Lindsay Clancy Jury Deadlocked & California Slayer Law

0:00Some people treat Chachy PT like some kind of smart search engine, and some use it to get work done. Chachy PT work is a new way of working in Chachy PT that can take action across your apps and files, stay with a project for hours if needed, and turn a goal into finished work. It's designed to help you move from a chaotic starting point to a reviewable first version. So all the source materials, briefs, and scattered information that you have to grind through to turn into something useful can just become something useful. Put Chachy PT to work on your most ambitious ideas and projects. Get started at chachypt.com by selecting Work Mode, available on Plus and Pro Plans. Coffee genius here. Most people see a busy cafe, but I see precision at every step thanks to genius from global payments. Transactions, instant, inventory, precise operations, in sync. Absolutely genius. From sold out crowds worldwide to managing the morning rush, genius keeps operations running smoothly.

1:04One quartado. Flaless poor, perfectly timed. Just beautiful. Big league reliability for any business. That's genius. Adventure Global. We think about what can be done. Not what's usually done. Through innovation, venture global is not only building some of the largest energy facilities in the world, right here in the United States, but delivering American energy at a fraction of the cost and a fraction of the time. So while others are busy talking, we're busy building. That's venture global. That's unstoppable energy. This is Bloomberg Law with June Grasso from Bloomberg Radio. More drama in the Lindsay Clancy trial. After about 36 hours of deliberations over six days, the jury has been unable to reach an anonymous verdict as to whether Clancy is legally responsible for strangling her three children.

2:07The jury, which has sent out two notes since Tuesday saying they're deadlocked, sent out a note this afternoon saying one juror was refusing to listen to the law on reasonable doubt. Following a heated discussion with the prosecutor and defense attorney at the bench and questioning of each juror individually, Judge William Sullivan re-read the jury instruction on the definition of reasonable doubt and sent the jury back to deliberate. But the defense attorney asked the judge to remove that holdout juror. And if we come back here in a half an hour with a mistrial because of the juror that has just spurned the instructions of this court, it's a shame. It's a real shame. And that's why I object to the court's ruling. I request that we have further inquiry. I request that my motion is to remove this juror that refuses to listen to your instruction on reasonable doubt. The judge refused saying the discharge of a deliberating juror is a sensitive undertaking.

3:09I don't feel that it is proper for me to side with one side or the other of the deliberations. I don't feel it's appropriate for me to say I agree with one juror or eleven. The judge sent the deadlocked jury home at about 4 p.m. and told them to return to tomorrow morning at nine. Joining me is former federal prosecutor Robert Mints, a partner in McCarter in English. Bob, you had this unusual scene where the judge had both attorneys and Lindsay Clancy at the bench and called each juror up individually, swore them in, asked a question, and then allowed them to return to the jury. What do you think he's calling them each to the bench and questioning them individually? Do you think he's trying to find out if they all agree with what was said in the note? Well, it is unusual for the judge to be questioning jurors individually. Typically, that will happen in a circumstance where there's some allegation that jurors may be

4:16or at least one juror may be using information in trying to reach a verdict that was not presented during the trial. In other words, you have a situation where juror may have access to outside information by reading newspapers or looking at their cell phone and in some way infecting the jury deliberations with evidence that was not presented at trial. Here, that's not what's going on. It's really a question and I think the defense lawyer has been smart to try to really focus the issue on whether we have a juror who not simply disagrees with the other jurors based on the evidence but is absolutely refusing to follow the judge's instructions. And if that's the case, then the defense lawyer is arguing that that's a basis to remove that juror and I think he would like the judge to focus on that issue more closely and more carefully and at least put that issue more squarely on the record. So Bob, obviously the defense lawyer thinks that the holdout is a prosecution juror, a juror who

5:22wants to find her guilty. I mean, how can he take a chance like that? How does he know that that's the holdout? Well, you don't really know. That's the question. You don't know if somebody's focusing on reasonable doubt. It's because there's one juror who is refusing to acknowledge that there is reasonable doubt or that there's one juror who is refusing to accept that there is no reasonable doubt here. So it is a bit of a crap-hute. If you're on the defense side, typically you like the idea of jurors focusing on the issue of reasonable doubt. That's something the defense lawyers raise all the time because as you know, it's the prosecution's burden to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. And the defense doesn't ultimately have to convince jurors that their client is innocent. They simply have to show that the prosecution failed to meet that burden approved in establishing that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. So if that conversation seems to be focusing on the issue of reasonable doubt,

6:26most people would assume that it is a jury that is leaning towards an acquittal, but it also could be that they're fighting over one of the many different options that these jurors have in order to render a verdict here. So we just don't really know. Clearly the defense lawyer believes that it is a leaning defense verdict and what he's trying to do is get an acquittal for his client, either not guilty or not guilty by reason of insanity, rather than a hung jury, which of course would give the prosecution the opportunity to simply try the case all over again. If the 11 jurors are saying this one juror is not following the law on reasonable doubt, I mean reasonable doubt is a fluid and difficult concept. It could be that that one juror just doesn't agree with their view of what reasonable doubt is. How do you knock a juror off in that circumstance? Well, you can't knock a juror off simply because they don't agree with the other jurors

7:29and have come to a different conclusion based upon the evidence. What the defense lawyer is trying to argue is that the juror who is the apparent holdout is simply refusing to follow the law as it's been explained by the judge. Now we don't know whether that's the case or not, but I suspect that what the judge was doing by questioning the individual jurors was trying to make that determination. And if the holdout is simply a juror who has a strong conviction and is unwilling to be moved by the views of the other jurors, that's not something that will result in that juror being removed from the jury. It would simply end up as a hung jury if they ultimately couldn't be unanimous. The question here is, is this juror refusing to follow the legal instructions of the judge or simply has a difference of opinion and is unmoved by the opinion of his fellow jurors? So what's the standard to be used for removing a juror during deliberations?

8:33Yeah, it's really up to the discretion of the judge in large part, but obviously at this very late stage of the trial, a judge is going to be very reluctant to do that. It sometimes happens earlier on in a case for various reasons. Sometimes a juror becomes ill and can no longer continue to serve, but in this case, at this stage where there are many days into jury deliberations in a trial that lasted over a month where there were over 300 exhibits presented, multiple witnesses, case like this to remove a juror at the very end is going to be a tough standard for the judge to meet. And again, it would have to be a circumstance where a juror was more or less telling the judge that they were refusing to follow the instructions of the court. And in that instance, it's possible the judge would remove them on that basis. And that's what the defense is arguing, but so far, the judge is not buying it and has not taken any steps to remove this juror.

9:34And if they did remove a juror and put a new juror in, the jury would have to start deliberating from the beginning again, right? That's exactly right. It would delay the verdict because all of the deliberations that have occurred to date would have to start all over again with the new juror being placed in the jury room and being privy to all of the deliberations. You can't simply substitute a juror in at the end and say that we've already concluded various results and that juror has to simply accept them. So it would delay things, but I think the defense is banking on the possibility that a new juror would go along with what is apparently the majority view of the jurors if they can get this one hold out replaced. So this trial has divided people. I mean, people have strong opinions on both sides. Why do you think that's the case when you have a woman who admittedly killed her three children? Well, it is a case that has really transfixed the nation,

10:40the idea of a mother killing her three young children is both appalling and grimly fascinating to people. The question of who, whatever drive someone to harm their own children is something that most people really have never had to grapple with and have a difficult time, I think, assimilating as to exactly what would drive somebody to commit that kind of act. And what we see in this case are two very different narratives, both compelling in their own right where you've got the evidence of a woman according to prosecution committing this premeditated act where she had told her husband to go out to dinner, to go out to the CVS to pick something up and according to evidence produced by prosecutors during the trial, she had looked at how long it would take for him to come back. She had been with her children during the day taking them to doctor's appointments and basically the prosecution has said that although she may have a mental illness, she certainly knew what was going on and that

