1 00:00:03,480 --> 00:00:07,560 Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. I'm June Grosso. Every 2 00:00:07,640 --> 00:00:10,440 Speaker 1: day we bring you insight and analysis into the most 3 00:00:10,480 --> 00:00:13,399 Speaker 1: important legal news of the day. You can find more 4 00:00:13,440 --> 00:00:18,040 Speaker 1: episodes of the Bloomberg Law Podcast on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, 5 00:00:18,320 --> 00:00:22,159 Speaker 1: and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcasts. Prosecutors in the 6 00:00:22,200 --> 00:00:25,160 Speaker 1: college admission scandal are pulling out all the stops to 7 00:00:25,239 --> 00:00:28,160 Speaker 1: pressure parents to make a deal, adding an extra felony 8 00:00:28,240 --> 00:00:31,120 Speaker 1: charge and sending target letters to some of their children. 9 00:00:31,680 --> 00:00:34,320 Speaker 1: But some of the indicted parents are sending a clearer 10 00:00:34,320 --> 00:00:37,760 Speaker 1: message back to the prosecutors. They're prepared for the legal 11 00:00:37,800 --> 00:00:40,760 Speaker 1: battle ahead. They're trying to get the charges dismissed by 12 00:00:40,840 --> 00:00:43,479 Speaker 1: taking aim at the heart of the case. Joining me 13 00:00:43,479 --> 00:00:46,600 Speaker 1: as former federal prosecutor Robert Mints, a partner, McCarter and 14 00:00:46,720 --> 00:00:51,440 Speaker 1: English Bob explain what was happening behind the scenes before 15 00:00:51,479 --> 00:00:55,800 Speaker 1: the indictments as the prosecutors tried to rest plea deals 16 00:00:55,840 --> 00:01:00,760 Speaker 1: out of the parents. Well, what typically happened in these 17 00:01:00,840 --> 00:01:04,880 Speaker 1: cases is prosecutors can begin criminal charges in one of 18 00:01:04,920 --> 00:01:07,520 Speaker 1: two ways. They can file what's called a criminal complaint, 19 00:01:07,959 --> 00:01:10,679 Speaker 1: which is something that doesn't go in front of a 20 00:01:10,760 --> 00:01:14,440 Speaker 1: grand jury but is simply a complaint sworn out by 21 00:01:14,480 --> 00:01:18,280 Speaker 1: an agent and that can be used to charge individuals, 22 00:01:18,520 --> 00:01:21,759 Speaker 1: which is what happened here, and then individuals will allow 23 00:01:21,800 --> 00:01:24,240 Speaker 1: the opportunity to that point to strike a plea deal 24 00:01:24,280 --> 00:01:26,800 Speaker 1: with the government, and if they don't, then prosecutors take 25 00:01:26,840 --> 00:01:29,240 Speaker 1: the case to the next step, which they've done here, 26 00:01:29,280 --> 00:01:32,000 Speaker 1: which is to then return an indictment, which goes in 27 00:01:32,000 --> 00:01:34,120 Speaker 1: front of a grand jury, and at that point they 28 00:01:34,120 --> 00:01:37,640 Speaker 1: could add additional charges and really try to apply even 29 00:01:37,680 --> 00:01:40,160 Speaker 1: further pressure to those people who have not decided to 30 00:01:40,160 --> 00:01:43,440 Speaker 1: plead guilty. So, as you said, the prosecutors indicted the 31 00:01:43,560 --> 00:01:47,199 Speaker 1: parents who didn't plead, added a money laundering charge. Plus 32 00:01:47,240 --> 00:01:49,920 Speaker 1: according to the New York Times, they notified some of 33 00:01:49,960 --> 00:01:52,920 Speaker 1: the children of the parents that they could be targets 34 00:01:52,960 --> 00:01:56,760 Speaker 1: of the criminal investigation. Does this mean that these parents 35 00:01:56,800 --> 00:01:59,720 Speaker 1: have lost the chance for a good deal and really 36 00:02:00,000 --> 00:02:01,800 Speaker 1: they don't really have much choice now but to move 37 00:02:01,840 --> 00:02:05,680 Speaker 1: forward to trial. No, they were certainly not past the 38 00:02:05,720 --> 00:02:08,800 Speaker 1: point of no return. This is really just the government 39 00:02:08,880 --> 00:02:13,120 Speaker 1: ratting up the pressure on these parents and essentially saying 40 00:02:13,160 --> 00:02:15,840 Speaker 