Latest / Bloomberg Law / Mangione Could Face Death Penalty; TikTok Ban

Transcript

Mangione Could Face Death Penalty; TikTok Ban · Bloomberg Law

0:03
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio.
0:10
Speaker 2: This act of terrorism and the violence that stems from
0:15
Speaker 2: it is something that would not be tolerated in the city.
0:19
Speaker 2: We wanted to personally be here to show the symbolism
0:24
Speaker 2: of leading from the front.
0:26
Speaker 3: It's never happened before the Mayor of New York City
0:29
Speaker 3: and the Police Commissioner meeting the aircraft carrying a murder
0:33
Speaker 3: suspect being flown in from another state, And it was
0:37
Speaker 3: quite a spectacle at a Lower Manhattan heliport this afternoon,
0:41
Speaker 3: as Luigi Mangioni was escorted from a helicopter on the
0:44
Speaker 3: Long Walk to a waiting van, surrounded by dozens of
0:48
Speaker 3: heavily armed law enforcement officers in tactical gear, followed by
0:53
Speaker 3: Mayor Eric Adams and the Police Commissioner. The so called
0:56
Speaker 3: Purp Walk was a complete departure from how federal authorities
1:00
Speaker 3: normally handled transfers of suspects, But the handling of the
1:04
Speaker 3: Mangioni case by state and federal authorities seems to be
1:08
Speaker 3: a departure from the usual in so many respects. The
1:12
Speaker 3: latest the federal government has now charged Mangioni with murder
1:16
Speaker 3: in the shooting death of United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson.
1:20
Speaker 3: Charges that carry a possible death sentence, a development that
1:23
Speaker 3: Manhattan prosecutors didn't seem to have much notice of. Joining
1:27
Speaker 3: me is Palm Beach County State Attorney Dave Ahrenberg. Dave,
1:31
Speaker 3: the federal government doesn't usually do purp walks or photo ops.
1:36
Speaker 1: Why here, Wow, you know, this is an internationally watch case,
1:42
Speaker 1: and he's being treated differently. The reward money was larger
1:47
Speaker 1: and faster in coming. The attention given to it is
1:52
Speaker 1: much greater than any other case. He's a folk here
1:54
Speaker 1: among some and I think this is a statement meant
1:57
Speaker 1: that you're going to treat him like the criminal that
1:59
Speaker 1: he is is, as opposed to a big time celebrity.
2:02
Speaker 1: But in so doing, it looks like they're treating with
2:05
Speaker 1: a celebrity because they normally do part walks, and so
2:08
Speaker 1: nothing about this case seems to be normal.
2:10
Speaker 3: So murder is generally not a federal charge. New York
2:15
Speaker 3: City had three hundred and eighty six homicides last year,
2:18
Speaker 3: the country as a whole almost eighteen thousand. This involves
2:23
Speaker 3: the murder of one person that happened in New York city.
2:26
Speaker 3: Why is the federal government filing charges as well?
2:29
Speaker 1: Well? If this was the Trump administration, I'd say it's
2:31
Speaker 1: because they don't trust the Manhattan DA, But this is
2:35
Speaker 1: still the Biden administration, and I think just because of
2:39
Speaker 1: the international interest in this case, that they're coming in
2:42
Speaker 1: to make sure that nothing goes wrong. At the state level,
2:45
Speaker 1: it's like a backup. But it is unusual because usually
2:49
Speaker 1: it's one or the other, not both.
2:50
Speaker 3: But in this case, federal prosecutors have filed murder, stalking,
2:55
Speaker 3: and weapons charges against Mangioni, and the charge of murder
3:00
Speaker 3: by firearm carries the possibility of the death penalty. Federal
3:05
Speaker 3: prosecutors haven't said yet whether they'll seek the death penalty,
3:09
Speaker 3: because that takes a process in the Justice Department.
3:13
Speaker 4: Do you think they're likely to go that far?
3:15
Speaker 1: I do think that, based on Donald Trump's statements about
3:19
Speaker 1: this case, that in the next administration, they could seek
3:22
Speaker 1: the death penalty, even if they don't seek initially, because
3:24
Speaker 1: right now there's a more toorium on the death penalty
3:27
Speaker 1: at the federal level, but that's going to change, and
3:29
Speaker 1: so yes, I do think maybe that's one difference between
3:31
Speaker 1: the state and the federal systems here is that the
3:34
Speaker 1: death penalty is outlawed in New York, but a federal
3:37
Speaker 1: case can impose a federal death penalty. I think there'll
3:40
Speaker 1: be a lot of outcry, though, because this guy's got
3:42
Speaker 1: a bunch of supporters, and I think that ultimately a
3:46
Speaker 1: jury will not give him the death penalty in this case,
3:49
Speaker 1: but the Fed may try.
3:52
Speaker 3: His attorney, Karen Friedman Agnifilo, issued a statement quote, the
3:56
Speaker 3: federal government's reported decision to pile on top of an
4:00
Speaker 3: already overcharged first degree murder and state terror case is
4:03
Speaker 3: highly unusual and raises serious constitutional and statutory double jeopardy concerns.
4:11
Speaker 4: Is this double jeopardy.
4:13
Speaker 1: Not really, because there's something called the separate sovereign doctrine.
4:17
Speaker 1: These are two different sovereign state and federal They can
4:21
Speaker 1: both file their own charges based on their own laws,
4:24
Speaker 1: and so you could have that. Now in some states,
4:27
Speaker 1: like New York, there are additional restrictions on states that
4:30
Speaker 1: then pile on You saw that with Paul Manifort. In fact,
4:34
Speaker 1: the Paul Manifort indictment that came at the state level
4:37
Speaker 1: was thrown out by the courts because of double jeopardy concerns.
4:42
Speaker 1: Now the SAIDs, though, don't have the same type of restrictions,
4:45
Speaker 1: and federal law generally will permit a piggyback type of
4:50
Speaker 1: case like this, as long as it's not the exact
4:52
Speaker 1: same statute, which is not. These are two separate statutes
4:55
Speaker 1: and two different types of penalties. In the federal system,
4:58
Speaker 1: you can get the death penalty the state listen, you don't.
5:01
Speaker 1: So I do think they'll move forward. And I do
5:03
Speaker 1: respect Karen. She's a great lawyer, she's a friend of mine,
5:07
Speaker 1: and I think she has an argument that the state
5:10
Speaker 1: does seem to be overreaching here with the first re
5:14
Speaker 1: murder charge. But I would disagree with her on her
5:18
Speaker 1: statement that the Feds are engaging in double jeopardy in
5:22
Speaker 1: adding their own charges. There's a lot of case all
5:24
Speaker 1: that says they can do it.
5:27
Speaker 3: I mean a lot of times you see a state
5:29
Speaker 3: case fails or there are civil rights issues, and then
5:33
Speaker 3: the federal government comes in and tries the case on
5:36
Speaker 3: federal charges. But at this stage, before even his arraignment
5:41
Speaker 3: on the New York charge, is this unusual for the
5:43
Speaker 3: Feds to come in?
5:45
Speaker 1: Oh? It is unusual, yes, But there's nothing usual about
5:48
Speaker 1: this case. This case has attracted international interests. Everyone's still
5:53
Speaker 1: talking about it. You have people dressing up as him
5:56
Speaker 1: to praise him, to treat him like he's some sort
5:59
Speaker 1: of hero when he is not. And I think that's
6:01
Speaker 1: one of the reasons why the federal government is getting
6:04
Speaker 1: involved here. It's important to them and to a lot
6:06
Speaker 1: of people that there's not a precedent set that glorifies murder,
6:10
Speaker 1: and right now we're seeing too many people glorify this
6:13
Speaker 1: murder and treat him like a hero. When he killed
6:17
Speaker 1: a father of two, and he did so by lying
6:20
Speaker 1: in wait, wearing a mask, waiting for him to walk by,
6:22
Speaker 1: and then shooting him in the back and then running away,
6:25
Speaker 1: not quite an act of heroism.
6:27
Speaker 3: I think the federal charges came as a surprise even
6:31
Speaker 3: to the Manhattan District Attorney's office, because his attorney said
6:36
Speaker 3: that she wanted to get some clarity on what was happening,
6:40
Speaker 3: whether there were multiple investigations. Because she was told to
6:44
Speaker 3: appear at two pm at state court and then she
6:47
Speaker 3: ends up before a federal magistrate, it seems like fed's
6:50
Speaker 3: in the state are not coordinating or talking at all.
6:54
Speaker 1: Well, I wouldn't be the first time we saw this.
6:56
Speaker 1: Most recently in the second assassination attempt is Donald Trump,
7:00
Speaker 1: where you have the Feds seeking an indicting getting indictment
7:05
Speaker 1: against the attempted assassinator, and then you have the State
7:10
Speaker 1: of Florida doing a competing, conflicting investigation that has led
7:14
Speaker 1: to state charges. So we're seeing these turb wars more
7:18
Speaker 1: and more. I don't think that's a sign of progress.
7:21
Speaker 1: I think that's a sign of the times, unfortunately. But
7:24
Speaker 1: if you think it's bad, now, wait till you have
7:27
Speaker 1: Trump in the White House and a democratic state of
7:30
Speaker 1: New York. They'll really go at it. Right now, you
7:33
Speaker 1: have Democrats running both agencies, but that only would lasts
7:37
Speaker 1: for another few weeks.
7:39
Speaker 3: And Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg said the New York
7:43
Speaker 3: case will proceed in parallel with the federal case. What
7:47
Speaker 3: do you think will happen here? Which case goes to
7:50
Speaker 3: trial first? It seems like tough for the defense attorneys
7:53
Speaker 3: to be defending against both at the same.
7:55
Speaker 1: Time, right well, Luisi Mangioni's family can afford to hire
7:59
Speaker 1: additional lawyers to ramp up their legal team to defend
8:02
Speaker 1: against both. Generally, the Feds go first. Generally, the Feds
8:06
Speaker 1: take precedents and the state will defer to them. The
8:09
Speaker 1: state here is saying they're not backing down, they're going
8:11
Speaker 1: to continue with their prosecution, and they filed first. So
8:14
Speaker 1: it just depends on the scheduling of the court. Since
8:17
Speaker 1: the state doesn't look like it's going to defer to
8:18
Speaker 1: the Feds. I could see the state going first and
8:21
Speaker 1: the Feds waiting for the state, or we'll see when
8:24
Speaker 1: Trump takes over the government and his US attorney and
8:30
Speaker 1: his DOJ is fully in place where they try to
8:33
Speaker 1: expedite the federal case. So too early to say which
8:36
Speaker 1: goes first. But as of right now, the state has
8:39
Speaker 1: the lead because they got the first indictment.
8:42
Speaker 3: The federal papers really went into detail, a timeline of
8:48
Speaker 3: his plotting, and they had additional evidence. Do you think
8:52
Speaker 3: that means that the Feds have more information than the
8:55
Speaker 3: city or they just decided to lay it out in
8:58
Speaker 3: a talking indictment whereas the city didn't.
9:01
Speaker 1: Yeah, the Feds are used to issuing speaking indictments with
9:06
Speaker 1: more detail than at the state level. In fact, you
9:09
Speaker 1: saw when this Alvin Braggan dited Donald Trump, it didn't
9:13
Speaker 1: provide a ton of details that the press and the
9:16
Speaker 1: rest of us were looking for. The Feds will provide
9:19
Speaker 1: more detail. They will provide more information, doesn't mean they
9:22
Speaker 1: have more information. In fact, I think they're all playing
9:25
Speaker 1: off the same info, the same investigation. But the Feds
9:30
Speaker 1: will provide more information, which is ironic because generally the
9:33
Speaker 1: FEDS are tight lipped. Generally there's lack of transparency at
9:36
Speaker 1: the federal level. But here in New York, you know,
9:39
Speaker 1: there are no cameras in the court room at the
9:40
Speaker 1: state or the federal level. So I wish they would
9:43
Speaker 1: both be a little more transparent. But that's where New
9:46
Speaker 1: York is, and that's where the FEDS are when it
9:48
Speaker 1: comes to the court room.
9:50
Speaker 4: Yeah. Now let's go to the New York charges.
9:52
Speaker 3: And you mentioned the top charge, first degree murder in
9:56
Speaker 3: furtherance of terrorism, and Bragg said that Mangio he intended
10:00
Speaker 3: to intimidate and evoke terror with the killing.
10:04
Speaker 5: Is that an overcharge? Is he reaching there?
10:07
Speaker 1: I respectfully do believe that they're reaching a bit. I
10:10
Speaker 1: think it's an easier case to prove second agree murder,
10:13
Speaker 1: and I realized that they include a second agree murder,
10:16
Speaker 1: and they may want to push a compromised verdict, which
10:20
Speaker 1: would be second agree murder, where he could face up
10:22
Speaker 1: to life in prison. But I do think when you
10:25
Speaker 1: add the first agree murder charge, it feels like an
10:27
Speaker 1: overreach and that could cost you some credibility in the
10:30
Speaker 1: eyes of jurors. You look at the prosecution of Daniel Penny,
10:34
Speaker 1: that's the ex marine who killed mister Neelie on the subway. Well,
10:39
Speaker 1: they charged him with manslaughter and a lot of us
10:41
Speaker 1: thought that was an overcharge, and apparently it was because
10:45
Speaker 1: the jury couldn't reach an agreement, and then finally the
10:47
Speaker 1: judge threw it out, and then when it came down
10:49
Speaker 1: to the lesser charge, the easier charge, the jurors had
10:52
Speaker 1: enough and just said now acquittal. And that's the kind
10:56
Speaker 1: of thing that you worry about when you overcharge, that
10:58
Speaker 1: you have jurmy fatigue, have dur mistrusted prosecutors, so you
11:02
Speaker 1: get me really careful here. And I just don't think
11:05
Speaker 1: based on what we know now that you can confidently
11:07
Speaker 1: say that this was an act of terrorism. But maybe
11:09
Speaker 1: you know they have access information that the rest of
11:11
Speaker 1: us do not have, So we'll see. But as of
11:14
Speaker 1: right now, I do think it's a bit of a reach.
11:16
Speaker 3: They could have been trying to push him into a
11:19
Speaker 3: guilty plea, but now that seems complicated with the federal charges.
11:24
Speaker 4: Would the defense only go forward with guilty?
11:26
Speaker 3: Please if they could reach deals with both the Feds.
11:30
Speaker 4: And the city.
11:31
Speaker 1: No, it complicates things for the defense because you could
11:34
Speaker 1: plead guilty the state charges and then still face federal charges.
11:38
Speaker 1: So you want a deal that will cover everything. And
11:43
Speaker 1: with the Feds and the states seemingly in conflict with
11:45
Speaker 1: each other, that makes it harder for defense lawyers to say,
11:47
Speaker 1: all right, everyone's all come to the table. Here's one
11:49
Speaker 1: universal settlement. The Feds may seek the death penalty. The
11:53
Speaker 1: state is looking for first or murder, but there is
11:57
Speaker 1: no death penalty there. So there's a lot of moving
11:59
Speaker 1: part here. And you're correct when you say that with
12:02
Speaker 1: two different cases, maybe they want to ramp up with
12:04
Speaker 1: more attorneys. They can afford it. The defense has lots
12:07
Speaker 1: of money because this is getting a lot more complicated.
12:11
Speaker 3: Before she was hired to represent Mangioni, his attorney Karen
12:16
Speaker 3: Friedman Agnifilo suggested on CNN that there might be an
12:20
Speaker 3: insanity defense here. By all accounts, the evidence against him
12:24
Speaker 3: is overwhelming. Is not guilty by reason of insanity the
12:29
Speaker 3: way to go here.
12:31
Speaker 1: I don't think the insanity defense is a good defense here.
12:33
Speaker 1: I don't think that will play. And the reason is
12:36
Speaker 1: that to have an insanity defense, you have to have
12:38
Speaker 1: an established medical condition and you cannot know the difference
12:42
Speaker 1: between right and wrong. Well, when you wear a mask
12:45
Speaker 1: and have fake IDs and meticulously plan for a murder,
12:49
Speaker 1: you're definitely able to distinguish between right and wrong. You
12:53
Speaker 1: know what you did was illegal. You know how, we
12:55
Speaker 1: know because you planned for it to not be caught.
12:57
Speaker 1: And then after you ran away and hid and tried
13:01
Speaker 1: to conceal your identity. Well, that shows you knew the
13:03
Speaker 1: difference between right and wrong. You knew what you did
13:05
Speaker 1: was illegal, you knew the consequences of your actions. So
13:08
Speaker 1: I don't think they have much of a chance at
13:10
Speaker 1: an exandy defense. Now they could have a different defense
13:14
Speaker 1: to claim that he was under extreme emotional disturbance, which
13:18
Speaker 1: would make it more of a manslaughter case than a
13:21
Speaker 1: murder case. That could get you between five and twenty
13:23
Speaker 1: five years in prison as opposed to up to life
13:26
Speaker 1: in prison for murder. That may be a better defense,
13:29
Speaker 1: not a complete acquittal, but something less than murder. And
13:33
Speaker 1: then there's always the specter of jury nullification. It's a
13:36
Speaker 1: prosecutor's worst nightmare where the jury just feels sympathy for
13:40
Speaker 1: the guy and ignores the evidence and ignores the law
13:44
Speaker 1: and then just set them free. That's always a possibility
13:48
Speaker 1: when you're dealing with this kind of unusual case of
13:50
Speaker 1: a defendant who will probably take the stand and probably
13:53
Speaker 1: gain some sympathy from the public, if not members of
13:57
Speaker 1: the jury.
13:58
Speaker 3: Jury selection is always important, but is it critical in
14:02
Speaker 3: this case?
14:03
Speaker 1: Yeah? Jury selection is always important. A lot of cases
14:06
Speaker 1: of one and loss injury selection, and this one will
14:09
Speaker 1: be crucially. You're dealing with a progressive area, relatively speaking,
14:13
Speaker 1: in Manhattan, where people probably feel similarly to Luigi about
14:19
Speaker 1: insurance companies. But you got I just say, this guy
14:23
Speaker 1: went too far. I mean, you really have to put
14:25
Speaker 1: your head in the stand and think we're just not
14:26
Speaker 1: a country of laws if you are going to sanction murder.
14:30
Speaker 1: So I do think that his defense that they had
14:33
Speaker 1: a coming is a bridge too far. But you know,
14:36
Speaker 1: he does have some some claims that could show that
14:39
Speaker 1: he was under extreme emotional disturbance by saying that he
14:42
Speaker 1: had back surgery. Maybe he was taking pain pills. His
14:45
Speaker 1: family went through all this and he just acted irrationally.
14:49
Speaker 1: And this is the type of think. It's more of
14:51
Speaker 1: a man slaughter case than a murder case. We'll see.
14:53
Speaker 1: But I don't think that Karen Friedman Magnifilo is out
14:56
Speaker 1: of defenses. I think she has a real legitimate chance
15:00
Speaker 1: to get him something less than life in prison.
15:02
Speaker 3: Before I let you go, Dave, I want to get
15:05
Speaker 3: your take on a Georgia appeals court disqualifying Fulton County
15:10
Speaker 3: District Attorney Fawnie Willis and her office from handling the
15:14
Speaker 3: twenty twenty election interference prosecution of President elect Donald Trump,
15:20
Speaker 3: citing the appearance of impropriety stemming from her relationship with
15:25
Speaker 3: a former member of the prosecution team. Although the appeals
15:28
Speaker 3: court denied Trump's bid to have the indictment tossed out,
15:33
Speaker 3: She's going to appeal. But do you think that case
15:35
Speaker 3: is going to die?
15:37
Speaker 1: If she's off the case, the case dies. I do
15:39
Speaker 1: not believe another DA is going to want to step
15:42
Speaker 1: into this case and pursue it with the zeal that
15:44
Speaker 1: Fannie Wilson. I think that it will wither and die
15:47
Speaker 1: on the vine. Now as far as will happens. She's
15:50
Speaker 1: going to the Supreme Court of Georgia. I don't know
15:51
Speaker 1: which way we'll go. I did not think the appellate
15:53
Speaker 1: Court was going to overrule Judge McAfee and disqualify her. So, boy,
16:00
Speaker 1: that surprised me, And so would it surprise me if
16:02
Speaker 1: the State Supreme Court overruled the appellate court. Perhaps. I
16:06
Speaker 1: don't know what's going to happen next. But this thing
16:08
Speaker 1: was a self inflicted wound. This was a solid case
16:11
Speaker 1: against Trump and his cohorts. But because the DA hired
16:15
Speaker 1: a special prosecutor who she had a romantic relationship with,
16:19
Speaker 1: it muddled everything up and now were left with this.
16:22
Speaker 3: Oh he's a pleasure, Dave, thanks so much. That's Palm
16:25
Speaker 3: Beach County State Attorney Dave Ahrenberg turning out his Supreme
16:29
Speaker 3: Court news. The justices are fast tracking TikTok's challenge to
16:34
Speaker 3: a law that would ban the popular social media platform
16:37
Speaker 3: on January nineteenth if it isn't sold by its Chinese
16:41
Speaker 3: parent company. The court has scheduled a special argument session
16:45
Speaker 3: on January tenth to consider the law before it takes
16:49
Speaker 3: effect on January nineteenth. TikTok and its parent company say
16:53
Speaker 3: the law violates the Constitution's free speech protections, but the
16:57
Speaker 3: DC Appellate Court unanimously up hell of the law earlier
17:01
Speaker 3: this month as a legitimate means of protecting national security
17:05
Speaker 3: and user privacy. Joining me is Professor Eric Goleman of
17:08
Speaker 3: the Santa Clara University Law School. He's co director of
17:11
Speaker 3: the High Tech Law Institute.
17:13
Speaker 4: The Court has.
17:13
Speaker 3: Scheduled arguments for January tenth, with a special argument day,
17:18
Speaker 3: two hours of argument, double the usual time.
17:22
Speaker 4: How unusual is it and what does it signify? If anything?
17:25
Speaker 6: Every Supreme Court case is unusual. It's one of the
17:28
Speaker 6: rarest events in litigation. But this case is unusual for
17:32
Speaker 6: the Supreme Court procedure. They've set up an expedited process
17:36
Speaker 6: that they don't normally follow, and it means that they're
17:39
Speaker 6: going to be moving fast. But they're probably also not
17:41
Speaker 6: going to be able to issue this kind of quality
17:45
Speaker 6: of opinions that we're used to, so they're probably going
17:47
Speaker 6: to have to cut some corners along the way as well.
17:49
Speaker 6: So this is an unusual case for them.
17:52
Speaker 3: In the Bushfee Gore case, they ruled the day after
17:55
Speaker 3: they heard oral arguments, and just three days after they
17:59
Speaker 3: agreed to take the case. Do you think with this
18:01
Speaker 3: expedited schedule they're looking to do something before January nineteenth.
18:06
Speaker 6: I don't think they would have built to schedule like
18:08
Speaker 6: this unless they plan to give some ruling before January nineteenth.
18:13
Speaker 6: But you mentioned bushby Gore, and that's actually a good
18:15
Speaker 6: example of the problems that are awaiting the Supreme Court.
18:19
Speaker 6: Not only was that opinion fragmented in the sense that
18:22
Speaker 6: every judge wrote for themselves, but also that opinion has
18:26
Speaker 6: been roundly criticized as being not the same kind of
18:30
Speaker 6: standard quality of judging that we expect from the Supreme Court.
18:34
Speaker 6: So the Bush versus Gore example is actually a cautionary
18:38
Speaker 6: tale for the Supreme Court. Odds are that they're going
18:41
Speaker 6: to issue multiple opinions and that it might not be
18:44
Speaker 6: to the level of quality that we want.
18:46
Speaker 5: The Justices could have acted on the emergency request by
18:51
Speaker 5: TikTok and blocked the law while the case moves forward.
18:54
Speaker 4: Wouldn't that have been an easier way to handle this?
18:57
Speaker 6: As an outsider, it looks like what the Supreme Court
19:00
Speaker 6: should have done was put the law on hold until
19:03
Speaker 6: the Supreme Court could do a standard process for its review.
19:07
Speaker 6: Not do this expedited corner cutting approach. And I don't
19:11
Speaker 6: know why they didn't do that, but that's the choice
19:14
Speaker 6: they made, and so they've clearly decided that they're going
19:17
Speaker 6: to have to move faster.
19:19
Speaker 3: Are they balancing the First Amendment against national security concerns
19:25
Speaker 3: and the court's deference to Congress and the Executive branch
19:29
Speaker 3: in making national security decisions.
19:32
Speaker 6: That's a good summary, but if you in mind, I'm
19:33
Speaker 6: going to restated a little bit. Absolutely, the EC Circuit,
19:37
Speaker 6: which hurt the TikTok case and had sent the case
19:41
Speaker 6: up to the Supreme Court, said that the law was censorship,
19:44
Speaker 6: that the laws censored TikTok and its users, but nevertheless
19:49
Speaker 6: that censorship was justified on national security concerns. That creates
19:53
Speaker 6: really two tracks for the Supreme Court to pursue. One
19:56
Speaker 6: track they could pursue is to say the laws censorship,
20:01
Speaker 6: and yet it survives, like the DC Circuit said, because
20:05
Speaker 6: the nationalist security concerns overweigh the laws of free speech.
20:09
Speaker 6: Another attract is that they could say, we agree that
20:13
Speaker 6: the law is censorship and that's the reason why it
20:16
Speaker 6: should be struck down. And so the DC Circuits opinion
20:19
Speaker 6: that prestages. The Supreme Court's review really set up the
20:23
Speaker 6: Supreme Court to answer that fundamental question, under what circumstances
20:27
Speaker 6: does national security override what is on its space? And
20:32
Speaker 6: everyone seems to agree it's just censorship.
20:35
Speaker 3: And I mean, do you have based on their past opinions,
20:40
Speaker 3: do you have any feel for how this. I mean,
20:42
Speaker 3: they're usually it seems like they are. They usually deferred
20:48
Speaker 3: on national security and they're also big on First Amendment.
20:53
Speaker 4: I mean, do you have any feel.
