Latest / Bloomberg Law / Trump Contentious Hearing & Adnan Syed Conviction Reinstated

Transcript

Trump Contentious Hearing & Adnan Syed Conviction Reinstated · Bloomberg Law

0:03
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio.
0:10
Speaker 2: In the first court here and in nearly a year,
0:13
Speaker 2: a lawyer for Donald Trump clashed with the judge in
0:16
Speaker 2: the federal election interference prosecution of the former president. Prosecutors
0:21
Speaker 2: and defense lawyers are bitterly at odds over the next
0:24
Speaker 2: steps in the case. After the Supreme Court narrowed the
0:28
Speaker 2: scope of the prosecution by ruling that former presidents are
0:31
Speaker 2: entitled to broad immunity from criminal charges. There were several
0:36
Speaker 2: tens exchanges between Judge Tanya Chuckkin and Trump lawyer John Lauro,
0:41
Speaker 2: particularly when he referenced the November election. We're talking about
0:45
Speaker 2: the presidency of the United States, Laura said. At one point,
0:50
Speaker 2: Chuckkins shot back, I'm not talking about the presidency of
0:53
Speaker 2: the United States. I'm talking about a fore count indictment.
0:57
Speaker 2: Joining me is Zoe Tillman, Bloomberg senior reporter who is
1:00
Speaker 2: at the hearing and is joining us from the courthouse. ZOEA.
1:03
Speaker 2: I understand it was pretty contentious between the judge and
1:07
Speaker 2: Trump's attorney.
1:08
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's right. You know, I think that the defense
1:12
Speaker 3: really wanted to come out swinging, saying that they think
1:14
Speaker 3: that the Special Council is rushing and trying to move
1:18
Speaker 3: things too fast and prejudice them by going first, essentially
1:23
Speaker 3: to try and make their case for why the indictment
1:25
Speaker 3: should move forward after the Supreme Court's immunity ruling, and
1:28
Speaker 3: the Judge repeatedly said, you know, I don't want to
1:31
Speaker 3: hear rhetoric. I want to hear legal arguments. It doesn't
1:35
Speaker 3: seem like there's rushing and you know, references to the election.
1:39
Speaker 3: The judge made clear that she was deeply uninterested considering
1:43
Speaker 3: the electoral calendar and deciding what to do next. So
1:46
Speaker 3: those are all tension points.
1:47
Speaker 2: Today, there was a dispute about which side will file
1:51
Speaker 2: briefs first. The Special Council wants to submit a brief
1:55
Speaker 2: first on why it's superseding indictment complies with the sup
2:00
Speaker 2: Frame Court's immunity decision, and it would include a lot
2:03
Speaker 2: of evidence like grand jury transcripts and FBI notes on
2:08
Speaker 2: witness interviews.
2:09
Speaker 3: They wanted to essentially lay out the facts and the
2:13
Speaker 3: evidence that they're going to present as part of this
2:16
Speaker 3: next stage of the case and then argue why those
2:21
Speaker 3: all survive the immunity decision. Either because they are not
2:25
Speaker 3: official acts by Trump as president, or even if they are,
2:29
Speaker 3: why they sort of overcome the presumption of immunity that
2:32
Speaker 3: the Supreme Court laid out for sort of non core
2:35
Speaker 3: official acts by a president. And so they argued that
2:39
Speaker 3: the most efficient way to do this, rather than wait
2:42
Speaker 3: for Trump to file emotion to dismiss the incitement, which
2:46
Speaker 3: would be the normal course of action, would be for
2:48
Speaker 3: them to preemptively sort of lay out their case, make
2:51
Speaker 3: the argument for why it is legally valid under the
2:56
Speaker 3: immunity framework, and then have Trump respond to that.
3:00
Speaker 2: So did the judge decide whether to proceed in that
3:03
Speaker 2: way with them filing the brief first.
3:05
Speaker 3: She did not. She said that she hoped to set
3:08
Speaker 3: a schedule later in the day or at least soon,
3:11
Speaker 3: And you know, agreed with Trump's lawyers that this would
3:14
Speaker 3: sort of be going out of order. That's the normal
3:16
Speaker 3: course of business, and the normal rules would call for
3:19
Speaker 3: the defense to go first and sort of raise the
3:22
Speaker 3: points they want to raise about what is sufficient in
3:24
Speaker 3: the new indictments. But as the judgment also noted, you know,
3:27
Speaker 3: just because normal course of action doesn't mean that they
3:31
Speaker 3: can't change up the order and the government argued that
3:35
Speaker 3: this would avoid multiple potential appeals by Trump's lawyers, versus
3:40
Speaker 3: putting everything sort of in one package and then whoever
3:43
Speaker 3: loses can take all of that up to the DC circuit.
3:47
Speaker 2: So it seemed as if the judge and the prosecution
3:50
Speaker 2: acknowledge that no matter what happened, there was going to
3:53
Speaker 2: be an appeal, and that the prosecution was just trying
3:56
Speaker 2: to keep it down to one appeal.
3:58
Speaker 3: That's right. Basically, Trump lawyers talked about wanting to handle
4:02
Speaker 3: this in a couple stages where they first want to
4:05
Speaker 3: argue that by keeping allegations about Donald Trump's efforts to
4:09
Speaker 3: pressure then Vice President Mike Pence in the indictment, that
4:14
Speaker 3: that conduct specifically is still official acts not entitled to immunity.
4:19
Speaker 3: And if that's the case, they argue, that means that
4:21
Speaker 3: this new grand jury that returned the superseding indictment was
4:25
Speaker 3: tainted and the entire indictment should be tossed up. And
4:28
Speaker 3: then if the judge disagrees and says that the Pence
4:32
Speaker 3: information can stay in, then they would go to a
4:35
Speaker 3: next round of briefing as to why other parts of
4:37
Speaker 3: the indictment bill fail. Out of the immunity test. But yees,
4:41
Speaker 3: I think everyone agreed that whatever happens, whatever jun Tutkin does,
4:45
Speaker 3: will be appealed, and she at one point even said
4:47
Speaker 3: that she thought it was a quote exercise in futility
4:50
Speaker 3: to try to set some kind of trial schedule because
4:53
Speaker 3: it just doesn't matter, and everything we put on hold
4:55
Speaker 3: again when it goes up to the circuit or the
4:57
Speaker 3: Supreme courtance.
4:58
Speaker 2: Trump's lawyers took the position that the whole case has
5:03
Speaker 2: to fall if Trump's interactions with Mike Pence are immune
5:07
Speaker 2: from prosecution, and did the judge disagree with the defense
5:11
Speaker 2: interpretation of the Supreme Court decision?
5:14
Speaker 3: Not in so many words, but she suggested that she
5:17
Speaker 3: didn't think that it was clear cut that that was
5:20
Speaker 3: definitely off limits and that it was official acts and
5:24
Speaker 3: immune from prosecution. I think a few times she indicated
5:28
Speaker 3: that what exactly the Supreme Court had to say about
5:31
Speaker 3: the indictment was not as sort of clear cut as
5:34
Speaker 3: Trump's lawyers suggested it was, and that it had to be,
5:39
Speaker 3: you know, a fact based determination as opposed to just
5:43
Speaker 3: a decision on the wall about whether that that part
5:46
Speaker 3: of the indictment is wholesale off limits to prosecutors or not.
5:50
Speaker 2: Anyone who read that decision knows it's not clear cut.
5:53
Speaker 2: There's not much that's clear cut in that decision. Now. Also,
5:57
Speaker 2: the Trump lawyers did not try before for this to
6:01
Speaker 2: make an argument that the Special Counsel's appointment is unconstitutional,
6:07
Speaker 2: but now they want to make that argument here they do.
6:11
Speaker 3: There was definitely some tense back and forth about that
6:13
Speaker 3: as well, you know, with the judge and the prosecutor
6:17
Speaker 3: from Jack's miss Office, Tom Wyndham, basically saying that they
6:20
Speaker 3: actually missed the deadline to raise that argument before the
6:24
Speaker 3: case was paused during the immunity fights. But regardless, you know,
6:28
Speaker 3: Judge Chuckkin is going to give them some time to
6:32
Speaker 3: raise that argument, but she already signaled that it's an
6:36
Speaker 3: uphill battle for them. They noted, you know, that Judge
6:39
Speaker 3: Eileen Cannon and Florida had just missed the other case
6:43
Speaker 3: that miss Office brought regarding Trump's handling class by documents
6:46
Speaker 3: on the appointment's clause issue, and that Justice Thomas, in
6:50
Speaker 3: a concurring opinion in the immunity case, had mentioned that
6:53
Speaker 3: issue as one of interests him at least. And Trump
6:57
Speaker 3: lawyer said, well, these two things you know, really make
7:01
Speaker 3: this an important issue for us to approach now. And
7:03
Speaker 3: Judge Chuckkins said, I don't know about that. She said
7:06
Speaker 3: that she thought Judge Cannon's opinion on this issue was
7:09
Speaker 3: not quote, particularly persuasive. So I think we got an
7:13
Speaker 3: indication that she's not inclined to join Judge Cannon and Florida.
7:17
Speaker 3: And there's also finding PC Circuit president on this issue.
7:20
Speaker 3: So regardless of what she thinks about Judge Cannon's opinion,
7:24
Speaker 3: her hands are tied here. But they'll be able to
7:26
Speaker 3: raise it, but you unlikely to succeed, at least not
7:30
Speaker 3: in the way that they did in Florida.
7:32
Speaker 2: Is there still an attempt to move the case forward
7:35
Speaker 2: quickly even though it's obvious that it can't be tried
7:38
Speaker 2: before the election. Or are the prosecutors sort of a
7:42
Speaker 2: little bit more laid back about it?
7:45
Speaker 3: You know, it's interesting when they put in writing what
7:48
Speaker 3: they wanted to do next ahead of this hearing, the
7:50
Speaker 3: government noticeably did not commit to a certain date when
7:54
Speaker 3: they wanted things to get started. They just said that
7:56
Speaker 3: we're prepared to move as quickly as the judge wants
7:59
Speaker 3: us to. In court today, Judge Chuckkins said, you got
8:02
Speaker 3: to give me more than that. You know, how quickly
8:04
Speaker 3: are you prepared to really move and they said three weeks,
8:07
Speaker 3: two to three weeks, probably three weeks, so you know,
8:10
Speaker 3: that's that is quite fast. And I think it's really
8:13
Speaker 3: now a question of is the judge inclined to go
8:18
Speaker 3: with that schedule and sort of move things forward and
8:22
Speaker 3: have you know, new pleadings and aspects of this fight
8:27
Speaker 3: play out publicly before the election, or is she inclined
8:31
Speaker 3: to go with the sort of slower pace post election
8:34
Speaker 3: schedule that Trump's lawyers have proposed.
8:37
Speaker 2: And at one point, did Trump's lawyer actually say that
8:40
Speaker 2: they didn't want sensitive information coming out before the election?
8:45
Speaker 3: You know what Trump lay, John Laurro said a few
8:48
Speaker 3: times because he referred to this quick, sensitive time, and
8:52
Speaker 3: he brought that up a few times, and the judge
8:54
Speaker 3: finally said, let's talk about what you're talking about here.
8:57
Speaker 3: You're talking about the election. She goes, you know, I
9:00
Speaker 3: understand that there's an election coming, but and this is
9:03
Speaker 3: the point that she's made before the election does not
9:06
Speaker 3: dictate my schedule. It's not relevant to the schedule that
9:09
Speaker 3: I'm setting here. And at one point she even said
9:12
Speaker 3: to trumpflar. She accused them of trying to drag this
9:15
Speaker 3: out to avoid influencing the election, and you know, their
9:19
Speaker 3: argument was that they didn't want the government to sort
9:22
Speaker 3: of go first, right, So the implication was that they
9:25
Speaker 3: were trying to delay this anything coming out that might
9:29
Speaker 3: be hurtful to Trump's campaign before the election. And John
9:32
Speaker 3: Laurier pushed back on that and said, no, no, that's
9:34
Speaker 3: not what we're trying to do here. We just think
9:36
Speaker 3: that the Supreme Court has required us to give these
9:39
Speaker 3: very weighty issues related to the presidency careful considerations. That
9:43
Speaker 3: it was clear, you know, she was trying to unwrap
9:46
Speaker 3: what she said was really the subtext of what they
9:48
Speaker 3: were saying. When Dunlaer kept talking about this being a
9:51
Speaker 3: sensitive time.
9:52
Speaker 2: No surprise that they're trying to delay the case, as
9:55
Speaker 2: they've delayed every case so far. Was there any talk
9:59
Speaker 2: of whold an evidentiary hearing? Perhaps before the election.
10:04
Speaker 3: There was, but it didn't sound like that something that
10:06
Speaker 3: would happen anytime here from lawyer John Morrow talked about
10:11
Speaker 3: at some point their clients should have the ability to
10:14
Speaker 3: question the Special Counsel's witnesses and test their evidence as
10:18
Speaker 3: this immunity fight plays out, but neither side was really
10:22
Speaker 3: pushing for that kind of airing of evidence or testimony
10:28
Speaker 3: in the near future.
10:29
Speaker 2: So what's the next thing that will happen.
10:32
Speaker 3: So what we're waiting for now is for the judge
10:34
Speaker 3: to enter a scheduling order and it will indicate sort
10:38
Speaker 3: of who wins and loses this round, at least when
10:41
Speaker 3: it comes to timing, and will see, you know, if
10:44
Speaker 3: she sets any deadlines before November fifth, that's really the
10:48
Speaker 3: most important operative date right now, and what order she
10:51
Speaker 3: puts things in, if she has breathed to do sort
10:54
Speaker 3: of all at once, or if she staggers them. But
10:56
Speaker 3: we're not really expecting any other surprises on just when
11:01
Speaker 3: those first deadlines are Judge Chuckkin.
11:04
Speaker 2: Judge Chuckkins seems like a no nonsense judge. Judge Chuckkins
11:09
Speaker 2: seems like a no nonsense judge.
11:12
Speaker 3: She does, and you know, I think as a reporter
11:16
Speaker 3: watching her, you could sense the frustration that she had
11:20
Speaker 3: with some of the ways that Trump's lawyers were framing
11:23
Speaker 3: their arguments. You At one point she told John Laura
11:26
Speaker 3: to sort of cool it with the rhetoric, and he
11:29
Speaker 3: pushed back and said this is not rhetoric. These are
11:31
Speaker 3: legal arguments.
11:32
Speaker 2: Thanks so much, Zoe for taking us inside the courtroom.
11:36
Speaker 2: That's Bloomberg Senior reporter Zoe Tillman coming up next on
11:40
Speaker 2: the Bloomberg Law Show. Another twist and turn in the
11:44
Speaker 2: odd non Sayyed case, the legal saga that gained national
11:48
Speaker 2: attention through the podcast serial. I'm June Grosso and you're
11:53
Speaker 2: listening to Bloomberg. Yet another twist and turn in the
11:57
Speaker 2: odd non Sayyed case, a llegal saga that gained national
12:01
Speaker 2: attention through the hit podcast serial. After more than two
12:05
Speaker 2: decades in prison, Sayed was freed in September of twenty
12:09
Speaker 2: twenty two when a Baltimore judge overturned his conviction for
12:13
Speaker 2: the murder of his ex girlfriend at the request of
12:16
Speaker 2: Baltimore prosecutors, who said they found flaws in the evidence
12:20
Speaker 2: used against him at trial. But now Siyed is once
12:24
Speaker 2: again facing prison. His conviction has been reinstated after the
12:30
Speaker 2: Maryland Supreme Court, in a four to three decision, ruled
12:33
Speaker 2: that the earlier proceedings had violated the rights of the
12:37
Speaker 2: victim's family because they weren't given enough notice of the
12:41
Speaker 2: time of the hearing. Joining me as trial attorney David
12:44
Speaker 2: Ring of Tailor and Ring in Los Angeles. If prosecutors
12:48
Speaker 2: decide that they've wrongfully convicted someone, shouldn't it be their
12:52
Speaker 2: decision to drop the charges? I mean, why should a
12:55
Speaker 2: court make that decision?
12:57
Speaker 1: The court has a say in that because the or
13:00
Speaker 1: it's the ultimate gatekeeper. You know, we have to have
13:02
Speaker 1: checks and balances. Look, most of the time, if the
13:05
Speaker 1: prosecution comes in and says, hey, you know, this guy's
13:08
Speaker 1: wrongfully convicted, the vast majority of the time, the court's
13:12
Speaker 1: going to agree with them and drop the charges. But
13:15
Speaker 1: this court still has to sign off on it. There
13:17
Speaker 1: still has to be some sort of hearing, and it's
13:20
Speaker 1: just a way to have checks and balances to make
13:22
Speaker 1: sure that everyone's playing fairly in the system.
13:26
Speaker 2: So in this case, the issue is that the victim's brother,
13:29
Speaker 2: who spoke at the hearing by video conference from his
13:33
Speaker 2: house in California, he argued that you should have gotten
13:36
Speaker 2: more notice of the proceeding. He was given notice on
13:40
Speaker 2: Friday about a Monday hearing.
13:43
Speaker 1: That was the issue. But here's the bigger picture on
13:46
Speaker 1: that issue. Because the way it's kind of framed sometimes
13:49
Speaker 1: in the media, it's like well, what's the big deal?
13:51
Speaker 1: He beared by zoom. But that hearing was a monumental hearing.
13:55
Speaker 1: That was a hearing where the prosecution basically came into
13:59
Speaker 1: court and said, hey, Court, we want to drop these charges,
14:02
Speaker 1: we want to have this conviction overturned. And what Maryland's
14:06
Speaker 1: highest court has said in respond to that was, if
14:09
Speaker 1: you're going to have a hearing like that, the victim
14:13
Speaker 1: or the victim's representative absolutely has a right not only
14:16
Speaker 1: to be there in person, but to be heard. And
14:20
Speaker 1: that's a big part of this ruling is that you know,
14:23
Speaker 1: the victim's brother, mister Lee, he was in California. He
14:27
Speaker 1: was given notice on a Friday to be there Monday.
14:30
Speaker 1: He had an attorney who was representing him. They said, hey,
14:32
Speaker 1: give us another week. We want to be there in
14:34
Speaker 1: person and we want to be heard. And they weren't
14:36
Speaker 1: given that opportunity. And the key to this decision is
14:39
Speaker 1: if he had been given time to come to Baltimore
14:43
Speaker 1: to appear in court with his lawyer, the lawyer has
14:46
Speaker 1: a right to argue in basically in the shoes of
14:49
Speaker 1: the victim and say why is this conviction being dropped?
14:53
Speaker 1: There's plenty of evidence here, this guy did it, there's
14:56
Speaker 1: no new evidence to drop it, and they basically have
14:59
Speaker 1: a right to challenge the prosecution's decision to drop the case.
15:03
Speaker 1: That's where this decision is so important.
15:07
Speaker 2: There's no set time for the notice to a victim
15:10
Speaker 2: in Maryland law. So how did the Maryland Supreme Court
15:14
Speaker 2: decide what notice is enough? And how did they.
15:17
Speaker 1: Come to that it's a reasonableness standard. And so basically,
15:21
Speaker 1: in a very close decision four to three, the Supreme
15:24
Speaker 1: Court said it's not reasonable to tell the victims representative
15:30
Speaker 1: on a Friday that you're having a hearing on a
15:32
Speaker 1: Monday and say, oh, gee, but you can appear by zoom.
15:36
Speaker 1: That's not reasonable. They have a right to be there
15:38
Speaker 1: in person. So what's reasonable? Okay, set it a week out,
15:42
Speaker 1: two weeks out, but setting it on the next business
15:45
Speaker 1: day unreasonable. It denied the victim's representative of his right
15:50
Speaker 1: to be in court and to be heard. That's the key.
15:54
Speaker 2: While the appeal was pending, and eight days before the deadline,
15:57
Speaker 2: the Baltimore States Attorney had dropped all charges against Sayed
16:04
Speaker 2: in the dessense, Justice Michelle Houghten argued the issue was
16:08
Speaker 2: moot because the underlying charges no longer exist. Quote, this
16:12
Speaker 2: case exists as a procedural zombie. It has been reanimated
16:16
Speaker 2: despite its expiration. The doctrine of mootoness was designed to
16:20
Speaker 2: prevent such judicial necromancy. Very good language.
16:24
Speaker 1: Then I totally disagree with her. I think in this
16:28
Speaker 1: day and age, the victim's rights are incredibly important, and
16:32
Speaker 1: too many times the victim or their family the rights
16:35
Speaker 1: get trampled in the criminal process and the prosecutor. Remember,
16:39
Speaker 1: the prosecutor represents the people. They don't necessarily represent the
16:43
Speaker 1: victim's family or the victim. They represent the people. And
16:47
Speaker 1: so I think what Maryland Supreme Court has said here is, hey,
16:50
Speaker 1: you know what, we're going to respect the victim's rights here.
16:54
Speaker 1: And this victim had its rights trampled upon by this prosecutor,
16:58
Speaker 1: who who quickly went in court had completely reversed course
17:02
Speaker 1: on how they felt about Saii's conviction and suddenly was
17:06
Speaker 1: willing to let this guy go free. And basically the
17:09
Speaker 1: Supreme Court of Maryland said, hey, you know what, that's
17:13
Speaker 1: not fair. This victim her representative has an absolute right
17:17
Speaker 1: to be there and to challenge that decision by the prosecutor. Look,
17:21
Speaker 1: I think if you want to kind of read between
17:23
Speaker 1: the lines here, you know, sometimes we have to read
17:26
Speaker 1: between the lines of how these decisions get played out
17:29
Speaker 1: in the highest course. I think that the Supreme Court
17:33
Speaker 1: is basically saying, we don't think Saia should be free.
17:36
Speaker 1: We think there should be a new trial. Why did
17:38
Speaker 1: the prosecution, you know, fight this for twenty years and
17:42
Speaker 1: then suddenly in twenty twenty two reverse course and say, yeah,
17:46
Speaker 1: you know what, he should be free. Why did that
17:48
Speaker 1: suddenly happen? I think they want to see a new trial.
17:51
Speaker 1: They don't want to see him go free.
17:53
Speaker 2: Well, the prosecution did a complete new investigation and new
17:59
Speaker 2: DNA has staying from the shoes of the victim, excluded
18:04
Speaker 2: Sayed as a suspect. The prosecution had new evidence, and
18:08
Speaker 2: you know, the rights of the victim are one thing,
18:10
Speaker 2: but you know that our justice system is far from
18:14
Speaker 2: perfect and there are a lot of wrongful convictions. So
18:17
Speaker 2: how do you weigh you know, the twists and turns
18:20
Speaker 2: in this case. It's been going on for twenty years,
18:23
Speaker 2: you know, the rights of the victim versus the rights
18:26
Speaker 2: of a defendant that the prosecution says now was wrongfully convicted.
18:33
Speaker 1: Well, so Here's here's where this dynamic kicks in is
18:36
Speaker 1: because again it's all about the opportunity to be heard
18:40
Speaker 1: and to have a fair playing field. And so when
18:43
Speaker 1: the prosecution came in in twenty twenty two and said, oh,
18:46
Speaker 1: we have new evidence which we think exonerates, said, well,
18:51
Speaker 1: they did that behind closed doors. They didn't do that
18:54
Speaker 1: in open court. You know it's come out what the
18:57
Speaker 1: evidence was. But I'll tell you, if you'd have fresh
18:59
Speaker 1: eyes on that so called new evidence, I'm not sure
19:02
Speaker 1: how new or exculpatory it really is. I mean, there's
19:05
Speaker 1: no DNA on her shoes. To me, that's like a
19:08
Speaker 1: so wet you know, she was strangled to death. Why
19:11
Speaker 1: would there be his DNA on her shoes? How does
19:14
Speaker 1: that exonerate him? I get it. There's two sides to
19:17
Speaker 1: this case. There are people who absolutely believe he got
19:21
Speaker 1: railroaded and didn't do it, and there's people who believe
19:24
Speaker 1: that he absolutely did it. And so the Supreme Court
19:27
Speaker 1: is saying, you know what, not so fast here, not
19:29
Speaker 1: so fast prosecution. There's got to be a hearing on this.
19:33
Speaker 1: We want to shine a spotlight on what your new
19:35
Speaker 1: evidence is and what your reasons are for suddenly reversing
19:40
Speaker 1: a conviction and letting a guy go free, and we're
19:42
Speaker 1: not going to let you do it behind closed doors.
19:45
Speaker 2: Now there's another twist in the case because the Baltimore
19:49
Speaker 2: State's Attorney, Marilyn Moseby, who had moved to throw out
19:53
Speaker 2: the conviction and drop the charges, she's no longer the
19:56
Speaker 2: Baltimore State Attorney. And now there's a new Baltimore's state attorney,
20:01
Speaker 2: and his office said it needed time to review the
20:04
Speaker 2: Supreme Courts lent the opinion, and to determine whether his
20:08
Speaker 2: office has a conflict of interest in the case. What
20:11
Speaker 2: kind of conflict of interest are they referring to.
20:14
Speaker 1: So you have a new prosecutor, Ivan Bates, And in
20:18
Speaker 1: his campaign to become the prosecutor, he seemed to be
20:21
Speaker 1: a proponent that the conviction should be dropped. And so look,
20:25
Speaker 1: he's in a political pickle right now because it's a
20:27
Speaker 1: tough decision. Do you drop this conviction for murder or
20:31
Speaker 1: do you go ahead and reverse course yet again and
20:34
Speaker 1: have a new trial. So he might take the easy
20:37
Speaker 1: way out. He might punt it to another independent agency
20:40
Speaker 1: and let them make the decision. You know, he may
20:43
Speaker 1: look back at it and say, hey, this is too
20:45
Speaker 1: much water under the bridge here for this Baltimore prosecution office,
20:49
Speaker 1: and we've lost credibility on this case. Let's let an independent,
20:53
Speaker 1: another state agency come in and make that decision for us.
20:57
Speaker 2: This case, as you know, has gotten so much attention
21:01
Speaker 2: because of the serial podcast, and there have been so
21:05
Speaker 2: many legal twists and turns in the case. And after
21:10
Speaker 2: his release there were crowds outside the courthouse and it
21:14
Speaker 2: was covered nationally. He's now out pending the determination here.
21:20
Speaker 2: I mean, what would it be like politically for a
21:24
Speaker 2: state's attorney to say, oh, we're going to refile charges
21:28
Speaker 2: and you have to go back to prison.
21:30
Speaker 1: They'd absolutely be an outpright And I don't think anyone's
21:33
Speaker 1: expecting that decision to be made for that exact reason,
21:36
Speaker 1: because that's a tough decision to say, you know what,
21:39
Speaker 1: we're gonna have another trial, We're going to go through
21:42
Speaker 1: this all over again, and that's going to be more
21:44
Speaker 1: years and more appeals and all that, and you know,
21:47
Speaker 1: we're going to take this guy who's now out there
21:49
Speaker 1: and free and we're going to put him back in prison.
21:51
Speaker 1: That's the toughest decision to make. And you're right, The
21:54
Speaker 1: easy decision is we're just going to let things stand
21:56
Speaker 1: where they are. We're gon we're gonna pursue this any further.
21:59
Speaker 1: It's been going on too long already. It's been going
22:01
Speaker 1: on for twenty five years. You know, he was convicted
22:04
Speaker 1: in the year two thousand. This case has been going
22:07
Speaker 1: on for a long time. But it's not over yet
22:10
Speaker 1: because we still have to have this new hearing. The
22:13
Speaker 1: Supreme Court said there's going to be another hearing on
22:15
Speaker 1: whether this conviction is going to be dropped. The victim's
22:19
Speaker 1: brother has a right to be heard at that hearing,
22:22
Speaker 1: and then there could be appeals that flow from that.
22:24
Speaker 1: This case is going to go on for a few
22:27
Speaker 1: more years.
22:28
Speaker 2: Although if the victim's family gets its chance to appear
22:32
Speaker 2: and the charges are dropped again, that should and the appeals,
22:37
Speaker 2: I mean, tell us what could happen at this hearing.
22:40
Speaker 1: Well, look, here's the possible outcomes of this next hearing. Right,
22:44
Speaker 1: So it's going to be a redo, and we don't
22:46
Speaker 1: know which way the prosecution is going to come in.
22:49
Speaker 1: But let's say the prosecution stays where they were in
22:52
Speaker 1: twenty twenty two and says, hey, we think the conviction
22:54
Speaker 1: should be overturned, right, and then the mister Lee, the
22:59
Speaker 1: brother gets to come in and argue that shouldn't be
23:01
Speaker 1: the case. But let's say the judge agrees with that,
23:04
Speaker 1: all right, that probably brings an end to the case.
23:06
Speaker 1: You know, the conviction's overturned, he's free. Finally it's over. However,
23:11
Speaker 1: you know, there's going to be a new judge on
23:13
Speaker 1: this hearing. It's not going to be the judge from
23:15
Speaker 1: twenty twenty two. There's new prosecutors on this case, not
23:19
Speaker 1: the same ones from twenty twenty two, and there's a
23:22
Speaker 1: decent chance that with the new players involved and a
23:28
Speaker 1: new judge, this judge could say, you know what, I'm
23:30
Speaker 1: not going to overturn the conviction. We're going to have
23:34
Speaker 1: a new trial, and we're going to go back to
23:36
Speaker 1: square one, back where we were in two thousand, and
23:39
Speaker 1: have a new trial on this whole thing. I agree,
23:42
Speaker 1: it's a remote possibility, but it's a possibility.
23:45
Speaker 2: And it's really hard to try a murder case twenty
23:49
Speaker 2: five years later, very.
23:51
Speaker 1: Very difficult, especially given such the high profile, incredibly high
23:57
Speaker 1: profile nature of this case and all the interviews and
24:01
Speaker 1: the podcasts and all of the statements made by some
24:04
Speaker 1: of the key witnesses over the years, and wildly inconsistent
24:09
Speaker 1: statements and less space at the forensic evidence twenty five
24:13
Speaker 1: years ago is far different than what it is today.
24:17
Speaker 1: DNA and cell phone towers and all that. It would
24:20
Speaker 1: make it really, really tough to retry this case twenty
24:24
Speaker 1: five years later, A.
24:26
Speaker 2: Long way to go before that decision is made. Thanks
24:29
Speaker 2: so much, David. That's David Ring of Tailor and Ring
24:33
Speaker 2: coming up next. Short Sellers are spooked by the Andrew
24:37
Speaker 2: Left indictment. I'm Juan Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg.
24:42
Speaker 2: Short Sellers are beefing up disclaimers in their research reports
24:47
Speaker 2: in the clearest sign yet that the criminal charges against
24:50
Speaker 2: Andrew Left are reverberating throughout the industry. Short seller Andrew
24:55
Speaker 2: Left securities fraud trial has been scheduled to start on
24:58
Speaker 2: September thirtieth of twenty twenty five in federal court in
25:03
Speaker 2: Los Angeles. Prosecutors say Left exploited his ability to move
25:08
Speaker 2: stocks in almost two dozen companies. It's sort of a
25:11
Speaker 2: novel case, and Bloomberg legal reporter Eric Larson has looked
25:15
Speaker 2: into it. Were the criminal charges against Andrew Left sort
25:19
Speaker 2: of years in the making, you know, explain what happened there.
25:23
Speaker 4: So this investigation by the SEC and the DOJ had
25:27
Speaker 4: been going on for a few years. And Andrew Lasty's
25:30
Speaker 4: on a prominent short cellar. He's well known in the industry,
25:33
Speaker 4: and it was known that, you know, he was one
25:35
Speaker 4: of the people who was perhaps concerned. But the investigations
25:39
Speaker 4: sort of dragged on for a little while without anything happening,
25:41
Speaker 4: so I think some people thought it was over, and
25:43
Speaker 4: then you know, in July, out of nowhere came this
25:46
Speaker 4: SEC civil complaints and then a DOJ criminal charges for
25:50
Speaker 4: security spraud. So this was sort of the culmination of
25:53
Speaker 4: this investigation into the industry.
25:56
Speaker 2: So what exactly is he accused of doing.
26:00
Speaker 4: So it's a securities broad case and it's a little unusual.
26:04
Speaker 4: Someone called it a landmark case. And because it's alleging
26:08
Speaker 4: securities fraud without pointing to specific victims or anything like that.
26:13
Speaker 4: So the indictment accuses Andrew Left of misleading investors by
26:20
Speaker 4: issuing his research reports alleging, you know, that a company
26:24
Speaker 4: was overvalued by the market, in the hopes that his
26:28
Speaker 4: reports and his tweets about his reports and would have
26:31
Speaker 4: influence and would move the market just enough for him
26:34
Speaker 4: to make some trades, to close out his short positions
26:38
Speaker 4: or his long positions in some cases, and to make
26:40
Speaker 4: a quick profit. So the DJ alleges that he was
26:45
Speaker 4: misleading lying about his views on these companies in some
26:49
Speaker 4: cases by putting out target prices, saying that a company
26:51
Speaker 4: was trading for X but should be training at you
26:54
Speaker 4: know at why, and instead of holding on to his
26:58
Speaker 4: position to see if he was correct that the stock
27:01
Speaker 4: would fall that low, he would sell it, sometimes within
27:05
Speaker 4: hours or days or even minutes of putting out a
27:08
Speaker 4: negative report about the company, long before it reached that
27:11
Speaker 4: target price, for example. And so the DJ is saying
27:15
Speaker 4: that this was evidence of him trying to manipulate the
27:18
Speaker 4: market by misleading investors and trying to nudge stocks up
27:22
Speaker 4: or down in such a way that he could make
27:23
Speaker 4: a quick buck, making between sixteen and twenty million dollars
27:27
Speaker 4: in illicit profits over several years of doing this. So
27:31
Speaker 4: it's a very unusual case different they're not saying that
27:35
Speaker 4: specific investors and specific companies were defrauded of specific amounts
27:39
Speaker 4: of money. They're just saying that he manipulated the stocks
27:43
Speaker 4: in about fifteen companies, big companies like Tesla American Airlines, Twitter,
27:49
Speaker 4: Facebook back when they were known as the Twitter and
27:51
Speaker 4: Facebook by putting out negative reports and then making a
27:55
Speaker 4: quick profit when the.
27:56
Speaker 2: Stocks moved, and this industry general operates in gray areas.
28:03
Speaker 4: The way that short sellers I interviewed for the story
28:06
Speaker 4: described it is that they thought that there was a
28:09
Speaker 4: certain rule books that they were playing under that they
28:12
Speaker 4: understood that as long as they put out research reports
28:15
Speaker 4: with accurate information and it was clear that they stood
28:19
Speaker 4: the benefit from their own trading, that that was sufficient.
28:22
Speaker 4: So now I think there's this question about whether or
28:26
Speaker 4: not some activities in the short selling industry are okay,
28:30
Speaker 4: or whether or not other companies or researchers could be
28:33
Speaker 4: in the wrong. You know, a lot of it depends
28:35
Speaker 4: on how this case goes, if it goes to trial,
28:37
Speaker 4: what a cury decides. So the question that kind of
28:40
Speaker 4: boils down to, you know, today, can a short seller
28:45
Speaker 4: put out a report that is damning about a company
28:48
Speaker 4: in such a way that it nudges the stock down
28:50
Speaker 4: and specifically tries to make a profit by trading, you know,
28:54
Speaker 4: because short seller is the profit when a stock goes down.
28:57
Speaker 4: So if they put out a report that's negative of
28:59
Speaker 4: that a company, the stock goes down a bit and
29:01
Speaker 4: they trade they can make the money on that. So
29:04
Speaker 4: the case put out some clarity around that kind of behavior,
29:08
Speaker 4: and I should add that to Andrew left case. So
29:10
Speaker 4: it goes a bit further than just saying he did that.
29:13
Speaker 4: That invitment is filled with what the DLJA that describes
29:16
Speaker 4: with evidence of less specifically misleading the public about his
29:22
Speaker 4: trading intentions, So saying I'm going to hold this short
29:26
Speaker 4: on this company until it reaches zero, for example, but
29:29
Speaker 4: then not actually doing that, and also allegedly lying about
29:32
Speaker 4: his coordination with one or two hedge funds that he
29:36
Speaker 4: was allegedly secretly working with on the side to carry
29:39
Speaker 4: out additional trades on his behalf, coordinating those trades around
29:43
Speaker 4: his reports to again make some of this profits. So
29:46
Speaker 4: it's not just as straightforward as saying whether the type
29:48
Speaker 4: of trading is long or not. A lot of this
29:51
Speaker 4: conduct is more specific just to Andrew Left, But that
29:55
Speaker 4: doesn't mean that it isn't spooking the industry, and a
29:58
Speaker 4: lot of short sellers are concerned that the case could
30:01
Speaker 4: have a chilling effect on some of their profitable types
30:03
Speaker 4: of trades that they do.
30:05
Speaker 2: Eric, his lawyer, Left's lawyer said that his predictions about
30:10
Speaker 2: companies were accurate. Does the government disagree with that.
30:14
Speaker 4: There are a lot of cases where his predictions about
30:17
Speaker 4: companies were accurate, and the government doesn't really specifically allege otherwise.
30:21
Speaker 4: And that's another interesting angle to this case here. Obviously,
30:25
Speaker 4: the prosecutors are aware of it, and I believe that
30:28
Speaker 4: he broke the law anyway in his efforts to allegedly
30:32
Speaker 4: manipulate the markets and investors. And it seems that their
30:36
Speaker 4: reasoning is that even though he might have been correct
30:39
Speaker 4: that a company was heading down for various reasons, that
30:43
Speaker 4: his intentions, you know, with putting out his report was
30:47
Speaker 4: to try to somehow capture a profit by misleading people
30:50
Speaker 4: into helping him move the market down. So it is
30:53
Speaker 4: very complicated. I'm not going to pretend to totally understand
30:55
Speaker 4: it one hundreds, but it is going to be I
30:58
Speaker 4: think that a complicated casey if it goes to a jury,
31:02
Speaker 4: and a lot of the short sellers they talked to
31:04
Speaker 4: you made that exact point that you made. He was
31:06
Speaker 4: right a lot of the time, but you know, some
31:08
Speaker 4: of other short sellers prominent short sellers were critical of
31:12
Speaker 4: Andrew Left as well. So it's not like there's a
31:15
Speaker 4: uniform belief that this case was brought incorrectly. There are
31:19
Speaker 4: some short sellers who don't really engage in the type
31:22
Speaker 4: of trading that Andrew Left does who thinks that the
31:25
Speaker 4: case has some merit.
31:26
Speaker 2: Because I can see if the government would go after you,
31:29
Speaker 2: even if your predictions were correct. I could see why
31:33
Speaker 2: some short sellers would be spooked by this because where's.
31:36
Speaker 4: The line exactly? And I think that that's why we
31:39
Speaker 4: saw recently two research firms, Hindenberg Research, Carry's del Capital.
31:45
Speaker 4: They both recently put out reports, short reports about companies
31:48
Speaker 4: that help drive some stock down. As they do, that's
31:51
Speaker 4: the normal force of business. And they've always had, like
31:54
Speaker 4: all short sellers, including Andrew Left, they have detailed disclaimers,
31:58
Speaker 4: you know, telling the public, you know, their opinions, various
32:01
Speaker 4: legal assurances that they understand that they're not financial advisors
32:05
Speaker 4: for everyone and they could profit if the stock goes down,
32:09
Speaker 4: and that sort of thing. But these two outfits, Pinnenberg
32:12
Speaker 4: and Carry's Ville recently changed their disclaimers, and Carry's bill
32:16
Speaker 4: Capital in particular kind of four page disclaimer on the
32:19
Speaker 4: last report specifically ripped apart. This case against Andrew Left
32:24
Speaker 4: included a little bit of even like starcasm and humor
32:28
Speaker 4: and sort of picking at the allegations and saying, yes,
32:32
Speaker 4: let me just be very clear, we might make trade
32:35
Speaker 4: after we put out a report to make a profit,
32:38
Speaker 4: and you should just assume that's what we're going to do.
32:40
Speaker 4: So you can see that there's already been some impacts
32:43
Speaker 4: on the industry. But yeah, a lot of this, like
32:46
Speaker 4: I said, it's really just going to hinge on where
32:48
Speaker 4: this case goes. If the Justice Department has brought a
32:51
Speaker 4: good case here and is on point, or if they've
32:54
Speaker 4: sort of overstepped and didn't quite understand how the industry worked.
32:58
Speaker 4: As Andrew Left's lawyer and some other short sellers told me,
33:01
Speaker 4: that's their opinion that the DJ doesn't really understand how
33:05
Speaker 4: the industry works, and that's what's brought about this case.
33:08
Speaker 2: Well. Also, as you're right, one of less defenses are
33:13
Speaker 2: his own disclaimers that he posted. His lawyer said he
33:16
Speaker 2: posted a disclaimer that saying that no one should make
33:18
Speaker 2: assumptions about his trading. So I don't know that a
33:21
Speaker 2: disclaimer is going to do the trick.
33:23
Speaker 4: Yeah, I mean, that's clearly going to be a big
33:25
Speaker 4: part of the defense. But I think in probably a
33:28
Speaker 4: lot of cases, different types of cases, you know, disclaimers
33:31
Speaker 4: a different sorts come up as defenses, and it really
33:35
Speaker 4: is going to be up to the jury to decide
33:37
Speaker 4: whether or not everything is all fine and dandy because
33:41
Speaker 4: of that disclaimer. I think that's far from certain.
33:45
Speaker 2: And so what happens next in this case, I think.
33:48
Speaker 4: We can expect to see Andrew left the dismissal of
33:51
Speaker 4: the indictment at some point. No deadlines that I'm aware
33:54
Speaker 4: of said on that yet.
33:56
Speaker 2: And while I have you, you're always following the Trump cases.
34:01
Speaker 2: He tried once again to move the hush money case
34:04
Speaker 2: after the verdict and before the sentencing, he tried to
34:07
Speaker 2: move it to federal court. What was his reasoning.
34:11
Speaker 4: His reasoning was the July landmark US Supreme Court decision
34:16
Speaker 4: on presidential immunity finding that former presidents have some immunity
34:21
Speaker 4: from criminal charges for conduct related to their official duties
34:25
Speaker 4: in office. And that was a landmark decision finding that
34:28
Speaker 4: that type of immunity from criminal charges exist for the
34:32
Speaker 4: first time. So that of course came out after his
34:36
Speaker 4: conviction in the hush money case in May, so, Trump
34:40
Speaker 4: argued that the case should be removed to federal court
34:43
Speaker 4: because of the sort of federal questions raised around whether
34:47
Speaker 4: or not his trial was painted by evidence or testimony
34:51
Speaker 4: that wouldn't have been allowed under this new Supreme Court ruling.
34:54
Speaker 4: He argued that only a federal judge should decide this.
34:58
Speaker 4: Sister judge here in Manhattan rejected that and said that
35:02
Speaker 4: it was not in his jurisdiction to handle a New
35:06
Speaker 4: York state law case. Notwithstanding the argument that Trump made.
35:10
Speaker 4: It was actually trump second time to try to move
35:13
Speaker 4: the case to to federal court. You know, he tried
35:16
Speaker 4: that before the trial even happened, and that was shot down.
35:20
Speaker 4: He appealed that and sort of abandoned that appeal, so
35:23
Speaker 4: it never really went to an appeals court properly. But
35:26
Speaker 4: that was, of course before the immunity ruling. So he
35:29
Speaker 4: went back for a second bite at the apple. It
35:32
Speaker 4: didn't work out, and now he is appealing again.
35:36
Speaker 2: Explain one of the reasons why Trump wants to move
35:39
Speaker 2: this case to federal court.
35:42
Speaker 4: So, one potential benefit of moving this case to federal
35:46
Speaker 4: court would be that it could get to the Supreme
35:48
Speaker 4: Court faster. You could see him trying to overturn his
35:52
Speaker 4: guilty verdict and then if the judge denied that, you know,
35:56
Speaker 4: appealing to the Second Circuit and then onto the Supreme Court.
36:00
Speaker 4: In this sort of faster track route than you might imagine.
36:03
Speaker 4: It's had to work its way through the New York
36:06
Speaker 4: State Court his challenge to his verdict, which by the way,
36:09
Speaker 4: he's already appealed that verdict in state court. That's one benefit,
36:12
Speaker 4: and other is that it simply would delay his sentencing,
36:15
Speaker 4: which of course is set for September eighteenth. If this
36:18
Speaker 4: had been moved to federal court, that really would have
36:22
Speaker 4: been unlikely that that sentence thing would have been able
36:24
Speaker 4: to go forward. And of course the election is coming up.
36:27
Speaker 4: He has been fighting to avoid being sentenced before the
36:31
Speaker 4: voters go to the polls. He calls that election interference.
36:35
Speaker 2: Also, if it's a federal case and he wins the election,
36:39
Speaker 2: he can dismiss.
36:40
Speaker 4: It, right, he can ask the Justice Department to dismiss
36:44
Speaker 4: a case in federal court. You know, it's all very unprecedented.
36:48
Speaker 4: We did see this, however, happened, you might recall, and
36:52
Speaker 4: the civil defamation lawsuits filed by Ejene Carroll that was
36:55
Speaker 4: started in state court and he actually was able to
36:59
Speaker 4: move it as a result of the Westball Acts. Is
37:02
Speaker 4: something I know we talked about a lot back then,
37:04
Speaker 4: but the idea being that if has claimed it to
37:08
Speaker 4: be covered by that federal law had worked in federal court,
37:11
Speaker 4: he could have had the justice part and just missed
37:13
Speaker 4: the case that didn't end up happening, But that is
37:16
Speaker 4: another benefit to having it in fedal report.
37:19
Speaker 2: So many cases and so many motions. Thanks so much, Eric.
37:24
Speaker 2: That's Bloomberg Legal reporter Eric Larson, and that's it for
37:27
Speaker 2: this edition of the Bloomberg Law Podcast. Remember you can
37:30
Speaker 2: always get the latest legal news by subscribing and listening
37:33
Speaker 2: to the show on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at Bloomberg
37:37
Speaker 2: dot com, slash podcast, slash Law. I'm June Grosso and
37:41
Speaker 2: this is Bloomberg