1: to them that if you decide to play hardball, if 41 00:02:15,880 --> 00:02:18,240 Speaker 1: you're going to take this case to trial, then we 42 00:02:18,400 --> 00:02:20,680 Speaker 1: as the government, as the prosecutors, are going to pull 43 00:02:20,680 --> 00:02:22,919 Speaker 1: out all the stops and we're going to add additional 44 00:02:23,040 --> 00:02:26,120 Speaker 1: charges against you, and we're also going to consider charging 45 00:02:26,160 --> 00:02:29,960 Speaker 1: others who may also be legally culpable, which may include 46 00:02:29,960 --> 00:02:33,160 Speaker 1: your children. And what they're essentially doing is firing a 47 00:02:33,200 --> 00:02:35,760 Speaker 1: shot across the bow, letting these parents know that if 48 00:02:35,800 --> 00:02:38,280 Speaker 1: they continue to fight this battle, that they may be 49 00:02:38,400 --> 00:02:42,840 Speaker 1: dragging their children into harm's way. Does the deal the 50 00:02:42,960 --> 00:02:46,760 Speaker 1: parents can get get a little bit worse as they 51 00:02:46,960 --> 00:02:50,920 Speaker 1: inch toward trial. Well, that is usually the way it works, 52 00:02:51,000 --> 00:02:54,600 Speaker 1: because prosecutors like to get the best deal out there 53 00:02:54,720 --> 00:02:56,600 Speaker 1: as soon as possible, so they can get people to 54 00:02:56,680 --> 00:02:59,640 Speaker 1: plead guilty, and they usually say the longer you wait, 55 00:02:59,720 --> 00:03:02,520 Speaker 1: the worse the deal gets. So if you go past 56 00:03:02,560 --> 00:03:05,240 Speaker 1: indictment and you go past motions, and you take the 57 00:03:05,280 --> 00:03:07,440 Speaker 1: case to the point where it is ready to go 58 00:03:07,520 --> 00:03:10,920 Speaker 1: to trial or even at trial, that deal will usually 59 00:03:10,919 --> 00:03:12,800 Speaker 1: not be nearly as good as the one that they 60 00:03:12,800 --> 00:03:15,880 Speaker 1: give out early on in the investigation. So lawyers for 61 00:03:15,960 --> 00:03:19,440 Speaker 1: two of the parents, Gregory and Amy Colburn of Palo Alto, 62 00:03:19,800 --> 00:03:22,400 Speaker 1: file for a dismissal of the charges let's talk about 63 00:03:22,400 --> 00:03:26,840 Speaker 1: their arguments against the conspiracy charge that cite a ninety 64 00:03:26,960 --> 00:03:31,240 Speaker 1: six Supreme Court case. Yeah, that's a very interesting argument 65 00:03:31,240 --> 00:03:34,840 Speaker 1: and one that you see raised quite frequently in federal 66 00:03:34,840 --> 00:03:38,640 Speaker 1: criminal trials, although here they may actually have a basis 67 00:03:39,000 --> 00:03:41,000 Speaker 1: for this argument. And it's a case that goes back to, 68 00:03:41,880 --> 00:03:44,440 Speaker 1: as you said, called Kadiakas versus the United States, and 69 00:03:44,480 --> 00:03:46,520 Speaker 1: it goes to the central issue as to whether or 70 00:03:46,560 --> 00:03:49,440 Speaker 1: not all these defendants can be charged in a single conspiracy, 71 00:03:49,760 --> 00:03:53,120 Speaker 1: or whether or not they're really multiple conspiracies. The defendancy 72 00:03:53,200 --> 00:03:56,280 Speaker 1: are arguing that while there may have been at least 73 00:03:56,280 --> 00:04:01,280 Speaker 1: for purposes of charging a conspiracy, but between the parents 74 00:04:01,480 --> 00:04:05,560 Speaker 1: and the individual who was arranging for the test takers 75 00:04:05,600 --> 00:04:08,080 Speaker 1: and who was arranging for their students to be admitted 76 00:04:08,160 --> 00:04:10,640 Speaker 1: as athletes, they had no idea about what was going 77 00:04:10,720 --> 00:04:13,360 Speaker 1: on with all these other parents, and it is unfair 78 00:04:13,680 --> 00:04:15,800 Speaker 1: and would prejudice them a trial if they were to 79 00:04:15,800 --> 00:04:18,279 Speaker 1: be tried along with all of these all of these 80 00:04:18,279 --> 00:04:20,800 Speaker 1: other parents who may have been doing different things, none 81 00:04:20,800 --> 