by zoom. 0:15:36.120 --> 0:15:38.320 That's not reasonable. They have a right to be there 0:15:38.440 --> 0:15:42.480 in person. So what's reasonable? Okay, set it a week out, 0:15:42.480 --> 0:15:44.920 two weeks out, but setting it on the next business 0:15:45.000 --> 0:15:50.200 day unreasonable. It denied the victim's representative of his right 0:15:50.280 --> 0:15:53.520 to be in court and to be heard. That's the key. 0:15:54.080 --> 0:15:57.640 While the appeal was pending, and eight days before the deadline, 0:15:57.880 --> 0:16:03.760 the Baltimore States Attorney had dropped all charges against Sayed 0:16:04.320 --> 0:16:08.080 in the dessense, Justice Michelle Houghten argued the issue was 0:16:08.120 --> 0:16:11.840 moot because the underlying charges no longer exist. Quote, this 0:16:12.000 --> 0:16:16.440 case exists as a procedural zombie. It has been reanimated 0:16:16.520 --> 0:16:20.400 despite its expiration. The doctrine of mootoness was designed to 0:16:20.480 --> 0:16:24.880 prevent such judicial necromancy. Very good language. 0:16:24.880 --> 0:16:28.640 Then I totally disagree with her. I think in this 0:16:28.720 --> 0:16:32.720 day and age, the victim's rights are incredibly important, and 0:16:32.800 --> 0:16:35.760 too many times the victim or their family the rights 0:16:35.800 --> 0:16:39.520 get trampled in the criminal process and the prosecutor. Remember, 0:16:39.600 --> 0:16:43.120 the prosecutor represents the people. They don't necessarily represent the 0:16:43.240 --> 0:16:47.200 victim's family or the victim. They represent the people. And 0:16:47.280 --> 0:16:50.680 so I think what Maryland Supreme Court has said here is, hey, 0:16:50.680 --> 0:16:54.160 you know what, we're going to respect the victim's rights here. 0:16:54.280 --> 0:16:58.400 And this victim had its rights trampled upon by this prosecutor, 0:16:58.480 --> 0:17:02.440 who who quickly went in court had completely reversed course 0:17:02.520 --> 0:17:06.399 on how they felt about Saii's conviction and suddenly was 0:17:06.440 --> 0:17:09.399 willing to let this guy go free. And basically the 0:17:09.480 --> 0:17:13.520 Supreme Court of Maryland said, hey, you know what, that's 0:17:13.560 --> 0:17:17.240 not fair. This victim her representative has an absolute right 0:17:17.280 --> 0:17:21.080 to be there and to challenge that decision by the prosecutor. Look, 0:17:21.160 --> 0:17:23.439 I think if you want to kind of read between 0:17:23.480 --> 0:17:26.000 the lines here, you know, sometimes we have to read 0:17:26.040 --> 0:17:29.040 between the lines of how these decisions get played out 0:17:29.400 --> 0:17:33.240 in the highest course. I think that the Supreme Court 0:17:33.520 --> 0:17:36.480 is basically saying, we don't think Saia should be free. 0:17:36.640 --> 0:17:38.920 We think there should be a new trial. Why did 0:17:38.920 --> 0:17:42.320 the prosecution, you know, fight this for twenty years and 0:17:42.359 --> 0:17:46.200 then suddenly in twenty twenty two reverse course and say, yeah, 0:17:46.240 --> 0:17:48.520 you know what, he should be free. Why did that 0:17:48.560 --> 0:17:51.320 suddenly happen? I think they want to see a new trial. 0:17:51.400 --> 0:17:53.200 They don't want to see him go free. 0:17:53.480 --> 0:17:59.200 Well, the prosecution did a complete new investigation and new 0:17:59.280 --> 0:18:04.000 DNA has staying from the shoes of the victim, excluded 0:18:04.119 --> 0:18:08.080 Sayed as a suspect. The prosecution had new evidence, and 0:18:08.160 --> 0:18:10.360 you know, the rights of the victim are one thing, 0:18:10.400 --> 0:18:14.160 but you know that our justice system is far from 0:18:14.200 --> 0:18:17.840 perfect and there are a lot of wrongful convictions. So 0:18:17.960 --> 0:18:20.639 how do you weigh you know, the twists and turns 0:18:20.640 --> 0:18:23.600 in this case. It's been going on for twenty years, 0:18:23.720 --> 0:18:26.560 you know, the rights of the victim versus the rights 0:18:26.640 --> 0:18:32.639 of a defendant that the prosecution says now was wrongfully convicted. 0:18:33.040 --> 0:18:36.320 Well, so Here's here's where this dynamic kicks in is 0:18:36.400 --> 0:18:39.960 because again it's all about the opportunity to be heard 0:18:40.400 --> 0:18:43.359 and to have a fair playing field. And so when 0:18:43.440 --> 0:18:46.680 the prosecution came in in twenty twenty two and said, oh, 0:18:46.720 --> 0:18:51.000 we have new evidence which we think exonerates, said, well, 0:18:51.000 --> 0:18:54.520 they did that behind closed doors. They didn't do that 0:18:54.600 --> 0:18:57.040 in open court. You know it's come out what the 0:18:57.080 --> 0:18:59.520 evidence was. But I'll tell you, if you'd have fresh 0:18:59.560 --> 0:19:02.560 eyes on that so called new evidence, I'm not sure 0:19:02.640 --> 0:19:05.680 how new or exculpatory it really is. I mean, there's 0:19:05.720 --> 0:19:08.679 no DNA on her shoes. To me, that's like a 0:19:08.880 --> 0:19:11.960 so wet you know, she was strangled to death. Why 0:19:11.960 --> 0:19:14.840 would there be his DNA on her shoes? How does 0:19:14.880 --> 