1 00:00:03,200 --> 00:00:08,000 Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio. 2 00:00:10,400 --> 00:00:13,560 Speaker 1: It was another victory for gun control advocates at the 3 00:00:13,640 --> 00:00:17,200 Speaker 1: Fourth Circuit on Friday, as the full Court rule that 4 00:00:17,360 --> 00:00:22,680 Speaker 1: Maryland's gun licensing scheme is constitutional and by an overwhelming 5 00:00:22,760 --> 00:00:26,759 Speaker 1: vote of fourteen to two. The gun control measure requires 6 00:00:26,840 --> 00:00:31,520 Speaker 1: applicants to submit fingerprints for a background investigation, complete a 7 00:00:31,560 --> 00:00:35,040 Speaker 1: four hour safety training course, and wait up to thirty 8 00:00:35,120 --> 00:00:39,159 Speaker 1: days to get approval before continuing the process. More than 9 00:00:39,280 --> 00:00:44,320 Speaker 1: forty other states have similar so called shall issue licensing laws, 10 00:00:44,720 --> 00:00:48,199 Speaker 1: under which there's no discretion to deny a handgun license 11 00:00:48,280 --> 00:00:52,159 Speaker 1: to anyone who meets the statutory requirements. Joining me is 12 00:00:52,159 --> 00:00:55,520 Speaker 1: an expert in the Second Amendment, John Donahue, a professor 13 00:00:55,520 --> 00:00:59,040 Speaker 1: at Stanford Law School. It's difficult to keep track of 14 00:00:59,120 --> 00:01:02,560 Speaker 1: all the Second cases in the courts these days. 15 00:01:03,040 --> 00:01:08,120 Speaker 2: Well, of course, the Supreme Court seems to be trying 16 00:01:08,160 --> 00:01:13,800 Speaker 2: to almost deregulate all issues of gun safety, and this 17 00:01:13,880 --> 00:01:17,119 Speaker 2: has become like a snowball going downhill where the gun 18 00:01:17,240 --> 00:01:21,479 Speaker 2: rights groups keep insisting that they need more and more 19 00:01:21,640 --> 00:01:26,720 Speaker 2: freedom to pursue you whatever purchase they want at almost 20 00:01:26,720 --> 00:01:30,200 Speaker 2: whatever age. These guns can be purchased and regardless of 21 00:01:30,319 --> 00:01:34,039 Speaker 2: the fletality of the weapons. And so it's really almost 22 00:01:34,160 --> 00:01:37,840 Speaker 2: remarkable to me to see things that a few years 23 00:01:37,840 --> 00:01:42,720 Speaker 2: ago almost everyone would consider as unassailable as necessary gun 24 00:01:42,760 --> 00:01:46,240 Speaker 2: safety measures are now being challenged in court. 25 00:01:46,880 --> 00:01:50,920 Speaker 1: So last Friday, the full Fourth Circuit so on Bank meeting, 26 00:01:50,960 --> 00:01:54,320 Speaker 1: all the judges reversed the decision of a panel last 27 00:01:54,400 --> 00:01:57,520 Speaker 1: year which had voted two to one that the law 28 00:01:57,760 --> 00:02:00,360 Speaker 1: violated the Second Amendment. And it was a fourteen into 29 00:02:00,360 --> 00:02:04,360 Speaker 1: two decision reversing that panel and finding the law constitutional. 30 00:02:04,640 --> 00:02:06,960 Speaker 1: Will you explain the majority's reasoning in the case. 31 00:02:07,480 --> 00:02:12,320 Speaker 2: So essentially, the plaintiffs in that case, who were challenging 32 00:02:12,480 --> 00:02:16,799 Speaker 2: the regulations in Maryland, were saying that this was depriving 33 00:02:16,880 --> 00:02:20,880 Speaker 2: them of their immediate ability to access guns. They want 34 00:02:20,919 --> 00:02:23,480 Speaker 2: to be able to walk into a store and you know, 35 00:02:23,560 --> 00:02:26,120 Speaker 2: just walk out with a gun, and this was imposing 36 00:02:26,160 --> 00:02:30,520 Speaker 2: a licensing requirement. And essentially what the court said is, 37 00:02:31,040 --> 00:02:34,959 Speaker 2: if you look to the concerns expressed by the US 38 00:02:35,040 --> 00:02:40,640 Speaker 2: Supreme Court, if you have a licensing scenario that doesn't 39 00:02:40,680 --> 00:02:45,560 Speaker 2: involve you know, burdensome delays in access to weaponry, that 40 00:02:45,760 --> 00:02:50,239 Speaker 2: should be presumptively permissible. And so that was the language 41 00:02:50,240 --> 00:02:54,320 Speaker 2: that the Court used in saying that these shall issue 42 00:02:54,360 --> 00:02:58,600 Speaker 2: requirements comported with the standards that the US Supreme Court 43 00:02:58,639 --> 00:03:02,120 Speaker 2: has set for the requirements of the Second Amendment. 44 00:03:02,360 --> 00:03:06,240 Speaker 1: The majority they cited a footnote in the Supreme Court's 45 00:03:06,880 --> 00:03:10,400 Speaker 1: Ruined decision that said, quote, nothing in our analysis shall 46 00:03:10,440 --> 00:03:14,320 Speaker 1: be interpreted to suggest the unconstitutionality of the forty three 47 00:03:14,320 --> 00:03:19,680 Speaker 1: states shall issue licensing regimes. In light of that footnote, 48 00:03:19,680 --> 00:03:22,280 Speaker 1: how did the two judges on the first panel come 49 00:03:22,320 --> 00:03:27,040 Speaker 1: out against this shall issue law because it seems pretty clear. 50 00:03:27,600 --> 00:03:31,919 Speaker 2: Yeah, well, there's always a pathway to complicate Second Amendments decisions. 51 00:03:31,960 --> 00:03:35,960 Speaker 2: What happened there was the Court said that footnote that 52 00:03:36,040 --> 00:03:40,160 Speaker 2: you just alluded to only dealt with shall issue laws 53 00:03:40,320 --> 00:03:44,280 Speaker 2: dealing with the right to carry guns, while the regulation 54 00:03:44,880 --> 00:03:47,920 Speaker 2: at issue in the current case that we're talking about 55 00:03:48,400 --> 00:03:51,680 Speaker 2: dealt with access to possess guns in the first instance. 56 00:03:51,920 --> 00:03:55,200 Speaker 2: And so they were trying to draw distinction saying that 57 00:03:55,800 --> 00:04:00,000 Speaker 2: you have greater rights to get immediate access to guns 58 00:04:00,040 --> 00:04:02,240 Speaker 2: that you're going to be taking into your own home 59 00:04:02,640 --> 00:04:04,480 Speaker 2: as opposed to guns that you're going to be carrying 60 00:04:04,480 --> 00:04:08,480 Speaker 2: outside the home. And this court said, no, that distinction 61 00:04:08,640 --> 00:04:13,000 Speaker 2: is irrelevant as long as it's a non discretionary judgment 62 00:04:13,360 --> 00:04:17,520 Speaker 2: of the administrators of the law. These sort of shallish 63 00:04:17,520 --> 00:04:20,320 Speaker 2: your requirements are acceptable in either domain. 64 00:04:21,200 --> 00:04:24,880 Speaker 1: Maybe we should step back for a minute. And since 65 00:04:25,040 --> 00:04:27,040 Speaker 1: you know, the Bruin case seems to be causing a 66 00:04:27,040 --> 00:04:30,479 Speaker 1: lot of confusion in the lower courts, explain what the 67 00:04:30,600 --> 00:04:33,560 Speaker 1: tests set out in the Bruin case in the majority 68 00:04:33,600 --> 00:04:35,440 Speaker 1: opinion written by Clarence Thomas. 