September 25, 2025 • 32 mins
Former federal prosecutor Jessica Roth, a professor at Cardozo Law School, discusses President Trump calling on his Attorney General to prosecute his political enemies. Bloomberg legal reporter Patricia Hurtado discusses a federal judge rebuking the Justice Department for making statements about Luigi Mangione. June Grasso hosts.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
This is Bloomberg Law with June Grossel from Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
President Donald Trump and New York Attorney General Letitia James
have been involved in a war of words for years
over the fraud case James brought against Trump and his company.
In twenty twenty two.
Speaker 3 (00:22):
This raging maniac campaigned for office, ranting and raving about
her goal.
Speaker 4 (00:27):
Her only goal is.
Speaker 3 (00:28):
We got to get Donald Trump.
Speaker 4 (00:29):
We'll got together.
Speaker 3 (00:30):
If she knew nothing about me, I never heard of her.
Speaker 4 (00:33):
The scale and the scope of Donald Trump's fraud is staggering,
and so too is his ego and his belief that
the rules do not apply to him.
Speaker 3 (00:46):
Very simply put, it's a witch hunt. It's a disgrace.
We have a corrupt attorney general in the state.
Speaker 5 (00:54):
I am certain that he will engage in name calling
and taunts and race and call this a witch hunt.
But at the end of the day, the only thing
that matters are the facts and the numbers and numbers
my friends don't lie.
Speaker 2 (01:11):
That case resulted in a four hundred and sixty four
million dollar fraud penalty, which is now on appeal to
New York State's highest court. After a low repellate court
found it to be excessive, And now the tables have turned,
and Trump's Justice Department is investigating James over whether that
fraud case violated Trump's legal rights, in addition to a
(01:35):
separate investigation for alleged mortgage fraud, which has stalled. On Saturday,
Trump posted on truth Social addressing US Attorney General Pam
Bondi quote, Pam, I have reviewed over thirty statements and
posts saying that essentially same old story as last time.
All talk, no action, nothing is being done. What about
(01:59):
Komy Adam, shifty shift, Letitia. They're all guilty as hell,
but nothing is going to be done end quote. And
on Sunday, Trump repeated his calls for quick action on
the prosecutions.
Speaker 1 (02:12):
And we have to act fast. One way of the other,
one way of the other. They're guilty, they're not guilty.
Speaker 6 (02:19):
We have to act fast.
Speaker 3 (02:20):
If they're not.
Speaker 1 (02:21):
Guilty, that's fine.
Speaker 3 (02:22):
If they are guilty, or if they should be judged,
they should be judged, and we have to do it now.
Speaker 2 (02:28):
My guest is former federal prosecutor Jessica Roth, a professor
at Cardozo Law School. Jessica Richard Nixon famously had an
enemy's list, but it was kept under wraps until it
was exposed by John Deane during testimony before the Watergate Committee.
But President Trump is publicly urging his attorney general to
(02:51):
go after his political enemies. What might the repercussions be.
Speaker 7 (02:56):
Well, it's extremely unusual, to say the least, to have
it president so publicly calling for the prosecution of his
political adversaries. And should it come to pass that, in fact,
there are criminal charges brought against the people who he
is naming and urging his Attorney general to charge, I
think he's going to be providing evidence that would be
(03:17):
powerful in the motion to dismiss those charges based on
a claim of selective or vindictive prosecution.
Speaker 2 (03:24):
Traditionally, how much input does a president have on the
Justice Department's decisions to prosecute someone?
Speaker 7 (03:32):
Traditionally, the Justice Department acts independently of the president in
making individual prosecution decisions, and past administration since Watergate, have
put into place policies in order to preserve that independence
and effectively create a firewall between the prosecutors who make
(03:53):
charging decisions and the White House. So although the president
and his top level officials might have an appropriately would
have some input into policy priorities when it comes to
individual charging decisions. That is something that has been understood
that should be undertaken without direct input from the President,
(04:13):
and that communications between the Department of Justice and the
White House about cases and about even policy priorities should
be going through a select group of individuals, namely the
White House Council's Office on behalf of the White House,
and the Attorney General and other very senior people at
the Department of Justice, so that there will be essentially
(04:34):
some buffer between any potential interference in individual prosecution decisions.
Speaker 2 (04:41):
A federal prosecutor in Virginia resigned from his post after
being told he would be removed for not bringing mortgage
fraud charges against New York Attorney General Letitia James, and
he had determined Bloomberg News's reported that there just wasn't
enough evidence to support those charges, and that's what a
prosecutor is supposed to do, right. You only bring charges
(05:04):
if you think you can prove your case before a jury.
Speaker 7 (05:07):
It would appear that that prosecutor, who was a career prosecutor,
did do the right thing on pains of losing his job.
He was following the law and the evidence. It would appear.
Of course, we don't have a direct account from him
about what happened. But if he resigned his post or
was forced out because he refused to break charges where
there was not evidence to support a charge, or because
(05:30):
he thought that even if there were such evidence that
it was a politically motivated prosecution, then he upheld the
norms of prosecutorial independence and professional judgment in doing so.
And the fact that he resigned or was forced out,
depending on which account is true, I think is also
going to be an important part of any claim for
(05:50):
selective or vindictive prosecution if another prosecutor does file charges,
because I think it is circumstantial evidence that previous prosecutors,
who are career prosecutors who looked at the evidence, thought
they were not warranted.
Speaker 1 (06:03):
In this case, it's a high.
Speaker 2 (06:05):
Bar, isn't it to get a case dismissed on the
basis of selective or vindictive prosecution.
Speaker 7 (06:12):
It is a very high bar, and such claims are
notoriously difficult to win on because there is a presumption
of regularity that attaches to prosecution's decisions, and it requires
a proof of actual animists in bringing the case against
an individual. So here the fact that the president is
out in public effectively directing a prosecution of his political
(06:35):
opponents regardless of the evidence, essentially saying they're guilty of
something without regard to whatever may be available or what
those particular charges might require as elements under the law.
Combined with the fact that a career prosecutor who was
charged with the investigation apparently refused to bring charges and
(06:55):
was fired or resigned over that decision, all of that
may create ccumstances in which a court actually might dismiss
the case for vindictive prosecution or in a minimum, order
a hearing and discovery to get to the bottom of
the facts about what actually transpired before the case was brought.
Speaker 2 (07:14):
And yet, according to Bloomberg News sources, the Justice Department
is pushing ahead with its investigation of Letitia James for
mortgage fraud and apparently got the green light from the
Deputy Attorney General, Todd Blanche. But why push this forward
at this point when the defense is James could raise
(07:37):
seem to be mounting.
Speaker 7 (07:39):
I can't speak to the reasoning that is occurring within
the Department of Justice and the Attorney's Office in Virginia
in continuing the investigation and preparing charges if that, in
fact is what is happening. The first line of defense,
if you will, would be a grand jury that would
hear the evidence that may not return an indictment. That
(08:00):
also would be highly unusual. And yet we are seeing
around the country grandeurors actually refusing to indict on cases
where the evidence is lacking or for some other reason
that's within their purview to reject the charges, perhaps because
they perceive them as unwarranted, because they're trivial or disproportionate,
or perhaps because they perceive a political bias.
Speaker 1 (08:22):
So first we'd have.
Speaker 7 (08:23):
To see if a grand jury actually would return an indictment.
If they don't, the case couldn't go forward unless the
Department of Justice tried to present it to another grand jury,
which they could. But if they ever do get an indictment,
then it would go before a judge, and the defense
and guessing would bring emotion to dismiss based on selective
or vindictive prosecution. And there although there is this evidence
(08:47):
we've been discussing that would suggest that these are politically
motivated prosecutions, as the President has been calling for them
in public, the challenge might be proving that actually the
prosecution would not have been brought but for the political animus,
and then also attributing the political animus that the president
is voicing to the prosecutors who actually.
Speaker 1 (09:09):
Brought the charge.
Speaker 7 (09:11):
I think that those hurdles could be overcome and the
unique facts presented in this case, but I imagine those
would be things that the court would have to consider.
The typical case where somebody brings the claim of vindictive
or selective prosecution virtually vindictive prosecution, it is often after
someone has previously been charged and then additional charges are
launched against them after they exercised their right to go
(09:33):
to trial, for example, and so the claim is that
the individual prosecutor involved was being vindictive or a vindictiveness
based on something that the individual who was charged did
that irritated the individual prosecutor, something perhaps in that person's
personal life or business affairs. What's unusual here is that
we would have potentially aligned prosecutors speaking indictment before a
(09:55):
grand jury, and the animus would have to be attributed
to that person. That is essentially going from the President
of the United States through the Attorney General. And so
that's just not a typical fact pattern that we see
in these cases.
Speaker 2 (10:06):
The use of mortgage fraud allegations is not restricted to James.
The Trump administration is pursuing similar charges against California Senator
Adam Schiff and FED Chair Lisa Cook. I mean, the
federal government has rarely brought criminal charges over these kinds
of misstatements about primary residents and mortgage records. And also
(10:29):
there's reporting that members of Trump's cabinet and other Republican
officials made similar types of misstatements in mortgage applications. Would
that be part of a pattern of proof in a
selective or vindictive prosecution defense?
Speaker 5 (10:48):
Well.
Speaker 7 (10:48):
To prevail on a claim of selective prosecution, the defendants
would have to establish that they were selected for prosecution
for a crime that is not frequently charged, and that
they were selected essentially on the basis of some characteristic
that is protected. Often such cases are alleged that the
(11:11):
person was selected based on a legally protected classification such
as race, But the claims could also be based on
the person having exercised their First Amendment rights of speech
and political assembly, for example, And so it would be
helpful to prevail on such a claim if the defendants
could show that standalone mortgage fraud claims without proof of
(11:33):
other criminal activity were rarely brought, and that there were
other similarly situated persons like themselves and other members of
the president's own parties, So people who are not political foes,
people who had not exercised their First Amendment rights to
criticize the president. If those people were factually similarly situated
(11:53):
but were not prosecuted, if that could be established, that
would be very helpful to the defendants if they were
to bring us elective prosecution claim.
Speaker 2 (12:02):
The criminal referrals are coming from Bill Poulty, who is
the head of the FHFA, and Adam Schiff's attorney. Pret Barrara,
the former US Attorney for the Southern District of New York,
has described Paulty's actions as highly irregular and part of
(12:23):
a pattern of him misusing his office to go after
Trump's political opponents. Would his involvement here be part of,
you know, a defense if there were.
Speaker 7 (12:34):
A claim for selective or vindictive prosecution, I think the
court would take into account what are the circumstances that
contributed to bringing the prosecution, And certainly, if there were
an evidentiary hearing, the court would consider evidence about those
circumstances and the historical facts about how this case actually
(12:55):
wound up being brought. I don't think the fact that
it originated in a referral from one particular agency versus
another would be dispositive. But if there's no history of
cases being referred from that agency that resulted in charges
being brought for a mortgage fraud, that would certainly be
I think a data point in the Court's analysis of
(13:15):
whether there was animus or selection based on political affiliation
or First Amendment rights behind these particular prosecutions. Something that
looks irregular, In other words, in the course of how
these cases were investigated and the decision to charge was made,
would be something that would be of concern to the Court.
Speaker 2 (13:34):
Coming up next the White House's response, I'm June Grosso
and you're listening to Bloomberg. President Donald Trump appealed to
his Attorney General Pam Bondy on truth Social on Saturday
to bring charges against former FBI director James Comy, California
(13:54):
Senator Adam Schiff, and New York Attorney General Letitia James,
and the Associated Is reporting that the Justice Department is
preparing to ask a grand jury to indict Comy on
allegations that he lied to Congress. As prosecutors approach a
legal deadline for bringing charges, I've been talking to former
(14:15):
federal prosecutor Jessica Roth, a professor at Cardozo Law School.
At a press briefing on Monday, the White House Press
Secretary Caroline Levitt said that the President is fulfilling his
promise to restore a Department of Justice that demands accountability.
Speaker 6 (14:34):
It is not weaponizing the Department of Justice to demand
accountability for those who weaponize the Department of Justice, and
nobody knows what that looks like more than President Trump.
Speaker 2 (14:45):
Is there any explanation that would justify bringing these kinds
of prosecutions against political enemies.
Speaker 7 (14:54):
I can't see any explanation for characterizing the these investigations
that gets around the fact that they seem to be
explicitly politically motivated and targeting the president's enemies and perceived
political enemies. If the President wanted to prioritize mortgage fraud cases,
(15:18):
that would be neutral in terms of who would be targeted.
That would be one thing.
Speaker 1 (15:23):
That is the.
Speaker 7 (15:24):
Kind of policy decision with respect to criminal law enforcement
that prior administrations have pursued. Every administration has its criminal
law enforcement priorities, but to start with the individuals who
are to be prosecuted just flips the normal course and
the way in which decisions to investigate and prosecute should
(15:46):
be done and historically have been done following the facts
and the law, not targeting a particular individual to see
if any possible case can be developed against them based
on the fact that the individual is an enemy of
the president or the administration.
Speaker 2 (16:03):
Three of the people we've been talking about, Letitia James,
Adam Schiff, and James Comy are attorneys. In fact, call
Me was formerly the US attorney for Manhattan, but all
three have hired the lawyers to represent them. Explain what
goes into having to defend yourself before charges are brought,
(16:25):
and then once charges are brought, even if they're dismissed
early on, even.
Speaker 7 (16:31):
If charges are ultimately dismissed, a person's life can be
made deeply difficult, uncomfortable, and their reputation can be ruined,
and they can incur ruining financial expense in having to
defend themselves against allegations that are just out in the
public even prior to indictment, and then post indictment. Reportedly,
(16:54):
the individuals who have been named in these investigations have
had to incur a great deal of expense in lawyer's
fees in responding to subpoenas, going through their own information
even before subpoena is issued, to see how they would
prepare a defense, how they would respond to subpoenas when
and if they are issued. So is financially an enormous
(17:16):
burden on an individual is just to be the subject
of an investigation. And because the way this administration has
been carrying out a public campaign of smearing the reputations
of people, which is so far outside the norm of
what prosecutors ordinarily do and are permitted to do under
ethics rules, the reputations of these individuals is just being
(17:38):
dragged through the mud. So we have an complete upending
of norms in terms of how the Department of Justice
and the President are going about carrying out a public
campaign against individuals even before they are charged, and setting
up a situation where so much is already in the
public domain, long before charges have been fought and may
(18:01):
never be filed.
Speaker 2 (18:02):
I'm wondering what this kind of pressure does to attorneys
at the Justice department. There have been both a lot
of resignations and a lot of firings. What effect does
this kind of pressure have on the attorneys as they
do the everyday work.
Speaker 7 (18:22):
This must be enormously demoralizing to attorneys who are still
working at the Department of Justice, who recognize these efforts
to investigate and prosecute individuals based on their political speech
and political affiliation, who recognize this as a tremendous departure
(18:44):
from not only prosecutorial norms of independence, but from the
rule of law. And the question is whether those individuals
who have stuck it out thus far at the Department
of Justice under President Trump will resign now or whether
they will wait and they are individually directed to charge
a person without sufficient evidence based on political motivations, and
(19:08):
who will be left because as difficult as it would
be to stay on in the Department of Justice that
is operating in this fashion, in a sense, we depend
on career prosecutors who do know what it takes to
build a case and what is required of them in
terms of professional norms and their professional ethical obligations. We
(19:30):
depend on them to be a bulwark against the president,
the Attorney General and against appointees who the President increasingly
puts into positions of authority as interim US attorneys, so
with ultimate authority over the decisions within an individual attorney's office.
People who have in many cases little to no experience
(19:53):
as prosecutors or even as criminal law attorneys, who have
ties to the pres and our loyalist to the president,
and dependent on the President for their careers. When those
people are in the highest positions in offices, we really
rely on the line prosecutors who have been trained in
(20:14):
professional norms and the law to do their jobs consistent
with their training and to serve as that bulwark. And
if those people are all forced out, either because they're
fired or because they resign because they can no longer
in good conscience, day than we are at a very
scary place.
Speaker 2 (20:32):
It's great to get your insights, Jessica. That's Professor Jessica
Roth of Cardozo Law School. On New York Federal judge
says that at least two senior Justice Department officials probably
violated court rules by reposting comments that President Trump made
about Luigi Mangoni on Fox News on September eighteenthey.
Speaker 3 (20:56):
He shot someone in the back, as clear as you're
looking at me or I'm looking at you. He looked
like a pure assassin. I was surprised, actually, you know,
you would have thought this guy would have been at
a central casting in the movie. And maybe he was.
But he think of what he did. He openly, it's
not like she does a question. If there's a question,
(21:18):
you can understand it, maybe, but there's not a question.
Speaker 2 (21:22):
A video clip of Trump's remarks was posted on the
social platform x by the White House, and then reposted
by a Justice Department spokesperson who added the comment quote
at potus is absolutely right joining me is Bloomberg Legal
reporter Patricia Hurtado pat tell us about the warning the
(21:42):
judge gave the Justice Department, Well.
Speaker 1 (21:45):
It comes on the heels of late Friday. Man Gioni's
lawyers asked the judge to dismiss the indictment or another
remedy would be two block prosecutors bringing the death penalty
against him in the federal case, arguing that the Attorney
General and so many people in the government have made
statements declaring him guilty. Pam Bonti put things on Twitter
(22:10):
and those kind of extraneous statements outside of court He
argued that they poisoned his potential jury pull and was
going to deprive him of a right to a fair trial,
especially when he's fighting the death penalty, which is such
an extraordinary penalty. And then the supplemental filing came in
night before last, and it was Mangion's lawyers complaining about
(22:31):
further comments made now by President Trump on Fox News.
Top DOJ officials retweeted, and White House officials, including Caroline Levitt,
the White House spokeswoman, basically declaring that Mangioni, who was
the killer, he was called an assassin, and they were
linking him to left wing extremists and suggesting he had
(22:55):
links to people like in antifa, anti fascist organizations, like
those that had carried out, you know, the killing of
They didn't mention Charlie Kirk by name, but they insinuated it,
and DOJ officials had retweeted comments made by the White House.
A White House official website put it out. Two DOJ
(23:15):
officials put it out as well as Caroline Levitt at
a press briefing that was televised also called him an assassin.
After that happens, Luigi's lawyers complained to get into the
judge saying, oh, here's further evidence, and this comes on
the heels of what we said on Friday.
Speaker 2 (23:32):
Did the judge rule from the bench or did she
take some time to consider the defense's request within minutes.
Speaker 1 (23:40):
The judge in the case, her name is Margaret Garnett,
she put in an ordered basically threatening that there could
be sanctions if anybody at DOJ continued to do this.
And she says it's the duty of the lawyer or
law firm and of non lawyer personnel to follow her rules.
And there's a local rule that you're not supposed to
(24:02):
poison or make comments about a defendant's guilt now that
the case is in the pre trial phase, and his
lawyers complained that it basically hampers and hinders their chances
of getting an untainted jury that can keep an open
mind about guilt or innocence. She was also suggesting that
it appears to include people like Attorney General Pam Bondi,
(24:25):
that they were aware and understood that they were bound
by this rule. She said, so she wanted a report
given to her, either from prosecutors in the office or
from dj to explain to her how they hadn't violated
the rule and to make sure that there was going
to be a dissemination of her rule, to make sure
everybody at DOJ understood what the rule was, don't violate it.