00:04:22,760 Speaker 1: of whom know each other, I know, none of whom 82 00:04:22,760 --> 00:04:25,760 Speaker 1: were aware that the person they were dealing with was 83 00:04:25,800 --> 00:04:30,200 Speaker 1: also necessarily dealing dealing with all these other parents. Another lawyer, 84 00:04:30,240 --> 00:04:34,720 Speaker 1: Martin Weinberg, said the allegations about bribing coaches don't amount 85 00:04:34,760 --> 00:04:37,880 Speaker 1: to money laundering, and other experts have said that the 86 00:04:37,960 --> 00:04:41,120 Speaker 1: money laundering charges maybe a bit of an overreach. What 87 00:04:41,160 --> 00:04:44,600 Speaker 1: do you think, Well, money laundering is kind of an 88 00:04:44,680 --> 00:04:47,599 Speaker 1: artificially created crime in the sense that money launder is 89 00:04:47,640 --> 00:04:54,080 Speaker 1: simply conducting a financial transaction with the proceeds of criminal activity. Here, 90 00:04:54,080 --> 00:04:57,200 Speaker 1: what the defense is arguing is that these payments as 91 00:04:57,279 --> 00:05:00,640 Speaker 1: bribes were not proceeds of any kind of and activity 92 00:05:00,640 --> 00:05:03,080 Speaker 1: at the time they were made. They don't become proceeds 93 00:05:03,080 --> 00:05:06,760 Speaker 1: of criminal activity until after the recipient of the bribe 94 00:05:06,800 --> 00:05:09,400 Speaker 1: receives the money, So they may have a good argument there. 95 00:05:10,279 --> 00:05:14,120 Speaker 1: What about the argument of I need a separate trial 96 00:05:14,520 --> 00:05:16,960 Speaker 1: here When you have some parents who are in California, 97 00:05:17,160 --> 00:05:20,200 Speaker 1: some parents are in Texas, Massachusetts, all over the place, 98 00:05:20,279 --> 00:05:25,280 Speaker 1: and there are different schools involved, will they get separate trials? Yeah, 99 00:05:25,320 --> 00:05:28,760 Speaker 1: that's an argument that again made Almost every time you 100 00:05:28,839 --> 00:05:31,880 Speaker 1: see a federal criminal case brought, defense lawyers routinely foul 101 00:05:31,960 --> 00:05:34,520 Speaker 1: that motion. But here there may be some merit to it. 102 00:05:34,720 --> 00:05:37,279 Speaker 1: You generally do not want your client to be tried 103 00:05:37,320 --> 00:05:40,160 Speaker 1: along with lots of other people, because at some point 104 00:05:40,400 --> 00:05:42,520 Speaker 1: jurors may throw up their hands and say, if one 105 00:05:42,600 --> 00:05:45,240 Speaker 1: is guilty, they all must be guilty. There's something called 106 00:05:45,240 --> 00:05:48,800 Speaker 1: prejudicial spillover that defendants try to avoid. And here there's 107 00:05:48,800 --> 00:05:52,240 Speaker 1: a pretty good argument that there was not one overarching conspiracy, 108 00:05:52,400 --> 00:05:55,400 Speaker 1: but actually multiple conspiracies. How one of the advantages that 109 00:05:55,400 --> 00:05:57,920 Speaker 1: you would get as a defense lawyer and having multiple 110 00:05:57,920 --> 00:06:00,880 Speaker 1: trials as that means your star witness, Mr Singer, who 111 00:06:00,960 --> 00:06:02,920 Speaker 1: is the one who arranged for all these bribes and 112 00:06:02,960 --> 00:06:06,000 Speaker 1: all of these payments for people taking the test, would 113 00:06:06,000 --> 00:06:09,400 Speaker 1: have to testify over and over and over again, and 114 00:06:09,440 --> 00:06:11,480 Speaker 1: every time he does that his story might get a 115 00:06:11,560 --> 00:06:14,839 Speaker 1: little different, and that gives prosecutors an opportunity to have 116 00:06:14,960 --> 00:06:17,480 Speaker 1: to prep him every time, and to give defense lawyers 117 00:06:17,600 --> 00:06:20,000 Speaker 1: the chance to cross examine him over and over again, 118 00:06:20,160 --> 00:06:23,279 Speaker 1: hoping to find inconsistencies in his testimony. Let's talk about 119 00:06:23,320 --> 00:06:26,839 Speaker 1: one of the parents who did plead, Actress Felicity Huffman, 120 00:06:26,960 --> 00:06:28,800 Speaker 1: and she seemed to make all the right moves. She 121 00:06:28,880 --> 00:06:33,760 Speaker 1: pleaded right away. She's so contrition, she accepted responsibility publicly. 