Will These Trials of 2021 Make a Difference?

Potter said she mistook her handgun for a taser, but a jury convicted her in December, just as another jury had convicted Chauvin in April after trials in the same Minneapolis courthouse. Do these two high profile convictions indicate that police are being held more accountable for their misconduct? Here are the parents of Dante Right. It sends a message saying that, um, you just can't do any just because you're a police. You can't just get away with anything.

You just can't do anything. It gives us some sense of hope that there will you know that policing in America will not be able to pull their gun instead of their taser. Joining me is former public defender Krista Groschek, managing attorney of Grosseek Law Christa. There are a lot of similarities on the face of these two cases. Two black men stopped by veteran white police officers for non violent, minor infractions end up dead at the hands of those

police officers. But what are the differences When we look at the Chauvin case, I think that that was quite literally an uphill battle. I think the Kim Potter case was much more nuanced. I will point that as to both situations, they started out over what appeared to be relatively benign issues expired tabs as it relates to the Potter case, and in the Stovin case, we've got a twenty dollar counterfeit bill, and so it's very easy to say these cases should never have resulted in the death

of people. You know, each defendant said, well, there was a lot more than that that occurred following the initial inquiry, and I think that's particularly true with Kim Potter's case, and that situation unfolded rather quickly, as opposed to Chauvin's case, which there was a sustained period of time where he had his knee on George Floyd's neck. So there were videos from bystanders in the Chauvin trial and videos from police body cameras and dash cams in the Potter trial.

How are the videos key in both trials? I think they were incredibly important pieces of evidence. And in the Chauvin case, the video was I mean terribly damning. I mean, that was something that I don't think any jury could get passed. It was something that the process you shouldn't smartly hung their hat on. You can believe your eyes. In fact, that video was so hard to watch, and yet the jury was subjected to it over and over again.

I mean, there was just no question that what happened in that situation for that length of time was not right. I think the Kim Potter video was a really important piece of evidence, and I do question whether or not the jury's verdict was correct. And that that was a very short encounter. It was quick, there was a lot of things happening, There was information coming out shortly after he was stopped, he was attempting to flee. I mean, it was just a much different situation. But both videos

were very, very important to both of these cases. Was the use of deadly force and issue in both trials, it was and I would say kind of, because both officers said that they didn't have any intentions to kill the decedents in each case, and so ultimately we know that there was what i'd call a use of over force or too much force. The question that the jurors had to grapple with in both cases was why why did that transpire? Let's talk about taking the stand, the

most important decision that a defendant makes. Chauvin did not take the stand. Potter did listen to what one of the Chauvin jurors, Brandon Mitchell, said the probably was to his detriment that he didn't take the stand, because people were curious on what his thoughts were throughout the entire incident. But knowing all that, you know, do you think Chauvin made the right decision in not testifying. Well, it's hard to tell, because you know, he's not my clients and

a member of the public watching. We didn't really get a sense of who he was. We know from his prior record it would have made it really difficult for him to take the stand because he had numerous previous instances where he was disciplined for using too much force in somewhat similar ways, to the force he used with George Floyd. We also didn't really get to see Mr Chauvin to he had a mask on the entire time.

So you know, if the call was made that he shouldn't testify because he didn't really have a good explanation, and or b he would have been viewed as really unlikable by the jury and see his prior record would have come out. Then I think that makes sense that he didn't take the stand because he just would have been even more vulnerable and some of the explanations that his lawyer gave them might have been deflated because of Chauvin's testimony, So that might have been a smart call

in that case, not having testified. Now, Potter broke down in tears throughout her testimony. I remember yelling teaser, taser, teaser, and nothing happened, and then obviously it didn't help her case with the jurors. But was it the right decision. I think putting her on the stand was the exact right thing to do. I think she had to explain herself. I think the jury had to hear from her. They had to be in a position where they could process things through her lens or her eyes. I think that

her testimony was extraordinarily compelling on many fronts. There was two things that I think that unfortunately they we're missing from her testimony, and one is just because it was the way it was, which is that she didn't have a very good recollection of what happened in the most critical moments, which it's not unusual in times of trauma or moments of high stress, right like, we don't exactly remember what happened. We just kind of act, We just do,

