UNBIASED - July 2, 2024: Trump Wants Verdict Set Aside Following Immunity Decision, Epstein Grand Jury Testimony Made Public, Judge Declares Mistrial in Karen Read's Murder Trial, and More.

Episode Date: July 2, 2024

1. Judge Declares Mistrial in Karen Read's Murder Trial After Jury Deadlocks Twice (1:05)2. Trumps Requests Verdict Be Set Aside in Hush Money Case Following Supreme Court's Immunity Decision; Judge Delays Trump's Sentencing to July 18th (7:12)3. Epstein Grand Jury Testimony Transcripts Released By Florida Judge After New Disclosure Law Takes Effect (11:45)4. Quick Hitters: Rudy Giuliani Disbarred in New York, US Government to Give Moderna $176M to Develop Bird Flu Vaccine, New $2.3B Ukraine Aid Package, FTC Votes Unanimously to Block Mattress Merger, and Biden to Sit for Interview with ABC News Following Debate (17:29)Support ‘UNBIASED’ on Patreon.Watch this episode on YouTube.Follow Jordan on Instagram and TikTok.All sources for this episode can be found here.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Kick off an exciting football season with BetMGM, an official sportsbook partner of the National Football League. Yard after yard, down after down, the sportsbook born in Vegas gives you the chance to take action to the end zone and celebrate every highlight reel play. And as an official sportsbook partner of the NFL, BetMGM is the best place to fuel your football fandom on every game day. With a variety of exciting features,

BetMGM offers you plenty of seamless ways to jump straight onto the gridiron and to embrace peak sports action. Ready for another season of gridiron glory? What are you waiting for? Get off the bench, into the huddle, and head for the end zone all season long. Visit BetMGM.com for terms and conditions. Must be 19 years of age or older. Ontario only. Please gamble responsibly. Gambling problem? For free assistance,

call the Conax Ontario helpline at 1-866-531-2600. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with iGaming Ontario. Welcome back to Unbiased, your favorite source of unbiased news and legal analysis. Welcome back to Unbiased. Today is Tuesday, July 2nd, and this is your daily news rundown. We are finally back to normal programming now that the Supreme Court has finished its term, and I do want to remind you or tell those of you who may be new here that despite my recent episodes being anywhere from 20 to 30 minutes long, my typical episodes are shorter than that, usually between 15 to 18 minutes. So just note that going forward, it's not that I'm skimping you on information. It's

just that things got a little crazy there for a minute. Episodes got a little long, but we're back to normal now. And the episodes may be a little bit shorter than you've been used to recently. As always, if you love the unbiased approach that this episode provides and you feel more informed after listening, please go ahead and leave my show a review on whatever platform you listen, share the show with your friends, and if you're watching on YouTube, go ahead and hit that thumbs up button and subscribe to the channel if you're not already. All of those things really help me out, so thank you very much. And without further ado, we can get into today's stories. Yesterday, while we were all preoccupied with the Supreme Court's decisions, a judge in Massachusetts

declared a mistrial in the murder trial of Karen Reed. This case has captured national attention, and a good amount of you asked me to talk about this one and why there was a mistrial, so let's do it. Karen Reed was on trial for the murder of her boyfriend, John O'Keefe. O'Keefe was a veteran of the Boston Police Department, and he was found unresponsive in the snow outside of his co-worker-slash- friend's home and later pronounced dead. Prosecutors say that the night before, O'Keefe and Reed went out drinking. Shortly after midnight, they got into Reed's car. They drove to the home of one of O'Keefe's fellow officers, Brian Albert, for an after party. And upon arriving at Albert's home, prosecutors say O'Keefe and Reed got into an argument and they were standing outside.

She then backed into him with her car at roughly 24 miles per hour, fled the scene and left him to die. Reed says that she was never at the after party, that she simply dropped him off at Albert's house and left. But when he wasn't home by the morning, she went out looking for him with two other women and found his body laying outside of Albert's home. Reed says that it's actually O'Keefe's co-workers slash friends that are the ones at fault. She says that they fatally beat him, dumped his body out on the lawn, and then conspired with false evidence and false testimony

to frame Reed for the murder. So Reed was ultimately charged with second-degree murder, vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated, and leaving the scene of an accident resulting in death. Now, at trial, the jury heard very conflicting evidence. Despite Reed saying that she simply dropped O'Keefe off at Albert's home, the prosecutors say that no one ever saw O'Keefe inside of the party, meaning he never made it inside. Prosecutors say that the fellow officers in the home saw Reed's SUV pull up but then leave. They just assumed no one was getting out of the car and coming inside. Vehicle data from Reed's car shows that at 12 45 a.m. while outside Albert's home, her car traveled backwards

for 60 feet at 24 miles per hour. On top of that, Reed's taillight was broken and pieces of the taillight were found outside Albert's home. Forensic testing showed O'Keefe's hair was on Reed's car bumper and that his DNA was found on Reed's taillight. The defense, however, says Reed was framed, that O'Keefe appeared to have been ambushed by the men in Albert's home, beaten, bitten by Albert's dog, and left outside to die. The defense relies on a few different facts. One, that O'Keefe was supposedly sprawled out on the lawn dead, yet not one person leaving the party that night saw him. The defense also relies on a biased investigation. Notably, the state trooper who led the investigation and has since been

discharged from duty referred to Reed as a whack job in text messages. He said he wished Reed would kill herself, and he expressed disappointment that there were no nudes found on Reed's phone during the search of Reed's phone. As for Reed's broken taillight, the defense said that that happened when she left her house in the morning in a panic to go look for O'Keefe. She ended up hitting O'Keefe's car on her way out, which was caught on camera. The defense also noted that pieces of the taillight weren't found during an initial search of Albert's yard, but were somehow later found after Reed's car had been seized. Other evidence of a tampered with crime scene include

the crime scene being left unsecured, Albert's house where everything happened was never searched, bloodstained snow was scooped up with red solo cups, and a leaf blower was used to clear the snow outside Albert's home. And then finally, you have the fact that around 2 a.m., Albert's sister-in-law, Jennifer McCabe, searched how long does it take to die of hypothermia. So that's the long and the short of it. There's obviously way more. If you want to hear more, go ahead and check out all of the evidence that was at the trial. There's a ton of it. We don't have all day here, so I kind of got to sum it up. Obviously, the jury was very conflicted. The six men and six women started deliberating on Tuesday, June 25th, and by Friday, June 28th, the jury foreperson told the judge they could not reach a unanimous

verdict. The judge then told the jury they were to continue deliberating, but as of yesterday, the jury foreperson informed the judge that it would be pointless to continue deliberating, but as of yesterday, the jury foreperson informed the judge that it would be pointless to continue on. They were not going to reach a unanimous verdict, and at that point, the judge declared a mistrial. So here's the thing. Because this is a criminal trial, the prosecution has the burden of proving all elements of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. The jury can have no reasonable doubt that Karen Reed was responsible for the death of O'Keefe in order to return a guilty verdict. Specifically in Massachusetts, just take the second degree murder charge as an example.

Second degree murder in Massachusetts is one when someone intentionally kills another person, but does so without premeditation. So this is a heat of passion crime. It's done in the heat of the moment, but it doesn't necessarily have premeditation, but it's done so intentionally. So the jury would have to find, after hearing all of that evidence we just went through from both sides, that there was no reasonable doubt that Reed had intentionally killed O'Keefe in the heat of the moment that night. So you can maybe see why the jury would be conflicted and unable to reach a unanimous verdict. From here, the prosecution can decide to retry the case, which it already said it intends to do so.

And in that case, it would be a new jury hearing the case. And if they do try it again, they could opt to bring a lesser charge the next time around if they think that'll help them meet their burden. So that's what's going on with Karen Reid's trial. And now let's move on to some Trump news in light of the Supreme Court's decision yesterday. Hours after the Supreme Court issued their immunity decision, Trump submitted a letter to the judge overseeing his criminal hush money case, asking him to set aside the verdict and delay sentencing, which is currently scheduled for July 11th. Here's the thing, and I want to make this clear. Trump's hush money conviction is not the type of conviction that the Supreme Court was referring to in its ruling as far as immunity

goes. What do I mean by that? Trump's actions at the center of his hush money conviction are undisputably unofficial acts, which the court said does not have immunity and not even Trump disputes that. Okay. So the hush money payments, it's an unofficial act. There's no immunity as far as the court's concerned. The reason Trump is asking for his verdict to be set aside in this case is because of evidence. He says that certain evidence should not have been admitted into trial because of immunity protections. What the court said yesterday is that a former president has no immunity from criminal prosecution when it comes to unofficial acts, such as accepting a bribe, making a hush money payment, paying a bribe, committing murder, whatever it is. However, the court also said that when a former president is tried for an unofficial act, a court cannot

consider evidence of the immune official acts. Keep in mind, not all official acts are entitled to immunity. Per the court's ruling yesterday, there's an analysis that has to be done to determine whether an official act can overcome the presumption of immunity, which we'll get into in a minute. But if that official act is determined to be immune, it cannot be used even as evidence in a case against the president. And we touched on this briefly in yesterday's episode, right? Justice Barrett raised this issue in her concurrence. She agreed for the most part with the court's ruling, but said that there's a serious issue here with the idea that the prosecution can't use evidence of official acts when trying unofficial acts. So that's exactly what Trump's team is saying here.