122 00:06:34,360 --> 00:06:36,800 Speaker 1: Prosecutors planned to ask for a sentence of four to 123 00:06:36,880 --> 00:06:40,640 Speaker 1: ten months jail time. According to CNN, that's the lower 124 00:06:41,160 --> 00:06:43,880 Speaker 1: end of the sentencing range. But isn't she a good 125 00:06:43,920 --> 00:06:48,560 Speaker 1: candidate for probation. Well, that's certainly something that her defense layers. 126 00:06:48,560 --> 00:06:50,200 Speaker 1: You're gonna argue, and it will be up to the 127 00:06:50,279 --> 00:06:52,680 Speaker 1: judge at the end of the day, regardless about the 128 00:06:52,680 --> 00:06:57,120 Speaker 1: sentencing guidelines show that the judge can hand out probation. 129 00:06:57,360 --> 00:06:59,080 Speaker 1: And one of the things that that the defense lawyers 130 00:06:59,080 --> 00:07:01,200 Speaker 1: will argue is that she contrition all the things you 131 00:07:01,279 --> 00:07:04,159 Speaker 1: just said. She came in right away, acknowledged what she did, 132 00:07:04,360 --> 00:07:06,880 Speaker 1: has tried to make amends, and has otherwise led a 133 00:07:06,920 --> 00:07:09,279 Speaker 1: law abiding life. And maybe up to the judge to 134 00:07:09,360 --> 00:07:13,040 Speaker 1: decide that no jill at all is appropriate here. Now, 135 00:07:13,280 --> 00:07:15,480 Speaker 1: as far as the parents who are taking the case 136 00:07:15,560 --> 00:07:18,800 Speaker 1: to trial, if they are not acquitted, if they're found 137 00:07:18,800 --> 00:07:22,880 Speaker 1: guilty of the charges, what will their sentences look like 138 00:07:23,000 --> 00:07:25,160 Speaker 1: in comparison? In other words, will they have a heavier 139 00:07:25,200 --> 00:07:28,880 Speaker 1: sentence because they decided to go to trial. Well, that 140 00:07:29,080 --> 00:07:32,720 Speaker 1: is usually the case. Although everybody has a constitutional right 141 00:07:32,760 --> 00:07:35,120 Speaker 1: to a trial, and everybody has a right to be 142 00:07:35,160 --> 00:07:38,800 Speaker 1: presumed innocent the innocent, the reality is that if you 143 00:07:38,880 --> 00:07:41,720 Speaker 1: go to trial, you almost invariably end up with a 144 00:07:41,840 --> 00:07:45,400 Speaker 1: larger sentence. If in fact you're convicted, the proscures will 145 00:07:45,440 --> 00:07:48,320 Speaker 1: throw other charges that you They'll bring in other evidence, 146 00:07:48,520 --> 00:07:52,440 Speaker 1: and you don't get points for accepting responsibility for acknowledging 147 00:07:52,680 --> 00:07:54,920 Speaker 1: what you had done was wrong if you push the 148 00:07:54,920 --> 00:07:58,240 Speaker 1: case to trial. So usually you will see defendants get 149 00:07:58,320 --> 00:08:00,520 Speaker 1: longer sentences if they decide to take the case to 150 00:08:00,600 --> 00:08:03,960 Speaker 1: trial and put the government to its proofs. Well, the 151 00:08:04,080 --> 00:08:06,320 Speaker 1: mighty prosecution, but in this case, at least some of 152 00:08:06,360 --> 00:08:09,680 Speaker 1: the defense attorneys are very very good and the parents 153 00:08:09,720 --> 00:08:13,920 Speaker 1: have enough wherewithal to fight the cases. Thanks so much, Bob. 154 00:08:14,000 --> 00:08:17,920 Speaker 1: That's Robert Mint's a partner McCarter in English, former federal prosecutor. 155 00:08:20,760 --> 00:08:23,720 Speaker 1: Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg Law podcast. You can 156 00:08:23,760 --> 00:08:27,520 Speaker 1: subscribe and listen to the show on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, 157 00:08:27,560 --> 00:08:31,480 Speaker 1: and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcast. I'm June Brosso. 158 00:08:31,960 --> 00:08:33,240 Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg