Kendall Coffey Interview with Malzberg about Bush v. Gore and the Boston Bombings Part 2

Steve Malzberg Spinning the Law

Kendall Coffey Interview with Malzberg about Bush v. Gore and the Boston Bombings Part 2

Read Part 1 here:

STEVE MALZBERG:  Right.  And she said that that decision, and one of the reasons she’s now reminiscing or now maybe changing her opinion is that it stirred up the public and gave the Court a less-than-perfect reputation when, well, now, by what she’s saying, one could argue, it could have the potential to do the same thing.

KENDALL COFFEY:  Well, and it does.  I mean, does this mean that Chief Justice Roberts is, ten years from now, going to be saying, Gee, maybe I was wrong on Obamacare after all?


KENDALL COFFEY:  You know, I hope not.  Because whether he was right or wrong, you know, the whole thing that makes our courts work, our judges don’t have guns, they don’t have swords; it’s all about accepting and respecting their decisions, and accepting finality when it’s a final decision.

So, yeah, I guess I appreciate her candor, but I’m not sure if it’s a great thing for the institution of the Supreme Court to be sort of publicly second guessing herself, especially on something with such dramatic consequences.

STEVE MALZBERG:  All right, let’s move on a little bit to the investigation into the Boston bombing.  I guess the revelations, well, you know, legally speaking, that have come to light in the past week was the other day when those three friends, the nineteen-year-old friends, two foreign nationals here under student visas, were arrested.  And, you know, here we have another example of someone—not overstaying the visa, but not living up to the terms of the visa, actually allowed to leave the country and then come back in.

No red flag, wasn’t arrested until after the bombing they were picked up on those charges….Do we have—well, obviously we have a problem—but tell me what it means when those two who were here illegally, as opposed to the American citizen who was arrested, I heard that they were—that they did not take their option for a bail hearing, and they agreed to be held voluntarily in confinement.  What does that mean, exactly?

KENDALL COFFEY:  Well, it means that they know the serious charges that they’re facing and the fact that, you know, they certainly don’t have any established ties to the United States, and there would be every reason to take off.  They’re not candidates for getting released pre-trial.  That’s why they would be staying in custody at least until the facts are further developed.  But the charges are serious, Steve.  In one case, the case of the US citizen, the guy gave the FBI three different stories, completely different, and then finally came relatively close to the truth the last time.  That’s lying to a federal agent if it’s true, and in terrorism cases the sentence can go from five years to eight years.

As to the other two, they’re charged with destruction of evidence.  That is a very serious charge.  So when you get those kind of serious charges, especially with individuals who appear to be potential flight risks, they’re gonna stay inside of incarceration pending further developments in the case.  It’s just too big a risk that people might take off.