0:00

Welcome back to Unbiased! Your

0:02

favorite source of unbiased news

0:04

and legal analysis. Welcome

0:07

back to Unbiased! Today is Thursday, April

0:09

twenty fifth and this is your last

0:11

daily news rundown for the week, but

0:13

also the most exciting run down of

0:16

the week. And it's brought to you

0:18

by file by. And Foul Line is

0:20

every law firms absolute best friend. It's

0:22

everything you need to manager cases, Increase

0:25

Klein Communication, Truck Billing and Manager time.

0:27

One of my favorite offerings from file

0:29

by and is the complete customization so

0:31

you can completely customize your products to

0:33

cater to your specific practice area. Your

0:36

personal injury attorney. Great! You work in

0:38

family law Awesome! You work in insurance defense.

0:40

Not a problem no matter your practice area.

0:42

File by now has a solution. So when

0:44

I was practicing as an attorney I so

0:47

wish my from had file bind because it

0:49

would have made my life so much easier.

0:51

and who knows maybe I'd so we practicing

0:53

but none of us would want that because

0:55

then I wouldn't be here. So schedule your

0:58

free demo today by clicking the customized link

1:00

in this episode description and once you love

1:02

what you see in the demo, use code.

1:04

Jordan is my lawyer for fifteen percent off

1:06

your. Purchase being a lawyer stressful enough

1:08

so leave what you can to file

1:10

line without further ado. Let's get into

1:13

today's stories. the first two stories of

1:15

a relatively short because the third and

1:17

final story is one you've been waiting

1:19

for a week. It's also one of

1:21

the Supreme court's biggest cases which is

1:23

Trump's Presidential immunity case so that's where

1:25

we will spend most of our time.

1:27

But first, let's talk about Arizona a

1:29

little bit. Little bit of an update

1:31

to this week and last week after

1:33

to failed attempts within the last couple

1:35

weeks. the Arizona House. Of Representatives passed

1:38

H B Two Six, Seven Seven which

1:40

repeals the states decades old near total

1:42

abortion ban. The passage means the bill

1:44

and I'll go to the Senate which

1:47

will hold a vote next week and

1:49

if passed and signed into law which

1:51

presumably will be the old abortion ban

1:53

will no longer be enforceable and it

1:55

will leave in please. A more recent

1:58

twenty Twenty two, fifteen Week. If

2:00

you're wondering why the more recent is

2:03

can we ban will automatically take precedence

2:05

over the older near total abortion ban.

2:07

The short answer is because the Seat

2:09

Supreme Court just ruled a few weeks

2:11

ago that the older abortion ban could

2:13

still be enforced since it was never

2:15

officially repealed. Fantasy Legislature I do have

2:18

an episode about that's ago hadn't listened

2:20

to that if you so wish, but

2:22

following not ruling some republican so clearly

2:24

not all knowing that this is a

2:26

hot issue in the upcoming election, hold

2:28

on the Seat Legislator to pass a

2:30

bill that would officially repeal the old

2:33

then and so they said. The House

2:35

tried twice and failed. but and yesterday's

2:37

three House Republicans joint all democrats resulting

2:39

in the bill's passage out to sort

2:41

of illustrate how did divisive of an

2:43

issue. This isn't the Republican party. One

2:45

Republican representative not grass said after his

2:48

vote in the past in the Bills

2:50

Fever quotes as someone who is pro

2:52

life in a product of strong women

2:54

in my life, I refused to buy

2:56

into the false notion it pushed by

2:58

the extremes on both sides. Of this

3:00

issue that we cannot respect and

3:02

protect women and defend new life at

3:05

the same time and quotes. Following.

3:07

Grasses statement and votes. House Speaker Bento

3:09

My actually removed Aggressive from his seat

3:11

on the Appropriations committee. So definitely not

3:14

all Republicans are in line on this

3:16

issue, but we will see what the

3:18

Arizona Senate decides to do with this

3:20

measure. Moving on to Harvey Weinstein, the

3:22

highest court in New York overturned Harvey

3:24

Weinstein rape conviction today, but it may

3:26

not be for the reason that you

3:28

think so it's not. The High court

3:30

found that Wind Seen didn't rape the

3:33

when in that he is accused of

3:35

raping, but rather because of an evidentiary.

3:37

Issue below: in certain circumstances under

3:39

court rules, you can have a

3:41

conviction toss other defendants is t

3:43

court that convicted you aired badly

3:46

enough that it warrants a new

3:48

trial. So it was an egregious

3:50

error in this case. What the

3:52

New York Court of Appeals wrote

3:54

in it's a narrow for the

3:57

three opinions was at the trial

3:59

judge in the core below: erroneous

4:01

li admitted testimony specifically quote testimony

4:03

of and charged alleged prior sexual

4:06

acts against persons other than the

4:08

complainants of the underlying crime. And

4:10

quotes. The opinion further stated that the

4:13

lower court compounded that error when it

4:15

ruled that wind seen who had no

4:17

criminal history could also be cross examined

4:20

about those allegations as well as numerous

4:22

other allegations of misconduct that portrayed him

4:24

in a highly prejudicial late. So in

4:26

a recent episode, I did it talking

4:29

about Trump's Hush Money trial the judge

4:31

in that case was was ruling on

4:33

certain pieces of evidence that couldn't couldn't

4:36

come in at trail and I taught

4:38

a little bit of other evidentiary standard.

4:40

Which is the cell and thing

4:42

has that helps a judge decide

4:45

whether evidence is admissible into a

4:47

trial. And under that balancing test,

4:49

the judge has to weigh the

4:51

probative value against his prejudicial values.

4:53

So it's if a piece of

4:56

evidence is more prejudicial than it

4:58

is, prove it is. it can't

5:00

come in. In this case. In

5:02

Harvey Weinstein case to trial judge

5:04

allowed the testimony of alleged victims

5:06

of woman seen as who weren't

5:09

involved in the underlying charges. At

5:11

Pro Athletes weren't they weren't the center of

5:13

any target for and against than been. So

5:15

speeds were just woman who hide who said

5:17

that they had been abused him in the

5:20

past and they very well could have. but

5:22

no charges stemmed from that abuse and they

5:24

were not the women who were at the

5:27

center of the tardis at issue in the

5:29

trail. So the reason that this has been

5:31

eating human in the first place was to

5:33

establish a pattern of wine scenes behavior. But

5:36

the high court ultimately said that the conviction

5:38

should only be based on what the. Defendant

5:40

is being charged with which didn't

5:42

include the testimonies of these other

5:44

women. Of important to note obviously

5:46

the descent which was three of

5:48

the judges. they totally disagreed with

5:50

the thrace now and believe that

5:52

his conviction should have been upheld

5:54

is equally important to note though

5:56

it.the ruling doesn't mean he goes

5:58

free now. The release of the

6:00

degree ordered a new trail and

6:03

the Manhattan District Attorney's office has

6:05

already said it will retry him

6:07

so long as the alleged victims

6:09

are willing to come forward again.

6:11

On top of this though, he

6:13

was also convicted of sex offenses

6:15

in L A and sentenced to

6:17

sixteen years. There's so little hop

6:19

in his home now be transferred

6:21

to prison authorities in California and

6:23

services sixteen year sentence. They're all

6:25

wall a new trial potentially plays

6:27

out in New York so is

6:29

not off. Scot free he that

6:31

he doesn't go free because of this

6:33

ruling it needs to deal with for

6:35

be learned seemed so. Now let's move

6:37

on to the sorry everyone has been

6:39

waiting for all week which is Donald

6:41

Trump's Presidential immunity case in front of

6:43

the Supreme court. The Supreme court heard

6:45

his final argument for it's Twenty Twenty

6:47

Three Twenty Twenty Four term today. But

6:50

before we get into that discussion, I

6:52

do just wanna say that this story

6:54

will cover all the usual bases. Rights

6:56

a wall talk about a question for

6:58

the court. The arguments on both. Sides

7:00

as well as a brief synopsis of

7:02

how the justices were feeling and arguments.

7:04

If you want more those same more

7:06

detail about the justices questions would exactly

7:09

the concerns were from each particular justice.

7:11

I will be uploading a special deep

7:13

Dive episode to My Petri on page

7:15

tomorrow. We're all really go into the

7:17

details on all of that are also

7:20

be talking about the question that some

7:22

have you heard about Justice Thomas and

7:24

why he's not refusing hims or why

7:26

he chose not to recuse himself from

7:28

this case to his wife. Involvement in

7:31

some of the January Six related activities.

7:33

So if you're serious about that to

7:35

what the standard for refusal is with

7:37

the Supreme Court says about that, then

7:39

Patriot and will be replace. So you

7:41

can sign up for my poetry on

7:43

page by using the link in the

7:45

episode, disruption, the description for this particular

7:47

episode, or by just going to Petri

7:49

on.com certain Gordon is my lawyer, my

7:51

paid will pop up. So. With

7:54

that out of the way, let's

7:56

talk about the case question for

7:58

the court. Here is whether. And

8:00

if sell, to what

8:02

extent does a former

8:04

president enjoy presidential immunity

8:06

from criminal prosecution for

8:08

conduct alleged to involve

8:10

official acts during his

8:12

tenure. Procedurally.

8:14

Speaking, this case stems from the charges

8:17

that were brought by Jack Smith related

8:19

to election interference from the tried to

8:21

get these charges thrown out in district

8:24

court arguing that he's immune from prosecution.

8:26

Because he was president when the

8:29

alleged premiums took place, we need

8:31

district feel rejected that argument. Trump

8:33

then appealed to the Court of Appeals for

8:35

the District of Columbia. At. That

8:37

point before the appellate court ruled on Trump's

8:40

appeal special com or former Federal Council Jack

8:42

Smith try to go straight to the Supreme

8:44

court to expedite proceedings. So the a public

8:46

or and not yet ruled an issue. but

8:48

he petitioned the supreme court anyway and at

8:50

that point the supreme court declined to get

8:53

involved. The justices said go ahead and let

8:55

this play out in the appellate court. Let

8:57

the appellate court rule on as and then

8:59

we'll something if we find it necessary to

9:01

do so to. Six weeks later the appellate

9:03

court upheld the District court ruling and projected

9:06

at Trump's immunity defense. So Trump

9:08

then takes it to the Supreme Court

9:10

and assign the justices decide that they

9:12

will hear the case and they fast

9:14

tracked the case for argument during his

9:16

April argument session. And those arguments just

9:18

happened today on a quarter final day

9:20

of arguments. So it's first top of

9:23

the arguments on both sides as we

9:25

usually do and and will touch on

9:27

the actual day in court. Trump

9:29

argues that a president can't be

9:31

prosecuted for his official apps. He points

9:34

to the lot of prosecution throughout history

9:36

as well as the constitution and principles

9:38

of the Separation of Two years, and

9:41

also cites to certain landmark rulings from

9:43

the Supreme Court including Marbury vs

9:45

Not a Sense in which the Supreme

9:47

court ruled in part that courts can't

9:50

review a president's official acts and and

9:52

leader Nixon vs Fitzgerald which the

9:54

Supreme court ruled that our president's can't

9:56

be held at civilly liable for acts

9:59

within. The hour. The perimeter of his

10:01

responsibility. Trump argues that

10:03

because courts can't review the President's

10:06

official acts or hold him liable

10:08

in civil courts, it must also

10:10

follow the President's can't face criminal

10:13

charges. Something. Else as

10:15

interesting here is that in in Trump's

10:17

brief which obviously Trump himself didn't rape

10:19

but his attorney said be attorneys actually

10:21

cited to none other than just as

10:24

Capital himself just as Capital wrote this

10:26

article before he with the it was

10:28

while he was working in the George

10:30

W Bush White House and what he

10:32

wrote is that a President who is

10:34

concerned about an ongoing criminal investigation is

10:37

almost inevitably going to do a worse

10:39

job as President. So Trump's attorneys say

10:41

to this and say that the same

10:43

is true. If that criminal investigation is

10:45

waiting in the wings until he leaves

10:48

office and for that reason a president

10:50

should not be held, have a president

10:52

should be entitled to immunity. Another.

10:54

One of Trump's arguments that relies

10:57

on the impeachment Judgment clause which

10:59

says that someone who was impeached

11:01

and convicted can still be indicted,

11:03

tried and punished in accordance with

11:05

the law. And Trump says that

11:07

the language of this clause implies

11:10

that a President can be criminally

11:12

prosecuted only after he has first

11:14

been impeached by the house and

11:16

convicted by the senate. So Trump

11:18

or use that the impeachment judgment

11:20

cause precludes criminal charges against him,

11:22

and I think this is. An

11:24

interesting argument for him to present because

11:27

I can actually see this working against

11:29

him. Let's see the justices words x

11:31

this rationale I can totally see them

11:33

saying well he he didn't like that

11:36

the actually read it to mean that

11:38

a president can be indicted and tried

11:40

in accordance with the law and therefore

11:42

not immune from prosecution has called opens

11:44

the door for a potential for a

11:47

potential prosecution and this is actually one

11:49

of the special counsel to access arguments.

11:51

But the last sort of argument that

11:53

Trump put forth. And his brief is

11:55

He asked the justices who rejected

11:57

theory on which the appellate court

12:00

relied and the ruling against them.

12:02

The appellate court ruled that a

12:04

President is not entitled to immunity

12:06

from criminal prosecution is his conduct

12:08

was purportedly motivated by a desire

12:10

to stay in power illegally and

12:12

from says this rationale can't be

12:14

upheld because one it requires the

12:16

court to determine what the President's

12:18

were motivated by And as Trump

12:20

has argued, courts can't review a

12:22

President's official act And to the

12:24

court has held that the purpose

12:26

or motive behind the alleged misconduct

12:28

does not play a role. In

12:30

determining whether in official is uneven. So

12:32

for all of these reasons he says

12:35

the appellate court erred completely and the

12:37

supreme court should find that are president

12:39

has immunity for when it comes to

12:42

criminal charges. Know. For

12:44

when it comes to Jack Smith arguments

12:46

that Smith concedes that the D O

12:48

J have long recognized that sitting presidents

12:50

cannot be criminally prosecuted because doing so

12:53

would interfere with the job of the

12:55

president, but he says that concern is

12:57

no longer an issue once the President

12:59

leaves office. Smith argues it's actually quite

13:01

the contrary. He says that a bedrock

13:04

principle of our constitutional order is that

13:06

no person is above the law including

13:08

the president says says that the thoughts

13:10

that know former president has ever been

13:12

prosecuted doesn't. Mean that they can

13:14

never be prosecuted, but instead underscores

13:17

the unprecedented nature of Trump's alleged

13:19

conduct. In fact, it Smith orgies.

13:21

All Presidents were aware that they

13:23

could be prosecuted for their official

13:25

acts once they left office. That's

13:27

why both former President Nixon and

13:29

then President Gerald Ford accepted a

13:31

part in that were offered to

13:33

them because they knew that they

13:35

could be prosecuted if they didn't

13:37

accept them. Smith also addresses the

13:39

case of Nixon vs Fitzgerald where

13:42

the court held that. A

13:44

President cannot be held civilly

13:46

liable by a. Private parties,

13:48

but he. Says that this

13:50

President does not automatically shield former

13:52

presidents from Us federal criminal liability

13:55

as well. Civil liability is entirely

13:57

different and a rational behind. Eat

13:59

and. The difference. Finally,

14:01

So said, even if the Supreme court

14:03

concludes that a former president has some

14:05

immunity from prosecution for his official acts,

14:07

there should be no immunity for the

14:09

kind of towards is involved in this

14:12

case. Not to mention that some of

14:14

the acts in this case or private

14:16

axle immunity isn't even a topic of

14:18

discussion when it comes to those particular

14:20

actions that will touch on not more

14:22

in a minute for those with arguments

14:24

set forth in the brief filed by

14:26

each side, which means that those arguments

14:28

are fair game for the justices to

14:30

assess in. Making their ultimate decision.

14:32

However, when it came time for

14:34

oral arguments today be arguments are

14:37

really centered on a few things

14:39

and and also a few things

14:41

became more a bit more clear

14:43

as well. So both sides can

14:45

see that a president is not

14:47

immune from private acts. Because of

14:49

this arguments are really focus on

14:51

what classifies as an official act

14:54

and how to We know if

14:56

a president is immune from an

14:58

official act is a blanket immunity

15:00

or does immunity. Only come into

15:02

play in certain circumstances. Prompts Attorney

15:04

argued more of the blanket immunity

15:06

theories said that if a president

15:08

can be criminalized for conduct, congress

15:10

needs to make a clear statement

15:12

as to that particular conduct to

15:14

put the president on notice, which

15:16

Congress has done with certain such.

15:18

It's like a bribery statute, but

15:20

that was really it. France attorneys

15:22

big argument was that there needs

15:24

to be this clear statement. The

15:26

government, on the other hand, said

15:28

a clear statement from congress isn't

15:30

necessary. The arguments also centered

15:32

a lot on the intent of

15:34

the drafters of the constitution, as

15:36

well as whether Article Two of

15:38

the Constitution specifically extend this type

15:40

of immunity. But now for the

15:42

part that every once in waiting

15:44

for, how were the justices feeling.

15:47

As you might expect that

15:49

the justices that I can

15:51

pretty confidently pin on either

15:54

side it's or justices Keegan

15:56

Sotomayor, Jackson Alito, and course

15:58

it civically. Jeff. Senate Keegan

16:00

and Sotomayor are leaning towards the government's whereas

16:02

course it and and Alito seem to be

16:05

leaning towards Trump's I would also put just

16:07

as Calvin all and from spoke it too

16:09

but it wasn't It wasn't as obvious to

16:11

say some a line of questioning from him

16:13

I it was from course it and Alito

16:15

to says Thomas was was pretty quiet. He

16:18

did not as much and he'd enough was

16:20

yesterday either so I don't I was gonna

16:22

say media has to do without recusal as

16:24

you that. I. Don't think that's

16:26

it. That's the spirit and she's us as

16:29

Roberts didn't really is. so any significant signs

16:31

of leaning either way. but that's also not

16:33

really that surprising. They tend to be to

16:35

of the three more middle of the road

16:37

justices when it comes to ideologies. Yes, they

16:40

do tend to lean conservative, but they are

16:42

more middle of the road. I do want

16:44

to be cleared died this court will not

16:46

be giving us a straightforward answer in the

16:48

way that you might be expecting. The at

16:51

the at the opinion from the court is

16:53

not going to be Trump has immunity or

16:55

Trump doesn't. Have immunity. And here's why. The.

16:57

Justices or really focus on private acts

17:00

vs. official acts and Trump's attorney even

17:02

considered that there are some alleged acts

17:04

in the indictment that he would consider

17:06

to be private acts and that Trump

17:08

is not entitled to immunity for those

17:10

so he can still face prosecution for

17:12

those acts are those alleged acts But

17:14

because of that this is not going

17:16

to be an open and shut case

17:18

because you had these questions of what

17:21

is an official act. When is an

17:23

official off entitled to on unity is

17:25

assuming official acts are entitled to immunity

17:27

and therefore. It can be thrown out

17:29

what evidence is allowed to come in

17:31

at trial to prove the private acts

17:33

it's are all intertwining connected. So with

17:35

that said, here's how I think the

17:37

majority of the court will rule. I

17:39

think the justices will say. A

17:42

president does not have blanket immunity for

17:44

all Och said he takes. But yes,

17:46

there are some situations in which a

17:49

president may have immunity for his official

17:51

acts. However, to determine whether an official

17:53

act is entitled to immunities, we have

17:55

to run their various factors a test

17:58

if you will, and maybe. The

18:00

to protest a three pronged us or

18:02

for Brandeis who really knows But in

18:04

that case rather than assessing not actors

18:06

themselves what I think they knew that

18:08

I think I'll send it back down

18:10

to the lower court the trial court

18:13

and they'll say okay now you analyze

18:15

the fact that this case under this

18:17

new test that we're setting forth to

18:19

determine whether immunity exist for each of

18:21

the various alleged acts and from their

18:23

of the lower court would have to

18:25

analyze each alleged act and determine whether

18:27

those acts or private or official. And

18:30

for those acts that are official, the

18:32

court would then have to assess each

18:34

individual official act under this new standard

18:36

to determine whether immunity is available. And

18:38

for those official act not are deemed

18:40

to be are deemed to to have

18:42

immunity, it's those be thrown out. The

18:44

rest would proceed to trial. Now I

18:46

don't know what the court is going

18:48

to do but the evidence element of

18:50

it. You know, Ten evidence of official

18:52

act, com manager and titles. Immunity to

18:54

prove the private. I don't know what

18:56

the court going to do with that.

18:58

That's a tougher question. The court may

19:01

not even decide to answer it, but

19:03

keep in mind a ruling like the

19:05

one I just described opens the door

19:07

to more appeals. Let's say the court

19:09

goes and makes it's assessment as to

19:11

which alleged acts or official which are

19:13

entitled to immunity and which aren't from

19:15

can appeal again at based on the

19:17

courts application of the new standards. So

19:19

a lot can happen here. but. We.

19:22

Should have a decision relatively soon. Usually

19:24

the court would wait until the very

19:26

end until the end of July to

19:28

release. It's more controversial decisions, but given

19:31

the time constraints of this case I

19:33

do think we will get it. Will

19:35

get a decision sooner than end of

19:37

June. The last thing I want to

19:40

note is that is the Justices rule

19:42

in Trump's favors, this ruling will impact

19:44

the we Won't Let me say this,

19:46

the really will impact the procedure of

19:49

three out of the four of his

19:51

criminal cases. It would impact is

19:53

classified documents case is Federal Election Interference

19:55

case and his Georgia Election Interference case.

19:57

but it would not have an impact

19:59

on the criminal hush Money case currently

20:01

ongoing a New York because that case

20:03

is based on alleged actions that trumped

20:05

up before he was president. So in

20:07

the lead up to the two thousand

20:10

and sixteen presidential election. And

20:12

again, if you do want to hear

20:14

more from oral arguments specifically how each

20:16

us it was, freezing his or her

20:18

questioning what each justices concerns were why

20:20

some were calling on Justice Thomas recuse

20:22

himself, go ahead and get in on

20:24

a feature on Page Now so that

20:26

we win. Episode does go live tomorrow,

20:28

you'll already have access to it. Remember

20:30

my feet Home page is for specialists

20:32

content that is not available on any

20:34

other. Ah, add any other platform of

20:36

mine so it's on social media now

20:38

my podcast. The only way that I

20:40

currently monetize I platform. So don't forget

20:43

to subscribe if you do want to

20:45

access that content. The direct link is

20:47

in this episode subscription or he can

20:49

just had to pay three on.com and

20:51

search for the and is my lawyer.

20:53

That is what I have where he

20:55

say i hope you are leaving this

20:57

episode feeling incredibly informed. You're feeling like

20:59

you really understand this presidential immunity case

21:02

and that he and you enjoyed it.

21:04

That's also and for an Lp have

21:06

a fantastic night and I will talk

21:08

to you on Monday or tomorrow if

21:10

you're if he trail number.