1
00:00:03,520 --> 00:00:07,040
Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. I'm June Grosso. Every

2
00:00:07,120 --> 00:00:09,680
Speaker 1: day we bring you insight and analysis into the most

3
00:00:09,720 --> 00:00:12,200
Speaker 1: important legal news of the day. You can find more

4
00:00:12,240 --> 00:00:16,120
Speaker 1: episodes of the Bloomberg Law Podcast on Apple podcast, SoundCloud

5
00:00:16,280 --> 00:00:20,279
Speaker 1: and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcast. Felicity Hoffman got

6
00:00:20,320 --> 00:00:23,320
Speaker 1: two weeks in jail for paying fifteen thousand dollars to

7
00:00:23,400 --> 00:00:26,960
Speaker 1: rig her daughter's entrance exam scores. She's the first parent

8
00:00:27,040 --> 00:00:30,520
Speaker 1: to be sentenced in the US college admission scandal. What

9
00:00:30,640 --> 00:00:33,760
Speaker 1: kind of message does her sentence send to other parents

10
00:00:33,800 --> 00:00:36,639
Speaker 1: who made a deal, to those who are fighting the charges,

11
00:00:36,760 --> 00:00:39,760
Speaker 1: and to the public joining me as former federal prosecutor

12
00:00:39,840 --> 00:00:42,680
Speaker 1: Robert Mint's head of the white collar practice at McCarter

13
00:00:42,800 --> 00:00:47,560
Speaker 1: In English, So, Bob Huffman did everything seemingly right after

14
00:00:47,640 --> 00:00:50,519
Speaker 1: she was charged. She was the first parent to plead guilty.

15
00:00:50,760 --> 00:00:54,880
Speaker 1: She expressed for more. She apologized. But does fourteen days

16
00:00:54,960 --> 00:00:58,440
Speaker 1: seem like a light sentence? Well, you're right, June, Felicity

17
00:00:58,520 --> 00:01:04,840
Speaker 1: Huffman followed the fence playbook perfectly. She admitted her wrongdoing immediately.

18
00:01:05,120 --> 00:01:09,080
Speaker 1: She had expressed an enormous amount of contrition, took full

19
00:01:09,120 --> 00:01:12,680
Speaker 1: responsibility for her crime, she felt sorry for what it

20
00:01:12,760 --> 00:01:16,440
Speaker 1: did to her daughter, and she specifically referenced the impact

21
00:01:16,440 --> 00:01:19,600
Speaker 1: that it had on other students who had legitimately gotten

22
00:01:19,640 --> 00:01:21,880
Speaker 1: into the school based upon their own merits. So she

23
00:01:21,959 --> 00:01:24,640
Speaker 1: did everything that could have been asked of her bio

24
00:01:24,720 --> 00:01:28,000
Speaker 1: defense counsel, Yet she still wound up with fourteen days

25
00:01:28,000 --> 00:01:31,200
Speaker 1: in jail, and I think that's because the judge did

26
00:01:31,240 --> 00:01:33,960
Speaker 1: not want to look like she was treating this as

27
00:01:34,000 --> 00:01:37,640
Speaker 1: something that wealthy and affluent people could buy their way

28
00:01:37,680 --> 00:01:40,480
Speaker 1: out of. This is already a case that pits those

29
00:01:40,480 --> 00:01:43,440
Speaker 1: with money, those with access, those with power against those

30
00:01:43,600 --> 00:01:46,040
Speaker 1: who don't have that, and that's really at the heart

31
00:01:46,040 --> 00:01:49,400
Speaker 1: of this case. So then you think that her sentence

32
00:01:49,640 --> 00:01:53,240
Speaker 1: was harsher than if she'd been an average person. Well,

33
00:01:53,400 --> 00:01:56,880
Speaker 1: the government was only asking for one month in jail here,

34
00:01:57,320 --> 00:02:01,600
Speaker 1: so the defense was asking for aation. The judge ultimately

35
00:02:01,720 --> 00:02:04,560
Speaker 1: essentially split the difference by giving her two weeks in jail,

36
00:02:04,880 --> 00:02:07,560
Speaker 1: So it really was kind of a compromise sentence. But

37
00:02:07,680 --> 00:02:10,560
Speaker 1: for somebody in Felicity Huffman's position, the idea of spending

38
00:02:10,600 --> 00:02:13,280
Speaker 1: time in jail is something that I think sends a

39
00:02:13,360 --> 00:02:16,800
Speaker 1: very strong message and It's also important to remember that,

40
00:02:16,880 --> 00:02:20,400
Speaker 1: as I said earlier, Felicity Huffman only paid a fifteen

41
00:02:20,440 --> 00:02:23,600
Speaker 1: thousand dollar payment, So to the extent the judge considers

42
00:02:23,600 --> 00:02:25,720
Speaker 1: the amount of bribes as a factor, hers is on

43
00:02:25,760 --> 00:02:27,760
Speaker 1: the low end. She also was one of the first

44
00:02:27,760 --> 00:02:30,880
Speaker 1: people to come in to plead guilty to accept responsibility.

45
00:02:31,040 --> 00:02:34,519
Speaker 1: So this really is now the floor that other defendants

46
00:02:34,520 --> 00:02:37,040
Speaker 1: are looking at who have entered guilty. Please here, it's

47
00:02:37,120 --> 00:02:39,320
Speaker 1: likely there will be jail time that's handed out by

48
00:02:39,360 --> 00:02:41,919
Speaker 1: this judge. As to all the other defendants, Let's talk

49
00:02:41,919 --> 00:02:44,880
Speaker 1: now about the nineteen parents who chose not to seek

50
00:02:44,880 --> 00:02:48,119
Speaker 1: complete deal. Indications are that some of them are going

51
00:02:48,160 --> 00:02:51,960
Speaker 1: to try to basically indict the system, saying there isn't

52
00:02:52,000 --> 00:02:55,760
Speaker 1: any difference between what they did and making a huge

53
00:02:55,800 --> 00:02:58,600
Speaker 1: donation to a school to get your kid in. Do

54
00:02:58,639 --> 00:03:01,320
Speaker 1: you think that defense will work? Well, that is exactly

55
00:03:01,400 --> 00:03:03,040
Speaker 1: what they're trying to do. They're trying to put the

56
00:03:03,160 --> 00:03:06,880
Speaker 1: entire college admissions process on trial. And the judge has

57
00:03:06,880 --> 00:03:09,520
Speaker 1: already made a couple of comments that indicated that she

58
00:03:09,680 --> 00:03:12,600
Speaker 1: believes that the system is somewhat broken. She made a

59
00:03:12,600 --> 00:03:15,440
Speaker 1: comment at one point saying outrage the system that is

60
00:03:15,480 --> 00:03:17,840
Speaker 1: so distorted by money and privileged in the first place.

61
00:03:17,960 --> 00:03:20,880
Speaker 1: That's the outrage here. And she acknowledged that their cracks

62
00:03:20,919 --> 00:03:24,279
Speaker 1: in the system, so she knows this system has some problems.

63
00:03:24,320 --> 00:03:26,400
Speaker 1: But I don't think she's going to allow the defense

64
00:03:26,480 --> 00:03:29,800
Speaker 1: lawyers to make this trial about the college admission system.

65
00:03:30,000 --> 00:03:32,640
Speaker 1: And ultimately, the second crime of the defense here is

66
00:03:32,639 --> 00:03:35,160
Speaker 1: going to be to attack the credibility Rick Singer, the

67
00:03:35,360 --> 00:03:39,640
Speaker 1: admitted mastermind of this whole process, the fraudster who pleads guilty,

68
00:03:39,840 --> 00:03:42,520
Speaker 1: who was the architect of all of this. His credibility

69
00:03:42,560 --> 00:03:45,320
Speaker 1: will be central to the prosecution's case and to the

70
00:03:45,360 --> 00:03:48,520
Speaker 1: defense case because the government has to show that these

71
00:03:48,520 --> 00:03:52,280
Speaker 1: parents knew that this money was not simply a contribution

72
00:03:52,400 --> 00:03:54,960
Speaker 1: to the university, but in fact was money that was

73
00:03:55,080 --> 00:03:59,040
Speaker 1: funnel to athletic coaches as bribes or as payment for

74
00:03:59,160 --> 00:04:02,240
Speaker 1: people to take tests on behalf of their children. That's

75
00:04:02,280 --> 00:04:04,440
Speaker 1: what this case is ultimately about, and that's why the

76
00:04:04,440 --> 00:04:08,160
Speaker 1: credibility of Rick Singer, the cooperating witnesses so central. In

77
00:04:08,200 --> 00:04:11,560
Speaker 1: those celebrities sitcom star Laurie Laughlin and her husband are

78
00:04:11,600 --> 00:04:14,640
Speaker 1: making what seems to be a little more sophisticated argument.

79
00:04:15,360 --> 00:04:18,520
Speaker 1: They contend. The defense is contending that the couple were

80
00:04:18,560 --> 00:04:22,719
Speaker 1: giving legitimate donations to the charity set up by Singer,

81
00:04:23,080 --> 00:04:27,760
Speaker 1: a real charity that supposedly supported opportunities for underprivileged students.

82
00:04:28,360 --> 00:04:31,719
Speaker 1: Is their defense a little more viable, well, and he

83
00:04:31,839 --> 00:04:35,800
Speaker 1: still comes down to the credibility of Mr Singer. Those

84
00:04:36,120 --> 00:04:40,279
Speaker 1: checks were paid to this charity, and according to the government,

85
00:04:40,320 --> 00:04:43,479
Speaker 1: that money was then funneled two coaches who would then

86
00:04:43,560 --> 00:04:46,960
Speaker 1: put a priority on those students applications, saying that they

87
00:04:46,960 --> 00:04:48,560
Speaker 1: were going to be on the rolling team or the

88
00:04:48,600 --> 00:04:52,640
Speaker 1: tennis team, or some other sporting position in the college,

89
00:04:52,760 --> 00:04:55,279
Speaker 1: when in fact these students may not have even played

90
00:04:55,279 --> 00:04:58,440
Speaker 1: tennis or did not rowe competitively. So this is all

91
00:04:58,520 --> 00:05:00,760
Speaker 1: part of the fraud. And according of the government, these

92
00:05:00,800 --> 00:05:04,400
Speaker 1: contributions to this charity were really focused. There are simply

93
00:05:04,400 --> 00:05:07,720
Speaker 1: ways to funnel these bribes to the coaches in the university.

94
00:05:07,920 --> 00:05:09,680
Speaker 1: The government's gonna have to prove that case, and they're

95
00:05:09,680 --> 00:05:12,360
Speaker 1: gonna have to prove it through Mr Singer. The defense

96
00:05:12,440 --> 00:05:14,920
Speaker 1: is going to argue that the checks were written out

97
00:05:14,920 --> 00:05:17,680
Speaker 1: to this legitimate five and one c three charity and

98
00:05:17,839 --> 00:05:19,919
Speaker 1: that the parents had no reason to know that the

99
00:05:19,920 --> 00:05:22,560
Speaker 1: money was being used as a bribe, and the jury

100
00:05:22,600 --> 00:05:26,680
Speaker 1: will also see the way that the things were handled

101
00:05:26,720 --> 00:05:29,960
Speaker 1: by Singer. Yes, and that's exactly where the government is

102
00:05:29,960 --> 00:05:32,839
Speaker 1: going to try to rebut that argument that this was

103
00:05:32,920 --> 00:05:35,560
Speaker 1: all on the up and up, that this is perhaps

