[Mick]

A First Circuit Court panel might undo Varsity Blues based on 76 year old Kotteakos v. United States.

The gist of the case is that two people who don't know each other cannot enter into a conspiracy just because they are both connected to the same person (Rick Singer) with criminal intent. The defense's case was that there needed to be a shared objective among the alleged co-conspirators, not just a series of crimes that look the same. The panel even considered that double jeopardy would bar a retrial if the panel sent the matter back to the court.

'Varsity Blues' Convictions On Shaky Ground, 1st Circ. Hints

Two additional arguments:

1) In fact, one could argue that the offenders actually competed with each other for admissions spots at the universities, a fact that argues against conspiracy.

2) Facts that were used to convict some parents shouldn't apply to other parents (e.g., some parents took fake photos and submitted them with admissions applications, others did not). It was further argued that parents often help their children spruce up admissions applications -- without getting a criminal indictment.

3) Parents argued that they acted in good faith and thought they were making legitimate donations to the universities, a la John Arillaga, and that the bribes were paid by Singer, not by the parents. In other words, there's never been a bribery case where the recipient of the bribe (university) was also the victim.

4) Along those lines, USC routinely sold admissions slots as a means of fundraising.

5) A different judge acquitted a parent based upon Georgetown's admissions practices, whereas pro-prosecution Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton didn't allow the defense to submit evidence based on USC's admissions practices.

Why A 76-Year-Old Top Court Case Could Undo 'Varsity Blues'

Last comment: Rick Singer sold his Newport Beach house and is now living in a trailer park in Florida in a $22k, 500 sq foot trailer.

Rick Singer is seen living in Florida trailer park amid fallout from college admissions scandal | Daily Mail Online

[Mick]

A First Circuit Court panel might undo Varsity Blues based on 76 year old Kotteakos v. United States.

The gist of the case is that two people who don't know each other cannot enter into a conspiracy just because they are both connected to the same person (Rick Singer) with criminal intent. The defense's case was that there needed to be a shared objective among the alleged co-conspirators, not just a series of crimes that look the same. The panel even considered that double jeopardy would bar a retrial if the panel sent the matter back to the court.

'Varsity Blues' Convictions On Shaky Ground, 1st Circ. Hints

Two additional arguments:

1) In fact, one could argue that the offenders actually competed with each other for admissions spots at the universities, a fact that argues against conspiracy.

2) Facts that were used to convict some parents shouldn't apply to other parents (e.g., some parents took fake photos and submitted them with admissions applications, others did not). It was further argued that parents often help their children spruce up admissions applications -- without getting a criminal indictment.

3) Parents argued that they acted in good faith and thought they were making legitimate donations to the universities, a la John Arillaga, and that the bribes were paid by Singer, not by the parents. In other words, there's never been a bribery case where the recipient of the bribe (university) was also the victim.

4) Along those lines, USC routinely sold admissions slots as a means of fundraising.

5) A different judge acquitted a parent based upon Georgetown's admissions practices, whereas pro-prosecution Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton didn't allow the defense to submit evidence based on USC's admissions practices.

Why A 76-Year-Old Top Court Case Could Undo 'Varsity Blues'

Last comment: Rick Singer sold his Newport Beach house and is now living in a trailer park in Florida in a $22k, 500 sq foot trailer.

Rick Singer is seen living in Florida trailer park amid fallout from college admissions scandal | Daily Mail Online

[Mick]

Not Varsity Blues, but similar.

Yesterday, a Boston jury rejected charges that Harvard's frmer fencing coach accepted bribes to recruit a Maryland businessman's son to Harvard. Jury found that former coach Peter Brand and iTalk Global Comm's CEO Jie Zhao were not guilty of conspiring in a fraud and bribery scheme.

This followed an acquittal of a parent who allegedly bribed his daughter's way into Georgetown.

Govt claimed Zhao bribed Brand with $100k to get his son a slot on the Harvard fencing team, funneling the $100k through a foundation run by the athlete's fencing instructor, who testified under an immunity deal. Zhao/Brand's lawyers argued that Ryjik was an admitted liar who stole from his own foundation and pocketed federal pandemic aid funds instead of paying his employees. Defense also argued that the athletes were nationally ranked fencers, who warranted the spots. Prosecution argued that the sons' skills didn't matter in light of the alleged bribes.

Defense also argued that the agreements were done out in the open, well-documented, and in their own names, and that no one engaged in an actual bribe scheme would have done it that way.

Later, Zhao paid a steep premium to purchase Brand's home, then paid off a mountain of Brand's personal debts, and bankrolled the renovation of his condo in Cambridge.

Jury deliberated for six hours. Zhao represented by spare-no-expense Quinn Emanuel.

[Mick]

Not Varsity Blues, but similar.

Yesterday, a Boston jury rejected charges that Harvard's frmer fencing coach accepted bribes to recruit a Maryland businessman's son to Harvard. Jury found that former coach Peter Brand and iTalk Global Comm's CEO Jie Zhao were not guilty of conspiring in a fraud and bribery scheme.

This followed an acquittal of a parent who allegedly bribed his daughter's way into Georgetown.

Govt claimed Zhao bribed Brand with $100k to get his son a slot on the Harvard fencing team, funneling the $100k through a foundation run by the athlete's fencing instructor, who testified under an immunity deal. Zhao/Brand's lawyers argued that Ryjik was an admitted liar who stole from his own foundation and pocketed federal pandemic aid funds instead of paying his employees. Defense also argued that the athletes were nationally ranked fencers, who warranted the spots. Prosecution argued that the sons' skills didn't matter in light of the alleged bribes.

Defense also argued that the agreements were done out in the open, well-documented, and in their own names, and that no one engaged in an actual bribe scheme would have done it that way.

Later, Zhao paid a steep premium to purchase Brand's home, then paid off a mountain of Brand's personal debts, and bankrolled the renovation of his condo in Cambridge.

Jury deliberated for six hours. Zhao represented by spare-no-expense Quinn Emanuel.

[Phogge]

Had a talk today with Mike Tollin, a Stanford grad whose company produced the Varsity Blues picture.

[Phogge]

Had a talk today with Mike Tollin, a Stanford grad whose company produced the Varsity Blues picture.

[M T]

If the appeals court invalidates convictions, can those that spent time in jail sue(?) to get compensated for that time?

One might think that Singer conned the investigation/prosecution team into being lenient on him because there were all these juicy big-name targets that only he could bring in.   A $22K trailer is not a jail cell.

I'm not a lawyer and don't know the details of each charge or the applicable laws. But it seems to me that conspiracies were between Singer and each set of parent(s).  If Singer, unbeknownst to the parents P, pays person X to perform some illegal act, say, change SAT scores,, I would not normally think that P and X conspired.  P & Singer, yes (depending on whether P was, or should have been, aware that the act they agreed on was illegal or required something illegal).  Singer & X, yes (similar assumption on X).

[There is a limit to that though.  Consider what you might see in a TV crime drama "I don't care how you do it, just get rid of this guy".]

[M T]

If the appeals court invalidates convictions, can those that spent time in jail sue(?) to get compensated for that time?

One might think that Singer conned the investigation/prosecution team into being lenient on him because there were all these juicy big-name targets that only he could bring in.   A $22K trailer is not a jail cell.

I'm not a lawyer and don't know the details of each charge or the applicable laws. But it seems to me that conspiracies were between Singer and each set of parent(s).  If Singer, unbeknownst to the parents P, pays person X to perform some illegal act, say, change SAT scores,, I would not normally think that P and X conspired.  P & Singer, yes (depending on whether P was, or should have been, aware that the act they agreed on was illegal or required something illegal).  Singer & X, yes (similar assumption on X).

[There is a limit to that though.  Consider what you might see in a TV crime drama "I don't care how you do it, just get rid of this guy".]