[0:00]right now on law and crime report a member of the brianna taylor jury who indicted brett hankinson for wanton endangerment is speaking up saying that they were not presented with homicide charges
[0:11]plus jamal hashogi's fiancee is suing saudi arabia's crown prince and everyone else that she says conspired to carry out the journalist's brutal assassination and later geelane
[0:22]maxwell loses the fight to keep her deposition transcript secret we'll break down what that means for her federal case this is the law on crime report diving into true crime in all legal stories
[0:33]making headlines good afternoon i'm your host brian buckmeyer here at the long crime report we begin the report with the breaking news that came out just yesterday
[0:45]about brianna taylor's grand jury being able to break that silence and speak about the presentation there in the grand jury but let's first go back and compare and contrast what attorney
[0:55]general daniel cameron said about his presentation before we heard from the grand juror our team walked them through every
[1:10]homicide offense and also presented all of the information uh that was available to the grand jury and then
[1:21]the grand jury was ultimately the one that made the decision about indicting detective hankinson for wanton endangerment
[1:31]i think that in terms of what happened in the wee hours of march 13th in terms of that particular
[1:42]or specific date and what happened that night in the apartment i think it is unlikely that there will be any additional
[1:53]prosecutions that come from that event itself all right so let's bring in our guests to talk more about this i'm joined with a great cast of guests who as always we've got
[2:04]uh jonah spillboar as well as kirkball kirk burkhalter sorry kirk i've said your name a million and one times and mike for robotics uh thank you all for joining us today
[2:16]now let's start off with you mike it seems like we're hearing two different stories one from the attorney general and one from this grand juror who has not been made public as yet we don't know
[2:27]who this person is but i'm hearing a tale of two stories what are you hearing i'm hearing major disappointment in how this process was handled i i credit the grand juror
[2:38]who knew enough to come forward and say there is something wrong with this process and it really i think hurts this prosecutor's credibility because there was there was a word he
[2:50]used in a press conference that we just heard that really should have sprung up when he said evidence available that sort of seemed to me to be now in the context of what we're learning
[3:01]is that they were quite selective in what they showed the grand jury when it should the grand jury should see it all and then make their decision this is disturbing to me
[3:12]yeah this didn't sit well uh johnna as you heard this so we've had this grand jury come out i'm going to read a statement in a minute but i want to get your opinion first
[3:23]it didn't seem to really square with at least my understanding of how grand jury presentations are typically done this seemed to be very unique in that the attorney general
[3:34]gave them what they what they the attorney general wanted to give them and didn't really give them an opportunity to explore other avenues that being homicide justification or any other potential charges
[3:44]does that really make sense with you it doesn't make sense if that's in fact what happened i mean we have to remember what do we have here we have one anonymous grand juror who's coming out with
[3:56]a set of circumstances that he or she feels happened or didn't happen and we really haven't heard from anybody else whether that is going to be corroborated or justified or what have you we also have to keep in mind and listen
[4:08]i may be playing devil's advocate here the prosecution didn't have to present this to a grand jury at all that you know they chose to in order to make sure that all possible avenues were going to be
[4:20]spattered out they did the grand jury came back it's supposed to remain secret so i'm not so i'm not convinced yet that there was something nefarious going on here all right so we're gonna need a little
[4:32]bit more let's let's actually look at the statement from the grand juror and what they said before i bring in kirk to get his opinion uh basically what the grand jury has said is the grand jury was
[4:43]not presented any charges other than the three wanton endangerment charges against the detective hankinson the grand jury did not have homicide offenses explained to them the grand jury never
[4:54]heard anything about those laws of self-defense or justification that was never explained either questions were asked about additional charges and the grand jury
[5:04]was told there would be none because the prosecutors didn't feel they could make them stick the grand jury didn't agree that certain actions were justified nor did it decide that the indictment should be
[5:16]the only charges sorry should be the only charges in the brianna taylor case now kirk i i hear what what jonah is saying this isn't corroborated this is one person a
[5:27]mysterious anonymous individual but as i understand grand juries as a public defender if an individual has those questions in the grand jury are those questions not
[5:38]supposed to be answered so that the grand jury can come to the decision rather than the presenter of the information certainly those questions should be answered now what that answer should be