20:56
Speaker 6: It's hard to predict what the Supreme Court is going
20:57
Speaker 6: to do because there really are two different dynamics pushing
21:01
Speaker 6: them in opposite directions. Back in July, the Supreme Court
21:05
Speaker 6: issued a very strong endorsement of the First Amendment protections
21:09
Speaker 6: for social media. And so if we look at what
21:11
Speaker 6: the Supreme Court has said just a few months ago,
21:14
Speaker 6: they said, if it's censoring social media, that sounds like
21:17
Speaker 6: a First Amendment problem. On the other hand, you had
21:20
Speaker 6: this DC Circuit opinion that was a unanimous opinion from
21:24
Speaker 6: the lower court saying that the national security concerns here
21:28
Speaker 6: overrode free speech concerns. And the Supreme Court listens carefully
21:32
Speaker 6: to the DC Circuit, It's a well respected court. They
21:35
Speaker 6: put together an opinion that was designed to be persuasive
21:38
Speaker 6: for the Supreme Court. So if we look at what
21:41
Speaker 6: the Supreme Court then in July, it looks like the
21:43
Speaker 6: TikTok band should not succeed. If we look at what
21:45
Speaker 6: the DC Circuit advised the Supreme Court, it looks like
21:48
Speaker 6: the band should be upheld. And so I don't know
21:51
Speaker 6: which strand is going to override the other.
21:54
Speaker 3: The public still hasn't seen evidence from the government that
21:57
Speaker 3: China use the app to influence US citizens or to
22:01
Speaker 3: steal data, like a Supreme court be looking for some.
22:04
Speaker 4: Of that evidence.
22:06
Speaker 6: So there have been many closed door discussions about the
22:09
Speaker 6: alleged national security concerns raised by TikTok, evidence that has
22:13
Speaker 6: not seen the light of day for the public. The
22:15
Speaker 6: DC Circuit's opinion made it clear that it would not
22:18
Speaker 6: relying on any of that hidden evidence, that they were
22:21
Speaker 6: relying only on the evidence that's been introduced into the
22:24
Speaker 6: public sphere. That then creates a dilemma because some people
22:29
Speaker 6: might find that evident's not credible, that it's a lot
22:32
Speaker 6: of smoking mirrors, it's a lot of implications and inferences,
22:36
Speaker 6: but it's not exactly the kind of smoking gun conclusion
22:41
Speaker 6: that would dictate the potential loss of a major free
22:44
Speaker 6: speech right. So part of the challenge for the Supreme
22:47
Speaker 6: Court will be to decide what exactly is a threat
22:51
Speaker 6: to national security? How seriously can we take the evidence
22:54
Speaker 6: that's been presented in the public light and will we
22:58
Speaker 6: agree with the DC circuits concern because not everyone does.
23:02
Speaker 3: Some TikTok users seem to be waking up to the
23:05
Speaker 3: fact that it may be gone on January nineteenth. Do
23:10
Speaker 3: you think the Court will address the concerns of the
23:13
Speaker 3: one hundred and seventy million US users.
23:16
Speaker 6: I'm hoping that the Court will be sensitive to the
23:20
Speaker 6: fact that not only does TikTok have free speech trades,
23:23
Speaker 6: but so do all the millions of users, millions of
23:26
Speaker 6: Americans who are talking to each other on TikTok. And
23:30
Speaker 6: even if we disregard TikTok's interests, we still ought to
23:34
Speaker 6: care about the conversations that are taking place by and
23:37
Speaker 6: among Americans on TikTok that are all in jeopardy due
23:41
Speaker 6: to this ban. The TC Circuit really didn't care about
23:44
Speaker 6: that issue. They just lumped it together under the broad
23:47
Speaker 6: heading of TikTok's concerns. They didn't otherwise pay attention to
23:51
Speaker 6: TikTok's user's interests. I'm hopeful the Supreme Court will be
23:55
Speaker 6: more sensitive to that, but we'll have to see Jump.
23:58
Speaker 3: Takes office after the TikTok ban goes into effect if
24:03
Speaker 3: the Supreme Court doesn't do anything about that, He's been
24:06
Speaker 3: all over.
24:06
Speaker 4: The map about TikTok.
24:08
Speaker 3: He met with executives of TikTok at marl Lago this week.
24:14
Speaker 3: He said recently he has a warm spot in his
24:17
Speaker 3: heart for TikTok. Let's say he does want to do
24:20
Speaker 3: something about.
24:20
Speaker 4: It, what could he do.
24:22
Speaker 6: By the time Trump takes office, either the TikTok ban
24:26
Speaker 6: will be enjoyed permanently or temporarily, or it will be
24:30
Speaker 6: an effect So the law has a mechanism that gives
24:33
Speaker 6: the president some discretion with respect to TikTok, but only
24:36
Speaker 6: Biden will be able to exercise that. So we'll know
24:39
Speaker 6: what Biden does before these office. But by the time
24:41
Speaker 6: Trump gets there, that particular option in the statue to
24:45
Speaker 6: delay the effectiveness of law won't be available to him.
24:48
Speaker 6: So at that point, Trump really has two choices. If
24:50
Speaker 6: you really want to protect TikTok first, as he could
24:53
Speaker 6: go back to Congress and ask Congress to rethink its banned.
24:57
Speaker 6: I don't think that's going to go anywhere. Even trump
25:00
Speaker 6: most loyal fans have been very solidly against anything that
25:04
Speaker 6: looks like it would benefit China, and so I just
25:07
Speaker 6: don't think that even if Trump asks, he's going to
25:09
Speaker 6: get a majority of Congress to change their minds. The
25:11
Speaker 6: other thing that Trump can do is that he could
25:14
Speaker 6: ask the Department of Justice not to enforce the laws,
25:17
Speaker 6: that the Department Justice could take a voluntary stance that
25:20
Speaker 6: those laws in effect, they're not going to devote any
25:23
Speaker 6: prosecutorial resources to it. Trump doesn't have the power to
25:26
Speaker 6: tell the DOJ what to do. He hass to ask.
25:29
Speaker 6: In practice, if he asked the DOJ to do something
25:32
Speaker 6: or not, they would likely do it. However, that only
25:36
Speaker 6: works if everyone around the Department Justice believes that the
25:40
Speaker 6: Department Justice won't actually change its mind, and that depends
25:44
Speaker 6: on believing that Trump won't change his mind. And given
25:47
Speaker 6: how mear curial Trump is, how often he has changed
25:50
Speaker 6: his tune, I don't think anyone would believe the Department
25:53
Speaker 6: of Justice if it said that it wasn't going to
25:55
Speaker 6: enforce the law that. I just think that everyone would
25:58
Speaker 6: view that as a short term statement, subject to change,
26:03
Speaker 6: and not make any decisions and reliance on it. So
26:07
Speaker 6: I really don't think Trump has any valid options to
26:10
Speaker 6: walk back the ban. You do, they have to go
26:13
Speaker 6: to Congress, or you have to ask to GEO dude
26:15
Speaker 6: do something, which I don't think would really make a difference.
26:18
Speaker 6: So this ban is real, and it's unfortunate that so
26:22
Speaker 6: many Americans don't realize that this band is coming for them.
26:25
Speaker 3: So people say, well, I have TikTok on my phone,
26:28
Speaker 3: I'm still going to use it. Explain what happens if
26:31
Speaker 3: this ban goes into effect.
26:33
Speaker 6: I'm still a little unclear about exactly what would happen
26:36
Speaker 6: post ban. We know that new downloads will become extremely difficult,
26:41
Speaker 6: if not impossible, So the ban affects the app stores.
26:45
Speaker 6: The app stores are going to do whatever the government
26:47
Speaker 6: tells them to do, and so the government tells them
26:49
Speaker 6: to take the apps out of their app stores, they'll
26:51
Speaker 6: do it.
26:52
Speaker 4: So.
26:52
Speaker 6: In addition, other service providers in the US are supposed
26:57
Speaker 6: to not provide support to TikTok, and I don't exactly
27:00
Speaker 6: know what implications that would have for the experience of
27:03
Speaker 6: the users who already have installed the app. I think
27:06
Speaker 6: what's likely to happen is that the app is going
27:09
Speaker 6: to start a death spiral. It won't happen in overnight,
27:12
Speaker 6: but over time, people will invest less of their time,
27:16
Speaker 6: or content producers will invest less in producing TikTok content,
27:21
Speaker 6: and so over time it becomes a ghost town. That
27:23
Speaker 6: might take months or years. But by stopping the inflow
27:27
Speaker 6: of new users and by making it harder for existing
27:31
Speaker 6: users to take advantage of it, I just think people
27:33
Speaker 6: will start to migrate elsewhere.
27:35
Speaker 3: Yeah, and it's papers TikTok said that being shuttered for
27:38
Speaker 3: even one month would cause it to lose about a
27:41
Speaker 3: third of its US users, So we see what would
27:44
Speaker 3: happen losing.
27:46
Speaker 6: The users outright. It's also that users are just going
27:49
Speaker 6: to invest less of their time, or content producers will
27:51
Speaker 6: invest less in producing good content. People are just going
27:55
Speaker 6: to take their marbles and play it in some other playgrounds.
27:57
Speaker 6: But the problem with the TikTok ban, and why that's
28:00
Speaker 6: so legally significant, is that some conversations won't migrate anywhere else,
28:05
Speaker 6: They'll simply be lost. That there's certain ways that TikTok
28:09
Speaker 6: conversations work that don't work on other environments, and there's
28:12
Speaker 6: certain communities that develops on TikTok that won't replicate elsewhere.
28:16
Speaker 6: So though TikTok will become a ghost town and some
28:19
Speaker 6: people will migrate to other services, there's going to be
28:22
Speaker 6: some conversations to get lost in the equation. And that's
28:24
Speaker 6: the real speech charm.
28:25
Speaker 3: Have you heard anything new about a possible sale because
28:29
Speaker 3: of the ban, Although a lot of people say it's
28:31
Speaker 3: not a ban because it can be sold, so it's
28:34
Speaker 3: not a ban. I mean there seems to be nobody
28:36
Speaker 3: who's stepping up to buy it.
28:38
Speaker 6: Yeah, we don't know what's going on in backroom negotiations.
28:41
Speaker 6: We don't know to what it's done, they're not able
28:43
Speaker 6: to work on a price, or that the Chinese government
28:46
Speaker 6: is blocking the sale behind the scenes, or that there
28:49
Speaker 6: just has any interest in taking it over. It's really
28:52
Speaker 6: hard to reverse engineer why a sale isn't happening. But
28:57
Speaker 6: TikTok has been clear all along that that was not
28:59
Speaker 6: it's game place and that it was going to accept
29:01
Speaker 6: the ban over a sale. And from my perspective, the
29:04
Speaker 6: idea of sell or ban is really a ban, and
29:08
Speaker 6: yet the DC Circuit was open idea. All TikTok had
29:11
Speaker 6: to do was just sell, And from my perspective, I
29:14
Speaker 6: felt offended by that. I felt like that was really
29:16
Speaker 6: toned up.
29:17
Speaker 3: Bloomberg Intelligence litigation analyst Matthew Shettenhelm is giving TikTok a
29:22
Speaker 3: thirty percent chance of success at the Supreme Court. So
29:27
Speaker 3: do you think it's an uphill battle for TikTok at
29:30
Speaker 3: the Supreme Court.
29:31
Speaker 6: I wouldn't put money on either side of the equation
29:33
Speaker 6: TikTok winning or losing the Supreme Court. I just view
29:36
Speaker 6: the risks as being too hazy to really make an
29:40
Speaker 6: educated gamble. Having said that, for those who think that
29:43
Speaker 6: TikTok has an uphill battle, they have good evidence to
29:46
Speaker 6: support that. The DC Circus opinion was a unanimous opinion
29:50
Speaker 6: and the Supreme Court will absolutely pay attention to it.
29:53
Speaker 6: So the most recent statement in this cases TikTok loses,
29:56
Speaker 6: the band succeeds, And so anyone who puts the money
29:59
Speaker 6: on that I understand. But I also think that the
30:02
Speaker 6: Supreme Court is open to an alternative outcome given what
30:07
Speaker 6: they said in July. So if they are the people
30:09
Speaker 6: put money on TikTok. I could see that as well.
30:12
Speaker 3: So what are the other outcomes besides an outright win
30:17
Speaker 3: or loss.
30:18
Speaker 6: One possibility is that the Supreme Court says that it
30:21
Speaker 6: can't reach a final decision and that additional work needs
30:25
Speaker 6: to be done by lower courts, so we get a
30:27
Speaker 6: non answer for the Supreme Court. Another possible outcomes of
30:31
Speaker 6: the Supreme Court upholds parts of the ban and strikes
30:35
Speaker 6: down other parts. I don't really know what that looks like.
30:38
Speaker 6: We'd have to see, but the point is that it's
30:40
Speaker 6: not as easy as just does the Supreme Court uphold
30:42
Speaker 6: the ban outright or not, because there's a whole bunch
30:45
Speaker 6: of other tools in the Supreme Court's toolkits.
30:48
Speaker 4: So we'll talk.
30:48
Speaker 3: Again on January tenth. Thanks so much, Eric. That's Professor
30:52
Speaker 3: Eric Goleman of the Santa Clara University Law School, turning
30:56
Speaker 3: now to a murder conviction. Earlier this week, an acquaintance
30:59
Speaker 3: of cash app founder Bob Lee was found guilty of
31:02
Speaker 3: murdering him on a downtown San Francisco street in April
31:06
Speaker 3: of twenty twenty three, and faces the possibility of life
31:10
Speaker 3: in prison. A jury rejected Nima Mamoni's claim that he'd
31:14
Speaker 3: stabbed Lee in self defense after Lee, high on drugs
31:18
Speaker 3: and sleep deprived, try to attack him with a knife.
31:21
Speaker 3: Tuesday's verdict followed about a week of jury deliberations in
31:25
Speaker 3: a high profile trial that featured more than a month
31:28
Speaker 3: of witness testimony. Joining me is Bloomberg Legal reporter Mathi Nayak,
31:32
Speaker 3: who covered the trial. Marthy start by telling us a
31:35
Speaker 3: little about Bob Lee and the reaction in San Francisco
31:39
Speaker 3: to the shooting.
31:40
Speaker 7: So, Bob Lee is a celebrated executive in the technology
31:45
Speaker 7: world in San Francisco. He's known as a coder, a
31:49
Speaker 7: supercoder in fact, who helped Google develop Android and also
31:55
Speaker 7: squares Cash app, which he was an executive app and
31:59
Speaker 7: he was a founder off. So when he died, there
32:01
Speaker 7: was definitely a lot of reactions, especially you know, at
32:06
Speaker 7: first people thought it was possible that someone was just
32:09
Speaker 7: killed on the streets of San Francisco. And at the time,
32:12
Speaker 7: there was all this news about how San Francisco had
32:14
Speaker 7: sort of really spiraled into a state of lawlessness and
32:18
Speaker 7: that people could get shot, and that there was drugs
32:20
Speaker 7: on the streets, and you know, drug dealers and all
32:24
Speaker 7: these bad guys roaming around on the streets. So there
32:26
Speaker 7: was definitely a very strong reaction. People were sort of
32:29
Speaker 7: surprised that this had happened, and it was only later
32:31
Speaker 7: that we learned a little bit more about the facts
32:34
Speaker 7: and some brainy videos that then you know, the police shared,
32:38
Speaker 7: and then it appeared that he was actually seen, you know,
32:41
Speaker 7: not far from the iconic day Bridge tackling this other
32:44
Speaker 7: man and they had some sort of an encounter and
32:47
Speaker 7: he was stabbed, and then there's also a video of
32:50
Speaker 7: him sort of walking away from this encounter. It seems
32:54
Speaker 7: like he then called nine one one was leading. So yeah,
32:57
Speaker 7: it was definitely a strong reaction given that we don't
33:00
Speaker 7: hear a lot of you know, such violent crime. Mondisquez
33:03
Speaker 7: of San Francisco.
33:04
Speaker 3: So what was the prosecutor's theory of the case. Why
33:08
Speaker 3: did they say the defendant did this?
33:11
Speaker 7: So it's this very sort of interesting sort of tale
33:15
Speaker 7: about Nima Mumeni and his sister Cazar, and Casar was
33:20
Speaker 7: friends with Bob Lee, and it turned out that, you know,
33:24
Speaker 7: during the trial, there was all this sort of information
33:27
Speaker 7: and sort of testimony that came out about the drugs
33:30
Speaker 7: that you know, they were doing, and it turns out
33:33
Speaker 7: that one night, bob Ly introduced her to a friend
33:36
Speaker 7: who was like a party host to a drug dealer,
33:38
Speaker 7: and they did some drugs together. There was some sort
33:41
Speaker 7: of like sexual assault that Cauzer said she faced from
33:45
Speaker 7: this friend of Bob Lee, and she was upset about that.
33:50
Speaker 7: And then that night bob Ly and Nima many ended
33:53
Speaker 7: up at the Millennium Tower, which is this building in
33:57
Speaker 7: San Francisco, luxury high rise apartment and they ended up
34:01
Speaker 7: at Kazar's house late at night, and I think Kasar
34:03
Speaker 7: had complained to her brother about what had happened and
34:06
Speaker 7: he was upset with bob Lee. But the thing is
34:09
Speaker 7: that it wasn't Bob Lee who allegedly assaulted the sister,
34:14
Speaker 7: but Bobly was the one who sort of introduced Casar
34:17
Speaker 7: Nima to the party host who supposedly misbehaved with Kazar.
34:22
Speaker 7: So they had some sort of like a tiff over
34:24
Speaker 7: this situation. And you know, there's a video of Bob
34:28
Speaker 7: Lee and Nima driving away in a car from Millennium Tower,
34:33
Speaker 7: and then they got out and they started sort of
34:35
Speaker 7: fighting on the streets. And there was also like a
34:37
Speaker 7: paring knife that was used in this murder and supposedly
34:42
Speaker 7: it was from the same brand of knives and silverware
34:46
Speaker 7: that Mima Momeni's sister had in her kitten. So the
34:50
Speaker 7: prosecutors said that, you know, they had some sort of
34:53
Speaker 7: TIFFs and Lima Mumeni was really angry and like a
34:57
Speaker 7: fit of rage, he took that knife and planned to
35:00
Speaker 7: drive out and kill bobly in the middle of the night.
35:03
Speaker 7: But the defense attorneys it was kind of interesting. Towards
35:07
Speaker 7: the end, on the very last day, they showed another
35:09
Speaker 7: video which hadn't come up, you know, during the evidence
35:12
Speaker 7: that was presented to the jury. But at the very
35:15
Speaker 7: last minute, they showed another video of Bob Lee that
35:18
Speaker 7: same night standing outside this very exclusive club called the
35:22
Speaker 7: Battery for technology executives and other tech industry folks who
35:26
Speaker 7: are members there. So he was standing outside doing drugs.
35:31
Speaker 7: It looked like he was snotting coke. And the issue
35:33
Speaker 7: with all these videos is they're so greatly it's really
35:35
Speaker 7: hard to know what's going on, and I'm sure the
35:37
Speaker 7: jurists must have struggled with that too. But he's standing
35:39
Speaker 7: there and he's holding a knife that looks very similar
35:43
Speaker 7: to the knights that was used in the murder. So
35:46
Speaker 7: you know, at the last minute, the defense attorneys presented
35:50
Speaker 7: this video and said, you know, during closing arguments that
35:53
Speaker 7: actually it was Bob Lee's nice and you know, he'd
35:55
Speaker 7: used it to snot coke earlier that night, and that
35:58
Speaker 7: potentially it was just an act of self defense on
36:02
Speaker 7: Nima Momeni's part in terms of he was attacked first
36:04
Speaker 7: and he just kind of you know, fought back in
36:07
Speaker 7: self defense. And they said that it wasn't like first
36:10
Speaker 7: degree murder, wasn't premeditated or wilful, and eventually, you know,
36:15
Speaker 7: the jurors found that it was a lesser charge. It
36:17
Speaker 7: was second degree murder, so it wasn't premeditated, but they
36:20
Speaker 7: did think that Nima Momeni was the one who took
36:23
Speaker 7: the knife and stabbed Bobby.
36:25
Speaker 3: So the prosecutors were saying that this was a premeditated murder.
36:30
Speaker 3: What did they offer to prove premeditation here?
36:33
Speaker 7: So I think, you know, there was some phone call
36:36
Speaker 7: that Nima Momeni and Bobby had had where they were arguing,
36:39
Speaker 7: and they were also having his altercation at Ksar's home
36:43
Speaker 7: before they left Millennium Tower that night, so they thought
36:46
Speaker 7: that you know, Nima Momeni was engraged and really angry
36:49
Speaker 7: at what had happened to his sister and reacted and
36:53
Speaker 7: in a fit of rage, was the one who stabbed Bobby.