69 00:04:35,839 --> 00:04:40,080 Speaker 2: So what Ruin said which has created an enormous, you know, 70 00:04:40,200 --> 00:04:44,000 Speaker 2: chaos literally among courts all across the country, is it 71 00:04:44,040 --> 00:04:49,920 Speaker 2: seemed to suggest if anything in any way infringes on 72 00:04:50,160 --> 00:04:55,560 Speaker 2: access to guns or even accessories to guns, then a 73 00:04:55,560 --> 00:04:59,600 Speaker 2: burden is then imposed on the government to come forward 74 00:05:00,279 --> 00:05:04,520 Speaker 2: and assert that there were similar regulations in place in 75 00:05:04,640 --> 00:05:08,640 Speaker 2: seventeen ninety one when the Second Amendment was adopted, or 76 00:05:08,800 --> 00:05:13,279 Speaker 2: maybe sometime close to that. And of course, since the 77 00:05:13,320 --> 00:05:16,960 Speaker 2: world has changed enormously in seventeen ninety one, the legality 78 00:05:16,960 --> 00:05:20,440 Speaker 2: of weapons is vastly greater. The threats of mass shootings, 79 00:05:20,560 --> 00:05:24,600 Speaker 2: which was nonexistent in seventeen ninety one, is very real today. 80 00:05:25,120 --> 00:05:29,440 Speaker 2: It is sort of a nonsensical decision, but that's what 81 00:05:29,480 --> 00:05:32,880 Speaker 2: the Court said, and brew In and many courts have 82 00:05:33,200 --> 00:05:37,760 Speaker 2: felt very constrained by that language, even though more recently, 83 00:05:38,040 --> 00:05:41,240 Speaker 2: with the Rashimi decision of just a couple of months ago, 84 00:05:41,640 --> 00:05:45,520 Speaker 2: the Supreme Court seemed to be signaling that they're not 85 00:05:45,600 --> 00:05:50,839 Speaker 2: going to be invoking the Bruin standard as aggressively as 86 00:05:51,040 --> 00:05:55,119 Speaker 2: many of the judges who decided cases over the last 87 00:05:55,120 --> 00:05:58,120 Speaker 2: two years since Brune was decided have done. 88 00:05:58,520 --> 00:06:02,520 Speaker 1: And just to explain, Rahemi was a June decision by 89 00:06:02,560 --> 00:06:07,160 Speaker 1: the Supreme Court upholding a federal law that bars firearm 90 00:06:07,240 --> 00:06:11,920 Speaker 1: possession by people under domestic violence restraining orders. And the 91 00:06:12,000 --> 00:06:15,640 Speaker 1: vote was eight to one, with Justice Clarence Thomas the 92 00:06:15,720 --> 00:06:20,000 Speaker 1: loan dissenter. Turning back to the Friday Fourth Circuit decision, 93 00:06:20,360 --> 00:06:23,000 Speaker 1: which is another victory for gun control advocates in the 94 00:06:23,040 --> 00:06:29,479 Speaker 1: Fourth Circuit, it's the third on bank decision upholding firearms laws. Recently, 95 00:06:30,080 --> 00:06:34,680 Speaker 1: one upheld regulations for assault rifles, another upheld of federal 96 00:06:34,760 --> 00:06:38,400 Speaker 1: law criminalizing guns without serial numbers. And now this shall 97 00:06:38,440 --> 00:06:43,560 Speaker 1: issue tell us about the decision upholding regulations for assault rifles. 98 00:06:43,960 --> 00:06:48,520 Speaker 2: So this was the decision authored by Judge Harvey Wilkinson, 99 00:06:49,640 --> 00:06:54,240 Speaker 2: very conservative Reagan appointed judge who I should note was 100 00:06:54,400 --> 00:06:57,080 Speaker 2: very critical of the Heller decision when it was first 101 00:06:57,279 --> 00:07:02,039 Speaker 2: handed down. Judge Wilkinson wrote a very condemning article of 102 00:07:02,200 --> 00:07:05,640 Speaker 2: the wisdom of the Heller decision. So in some sense 103 00:07:05,839 --> 00:07:11,119 Speaker 2: he is continuing to express his concerns about the Second 104 00:07:11,120 --> 00:07:15,200 Speaker 2: Amendment jurisprudence that the Court has embarked upon since the 105 00:07:15,480 --> 00:07:18,000 Speaker 2: Heller decision was decided in two thousand and eight. And 106 00:07:18,080 --> 00:07:22,040 Speaker 2: essentially he said that weapons such as the assault rifles 107 00:07:22,080 --> 00:07:25,920 Speaker 2: that were banned by the Maryland law are not protected 108 00:07:25,960 --> 00:07:28,440 Speaker 2: by the Second Amendment. You do not have a constitutional 109 00:07:28,560 --> 00:07:32,120 Speaker 2: right to have a weapon of that level of lethality. 110 00:07:32,320 --> 00:07:34,760 Speaker 2: And I think in terms of wise public policy, that's 111 00:07:34,840 --> 00:07:40,040 Speaker 2: unassailably true. If states like California, New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, 112 00:07:40,200 --> 00:07:45,080 Speaker 2: and Maryland wants to protect their citizens from the dangers 113 00:07:45,160 --> 00:07:49,280 Speaker 2: of assault weapons, it certainly seems wise policy to allow 114 00:07:49,320 --> 00:07:50,360 Speaker 2: them to do so. So. 115 00:07:50,440 --> 00:07:55,400 Speaker 1: The Fourth Circuit has fifteen active judges, nine appointed by 116 00:07:55,440 --> 00:08:00,000 Speaker 1: Democrats and six appointed by Republicans. The two judges who 117 00:08:00,120 --> 00:08:02,200 Speaker 1: voted against the law in the first case we were 118 00:08:02,240 --> 00:08:06,320 Speaker 1: talking about Republican appointees is it surprising that so many 119 00:08:06,480 --> 00:08:11,560 Speaker 1: Republican appointees are agreeing with these gun control laws. 120 00:08:12,360 --> 00:08:15,239 Speaker 2: Yeah, well, you do have a little bit of a split, 121 00:08:15,440 --> 00:08:19,760 Speaker 2: because you know, twenty years ago, Republicans were very pro 122 00:08:20,120 --> 00:08:23,880 Speaker 2: gun safety. You know, Reagan of course endorsed the gout 123 00:08:23,920 --> 00:08:28,440 Speaker 2: aal assault weapon ban, He endorsed the Brady Bill. He's 124 00:08:28,920 --> 00:08:32,600 Speaker 2: as governor of California put into place restrictions on carrying 125 00:08:32,600 --> 00:08:37,480 Speaker 2: of guns. So, you know, even Reagan, who was in 126 00:08:37,520 --> 00:08:42,640 Speaker 2: some sense, you know, the idol of conservative Republicans, was very, 127 00:08:42,760 --> 00:08:46,360 Speaker 2: very strongly in favor of gun safety regulation. But there 128 00:08:46,360 --> 00:08:48,480 Speaker 2: has been this shift in the party. So some of 129 00:08:48,480 --> 00:08:52,840 Speaker 2: the older judges, like Judge Wilkinson, continued to conform to 130 00:08:53,240 --> 00:08:57,520 Speaker 2: earlier Republican notions about the need for protecting the citizenry. 131 00:08:57,920 --> 00:09:02,920 Speaker 2: But the newer cadre of Republican judges, many of whom 132 00:09:02,960 --> 00:09:08,200 Speaker 2: were appointed by President Trump, have taken on a very 133 00:09:08,520 --> 00:09:13,720 Speaker 2: macho posturing that the stronger the Second Amendments is, the 134 00:09:13,800 --> 00:09:18,800 Speaker 2: more they're conforming to constitutional dictates. And even though that's 135 00:09:18,840 --> 00:09:22,800 Speaker 2: a very controversial position from a legal standpoint, it does 136 00:09:22,840 --> 00:09:27,320 Speaker 2: seem to be a very prevalent view among younger Republican judges. 137 00:09:27,559 --> 00:09:32,400 Speaker 1: What's your opinion about the constitutionality of the way the 138 00:09:32,440 --> 00:09:35,840 Speaker 1: Supreme Court has been expanding gun rights. 139 00:09:36,520 --> 00:09:39,720 Speaker 2: Well, I do think Bruin will go down in history 140 00:09:39,840 --> 00:09:44,559 Speaker 2: as one of the most poorly reasoned and really absurd 141 00:09:44,840 --> 00:09:48,680 Speaker 2: decisions handed down by the United States Supreme Court. You 142 00:09:48,720 --> 00:09:51,360 Speaker 2: know there over the years. The dred Scott case is 143 00:09:51,440 --> 00:09:55,880 Speaker 2: obviously something that stands out as a horrible decision, and 144 00:09:55,960 --> 00:09:59,760 Speaker 2: Bruin is definitely up there. It really makes literally do 145 00:10:00,160 --> 00:10:06,559 Speaker 2: sense to constrain government policy today against threats that were 146 00:10:06,640 --> 00:10:11,080 Speaker 2: completely inconceivable in seventeen ninety one. I still remember one 147 00:10:11,120 --> 00:10:13,960 Speaker 2: case that I worked on involving a mass shooting in 148 00:10:14,000 --> 00:10:17,920 Speaker 2: Sutherland Springs, Texas, where a guy stood outside a church 149 00:10:18,000 --> 00:10:20,760 Speaker 2: fired two hundred and fifty four bullets through the walls 150 00:10:20,920 --> 00:10:24,160 Speaker 2: of the church and killed twenty six people inside the church. 151 00:10:24,400 --> 00:10:28,680 Speaker 2: This was November twenty seventeen, and that would not be 152 00:10:28,920 --> 00:10:31,560 Speaker 2: at all possible in seventeen ninety one. There was no 153 00:10:31,600 --> 00:10:34,720 Speaker 2: weapon I could shoot through walls that people were carrying 154 00:10:34,760 --> 00:10:38,160 Speaker 2: around and could kill twenty six people back in seventeen 155 00:10:38,240 --> 00:10:41,800 Speaker 2: ninety one. So to look back to what the regulatory 156 00:10:41,840 --> 00:10:45,319 Speaker 2: apparatus was at the time of the adoption of the 157 00:10:45,360 --> 00:10:50,560 Speaker 2: Second Amendment really is nonsensical given the very different threats, 158 00:10:50,800 --> 00:10:54,480 Speaker 2: and weaponry is getting more lethal of course all the time, 159 00:10:54,640 --> 00:10:58,920 Speaker 2: while the history stays exactly the thing. So this mismatch 160 00:10:59,040 --> 00:11:03,280 Speaker 2: between the growing lethality of weaponry and the history of 161 00:11:03,360 --> 00:11:07,840 Speaker 2: Second Amendment regulation really renders the Brewing decision, I think 162 00:11:08,040 --> 00:11:12,200 Speaker 2: an incoherent judicial standard, which I think you started to 163 00:11:12,240 --> 00:11:15,480 Speaker 2: get a sense even the Supreme Court realized their mistake 164 00:11:15,960 --> 00:11:18,240 Speaker 2: in their effort to cut back a little bit in 165 00:11:18,320 --> 00:11:19,560 Speaker 2: the Ratheemi decision. 166 00:11:20,200 --> 00:11:24,400 Speaker 1: So in the Rahemi decision in a concurring opinion, just 167 00:11:24,440 --> 00:11:28,079 Speaker 1: as Katanji Brown Jackson quoted a dozen lower court opinions 168 00:11:28,080 --> 00:11:31,880 Speaker 1: complaining that judges can't figure out how Brewin is supposed 169 00:11:31,920 --> 00:11:36,240 Speaker 1: to work. Shouldn't the Court have taken that opportunity in 170 00:11:36,360 --> 00:11:40,400 Speaker 1: Rahemi to set the standard out better, or you know, 171 00:11:40,480 --> 00:11:44,760 Speaker 1: to rework breugh In in some way because the confusion continues. 172 00:11:44,960 --> 00:11:49,320 Speaker 2: Oh yeah, it's I mean, it's disgraceful and embarrassing for 173 00:11:49,440 --> 00:11:53,880 Speaker 2: the Supreme Court that they have allowed this confusion to arise. 174 00:11:54,000 --> 00:11:56,520 Speaker 2: And you know, if you look across some of the 175 00:11:57,160 --> 00:12:02,480 Speaker 2: articulated decisions of courts across the country explicitly condemning the 176 00:12:02,559 --> 00:12:05,800 Speaker 2: Court and saying, you know, we're quite frankly afraid of 177 00:12:06,000 --> 00:12:09,960 Speaker 2: what you're doing. It's almost unheard of in American history, 178 00:12:10,240 --> 00:12:15,760 Speaker 2: the widespread judicial you know, astonishment at the lack of 179 00:12:16,080 --> 00:12:19,040 Speaker 2: wisdom that the Supreme Court seems to be engaging in. 180 00:12:19,360 --> 00:12:21,760 Speaker 1: Coming up next on the Bloomberg Lawn Show, I'll continue 181 00:12:21,760 --> 00:12:26,120 Speaker 1: this conversation with Stanford law professor John Donahue, and we'll 182 00:12:26,120 --> 00:12:29,960 Speaker 1: talk about a shocking decision from a Kansas judge, the 183 00:12:30,040 --> 00:12:33,280 Speaker 1: first to find the federal ban on machine guns to 184 00:12:33,360 --> 00:12:37,559 Speaker 1: be unconstitutional. I'm June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg. 185 00:12:39,000 --> 00:12:42,720 Speaker 1: It's a decision that's shocking on many levels. In a first, 186 00:12:42,840 --> 00:12:46,160 Speaker 1: a federal judge in Kansas has found that the federal 187 00:12:46,200 --> 00:12:50,679 Speaker 1: ban on machine guns is unconstitutional and tossed out two 188 00:12:50,840 --> 00:12:54,720 Speaker 1: machine gun possession charges against a twenty two year old man, 189 00:12:55,120 --> 00:12:59,320 Speaker 1: which JAW Judge John Broomes, a Trump appointee, wrote the 190 00:12:59,400 --> 00:13:03,120 Speaker 1: court that the Second Amendment applies to the weapons charged 191 00:13:03,200 --> 00:13:06,800 Speaker 1: because they are bearable arms within the original meaning of 192 00:13:06,840 --> 00:13:10,959 Speaker 1: the Amendment. The judge pointed out that prosecutors couldn't find 193 00:13:10,960 --> 00:13:14,600 Speaker 1: a historical analog, and that there were no laws similar 194 00:13:14,679 --> 00:13:17,640 Speaker 1: to the modern day ban on machine guns either in 195 00:13:17,720 --> 00:13:22,240 Speaker 1: eighteenth century England or during the period around America's founding. 196 00:13:22,720 --> 00:13:25,040 Speaker 1: Of course, the obvious reason for that is that the 197 00:13:25,120 --> 00:13:30,040 Speaker 1: machine gun wasn't invented until eighteen eighty four. I've been 198 00:13:30,040 --> 00:13:34,360 Speaker 1: talking to Professor John Donahue of Stanford Law School. So, John, 199 00:13:34,440 --> 00:13:37,440 Speaker 1: the judge basically found you have a Second Amendment right 200 00:13:37,520 --> 00:13:39,920 Speaker 1: to own a machine gun. How did he come up 201 00:13:39,920 --> 00:13:40,880 Speaker 1: with that conclusion. 202 00:13:41,600 --> 00:13:46,600 Speaker 2: Well, it's a terrible decision in every respect, except the 203 00:13:46,640 --> 00:13:48,960 Speaker 2: only thing that you can say about it is it's 204 00:13:49,040 --> 00:13:52,480 Speaker 2: not an absurd decision if you believe what the court 205 00:13:52,559 --> 00:13:55,920 Speaker 2: said it Brewin the Brewing decision was so nonsensical it 206 00:13:56,120 --> 00:14:00,000 Speaker 2: opened up the ability for plants all across the country 207 00:14:01,080 --> 00:14:05,559 Speaker 2: to challenge every single conceivable gun safety measure that's been 208 00:14:05,600 --> 00:14:08,120 Speaker 2: in existence, no matter how long. You know, we're talking 209 00:14:08,120 --> 00:14:11,720 Speaker 2: about ninety years ago this federal law went into effect, 210 00:14:11,760 --> 00:14:16,199 Speaker 2: and the aftermass of you know, the Tommy gun episodes 211 00:14:16,280 --> 00:14:19,760 Speaker 2: of people getting massacred all across the country during Prohibition. 212 00:14:20,120 --> 00:14:25,320 Speaker 2: So this machine gun van seems tolly unassailable in the 213 00:14:25,360 --> 00:14:30,000 Speaker 2: minds of almost every judge. But after Bruin, it became, 214 00:14:30,400 --> 00:14:34,280 Speaker 2: you know, a clear pathway for attacks and literally every 215 00:14:34,320 --> 00:14:38,560 Speaker 2: other gun safety measure. So it was an embarrassment for 216 00:14:38,640 --> 00:14:41,360 Speaker 2: the judge that he went down this path, but at 217 00:14:41,440 --> 00:14:44,120 Speaker 2: least he can say, look, I was being faithful to 218 00:14:44,200 --> 00:14:48,960 Speaker 2: what the Supreme Court did in Brewing and making this decision. 219 00:14:49,680 --> 00:14:52,880 Speaker 2: It really was an appalling decision. I think that the 220 00:14:52,920 --> 00:14:56,720 Speaker 2: Supreme Court will realize that they will look so bad 221 00:14:57,040 --> 00:15:00,000 Speaker 2: if this were to be sustained, when you know people 222 00:15:00,080 --> 00:15:02,000 Speaker 2: are going to be mowed down in the street app 223 00:15:02,200 --> 00:15:05,320 Speaker 2: extreme levels that they will not want to have that 224 00:15:05,560 --> 00:15:08,400 Speaker 2: on their plate, and they will not support this decision. 225 00:15:08,480 --> 00:15:10,480 Speaker 2: But it does mean they're going to have to cut 226 00:15:10,560 --> 00:15:13,840 Speaker 2: back on the language that they endorsed in Ruined. 227 00:15:14,280 --> 00:15:18,600 Speaker 1: So this will go to the Tenth Circuit, which is 228 00:15:18,680 --> 00:15:24,400 Speaker 1: liberal leaning. Democratic appointees outnumber Republicans by seven to five. 229 00:15:24,800 --> 00:15:26,960 Speaker 1: Does it seem likely to you that the Tenth Circuit 230 00:15:27,000 --> 00:15:28,960 Speaker 1: will overturn this judge's decision? 231 00:15:30,000 --> 00:15:34,280 Speaker 2: I think though. You know the problem is that many 232 00:15:34,280 --> 00:15:38,080 Speaker 2: of the Republican judges think the way that I can 233 00:15:38,200 --> 00:15:40,840 Speaker 2: make a name for myself, you know, be the hero 234 00:15:41,080 --> 00:15:45,120 Speaker 2: in the conservative circles that I dwell in now and 235 00:15:45,320 --> 00:15:48,400 Speaker 2: maybe get elevated to a higher court is to take 236 00:15:48,440 --> 00:15:53,600 Speaker 2: the most extreme possible Second Amendment interpretation that I can find, 237 00:15:54,040 --> 00:15:56,120 Speaker 2: And of course it's helped Brett Tavanaugh make it to 238 00:15:56,160 --> 00:15:59,440 Speaker 2: the Supreme Court. He took some the extreme positions when 239 00:15:59,440 --> 00:16:02,640 Speaker 2: he was a lower court judge and encouraged the NRA 240 00:16:02,880 --> 00:16:07,080 Speaker 2: to push for his elevation by Donald Trump. And the 241 00:16:07,200 --> 00:16:11,200 Speaker 2: judge in Kansas might have been taking along these same lines. 242 00:16:11,520 --> 00:16:15,760 Speaker 2: But if there are enough Democratic members on the panel, 243 00:16:15,800 --> 00:16:18,080 Speaker 2: and of course it doesn't necessarily have to go to 244 00:16:18,120 --> 00:16:21,080 Speaker 2: an non bossed decision, so you could get you know, 245 00:16:21,280 --> 00:16:26,400 Speaker 2: two or three Democratic judges on a panel exsemination. So 246 00:16:27,000 --> 00:16:30,520 Speaker 2: it's unclear exactly what would happen. But this decision I 247 00:16:30,520 --> 00:16:34,760 Speaker 2: think will be such a bad case in the mouths 248 00:16:34,760 --> 00:16:36,920 Speaker 2: of so many judges that I think it will be 249 00:16:37,400 --> 00:16:41,480 Speaker 2: overturned ultimately at the circuit court level, and the Supreme 250 00:16:41,520 --> 00:16:44,440 Speaker 2: Court would probably not want to have this one come 251 00:16:44,520 --> 00:16:45,280 Speaker 2: back to them. 252 00:16:46,000 --> 00:16:50,640 Speaker 1: Does Bruin make all federal gun control laws subject to challenge? 253 00:16:51,160 --> 00:16:53,960 Speaker 2: Yes, I mean it's an absurd decision because what it 254 00:16:54,080 --> 00:16:57,280 Speaker 2: says is if there's any way in which someone can 255 00:16:57,480 --> 00:17:02,840 Speaker 2: argue that the particular measure infringes on, you know, the 256 00:17:02,920 --> 00:17:06,760 Speaker 2: ability to get a gun, or even something related to 257 00:17:06,840 --> 00:17:11,200 Speaker 2: a gun, like a magazine that enters into a gun. 258 00:17:12,160 --> 00:17:16,920 Speaker 2: Then it requires the government to come forward with a 259 00:17:17,000 --> 00:17:21,280 Speaker 2: strong and compelling argument that there was a historical tradition 260 00:17:21,840 --> 00:17:25,959 Speaker 2: of the same type of gun regulation. And you know, 261 00:17:26,119 --> 00:17:29,960 Speaker 2: obviously there were no high capacity magazines in seventeen ninety one, 262 00:17:30,040 --> 00:17:33,000 Speaker 2: so there were no such restrictions. And you know, there 263 00:17:33,000 --> 00:17:36,080 Speaker 2: were no restrictions on people who battered their wives and 264 00:17:36,240 --> 00:17:38,919 Speaker 2: keep them from getting guns at seventeen ninety one. So 265 00:17:38,960 --> 00:17:41,359 Speaker 2: that's what led the Fifth Circuit to say that the 266 00:17:41,560 --> 00:17:45,520 Speaker 2: federal prohibition gun carrying by those subjects to a domestic 267 00:17:45,600 --> 00:17:49,800 Speaker 2: violence restraining order was unconstitutional. Luckily, that part at least 268 00:17:49,920 --> 00:17:54,320 Speaker 2: was overturned in Rahimi, But even Rahimi could have gone 269 00:17:54,440 --> 00:17:59,399 Speaker 2: much farther in trying to cut back on the excesses 270 00:17:59,560 --> 00:18:01,200 Speaker 2: that has invited. 