[5:50]is you know wildly different um answer maybe you are not to consider that or that's not what we're considering and so forth but those questions can be asked and they should be answered
[6:00]what's very interesting to me is we heard the prosecutors state that the grand jurors considered all homicide charges all and i'm always a little
[6:10]suspicious whenever you hear a lawyer use a very definitive language like all always and so forth but all homicide charges and then we have this directly conflicting information
[6:21]that they only considered the wanton homicide charges so which is true we don't know uh clearly these questions well i won't say clearly the grand juror is certainly claiming that these questions were presented
[6:33]uh i would love to know what the response was i would dare to say that we may never know unfortunately and so mike i'm going to field this question to you because as i heard this
[6:44]yesterday i kind of sat there with my wife and i was like i don't know if he did anything legally wrong or if there's any legal
[6:55]like way of fixing this because as uh jonah had said he didn't have to present this to the grand jury he chose to do so and when a prosecutor chooses to do so
[7:06]they can do so really in any way they want now can we monday morning monday morning quarterback and say hey you told us you did x it appears or at
[7:16]least sounds now that you did why is there any recourse or can he just come out and say i presented what i presented and they came up with what they came up with well there's there's a lot of recourse i
[7:28]feel number one is i'm not so familiar with kentucky but i know in new jersey is there is a victims of violent crimes rights act victims have a lot of input in new jersey and i think that's a
[7:40]sweeping trend across the nation it's troubling something pricked up in my ears about this case and about this presentment
[7:50]when the grand jury transcripts were released redacted and they didn't have the jury charges and the readings of the law in them there's nothing confidential about the
[8:00]law and that was something that made me wonder what exactly was presented and how it was presented now that's getting corroborated in my opinion
[8:10]by the fact that there was a grand juror who's been hearing this and saying that's not my recollection of how the grand jury proceeded i've been in grand juries i've presented cases as a former prosecutor to
[8:21]uh to grand jurors and if they have a question you should bring the evidence for fourth you have to answer that question and they should be on all the possible legal um violations
[8:33]there they should have a vote on now john i'll come to you what do you think are the potential next steps here because right now we have an attorney general saying one thing an anonymous grand juror saying another
[8:43]i think everyone kind of wants to get to the bottom of it but how do we do that here well i think if we're going to get to the bottom of it it doesn't it shouldn't happen in a public forum per se
[8:55]because normally look grand jury proceedings are not public for a reason but they can be examined and we don't know and again i don't know if this juror slept through
[9:05]the investigation i mean this took weeks it didn't take minutes or hours it took a long time we don't know what's motivating this grand juror to come out now we don't know what questions were asked and answered but i do know
[9:16]this and again playing devil's advocate if if a prosecutor wants to present uh the crime of jaywalking to the grand jury which wouldn't happen because it's not a felony but work with me here
[9:28]they're not going to then tell the jurors that they can charge homicide and murder or a manslaughter based on these facts so we have to juxtapose the facts that were available
[9:39]to the prosecution against what the grand jurors heard we can easily ascertain that i hope here that no one is lying because brian this was a tragedy no matter how you slice it but sometimes
[9:49]tragedies are not crimes all right so it's correct as as janna is saying um kirk that the prosecutor can present facts that only support
[10:01]in the evidence but at least and this is where this is where i had an issue with attorney cameron's uh statements if you say that someone is justified in their actions
[10:13]legally speaking you're saying they committed a crime but because of excuse we're gonna let that slide and so if he got to the point of justification or self-defense depending
[10:24]on how the state presents it he should have presented information that an assault or a homicide or manslaughter occurred and then presented the justification to allow the grand jury to come to that decision
[10:35]not him i've never seen a grand jury presented in that way except for how i just described so that's how i was confused by attorney general's uh cameron's description of this and for
[10:46]some reason i think i the grand jurors makes more sense based on the outcome what were you thinking though well you walk through the steps in a very textbook fashion right so unless someone committed a crime they
[10:57]cannot be justified for committing that crime so in order to discuss justification you have to discuss what the underlying crime would have been and certainly uh someone can be
[11:09]justified in their actions but what you're saying is this person did fulfill all the elements of the underlying crime be it murder whatever the case however they were justified
[11:19]what bothers me here a little bit more and this goes to what my colleagues have said about just understanding where the truth lies clearly someone is being perhaps a little less than truthful or
[11:31]mistaken is the role of the prosecutor now a grand jury is not a fishing expedition but that being said one of the primary roles of a prosecutor
[11:40]is to seek the truth and in order to seek the truth a grant if you're going to unpanel a grand jury you want to provide them with as much information as possible so the
[11:50]prosecutor is not here just to lock people up the primary role to seek the truth to understand what really occurred and certainly given the gravity of this uh case and all the national
[12:02]attention that's where justice would be best served i do agree also that this needs to be continued uh in a less than public forum in other words it shouldn't
[12:12]be carried out in the newspapers i would love to see perhaps the organization or whatever the case gets involved to try to just flesh this out and then perhaps provide the public with a further report
[12:23]on the events that occurred here all right jonna mike kirk great answers we're going to come back with a little bit more on the brianna taylor case before we shift to a new story after the break
[12:41]all right so let's continue in the brianna taylor case where a judge is set to rule on a motion as to whether or not to keep evidence confidential in the brett hankinson case now that would be up until the beginning of the
[12:52]trial with the fear that such information in such a public case could potentially taint a jury let's take a listen to the mother and the kentucky emeritus press conference
[13:03]speaking more about the brianna taylor case after that 12 million settlement as significant as today is it's only the beginning of getting full justice for brianna
[13:15]we must not lose focus on what the real job is and with that being said it's time to move forward with the criminal charges because she deserves that
[13:26]and much more her beautiful spirit and personality is working through all of us on the
[13:35]ground so please continue to say her name brianna this settlement a reflection that the officers acted wrong and um another question is there a
[13:47]reason why you added increased drug and alcohol testing of officers involved in shootings why was that added specifically second question that's just a good practice for any organization
[13:59]to make sure that everyone is operating their responsibilities in a straight manner um on the first note this is just an agreement that uh between the parties without uh
[14:10]uh saying anybody did anything wrong it's just coming together with these reforms and then a financial settlement okay our last question comes from kate howard from the kentucky center for
[14:21]investigative journalism uh you mentioned reform as it related to seizing money was there a seizure in the taylor case and if not can you address why it's part of this
[14:32]settlement um i think mike i'll give that to you well lenient outlet go first and then
[14:42]it's not an issue it's not an issue specifically within this case um but you know there there's allegations out there
[14:53]and this piece of reform is to to protect the community as well as officers with any allegations as it relates to currency seizures so now it's as they come into
[15:03]contact with money they must always have a second officer with them and they must also both officers must have their body cameras on until they turn to the property room so it's not that it was an issue in this
[15:15]case it's just with some of the things that were coming up now we've all kind of talked about this concept of secrecy whether it be the grand jury and the
[15:26]information coming out about it and now we're talking about secrecy in another form that being discovery practice which based on the state can be that you don't get information until
[15:36]trial or you get it much earlier kirk let's bring you in on this one first i know that you and jonah are talking about keeping what's going on in the grand jury secret
[15:47]until we can finally get a final report and now we're talking again about secrecy in in the brett hankinson case i would agree then the henkins in case that makes sense because it might taint the jury but do you think we've gotten
[15:58]to a point in this case where secrecy might be a little bit hard because of the public pressure or do you think we should stand firm to that based on the defendant's rights here well it's interesting there are two very
[16:10]uh directly competing interests here so one is secrecy with regards to the defendant and the defendant's right to a fair trial certainly jury hasn't been selected in
[16:21]the brent hankerson case yet so information is released as possible that could change the jury pool however the other competing the competing interest directly against that
[16:31]is the interest of society so there are so many question marks with this case meaning that there are so many folks that are unaware there's so much information out there that we don't know if the
[16:42]if it's true or not you know the veracity of the information we don't even know everything that occurred you looked at that press conference it was like a hot potato who wants to answer the question so the public certainly has a a right to
[16:54]know and this also goes to the re-victimization of the victims and society in these types of cases where you know the victim is killed brianna taylor
[17:05]and then you have the re-victimization of the family and society by all this conflicting information so we need to know people need to know which will win out that's the question of the of the hour
[17:17]without a doubt yeah john i think that uh kirk said it perfectly it's a com it's a competition not in the general sense but a competition between the defendant's rights and that of the
[17:27]public and it seems that the public's interest is growing more and more with every potential question or this but how does a defense attorney say hey
[17:37]i see the wave of public need here but i've got a client to represent here how do you think the balance is going to be struck here precisely i'm so glad you
[17:47]you asked that because the public's rights and the public's need to know or the public's appetite for all things salacious should never
[17:56]trump a defense a defendant's right to a fair trial a defendant's right to the presumption of innocence and perhaps we'll talk a little bit more about this later when we get to glen maxwell but that's precisely what's
[18:08]happening here the public doesn't need to know if their need to know is going to upset the constitutional rights of every defendant to have a fair trial and in this day and age
[18:20]with social media with cyber everything with everybody getting facts which may or may not be true let's face it folks it doesn't trump the defense rights and
[18:31]in this case i again i would have to err on the side of the defendant always for that reason true defense attorney after my own heart i think that's that mike i know we got to switch gears but
[18:42]we share a bond mike and i think he agrees as well with janna so let's just quickly switch gears and talk about another case that is equally if not more tragic
[18:53]and that is the jamel khashoggi case if you recall this was an individual who was a green card holder in the united states he was a dissident of the saudi arabia government
[19:04]and he was found dead and dismembered in his hotel room at first they denied it crown prince of saudi arabia said this never happened and later on they admitted to it being premeditated
[19:15]well now his wife um wife by religious marriage not civilly in marriage because there is some distinction there in the court filings apologize for the mispronunciation she
[19:30]is filing suit on behalf of her deceased fiance and or husband depending on how you're looking at that saying that the crown prince in every and any person involved should be federally charged
[19:42]because you bring this in federal court for the death and dismemberment of her husband uh let's bring in our guests here mike we'll start off with you the major question i had here is how do
[19:53]you sue a crown prince can you that's i don't know that's a little bit out of my lane right now i mean you talk about
[20:03]obstacles and you know security uh questions national security international security immunity i i wouldn't even know where to begin and i wish you would have went to the
[20:14]other two guests first because i have no clue here brian all right let me work the gambit then all right kirk give me something because it's not just crown prince i'm not talking about
[20:26]thailand or or the the queen of england i'm talking saudi arabia that that just the connotation and also the denotation behind it
[20:35]that he is almost untouchable in any country how do you go after him and the people he's associated with well i'm with mike it's a little bit
[20:45]outside my area of expertise and i'm being kind to myself by saying a little bit however my point out brought up a great point that we are talking about another sovereign
[20:56]another country country that the united states i'm sure we have different forms of treaty with treaties with so this is not just a simple case where you go down to the courthouse you file suit and somebody knocks on the crown
[21:08]prince's door and serves him uh nothing can be further from the truth uh there's a possibility that this suit may be thrown out
[21:18]because there may not be a relief there's no possibility of relief that can be granted for the plaintiff so that's certainly a possibility a court will have to wait should we even
[21:29]go through jump through the hoops to bring this to court when there is absolutely no relief that the client uh that i'm sorry that the plaintiff may be able to be granted
[21:40]so i think that would be kind of the first stop on the train so to speak i doubt that if the prince would even uh defend this probably just let it play out in the court yeah
[21:50]now i'm gonna have to admit jonah that i am similar to like the other guys on this panel kirk and mike i have no idea how this plays out this is definitely outside of my wheelhouse so i'll come to
[22:01]you but let me add a little bit more the civil lawsuit alleges seven counts against at least 29 individuals including the crown prince um charges of extrajudicial killing
[22:12]under the alien tort statue extra judicial killing under the torture and victim protection act tortures interference of contract wrongful death and intentional infliction
[22:21]of emotional distress just to name a few now there's laws that this victim can point to but again i guess the concept becomes the person in which you're going after you i don't know
[22:33]if the court has jurisdiction or the ability to bring that person even into court to hear these charges maybe they're just going after the small fishes and and naming the big one there just in case what are your thoughts on this
[22:44]lawsuit uh my thoughts are two words procedural nightmare and for all the reasons that my colleagues also said and here's the thing i agree
[22:54]that this is a case emotionally we want this plaintiff to recover her fiance was brutally murdered assassinated dismembered nobody's owning up to it
[23:05]i get it does she have standing in the real world i don't know but here's the main point she she may win by default if the case does not get dismissed and between us it probably will get dismissed but if
[23:16]it doesn't because of that emotional connection we want we're rooting for her nobody's going to answer this complaint this is going to be a default upon default upon default there's going to be no way for her to collect any sort of
[23:28]uh remuneration or damages or anything so it's almost it would be a pyrrhic victory and that's but she's not going to let this go and i admire her for not just standing down and saying oh
[23:39]well you know he's dead nothing i can do about it i admire her for going forward i think it's going to be a disappointment in the long run all right we'll keep a track on that i would tend to agree i
[23:50]don't see how this case gets recourse but we'll be paying attention with a close eye let's take a quick break and come back with more here at the long crime report
[24:06]maxwell was among epstein's closest associates and helped him exploit girls who were as
[24:14]young as 14 years old maxwell played a critical role in helping epstein to identify
[24:23]befriend and groom minor victims for abuse in some cases maxwell participated in the abuse
[24:31]herself as alleged maxwell and epstein had a method typically they would befriend these young girls by asking them questions about their
[24:43]lives pretending to be taking an interest in them they would take them to the movies and treat them to shopping trips maxwell would encourage these young
[24:53]girls to accept offers from epstein to pay for their travel and their education making these young victims feel indebted to jeffrey epstein
[25:05]after developing a rapport with the victims maxwell then tried to normalize sexual abuse with a minor victim through a process known as grooming
[25:15]for example maxwell would discuss sexual topics with the victim and undress in front of the victim or be present for sex acts
[25:26]involving the minor victims and epstein maxwell's presence as an adult woman helped put the victims at ease
[25:35]as maxwell and epstein intended this grooming process left the minor victim susceptible to sexual abuse all right so again we're talking about
[25:47]striking that balance between the defendant's rights and the rights of the community to know about what exactly this individual specifically elaine maxwell is being charged with now
[25:58]john i want to feel this to you because i feel like during this segment i i'm agreeing wholeheartedly with you in terms of protecting the rights of the defendant from this kind of public
[26:10]outcry mm-hmm my question now is though i think and cramming if i'm wrong that the feelings towards the brianna taylor case and the feelings were gillian maxwell are different because of
[26:21]who the victim is and how things played out the attorney general and the prosecutor or whatever but at its core it seems that some people are picking and choosing when they feel that defendants rights should be
[26:33]upheld or when they should be reduced in some way shape or form do you get a sense of reading that when you look at the brianna taylor case in the elaine maxwell case brilliantly said brian brilliantly said
[26:44]that's precisely what's going on and unfortunately we cannot as a society we risk a whole lot my freedom your freedom everyone's freedom if we're gonna pick
[26:55]and choose which defendants are entitled to the presumption of innocence and which defendants are entitled to due process because guess what each and every one is and you might not
[27:06]like the charges that are facing that that elaine maxwell is facing nobody likes those charges but at this stage in the game she is presumed innocent and from the
[27:17]moment of her arrest from the moment of that pressure that you showed a clip of her rights as a defendant have been trampled on that that press conference that wasn't a
[27:27]press conference by a prosecutor who was trying to fetter out potential charges that was a press conference by a prosecutor who wants to add to the netflix script who should be that should be a closing
[27:39]argument after all the evidence is heard but no this prosecution not only started this case off on the wrong foot but elaine maxwell is still sitting in jail
[27:49]when every single other high-profile equally fleeable defendant of late got bailed out what's up with that you're going to get me started down a long road that you
[28:00]probably are going to be afraid to ask but delane the point is elaine maxwell whether you appreciate the charges whether you think she's a monster or not is deserving of the presumption of innocence and she's not getting it and
[28:11]she hasn't gotten it from the moment she was arrested on july 2nd jonah let me know anytime you want me to second see the case i'll just sit there and look pretty it's fine but i'm loving the energy and i
[28:22]i asked that question for a reason now microrbonics let's bring you in here because i i get it like in my heart i'm like you know what i want all of elaine maxwell's laundry out to
[28:34]be shown but at the same time i see how this procedurally is happening because there's no love loss for me and the allegations against elaine maxwell but at the same time i'm almost fearful as a defense attorney be
[28:45]like yeah no eyes on elaine maxwell don't do that same thing to my client because if this process is turned on to our clients how will this affect the criminal justice system well i disagree i disagree
[28:56]um maxwell was given her constitutional rights of protection she decided to waive her fifth amendment right and appear in a deposition
[29:07]she decided that she could have exercised her fifth amendment right and i can't believe council couldn't see there was potential criminal charges when she sat for that deposition
[29:19]and she wouldn't have that deposition but they wanted to have their cake and eat it too they wanted to show what rich people can do i'll go through the depth we'll keep it sealed i'll give you all
[29:30]some hush money and we'll move on our way now as a defense attorney i think everybody is entitled to their rights and she had this is much different than the other case we're just
[29:42]discussing because they chose to take a chance her attorney said waive your fifth amendment we'll try this non-disclosure which we all know
[29:50]any non-disclosure agreement will say if it's it can be disclosed if there is legal process if there is a crime committed so i i disagree i think she had a chance to exercise her
[30:02]rights and she decided to waive it and she took her chance and now she's paying the price i think this is the proper process all right great analysis mike i like it kirk professor we come to you you're
[30:14]that you're you're a bit of a tie breaker how are you viewing this because mike brings up some solid points the fifth amendment right can be waived and if it's waived it's fair game for the prosecutor to
[30:25]flaunt out there but janna brings up some great arguments as to the fact that there needs to be certain levels of protection were those protections waived what are your thoughts
[30:36]so this is easy for me because i agree with both of my colleagues so and i'll tell you why so first absolutely um bad advice to sit for that deposition she had
[30:47]her she waived her fifth amendment rights i cannot imagine knowing everything that we know now why she would sit for that deposition probably one of the worst
[30:58]uh legal moves i could think of of a client in this position doing so you know and once she does so it's fair game the other side of the argument is extremely compelling and i'll tell you
[31:09]exactly why because this is what we have been talking about all summer since the death of george floyd the true and fair administration
[31:20]of our criminal justice system and we cannot cherry pick between i like this defendant i don't like that defendant therefore in this case this should be
[31:30]exposed in this reason in this case it should not so here um i think it's a very compelling argument that forget about the need of the public forget about the
[31:41]heinous nature of the crime and so forth that is irrelevant let's focus on the procedure well it's kind of semi-procedural aspect of whether she actually waived her rights and if she did
[31:52]it's fair game but all those other things no fairness is what's important that's what separates our system of our criminal justice system from
[32:03]other criminal justice systems around the world the fact that a defendant no matter who he or she is is innocent until proved guilty uh and judged guilty by a jury of their
[32:14]peers all right let's let's talk right wait what about me kurt come on can i be a little right to you professor come on you're always right all right so let's listen to a little
[32:24]bit more of the acting ausa during that press conference giving a little bit more about elaine maxwell's case that abuse included sexualized massages
[32:37]during which the minor victim was fully or partially nude the sexualized massages developed into sexual encounters
[32:47]for which maxwell in some instances was present and participated maxwell and epstein worked together
[32:56]to entice these minor victims to travel to epstein's residences depicted on the depicted on the other chart at the front of the room
[33:06]his residence in new york city on the upper east side as well as palm beach florida and santa fe new mexico some of the acts of abuse
[33:18]also took place in maxwell's residence in london england in addition to allegedly enabling and participating
[33:29]in the sexual abuse of young victims maxwell compounded her crimes by repeatedly lying in 2016 when she was questioned under oath and
[33:40]we have charged those lies in two perjury counts maxwell lied because the truth
[33:50]as alleged was almost unspeakable maxwell enticed minor girls got them to trust her then delivered them into the trap that
[34:02]she and epstein had set for them she pretended to be a woman they could trust all the while she was setting them up to be sexually abused
[34:13]by epstein and in some cases by maxwell herself all right so mike let me come to you with this one question before we take a quick break
[34:23]is this letting too much out of the bag for the prosecutor i know we've had this conversation in the past about the these press conferences and and how much do you give
[34:34]i don't know where that line is where is it for you in this press conference well brian as you know i do a lot of federal work and they hold the evidence until the very end or before a trial
[34:46]me i love when prosecutors talk let them talk all they want because now they're giving me a preview as a defense attorney as to what i need to prepare for and where they may be on the wrong on
[34:58]the wrong track and where they may not be so they have an obligation to inform the public of the charges in the document so there's certain things you know we don't operate in a secretive
[35:09]justice system the only people have the right to remain silent are defendants and there's a responsibility to inform the public of charges and they always say defendants are presumed innocent
[35:19]right so we'll see how this plays out we're going to take a quick break and come back with more here at the law and crime report
[35:31]all right so our final story here the law and crime report deals with homelessness and the mayor of minnesota being sued by seven complainants who are saying that mayor
[35:41]jacob frey cleared out their encampments without notice during the midst of a pandemic now prior to this there was some ordinances that allowed
[35:52]for the making of these encampments for homeless people based on the coronavirus pandemic it appears that based on their complaint though they're saying that they were moved out of these encampments
[36:02]without the proper due process and a lot of their items were destroyed and or lost altogether now let's begin with kirk when i read this
[36:12]and i have to admit i haven't heard or looked at the taking clause since 1l year and it's beyond rusty i heard a little bit of resemblance or some analogous arguments to the taking clause that hey if you're the government and you're
[36:24]going to take my property you've got to give me notice and you've got to give me reimbursement if you do so are there any analogies here or am i completely off base and what were your thoughts when you heard this
[36:33]lawsuit no it certainly sounds somewhat analogous uh brian you're referring to the taking clause of the fifth amendment where the government may not take private property or personal i'm sorry
[36:44]private property for public use about compensation and it has been interpreted to hold that when the government does so they must give proper notice and what the litigants
[36:54]here the plaintiffs are focusing on here is the notice and the destruction of their property right so that they're claiming they weren't given notice so we have to take a look at the court documents in order to determine
[37:06]that but there certainly is a very substantial public health interest and we've seen this historically all over
[37:15]uh the country uh with regards to urban kind of communal you know ad hoc communal encampments like this where they tend to be kind of hotbeds for all types of
[37:26]uh health issues and that gives the government the right to to move in so but this is all about notice they're claiming you didn't tell us you came in the middle of the night and took out stuff
[37:36]the other issue is of course the argument would be for the government is the reason why they tend to do these types of things at night
[37:45]is to uh ensure that there is no riot or conflict or you know and so forth usually you come during the middle of the day the cameras come out it turns into a very ugly incident yeah
[37:56]and john i was going to kind of lead into that as well this seems to be just strictly a notice issue because from a factual standpoint the government seems to have a pretty strong leg to stand on they're saying
[38:06]this is a hotbed for disease specifically the coronavirus uh this is a hotbed for crime and it's also just not safe in general to have these encampments grow to a certain
[38:16]volume um factually speaking it seems like the government has a pretty strong position here what are your thoughts well let's let's define what is proper notice you know was there an
[38:27]ordinance that expired and they're presumed to have noticed did somebody get on a bullhorn and say hey folks you got to move it out at midnight tonight i mean how did these people get i don't think the government needed to have a process server
[38:39]serve each and every a tent and make sure that each individual knew that they were going to get moved out at some point i mean and i'm not making light at this but let me just tell you a quick story when i was in law school
[38:50]i had the government take my car several times because i didn't pay my parking tickets nobody gave me notice they just took it while i was in khan law i mean numerous times so the government is able to take
[39:01]private property sometimes and you have constructive notice if you don't have actual notice and my guess is that'll be part of the defense here i can just imagine you john are coming out with your con law book and just being
[39:12]like no i've got the page here you can't do that i had the book i didn't have the money to pay the parking tickets so mike let's say hypothetically
[39:23]speaking the the government didn't give them proper notice what kind of recourse are we talking about here are we are are they buying new tents for them are they putting them up somewhere else
[39:34]what's the recourse that these guys can likely get if they are on the right side of the law here well that's an excellent question and you know it goes back to there's no simple answer for complicated questions i mean we're
[39:45]in the middle of a pandemic people are just trying to survive the government's trying to to to help in some way with setting up these encampments obviously they found something that that
[39:56]is not safe about them you know today has been it seems this whole show we've been talking about balancing you know and i think that's pretty problematic in the times we're in right now is
[40:07]you can only have balance if both sides move that's how you get the scales of justice to come out equal but if if one side sticks to their side and the other side sticks to their side
[40:18]there's imbalance there's no movement so i i just hope they could safely put these people who don't have homes and are in need of help in a safe place and i just hope that the
[40:29]government did the best they could to give notice and balance to health issues yeah and and that's the the i want to call it an elephant in the room it's probably the whale in the room is that much bigger
[40:40]if the coronavirus pandemic wasn't occurring right now there may not be such an issue or so large of an issue as to having these encampments because you could place
[40:52]individuals as they are in other cities in in different locations you can put them in in homeless shelters uh but you can't do that right now because of the pandemic kirk or professor burkhalter is this a
[41:03]situation was just like you know what we've got this virus and we're just doing the best we can and i'm sorry guys we've got to break this up do you think that's going to be an argument that might be
[41:13]floated out here oh it certainly could be i mean we are in the middle of a the worst pandemic this arguably this country has ever seen so
[41:24]it you know and i'll tell you we are very fortunate that we don't hear this argument more often that we're in a pandemic this is the best we can do but in this particular instance
[41:33]absolutely and there are hopefully other resources you know as far as you know what type of relief can be granted perhaps other types of more permanent housing or shelters or whatever the case
[41:45]but the fact that we are in a pandemic people are dying we're gonna we're almost at a quarter of a million people dead in this country and eight million people have had this disease absolutely i could see that cert
[41:56]that argument trumping many other arguments now jonah i'm going to do something that i hate that people do on tv they throw out this word all the time unprecedented but i think it kind of fits here this is
[42:08]unprecedented we've never had this situation during a global pandemic with the numbers that that kirk put out there is this new road new legal road that we're just going to have to walk because of what we're surrounded
[42:19]with that we it's kind of hard to really tell where we're going to go from here you know my guess is yeah that's precisely where we are because we have not experienced this before and we have to
[42:30]and the one thing that i agree with our colleague mike on is that we do need balance here and it's very hard to both sides have to move because we have a public health issue
[42:40]and we have nobody wants to just you know kick somebody who doesn't have a permanent place to go home to the curb and say sorry about your luck we do need a balance but we need to keep
[42:50]everybody healthy and we also need to keep in mind the people who want to utilize the parks that the taxpayers pay for safely
[43:00]also have a right to that and and i agree with mike it is all about the balance and because this is unprecedented we'll see what the courts are going to do with it i don't blame these people from for complaining
[43:12]i really don't but they have to also move if we're going to get balance figuratively speaking i mean of course and it makes a lot of sense uh
[43:22]i would tend to agree with the balance argument that's being made here maybe it's the the canadian deep in my heart i'm like why can't we all just win why does everyone have to lose in order for there to be compromise but uh
[43:33]that that comes from that i guess we've got a few moments i want to thank you all for joining us uh lending us with your expertise as always i know that you're from different parts of the east coast
[43:44]right now coming in uh we'll end with this though if this does happen and and the government does win what happens with these people do they just get shuffled somewhere else kirk
[43:56]what do you think is going to happen if the government wins then well i agree with you that and i teach my students all the time that it is possible as crazy as it seems
[44:06]that everyone can win everyone doesn't have to lose you don't have to beat your adversary in the ground so in other words if the government wins in court i think the government does have a responsibility to assist
[44:18]and help these folks find housing and shelter and medical attention whatever they need we hope that occurs again thank you all for joining us and thank you for coming here to the long crime report that's it for today we'll continue our regular schedule
[44:29]program have a nice day everyone
[44:35][Music] [Music]
[45:03]you