Trump's attorneys are saying that there was evidence submitted that centered around official acts of the presidency, such as communications made through official White House communication channels, i.e. conversations from the Oval Office, conversations on the White House phones, as well as posts from Trump's official POTUS Twitter account, which Trump's attorney says falls within that outer perimeter of a president's official responsibilities and duties and is therefore an official act. Because of this, Trump's attorneys argue that the verdict should be set aside due to the improperly admitted evidence and that the sentencing should be delayed while the judge sorts out what to do with this ruling. As far as the

prosecution goes, they're actually not objecting to the delay in sentencing. In a letter filed today, prosecutors said that despite the fact that they disagree that the verdict should be set aside in light of the Supreme Court's decision and that they believe Trump's argument lacks merit here, they are open to delaying the sentencing for up to two weeks to give the judge time to figure out what to do here. Keep in mind, under the Supreme Court's ruling, when assessing whether an act is official and entitled to immunity, and in this case, unable to come in as evidence, the court has to ask a few questions. One, was the action within the outer perimeter of his responsibilities

and duties as president? Another way to ask this, according to the justices, is by asking, was the action manifestly or palpably beyond his authority? If so, the action is not immune and it can be prosecuted, it can be brought in as evidence. However, if not, the act may have immunity and therefore it's inadmissible as evidence. At that point, to overcome the presumption of immunity when it comes to official acts, the prosecution has to show that prosecuting this action would not intrude upon the functions or authority of the executive branch. If the prosecution can successfully show that, the act is not immune and it can be prosecuted or used as evidence. But if the prosecution cannot show that, the act is therefore immune and it can neither be prosecuted nor come in as

evidence in the prosecution of an unofficial act. So that's what the analysis will look like under the Supreme Court's new ruling. That's what Judge Mershon will have to do here in assessing whether the evidence that came into trial was admissible. And I would imagine at the very least the sentencing gets delayed just so the judge has time to sort this out. Moving on to another criminal matter of sorts, yesterday 176 pages of transcripts and testimony at the center of Jeffrey Epstein's case in Florida were released to the public. The release came as a result of a motion by a local newspaper, the Palm Beach Post, to release the records in accordance with a new state law. That new state law, which was signed by Governor DeSantis in February but just took effect yesterday, amends an old law protecting grand jury documents and testimony. So typically,

grand jury proceedings are kept very much under lock and key. This is to protect everyone involved, maintain the integrity of the proceedings. You don't want the grand jury to make their decision based on fear from the public or anything like that. So for that reason, it's kept under lock and key. So even after an indictment is returned or not returned, these proceedings are kept secret. Under state law, there's a few exceptions to disclosing grand jury testimony and evidence, and the only purposes for which disclosure of such testimony is permissible or was permissible under the previous state law was to either determine whether a witness is guilty of perjury, whether that testimony is consistent with testimony given by the witness before the court, or for the purpose of furthering justice. What this new law did is it amended the old law to elaborate on what furthering justice

means. So now the exception under the law reads that testimony is not to be disclosed except when required by the court for the purpose of furthering justice, which can encompass furthering a public interest when the disclosure is requested by the media and the subject of the grand jury proceeding is deceased, the grand jury inquiry related to sexual or criminal activity between the subject of the investigation and a person who was a minor at the time of the alleged conduct, the testimony was previously disclosed by court order, and the state attorney is provided notice of the request. And you may hear that and think to yourself, wow, that exception seems incredibly narrow. It's almost as if this was specifically tailored to Epstein's case. And you would not be wrong in assuming that. In fact,

this bill was often referred to as the Epstein grand jury bill. And Governor DeSantis specifically named Epstein as his reason for signing this bill into law. So anyway, once that bill was signed into law, the Palm Beach Post went ahead and requested the release in accordance with that amendment, and the court granted the request. And the reason that the transcripts were just released yesterday and not when the newspaper filed its motion is because the state law permitting the release didn't take effect until yesterday. So if the transcripts had been released before yesterday, it technically would have been in violation of state law. Now, the testimony that was released specifically pertains to a grand jury proceeding in 2006. On July 19th, 2006, as part of this investigation into Epstein, two years before he ultimately took

a plea deal, a grand jury in Palm Beach County, Florida heard from two underage girls who had allegedly been sexually assaulted by Epstein, two police officers, and an investigator with the state attorney's office. Basically, the consensus from the transcript is that this state attorney that convened the grand jury, Barry Kreischer, intentionally tanked his own case. Now, Kreischer, before convening the grand jury, had previously resisted efforts by the Palm Beach Police Department to charge Epstein, so this isn't really too surprising. But ultimately, he convenes this grand jury because of the pressure. But it's clear from the transcript that was just released that his strategy was essentially to call into question his own case by questioning the witnesses in a certain way. That way, the grand jury

either wouldn't bring charges against Epstein or at least wouldn't bring as serious of charges. Just as an example, when the first underage girl was called as a witness, the state attorney who would typically be asking incriminating questions about Epstein to successfully get an indictment was instead questioning the girl about her own drug and alcohol use, body piercings, posts to her MySpace page which lied about her age and income, whether she was aware that she committed a crime when she went to see Epstein. So this was the line of questioning that the state attorney was giving to this underage

girl. Keep in mind, the duty of a state attorney, right, especially in a grand jury investigation, the end goal of the state attorney is to get the indictment against the person that they're convening the grand jury for. Naturally, as the state attorney, you're going to use the witnesses to paint the defendant in the worst light possible to up your chances of getting that indictment. But in this case, it seemed as if the state attorney was actually using the witnesses to paint themselves, the witnesses, in a bad light and make Epstein look not as bad. As I said, though, ultimately, the indictment was returned, but only for one charge of solicitation of prostitution, and there was no mention at all of minors or underage girls. The Palm Beach County police chief ended up turning the case over to the

FBI, who then two years later in 2008 reached that plea deal with Epstein in which he had to plead guilty to the one charge in the original indictment and then an additional charge of soliciting a minor into prostitution. And in exchange for that guilty plea, he basically got out of a federal trial. He got an 18-month sentence in a private wing of the Palm Beach jail, and he was allowed to work at his office in Palm Beach for up to 16 hours a day, which essentially meant that he would just sleep at the jail. But that is what happened with his case, and now we have a little bit of clarity as to what happened at that grand jury proceeding in 2006. So if you want to read through the full transcript, I do, of course, have it linked for you in the sources section of this episode, which you can find the link to in this episode description. And now let's finish with some quick hitters, starting off with Rudy Giuliani, Trump's former

attorney, former mayor of New York City, and a former prosecutor in New York City, has been disbarred from practicing law in the state of New York. The order came from a panel of judges who wrote that Giuliani flagrantly misused his position as Trump's lawyer and, quote, deliberately violated some of the most fundamental tenets of the legal profession, end quote. Back in 2021, Giuliani was suspended from practicing law, but today's ruling means that he has officially lost his license, and his attorneys did say that they will be appealing this decision. The United States government has awarded $176 million to Moderna to advance development of its bird flu vaccine. In a statement, Moderna said,

the funding comes amid concerns over a multi-state outbreak of the H5N1 virus in dairy cows and infections of three dairy workers since March. The funds will be used to complete late-stage development and testing of an mRNA-based vaccine. And staying on the topic of the government, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin announced a new $2.3 billion military aid package for Ukraine, which will include anti-tank weapons, ammunition, and other air defense systems. The FTC voted unanimously today to issue an administrative complaint to block the merger of two mattress companies. In May, the world's largest mattress supplier and manufacturer, Tempur-Sealy, agreed to buy Mattress Firm for roughly $4 billion. But today, after voting 5-0, the FTC filed an administrative complaint in federal court arguing that the merger would dominate the market, harm competition, and drive up prices. And finally, President Biden will sit

down with ABC News on Friday for his first TV interview since the presidential debate. However, this interview will not air until Sunday, or at least an extended version won't air until Sunday. According to ABC, A First Look will air Friday on World News Tonight. Portions will air Saturday and Sunday on Good Morning America. And then an extended version will air Sunday on This Week and Monday on Good Morning America. That is what I have for you today. Thank you so much for being here. Have a great night, and I will talk to you tomorrow.