271 00:18:01,760 --> 00:18:06,080 Speaker 1: As far as the Fourth Circuit's decision upholding the Maryland 272 00:18:06,160 --> 00:18:09,840 Speaker 1: assault weapons ban, the Third Circuit in the Seventh Circuit 273 00:18:09,920 --> 00:18:15,120 Speaker 1: have also found such restrictions aren't prohibited under the Bruant approach, 274 00:18:15,520 --> 00:18:18,960 Speaker 1: and the First Circuit has upheld a large capacity magazine ban, 275 00:18:19,400 --> 00:18:24,560 Speaker 1: have any circuit courts ruled against assault weapons bans. 276 00:18:24,920 --> 00:18:27,919 Speaker 2: There has been no such decision. On the other hand, 277 00:18:28,680 --> 00:18:33,600 Speaker 2: Judge Kavanaugh, when he was on the DC Circuit, had 278 00:18:33,640 --> 00:18:38,399 Speaker 2: written that the DCSOL weapon band was unconstitutional. So we 279 00:18:38,480 --> 00:18:40,280 Speaker 2: know that there's at least one person on the three 280 00:18:40,400 --> 00:18:44,960 Speaker 2: court who believed that, and I'm sure that Alito and 281 00:18:45,040 --> 00:18:51,200 Speaker 2: Thomas would follow that particular path as well. The interesting 282 00:18:51,240 --> 00:18:54,840 Speaker 2: thing is that the Fifth Circuit has shown this enormous, 283 00:18:54,880 --> 00:18:58,879 Speaker 2: super zealous attachment to the most extreme version of the 284 00:18:58,880 --> 00:19:02,000 Speaker 2: Second Amendment. But this issue can't come up in the 285 00:19:02,000 --> 00:19:06,800 Speaker 2: Fifth Circuit because no assault weapon ban exists in the 286 00:19:06,840 --> 00:19:10,760 Speaker 2: Fifth Circuit. So all of the states that have a 287 00:19:10,880 --> 00:19:14,560 Speaker 2: saw weapon bans outside of the Fifth Circuit, clearly, if 288 00:19:14,600 --> 00:19:17,840 Speaker 2: there were any such ban in the Fifth Circuit, they 289 00:19:17,880 --> 00:19:23,439 Speaker 2: would render that decision. But the already conservative nature of 290 00:19:23,520 --> 00:19:28,399 Speaker 2: those legislatures has preempted that decision from coming up before 291 00:19:28,400 --> 00:19:29,159 Speaker 2: the Fifth Circuit. 292 00:19:29,600 --> 00:19:32,800 Speaker 1: It's so amazing to me that in Bruin that the 293 00:19:33,200 --> 00:19:36,760 Speaker 1: you know, the five justices signed on to this test 294 00:19:36,840 --> 00:19:41,119 Speaker 1: that Thomas laid out. It sounded absurd upon first hearing, 295 00:19:41,359 --> 00:19:45,440 Speaker 1: and it's proven to be absurd, as the lower courts 296 00:19:45,560 --> 00:19:47,280 Speaker 1: try to make heads or tails of it. 297 00:19:47,800 --> 00:19:52,440 Speaker 2: Yeah, it is absurd. You know, some of these judges 298 00:19:53,040 --> 00:19:58,040 Speaker 2: of the sixth Conservatives are sort of shall we say, 299 00:19:58,119 --> 00:20:03,719 Speaker 2: wacky zellets. But even Robert, who at least was a 300 00:20:03,760 --> 00:20:09,080 Speaker 2: moderate Zellate, you know, has embarrassed himself enormously by signing 301 00:20:09,119 --> 00:20:11,960 Speaker 2: his name on the Brilling decision. You know, this is 302 00:20:12,040 --> 00:20:16,320 Speaker 2: something we will live in infamy for joining such an 303 00:20:16,359 --> 00:20:22,000 Speaker 2: absurd decision. And at some point this decision will be overturned. 304 00:20:22,080 --> 00:20:25,680 Speaker 2: It's going to take a while, obviously, either an expansion 305 00:20:25,680 --> 00:20:28,520 Speaker 2: of the US Supreme Court or just many years until 306 00:20:28,960 --> 00:20:32,600 Speaker 2: the composition of the court changes. It's hard to imagine 307 00:20:32,640 --> 00:20:35,919 Speaker 2: that the sid Zealots will change their mind. But you know, 308 00:20:35,920 --> 00:20:38,880 Speaker 2: if we get enough matt killing who even they might 309 00:20:39,320 --> 00:20:42,440 Speaker 2: realize the folly of the Brillain decision. 310 00:20:42,600 --> 00:20:45,440 Speaker 1: Thanks so much for your insights, John, that's Professor John 311 00:20:45,480 --> 00:20:47,359 Speaker 1: Donahue of Stanford Law School. 312 00:20:48,400 --> 00:20:53,040 Speaker 3: Mister Girardi was no champion of justice. In fact, he 313 00:20:53,119 --> 00:20:57,960 Speaker 3: was a perpetrator of injustice, victimizing his own clients when 314 00:20:57,960 --> 00:21:00,560 Speaker 3: they were most vulnerable and most need. 315 00:21:00,760 --> 00:21:05,199 Speaker 1: Tom Girardi has gone from famous legal heavyweight to disgrace 316 00:21:05,480 --> 00:21:10,280 Speaker 1: disbarred lawyer to convicted felon. Girardi was catapulted into the 317 00:21:10,359 --> 00:21:14,240 Speaker 1: national limelight after the two thousand Oscar winning movie Aaron 318 00:21:14,320 --> 00:21:17,640 Speaker 1: Brockovich showcased his role in getting a more than three 319 00:21:17,720 --> 00:21:21,480 Speaker 1: hundred million dollars settlement from PG and E for poisoning 320 00:21:21,480 --> 00:21:23,399 Speaker 1: a California town's drinking water. 321 00:21:23,840 --> 00:21:25,760 Speaker 4: In the interest of putting this whole thing to rest, 322 00:21:26,200 --> 00:21:28,520 Speaker 4: PG and He is willing to offer the Jensens two 323 00:21:28,640 --> 00:21:32,080 Speaker 4: hundred and fifty thousand dollars for their own two hundred 324 00:21:32,080 --> 00:21:36,240 Speaker 4: and fifty thousand in terms of land value out in Hinckley. 325 00:21:36,960 --> 00:21:39,399 Speaker 4: Mister Masery, we feel that's a more than fair price. 326 00:21:40,200 --> 00:21:43,200 Speaker 5: How About in terms of medical expenses, two hundred and 327 00:21:43,240 --> 00:21:45,359 Speaker 5: fifty thousand isn't going to come close to what this 328 00:21:45,400 --> 00:21:47,080 Speaker 5: family is going to have to spend on doctors. 329 00:21:47,240 --> 00:21:50,639 Speaker 1: He was hailed as a pioneer of toxic tort litigation, 330 00:21:51,160 --> 00:21:56,040 Speaker 1: known for getting massive settlements for his clients. This season 331 00:21:56,160 --> 00:21:59,760 Speaker 1: on The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills, and his fame 332 00:21:59,840 --> 00:22:04,040 Speaker 1: was enhanced as the husband bank rolling the extravagant lifestyle 333 00:22:04,280 --> 00:22:07,920 Speaker 1: of one of the Real Housewives of Beverly Hills. His wife, 334 00:22:08,040 --> 00:22:09,520 Speaker 1: Erica Girardi, I'm. 335 00:22:09,359 --> 00:22:12,760 Speaker 2: An enigma wrapped in a riddle and cash. 336 00:22:12,960 --> 00:22:18,119 Speaker 1: But US attorney Martina Strada says Girardi funded that extravagance 337 00:22:18,320 --> 00:22:21,879 Speaker 1: by embezzling tens of millions of dollars from his clients 338 00:22:21,960 --> 00:22:24,199 Speaker 1: in a ten year Ponzi scheme, and. 339 00:22:24,280 --> 00:22:28,200 Speaker 3: Mister Giardi chose to take advantage those very same clients, 340 00:22:28,600 --> 00:22:32,640 Speaker 3: those vulnerable people, the ones who'd gone through traumatic incidents, 341 00:22:32,680 --> 00:22:34,600 Speaker 3: in order to enrich himself. 342 00:22:34,640 --> 00:22:38,960 Speaker 1: A Los Angeles jury agreed and convicted Girardi of four 343 00:22:39,080 --> 00:22:42,600 Speaker 1: counts of wire fraud. So, now, at age eighty five 344 00:22:42,760 --> 00:22:46,520 Speaker 1: and suffering from dementia, the one's high powered lawyer is 345 00:22:46,600 --> 00:22:51,280 Speaker 1: facing jail time. Joining me is Bloomberg Law correspondent Maya Spodo, 346 00:22:51,520 --> 00:22:55,280 Speaker 1: who covered the trial. Maya, how did the prosecution present 347 00:22:55,359 --> 00:22:56,919 Speaker 1: its case against Girardi? 348 00:22:57,160 --> 00:23:01,280 Speaker 5: So the prosecution's case started rooted in the testimonies of 349 00:23:01,840 --> 00:23:06,080 Speaker 5: these clients, who's missing funds made up the backbone of 350 00:23:06,160 --> 00:23:09,679 Speaker 5: the charges against Girardi. And so the first witness we 351 00:23:09,720 --> 00:23:15,159 Speaker 5: heard from was Joseph Rugomez. His home exploded and his 352 00:23:15,320 --> 00:23:18,600 Speaker 5: body was covered in burns, and his girlfriend died in 353 00:23:18,640 --> 00:23:21,600 Speaker 5: the explosion, and so we saw him limp up to 354 00:23:21,720 --> 00:23:26,840 Speaker 5: the witness stand and explain how Girardi used these excuses 355 00:23:26,880 --> 00:23:30,320 Speaker 5: such as a fake six point five percent interest accruing 356 00:23:30,680 --> 00:23:34,320 Speaker 5: savings account and the sake excuse that he needed approval 357 00:23:34,359 --> 00:23:38,080 Speaker 5: from a judge to justify stalling these payments to Rugoma. 358 00:23:38,400 --> 00:23:43,120 Speaker 5: And we heard these excuses get echoed throughout the remaining 359 00:23:43,160 --> 00:23:48,160 Speaker 5: clients who testified these excuses became ridiculous. There was one 360 00:23:48,200 --> 00:23:51,960 Speaker 5: excuse that Girardi used where he said he was having 361 00:23:51,960 --> 00:23:54,199 Speaker 5: the funds held up because he was working on a 362 00:23:54,280 --> 00:23:57,439 Speaker 5: tax issue which would tax women more than men on 363 00:23:57,520 --> 00:24:00,280 Speaker 5: certain personal injury settlements and he needed to work sat 364 00:24:00,320 --> 00:24:02,600 Speaker 5: out with the irs. And even a lawyer at the 365 00:24:02,600 --> 00:24:05,120 Speaker 5: firm who was freshly out of law school and had 366 00:24:05,160 --> 00:24:07,479 Speaker 5: just passed the bar spotted that excuse and said that 367 00:24:07,560 --> 00:24:10,720 Speaker 5: makes no sense. And so we started the case hearing 368 00:24:10,760 --> 00:24:13,920 Speaker 5: about these excuses and the pain that they caused for clients. 369 00:24:14,040 --> 00:24:18,840 Speaker 5: And then the prosecutors presented their detailed path where they 370 00:24:18,880 --> 00:24:22,280 Speaker 5: followed the money, and we heard from the federal government 371 00:24:22,440 --> 00:24:25,439 Speaker 5: on what these client trust bake accounts really looked like 372 00:24:25,560 --> 00:24:28,080 Speaker 5: and where the funds were going. So that's how we 373 00:24:28,119 --> 00:24:30,879 Speaker 5: got into more of the lavish lifestyle part. Of the case. 374 00:24:31,080 --> 00:24:35,200 Speaker 1: Fans of the Real Housewives know about that extravagant lifestyle, 375 00:24:35,359 --> 00:24:37,080 Speaker 1: how much did the jury learn about it? 376 00:24:37,600 --> 00:24:42,400 Speaker 5: Sure saw so much money being used to purchase different 377 00:24:42,440 --> 00:24:46,760 Speaker 5: categories of luxury items, such as two private jets already 378 00:24:46,800 --> 00:24:50,800 Speaker 5: purchased expensive jewelry. We saw a check written directly out 379 00:24:50,840 --> 00:24:53,359 Speaker 5: of one of the client trust accounts for seven hundred 380 00:24:53,359 --> 00:24:57,600 Speaker 5: and fifty thousand dollars to pay for diamond earrings for 381 00:24:57,960 --> 00:25:02,200 Speaker 5: his now exchanged wife, who's Eric Jane. We also saw 382 00:25:02,440 --> 00:25:07,240 Speaker 5: how funds were taken from Gerardi Keith to pay for 383 00:25:07,560 --> 00:25:11,480 Speaker 5: Girardi's memberships and country clubs. One of the lawyers at 384 00:25:11,520 --> 00:25:16,800 Speaker 5: the firm charged property taxes to his Girardi Keith American 385 00:25:16,840 --> 00:25:22,080 Speaker 5: Express card. And we also heard details about the lavish 386 00:25:22,160 --> 00:25:26,720 Speaker 5: parties that were hosted on the company's dime, which had 387 00:25:27,240 --> 00:25:30,600 Speaker 5: six figure entertainment budgets. There was a Super Bowl party 388 00:25:30,680 --> 00:25:35,760 Speaker 5: where lawyers were given as goodie bags their own personal jerseys, 389 00:25:36,280 --> 00:25:39,320 Speaker 5: and all of these parties were being hosted while some 390 00:25:39,480 --> 00:25:42,600 Speaker 5: clients who were in immense pain still were not receiving 391 00:25:42,800 --> 00:25:44,840 Speaker 5: all of the settlement funds that they were doe. 392 00:25:44,960 --> 00:25:50,120 Speaker 1: The testimony of the client victims was very emotional at times, 393 00:25:50,440 --> 00:25:52,760 Speaker 1: tell us about the most compelling testimony. 394 00:25:53,040 --> 00:25:55,600 Speaker 5: So the one that I found most compelling, and also 395 00:25:55,760 --> 00:25:58,879 Speaker 5: the first client witness that one of the jurors named 396 00:25:58,880 --> 00:26:03,400 Speaker 5: when he spoke to report after the decision was Erica Saldana's. 397 00:26:03,840 --> 00:26:07,880 Speaker 5: She showed up to court actually with COVID and had 398 00:26:07,920 --> 00:26:11,639 Speaker 5: to testify remotely, but she was sobbing for much of 399 00:26:11,680 --> 00:26:14,520 Speaker 5: her testimony. Had to push up her glasses twide away 400 00:26:14,560 --> 00:26:17,840 Speaker 5: her tears because she was crying so hard. Her very 401 00:26:17,880 --> 00:26:22,720 Speaker 5: young son was immobilized after a drunk driver crashed into 402 00:26:23,160 --> 00:26:27,119 Speaker 5: Saldana's car, and she turned to Gerardi Keis for representation, 403 00:26:27,720 --> 00:26:30,960 Speaker 5: but she never received from the firm the entire amount 404 00:26:31,000 --> 00:26:33,600 Speaker 5: of her settlement, which she needed to purchase an accessible 405 00:26:33,600 --> 00:26:36,560 Speaker 5: home for her son, And so Saldana spoke of how 406 00:26:36,600 --> 00:26:39,320 Speaker 5: she spent the last year of her son's life chasing 407 00:26:39,359 --> 00:26:42,000 Speaker 5: down Girardi to ask for the money she needed, and 408 00:26:42,080 --> 00:26:45,240 Speaker 5: at one point Girardi even called her while she was 409 00:26:45,280 --> 00:26:47,760 Speaker 5: in the hospital with her son and accused her of 410 00:26:47,880 --> 00:26:51,679 Speaker 5: not being sympathetic to Girardi's own health issues he was 411 00:26:51,800 --> 00:26:56,400 Speaker 5: having he said, eye cancer surgery, and she said, how 412 00:26:56,440 --> 00:26:59,159 Speaker 5: can you accuse me of not being sympathetic to health issues. 413 00:26:59,200 --> 00:27:03,359 Speaker 1: My son is dying, And the jury heard Girardi's own 414 00:27:03,440 --> 00:27:08,000 Speaker 1: voice in voicemail messages giving his clients these excuses. 415 00:27:08,520 --> 00:27:11,040 Speaker 5: Yes, one of the common refrains that he would say 416 00:27:11,080 --> 00:27:13,600 Speaker 5: to clients was don't be bad to me. Don't be 417 00:27:13,760 --> 00:27:17,320 Speaker 5: mad at me. I'm a good guy. He would tell clients, 418 00:27:17,440 --> 00:27:21,760 Speaker 5: including Joe Rogomez, that he loved their family. This was 419 00:27:22,000 --> 00:27:25,679 Speaker 5: one of the most important cases to him. He would, 420 00:27:25,920 --> 00:27:28,560 Speaker 5: even into the late years of the firm, send these 421 00:27:28,560 --> 00:27:31,600 Speaker 5: detailed messages where he got the facts of the case right. 422 00:27:31,640 --> 00:27:33,719 Speaker 5: He knew who he was talking to, and he was 423 00:27:33,800 --> 00:27:36,320 Speaker 5: just saying, please, you know, don't be mad at me. 424 00:27:36,440 --> 00:27:38,920 Speaker 5: The payments are coming later, here are the reasons why 425 00:27:38,920 --> 00:27:39,719 Speaker 5: they're being held up. 426 00:27:40,080 --> 00:27:42,679 Speaker 1: So the prosecutor to say it was a Ponzi scheme, 427 00:27:43,000 --> 00:27:44,119 Speaker 1: how did they show that? 428 00:27:44,480 --> 00:27:49,520 Speaker 5: They basically showed how they said clients three settlement funds 429 00:27:49,840 --> 00:27:53,280 Speaker 5: were used to pay off Client two settlement funds which 430 00:27:53,320 --> 00:27:56,760 Speaker 5: were used to pay off client one settlement funds, and 431 00:27:57,200 --> 00:28:00,720 Speaker 5: they had an IRS agent present in a now of 432 00:28:01,000 --> 00:28:04,520 Speaker 5: bank records from the firm's client trust accounts, which showed 433 00:28:04,680 --> 00:28:08,320 Speaker 5: how the settlements from later in the twenty tens were 434 00:28:08,440 --> 00:28:11,960 Speaker 5: used to pay a client whose settlement was made in 435 00:28:12,040 --> 00:28:16,240 Speaker 5: twenty thirteen, and the firms client trust accounts are subject 436 00:28:16,320 --> 00:28:19,640 Speaker 5: to these rules that are very strict, where you can't 437 00:28:19,720 --> 00:28:22,159 Speaker 5: commingle funds and you can't have a negative balance in 438 00:28:22,200 --> 00:28:24,960 Speaker 5: the account, otherwise it would alert the state bar. But 439 00:28:25,160 --> 00:28:26,720 Speaker 5: these transfers happened anyway. 440 00:28:27,240 --> 00:28:30,800 Speaker 1: The defense tried to shift the blame to Christopher Comone, 441 00:28:30,840 --> 00:28:34,640 Speaker 1: the former chief financial officer of the law firm, saying 442 00:28:34,680 --> 00:28:37,919 Speaker 1: he was the one responsible for the loss of client funds, 443 00:28:38,160 --> 00:28:42,400 Speaker 1: not Girardi. He's going to be tried separately in January. 444 00:28:43,080 --> 00:28:44,520 Speaker 1: Why didn't that defense work? 445 00:28:45,160 --> 00:28:49,840 Speaker 5: It wasn't successful because the prosecutors emphasized in closings that 446 00:28:50,200 --> 00:28:54,160 Speaker 5: they have substantial evidence against Comone and that he is 447 00:28:54,200 --> 00:28:56,280 Speaker 5: a co defendant in the case and he will see 448 00:28:56,280 --> 00:28:59,280 Speaker 5: his day in court. The defense spent a lot of 449 00:28:59,320 --> 00:29:03,400 Speaker 5: time going through records of how Comone used Gerardi Keith's 450 00:29:03,400 --> 00:29:08,160 Speaker 5: funds to pay essentially shell companies that were either companies 451 00:29:08,360 --> 00:29:11,840 Speaker 5: where Kimone had a leadership role or he was closely 452 00:29:11,880 --> 00:29:16,040 Speaker 5: affiliated with members of these companies, And they also described 453 00:29:16,120 --> 00:29:19,640 Speaker 5: how he paid twenty thousand dollars a month from the 454 00:29:19,640 --> 00:29:24,560 Speaker 5: firm to his then fiance. She testified, and he purchased 455 00:29:24,680 --> 00:29:27,440 Speaker 5: lavish trips for the two of them. And so the 456 00:29:27,560 --> 00:29:30,280 Speaker 5: picture that the defense was trying to paint was that 457 00:29:30,600 --> 00:29:35,640 Speaker 5: Chris Comone was basically taking advantage of Girardi's declining mental 458 00:29:35,680 --> 00:29:38,760 Speaker 5: state and taking these funds out from under his nose. 459 00:29:38,880 --> 00:29:40,880 Speaker 5: But the jury didn't ultimately. 460 00:29:40,640 --> 00:29:45,080 Speaker 1: Buy that Girardi is suffering from dementia and is currently 461 00:29:45,160 --> 00:29:49,040 Speaker 1: living in the memory ward of a nursing home. So 462 00:29:49,440 --> 00:29:53,080 Speaker 1: I was very surprised that he took the stand, was 463 00:29:53,080 --> 00:29:54,600 Speaker 1: his testimony coherent. 464 00:29:55,200 --> 00:29:58,480 Speaker 5: Everyone in the audience was shocked. It was a surprise move. 465 00:29:59,120 --> 00:30:02,000 Speaker 5: He got a on the stand, and at first it 466 00:30:02,120 --> 00:30:06,240 Speaker 5: seemed like this was just something that has been programmed 467 00:30:06,280 --> 00:30:09,680 Speaker 5: into him from years of being this formidable trial lawyer. 468 00:30:09,920 --> 00:30:12,920 Speaker 5: He had all the instincts. He smiled at the jury, 469 00:30:13,200 --> 00:30:16,200 Speaker 5: he addressed them when he spoke, He made jokes, he 470 00:30:16,240 --> 00:30:19,360 Speaker 5: tried to banter with the prosecutor, but it became clear 471 00:30:19,360 --> 00:30:21,800 Speaker 5: as he was speaking that he was getting some pretty 472 00:30:21,840 --> 00:30:25,200 Speaker 5: important facts wrong. He said that he thought that Gerardi 473 00:30:25,280 --> 00:30:28,360 Speaker 5: Keith Law firm was still running when it closed down 474 00:30:28,400 --> 00:30:31,720 Speaker 5: and went into bankruptcy. Several years ago, and he also 475 00:30:31,760 --> 00:30:34,240 Speaker 5: said he didn't know his own lawyer's name and the 476 00:30:34,360 --> 00:30:37,680 Speaker 5: exact quote. This was the last question that his defender 477 00:30:37,840 --> 00:30:41,120 Speaker 5: asked him. Sam Croft said, Tom, what's my name? And 478 00:30:41,160 --> 00:30:45,280 Speaker 5: Girardi said, I have no idea. That mean terrible. It's 479 00:30:45,320 --> 00:30:45,880 Speaker 5: one of those. 480 00:30:46,120 --> 00:30:50,040 Speaker 1: Do you think his cognitive decline his dementia made him 481 00:30:50,040 --> 00:30:51,080 Speaker 1: at all sympathetic. 482 00:30:51,600 --> 00:30:55,000 Speaker 5: It was hard to feel sympathy after all of the 483 00:30:55,080 --> 00:31:01,680 Speaker 5: clients explained exactly how this death had had ruined their lives. 484 00:31:02,120 --> 00:31:06,840 Speaker 5: I think that the defenders were leaning hard into the 485 00:31:06,960 --> 00:31:11,400 Speaker 5: appeal to jurors who had family members with dementia, which 486 00:31:11,680 --> 00:31:14,240 Speaker 5: my grandmother has dementia, so I was thinking of her. 487 00:31:14,560 --> 00:31:18,640 Speaker 5: But he talked about how his mother, who was a 488 00:31:18,720 --> 00:31:22,600 Speaker 5: lawyer too, had dementia for a couple of years and 489 00:31:22,640 --> 00:31:25,040 Speaker 5: eventually had to hang up the hat. And he was 490 00:31:25,120 --> 00:31:28,280 Speaker 5: very emotional as he was saying this during closing arguments. 491 00:31:28,280 --> 00:31:32,080 Speaker 5: But ultimately I don't think that that appeal worked. One 492 00:31:32,080 --> 00:31:34,680 Speaker 5: thing that stood out to me during the trial was 493 00:31:34,760 --> 00:31:40,320 Speaker 5: Girardi's appearance. He was wearing this gray blazer the whole time, 494 00:31:40,840 --> 00:31:44,520 Speaker 5: and the blazer came in every day looking more crumpled. 495 00:31:44,960 --> 00:31:47,120 Speaker 5: It seemed to me, and this is speculation, but it 496 00:31:47,160 --> 00:31:49,400 Speaker 5: seemed like they had just thrown it into the washing 497 00:31:49,480 --> 00:31:52,880 Speaker 5: machine every day, because it appeared to get smaller and 498 00:31:53,000 --> 00:31:55,680 Speaker 5: more greased, and the lining was peeking out a lot 499 00:31:55,720 --> 00:31:58,280 Speaker 5: more toward the end of the trial. So they were 500 00:31:58,320 --> 00:32:03,640 Speaker 5: definitely either purposefully or not leaning into that appeal just 501 00:32:03,800 --> 00:32:05,680 Speaker 5: using Girardi's own appearance. 502 00:32:06,240 --> 00:32:11,200 Speaker 1: Did the prosecution acknowledge that Girardi has cognitive issues and 503 00:32:11,440 --> 00:32:12,440 Speaker 1: how did they deal with it? 504 00:32:12,800 --> 00:32:15,160 Speaker 5: Yes, they said, and now it's pretty clear that he 505 00:32:15,240 --> 00:32:18,720 Speaker 5: has cognitive issues. But it's twenty twenty four now, and 506 00:32:19,280 --> 00:32:21,800 Speaker 5: he didn't conduct the scheme in twenty twenty four. It 507 00:32:21,840 --> 00:32:23,560 Speaker 5: was from twenty ten to twenty twenty. 508 00:32:23,920 --> 00:32:26,760 Speaker 1: It was a twelve day trial and the jury came 509 00:32:26,840 --> 00:32:31,400 Speaker 1: back with guilty verdicts on all counts after just four 510 00:32:31,440 --> 00:32:35,640 Speaker 1: hours of deliberations. Did Girardi react when the verdict was read? 511 00:32:36,200 --> 00:32:39,760 Speaker 5: He did not react as it was read in any 512 00:32:39,960 --> 00:32:44,920 Speaker 5: significant way. But after he was standing up from the 513 00:32:45,000 --> 00:32:48,600 Speaker 5: table and walking out, he had this kind of smile 514 00:32:48,720 --> 00:32:51,880 Speaker 5: on his face that we had seen throughout the trial, 515 00:32:52,080 --> 00:32:55,880 Speaker 5: which I describe as kind of wax in, and he 516 00:32:56,720 --> 00:33:00,520 Speaker 5: walked out pretty steadily. One of the report orders asked 517 00:33:00,600 --> 00:33:02,280 Speaker 5: him if he had comment on the verdict, and he 518 00:33:02,400 --> 00:33:05,200 Speaker 5: chuckled and he said no, no, And may. 519 00:33:05,080 --> 00:33:07,440 Speaker 1: You spoke to one of the jurors who said it 520 00:33:07,600 --> 00:33:08,800 Speaker 1: wasn't a hard decision. 521 00:33:09,400 --> 00:33:12,800 Speaker 5: He said that the facts were all there. We asked 522 00:33:12,840 --> 00:33:15,480 Speaker 5: him if anyone on the jury needed to be convinced, 523 00:33:15,600 --> 00:33:18,840 Speaker 5: and he said no. He's not perhaps representative of the 524 00:33:19,000 --> 00:33:22,120 Speaker 5: entire group of jurors, but he made it sound like 525 00:33:22,160 --> 00:33:24,400 Speaker 5: there was very little resistance inside the room. 526 00:33:25,320 --> 00:33:31,000 Speaker 1: Did did jur say anything about the issue of Girardi's dementia. 527 00:33:31,720 --> 00:33:36,000 Speaker 5: The juror said that they were not convinced by his 528 00:33:36,240 --> 00:33:41,080 Speaker 5: neurologist testimony. They said that she met him in twenty 529 00:33:41,120 --> 00:33:45,120 Speaker 5: twenty one and didn't have enough information about the case 530 00:33:45,200 --> 00:33:48,520 Speaker 5: and what happened from twenty ten to twenty twenty. The 531 00:33:48,640 --> 00:33:51,960 Speaker 5: juror basically said, you know, it is clear that Girardi's 532 00:33:52,000 --> 00:33:54,800 Speaker 5: mind isn't all there now, but it's twenty twenty four, 533 00:33:55,320 --> 00:33:59,200 Speaker 5: it's years after what happened during the charged time period. 534 00:33:59,440 --> 00:34:03,680 Speaker 5: But she showed as brain scans, including one where in 535 00:34:03,760 --> 00:34:09,120 Speaker 5: the late twenty tens, Girardi's hippocampus, which is very responsible 536 00:34:09,239 --> 00:34:14,000 Speaker 5: for memory function, had atrophied significantly, and it was among 537 00:34:14,680 --> 00:34:19,480 Speaker 5: the bottom percentiles for the size of that brain structure 538 00:34:19,800 --> 00:34:22,879 Speaker 5: in people his age. But she did also at one 539 00:34:22,880 --> 00:34:28,480 Speaker 5: point say that she couldn't determine whether that diagnosis that 540 00:34:28,560 --> 00:34:31,480 Speaker 5: she gave him in twenty twenty one could cause her 541 00:34:31,520 --> 00:34:34,600 Speaker 5: to determine that he wasn't capable of carrying out a fraud. 542 00:34:35,120 --> 00:34:38,480 Speaker 1: Maybe his cognitive decline will be a mitigating factor in 543 00:34:38,520 --> 00:34:42,959 Speaker 1: his sentencing, though Girardi faces decades in prison when he's 544 00:34:43,000 --> 00:34:46,719 Speaker 1: sentenced on December sixth, and the US attorney said the 545 00:34:46,800 --> 00:34:50,600 Speaker 1: fact that he's older doesn't mean they won't seek prison time, 546 00:34:50,960 --> 00:34:53,719 Speaker 1: so we'll have to see what prosecutors ask for. Thanks 547 00:34:53,760 --> 00:34:56,120 Speaker 1: so much for coming on the show, Maya. That's Bloomberg 548 00:34:56,160 --> 00:34:59,520 Speaker 1: Law correspondent Mayas Bodo, and that's it for this edition 549 00:34:59,520 --> 00:35:02,680 Speaker 1: of the bloomb Podcast. Remember you can always get the 550 00:35:02,719 --> 00:35:05,640 Speaker 1: latest legal news by subscribing and listening to the show 551 00:35:05,840 --> 00:35:10,360 Speaker 1: on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast, 552 00:35:10,440 --> 00:35:14,319 Speaker 1: Slash Law. I'm June Grosso and this is Bloomberg