104
00:05:35,800 --> 00:05:39,720
Speaker 1: a situation where money and power should not influence admissions

105
00:05:39,720 --> 00:05:42,240
Speaker 1: into our colleges and universities, but that's just the way

106
00:05:42,279 --> 00:05:44,960
Speaker 1: the game is played right now. They're gonna say, this

107
00:05:45,040 --> 00:05:49,039
Speaker 1: is not a case about whether alumni on money contributions

108
00:05:49,040 --> 00:05:51,800
Speaker 1: should affect some of these admissions into a university. That's

109
00:05:51,800 --> 00:05:53,839
Speaker 1: what the defense is arguing. That's not what this case

110
00:05:53,920 --> 00:05:57,400
Speaker 1: is about. These defendants knew in fact that they were

111
00:05:57,520 --> 00:06:01,960
Speaker 1: fraudulent misrepresentations made in their kill these applications to these universities.

112
00:06:02,200 --> 00:06:04,560
Speaker 1: Admitting these students based upon the fact that they were

113
00:06:04,560 --> 00:06:06,800
Speaker 1: a competitive rower when that wasn't a case, or it's

114
00:06:06,800 --> 00:06:08,719
Speaker 1: admitting these students based upon the fact that they were

115
00:06:08,760 --> 00:06:10,680
Speaker 1: going to play on the tennis team when they did

116
00:06:10,680 --> 00:06:15,480
Speaker 1: not play competitively. It's those direct misrepresentations, those false statements

117
00:06:15,880 --> 00:06:18,440
Speaker 1: that the government is going to argue were the heart

118
00:06:18,480 --> 00:06:20,880
Speaker 1: of this case. And the defense is going to have

119
00:06:20,960 --> 00:06:23,400
Speaker 1: to argue that those statements were not false at all

120
00:06:24,080 --> 00:06:26,240
Speaker 1: if they go to trial. If parents go to trial

121
00:06:26,440 --> 00:06:30,520
Speaker 1: and they're found guilty, will they suffer at sentencing time

122
00:06:30,880 --> 00:06:33,760
Speaker 1: in a way that Felicity Hufman didn't by pleading. Well,

123
00:06:33,800 --> 00:06:36,080
Speaker 1: that usually is the case. If you put the government

124
00:06:36,160 --> 00:06:38,600
Speaker 1: to its proof and have to go through a trial,

125
00:06:39,080 --> 00:06:42,320
Speaker 1: you don't get acceptance of responsibility points. And of course

126
00:06:42,400 --> 00:06:45,600
Speaker 1: they judge then sits through the trial. If the parents

127
00:06:45,680 --> 00:06:49,040
Speaker 1: take the stand and testifying their own defense, and they

128
00:06:49,080 --> 00:06:51,840
Speaker 1: judge were to determine that they were not truthful in

129
00:06:51,920 --> 00:06:54,640
Speaker 1: their testimony, that's a way to enhance their sentence as well.

130
00:06:54,920 --> 00:06:57,320
Speaker 1: So as a general rule, if you go to trial

131
00:06:57,400 --> 00:06:59,760
Speaker 1: and if you lose, you wanted with a sentence that is,

132
00:07:00,000 --> 00:07:02,279
Speaker 1: I could be longer than if you took the government's

133
00:07:02,320 --> 00:07:05,920
Speaker 1: plea offer and did not go to trial. Thanks so much, Bob.

134
00:07:06,279 --> 00:07:09,159
Speaker 1: That's Robert Mins from our federal prosecutor and a partner

135
00:07:09,279 --> 00:07:13,320
Speaker 1: McCarter in English. Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg Law Podcast.

136
00:07:13,680 --> 00:07:16,920
Speaker 1: You can subscribe and listen to the show on Apple Podcasts,

137
00:07:17,000 --> 00:07:21,720
Speaker 1: SoundCloud and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcast. I'm June Brosso.

138
00:07:22,160 --> 00:07:23,480
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg