WEBVTT - Indicted Parents in College Cheating Case Fight Back

0:00:03.480 --> 0:00:07.560
<v Speaker 1>Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. I'm June Grosso. Every

0:00:07.640 --> 0:00:10.440
<v Speaker 1>day we bring you insight and analysis into the most

0:00:10.480 --> 0:00:13.399
<v Speaker 1>important legal news of the day. You can find more

0:00:13.440 --> 0:00:18.040
<v Speaker 1>episodes of the Bloomberg Law Podcast on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud,

0:00:18.320 --> 0:00:22.159
<v Speaker 1>and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcasts. Prosecutors in the

0:00:22.200 --> 0:00:25.160
<v Speaker 1>college admission scandal are pulling out all the stops to

0:00:25.239 --> 0:00:28.160
<v Speaker 1>pressure parents to make a deal, adding an extra felony

0:00:28.240 --> 0:00:31.120
<v Speaker 1>charge and sending target letters to some of their children.

0:00:31.680 --> 0:00:34.320
<v Speaker 1>But some of the indicted parents are sending a clearer

0:00:34.320 --> 0:00:37.760
<v Speaker 1>message back to the prosecutors. They're prepared for the legal

0:00:37.800 --> 0:00:40.760
<v Speaker 1>battle ahead. They're trying to get the charges dismissed by

0:00:40.840 --> 0:00:43.479
<v Speaker 1>taking aim at the heart of the case. Joining me

0:00:43.479 --> 0:00:46.600
<v Speaker 1>as former federal prosecutor Robert Mints, a partner, McCarter and

0:00:46.720 --> 0:00:51.440
<v Speaker 1>English Bob explain what was happening behind the scenes before

0:00:51.479 --> 0:00:55.800
<v Speaker 1>the indictments as the prosecutors tried to rest plea deals

0:00:55.840 --> 0:01:00.760
<v Speaker 1>out of the parents. Well, what typically happened in these

0:01:00.840 --> 0:01:04.880
<v Speaker 1>cases is prosecutors can begin criminal charges in one of

0:01:04.920 --> 0:01:07.520
<v Speaker 1>two ways. They can file what's called a criminal complaint,

0:01:07.959 --> 0:01:10.679
<v Speaker 1>which is something that doesn't go in front of a

0:01:10.760 --> 0:01:14.440
<v Speaker 1>grand jury but is simply a complaint sworn out by

0:01:14.480 --> 0:01:18.280
<v Speaker 1>an agent and that can be used to charge individuals,

0:01:18.520 --> 0:01:21.759
<v Speaker 1>which is what happened here, and then individuals will allow

0:01:21.800 --> 0:01:24.240
<v Speaker 1>the opportunity to that point to strike a plea deal

0:01:24.280 --> 0:01:26.800
<v Speaker 1>with the government, and if they don't, then prosecutors take

0:01:26.840 --> 0:01:29.240
<v Speaker 1>the case to the next step, which they've done here,

0:01:29.280 --> 0:01:32.000
<v Speaker 1>which is to then return an indictment, which goes in

0:01:32.000 --> 0:01:34.120
<v Speaker 1>front of a grand jury, and at that point they

0:01:34.120 --> 0:01:37.640
<v Speaker 1>could add additional charges and really try to apply even

0:01:37.680 --> 0:01:40.160
<v Speaker 1>further pressure to those people who have not decided to

0:01:40.160 --> 0:01:43.440
<v Speaker 1>plead guilty. So, as you said, the prosecutors indicted the

0:01:43.560 --> 0:01:47.199
<v Speaker 1>parents who didn't plead, added a money laundering charge. Plus

0:01:47.240 --> 0:01:49.920
<v Speaker 1>according to the New York Times, they notified some of

0:01:49.960 --> 0:01:52.920
<v Speaker 1>the children of the parents that they could be targets

0:01:52.960 --> 0:01:56.760
<v Speaker 1>of the criminal investigation. Does this mean that these parents

0:01:56.800 --> 0:01:59.720
<v Speaker 1>have lost the chance for a good deal and really

0:02:00.000 --> 0:02:01.800
<v Speaker 1>they don't really have much choice now but to move

0:02:01.840 --> 0:02:05.680
<v Speaker 1>forward to trial. No, they were certainly not past the

0:02:05.720 --> 0:02:08.800
<v Speaker 1>point of no return. This is really just the government

0:02:08.880 --> 0:02:13.120
<v Speaker 1>ratting up the pressure on these parents and essentially saying

0:02:13.160 --> 0:02:15.840
<v Speaker 1>to them that if you decide to play hardball, if

0:02:15.880 --> 0:02:18.240
<v Speaker 1>you're going to take this case to trial, then we

0:02:18.400 --> 0:02:20.680
<v Speaker 1>as the government, as the prosecutors, are going to pull

0:02:20.680 --> 0:02:22.919
<v Speaker 1>out all the stops and we're going to add additional

0:02:23.040 --> 0:02:26.120
<v Speaker 1>charges against you, and we're also going to consider charging

0:02:26.160 --> 0:02:29.960
<v Speaker 1>others who may also be legally culpable, which may include

0:02:29.960 --> 0:02:33.160
<v Speaker 1>your children. And what they're essentially doing is firing a

0:02:33.200 --> 0:02:35.760
<v Speaker 1>shot across the bow, letting these parents know that if

0:02:35.800 --> 0:02:38.280
<v Speaker 1>they continue to fight this battle, that they may be

0:02:38.400 --> 0:02:42.840
<v Speaker 1>dragging their children into harm's way. Does the deal the

0:02:42.960 --> 0:02:46.760
<v Speaker 1>parents can get get a little bit worse as they

0:02:46.960 --> 0:02:50.920
<v Speaker 1>inch toward trial. Well, that is usually the way it works,

0:02:51.000 --> 0:02:54.600
<v Speaker 1>because prosecutors like to get the best deal out there

0:02:54.720 --> 0:02:56.600
<v Speaker 1>as soon as possible, so they can get people to

0:02:56.680 --> 0:02:59.640
<v Speaker 1>plead guilty, and they usually say the longer you wait,

0:02:59.720 --> 0:03:02.520
<v Speaker 1>the worse the deal gets. So if you go past

0:03:02.560 --> 0:03:05.240
<v Speaker 1>indictment and you go past motions, and you take the

0:03:05.280 --> 0:03:07.440
<v Speaker 1>case to the point where it is ready to go

0:03:07.520 --> 0:03:10.920
<v Speaker 1>to trial or even at trial, that deal will usually

0:03:10.919 --> 0:03:12.800
<v Speaker 1>not be nearly as good as the one that they

0:03:12.800 --> 0:03:15.880
<v Speaker 1>give out early on in the investigation. So lawyers for

0:03:15.960 --> 0:03:19.440
<v Speaker 1>two of the parents, Gregory and Amy Colburn of Palo Alto,

0:03:19.800 --> 0:03:22.400
<v Speaker 1>file for a dismissal of the charges let's talk about

0:03:22.400 --> 0:03:26.840
<v Speaker 1>their arguments against the conspiracy charge that cite a ninety

0:03:26.960 --> 0:03:31.240
<v Speaker 1>six Supreme Court case. Yeah, that's a very interesting argument

0:03:31.240 --> 0:03:34.840
<v Speaker 1>and one that you see raised quite frequently in federal

0:03:34.840 --> 0:03:38.640
<v Speaker 1>criminal trials, although here they may actually have a basis

0:03:39.000 --> 0:03:41.000
<v Speaker 1>for this argument. And it's a case that goes back to,

0:03:41.880 --> 0:03:44.440
<v Speaker 1>as you said, called Kadiakas versus the United States, and

0:03:44.480 --> 0:03:46.520
<v Speaker 1>it goes to the central issue as to whether or

0:03:46.560 --> 0:03:49.440
<v Speaker 1>not all these defendants can be charged in a single conspiracy,

0:03:49.760 --> 0:03:53.120
<v Speaker 1>or whether or not they're really multiple conspiracies. The defendancy

0:03:53.200 --> 0:03:56.280
<v Speaker 1>are arguing that while there may have been at least

0:03:56.280 --> 0:04:01.280
<v Speaker 1>for purposes of charging a conspiracy, but between the parents

0:04:01.480 --> 0:04:05.560
<v Speaker 1>and the individual who was arranging for the test takers

0:04:05.600 --> 0:04:08.080
<v Speaker 1>and who was arranging for their students to be admitted

0:04:08.160 --> 0:04:10.640
<v Speaker 1>as athletes, they had no idea about what was going

0:04:10.720 --> 0:04:13.360
<v Speaker 1>on with all these other parents, and it is unfair

0:04:13.680 --> 0:04:15.800
<v Speaker 1>and would prejudice them a trial if they were to

0:04:15.800 --> 0:04:18.279
<v Speaker 1>be tried along with all of these all of these

0:04:18.279 --> 0:04:20.800
<v Speaker 1>other parents who may have been doing different things, none

0:04:20.800 --> 0:04:22.760
<v Speaker 1>of whom know each other, I know, none of whom

0:04:22.760 --> 0:04:25.760
<v Speaker 1>were aware that the person they were dealing with was

0:04:25.800 --> 0:04:30.200
<v Speaker 1>also necessarily dealing dealing with all these other parents. Another lawyer,

0:04:30.240 --> 0:04:34.720
<v Speaker 1>Martin Weinberg, said the allegations about bribing coaches don't amount

0:04:34.760 --> 0:04:37.880
<v Speaker 1>to money laundering, and other experts have said that the

0:04:37.960 --> 0:04:41.120
<v Speaker 1>money laundering charges maybe a bit of an overreach. What

0:04:41.160 --> 0:04:44.600
<v Speaker 1>do you think, Well, money laundering is kind of an

0:04:44.680 --> 0:04:47.599
<v Speaker 1>artificially created crime in the sense that money launder is

0:04:47.640 --> 0:04:54.080
<v Speaker 1>simply conducting a financial transaction with the proceeds of criminal activity. Here,

0:04:54.080 --> 0:04:57.200
<v Speaker 1>what the defense is arguing is that these payments as

0:04:57.279 --> 0:05:00.640
<v Speaker 1>bribes were not proceeds of any kind of and activity

0:05:00.640 --> 0:05:03.080
<v Speaker 1>at the time they were made. They don't become proceeds

0:05:03.080 --> 0:05:06.760
<v Speaker 1>of criminal activity until after the recipient of the bribe

0:05:06.800 --> 0:05:09.400
<v Speaker 1>receives the money, So they may have a good argument there.

0:05:10.279 --> 0:05:14.120
<v Speaker 1>What about the argument of I need a separate trial

0:05:14.520 --> 0:05:16.960
<v Speaker 1>here When you have some parents who are in California,

0:05:17.160 --> 0:05:20.200
<v Speaker 1>some parents are in Texas, Massachusetts, all over the place,

0:05:20.279 --> 0:05:25.280
<v Speaker 1>and there are different schools involved, will they get separate trials? Yeah,

0:05:25.320 --> 0:05:28.760
<v Speaker 1>that's an argument that again made Almost every time you

0:05:28.839 --> 0:05:31.880
<v Speaker 1>see a federal criminal case brought, defense lawyers routinely foul

0:05:31.960 --> 0:05:34.520
<v Speaker 1>that motion. But here there may be some merit to it.

0:05:34.720 --> 0:05:37.279
<v Speaker 1>You generally do not want your client to be tried

0:05:37.320 --> 0:05:40.160
<v Speaker 1>along with lots of other people, because at some point

0:05:40.400 --> 0:05:42.520
<v Speaker 1>jurors may throw up their hands and say, if one

0:05:42.600 --> 0:05:45.240
<v Speaker 1>is guilty, they all must be guilty. There's something called

0:05:45.240 --> 0:05:48.800
<v Speaker 1>prejudicial spillover that defendants try to avoid. And here there's

0:05:48.800 --> 0:05:52.240
<v Speaker 1>a pretty good argument that there was not one overarching conspiracy,

0:05:52.400 --> 0:05:55.400
<v Speaker 1>but actually multiple conspiracies. How one of the advantages that

0:05:55.400 --> 0:05:57.920
<v Speaker 1>you would get as a defense lawyer and having multiple

0:05:57.920 --> 0:06:00.880
<v Speaker 1>trials as that means your star witness, Mr Singer, who

0:06:00.960 --> 0:06:02.920
<v Speaker 1>is the one who arranged for all these bribes and

0:06:02.960 --> 0:06:06.000
<v Speaker 1>all of these payments for people taking the test, would

0:06:06.000 --> 0:06:09.400
<v Speaker 1>have to testify over and over and over again, and

0:06:09.440 --> 0:06:11.480
<v Speaker 1>every time he does that his story might get a

0:06:11.560 --> 0:06:14.839
<v Speaker 1>little different, and that gives prosecutors an opportunity to have

0:06:14.960 --> 0:06:17.480
<v Speaker 1>to prep him every time, and to give defense lawyers

0:06:17.600 --> 0:06:20.000
<v Speaker 1>the chance to cross examine him over and over again,

0:06:20.160 --> 0:06:23.279
<v Speaker 1>hoping to find inconsistencies in his testimony. Let's talk about

0:06:23.320 --> 0:06:26.839
<v Speaker 1>one of the parents who did plead, Actress Felicity Huffman,

0:06:26.960 --> 0:06:28.800
<v Speaker 1>and she seemed to make all the right moves. She

0:06:28.880 --> 0:06:33.760
<v Speaker 1>pleaded right away. She's so contrition, she accepted responsibility publicly.

0:06:34.360 --> 0:06:36.800
<v Speaker 1>Prosecutors planned to ask for a sentence of four to

0:06:36.880 --> 0:06:40.640
<v Speaker 1>ten months jail time. According to CNN, that's the lower

0:06:41.160 --> 0:06:43.880
<v Speaker 1>end of the sentencing range. But isn't she a good

0:06:43.920 --> 0:06:48.560
<v Speaker 1>candidate for probation. Well, that's certainly something that her defense layers.

0:06:48.560 --> 0:06:50.200
<v Speaker 1>You're gonna argue, and it will be up to the

0:06:50.279 --> 0:06:52.680
<v Speaker 1>judge at the end of the day, regardless about the

0:06:52.680 --> 0:06:57.120
<v Speaker 1>sentencing guidelines show that the judge can hand out probation.

0:06:57.360 --> 0:06:59.080
<v Speaker 1>And one of the things that that the defense lawyers

0:06:59.080 --> 0:07:01.200
<v Speaker 1>will argue is that she contrition all the things you

0:07:01.279 --> 0:07:04.159
<v Speaker 1>just said. She came in right away, acknowledged what she did,

0:07:04.360 --> 0:07:06.880
<v Speaker 1>has tried to make amends, and has otherwise led a

0:07:06.920 --> 0:07:09.279
<v Speaker 1>law abiding life. And maybe up to the judge to

0:07:09.360 --> 0:07:13.040
<v Speaker 1>decide that no jill at all is appropriate here. Now,

0:07:13.280 --> 0:07:15.480
<v Speaker 1>as far as the parents who are taking the case

0:07:15.560 --> 0:07:18.800
<v Speaker 1>to trial, if they are not acquitted, if they're found

0:07:18.800 --> 0:07:22.880
<v Speaker 1>guilty of the charges, what will their sentences look like

0:07:23.000 --> 0:07:25.160
<v Speaker 1>in comparison? In other words, will they have a heavier

0:07:25.200 --> 0:07:28.880
<v Speaker 1>sentence because they decided to go to trial. Well, that

0:07:29.080 --> 0:07:32.720
<v Speaker 1>is usually the case. Although everybody has a constitutional right

0:07:32.760 --> 0:07:35.120
<v Speaker 1>to a trial, and everybody has a right to be

0:07:35.160 --> 0:07:38.800
<v Speaker 1>presumed innocent the innocent, the reality is that if you

0:07:38.880 --> 0:07:41.720
<v Speaker 1>go to trial, you almost invariably end up with a

0:07:41.840 --> 0:07:45.400
<v Speaker 1>larger sentence. If in fact you're convicted, the proscures will

0:07:45.440 --> 0:07:48.320
<v Speaker 1>throw other charges that you They'll bring in other evidence,

0:07:48.520 --> 0:07:52.440
<v Speaker 1>and you don't get points for accepting responsibility for acknowledging

0:07:52.680 --> 0:07:54.920
<v Speaker 1>what you had done was wrong if you push the

0:07:54.920 --> 0:07:58.240
<v Speaker 1>case to trial. So usually you will see defendants get

0:07:58.320 --> 0:08:00.520
<v Speaker 1>longer sentences if they decide to take the case to

0:08:00.600 --> 0:08:03.960
<v Speaker 1>trial and put the government to its proofs. Well, the

0:08:04.080 --> 0:08:06.320
<v Speaker 1>mighty prosecution, but in this case, at least some of

0:08:06.360 --> 0:08:09.680
<v Speaker 1>the defense attorneys are very very good and the parents

0:08:09.720 --> 0:08:13.920
<v Speaker 1>have enough wherewithal to fight the cases. Thanks so much, Bob.

0:08:14.000 --> 0:08:17.920
<v Speaker 1>That's Robert Mint's a partner McCarter in English, former federal prosecutor.

0:08:20.760 --> 0:08:23.720
<v Speaker 1>Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg Law podcast. You can

0:08:23.760 --> 0:08:27.520
<v Speaker 1>subscribe and listen to the show on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud,

0:08:27.560 --> 0:08:31.480
<v Speaker 1>and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcast. I'm June Brosso.

0:08:31.960 --> 0:08:33.240
<v Speaker 1>This is Bloomberg