11:43this was an act of premeditation and she knew the wrongfulness of her conduct when she committed this crime. The defense, on the other hand, painting a very different picture. And really, I think, trying to put the medical system on trial in a certain sense by saying that their client visited a psychiatrist 14 times, tried 13 different medications. She called the suicide hotline. She went to the emergency room. She tried to enroll in an inpatient program. She confided in her husband that she had these thoughts of harming their children. And basically, they are trying to suggest that she did everything she could to try to prevent this from happening. But ultimately, this illness, this rare condition called postpartum psychosis caused her to have these hallucinations where she allegedly heard this male voice telling her to kill her children. And jurors are really faced with a very daunting task here. It's very difficult to try to sift through these two

12:45competing narratives of what's happened here to try to listen to the testimony, the medical testimony, the pharmaceutical testimony, and the data, the heartbreaking reality of what actually happened here, a mother killing her own three young children and figure out as to whether or not this was a premeditated act. And that justice is served by sending this woman to prison for the rest of her life or whether she really is suffering from a severe mental illness. And she really committed a crime without knowing right from wrong. And that the right result is to send her to a psychiatric institute rather than a prison. In Massachusetts, it's up to the prosecution, not the defense, to prove that the defendant, quote, retains substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness or criminality of their conduct and to conform their conduct to the requirements of the law. Is that a strict or lenient standard compared to other states?

13:47Massachusetts actually has one of the less restrictive definitions of insanity. The defense here is claiming postpartum psychosis, which in every state is treated like any other insanity defense. And in most cases, defendants must prove that they did not understand what they were doing or they did not know what they were doing was wrong. That's the most stringent standard. Other states have slightly less stringent standards. For example, certain states allow that defendants may have known what they were doing was wrong, but couldn't resist the impulse to do it. Another standard allows juries to consider, but for the defendant's mental defect, the crime would not have occurred. And the fourth and probably most lenient one is that the defendant must have been either unable to understand their action or unable to stay within the confines of the law. The interesting thing about the one Massachusetts is that it never shifts the burden onto the defense. All the other standards in most states shift the burden onto the defense to prove they didn't know

14:49what they were doing or that they did not know what they were doing was wrong. But in Massachusetts, the burden remains with the prosecution at all times, which makes it more difficult for prosecutors to overcome this defense. And in Massachusetts, it requires prosecutors not to defend to prove that a mentally ill defendant retains the substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness or criminality of their conduct and to conform their conduct to the requirements of the law. So in this case, once that defense is raised by the defense, the burden shifts back to the prosecution to overcome that defense. And in this case, the prosecution has tried to do it again by proving that the conduct was premeditated and that Miss Clancy knew what she was doing. She may have been mentally ill. That's conceded by prosecutors. But the question is not whether she was mentally ill. The standard here is whether or not she knew the wrongfulness and the criminality

15:51of her conduct and was unable to conform her conduct to the requirements of the law. Prosecutors here are saying that she did. And no matter what, I mean, even if they find her not guilty by lack of criminal responsibility, that doesn't mean she goes free. Under Massachusetts state law, when a person is found not guilty by lack of criminal responsibility, a court can commit them to a facility after holding a hearing and determining if they are mentally ill and if they're released would create a likelihood of serious harm to themselves or to others. Now what often happens in that circumstance is that they are committed to a state psychiatric hospital. The initial commitment lasts for six months and it's later renewed on a yearly basis. But there's no maximum number of recommitments. So there have been circumstances where an individual actually spends more time in a state psychiatric hospital by getting a result of not guilty by lack of criminal responsibility than they would have if they were actually found

