Latest / Bloomberg Law / James Indicted, Conversion Therapy & Right to Counsel

Transcript

James Indicted, Conversion Therapy & Right to Counsel · Bloomberg Law

0:02
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grosseo from Bloomberg Radio.
0:08
Speaker 2: Colorado Solicitor General Shannon Stevenson defended the state's ban on
0:14
Speaker 2: conversion therapy for minors at the Supreme Court. She argued
0:18
Speaker 2: that the Constitution allows states to protect patients from harmful,
0:22
Speaker 2: discredited treatments even if a regulation incidentally affects speech.
0:28
Speaker 3: A healthcare provider cannot be free to violate the standard
0:31
Speaker 3: of care just because they are using words, and a
0:35
Speaker 3: state cannot be required to let its vulnerable young people
0:38
Speaker 3: waste their time and money on an ineffective, harmful treatment
0:42
Speaker 3: just because that treatment is delivered through words.
0:45
Speaker 2: An evangelical Christian therapist is challenging the law, saying it
0:49
Speaker 2: violates her free speech rights, and the court's conservative justices
0:54
Speaker 2: appeared to agree with her, questioning the constitutionality of the law,
1:00
Speaker 2: Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito.
1:04
Speaker 4: In other words, just because they're engaged in conduct doesn't
1:08
Speaker 4: mean that their words aren't protected looks like blatant viewpoint discrimination.
1:13
Speaker 2: Liberal Justices Sonya Soto Mayor and Katanji Brown Jackson were
1:18
Speaker 2: the only justices who addressed the harms of conversion therapy
1:22
Speaker 2: that every major medical association warns about.
1:26
Speaker 5: There are studies that say that this advice does harm
1:31
Speaker 5: the people emotionally and physically.
1:35
Speaker 2: And Justice Jackson questioned why the Colorado law should be
1:40
Speaker 2: struck down when in June the court upheld a different
1:43
Speaker 2: measure from Tennessee that bans transition related treatments for transgender kids.
1:49
Speaker 6: The regulations work in basically the same way, and the
1:53
Speaker 6: question of scrutiny applies in both contexts, So it just
1:57
Speaker 6: seems odd to me that we might have a different
1:59
Speaker 6: result here.
2:00
Speaker 2: My guest is First Amendment expert Caroline Mala Corbin, a
2:04
Speaker 2: professor at the University of Miami Law School. Caroline, will
2:08
Speaker 2: you explain conversion therapy and Colorado's law banning it?
2:13
Speaker 7: As about half the states in the country have done.
2:17
Speaker 7: Colorado banned something that has been called gay conversion therapy,
2:23
Speaker 7: and it's the idea of trying to convince someone who
2:27
Speaker 7: is gay that they're not actually gay, or trying to
2:30
Speaker 7: convince someone who is trans that they're not actually trans.
2:33
Speaker 7: And this approach to gay and trans people has been
2:38
Speaker 7: proven to be very deleatorious for their mental well being,
2:43
Speaker 7: and so states have forbidden it. They have made it
2:47
Speaker 7: illegal for licensed medical professionals to provide this as part
2:54
Speaker 7: of their practice of medicine. So, to be very clear,
2:58
Speaker 7: it doesn't ban y from talking to people about sexual
3:02
Speaker 7: orientation or gender identity, and it doesn't even ban the
3:06
Speaker 7: therapists from talking about it in their own free time.
3:10
Speaker 7: But if they are in the process of providing health
3:14
Speaker 7: care services that they have been licensed to provide, they're
3:19
Speaker 7: not allowed to try and convince gay people that they're
3:23
Speaker 7: not gay, or trans people that they're not trans. That's
3:27
Speaker 7: the law, and.
3:28
Speaker 2: What's the fundamental issue in the case.
3:30
Speaker 7: So you have this law. It says, if you're licensed
3:34
Speaker 7: by the state, the state does not allow you to
3:36
Speaker 7: do things that are contrary to the standard of care,
3:40
Speaker 7: and so you cannot provide conversion therapy. And we have
3:44
Speaker 7: this white Christian woman who argues that the ban forbids
3:50
Speaker 7: her from providing the type of therapy that she wants
3:54
Speaker 7: to practice. She gets help from Alliance to Friending Freedom.
3:58
Speaker 7: And so the question for the court is does this
4:02
Speaker 7: ban on this medical therapy violate the licensed practitioners free
4:08
Speaker 7: speech rights? And so the question before the court is
4:12
Speaker 7: does this ban on this medical therapy violate the licensed
4:18
Speaker 7: practitioners free speech rights. And the legal question that makes
4:24
Speaker 7: all the difference is whether providing conversion therapy is speech
4:31
Speaker 7: or whether it's conduct. Because if it's speech, then it
4:36
Speaker 7: implicates the free speech clause. In fact, it becomes presumptively unconstitutional. If,
4:42
Speaker 7: on the other hand, it's considered conduct, then it doesn't
4:46
Speaker 7: trigger the free speech clause and the government is likely
4:50
Speaker 7: to be allowed to regulate it. So the million dollar
4:53
Speaker 7: constitutional question is how should this practice of conversion therapy
5:00
Speaker 7: be characterized? Is it speech or is it conduct? Now,
5:04
Speaker 7: I just want to point out that the speech in
5:08
Speaker 7: the colloquial sense doesn't always match speech in the constitutional sense.
5:13
Speaker 7: So let me give you a couple of examples when
5:16
Speaker 7: speech is not actually speech, which seems counterintuitive. And yet
5:22
Speaker 7: if for example, you told national security secrets to a
5:28
Speaker 7: foreign enemy, that's speech, but that it wouldn't be treated
5:32
Speaker 7: as speech. It would be treated as the conduct of treason.
5:36
Speaker 7: It's not protected by the free speech clause. Or for example,
5:40
Speaker 7: a sign on a restaurant that said, we do not
5:43
Speaker 7: hire fill in the blank, we do not hire black people,
5:46
Speaker 7: or Latino people or Asian people. That's words, but that
5:51
Speaker 7: would be considered speech, it would be considered the act
5:55
Speaker 7: of discrimination. And so while it may seem really obvious
6:00
Speaker 7: on its face, so well, this is words and therefore
6:03
Speaker 7: it's speech, it's not quite as clear cut as the
6:07
Speaker 7: Supreme Court is going to probably conclude.
6:11
Speaker 2: It seems like there is almost universal agreement among those
6:15
Speaker 2: who listen to the oral arguments that the Christian counselor
6:20
Speaker 2: is going to win here.
6:21
Speaker 7: I mean, clearly, whenever you have a white conservative Christian
6:28
Speaker 7: arguing before the Supreme Court, they're going to win, especially
6:31
Speaker 7: if the only thing that's stake, and I say only
6:34
Speaker 7: from the Court's perspective is LGBTQ rights. They just don't care, right, So,
6:39
Speaker 7: I think it was a foregone conclusion, apart from any
6:43
Speaker 7: of the legal principles, that the white Christian woman was
6:47
Speaker 7: going to win. You know, I never used to predict
6:49
Speaker 7: the outcome of Supreme Court cases, but it seems the
6:53
Speaker 7: pattern is so clear these days that I think one
6:56
Speaker 7: could say with a certain degree of confidence that she's
6:59
Speaker 7: going to win. And they're basically going to say this
7:03
Speaker 7: is speech, and therefore it is presumptively unconstitutional, and only
7:08
Speaker 7: if the government has a super compelling justification for its law,
7:13
Speaker 7: and the law was the only way to accomplish its goals.
7:18
Speaker 7: It's not going to win. In other words, it's going
7:20
Speaker 7: to have to pass what is known as strict scrutiny,
7:23
Speaker 7: and that is very hard to do. In the speech context.
7:26
Speaker 2: It seemed like most of the discussion was about what
7:29
Speaker 2: standard should be applied here.
7:31
Speaker 7: Well, that's because if it is considered speech, then the
7:37
Speaker 7: standard is going to be strict scrutiny. And if it
7:39
Speaker 7: is not speech, then it's only going to be rational
7:43
Speaker 7: basis scrutiny. So what level of scrutiny a court must
7:47
Speaker 7: give to this law, how hard it looks at it,
7:51
Speaker 7: questions it. The level of evidence the government needs to
7:56
Speaker 7: provide will depend on whether it is speech or conduct,
8:00
Speaker 7: because again, if it is speech, then it implicates the
8:05
Speaker 7: free speech clause.
8:06
Speaker 2: Is this a novel issue coming to the court? Have
8:10
Speaker 2: they decided any similar cases?
8:12
Speaker 7: The Supreme Court is not deciding this against a blank slate.
8:17
Speaker 7: They have already considered the question of medical treatment and
8:22
Speaker 7: speech conduct. But in the abortion context. So I want
8:26
Speaker 7: to highlight that many states who are hostile to abortion,
8:31
Speaker 7: one of the things that they require their abortion providers
8:34
Speaker 7: to do is to give women certain information about abortion.
8:40
Speaker 7: So for example, you have to let women know that
8:44
Speaker 7: adoption is an option, or that fathers have to pay
8:47
Speaker 7: child support. Other states have held that women have to
8:51
Speaker 7: be told all the harms that may result from abortion,
8:54
Speaker 7: some of which are not even medically accurate. But the
8:57
Speaker 7: point I want to make here is that doctors challenge
9:00
Speaker 7: this regulation on speech grounds and argued, the government is
9:05
Speaker 7: forcing us to say things that are contrary to what
9:09
Speaker 7: we believe is appropriate and correct. And you might think, well,
9:14
Speaker 7: these are words and they're being forced to articulate a
9:18
Speaker 7: particular viewpoint on things, for example, don't have an abortion,
9:23
Speaker 7: you know, adopt your child out instead. That it too,
9:26
Speaker 7: should be considered a regulation of speech that sort of
9:30
Speaker 7: compels a viewpoint. It's a viewpoint based restriction and therefore
9:35
Speaker 7: should trigger strict scrutiny and be presumptively unconstitutional. But that
9:40
Speaker 7: is not what the Supreme Court did. What the Supreme
9:43
Speaker 7: Court said is that these laws that compel doctors to
9:47
Speaker 7: speak against their will and say things that they don't
9:50
Speaker 7: want to say. The Supreme Court held that is not
9:54
Speaker 7: a regulation of speech, that is actually a regulation of
9:58
Speaker 7: the medical profect ess that only incidentally affects speech. So
10:04
Speaker 7: they're decigning this case against a backdrop of the Supreme
10:09
Speaker 7: Court already having held in a different context that speech
10:15
Speaker 7: that is connected the provision of medical treatment is not
10:20
Speaker 7: necessarily going to be treated like speech. And so you know, oh,
10:25
Speaker 7: it just so happens. Right, then, if you're challenging something
10:28
Speaker 7: that's anti abortion, it's not speech, But if you're challenging
10:33
Speaker 7: something that's pro LGBT, it is speech.
10:37
Speaker 2: The Supreme Court has been steadily rolling back protections for
10:41
Speaker 2: gay and transgender people in recent terms. The last time
10:45
Speaker 2: I can think of that LGBTQ writs one at the
10:50
Speaker 2: Supreme Court was the boss Stock case in twenty twenty.
10:54
Speaker 2: Is that the last time.
10:55
Speaker 7: I think so, and I think they have really undermined
10:59
Speaker 7: their their own credibility by so aggressively promoting a particular ideology,
11:09
Speaker 7: and to do so at the expense of a marginalized
11:13
Speaker 7: community is not to their honor. And let's be clear,
11:18
Speaker 7: they get to pick and choose their cases. There was
11:21
Speaker 7: nothing that require them to decide this case. I think
11:26
Speaker 7: in addition to its long standing attack on the LGBT community,
11:33
Speaker 7: I think we also are seeing here a real disparagement
11:38
Speaker 7: of expertise, which we also saw in Screbetti, because to
11:44
Speaker 7: be clear, there is a consensus in the medical community
11:49
Speaker 7: that this therapy is really harmful, and yet they did
11:53
Speaker 7: not seem to accept that. Instead, they kept pushing back
11:58
Speaker 7: against this idea that the experts knew what they were
12:02
Speaker 7: talking about, and certainly Alliance Defending Freedom is helping them
12:07
Speaker 7: by producing all kinds of questionable claims about the reliability
12:14
Speaker 7: of the science underlying the medical consensus. And to be sure,
12:19
Speaker 7: the medical community has made errors in the past, but
12:23
Speaker 7: if we have to rely on something, you know better
12:27
Speaker 7: to rely on medical experts and the weight of the
12:31
Speaker 7: medical community than a right wing political group.
12:37
Speaker 2: And the decision here will implicate similar bands on conversion
12:41
Speaker 2: therapy in twenty six other states. Thanks so much, Caroline.
12:45
Speaker 2: That's Professor Caroline Malacorbin of the University of Miami Law School.
12:50
Speaker 8: This is nothing more than a continuation of the president's
12:53
Speaker 8: desperate weaponization of our justice system.
12:56
Speaker 2: New York Attorney General Letitia James was inded in a
13:00
Speaker 2: mortgage fraud case on Thursday, making her the second of
13:04
Speaker 2: President Trump's perceived political enemies to be criminally charged. In
13:08
Speaker 2: the Eastern District of Virginia. In two weeks, James infuriated
13:13
Speaker 2: Trump by suing him and winning in a case alleging
13:16
Speaker 2: that he built his business empire on lies about his wealth,
13:21
Speaker 2: and the President had called for legal action against James,
13:24
Speaker 2: former FBI Director James Comy, and Senator Adam Schiff. In
13:29
Speaker 2: a message to Attorney General Pam Bondy on social media
13:33
Speaker 2: last month, James called the charges baseless and a blatant
13:38
Speaker 2: perversion of the justice system.
13:40
Speaker 8: And the president's own public statements make clear that his
13:44
Speaker 8: only goal is political retribution at any cost.
13:48
Speaker 2: Joining me is Bloomberg Legal reporter Chris Strom. Chris, We've
13:51
Speaker 2: been hearing about this investigation into James for months. What
13:55
Speaker 2: are the two felonies they finally charged her with.
13:59
Speaker 1: So government alleging that James lied on one of her
14:04
Speaker 1: mortgage applications in which she said that one of her
14:08
Speaker 1: homes in Norfolk, Virginia would be used as a secondary residence,
14:11
Speaker 1: but she was really running it out, that's the allegation.
14:14
Speaker 1: And so they brought forward two charges, one for bank
14:18
Speaker 1: fraud and another for lying to a bank. So James
14:22
Speaker 1: says that these charges are baseless and she's going to
14:25
Speaker 1: contest them. The wild card here is that this was
14:29
Speaker 1: not the property that was under scrutiny for so long.
14:33
Speaker 1: This is another property and James and her lawyer haven't
14:38
Speaker 1: really said what happened with this property.
14:41
Speaker 2: Is a criminal case based on charges like these pretty rare.
14:45
Speaker 1: Mortgage fraud is a legitimate federal charge. It's usually charged
14:50
Speaker 1: as part of a larger criminal enterprise. What makes the
14:54
Speaker 1: situation with James unique is that the amount of money
14:59
Speaker 1: that is a leg edged to have been involved in
15:02
Speaker 1: the fraud is so minor, and current and former prosecutors
15:07
Speaker 1: say that the amount of money that's that issue here
15:10
Speaker 1: is so small that it wouldn't ever be brought as
15:14
Speaker 1: a standalone case. And so that's what makes the James
15:18
Speaker 1: indictment so unique is that she is alleged to have
15:22
Speaker 1: saved about nineteen thousand dollars by listing her property as
15:27
Speaker 1: a secondary residence rather than a rental property. And the
15:30
Speaker 1: dollar amount of nineteen thousand dollars in fraud is so small.
15:36
Speaker 2: Let's talk about the backstory here, because the only signature
15:40
Speaker 2: on the indictment is that of the newly installed interim
15:44
Speaker 2: US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. Lindsay Halligan,
15:48
Speaker 2: a former Trump aid who was put into the role
15:51
Speaker 2: a few weeks ago after Trump forced out her predecessor,
15:55
Speaker 2: and in an unusual move, she personally presented the cases
15:59
Speaker 2: against Ja James and call me to the grand jury.
16:02
Speaker 2: That's something that US attorneys don't usually do.
16:07
Speaker 9: Yeah.
16:08
Speaker 1: The other thing that's really unique about this case is
16:10
Speaker 1: that there was a US attorney who said that this
16:14
Speaker 1: case should never have been brought forward, and he was
16:17
Speaker 1: facing pressure to indict Letitia James as well as James Comy,
16:22
Speaker 1: and he resigned. He had made it clear that after
16:26
Speaker 1: looking over all of the documentation, that there wasn't sufficient
16:29
Speaker 1: evidence to bring a case against Letitia James or James Comy,
16:33
Speaker 1: but he was facing pressure from the White House and
16:36
Speaker 1: from Trump officials inside the Justice Department, and he made
16:40
Speaker 1: the decision to resign. And then Trump appointed one of
16:44
Speaker 1: his top White House aides as the interim US attorney.
16:48
Speaker 1: And so she just came into the position two weeks
16:51
Speaker 1: ago and has already brought two indictments against two people
16:55
Speaker 1: who Trump demanded be prosecuted. And she brought the indictment
17:00
Speaker 1: over the objections of the career people who work for
17:05
Speaker 1: the Eastern District of Virginia. And what's really interesting is
17:09
Speaker 1: that none of the career prosecutors who work for the
17:12
Speaker 1: Eastern District of Virginia signed on to either of the
17:15
Speaker 1: indictments against James or Comy, and it was only Halligan
17:19
Speaker 1: who presented these cases to the grand jury and signed
17:22
Speaker 1: the documentation.
17:24
Speaker 2: And there are a lot of other similarities between the
17:26
Speaker 2: case against James and the case against Comy, and it
17:30
Speaker 2: appears that there'll be some similar defense motions to dismiss
17:34
Speaker 2: in both cases. Comy pleaded not guilty on Wednesday to
17:38
Speaker 2: charges that he lied to lawmakers and obstructed a congressional proceeding.
17:43
Speaker 2: You were in the courtroom for that arraignment, and Comy's
17:46
Speaker 2: defense attorney outlined some of the grounds they would use
17:50
Speaker 2: to try to get the charges dismissed.
17:52
Speaker 1: His attorney is Patrick Fitzgerald, who is a very well known,
17:56
Speaker 1: very respected lawyer, former US Attorney for Chicago, and he
18:02
Speaker 1: made three main points that they are going to challenge.
18:07
Speaker 1: That the case against Komi represents a vindictive prosecution and
18:13
Speaker 1: a selective prosecution, and that the appointment of the interim
18:18
Speaker 1: US attorney who brought the charge was unlawful. And so
18:23
Speaker 1: they are going to move through those phases of challenges
18:27
Speaker 1: and if they all fail, then they will go to
18:31
Speaker 1: a speedy trial.
18:33
Speaker 2: We've talked about how unusual Halligan's appointment was, but what
18:38
Speaker 2: does Fitzgerald say it was unlawful?
18:42
Speaker 1: The objection is that she was not a Justice Department
18:46
Speaker 1: official before she was appointed. There are certain rules that
18:50
Speaker 1: have to be followed when you are appointing a temporary
18:54
Speaker 1: position within the Justice Department, and US attorneys need to
18:58
Speaker 1: be Senate confirmed or they need to be given the
19:02
Speaker 1: appointment by federal judges. It's allowed to have a temporary appointment,
19:08
Speaker 1: but the temporary appointment must be somebody who comes from
19:11
Speaker 1: within the Justice Department, which Lindsay Halligan does not.
19:15
Speaker 2: So that's interesting because if the judge threw out the
19:19
Speaker 2: indictment because she was not a legal appointee, I mean
19:24
Speaker 2: the statute of limitations has run, they wouldn't be able
19:26
Speaker 2: to bring the charges against him again.
19:28
Speaker 1: Correct, The case would be completely dropped and there'd be
19:30
Speaker 1: no ability to bring it back.
19:32
Speaker 5: You know.
19:32
Speaker 1: The only caveat is these are hard motions to win. Generally,
19:35
Speaker 1: judges are hesitant to throw out cases that grand jury's
19:38
Speaker 1: have returned. So the defense does face some obstacles to
19:42
Speaker 1: being able to do it, but the rules of how
19:46
Speaker 1: US attorneys are appointed in what they can actually do
19:49
Speaker 1: raise legitimate questions for the defense to challenge the appointment
19:53
Speaker 1: of Halligan.
19:54
Speaker 2: And Letitia James could also use that argument, although since
19:58
Speaker 2: there's no statute of Limitationan's problem in her case, prosecutors
20:03
Speaker 2: could just refile the charges against her, and it does
20:06
Speaker 2: seem like they would have similar grounds to dismiss on
20:10
Speaker 2: vindictive or selective prosecution.
20:13
Speaker 1: Yes, James has already said she's going to allege that
20:16
Speaker 1: this is a selective and vindictive prosecution. She's going to
20:20
Speaker 1: rely on many statements that Trump has made calling for
20:25
Speaker 1: her to be indicted, including social media posts that Trump
20:29
Speaker 1: made last month where he basically directed Attorney General Pam
20:34
Speaker 1: Bondi to indict James, Tomy and Adam Schiff. And so
20:38
Speaker 1: that will be one of the primary pieces of evidence
20:41
Speaker 1: that her defense will use to say this was a
20:44
Speaker 1: vindictive and selective prosecution.
20:46
Speaker 2: James is going to be arraigned on October twenty fourth,
20:49
Speaker 2: so we might learn more about her case at that time,
20:53
Speaker 2: and you did learn at Comey's arraignment that they haven't
20:56
Speaker 2: been given any additional details about the charges.
21:00
Speaker 1: Secifically, the defense wants to know who Komy authorized to
21:05
Speaker 1: provide information, and what information that person provided and who
21:10
Speaker 1: it related to. In the indictment, it says that Komy
21:13
Speaker 1: authorized person three to provide information about person one. It's
21:18
Speaker 1: pretty clear from everything we know that person one is
21:21
Speaker 1: actually Hillary Clinton. But what's not clear is who is
21:23
Speaker 1: person three that actually provided the information. And Komi's defense
21:29
Speaker 1: is saying that to this date they still have not
21:31
Speaker 1: been told specifically the details of the indictment, which they
21:36
Speaker 1: need to know in order to mount their defense.
21:39
Speaker 2: The judge said, this doesn't appear to be an overly
21:41
Speaker 2: complicated case. I mean, they can certainly give Komy the
21:45
Speaker 2: name of the people in the indictment. I mean that
21:47
Speaker 2: seems bare minimum.
21:49
Speaker 1: Yeah, it was surprising that the government had not already
21:53
Speaker 1: provided Komi and his lawyers with just the basic information
21:57
Speaker 1: of who they allege Ko Me authorized to leak information.
22:02
Speaker 1: And it really speaks to how unusual this case, you know,
22:07
Speaker 1: has been from the start, and how there might be
22:11
Speaker 1: a problem with the ability of the new US attorney
22:16
Speaker 1: to manage this prosecution.
22:19
Speaker 2: And speaking to that, the two prosecutors who have signed
22:22
Speaker 2: on to handle the case are both based in North Carolina,
22:25
Speaker 2: as opposed to the Eastern District of Virginia where the
22:28
Speaker 2: case is taking place.
22:30
Speaker 1: Yep, it's our understanding that most of the career officials
22:34
Speaker 1: in the US Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of
22:36
Speaker 1: Virginia looked at the case and determined that there wasn't
22:40
Speaker 1: sufficient evidence to bring a case or go to the
22:43
Speaker 1: grand jury and get an indictment, and so none of
22:47
Speaker 1: them are willing to sign on to this case. And
22:51
Speaker 1: the new US attorney, who has never prosecuted the case before,
22:56
Speaker 1: then had to bring in, you know, assistant US attorneys
22:59
Speaker 1: from another office in order to appear in court.
23:02
Speaker 2: I don't know if I've ever heard of anything like
23:04
Speaker 2: that happening before.
23:05
Speaker 1: I haven't.
23:06
Speaker 2: And another surprise for the defense, there's classified information involved
23:10
Speaker 2: in the case.
23:12
Speaker 1: So the new wrinkle was that the prosecution said that
23:16
Speaker 1: there's a large amount of discovery material that they have
23:19
Speaker 1: to sort through, which includes classified information. Up until now,
23:24
Speaker 1: we had never heard them say that there is a
23:27
Speaker 1: trove of classified information, and that could complicate the ability
23:33
Speaker 1: of the case to move forward and also comy to
23:37
Speaker 1: mount his defense because the government needs to work out
23:42
Speaker 1: a process by which classified information can be shared with
23:46
Speaker 1: Comy's defense team or provided to the judge under seal.
23:51
Speaker 1: And I think everybody was surprised when the prosecution said
23:56
Speaker 1: that they have classified information that they need to sort through,
23:59
Speaker 1: and the judge quickly said he does not intend to
24:03
Speaker 1: have a long delay, if any delay as a result
24:07
Speaker 1: of needing to deal with classified information. The judges basically
24:12
Speaker 1: ordered the prosecution team to get their act together well.
24:16
Speaker 2: The judge said the trial date for January fifth, We'll
24:20
Speaker 2: see if he can keep things moving. Thanks Chris. That's
24:23
Speaker 2: Bloomberg Legal reporter Chris Strom. It's the most difficult decision
24:29
Speaker 2: a criminal defendant has to make a trial, whether or
24:32
Speaker 2: not to take the stand. And when a defendant decides
24:36
Speaker 2: to take the risk of testifying, what role does his
24:39
Speaker 2: attorney play. David Villarreale took the stand during his trial
24:43
Speaker 2: in twenty eighteen for murdering his boyfriend, but when there
24:47
Speaker 2: was an overnight break in his testimony, the judge barred
24:51
Speaker 2: villa rial's attorney from discussing his testimony with him. He
24:56
Speaker 2: was convicted, and in his appeal to the Supreme Court
24:59
Speaker 2: Villarriale argues that the judge's order denied him effective assistance
25:04
Speaker 2: of counsel in violation of the sixth Amendment. During the
25:08
Speaker 2: oral arguments, the justices question just what a trial lawyer
25:11
Speaker 2: could talk to his client about during an overnight break
25:15
Speaker 2: in his testimony without crossing over into coaching the client's testimony.
25:20
Speaker 2: Chief Justice John Roberts posed a hypothetical to the lawyer
25:24
Speaker 2: for Texas about a defendant asking his attorney whether he
25:28
Speaker 2: should stop testifying about Fred when he got back on
25:32
Speaker 2: the stand.
25:33
Speaker 4: And I notice every time I do that, you know,
25:36
Speaker 4: Juring number eight gets a big frown and shakes his head.
25:39
Speaker 4: He doesn't look to me like he likes the idea
25:41
Speaker 4: of talking about Fred at all. So I think that's
25:44
Speaker 4: a bad idea. Now, talking about Fred was your idea?
25:47
Speaker 4: Do you still think it's a good idea. Can the
25:50
Speaker 4: lawyer respond to that question?
25:54
Speaker 9: No, they you would have to tell them, I'm omner
25:56
Speaker 9: a core order not to out to answer.
25:58
Speaker 4: So at that point he tells the defendant who's facing
26:00
Speaker 4: the capital sentence, I'm not going to tell you.
26:02
Speaker 2: And Justice Elaina Kagan wanted to know about a lawyer
26:06
Speaker 2: giving his client some tips on his performance on the stand.
26:10
Speaker 10: Do you think that council can say, listen, I've been
26:14
Speaker 10: noticing that you've been mumbling, and you're also not making
26:19
Speaker 10: eye contact with the questioner, and it would just be
26:23
Speaker 10: a good idea if you'd stopped mumbling and made eye contact.
26:26
Speaker 10: Can the lawyer do that in an overnight recess?
26:30
Speaker 2: The appeals courts are split on whether so called non
26:34
Speaker 2: conferral orders during overnight trial recesses are constitutional. Joining me
26:40
Speaker 2: is former Manhattan prosecutor and criminal defense attorney Paul Callan
26:44
Speaker 2: of counsel at Edelman and Edelman. Paul tell us about
26:48
Speaker 2: the facts here.
26:49
Speaker 9: The defendant, David Villarreal, was a meth addict allegedly who
26:54
Speaker 9: stabs his boyfriend to death, and he goes to trial,
26:57
Speaker 9: and something happened in that trial, and it's something that's
27:01
Speaker 9: very common in the trial of civil and criminal cases,
27:04
Speaker 9: and that is he was on the witness stand testifying,
27:08
Speaker 9: and the judge decided to break for the day. It
27:11
Speaker 9: was about one o'clock in the afternoon, and the judge
27:15
Speaker 9: gave an instruction which suggested that the defense attorney should
27:19
Speaker 9: not discuss testimony overnight with his clients because he was
27:24
Speaker 9: on the witness stand, and later on he's convicted, sentenced
27:28
Speaker 9: to sixty years in prison, and now he's seeking to
27:30
Speaker 9: reverse the case, saying that instruction impeded his right to
27:34
Speaker 9: consult with counsel pursuing to the sixth Amendment.
27:37
Speaker 2: So there was a lot of talk during the oral
27:40
Speaker 2: arguments about coaching your client. Is there a clear line
27:44
Speaker 2: between what's permissible and what's impermissible when coaching a client
27:49
Speaker 2: or preparing a client to testify.
27:52
Speaker 9: Well, there's a line across and we call it subornation
27:56
Speaker 9: of perjury if a lawyer goes too far in giving
28:00
Speaker 9: advice to his client about how he should shape his testimony.
28:04
Speaker 9: And so lawyers always have to deal with this situation
28:08
Speaker 9: that they can't give advice that would constitute subornation of perjury.
28:12
Speaker 9: Lawyers do, and it's their job to give a client
28:15
Speaker 9: advice though, about how to testify on a witness stand,
28:18
Speaker 9: how to conduct himself on the witness stand, how to
28:21
Speaker 9: reactive as an objection made in court, all kinds of
28:24
Speaker 9: technical aspects of testimony like that. Clearly lawyers are allowed
28:28
Speaker 9: to give that kind of advice. But this is a
28:31
Speaker 9: situation that comes up all the time. In both civil
28:33
Speaker 9: and criminal cases. When there's a recess in the case,
28:36
Speaker 9: the client wants to talk to the lawyer.
28:38
Speaker 7: How am I doing?
28:39
Speaker 9: Am I doing okay on the witness stand, and the
28:41
Speaker 9: lawyer wants to encourage them and say, yes, yes, you're
28:44
Speaker 9: doing great, you know, or no, that was a stupid
28:47
Speaker 9: answer you gave, you know, try to listen to the
28:50
Speaker 9: questions that are being asked. So there are a variety
28:52
Speaker 9: of ways that lawyers approach this thing, so the courts
28:56
Speaker 9: really have gone back and forth on it. There are
28:59
Speaker 9: some courts decisions saying that during the course of testimony,
29:03
Speaker 9: if there's a brief recess fifteen twenty minute recess, you
29:07
Speaker 9: can talk to your client, but you shouldn't discuss testimony
29:09
Speaker 9: during that time period. When there's a long adjournment like overnight,
29:13
Speaker 9: then it gets really tricky because really most lawyers think
29:17
Speaker 9: they shouldn't be discussing testimony with the client. But there
29:21
Speaker 9: may be other things that have to be discussed. Should
29:23
Speaker 9: I recommend a plead because the testimony is going so badly.
29:27
Speaker 9: Should I tell the witness that if he's going to
29:30
Speaker 9: stick with this kind of a story, we need another witness,
29:33
Speaker 9: you know, maybe he's got a friend who was refusing
29:35
Speaker 9: to testify, but now you say, you know, he's got
29:37
Speaker 9: to come in and testify given the way your testimony
29:39
Speaker 9: is going. So there's sort of an interreaction between testimony
29:43
Speaker 9: and even testimony that you're not trying to shape, and
29:47
Speaker 9: how it affects other aspects of the case as the
29:49
Speaker 9: case proceeds. So this is a really tricky question for lawyers,
29:53
Speaker 9: and this will be a closely watched case.
29:56
Speaker 2: Some of the justices seem to be leaning toward a
29:59
Speaker 2: type of limited instruction where the lawyer is prohibited from
30:03
Speaker 2: directly discussing the testimony with the client during an overnight break,
30:09
Speaker 2: but is allowed to discuss broader trial strategies and issues
30:13
Speaker 2: that relate to testimony, and Villa Reale's attorney argued that
30:18
Speaker 2: that rule is unworkable in the real world, and just
30:21
Speaker 2: as Sonya Sotmayor gave an example of a lawyer suggesting
30:26
Speaker 2: that a client take a plea in the middle of
30:28
Speaker 2: his testimony, that showed why it's unworkable.
30:32
Speaker 5: I find it impossible for a lawyer to say I
30:37
Speaker 5: think you should consider a plea bargain now, and that
30:40
Speaker 5: the defendant is not going to say, but why, and
30:43
Speaker 5: the why has to be my considered judgment that gets
30:47
Speaker 5: me from here to the corner and back with nobody
30:52
Speaker 5: paying me. Okay, you need to say something. The model
30:56
Speaker 5: rule says a lawyer shall explain a matter to the
31:00
Speaker 5: extent reasonably necessary to make an informed decision.
31:05
Speaker 2: I mean it's very hard to draw a line in
31:08
Speaker 2: these circumstances.
31:10
Speaker 9: Yes, Villaryal's lawyer made a very compelling argument in that
31:13
Speaker 9: regard because so much of the client's testimony. I mean,
31:18
Speaker 9: if you put a defendant on the witness stand in
31:19
Speaker 9: a criminal case, his testimony is now the key evidence
31:23
Speaker 9: of the entire case. And if it triggers problems, that
31:28
Speaker 9: may cause you as a lawyer to have to go
31:30
Speaker 9: out and get another witness or maybe bring in some
31:33
Speaker 9: kind of an expert because he's raised something about the
31:36
Speaker 9: impossibility of how a bullet was fired or was aimed
31:40
Speaker 9: when the murder's shot was fired, or the stab wound
31:42
Speaker 9: it would be in this case. Yeah, the testimony interacts
31:45
Speaker 9: from the legal standpoint with all of the evidence in
31:48
Speaker 9: the case. So you restrict the lawyer's ability to talk
31:52
Speaker 9: to the client. You can't just keep it down to
31:55
Speaker 9: the testimony alone. Everything interacts with everything else. That's what
31:58
Speaker 9: build in the way of his lawyers are off arguing.
32:00
Speaker 2: Justice Elena Kagan asked this of Texas's lawyer, do you
32:05
Speaker 2: think that counsel can say, listen, I've been noticing that
32:08
Speaker 2: you've been mumbling and you're also not making eye contact
32:12
Speaker 2: with the questioner, and it would just be a good
32:14
Speaker 2: idea if you'd stop mumbling and made eye contact. Can
32:18
Speaker 2: the lawyer do that in an overnight recess? Texas's attorney
32:22
Speaker 2: said no, I would consider that to be coaching their
32:25
Speaker 2: testimony as far as how you present yourself to the jury.
32:29
Speaker 2: Of course, he's defending the conviction for Texas, so he's
32:33
Speaker 2: coming at the question from a different angle. But do
32:36
Speaker 2: you think that would be coaching.
32:37
Speaker 9: Well, whether it's coaching or not, I don't know. It
32:41
Speaker 9: probably is coaching. But that kind of coaching is exactly
32:43
Speaker 9: what you get hired to do as a lawyer, to
32:46
Speaker 9: school your client in how he can present his truthful
32:50
Speaker 9: testimony in the best way possible to the jury. And
32:54
Speaker 9: I think most lawyers view this situation where a client
32:58
Speaker 9: is on the witness stand, they will not often tamper
33:02
Speaker 9: with the content of the testimony in their discussions with
33:06
Speaker 9: the client. But they may say, listen, stop looking down.
33:10
Speaker 9: It's making you look guilty. Look at a guy who's
33:13
Speaker 9: asking you the question. And it's okay to glance over
33:15
Speaker 9: at the jurors from time to time with your head up.
33:18
Speaker 9: And I mean, this just has to do with presentation
33:22
Speaker 9: of the testimony to the jury as opposed to the
33:24
Speaker 9: true or falsity of the testimony. And I think that's
33:27
Speaker 9: perfectly proper that kind of instruction to a client during testimony.
33:32
Speaker 2: Of course, you can never tell for sure from oral
33:35
Speaker 2: arguments how the justices will rule, but it seemed to
33:38
Speaker 2: me that the defendant didn't have five votes, that the
33:43
Speaker 2: majority of the justices were skeptical that not being able
33:47
Speaker 2: to talk to his counsel about his testimony during the
33:51
Speaker 2: overnight break violated his constitutional rights.
33:55
Speaker 9: Well, i'll tell you and my suspicion is maybe they
33:58
Speaker 9: just want to stay away from the whole thing, because
34:01
Speaker 9: I suspect that the truth of the matter is there's
34:03
Speaker 9: nobody in that room at night when the lawyer is
34:06
Speaker 9: discussing the testimony with the client, and this rule is
34:11
Speaker 9: a really hard rule to enforce. I suppose you might
34:14
Speaker 9: have a lot more appeals in cases from defendants who
34:18
Speaker 9: would say I was on the stand and I needed
34:21
Speaker 9: advice and the lawyer refused to talk to me, and
34:25
Speaker 9: that's why I've been convicted, you know what Philip Reality
34:27
Speaker 9: is saying. So it's a touchy subject and it'll be
34:31
Speaker 9: interesting to see how the court rules on this thing.
34:33
Speaker 9: Trial lawyers across the country will be watching very very
34:36
Speaker 9: carefully because there are lots of disuse. It happens to
34:40
Speaker 9: civil cases too, during depositions. You know, you have a
34:43
Speaker 9: civil case and the guys being deposed and then they
34:46
Speaker 9: wanted to take a break, and the lawyer says, well,
34:48
Speaker 9: don't talk to him during the break. And the lawyer says, well,
34:51
Speaker 9: you have no right to restrict what I can say
34:53
Speaker 9: to my client during the break. And I've seen fights
34:55
Speaker 9: among lawyers, oral arguments among lawyers at depositions about this
34:59
Speaker 9: very subject. So this one will spill over into civil
35:02
Speaker 9: practice as well. I think if they make a definitive
35:05
Speaker 9: ruling on the issue.
35:06
Speaker 2: Is there an ethical rule that you shouldn't talk to
35:08
Speaker 2: your client during a break in testimony.
35:11
Speaker 9: There are no ethical rules about it, other than of
35:15
Speaker 9: course a lawyer cannot suborn perjury. So if you're giving
35:20
Speaker 9: the client advice, you know he's asserting, say, self defense
35:24
Speaker 9: in a case, and he tells you a story in
35:27
Speaker 9: which he's not under threat from the person he killed
35:30
Speaker 9: at all, and you say to him, well, you know
35:32
Speaker 9: it would help if you thought he was trying to
35:34
Speaker 9: strangle you when you pulled out the knife and started
35:37
Speaker 9: stabbing him, Well, that would be unethical, your subborning perjury.
35:40
Speaker 9: You're telling him tell a lie to say that you
35:42
Speaker 9: were in fear of your life, that's why you killed him.
35:45
Speaker 9: So you know, those are the only ethical rules that
35:48
Speaker 9: apply in terms of shaping testimony. By saying be more polite,
35:53
Speaker 9: you know you're yelling at the prosecutor. Don't do that.
35:56
Speaker 9: It makes you look aggressive and bad. I'm telling you
35:58
Speaker 9: about stylistic question and advice from the attorney. You know,
36:03
Speaker 9: I think that's something that all lawyers do to a
36:05
Speaker 9: certain extent with clients, and it's probably okay, and that fact,
36:08
Speaker 9: the courts may like it because if you get a
36:10
Speaker 9: long winded client, it won't give you a straight answer
36:12
Speaker 9: to a question. A lot of times the judges are
36:15
Speaker 9: quite apple. As the client listens carefully to the question,
36:17
Speaker 9: and answers it succinctly, as opposed to wandering around and
36:21
Speaker 9: telling all of these lengthy stories, which, by the way,
36:25
Speaker 9: just open up new avenues across examination for the prosecutor.
36:28
Speaker 9: You know, clients testifying is one of the most complex
36:31
Speaker 9: issues of criminal law and always will be.
36:34
Speaker 2: And only Justice Katanji Brown Jackson was a criminal defense
36:38
Speaker 2: lawyer who might have faced some of these problems with
36:41
Speaker 2: a client testifying. She was an assistant public defender in
36:45
Speaker 2: d C. Justice Sonya so Tomayor is the only other
36:49
Speaker 2: trial lawyer on the court, and she was a Manhattan
36:52
Speaker 2: District attorney like you. Paul, thanks so much for joining
36:55
Speaker 2: me today. That's Paul Callen, former Manhattan prosecutor and criminal
36:59
Speaker 2: defense attorney. And that's it for this edition of The
37:01
Speaker 2: Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always get the latest
37:04
Speaker 2: legal news on our Bloomberg Law podcasts. You can find
37:07
Speaker 2: them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at www dot Bloomberg
37:12
Speaker 2: dot com, slash podcast Slash Law, And remember to tune
37:16
Speaker 2: into The Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight at ten pm
37:19
Speaker 2: Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso and you're listening to
37:23
Speaker 2: Bloomberg