04-14-2022, 01:54 PM
In the "not so fast" category is a Rule 29 motion for acquittal. Defense attorney Koren Bell of Larson LLP asked U. S. District Judge Indira Talwani to schedule a briefing on a Rule 29 motion for acquittal
Basically, that's the long-shot request in which the judge sets aside the jury-based verdict of guilty and enters a judgment of acquittal. In this case, the judge may conditionally determine whether a new trial should be considered.
And Coach Vavic's odds are better than most. Judge Talwani has repeatedly questioned central aspects of the government's case, which led to flaring tempers and heated arguments during the trial. Basically, Talwani instructed the jury that they could find the prosecution's decision to not call Singer to the stand means his testimony might have hurt their case. Two of the prosecution's team stormed out of the courtroom before Talwani could even stand to walk down the bench. Also of interest: Talwani split from one of her colleague judges (U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton), when she found that admissions slots could not be considered "property" for the purpose of fraud statues. In other words, the judge said that admissions practices at USC should be part of the trial (Vavic's attorneys argued that USC's admissions practices were corrupt by design).
One other odd little item. Judge Talwani ruled right before the verdict that a profane statement that Vavic allegedly made to a fellow coach to convince him to join Singer's scheme could not be considered for the truth, since the government had failed that Vavic was a member of the conspiracy at the time of the statement -- a statement that the prosecution leaned heavily on during closing arguments. Potentially, the defense could say that the alleged statement was so prejudicial that it tainted the jury verdict.
The most compelling argument for the defense may be whether USC was victimized in the scheme or whether USC takes money for admissions slots as part of its usual practice. Separately before and during the trial, Judge Talwani was highly skeptical of the government building its case on Singer's statements given that (a) Singer didn't take the stand and (b) he had a demonstratively tenuous relationship with the truth.
I wouldn't be surprised to see this end up in the First Circuit court.
Basically, that's the long-shot request in which the judge sets aside the jury-based verdict of guilty and enters a judgment of acquittal. In this case, the judge may conditionally determine whether a new trial should be considered.
And Coach Vavic's odds are better than most. Judge Talwani has repeatedly questioned central aspects of the government's case, which led to flaring tempers and heated arguments during the trial. Basically, Talwani instructed the jury that they could find the prosecution's decision to not call Singer to the stand means his testimony might have hurt their case. Two of the prosecution's team stormed out of the courtroom before Talwani could even stand to walk down the bench. Also of interest: Talwani split from one of her colleague judges (U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton), when she found that admissions slots could not be considered "property" for the purpose of fraud statues. In other words, the judge said that admissions practices at USC should be part of the trial (Vavic's attorneys argued that USC's admissions practices were corrupt by design).
One other odd little item. Judge Talwani ruled right before the verdict that a profane statement that Vavic allegedly made to a fellow coach to convince him to join Singer's scheme could not be considered for the truth, since the government had failed that Vavic was a member of the conspiracy at the time of the statement -- a statement that the prosecution leaned heavily on during closing arguments. Potentially, the defense could say that the alleged statement was so prejudicial that it tainted the jury verdict.
The most compelling argument for the defense may be whether USC was victimized in the scheme or whether USC takes money for admissions slots as part of its usual practice. Separately before and during the trial, Judge Talwani was highly skeptical of the government building its case on Singer's statements given that (a) Singer didn't take the stand and (b) he had a demonstratively tenuous relationship with the truth.
I wouldn't be surprised to see this end up in the First Circuit court.
Audaces fortuna iuvat