Speaker 2 (24:48):
So now, the judge said that future violations may result
in sanctions which could include personal financial penalties, contempt of
court finding, or relief specific to the prosecution of this matter.
Could relief specific to the prosecution of this matter mean
(25:09):
precluding the federal government from seeking the death penalty or
even dismissing the federal charges.
Speaker 1 (25:16):
Well, that's what the defense for Manngion argues that this
is making it impossible for him to get a fair
federal trial because, I mean, if you have the President
of the United States making comments on national television, you
wonder if your potential jury pool is going to be poisoned. Yes,
that's down the road, but if the ultimate penalty for
a murder conviction is the death penalty, you wonder if
(25:40):
somebody as important as the President of the United States,
as a White House spokeswoman are making comments, as well
as the Attorney General and top members of DOJ are
making comments about your guilt, you wonder about the chances
of getting a fair trial and that's what the defense
has argued. The ultimate penalty and sanction should be either
dismissal of the indictment or take the death penalty off
(26:03):
the table.
Speaker 2 (26:03):
From Angel, what's the timeframe here? How long did the
judge give the Justice Department to come back with this.
Speaker 1 (26:10):
She's basically wants to know by October third to have
have a response and a sworn declaration from somebody. And
she calls it suitable authority, and she named either the
chief of the Criminal Division in the Southern District or
another prosecutor in the Southern District. You know, one thing
to remember about all of this is that we've had
(26:31):
instances in the past where even a defendant on trial
in the middle of their trial has been ordered to
stop making public statements to the press. I mean, we
had Martin Screlly, who was not facing the death penalty
but just securities fraw charges, and he was on trial,
and he walked out and he started talking, and he would,
(26:52):
you know, make comments every time he left the courthouse,
and finally the judge was co concerned that he might
be saying something outside the courthouse front door that the
jurors might hear that you gave him a limit, like
a parameter of an electric fence, not to talk around
the courthouse perimeter. So I mean that's somebody they're on
trial and they're fighting for their life and their career,
(27:14):
but not fighting against the death penalty and a murder
conviction that could be life in prison without parole, and.
Speaker 2 (27:21):
Asking to have the federal charges dismissed or the death
penalty taken off the table. One of the things man
Joni's lawyers brought up was the high publicity and that
purp walk that looked like it was staged on a
Hollywood movie set.
Speaker 1 (27:39):
Well, they talk about the purp Walk. If you think
about how this case started and the shooting happens first
week of December. There's a five day man hunt, he's
arrested in Altuna, Pennsylvania, and then Mangione gets airlifted back
to New York in a helicopter. He gets brought off
(27:59):
to Hellpter and he's in shackles and he's surrounded by
a failanx of armed officers in technical gear. His lawyers
compared that to looking like something out of a Marvel movie.
You know that he's not some anti hero, evil villain.
He's a defendant to have a fair trial. But even
when he comes to court, they complain that he has
(28:22):
been produced shackled. He's wearing what they call a three
piece suit by federal marshals, and that means you've got
a belt around your waist that's leather with chains like
Marley's Ghost, you have shackles around your ankles. And he
gets brought in like this, and at some points he's
been wearing like a flak jacket on top of that,
(28:42):
and his lawyers have said, why can't he wear street clothes.
Other defendants are allowed to come to court and street clothes.
Speaker 2 (28:48):
And also they're claiming that Bondy rushed the decision to
seek the death penalty and didn't use the protocol that
prior administrations have used to assess whether there should be
capital murder charges.
Speaker 1 (29:03):
They're alleging that early on in the waning days of
the Biden administration, manngi Own's lawyers tried to meet with
DOJ and the pros Aligned prosecutors from Manhattan FED and
that they were told they had to wait and they
were basically put off until the Trump administration takes over.
I've covered other federal death penalty cases, there's typically a
(29:24):
procedure that takes months that called the death panel, and
basically the defense lawyers are allowed to go down and
main justice and make a presentation to argue mitigating factors
why it's not a good idea to seek the death penalty,
or why the death penalty is not appropriate for their
client's case, for example, if they have a history of
(29:44):
being abused as a child, or some kind of psychiatric
problem or some kind of health issue or something, and
they're allowed to bring the mitigating factors to the government's
attention so that DOJ may decide, Okay, the death penalty
doesn't seem a appropriate for this case. They argue this
was never done, they were never allowed to, and that
(30:05):
the DOJ with Pambondi automatically leapfrogged, basically jettisoned any kind
of panel hearing or any mitigating factors hearing, and decided
on her own, without anybody's input and without hearing from
the defense, to just go ahead and seek the death penalty.
So it was a set of complay. According to the defense, what's.
Speaker 2 (30:24):
The next thing that will happen in these cases?
Speaker 1 (30:27):
Well, the next thing that we are waiting for is
man Gioni's lawyers are supposed to by next week tell
the court whether or not they're going to in the
state case and try to put a psychiatric defense up.
So these are dual cases, and the judge in the
state case made ruling last week where his lawyers had
(30:48):
argued this was unfair, it was double jeopardy. In their assessment,
they said that having to defend himself in a state
murder case as well at the same time also fighting
a federal death penalty case was unfair and amounted to
double jeopardy. The judge in the state case ruled that
he thought it was too early because the Feds haven't
(31:09):
started their case. I mean, technically the prosecution is pending,
but there isn't any trial, So in the date judges assessment,
it wasn't a double jeopardy problem. It does seem to be, though,
quind of tough, because there's duly front for Maggione.
Speaker 2 (31:24):
And we should point out that while double jeopardy prevents
a person from being prosecuted twice for the same offense,
the dual sofe running doctrine allows separate state and federal
prosecutions for the same conduct.
Speaker 1 (31:40):
The other thing that Mangione's defense has argued is in
cases like if I don't know our listeners, remember that
there was a gentleman named Sepos and he was accused
of mowing down pedestrians on a bike path in Lower
Manhattan and he ran them down and killed people and
was convicted. But there was a steakcase and a federal case,
(32:03):
and there was a time lag between the statecase and
the federal case, so they weren't proceeding on parallel front
sets simultaneously, which is what Luigi Mangiones lawyers are saying
is happening to their clients that.
Speaker 2 (32:15):
Might prove to be an uphill battle. Thanks so much, Pat.
That's Bloomberg Legal reporter Patricia Hurtado, and that's it for
this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can
always get the latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law Podcast.
You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at
www dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast Slash Law, and
(32:36):
remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight
at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso and
you're listening to Bloomberg
This is Bloomberg Law with June Grossel from Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
President Donald Trump and New York Attorney General Letitia James
have been involved in a war of words for years
over the fraud case James brought against Trump and his company.
In twenty twenty two.
Speaker 3 (00:22):
This raging maniac campaigned for office, ranting and raving about
her goal.
Speaker 4 (00:27):
Her only goal is.
Speaker 3 (00:28):
We got to get Donald Trump.
Speaker 4 (00:29):
We'll got together.
Speaker 3 (00:30):
If she knew nothing about me, I never heard of her.
Speaker 4 (00:33):
The scale and the scope of Donald Trump's fraud is staggering,
and so too is his ego and his belief that
the rules do not apply to him.
Speaker 3 (00:46):
Very simply put, it's a witch hunt. It's a disgrace.
We have a corrupt attorney general in the state.
Speaker 5 (00:54):
I am certain that he will engage in name calling
and taunts and race and call this a witch hunt.
But at the end of the day, the only thing
that matters are the facts and the numbers and numbers
my friends don't lie.
Speaker 2 (01:11):
That case resulted in a four hundred and sixty four
million dollar fraud penalty, which is now on appeal to
New York State's highest court. After a low repellate court
found it to be excessive, And now the tables have turned,
and Trump's Justice Department is investigating James over whether that
fraud case violated Trump's legal rights, in addition to a
(01:35):
separate investigation for alleged mortgage fraud, which has stalled. On Saturday,
Trump posted on truth Social addressing US Attorney General Pam
Bondi quote, Pam, I have reviewed over thirty statements and
posts saying that essentially same old story as last time.
All talk, no action, nothing is being done. What about
(01:59):
Komy Adam, shifty shift, Letitia. They're all guilty as hell,
but nothing is going to be done end quote. And
on Sunday, Trump repeated his calls for quick action on
the prosecutions.
Speaker 1 (02:12):
And we have to act fast. One way of the other,
one way of the other. They're guilty, they're not guilty.
Speaker 6 (02:19):
We have to act fast.
Speaker 3 (02:20):
If they're not.
Speaker 1 (02:21):
Guilty, that's fine.
Speaker 3 (02:22):
If they are guilty, or if they should be judged,
they should be judged, and we have to do it now.
Speaker 2 (02:28):
My guest is former federal prosecutor Jessica Roth, a professor
at Cardozo Law School. Jessica Richard Nixon famously had an
enemy's list, but it was kept under wraps until it
was exposed by John Deane during testimony before the Watergate Committee.
But President Trump is publicly urging his attorney general to
(02:51):
go after his political enemies. What might the repercussions be.
Speaker 7 (02:56):
Well, it's extremely unusual, to say the least, to have
it president so publicly calling for the prosecution of his
political adversaries. And should it come to pass that, in fact,
there are criminal charges brought against the people who he
is naming and urging his Attorney general to charge, I
think he's going to be providing evidence that would be
(03:17):
powerful in the motion to dismiss those charges based on
a claim of selective or vindictive prosecution.
Speaker 2 (03:24):
Traditionally, how much input does a president have on the
Justice Department's decisions to prosecute someone?
Speaker 7 (03:32):
Traditionally, the Justice Department acts independently of the president in
making individual prosecution decisions, and past administration since Watergate, have
put into place policies in order to preserve that independence
and effectively create a firewall between the prosecutors who make
(03:53):
charging decisions and the White House. So although the president
and his top level officials might have an appropriately would
have some input into policy priorities when it comes to
individual charging decisions. That is something that has been understood
that should be undertaken without direct input from the President,
(04:13):
and that communications between the Department of Justice and the
White House about cases and about even policy priorities should
be going through a select group of individuals, namely the
White House Council's Office on behalf of the White House,
and the Attorney General and other very senior people at
the Department of Justice, so that there will be essentially
(04:34):
some buffer between any potential interference in individual prosecution decisions.
Speaker 2 (04:41):
A federal prosecutor in Virginia resigned from his post after
being told he would be removed for not bringing mortgage
fraud charges against New York Attorney General Letitia James, and
he had determined Bloomberg News's reported that there just wasn't
enough evidence to support those charges, and that's what a
prosecutor is supposed to do, right. You only bring charges
(05:04):
if you think you can prove your case before a jury.
Speaker 7 (05:07):
It would appear that that prosecutor, who was a career prosecutor,
did do the right thing on pains of losing his job.
He was following the law and the evidence. It would appear.
Of course, we don't have a direct account from him
about what happened. But if he resigned his post or
was forced out because he refused to break charges where
there was not evidence to support a charge, or because
(05:30):
he thought that even if there were such evidence that
it was a politically motivated prosecution, then he upheld the
norms of prosecutorial independence and professional judgment in doing so.
And the fact that he resigned or was forced out,
depending on which account is true, I think is also
going to be an important part of any claim for
(05:50):
selective or vindictive prosecution if another prosecutor does file charges,
because I think it is circumstantial evidence that previous prosecutors,
who are career prosecutors who looked at the evidence, thought
they were not warranted.
Speaker 1 (06:03):
In this case, it's a high.
Speaker 2 (06:05):
Bar, isn't it to get a case dismissed on the
basis of selective or vindictive prosecution.
Speaker 7 (06:12):
It is a very high bar, and such claims are
notoriously difficult to win on because there is a presumption
of regularity that attaches to prosecution's decisions, and it requires
a proof of actual animists in bringing the case against
an individual. So here the fact that the president is
out in public effectively directing a prosecution of his political
(06:35):
opponents regardless of the evidence, essentially saying they're guilty of
something without regard to whatever may be available or what
those particular charges might require as elements under the law.
Combined with the fact that a career prosecutor who was
charged with the investigation apparently refused to bring charges and
(06:55):
was fired or resigned over that decision, all of that
may create ccumstances in which a court actually might dismiss
the case for vindictive prosecution or in a minimum, order
a hearing and discovery to get to the bottom of
the facts about what actually transpired before the case was brought.
Speaker 2 (07:14):
And yet, according to Bloomberg News sources, the Justice Department
is pushing ahead with its investigation of Letitia James for
mortgage fraud and apparently got the green light from the
Deputy Attorney General, Todd Blanche. But why push this forward
at this point when the defense is James could raise
(07:37):
seem to be mounting.
Speaker 7 (07:39):
I can't speak to the reasoning that is occurring within
the Department of Justice and the Attorney's Office in Virginia
in continuing the investigation and preparing charges if that, in
fact is what is happening. The first line of defense,
if you will, would be a grand jury that would
hear the evidence that may not return an indictment. That
(08:00):
also would be highly unusual. And yet we are seeing
around the country grandeurors actually refusing to indict on cases
where the evidence is lacking or for some other reason
that's within their purview to reject the charges, perhaps because
they perceive them as unwarranted, because they're trivial or disproportionate,
or perhaps because they perceive a political bias.
Speaker 1 (08:22):
So first we'd have.
Speaker 7 (08:23):
To see if a grand jury actually would return an indictment.
If they don't, the case couldn't go forward unless the
Department of Justice tried to present it to another grand jury,
which they could. But if they ever do get an indictment,
then it would go before a judge, and the defense
and guessing would bring emotion to dismiss based on selective
or vindictive prosecution. And there although there is this evidence
(08:47):
we've been discussing that would suggest that these are politically
motivated prosecutions, as the President has been calling for them
in public, the challenge might be proving that actually the
prosecution would not have been brought but for the political animus,
and then also attributing the political animus that the president
is voicing to the prosecutors who actually.
Speaker 1 (09:09):
Brought the charge.
Speaker 7 (09:11):
I think that those hurdles could be overcome and the
unique facts presented in this case, but I imagine those
would be things that the court would have to consider.
The typical case where somebody brings the claim of vindictive
or selective prosecution virtually vindictive prosecution, it is often after
someone has previously been charged and then additional charges are
launched against them after they exercised their right to go
(09:33):
to trial, for example, and so the claim is that
the individual prosecutor involved was being vindictive or a vindictiveness
based on something that the individual who was charged did
that irritated the individual prosecutor, something perhaps in that person's
personal life or business affairs. What's unusual here is that
we would have potentially aligned prosecutors speaking indictment before a
(09:55):
grand jury, and the animus would have to be attributed
to that person. That is essentially going from the President
of the United States through the Attorney General. And so
that's just not a typical fact pattern that we see
in these cases.
Speaker 2 (10:06):
The use of mortgage fraud allegations is not restricted to James.
The Trump administration is pursuing similar charges against California Senator
Adam Schiff and FED Chair Lisa Cook. I mean, the
federal government has rarely brought criminal charges over these kinds
of misstatements about primary residents and mortgage records. And also
(10:29):
there's reporting that members of Trump's cabinet and other Republican
officials made similar types of misstatements in mortgage applications. Would
that be part of a pattern of proof in a
selective or vindictive prosecution defense?
Speaker 5 (10:48):
Well.
Speaker 7 (10:48):
To prevail on a claim of selective prosecution, the defendants
would have to establish that they were selected for prosecution
for a crime that is not frequently charged, and that
they were selected essentially on the basis of some characteristic
that is protected. Often such cases are alleged that the
(11:11):
person was selected based on a legally protected classification such
as race, But the claims could also be based on
the person having exercised their First Amendment rights of speech
and political assembly, for example, And so it would be
helpful to prevail on such a claim if the defendants
could show that standalone mortgage fraud claims without proof of
(11:33):
other criminal activity were rarely brought, and that there were
other similarly situated persons like themselves and other members of
the president's own parties, So people who are not political foes,
people who had not exercised their First Amendment rights to
criticize the president. If those people were factually similarly situated
(11:53):
but were not prosecuted, if that could be established, that
would be very helpful to the defendants if they were
to bring us elective prosecution claim.
Speaker 2 (12:02):
The criminal referrals are coming from Bill Poulty, who is
the head of the FHFA, and Adam Schiff's attorney. Pret Barrara,
the former US Attorney for the Southern District of New York,
has described Paulty's actions as highly irregular and part of
(12:23):
a pattern of him misusing his office to go after
Trump's political opponents. Would his involvement here be part of,
you know, a defense if there were.
Speaker 7 (12:34):
A claim for selective or vindictive prosecution, I think the
court would take into account what are the circumstances that
contributed to bringing the prosecution, And certainly, if there were
an evidentiary hearing, the court would consider evidence about those
circumstances and the historical facts about how this case actually
(12:55):
wound up being brought. I don't think the fact that
it originated in a referral from one particular agency versus
another would be dispositive. But if there's no history of
cases being referred from that agency that resulted in charges
being brought for a mortgage fraud, that would certainly be
I think a data point in the Court's analysis of
(13:15):
whether there was animus or selection based on political affiliation
or First Amendment rights behind these particular prosecutions. Something that
looks irregular, In other words, in the course of how
these cases were investigated and the decision to charge was made,
would be something that would be of concern to the Court.
Speaker 2 (13:34):
Coming up next the White House's response, I'm June Grosso
and you're listening to Bloomberg. President Donald Trump appealed to
his Attorney General Pam Bondy on truth Social on Saturday
to bring charges against former FBI director James Comy, California
(13:54):
Senator Adam Schiff, and New York Attorney General Letitia James,
and the Associated Is reporting that the Justice Department is
preparing to ask a grand jury to indict Comy on
allegations that he lied to Congress. As prosecutors approach a
legal deadline for bringing charges, I've been talking to former
(14:15):
federal prosecutor Jessica Roth, a professor at Cardozo Law School.
At a press briefing on Monday, the White House Press
Secretary Caroline Levitt said that the President is fulfilling his
promise to restore a Department of Justice that demands accountability.
Speaker 6 (14:34):
It is not weaponizing the Department of Justice to demand
accountability for those who weaponize the Department of Justice, and
nobody knows what that looks like more than President Trump.
Speaker 2 (14:45):
Is there any explanation that would justify bringing these kinds
of prosecutions against political enemies.
Speaker 7 (14:54):
I can't see any explanation for characterizing the these investigations
that gets around the fact that they seem to be
explicitly politically motivated and targeting the president's enemies and perceived
political enemies. If the President wanted to prioritize mortgage fraud cases,
(15:18):
that would be neutral in terms of who would be targeted.
That would be one thing.
Speaker 1 (15:23):
That is the.
Speaker 7 (15:24):
Kind of policy decision with respect to criminal law enforcement
that prior administrations have pursued. Every administration has its criminal
law enforcement priorities, but to start with the individuals who
are to be prosecuted just flips the normal course and
the way in which decisions to investigate and prosecute should
(15:46):
be done and historically have been done following the facts
and the law, not targeting a particular individual to see
if any possible case can be developed against them based
on the fact that the individual is an enemy of
the president or the administration.
Speaker 2 (16:03):
Three of the people we've been talking about, Letitia James,
Adam Schiff, and James Comy are attorneys. In fact, call
Me was formerly the US attorney for Manhattan, but all
three have hired the lawyers to represent them. Explain what
goes into having to defend yourself before charges are brought,
(16:25):
and then once charges are brought, even if they're dismissed
early on, even.
Speaker 7 (16:31):
If charges are ultimately dismissed, a person's life can be
made deeply difficult, uncomfortable, and their reputation can be ruined,
and they can incur ruining financial expense in having to
defend themselves against allegations that are just out in the
public even prior to indictment, and then post indictment. Reportedly,
(16:54):
the individuals who have been named in these investigations have
had to incur a great deal of expense in lawyer's
fees in responding to subpoenas, going through their own information
even before subpoena is issued, to see how they would
prepare a defense, how they would respond to subpoenas when
and if they are issued. So is financially an enormous
(17:16):
burden on an individual is just to be the subject
of an investigation. And because the way this administration has
been carrying out a public campaign of smearing the reputations
of people, which is so far outside the norm of
what prosecutors ordinarily do and are permitted to do under
ethics rules, the reputations of these individuals is just being
(17:38):
dragged through the mud. So we have an complete upending
of norms in terms of how the Department of Justice
and the President are going about carrying out a public
campaign against individuals even before they are charged, and setting
up a situation where so much is already in the
public domain, long before charges have been fought and may
(18:01):
never be filed.
Speaker 2 (18:02):
I'm wondering what this kind of pressure does to attorneys
at the Justice department. There have been both a lot
of resignations and a lot of firings. What effect does
this kind of pressure have on the attorneys as they
do the everyday work.
Speaker 7 (18:22):
This must be enormously demoralizing to attorneys who are still
working at the Department of Justice, who recognize these efforts
to investigate and prosecute individuals based on their political speech
and political affiliation, who recognize this as a tremendous departure
(18:44):
from not only prosecutorial norms of independence, but from the
rule of law. And the question is whether those individuals
who have stuck it out thus far at the Department
of Justice under President Trump will resign now or whether
they will wait and they are individually directed to charge
a person without sufficient evidence based on political motivations, and
(19:08):
who will be left because as difficult as it would
be to stay on in the Department of Justice that
is operating in this fashion, in a sense, we depend
on career prosecutors who do know what it takes to
build a case and what is required of them in
terms of professional norms and their professional ethical obligations. We
(19:30):
depend on them to be a bulwark against the president,
the Attorney General and against appointees who the President increasingly
puts into positions of authority as interim US attorneys, so
with ultimate authority over the decisions within an individual attorney's office.
People who have in many cases little to no experience
(19:53):
as prosecutors or even as criminal law attorneys, who have
ties to the pres and our loyalist to the president,
and dependent on the President for their careers. When those
people are in the highest positions in offices, we really
rely on the line prosecutors who have been trained in
(20:14):
professional norms and the law to do their jobs consistent
with their training and to serve as that bulwark. And
if those people are all forced out, either because they're
fired or because they resign because they can no longer
in good conscience, day than we are at a very
scary place.
Speaker 2 (20:32):
It's great to get your insights, Jessica. That's Professor Jessica
Roth of Cardozo Law School. On New York Federal judge
says that at least two senior Justice Department officials probably
violated court rules by reposting comments that President Trump made
about Luigi Mangoni on Fox News on September eighteenthey.
Speaker 3 (20:56):
He shot someone in the back, as clear as you're
looking at me or I'm looking at you. He looked
like a pure assassin. I was surprised, actually, you know,
you would have thought this guy would have been at
a central casting in the movie. And maybe he was.
But he think of what he did. He openly, it's
not like she does a question. If there's a question,
(21:18):
you can understand it, maybe, but there's not a question.
Speaker 2 (21:22):
A video clip of Trump's remarks was posted on the
social platform x by the White House, and then reposted
by a Justice Department spokesperson who added the comment quote
at potus is absolutely right joining me is Bloomberg Legal
reporter Patricia Hurtado pat tell us about the warning the
(21:42):
judge gave the Justice Department, Well.
Speaker 1 (21:45):
It comes on the heels of late Friday. Man Gioni's
lawyers asked the judge to dismiss the indictment or another
remedy would be two block prosecutors bringing the death penalty
against him in the federal case, arguing that the Attorney
General and so many people in the government have made
statements declaring him guilty. Pam Bonti put things on Twitter
(22:10):
and those kind of extraneous statements outside of court He
argued that they poisoned his potential jury pull and was
going to deprive him of a right to a fair trial,
especially when he's fighting the death penalty, which is such
an extraordinary penalty. And then the supplemental filing came in
night before last, and it was Mangion's lawyers complaining about
(22:31):
further comments made now by President Trump on Fox News.
Top DOJ officials retweeted, and White House officials, including Caroline Levitt,
the White House spokeswoman, basically declaring that Mangioni, who was
the killer, he was called an assassin, and they were
linking him to left wing extremists and suggesting he had
(22:55):
links to people like in antifa, anti fascist organizations, like
those that had carried out, you know, the killing of
They didn't mention Charlie Kirk by name, but they insinuated it,
and DOJ officials had retweeted comments made by the White House.
A White House official website put it out. Two DOJ
(23:15):
officials put it out as well as Caroline Levitt at
a press briefing that was televised also called him an assassin.
After that happens, Luigi's lawyers complained to get into the
judge saying, oh, here's further evidence, and this comes on
the heels of what we said on Friday.
Speaker 2 (23:32):
Did the judge rule from the bench or did she
take some time to consider the defense's request within minutes.
Speaker 1 (23:40):
The judge in the case, her name is Margaret Garnett,
she put in an ordered basically threatening that there could
be sanctions if anybody at DOJ continued to do this.
And she says it's the duty of the lawyer or
law firm and of non lawyer personnel to follow her rules.
And there's a local rule that you're not supposed to
(24:02):
poison or make comments about a defendant's guilt now that
the case is in the pre trial phase, and his
lawyers complained that it basically hampers and hinders their chances
of getting an untainted jury that can keep an open
mind about guilt or innocence. She was also suggesting that
it appears to include people like Attorney General Pam Bondi,
(24:25):
that they were aware and understood that they were bound
by this rule. She said, so she wanted a report
given to her, either from prosecutors in the office or
from dj to explain to her how they hadn't violated
the rule and to make sure that there was going
to be a dissemination of her rule, to make sure
everybody at DOJ understood what the rule was, don't violate it.
Speaker 2 (24:48):
So now, the judge said that future violations may result
in sanctions which could include personal financial penalties, contempt of
court finding, or relief specific to the prosecution of this matter.
Could relief specific to the prosecution of this matter mean
(25:09):
precluding the federal government from seeking the death penalty or
even dismissing the federal charges.
Speaker 1 (25:16):
Well, that's what the defense for Manngion argues that this
is making it impossible for him to get a fair
federal trial because, I mean, if you have the President
of the United States making comments on national television, you
wonder if your potential jury pool is going to be poisoned. Yes,
that's down the road, but if the ultimate penalty for
a murder conviction is the death penalty, you wonder if
(25:40):
somebody as important as the President of the United States,
as a White House spokeswoman are making comments, as well
as the Attorney General and top members of DOJ are
making comments about your guilt, you wonder about the chances
of getting a fair trial and that's what the defense
has argued. The ultimate penalty and sanction should be either
dismissal of the indictment or take the death penalty off
(26:03):
the table.
Speaker 2 (26:03):
From Angel, what's the timeframe here? How long did the
judge give the Justice Department to come back with this.
Speaker 1 (26:10):
She's basically wants to know by October third to have
have a response and a sworn declaration from somebody. And
she calls it suitable authority, and she named either the
chief of the Criminal Division in the Southern District or
another prosecutor in the Southern District. You know, one thing
to remember about all of this is that we've had
(26:31):
instances in the past where even a defendant on trial
in the middle of their trial has been ordered to
stop making public statements to the press. I mean, we
had Martin Screlly, who was not facing the death penalty
but just securities fraw charges, and he was on trial,
and he walked out and he started talking, and he would,
(26:52):
you know, make comments every time he left the courthouse,
and finally the judge was co concerned that he might
be saying something outside the courthouse front door that the
jurors might hear that you gave him a limit, like
a parameter of an electric fence, not to talk around
the courthouse perimeter. So I mean that's somebody they're on
trial and they're fighting for their life and their career,
(27:14):
but not fighting against the death penalty and a murder
conviction that could be life in prison without parole, and.
Speaker 2 (27:21):
Asking to have the federal charges dismissed or the death
penalty taken off the table. One of the things man
Joni's lawyers brought up was the high publicity and that
purp walk that looked like it was staged on a
Hollywood movie set.
Speaker 1 (27:39):
Well, they talk about the purp Walk. If you think
about how this case started and the shooting happens first
week of December. There's a five day man hunt, he's
arrested in Altuna, Pennsylvania, and then Mangione gets airlifted back
to New York in a helicopter. He gets brought off
(27:59):
to Hellpter and he's in shackles and he's surrounded by
a failanx of armed officers in technical gear. His lawyers
compared that to looking like something out of a Marvel movie.
You know that he's not some anti hero, evil villain.
He's a defendant to have a fair trial. But even
when he comes to court, they complain that he has
(28:22):
been produced shackled. He's wearing what they call a three
piece suit by federal marshals, and that means you've got
a belt around your waist that's leather with chains like
Marley's Ghost, you have shackles around your ankles. And he
gets brought in like this, and at some points he's
been wearing like a flak jacket on top of that,
(28:42):
and his lawyers have said, why can't he wear street clothes.
Other defendants are allowed to come to court and street clothes.
Speaker 2 (28:48):
And also they're claiming that Bondy rushed the decision to
seek the death penalty and didn't use the protocol that
prior administrations have used to assess whether there should be
capital murder charges.
Speaker 1 (29:03):
They're alleging that early on in the waning days of
the Biden administration, manngi Own's lawyers tried to meet with
DOJ and the pros Aligned prosecutors from Manhattan FED and
that they were told they had to wait and they
were basically put off until the Trump administration takes over.
I've covered other federal death penalty cases, there's typically a
(29:24):
procedure that takes months that called the death panel, and
basically the defense lawyers are allowed to go down and
main justice and make a presentation to argue mitigating factors
why it's not a good idea to seek the death penalty,
or why the death penalty is not appropriate for their
client's case, for example, if they have a history of
(29:44):
being abused as a child, or some kind of psychiatric
problem or some kind of health issue or something, and
they're allowed to bring the mitigating factors to the government's
attention so that DOJ may decide, Okay, the death penalty
doesn't seem a appropriate for this case. They argue this
was never done, they were never allowed to, and that
(30:05):
the DOJ with Pambondi automatically leapfrogged, basically jettisoned any kind
of panel hearing or any mitigating factors hearing, and decided
on her own, without anybody's input and without hearing from
the defense, to just go ahead and seek the death penalty.
So it was a set of complay. According to the defense, what's.
Speaker 2 (30:24):
The next thing that will happen in these cases?
Speaker 1 (30:27):
Well, the next thing that we are waiting for is
man Gioni's lawyers are supposed to by next week tell
the court whether or not they're going to in the
state case and try to put a psychiatric defense up.
So these are dual cases, and the judge in the
state case made ruling last week where his lawyers had
(30:48):
argued this was unfair, it was double jeopardy. In their assessment,
they said that having to defend himself in a state
murder case as well at the same time also fighting
a federal death penalty case was unfair and amounted to
double jeopardy. The judge in the state case ruled that
he thought it was too early because the Feds haven't
(31:09):
started their case. I mean, technically the prosecution is pending,
but there isn't any trial, So in the date judges assessment,
it wasn't a double jeopardy problem. It does seem to be, though,
quind of tough, because there's duly front for Maggione.
Speaker 2 (31:24):
And we should point out that while double jeopardy prevents
a person from being prosecuted twice for the same offense,
the dual sofe running doctrine allows separate state and federal
prosecutions for the same conduct.
Speaker 1 (31:40):
The other thing that Mangione's defense has argued is in
cases like if I don't know our listeners, remember that
there was a gentleman named Sepos and he was accused
of mowing down pedestrians on a bike path in Lower
Manhattan and he ran them down and killed people and
was convicted. But there was a steakcase and a federal case,
(32:03):
and there was a time lag between the statecase and
the federal case, so they weren't proceeding on parallel front
sets simultaneously, which is what Luigi Mangiones lawyers are saying
is happening to their clients that.
Speaker 2 (32:15):
Might prove to be an uphill battle. Thanks so much, Pat.
That's Bloomberg Legal reporter Patricia Hurtado, and that's it for
this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can
always get the latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law Podcast.
You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at
www dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast Slash Law, and
(32:36):
remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight
at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso and
you're listening to Bloomberg
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.