16:55criminally responsible for the conduct. Bob, let's say a mistrial is declared. And the prosecution finds out that it was 11 to 1 in favor of finding her not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility. Do you think the prosecutor then tries to make a deal with the defense or because of the high profile nature of this case tries her again? Well, anytime there's a hung jury, there are usually discussions between the prosecution and the defense about a possible plea deal because if you try the case again, it could wind up in a hung jury again or of course the prosecution could lose or the defense could lose. So it's always a crapptute when you try the case a second time and you have to also remember that the defense has a little bit of an advantage on a second trial because they've now had a chance to cross examine all the prosecutions, witnesses and they know

17:56pretty much what prosecutors are going to present unless they change their theory of prosecution which they really can't do in this case. And so there is an opportunity for the defense when they retry the case if that would happen to know what's kind of coming down the road. So there would be some discussions if prosecutors really believe that getting a guilty verdict is going to be difficult but it really depends on what we learn if there is a hung jury and if those jurors speak publicly and we find out what's going on in the jury room just how those jurors broke down and if there was really one lone holdout for a conviction and everybody else was voted in favor of not guilty by reason of insanity then I think the defense is going to view itself as having a pretty strong hands here and I was going to try to push a pretty hard deal with prosecutors but I think at the end of the day the goal of the defense here is to have their client end up in a psychiatric hospital where they believe she will get the kind of mental health assistance that

19:00she really needs here and the goal is to keep her from going to prison with the belief that she didn't commit a crime here because she really didn't know what she was doing when she killed her We'll see what happens tomorrow and perhaps they will come to a decision Thanks so much Bob that's Robert Mintz of McCarter in English Discovered top rated stays loved by guests rated highest by real guests throughout Thin to reviews Verbo Book of Vacation Rental loved by guests Some people treat Chachy PT like some kind of smart search engine and some use it to get work done Chachy PT work is a new way of working in Chachy PT that can take action across your apps and files stay with a project for hours if needed and turn a goal into finished work It's designed to help you move from a chaotic starting point to a reviewable first version So all the source materials briefs and scattered information that you have to grind through to turn into

20:01Something useful can just become something useful Put Chachy PT to work on your most ambitious ideas and projects get started at chachy PT calm by selecting work mode available on plus and pro plans You already know how AI is changing how every day work gets done How much ground you can cover and how fast a team can scale To stay ahead you need the tools to give you a competitive advantage built for this new era Welcome to a Gentech Revenue Adio is the CRM for this world It meets you where you work Compounds every customer signal into context Then acts on it across your pipeline to let you move it on match speed and scale With agents and animations for every job in revenue Adio orchestrates your work around the clock Built to handle the scale of your workloads Extensible with API and MCP and with the infrastructure to keep up with your most ambitious agents Loved by high growth startups like granola, modal and etched Adio runs the work behind every win That's Adio, the agentic CRM, the intelligent system that never sleeps

21:03picks up leads at 2 a.m. Catches renewals before they slip, hands you the answer before you ask Try Adio free at adio.com slash iHeart That's adio.com slash iHeart Nick Reiner has pleaded not guilty to murdering his parents Hollywood director Rob Reiner and Michelle Singer Reiner And he's trying to get access to the $1.6 million trust fund His parents set up for him so he can hire a private lawyer However, a professional fiduciary with oversight of the fund Has opposed his request Siding a California law known as the Slayer Statute Joining me is trust and a state's litigator Robert Harper A partner at Farrell Fritz So Rob tell us what's been happening with the Nick Reiner case So Nick Reiner has obviously been accused of taking his parents' lives His father being the Hollywood director

22:05Rob Reiner, his mother Michelle Reiner And in the wake of their passing He has sought to gain access to trust funds that his parents created For his benefit Arguing that he should be allowed to access those funds in order to pay for his criminal offense council To defend him in prosecutions concerning his parents' deaths The trustee of the trust has denied Nick access to those funds On account of the fact that California has a Slayer Statute Now I'm a New York lawyer of Forreston And we don't have a Slayer Statute here in New York But we do have a Slayer Rule And that Slayer Rule is a similar concept That dates back here in New York to at least 1889 When our highest court here in New York state the Court of Appeals Render to decision called Riggs versus Palmer And in that case the Court of Appeals recognized that If you engage in wrongdoing such as taking someone else's life

