Latest / Bloomberg Law / Setback for Transgender Rights & Karen Read Acquitted

Transcript

Setback for Transgender Rights & Karen Read Acquitted · Bloomberg Law

0:02
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grossel from Bloomberg Radio.
0:08
Speaker 2: In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court divided down ideological
0:13
Speaker 2: lines upheld Tennessee's ban on gender affirming care for transgender miners,
0:19
Speaker 2: a stunning setback to transgender rights. Chief Justice John Roberts
0:24
Speaker 2: wrote the majority opinion for the six conservative justices, finding
0:28
Speaker 2: that the law does not violate the Constitution's equal Protection clause,
0:33
Speaker 2: which requires the government to treat similarly situated people the
0:37
Speaker 2: same Roberts wrote that there are fierce scientific and policy
0:41
Speaker 2: debates about the medical treatments, but quote, we leave questions
0:45
Speaker 2: regarding its policy to the people, their elected representatives, and
0:50
Speaker 2: the democratic process, Echoing what the Chief and Justice Brett
0:54
Speaker 2: kavanaughh pointed to during the oral arguments.
0:57
Speaker 3: You know, we might think that we're, you know, we
0:59
Speaker 3: can do just as good a job with respect to
1:03
Speaker 3: the evidence here as Tennessee or anybody else. But my
1:09
Speaker 3: understanding is that the Constitution leaves that question to the
1:13
Speaker 3: people's representatives rather than to nine people, none of whom
1:19
Speaker 3: is a doctor.
1:20
Speaker 4: If the Constitution doesn't take sides, if they're strong, forceful
1:24
Speaker 4: scientific policy arguments on both sides In a situation like this,
1:30
Speaker 4: why isn't it best to leave it to the democratic process?
1:34
Speaker 2: Justice Sonya Soto Mayor wrote a blistering descent for the
1:37
Speaker 2: courts three liberals, accusing the Conservatives of abandoning transgender children
1:43
Speaker 2: and their families to political whims by retreating from meaningful
1:47
Speaker 2: judicial review exactly where it matters most. During the oral
1:51
Speaker 2: arguments so to, Mayor had said that the democratic process
1:55
Speaker 2: does not protect transgender people against bad laws.
2:00
Speaker 5: There one percent of the population or less. Very hard
2:04
Speaker 5: to see how the democratic process is going to protect you. Well,
2:07
Speaker 5: you are Blacks were a much larger part of the population,
2:11
Speaker 5: and it didn't protect them. It didn't protect women for
2:16
Speaker 5: whole centuries.
2:18
Speaker 2: Twenty three states have bands similar to Tennessees. Joining me
2:22
Speaker 2: is Kate Redburn, a professor at Columbia Law School whose
2:26
Speaker 2: expertise centers on the law of gender, sexuality, and religion.
2:30
Speaker 2: How much of a setback is this decision for transgender rights.
2:35
Speaker 6: It's a significant setback for transgender rights, especially regarding the
2:39
Speaker 6: availability and access to medically necessary treatments for gender dysphoria.
2:44
Speaker 6: So the opinion refers to SB one's Tennessee law, which
2:48
Speaker 6: essentially prohibits transgender youth from accessing gender froming care while
2:52
Speaker 6: allowing all other youth to access the same treatments. He says,
2:55
Speaker 6: that's not a sex classification. What it doesn't do, however,
3:00
Speaker 6: is it doesn't hold that trans people are not a
3:02
Speaker 6: suspect class in general. So it looks like at least
3:06
Speaker 6: three justices were willing to go that far, and the
3:08
Speaker 6: opinion didn't go that far. So it's very bad for
3:12
Speaker 6: trans kids and potentially trans adults who are seeking medical care,
3:16
Speaker 6: but it doesn't necessarily reach as far as all transiscrimination.
3:21
Speaker 2: What was the central legal question here regarding the equal
3:25
Speaker 2: protection clause?
3:26
Speaker 6: So the question before the court was whether or not
3:28
Speaker 6: this law violated equal protection, and the United States really
3:32
Speaker 6: directed under the prior administration, really directed the court's attention
3:35
Speaker 6: to the question of whether or not this law constituted
3:38
Speaker 6: a sex classification. So does the law turn on sex?
3:42
Speaker 6: And the reason for that is because when laws do
3:44
Speaker 6: turn on sex, then the court it looks more closely
3:47
Speaker 6: at the law. They call that heightened scrutiny for sex discrimination.
3:50
Speaker 6: So the court I said that certain kinds of classifications,
3:53
Speaker 6: race classifications paradigmatically more into strict scrutiny. So the Court's
3:57
Speaker 6: going to look very hard. Sex classification the Court has
4:00
Speaker 6: previously said sometimes are permissible, it's sometimes okay for governments
4:04
Speaker 6: to distinguish between people on the basis of sex or
4:07
Speaker 6: make sex classifications. But because it sounds a little bit
4:10
Speaker 6: potentially suspicious, they're going to look more closely. And so
4:13
Speaker 6: the question here was is it a sex classification? And
4:16
Speaker 6: then the danger was what had happened in the Sixth
4:18
Speaker 6: Circuit where in this case that court had said that
4:20
Speaker 6: this law was not a sex classification and sort of
4:23
Speaker 6: combined the analysis in a way that made people concern
4:26
Speaker 6: that the court was going to find that even certain
4:29
Speaker 6: kinds of sex classifications don't Warrant tightened scrutiny. So here
4:33
Speaker 6: what happened was the Robert's majority opinion says that this
4:36
Speaker 6: law is not a sex classification and therefore only warrant's
4:39
Speaker 6: rational basis review.
4:41
Speaker 2: Chief Justice Roberts, in his majority opinions talked about the
4:45
Speaker 2: fierce scientific and policy debates about the safety, efficacy, and
4:50
Speaker 2: propriety of medical treatments in an evolving field. Quote, we
4:53
Speaker 2: leave questions regarding its policy to the people. They're elected
4:57
Speaker 2: representatives and the democratic process. Is that just the court
5:02
Speaker 2: looking for an out, I mean, they do make policy decisions.
5:06
Speaker 6: Yeah, So it sounds not dissimilar to what the Court
5:09
Speaker 6: said about Dobbs when it overturned roversus Wade, which was
5:13
Speaker 6: under the guise of changing doctrine, and that case quite significantly,
5:16
Speaker 6: it described itself as kicking the question back to the states.
5:20
Speaker 6: What is suspicious about that language in this context is
5:24
Speaker 6: that the heightened scrutiny is actually designed to make it
5:28
Speaker 6: possible for course to spend some time really looking at
5:30
Speaker 6: the justifications that the governments are using for regulating and
5:33
Speaker 6: classifying on sex, and then it also asks whether or
5:36
Speaker 6: not the means justify the ed. So it might be
5:39
Speaker 6: that there's a close relationship between the purpose of the
5:41
Speaker 6: law and its classification, but it's nevertheless not an acceptable
5:45
Speaker 6: purpose anyway. All of that's just to say that the
5:47
Speaker 6: existing doctrine is meant to give the court the opportunity
5:50
Speaker 6: to really weigh evidence. And what this decision does is
5:53
Speaker 6: it seems to open up the possibility of authorizing governments
5:57
Speaker 6: to regulate around medical procedures that touch on sex without
6:01
Speaker 6: courts even looking to weigh the evidence. So it might
6:04
Speaker 6: be the case that the Court could have applied heightened
6:06
Speaker 6: scrutiny and still found that this particular law had, on
6:10
Speaker 6: its view of sufficient evidentiary support, you know, in light
6:13
Speaker 6: of the purported medical controversy, But it might not have,
6:17
Speaker 6: and it really denied itself and potentially future courts from
6:21
Speaker 6: even looking into that.
6:23
Speaker 2: Justice Sonia Sotomayo wrote a blistering dissent, and she read
6:27
Speaker 2: a summary of it from the bench, which the justices
6:29
Speaker 2: sometimes do when they feel strongly about a descent. Then
6:33
Speaker 2: she ended with in sadness I dissent, she talked about
6:37
Speaker 2: the majority abandoning transgender children and their families to political whims.
6:43
Speaker 6: I think that, you know, her sadness stems from the
6:45
Speaker 6: fact that this is going to force potentially trans kids
6:49
Speaker 6: and their families in half of the states where similar
6:51
Speaker 6: laws are on the books to relocate in order to
6:54
Speaker 6: simply live their lives. The state of the medical controversy
6:58
Speaker 6: about these issues, and the majority of and is vastly overstated.
7:02
Speaker 6: Much of the history that it relies on, and some
7:03
Speaker 6: of the other concurring opinians rely on, it's just the untrue.
7:07
Speaker 6: And so you know what I think, Justice Sodomayor was
7:09
Speaker 6: trying to say is that the consequences for trans youth
7:13
Speaker 6: in particular are just really, really egregious.
7:15
Speaker 2: In her courtroom statement, she said that similar arguments were
7:20
Speaker 2: made to defend the Virginia law that prohibited interracial marriage
7:25
Speaker 2: that the Supreme Court struck down in nineteen sixty seven.
7:28
Speaker 6: Yeah, so we call those equal application laws, and they
7:31
Speaker 6: basically say that because so in Loving versus Virginia, the
7:34
Speaker 6: argument was well for the law prohibited interracial marriage, and
7:39
Speaker 6: the justification for it that the state gave was this
7:41
Speaker 6: is not racial discrimination because white people are not allowed
7:44
Speaker 6: to marry people of color and people of color are
7:46
Speaker 6: not allowed to marry white people. In other words, everyone
7:48
Speaker 6: is equally prohibited. But the court said no, this is
7:51
Speaker 6: still rooted in racial stereotypes that suggest that interracial marriage
7:55
Speaker 6: is bad, and also animus towards racial minorities and trying
7:58
Speaker 6: to reinforce the racial hierarchy.
8:00
Speaker 3: In the country.
8:01
Speaker 6: So the fact that you can find in that case
8:03
Speaker 6: white people and black people on both sides of the
8:05
Speaker 6: line that the regulation draws does not mean that it's
8:08
Speaker 6: not subject to heighten scrutiny. And so there's a reading
8:11
Speaker 6: of the majority's opinion here, which that it does exactly
8:14
Speaker 6: the same thing. That's what she's saying that just because
8:16
Speaker 6: there are transgender miners on both sides of the line.
8:20
Speaker 6: In other words, transgender miners, according to the Court, can
8:24
Speaker 6: still obtain sort of treatments if they're not for the
8:26
Speaker 6: purposes of addressing gender dysphoria. That doesn't mean that this
8:29
Speaker 6: is not motivated by animus towards transgender people and trying
8:33
Speaker 6: to reinforce as sex and gender hierarchy. That suggests that
8:36
Speaker 6: there's something normatively preferable about not being transgender.
8:40
Speaker 2: How have transgender rights in particular, How have transgender rights
8:46
Speaker 2: in particular suffered or been affected by Donald Trump's presidency?
8:53
Speaker 6: Basically says it's a little bit after twenty sixteen, it's
8:57
Speaker 6: been a major priority among Republicans legislators in particular to
9:01
Speaker 6: attack trans rights. There's a lot of reasons why that
9:04
Speaker 6: could be the case. You know, one reason that having
9:07
Speaker 6: lost the gay marriage fight, there's an effort to find
9:09
Speaker 6: a different issue that touches on questions of traditional and
9:14
Speaker 6: non traditional gender and sexual role to search for another
9:17
Speaker 6: issue became even stronger after Dobs, after the Supreme Court
9:20
Speaker 6: overturned row versus ways in part because abortion is actually
9:23
Speaker 6: quite popular nationally, and so in order to create some
9:26
Speaker 6: kind of coalition that could win national elections, needed to
9:29
Speaker 6: find an issue which would connect to traditional gender and
9:33
Speaker 6: sexual values without touching on something popular like gay marriage
9:37
Speaker 6: or abortion. So a way to understand the effect of
9:39
Speaker 6: the Trump administration is really that it has accelerated a
9:42
Speaker 6: pre existing tendency, and it's turned what were state level
9:46
Speaker 6: efforts to make transgender life extremely difficult, if not impossible,
9:51
Speaker 6: into national policy. So the redefinition of sex, attempts to
9:55
Speaker 6: regulate medical treatments, access to bathrooms, access to sports teams,
9:59
Speaker 6: all of those those efforts that we saw in the
10:01
Speaker 6: executive orders, and of course, you know, very important restrictions
10:05
Speaker 6: and attempted restrictions now in Congress on access to healthcare
10:09
Speaker 6: through various kinds of federal aid are reflecting the nationalization
10:13
Speaker 6: of what had been state level attacks.
10:15
Speaker 2: Does the decision today help legal challenges by President Trump
10:20
Speaker 2: and Republican administrations to roll back protections for transgender people.
10:26
Speaker 6: It might that it might not. As I said, there
10:28
Speaker 6: is not a majority on the court apparently to hold
10:31
Speaker 6: that anti transiscrimination, you know, is not visible to the Constitution.
10:35
Speaker 6: In other words, there are other kinds of anti transcrimination
10:38
Speaker 6: that the Court seems to have held open the possibility
10:40
Speaker 6: for recognizing, and so it's going to really depend on
10:44
Speaker 6: what is characterized as a medical condition. In other words,
10:46
Speaker 6: this opinion says that SB one is discriminating on the
10:49
Speaker 6: basis of gender dysphoria and not transgender identity, and so
10:53
Speaker 6: other laws do not have that character of being ostensibly
10:57
Speaker 6: justified as medical regulations. Instead, I think the normative stakes
11:01
Speaker 6: of just trying to force people not to be transgender
11:05
Speaker 6: or even clearer in those other situation, And the Court
11:07
Speaker 6: hasn't totally eliminated the possibility of reading those arguments in
11:10
Speaker 6: the future.
11:11
Speaker 2: So the justices still have to rule in another case
11:15
Speaker 2: about whether a Maryland school district is violating the Constitution
11:20
Speaker 2: by using LGBTQ friendly books in the classroom without giving
11:25
Speaker 2: parents the right to opt out. After hearing the oral
11:28
Speaker 2: arguments in that case, and I know everyone says, you
11:30
Speaker 2: can't tell what the justices are going to do, but
11:32
Speaker 2: it seemed pretty clear that there were enough justices to
11:36
Speaker 2: support the position of the religious parents. There is that
11:41
Speaker 2: case important.
11:43
Speaker 6: Yeah, that case is enormously important for another front in
11:46
Speaker 6: the ongoing attacks on really any kind of non normative
11:49
Speaker 6: families or gender or sexual identities. The issue is actually
11:53
Speaker 6: not at all new to the country. It has never
11:55
Speaker 6: reached the Supreme Court before, but in the nineteen eighties
11:58
Speaker 6: there were a series of lower court cases on identical
12:01
Speaker 6: issues where conservatives, in that case, people who self identified
12:05
Speaker 6: as fundamentalist Christians, objected to content in public school curricula
12:09
Speaker 6: that they characterized as secular humanism, and courts universally said
12:14
Speaker 6: that mere exposure to ideas which parents dislike, or even
12:19
Speaker 6: ideas which are sensitive to the religious beliefs of parents,
12:21
Speaker 6: does not constitute coersion, and so it's not constitutionally suspect
12:26
Speaker 6: that court does seem poised to equate contact with coersion
12:30
Speaker 6: in ways that are potentially quite quite sweet thing. During
12:33
Speaker 6: oral argument, the Actings Lister General who made the arguments,
12:37
Speaker 6: suggested that the presence of a transgender student, for example,
12:41
Speaker 6: could be considered a kind of content to which a
12:44
Speaker 6: religious objection might be relevant. In other words, it was
12:48
Speaker 6: possible not only that a parent could object to a
12:50
Speaker 6: book being on the shelf or a book being read
12:53
Speaker 6: in class that includes, for example, gay characters, but also
12:56
Speaker 6: that the existence of a person whose self is disliked
13:01
Speaker 6: or reported to be against the religious beliefs of the
13:04
Speaker 6: parent could prompt an opt out. So it really has
13:06
Speaker 6: the potential to destroy the ability of public school teachers
13:11
Speaker 6: to make inclusive choices about what kind of content and
13:15
Speaker 6: what kind of classrooms they have that reflect the diversity
13:17
Speaker 6: of our society.
13:18
Speaker 2: Thanks so much for joining me today. That's professor Kate
13:21
Speaker 2: Redburn of Columbia Law School. Crowds outside the courthouse in Dedham, Massachusetts,
13:31
Speaker 2: cheered this afternoon after a jury found Karen Reid not
13:35
Speaker 2: guilty of second degree murder and manslaughter charges in the
13:39
Speaker 2: death of her Boston police officer boyfriend in twenty twenty two.
13:43
Speaker 2: The jury did find Read guilty of the lesser charge
13:46
Speaker 2: of drunk and driving, handing down its decision after deliberating
13:50
Speaker 2: for at least twenty two hours over four days. The
13:53
Speaker 2: verdict comes nearly a year after another jury had deadlocked
13:57
Speaker 2: over Reid's guilt. It's a huge victory for her lawyers,
14:00
Speaker 2: who've asserted that she was framed by police after dropping
14:04
Speaker 2: O'Keefe off at a party at the home of a
14:06
Speaker 2: fellow officer. Prosecutors argued the forty five year old read
14:11
Speaker 2: hit O'Keefe with her SUV before driving away, but the
14:15
Speaker 2: defense maintained that O'Keefe was killed inside the home and
14:18
Speaker 2: later dragged outside. Joining me is former Palm Beach County
14:22
Speaker 2: State Attorney Dave Arenberg. Were you surprised at the not
14:27
Speaker 2: guilty verdicts here?
14:29
Speaker 1: I was very surprised by it because I thought the
14:32
Speaker 1: prosecution this time did an excellent job and focusing the
14:35
Speaker 1: jury on the evidence, the data, the cell phone data,
14:40
Speaker 1: the evidence of the battery of the cell phone and
14:44
Speaker 1: when it started to weaken, and when the phone started
14:48
Speaker 1: to freeze, the timing. I mean, this was not speculation.
14:52
Speaker 1: Data doesn't have any ax to grind. Data is data,
14:56
Speaker 1: and as a result, I thought the jury would listen
14:59
Speaker 1: to that. Instead, they got distracted by all the things
15:03
Speaker 1: and apparently found reasonable doubt.
15:05
Speaker 2: Obviously there were no eyewitness accounts, no direct evidence of
15:09
Speaker 2: the hit, but there were a series of experts to
15:12
Speaker 2: fill in the evidentiary picture. Do you think that testimony
15:18
Speaker 2: was too sophisticated for the jury.
15:21
Speaker 1: Whenever you get into a battle of experts, it's a
15:23
Speaker 1: problem for prosecution because jurors these days, they want eyewitnesses,
15:28
Speaker 1: they want the DNA, they want the conclusive smoking guns
15:35
Speaker 1: because they're used to seeing that on TV shows which
15:37
Speaker 1: are wrapped up in an hour at CSI and other shows.
15:40
Speaker 1: And if you don't have that, jurors will quickly find
15:43
Speaker 1: some reasonable doubt, especially if it becomes a battle of experts.
15:46
Speaker 1: But I thought that it was a defense that came
15:49
Speaker 1: up with a cockamamie alternative theory and thus raised the
15:53
Speaker 1: bar for the defense by saying that John O'Keefe entered
15:57
Speaker 1: the home. There's no evidence he entered the home. There's
15:59
Speaker 1: no evidence that anything happened, but he was hit by
16:02
Speaker 1: the car by a drunk, enraged woman who left dozens
16:07
Speaker 1: of angry voicemails on the victim's phone while he lay
16:12
Speaker 1: dying in the snow.
16:13
Speaker 2: And how did the defense explain Read's own words to
16:17
Speaker 2: paramedics afterwards, repeatedly saying I hit him.
16:22
Speaker 1: Yeah, her own words, I mean, she admitted it. But
16:25
Speaker 1: they were able to somehow frame it as maybe she
16:29
Speaker 1: was unsure, maybe she thought she did, but the witnesses
16:32
Speaker 1: said no, she said I hit him. I hit him.
16:35
Speaker 1: I mean. Her own lawyer when this case started said
16:39
Speaker 1: that she did hit him, that this was an accident,
16:43
Speaker 1: but then they changed their view to try to get
16:46
Speaker 1: away with it entirely, and she did.
16:48
Speaker 2: Would we call it a mixed verdict because they did
16:50
Speaker 2: convict her of operating under the influence of alcohol. Of course,
16:55
Speaker 2: the judge just gave her probation for that.
16:58
Speaker 1: Well, yeah, but they didn't find or guilty of leaving
17:01
Speaker 1: the seam of an accident, so they didn't even feel
17:04
Speaker 1: that it was conclusive that she caused an accident. So
17:07
Speaker 1: how did he die? It's a binary choice. Either she
17:09
Speaker 1: hit him or he went into the house and was
17:11
Speaker 1: murdered by law enforcement officers and soccer moms who got
17:15
Speaker 1: together in a conspiracy of silence the murder their friend
17:19
Speaker 1: and then dump his body on the front lawn. I
17:22
Speaker 1: don't even understand how anyone can think that makes sense.
17:25
Speaker 1: I mean, if you're a law enforcement officer and you're
17:28
Speaker 1: in cahoots with soccer moms, wouldn't you think you would
17:31
Speaker 1: just claim self defense if you wanted to kill another
17:34
Speaker 1: law enforcement officer, or wouldn't you try to hide the body?
17:36
Speaker 1: Why would you throw the body onto the front of
17:41
Speaker 1: your house unless it didn't happen, which it didn't happen.
17:46
Speaker 2: What some people say is the most powerful defense testimony
17:49
Speaker 2: was a snowplow driver who passed the home several times
17:53
Speaker 2: in the hours after the alleged collision and said he
17:58
Speaker 2: didn't see a two hundred and sixteen six foot one
18:01
Speaker 2: man lying in the yard.
18:03
Speaker 1: Yeah, and no one did. The snow was coming down
18:07
Speaker 1: and no one did. The only person who found this person,
18:10
Speaker 1: who is then the next morning buried under the snow.
18:12
Speaker 1: The only person who found John O'Keefe was the person
18:15
Speaker 1: who hit him, because she knew where his body was.
18:18
Speaker 1: Because she hit him, She knew what happened. No one
18:21
Speaker 1: else could find him. They were driving around looking for him,
18:23
Speaker 1: but she boughted them from a while away because she's
18:27
Speaker 1: the one who hit him. So in this case, I
18:30
Speaker 1: feel the same way as I did after the O. J.
18:33
Speaker 1: Simpson verdict or the Casey Anthony verdict that he had
18:35
Speaker 1: a guilty person go free.
18:37
Speaker 2: The jury deliberated about twenty two hours over four days.
18:42
Speaker 2: Does that sound to you like there was a holdout.
18:45
Speaker 1: Yes, it does sound like there was a Vibman discussion
18:49
Speaker 1: and this was their compromise verdict. But the compromise isn't
18:53
Speaker 1: really much of a compromise because the only buster on
18:55
Speaker 1: the lowest count, which gave her probation, so he gets
19:00
Speaker 1: the walk free. It's not over yet, though, because there'll
19:03
Speaker 1: be civil lawsuits than there are, and there also will
19:06
Speaker 1: be a trial of Turtle Boy, one of the bloggers
19:10
Speaker 1: who was on her side.
19:12
Speaker 2: Usually on a retrial, it's the prosecution that has the advantage.
19:18
Speaker 2: Why do you think it was different here?
19:20
Speaker 1: I thought the prosecution did a really good job. I
19:21
Speaker 1: don't have any issues with him. I think the defense
19:25
Speaker 1: was able to capitalize on discontent with police. You had jurors.
19:31
Speaker 1: All it takes his few jurors who would have issues
19:35
Speaker 1: with police. And here the accusation was that there was
19:38
Speaker 1: a police cover up and that the police officers were
19:41
Speaker 1: too close to the family inside the house, and the
19:45
Speaker 1: police officers were not only incompetent in collecting the evidence.
19:50
Speaker 1: That's the defense talking, not me, but also that the
19:54
Speaker 1: lead investigator, who was not even called to the stand,
19:57
Speaker 1: but that the lead investigator was much discussing individual with
20:01
Speaker 1: his comments about Karen Reid, and he did make defensive
20:04
Speaker 1: comments that the whole thing was tainted, and I think
20:08
Speaker 1: that did have some residents with the jury. I think
20:10
Speaker 1: they press want to know why the lead investigator did
20:13
Speaker 1: not testify. Maybe they were hiding something, which they weren't.
20:16
Speaker 1: They just thought that this guy was aside show a
20:18
Speaker 1: distraction because of his comments.
20:20
Speaker 2: Yeah, and the defense seemed to emphasize that in the
20:24
Speaker 2: closing arguments. Did the defense improve over the first trial
20:28
Speaker 2: where it just presented a day and a half of
20:32
Speaker 2: defense witnesses.
20:34
Speaker 1: I thought the defense did a really good job as
20:37
Speaker 1: they did in the first trial. I mean, anytime you
20:39
Speaker 1: are able to get a guilty client acquitted, it's a
20:44
Speaker 1: real feat for the defense, and they deserve credit. They're
20:47
Speaker 1: great lawyers, and it is my belief that she was guilty,
20:52
Speaker 1: and I think the evidence conclusively establishes that. But when
20:57
Speaker 1: you're a defense learning able to create a s I
21:00
Speaker 1: show a distraction and it works with the jury, then
21:03
Speaker 1: you're doing your job, I guess. And that's a shame
21:06
Speaker 1: for the victims' families, but that's what it is.
21:09
Speaker 2: So explain how in a civil case the standard is lower,
21:15
Speaker 2: so there might be a verdict in the family's favor
21:19
Speaker 2: for damages in the civil case, even though she was
21:22
Speaker 2: found not guilty in the criminal case.
21:25
Speaker 1: Right in a civil case. The standard is just proponents
21:31
Speaker 1: of the evidence. It's much easier to prove and either
21:35
Speaker 1: have proved negligence, which is a lower burden, So all around,
21:38
Speaker 1: it's easier to prove that case of the evidence just
21:42
Speaker 1: means is it more likely than not that Karen Reid
21:45
Speaker 1: did something wrong here, committed a tort. You don't have
21:48
Speaker 1: to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt.
21:50
Speaker 2: So is the logical conclusion after this verdict that the
21:54
Speaker 2: murderer is still out there?
21:57
Speaker 1: Yeah? I guess she and Simpson will go search for
22:01
Speaker 1: the real killers. That's really what this is, right, This
22:04
Speaker 1: was a binary choice. Either she hit him with the
22:06
Speaker 1: car or he went inside the house and was murdered
22:10
Speaker 1: by law enforcement officers and soccer moms, and then they
22:15
Speaker 1: threw their friend's body onto their front lawns. Doesn't make
22:19
Speaker 1: any sense.
22:20
Speaker 2: So, Dave, what do you make of her supporters? I mean,
22:23
Speaker 2: there were crowds of people outside the courthouse waiting for
22:26
Speaker 2: the verdict.
22:27
Speaker 1: I mean why she became a cult of personality. I
22:30
Speaker 1: think that the narrative that was fed by bloggers was
22:33
Speaker 1: that here's this sweet, innocent woman who's being framed for
22:37
Speaker 1: a crime she didn't commit by by corrupt law enforcement officers.
22:41
Speaker 1: And I just feel for those law enforcement officers and
22:44
Speaker 1: the families for having their names dragged through the mud
22:47
Speaker 1: when they didn't deserve that. They lost a loved one.
22:50
Speaker 1: And John o' keith was a good man, and now,
22:54
Speaker 1: in my mind, a guilty defendant walks free.
22:57
Speaker 2: And when Reid came out of the courthouse, she made
23:00
Speaker 2: this statement, no one has fought harder for justice for
23:04
Speaker 2: John O'Keefe than I have.
23:06
Speaker 1: That's her oj Simpson, I'm gonna find the real killers moment,
23:10
Speaker 1: and just tells you all you need to know about her.
23:13
Speaker 1: I mean to make a statement like that, what an
23:16
Speaker 1: insult to the family, Now, what an insult. It rubs
23:19
Speaker 1: salt in the wounds to say something like that. You know,
23:22
Speaker 1: at least just go on with your life, and this
23:25
Speaker 1: family is suffered enough. But she continues to rub salt
23:28
Speaker 1: in that one.
23:29
Speaker 2: And following the verdict, several witnesses in the case said
23:32
Speaker 2: in a statement that their hearts are with John and
23:36
Speaker 2: the entire O'Keefe family and that the result is a
23:40
Speaker 2: devastating miscarriage of justice. Thanks so much, Dave. That's former
23:44
Speaker 2: Palm Beach County State Attorney Dave Ehrenberg, and that's it
23:48
Speaker 2: for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you
23:51
Speaker 2: can always get the latest legal news on our Bloomberg
23:54
Speaker 2: Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,
23:57
Speaker 2: and at www dot Bloomberg dot com slash podcast Slash Law,
24:03
Speaker 2: And remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every
24:05
Speaker 2: weeknight at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso
24:09
Speaker 2: and you're listening to Bloomberg