36:56
Speaker 4: The defendant took the stand.
36:58
Speaker 7: He did take the stand, and he he talked about
37:01
Speaker 7: how there was this altercation and that he, in fact,
37:06
Speaker 7: while they were driving off, like it just happened to
37:09
Speaker 7: make some sort of bad joke about Bob Lee, like
37:12
Speaker 7: potentially going to a strip club that night and not
37:15
Speaker 7: going to see his family. That enraged Bob Lee, and
37:19
Speaker 7: supposedly they had some sort of altercation in the car
37:22
Speaker 7: and they stepped out to talk it out, and then
37:24
Speaker 7: it kind of led to this encounter with this knife
37:27
Speaker 7: coming out, and according to him, it was just an
37:29
Speaker 7: act of self defense. So yeah, he did talk understand
37:33
Speaker 7: about this discussion that he had in the car and
37:36
Speaker 7: how it got heated and how he made a bad
37:38
Speaker 7: joke and how that led things to sort of inspire
37:42
Speaker 7: a lot of control.
37:43
Speaker 4: They did have.
37:44
Speaker 5: Video, Why wasn't it more helpful?
37:47
Speaker 7: It was sort of difficult because you know, the videos
37:49
Speaker 7: are so brainy, it's hard to see what was going on.
37:52
Speaker 7: You can't see, you know, who was the first one
37:54
Speaker 7: to stab or get the knife out. We don't know
37:57
Speaker 7: whose knife it was, if it was Bob Lee's or not,
38:00
Speaker 7: but yeah, there were definitely a lot of gaps. So yeah,
38:03
Speaker 7: it was definitely not an easy decision and they took
38:06
Speaker 7: about a week or so to decide, but eventually they
38:09
Speaker 7: did find that it was the lesser charge of second
38:12
Speaker 7: digree murder and that it wasn't feelful and premeditated, but
38:16
Speaker 7: that Mima Mumeni did murder Bobby.
38:20
Speaker 5: So how much time does he face?
38:23
Speaker 7: So he faces sixteen years to life in prison and
38:28
Speaker 7: his sentencing date hasn't been set yet but it could
38:31
Speaker 7: be a couple of months out, according to District Attorney
38:34
Speaker 7: of San Francisco, Brooke Jenkins.
38:36
Speaker 4: And was the courtroom packed for the verdict.
38:39
Speaker 7: Yes, it was. It was definitely back. There were, you know,
38:42
Speaker 7: a lot of members from both sides in terms of
38:45
Speaker 7: the families of Bobbly, his ex wife, Crystal Lee and
38:51
Speaker 7: his daughter was there as well as on Nima Momeni's side.
38:57
Speaker 7: Momeni's mom who had attended a trial and was frequently
39:02
Speaker 7: seen in court, And it was kind of interesting she
39:04
Speaker 7: was wearing black clothes like initially and then towards the
39:07
Speaker 7: end in the last days of the trial and during
39:10
Speaker 7: a verdict watch, she was wearing all white. You know,
39:14
Speaker 7: she sat there, you know, stoically as the verdict was
39:16
Speaker 7: read out, and then you know, later on, as a
39:18
Speaker 7: defense attorneys were addressing the media, you could see her,
39:21
Speaker 7: you know, upset and sort of wiping away tears. She
39:24
Speaker 7: said that she still believes her son is a kind
39:28
Speaker 7: and respectful individual, and she was upset by the jury's verdict.
39:33
Speaker 5: Did he have any reaction when the verdict was read?
39:36
Speaker 7: It was hard to see him because you know, he
39:39
Speaker 7: was actually sitting facing towards the judge and we could
39:42
Speaker 7: just see the back of his head. But one interesting
39:45
Speaker 7: thing to note was when everyone stood up at the
39:47
Speaker 7: end when the jurors were leaving, he continued to sit down.
39:51
Speaker 7: He just probably was just so upset that he didn't
39:54
Speaker 7: stand up when everyone else stood up as a jurors
39:57
Speaker 7: left the coast room.
39:58
Speaker 3: The defense is they're going to appeal. Do you have
40:00
Speaker 3: any idea what they'd appeal on.
40:03
Speaker 7: I think they said that certain evidence perhaps was not
40:06
Speaker 7: like weighed accurately by jurors, and they feel like even
40:11
Speaker 7: though it was the lesser charge of second degree murder,
40:14
Speaker 7: not first degree murder that the jurors did make a mistake.
40:18
Speaker 7: So yeah, they do plan to appeal and they're sort
40:21
Speaker 7: of weighing their options at the moment. Even District Attorney
40:24
Speaker 7: Brouke Jenkins said that she was expecting an appeal and
40:28
Speaker 7: they're going to continue fighting on.
40:30
Speaker 3: Did it come as a surprise in San Francisco, you know,
40:33
Speaker 3: the revelation of all this drug use by this respected
40:39
Speaker 3: tech guy.
40:39
Speaker 7: So you know, it's sort of interesting because it's not surprising,
40:43
Speaker 7: you know, I would think that in the world is
40:46
Speaker 7: sort of the rich, there is easy access to all
40:49
Speaker 7: of this stuff. But just taking it all in during
40:51
Speaker 7: the trial, it just struck me that all of this
40:54
Speaker 7: is actually going on, and it sort of gave us
40:56
Speaker 7: a glimpse into the life of some of these technology
40:59
Speaker 7: industry executive and how they need party and you know,
41:03
Speaker 7: go to festivals like Birding Man. We know all of
41:05
Speaker 7: that stuff, but we don't know what happens on the inside.
41:08
Speaker 7: And you know, Bobble's or top Seeded show that he
41:10
Speaker 7: had chetanine and cocaine in his body, you know, at
41:14
Speaker 7: the time of his death. And then when Casar and
41:17
Speaker 7: Mima Momeni's sister took the stend. She talked about how
41:21
Speaker 7: the prosecutors had shared some of her text messages and
41:24
Speaker 7: she had used a lot of foul language, and she
41:26
Speaker 7: said that because she was taking drugs so much that
41:30
Speaker 7: sometimes like her messages were really sort of aggressive or
41:34
Speaker 7: had bad language because she was doing all these drugs.
41:37
Speaker 3: You got to look into another world there, Mauthi, thanks
41:40
Speaker 3: so much. That's Bloomberg Legal reporter Malthy Nayak. And that's
41:44
Speaker 3: it for this edition of the Bloomberg Law Podcast. Remember
41:47
Speaker 3: you've can always get the latest legal and it was
41:49
Speaker 3: by subscribing and listening to the show on Apple Podcasts,
41:52
Speaker 3: Spotify and at Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast, slash Law.
41:57
Speaker 4: I'm June Grosso and this is Bloomberg a