NEIL: ALL RIGHT, ACTRESS
FELICITY HUFFMAN IS BEING
SENTENCED THIS AFTERNOON.
FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR ON
WHAT SHE COULD BE LOOKING AT.
THIS IS ACTRESS WHO SPENT, WHAT,
I THINK $15,000 TO UP HER
DAUGHTER'S S.A.T. SCORES, RIGHT?
>> THAT'S RIGHT, YES, THAT'S
CORRECT.
NEIL: SO, THAT'S A -- I'M NOT
MINIMIZING IT, A RELATIVELY
SMALL AMOUNT COMPARED TO SOME OF
THE OTHERS WHO ARE BEEN FINGERED
BY PROSECUTORS.
HOW DOES THAT PLAY IN TERMS OF A
SENTENCING HERE?
>> SURE.
SO IT IS A RELATIVELY SMALL
AMOUNT.
SHE HAS OBVIOUSLY PLED GUILTY
ALREADY.
SHE HAS TAKEN RESPONSIBILITY.
SHE ADMITTED TO EXCHANGING THIS
MONEY TO BOOST HER DAUGHTER'S
S.A.T. SCORES.
THE FOR SENTENCING PURES, SHE
TOOK RESPONSIBILITY, AND
RELATIVELY MINIMAL AMOUNT OF
MONEY ESPECIALLY COMPARED TO
SOME OTHER PARENTS INVOLVED, SHE
WAS GIVING THE MONEY, SHE WAS
NOT ACTUALLY RECEIVE IT, ALL
THAT WILL PLAY IN HER FAVOR.
PROSECUTORS ARE ASKING FOR
MINIMAL AMOUNT OF JAIL TIME.
I DON'T SEE HER SPENDING TIME
BEHIND BARS.
I THINK MORE REALISTICALLY SHE
WILL GET SOME FORM OF FINES,
COMMUNITY SERVICE AND SOME
PROBATION, POTENTIALLY.
I THINK THAT IS REALISTICALLY
WHAT SHE COULD BE LOOKING AT
UNDER THE FEDERAL SENTENCING
GUIDELINES.
THERE IS POSSIBLE SOME JAIL TIME
INVOLVED.
I DON'T SEE IT IN THIS CASE.
NEIL: YOU DON'T WANT TO MAKE
SWEEPING GENERALITIES HERE, ANY
JUDGE COULD GO AHEAD TO LEAP TO
MAKE AN EXAMPLE OF PEOPLE LIKE
HER, OTHERS WHO HAVE BEEN CAUGHT
UP IN THIS.
THAT IT IS NOT TO BE TOLERATED
AND ALL THAT.
THAT SORT OF THING AND SENT GO?
>> CERTAINLY.
IN SENTENCING ONE OF THE TENETS
JUDGES WILL LOOK TO.
WHAT KIND OF MESSAGE ARE THEY
SENDING TO OTHER DEFENDANTS AND
THE PUBLIC AT LARGE THAT IS A
PRINCIPLE CAN BE USED.
SHE ADMITTED RESPONSIBILITY
EARLY, SHOWN REMORSE FOR HER
ACTIONS, RELATIVELY LIMITED AS
FAR AS WHAT SHE DID, IT IS NOT
NECESSARILY GOING TO CUT AGAINST
HER TOO BADLY.
THERE COULD BE A IDEA THEY WANT
TO SEND A MESSAGE.
THERE IS OTHER PARENTS STILL
CHOOSING TO FIGHT THIS ALL THE
WAY THROUGH TO TRIAL.
SO THAT IS GOING JUST NOT BE
SOMETHING VERY COMPARABLE TO
THIS CIRCUMSTANCE.
NEIL: YOU KNOW IT'S A LITTLE BIT
OUTSIDE OF YOUR AREA WHERE
YOU'RE A TRUE EXPERT, BUT I JUST
WONDER, WHAT IT HAS DONE TO THE
COLLEGE APPLICATION, ADMISSIONS
PROCESS?
I MEAN WE'RE GOING INTO ANOTHER
FALL WHERE THAT WILL BE A VERY
BIG THEME.
I'M WONDERING IF IT CHANGED
BEHAVIOR, ALTERED BEHAVIOR?
A WINK AND NOD, HELP MY KID OUT
BEHAVIOR THAT WASN'T SO BLATANT
AS SOME OF THESE CASES, WHAT DO
YOU THINK?
>> I CERTAINLY HOPE SO.
I THINK IT WAS VERY
DISAPPOINTING FOR EVERYBODY TO
SEE WHAT KIND OF UNFAIRNESS WAS
GOING ON IN THIS PROCESS.
OBVIOUSLY PEOPLE WERE AWARE
THERE WAS SOME FAVORITISM WAS
INVOLVED WITH ALUMNI AND PEOPLE
THAT HAD CERTAIN DONATIONS AND
THINGS LIKE THAT.
THAT WAS ALL LEGAL.
THIS WAS UNLAWFUL BEHAVIOR AND
IT WAS VERY ENTITLED.
I THINK THIS HAS BROUGHT MAYBE
TO THE FOREFRONT A ISSUE WE ALL
KNEW EXISTED BUT HOPEFULLY HAS
CHANGED THINGS FOR THE BETTER.
IT HAS REALLY SENT A WARNING
SHOT TO PEOPLE WHO WOULD THINK
OF ENGAGING IN THAT SORT OF
BEHAVIOR IN THE FUTURE.
NEIL: WHAT ABOUT SCHOOLS
THEMSELVES, TO BUTTON DOWN THE
PROCESS WHICH YOU MIGHT HAVE
COACHES OR OTHERS WHO WOULD
INFLUENCE THE SELECTION PROCESS,
WHAT DO YOU THINK?
>> CERTAINLY SAME SORT OF IMPACT
I WOULD HOPE.
IN THIS CASE OBVIOUSLY THERE HAS
BEEN SOME COACHES THAT ALREADY
HAVE BEEN SENTENCED OR WILL BE
SENTENCED.
THEY HAVE USED MONEY THEY
RECEIVED FROM FAMILIES FOR THEIR
PROGRAMS.
THAT IS STILL UNLAWFUL IF IT
WASN'T OBTAINED THROUGH PROPER
PROCEDURES.
SO I THINK THAT, HOPEFULLY
PEOPLE WILL GET THE MESSAGE,
THAT THIS SORT OF BEHAVIOR IS
UNACCEPTABLE.
IT IS NOT FAIR AND DOESN'T
REWARD MERIT WHICH WE ALL WANT
TO BELIEVE IS SOMETHING THAT THE
COLLEGE ADMISSIONS PROCESS TRIES
TO FOCUS ON.