We're sort of on autopilot. And she I think explained that well. I know other people who have commented on our testimony in the media have criticized her testimony for lacking that explanation, but I thought her testimony was very compelling. One small criticism I had was that I didn't feel the way that she dressed, or the way she was

told to dress, really matched her persona. I understand they were trying to make her very human and make her a nice, you know, middle aged woman, but I thought that what she wore didn't match with her authority and her competency. She was my client. I probably would have put her in a white button up, longsleeve shirt with a blazer just because we know that she is somebody

who can take control of situations. She made the wrong call here, and so there was a little bit of a disconnect for me and how she was presenting physically and what we came to understand of the job that she did and how she did it. If that makes sense. Absolutely, you can't underestimate the importance of how a defendant appears to the jury. So in the opening statements in both trials,

the prosecution talked about the defendants betraying the badge. Were they held to a higher standard because their police officers, not by the jury instructions, of course, but by the prosecutor and by the jurors. Absolutely, And I don't know if there was litigation about trying to limit prosecution statements about that betraying the badge. There is no special standard

for police officers versus regular civilians. There's an inmate, I think understanding that police officers, through their special training, are people that we should be able to trust to make

the right call. I do think though, that those statements sort of elevated what jurors came to expect of a person on the job of police officer, Like they were basically told that a police officer shouldn't make a mistake like this, And so anytime a juror is looking at a professional and judging their competence, I think that takes us into an entirely different realm, which, to your question,

are we holding them to a different standard? And I think that's why the defense was trying to humanize Potter, because that's the only way they could get jurors to perhaps see that he was just a person trying to do a job, and a hard job at that. The defense seemed to try to shift the blame onto the

victims at both trials. Did that backfire on them? As the law is written, there's a question of causation, and so in Chauvin's case, his knee on the neck caused the death or was it because George Floyd had a large amount of a sentinel in his system, And so that's what the laws says. The state had to prove, and so the defense has to defend their client and presents alternative theories and arguments for the jury to consider.

So while that could be looked at, as you know, victims shaming or blaming, I don't think that's a fair assessment of the defense has to be able to push back on the state's evidence and present alternative theories, just as Kim Potter did. Kim Potter's attorneys brought forth the defense that, look, she had a really hard choice to make. Either her partner was going to be killed or she had to subdue ms her right and stopped him from

leaving the scene. So I see that as a defendant attempting to get a fair trial and explain things from their point of views. Some people are pointing to these two trials as indication that police officers are now being held accountable. Do you see this as some kind of a sea change or just the results of the specific facts in these two trials. I think that they are standing for that, and that's my concern because I think they're very different situations, but yet they're being looked at

in the same light. The differences in the facts, that's all being glossed over, and instead, if there's somebody who gets killed, in particular, person of color, then the expectation by the public is that cop is getting charged and there is a desire to convict that person, and that's considered equal justice, and that's considered fairness. I don't think

that's how our criminal justice system was constructed. We are supposed to look at individual facts and each case being tried for what it is, versus the type of case that it is, like. We need to be looking at individual facts, and I think there was a very strong momentum here to look at Kim Potter's case in the same way we looked at Derek Chauvinz. I don't think

that's fair. I don't think that's the right lens. But I think now there's a wider lens, and more police officers are going to get charged, more are going to get tried, and I think, frankly, more are going to get convicted because there's this consensus, based upon what happened in the Chaugun trial, that we must hold people accountable and if we don't, we're failing. Thanks Christa. That's Krista Grosseek, managing partner of gros Chek Law. Gallene Maxwell's globe trotting

days are over as she faces decades in prison. A jury deliberated for about five days and found Maxwell guilty of engaging in a ten year sex trafficking scheme with Jeffrey Epstein. A verdict that offers long delayed justice for their victims. Like Annie Farmer, who testified at the trial,

wasn't sure that this day would ever come. And I just feel so grateful that the jury believed us and sent a strong message that's perpetrators of sexual abuse and a plitation will be held accountable, no matter how much power and privilege that they have. But Maxwell's brother, Kevin Maxwell, says they'll appeal and that his sister will be exonerated.

I'm absolutely convinced of Jeffrey Epstein's crimes, and I'm equally absolutely convinced that my sister is being punished for them and for him joining me is Bloomberg Legal reporter Patricia Hurtado, who covered the trial. Maxwell is facing what could be a life in prison. What was her reaction to the verdict? She virtually showed no reaction. She stood and watched and blinked, and you know, half of her face was obscured by

her mask. Before the verdict, we were all waiting for the jury to file in and she was sitting and looking pensively down at her lap with her hands folded, and I saw her brother, Kevin, look up at the ceiling I don't know if it was like a moment of hopefulness or worry. One of her lawyers, after the verdict was announced, patted her on the back, you know, to kind of comfort her, and then she was led away by the marshals. It seemed that the prosecution had

an overwhelming amount of evidence against Maxwell. What was the strongest piece? I think it was really a masterful putting together of small pieces of information altogether collectively. I mean, many people criticized the case that it was based on the word of the women alone. They had powerful stories to tell excruciating detail about being basically hoodwinked by Maxwell and Epstein and to coercive, weird sexual domination relationships with Epstein.

But Maxwell had participated them, and when they're like thirteen and fourteen years old, and they had gone on for years. You know, these things happened years ago. It's quite compelling, but is there actual other evidence to corroborate it? And what the government did is they had managed to get one pilot of Epstein's Dave Rogers, so he actually corroborated that one of the accusers, Jane, was with Maxwell and Epstein on one of Epstein's private plane at least four

times that she had been transported across state line. And then records showed that Virginia Guffrey had been transported when she was under eighteen at least twenty times. And there was also evidence of the FedEx shipments that Epstein had sent to a girl named Caroline who was fourteen when she started getting into these abusive, sexualized massages with Epstein. So it's that kind of a little incidental evidence that

the jury had to really sort through. But the government was highlighting look at all these little points, put them together like a puzzle, and what does it put it together that Maxwell was guilty. I think that's why the jury took so long. They were being very careful about it. Maxwell didn't take the stand in her own defense. What was her defense? Was it just an attack on the credibility of the victims? Yeah, it was a sailing every moment of these victims. You know, you don't remember what

you said. Well, didn't you say you met her at a party. Oh, it wasn't a party with a little get together. Oh didn't someone tell you to lie about your age? Didn't you lie? There were many, many attacks on the credibility and They also tried to go after the women, claiming they were just in it for the money, that they had lied about Maxwell and Epstein purely to collect money from the Epstein Victims Compensation Fund, which had been set up by the Epstein estate to compensate women

who had been sexually abused by Epstein. And the government really showed in enclosing an Arguments and rebuttal that that was a patently false lie. The women had long accused Maxwell and Epstein, long before there was ever any Epstein estate funds, and they had collected money before they ever testified, and they weren't going to collect more money after they testified because they testified, which is what the defense claimed. So the jury was able to see through those allegations

of the lack of credibility. She's going to appeal. Appeals are always very difficult to get your conviction overturned. Were there any obvious points of appeal? Well, I think the defense is going to argue Epstein got a non prosecution agreement from the U. S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida with Alexander Acosta, and so they already argued that it was improper for the Southern District to prosecute a case that basically Acosta had given Epstein a

pass for. They had already lost that argument before Judge Nathan, and I'm sure they're going to ask the Court of Appeals to review the judge's decision on that the government used women who had been abused in New York, so even and there were new victims. So this woman Jane was a new victim. She had never come forward and

she only came forward after Epstein died it. And then they used this woman Caroline, who had was from Palm Beach as well, but she was the one that got gifts from Epstein in from New York, and there was the FedEx records they had of those those gifts. So they built a new case using the nexus of the

crimes happened that were tied to New York. Annie Farmer, for example, was one of the victims, and she had been invited to New York by Epstein, and the government argued that was like the Epstein setting the stage to kind of groom and lure this girl, and he allegedly lured her to New Mexico and now he's the jury found that she was lured to New Mexico by Epstein. She was trapped on a ranch with a New Mexico

when Epstein and Maxwell and they molested her. Is there any chance that she could still make a deal with prosecutors. Prosecutors usually go up the chain and the top of the chain. Here Epstein is dead, But could she name names and get herself maybe a lesser prison sentence. I don't see how that's going to help Maxwell, because the government had a hard road to even get Maxwell convicted.

There were many people that played roles in the abuse enablers, Let's say, people who may have called an arranged her appointments, but the actual abuse of the victims was done by Epstein, and according to these women, Maxwell as well. And so basically you could see Epstein as the head of a drug organization. He's the kingpin and she's number two in the organization. You don't normally prosecute the customers in the

same way you would that person who's running the drug operation. Right, So Maxwell is at the top, and I don't see how she could flip on anyone way way way down the food chain. She spot this too hard already, Thanks Patty. That's bloom Burg Legal reporter Patricia Hurtado coming up next two, Maybe a seizemic year at the Supreme Court. You're listening to Bloomberg