0:19:17.560 that exonerate him? I get it. There's two sides to 0:19:17.640 --> 0:19:21.280 this case. There are people who absolutely believe he got 0:19:21.359 --> 0:19:23.639 railroaded and didn't do it, and there's people who believe 0:19:24.000 --> 0:19:27.159 that he absolutely did it. And so the Supreme Court 0:19:27.240 --> 0:19:29.840 is saying, you know what, not so fast here, not 0:19:29.960 --> 0:19:32.800 so fast prosecution. There's got to be a hearing on this. 0:19:33.240 --> 0:19:35.480 We want to shine a spotlight on what your new 0:19:35.480 --> 0:19:39.920 evidence is and what your reasons are for suddenly reversing 0:19:40.000 --> 0:19:42.200 a conviction and letting a guy go free, and we're 0:19:42.200 --> 0:19:44.280 not going to let you do it behind closed doors. 0:19:45.359 --> 0:19:49.600 Now there's another twist in the case because the Baltimore 0:19:49.600 --> 0:19:53.040 State's Attorney, Marilyn Moseby, who had moved to throw out 0:19:53.080 --> 0:19:56.240 the conviction and drop the charges, she's no longer the 0:19:56.280 --> 0:20:01.359 Baltimore State Attorney. And now there's a new Baltimore's state attorney, 0:20:01.600 --> 0:20:04.359 and his office said it needed time to review the 0:20:04.440 --> 0:20:08.240 Supreme Courts lent the opinion, and to determine whether his 0:20:08.359 --> 0:20:11.480 office has a conflict of interest in the case. What 0:20:11.680 --> 0:20:14.040 kind of conflict of interest are they referring to. 0:20:14.720 --> 0:20:18.040 So you have a new prosecutor, Ivan Bates, And in 0:20:18.119 --> 0:20:21.320 his campaign to become the prosecutor, he seemed to be 0:20:21.359 --> 0:20:24.960 a proponent that the conviction should be dropped. And so look, 0:20:25.000 --> 0:20:27.879 he's in a political pickle right now because it's a 0:20:27.920 --> 0:20:31.119 tough decision. Do you drop this conviction for murder or 0:20:31.200 --> 0:20:34.400 do you go ahead and reverse course yet again and 0:20:34.640 --> 0:20:37.440 have a new trial. So he might take the easy 0:20:37.440 --> 0:20:40.960 way out. He might punt it to another independent agency 0:20:40.960 --> 0:20:43.320 and let them make the decision. You know, he may 0:20:43.400 --> 0:20:45.159 look back at it and say, hey, this is too 0:20:45.240 --> 0:20:49.399 much water under the bridge here for this Baltimore prosecution office, 0:20:49.640 --> 0:20:53.240 and we've lost credibility on this case. Let's let an independent, 0:20:53.720 --> 0:20:56.760 another state agency come in and make that decision for us. 0:20:57.800 --> 0:21:01.240 This case, as you know, has gotten so much attention 0:21:01.680 --> 0:21:05.040 because of the serial podcast, and there have been so 0:21:05.200 --> 0:21:10.439 many legal twists and turns in the case. And after 0:21:10.480 --> 0:21:14.320 his release there were crowds outside the courthouse and it 0:21:14.400 --> 0:21:20.120 was covered nationally. He's now out pending the determination here. 0:21:20.640 --> 0:21:24.119 I mean, what would it be like politically for a 0:21:24.160 --> 0:21:27.760 state's attorney to say, oh, we're going to refile charges 0:21:28.359 --> 0:21:29.639 and you have to go back to prison. 0:21:30.760 --> 0:21:33.480 They'd absolutely be an outpright And I don't think anyone's 0:21:33.560 --> 0:21:36.720 expecting that decision to be made for that exact reason, 0:21:36.840 --> 0:21:39.400 because that's a tough decision to say, you know what, 0:21:39.520 --> 0:21:42.160 we're gonna have another trial, We're going to go through 0:21:42.200 --> 0:21:44.560 this all over again, and that's going to be more 0:21:44.640 --> 0:21:47.399 years and more appeals and all that, and you know, 0:21:47.440 --> 0:21:49.320 we're going to take this guy who's now out there 0:21:49.320 --> 0:21:51.200 and free and we're going to put him back in prison. 0:21:51.320 --> 0:21:54.159 That's the toughest decision to make. And you're right, The 0:21:54.240 --> 0:21:56.520 easy decision is we're just going to let things stand 0:21:56.520 --> 0:21:59.040 where they are. We're gon we're gonna pursue this any further. 0:21:59.080 --> 0:22:01.400 It's been going on too long already. It's been going 0:22:01.440 --> 0:22:04.440 on for twenty five years. You know, he was convicted 0:22:04.760 --> 0:22:07.800 in the year two thousand. This case has been going 0:22:07.800 --> 0:22:10.400 on for a long time. But it's not over yet 0:22:10.440 --> 0:22:13.040 because we still have to have this new hearing. The 0:22:13.119 --> 0:22:15.600 Supreme Court said there's going to be another hearing on 0:22:15.680 --> 0:22:19.680 whether this conviction is going to be dropped. The victim's 0:22:19.720 --> 0:22:22.399 brother has a right to be heard at that hearing, 0:22:22.720 --> 0:22:24.760 and then there could be appeals that flow from that. 0:22:24.960 --> 0:22:27.160 This case is going to go on for a few 0:22:27.200 --> 0:22:28.120 more years. 0:22:28.240 --> 0:22:32.320 Although if the victim's family gets its chance to appear 0:22:32.680 --> 0:22:37.879 and the charges are dropped again, that should and the appeals, 0:22:37.960 --> 0:22:40.520