23:05The courts here in New York will not permit you to benefit from that wrongdoing The Slayer Rule here in New York which is similar to the California Slayer Statute If it were to apply the Nick Reiner's case I think would justify the trustee's position Not to distribute trust funds or assets to Nick Whether for the purpose of defending himself in a criminal prosecution or for any other purpose The idea being that if he took his parents' lives He should not benefit from monies that they set aside For his benefit in trust that they created The California Slayer Statute Prevents a person who falloniously and intentionally kills a deceit From inheriting any property interest or benefit under a will of the deceit Or trust Created bio for the benefit of the deceit But in this case he hasn't been convicted yet So innocent until proven guilty So why can't he get the funds now?

24:06Well that's the question or the argument that Nick's lawyers have made That he hasn't been convicted And thus he should have access to the funds The problem is that the presumption of innocence that oftentimes applies in the criminal context Is not necessarily equally applicable in the civil context When we're dealing with the state and trust issues And so to the extent that the trustee were to distribute monies from the trust For Nick's benefit such as paying his criminal offense counsel Even before he's convicted if he's convicted The fact of matter is that it's likely that those funds would never be seen again And the trustee has taken a protective position That even in the absence of a conviction The funds should not be distributed to Nick Until his criminal proceedings are resolved So that if after those criminal proceedings are resolved And if he's convicted The funds will still be available for his siblings The people that would take in the event that the California Slayer Statute Or to apply

25:07There's another wrinkle here in that He's 32 He could have been paid part of the trust when he was 30 And that amounts to about $558,000 according to the trustee So that would have been due to him when he was 30 So before this incident, before he was accused So might that part of the trust be awarded to him? I would submit not, right? Somebody has found to engage in conduct that triggers In California, the Slayer Statute Or here in New York, for example, the Slayer Rule Whether or not they're interested Vested before they're wrongdoing The public policy that underlies it That prevents somebody from profiting from they're wrongdoing From benefiting from they're wrongdoing Would apply either way And so the timing question was a good question of If he was entitled to the funds before he took Even a portion of the funds Before he took his parents' lives if he did that

26:07It strikes me that from a public policy perspective The Slayer Rule, the Slayer Statute being based on this notion that One cannot benefit from their wrongdoing Would prevent Nick from receiving any of the funds Regardless of whether he was entitled to a portion at age 30 Or some other age Who's going to decide this? Is it a probate judge? Yes, it is And my understanding is that there was a hearing On this issue that has occurred But that the court has not yet rendered a decision on I believe the Menendez brothers Were blocked from receiving any part of their parents Multimillion dollar estate Because of the California Slayer Rule Do you know of any cases in New York where it was applied? Of course, of course there's a really satinating case The sad case And all of these Slayer Rule cases are sad cases But especially sad one matter of MSCO Which was a surrogate court NASA county case that dates back approximately 10 years

27:07In that case a mother She took her children's lives And after being found not responsible From a criminal perspective Not responsible for a crime due to Mental disease or mental defect She then saw it in interest In the wrongful death compromise proceeds That arose from her children's deaths There were proceeds that were derived from Government claims against the government That resulted in money that could be paid out And the court I think predictably and correctly found that The mother under those circumstances Having caused the deaths of her children Should not receive any share of the proceeds That arose from her children's wrongful deaths So finally how is this different from the son of Sam Law Interesting question right I think the public policy in a lot of respects The slayer rule, the slayer statute Whether it's New York, California Murders the son of Sam public policy right

28:07You can't profit from your crime under the son of Sam Law Is it exists here in New York And similarly the slayer rule Prevent somebody who's a wrong-doer And take someone else's life From receiving a share of an estate Or trust that results from that person's death What's also interesting In addition to the son of Sam concept Is that the slayer rule has been applied Especially here in New York In other contexts right So for example we have a case Ambulv versus Thomas Where the Pell division here in New York found that a Surviving spouse who sought to receive her elective share An interest in the the C spouses estate After the the C spouses passing on account of The fact that she was the striving spouse Should not be prevented to do so Pursuant to the same principles that arose from Riggs versus Palmer And the reason was that the the surviving spouse in that case Had wrongfully taken advantage of the

29:09Then to see spouses infirmity cognitive issues To get that person to marry her And so when it came to light after the decisions Passing that she was claiming to be a surviving spouse The court allowed equity to guide the resolution in that case And to say just as we don't permit a wrongdoer who takes the life of the person To receive a share of that person to state In a gree to circumstances we can prevent a surviving spouse Who seeks to receive a share of an estate But who actually caused the marriage by wrongdoing From receiving that share of the estate How often do you see cases like this These types of cases rarely arise They do happen every couple of years In terms of the slayer rule, the slayer statute cases And they usually garner a lot of attention But there are a lot of other ways That there's an interplay between trust and states law Which my colleagues here at Farrell Fritz and I handle And the criminal aspects that can sometimes relate back

30:10So we have instances where there are examples of elder abuse And criminal prosecutions that may arise from elder abuse That also relate to trust and state disputes That also relate to guardianship disputes That result in a need to protect people And it's fascinating when these rare occasions Where there's an interplay between trust and states And criminal law arise But they are rare Thanks for joining me Rob That's Robert Harper of Farrell Fritz Some people treat Chachy-P-T like some kind of smart search engine And some use it to get work done Chachy-P-T work is a new way of working in Chachy-P-T That can take action across your apps and files Stay with a project for hours if needed And turn a goal into finished work It's designed to help you move from a chaotic starting point To a reviewable first version So all the source materials, briefs, and scattered information That you have to grind through to turn into something useful Can just become something useful

31:11Put Chachy-P-T to work on your most ambitious ideas and projects Get started at chachy-P-T.com by selecting work mode Available on plus and pro plans

32:50All to keep you in control However buying happens next New markets, new AI-powered selling surfaces A whole new agentic era where you decide how your business will show up and stand up PayPal is built to help your business come out ahead We're built for payments Built for growth Built for agentic PayPal open Built for all business Visit PayPalOpen.com to get started That's PayPalOpen.com Threats against judges are at record highs So in the general council of the Department of Homeland Security Posted a list in July naming the worst of the worst judges Several sitting federal judges like New Jersey judge Esther Salis Express their concerns I worry for those judges And I worry what is to come from every judge that finds him or herself on this weekly

33:56You know unveiling if you will of of the new worst of the worst district judge I just don't understand what's the end game what is the end game With this type of rhetoric coming out of DHS. I don't understand it And a group of 128 former judges Failed a bar complaint against the general council James Percival alleging that his post constitute serious professional misconduct Threaten the rule of law and increase the risk of violence against judges Well the Florida bar has declined to investigate that complaint Joining me is Bloomberg Law reporter Suzanne Monyak Suzanne start by telling us about that worst of the worst list that Percival put out James Percival who's the general counsel for the Department of Homeland Security Has been posting on social media a series he's calling the quote-unquote worst of the worst judges This is a riff off of an existing DHS social media series highlighting

34:58What they call the worst of the worst immigrants who are immigrants with certain criminal convictions That they will highlight who are being deported Here Percival is calling him a worst of the worst judges And he is highlighting judges by name who handed down decisions in immigration cases that he didn't like So he criticizes them describes the case in a way and calls them out as a worst of the worst Former judges and even current judges came out and talked about this and Complained about it because it feeds into they say The threats against judges that have been increasing over the last years So retired judges Complained about it That's right. There was a complaint filed a bar complaint with the Florida bar By 128 retired judges both state and federal Who said that they didn't think this was a proper use of James Percival's authority and position To be criticizing judges this way they warned that it might drive Threats to judges at a time when they're all already facing a heightened threat landscape

35:59And so they had you know argued that this was misconduct under Florida barbels And tell us what the Florida bar just decided to not do That's right the Florida bar closed the complaint they won't be investigating it They stated in a letter a couple days ago that it does not investigate or prosecute sitting officers Appointed under the US Constitution while they are in office So essentially that they won't be looking into any professional misconduct complaints by a current administration official The bar did say that the judges are welcome the former judges I should say are welcome to Refile this complaint once Percival is no longer surveying the administration And he has not taken this graciously Tell us what he's done since this decision came out Percival is active on social media to say the least and He certainly has his own style and after the decision came out he Posted what appeared to be maybe an artificial intelligence generated photo of himself as Gandalf from Lord of the Rings And he captioned it me after defeating 128 former judges

37:01Have you heard of any Blowback at all from anyone in the administration that the general counsel of a federal agency is behaving like this Not from the administration certainly I can't you know speculate on how people might feel privately But the you know dhs when I've reached out for comment about these concerns has defended him dhs is maintained that they believe that this is valid criticism that he's making in a democracy And that you know judges are subject to criticism judges generally agree that they are subject to criticism But have you know distinguished between what they see as criticism in his comments They feel that he's mischaracterizing cases when he describes judges will links he disagrees with And in driving threats to judges in a way that goes beyond criticism that you would you know want to see in a democracy Let's turn to a federal judge in Atlanta House Republicans are looking for Information about why a federal judge who had an affair in her chambers

38:03Was privately reprimanded Republican judiciary chair Jim Jordan and other lawmakers are asking The chief judge of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals which overseas Georgia To respond by September 15th to their questions about why he didn't recommend that the judge voluntarily Depped down from the bench The House came back to Washington this week and one of the you know first things we got from them was a letter to The 11th Circuit Chief Judge the 11th Circuit of Appeals Court that oversees Trial Quartz and Georgia Florida and Alabama they wrote that judge and asked for more information about his investigation into judge Eleanor Ross who is a Atlanta federal judge who was found to have committed misconduct in a decision released earlier this year Specifically by having an extramarital affair in her chambers with a top-belace officer In your shot of her law clerks which they found created a hostile work environment They also found she improperly attended a political event and that she had lied about her behavior when approached by judicial investigators

39:07However at the time the committee the judicial committee that was investigating them as conduct recommended a private sanction They didn't initially name her that has you know later been reported and confirmed have been her But they didn't recommend that she be forced to resign We're now seeing the hill take some of that um onto itself And House Republicans have indicated some interest in potentially initiating impeachment proceedings against her Whereby she could be removed from the bench There've been attempts to impeach judges, but they've gone nowhere at least in in this particular house That's right. This one is somewhat different in that In this case the judiciary actually did find misconduct Whereas in a lot of cases that also Republicans have wanted to impeach judges It's been about rulings that they disliked and that's not an appropriate use of impeachment That's not what impeachment is for its firm's conduct So I mean, I think in a way it's possible that Republicans may have someone underbind their credibility with impeachment on this issue um, you know if they haven't seen success with some of the other impeachment resolutions they filed

40:08What does that mean for their interest in you know pursuing this one? But I believe you know if they look at them all equally You know, I think experts would agree that this one would have a lot more legs If they did want to move forward on it compared to ones they filed regarding Trump administration litigation And so Zan you've been covering the disputes over Trump's White House ballroom and renovation of the Kennedy Center and the reflecting pool renovations and the attempt to build an arch And you've talked to lawyers who are afraid that the Supreme Court's decision that the historic preservation society that sued over the ballroom Didn't have standing that that decision could affect these other lawsuits against Trump over his plan renovations That's right the Supreme Court found that their likely wasn't standing for historic preservationists to challenge Trump's decision to demolish the White House East Wing and build a brand new ball And this could have ripple effects on a number of other court challenges regarding Trump's efforts to change other

41:12The Washington DZ We've already seen to a sense the Supreme Court issued that order We've seen notices filed in two of those cases by The parties claiming that actually we don't think the Supreme Court order should do more case But historic preservation law professors who I spoke to were concerned that this finding which is they've said would really narrow The number of people who could bring these lawsuits Against changes to national monuments or landmarks might make it very difficult for these other lawsuits to succeed and effectively Could it just give this current administration a green light to continue building what they want to build knowing that You know very few people have grounds to to challenge it successfully in court. We'll see that same group is Challenging the Kennedy Center, right? That's right the National Trust is also one of the preservationists nonprofits challenging proposed renovations to the Kennedy Center There are a number of other cases filed by different groups too. We have Preservationist groups have challenged um an effort to paint the historic granite exterior of the Eisenhower executive office building

42:18Which is an office building near the White House We have also seen litigation by a slightly different group of plaintiffs that a group of Vietnam more veterans have challenged Trump's stated proposal to build a 250 foot tramful arch on memorial circle They're arguing it would obstruct views to Arlington National cemetery where they might like to be buried one day So we have seen you know slightly different claims brought by different types of people But certainly anytime you're narrowing the you know number type of person who can sue over something It's going to you know put an obstacle um toward having the challenges be successful in the future And tell us more about the claims of the two groups who have already filed papers I guess in an attempt to fend off challenges to their standing to bring the suits And two of the cases um there were challenges to both Trump's project to change the color of the Lincoln Memorial reflecting pool and also um a second challenge over the uh Trump's proposed tramful arch We saw actually the plaintiff so the people who had brought the lawsuit flagged for the court um recently

43:22Hey the Supreme Court has issued this order Finding that you know these people didn't have standing to challenge the White House ballroom Here's why we think our case is different and why we nonetheless have standing and how We believe our lawsuit is actually still consistent and you know backed up by the Supreme Court's illegal findings here So we've already seen you know this is definitely on their radar These people who are challenging uh Trump's other projects and it remains to be seen how it's going to play out We'll see if the justice department starts Challenging the standing of those groups in these other cases Thanks so much Suzanne that's Bloomberg Law reporter Suzanne Monyeck And that's it for this edition of the Bloomberg Law Show remember you can always get the latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law podcast You can find them on Apple podcasts Spotify and at www.bloomberg.com slash podcast slash law and remember to tune into the Bloomberg Law Show every week night at 10 p.m. Wall Street time I'm June Grasau and you're listening to Bloomberg

44:29You already know how AI is changing how every day work gets done How much ground you can cover and how fast a team can scale to stay ahead You need the tools to give you a competitive advantage built for this new era Welcome to a genetic revenue adio is the CRM for this world. It meets you where you work Compounds every customer signal into context then acts on it across your pipeline to let you move it on match speed and scale With agents and animations for every job in revenue adio orchestrates your work around the clock Built to handle the scale of your workloads Extensible with API and mcp and with the infrastructure to keep up with your most ambitious agents Loved by high-growth startups like granola modal and etched adio runs the work behind every win That's adio the agent to CRM the intelligent system that never sleeps picks up leads at 2 a.m. Catches renewals before they slip hands you the answer before you ask try adio free at adio.com slash ihard that's adio.com slash ihard

45:31Your favorite friend group is back fx's adults follows five roommates living in New York leaning on each other to navigate love Work friendship and family while tackling pressing questions of your 20s like What if the person who inherited your fake ID is cooler than you ever were Why does being around your family make you regress into your worst self? And how do you tell your roommates that you have other friends? fx's adults all episodes now streaming on hulu Some people use chat GPT to answer questions others use it to get real work done with chat GPT work You bring the goal plus real inputs like briefs notes files feedback data and project plans It can help turn them into an analysis tracker deck outline prototype or workflow. You can review and keep shaping You stay in control giving direction and choosing the final output put chat GPT to work on your most ambitious ideas and projects Get started at chat GPT.com by selecting work mode available on plus and pro plans