DEIRDRE: FACING QUESTIONS OVER
POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST,
ACTRESS LORI LAUGHLIN AND HER
HUSBAND LEAVING A BOSTON
COURTROOM MOMENTS AGO AFTER A
HEARING IN THE COLLEGE
ADMISSIONS SCANDAL.
FOX NEWS'S MOLLY LINE OUTSIDE
THE COURTHOUSE.
WHAT'S THE LATEST?
REPORTER: DEIRDRE, CLEARLY THE
COUPLE WANTS TO PRESENT A UNITED
FRONT.
LORI LAUGHLIN AND HER HUSBAND
HOLDING HANDS, SITTING SIDE BY
SIDE WITH THE JUDGE IN FEDERAL
COURT THIS WAS ALL ABOUT A
CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
THIS WAS A HEARING THAT
ESSENTIALLY WAS ALL ABOUT THE
FACT THAT THEY SHARE SOME OF THE
SAME ATTORNEYS THOUGH EACH
RETAINS SEPARATE COUNSEL.
SEVERAL POTENTIAL PITFALLS WERE
EXPLORED DURING THE HEARING.
SEEMINGLY OF GREATER CONCERN
THROUGH THE PROSECUTORS AND
JUDGE, GEE -- GIANULLI HIRED
LAWYERS FROM A SMALLER FIRM.
SHE COULD TESTIFY AGAINST
GIANULLI AND OTHER PARENTS.
SHE ALSO ALLEGED TO USED THROUGH
THE MASTERMIND OF THE SCHEME TO
HAVE PAID TO GET HER DAUGHTERS
INTO USC, THE UNIVERSITY OF
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA.
THAT IS THE SCHOOL THAT LAUGHLIN
AND GIANULLI ARE ALSO ACCUSED
GOING THROUGH THE MASTERMIND OF
THE SCHEME TO GET DAUGHTERS IN.
LAUGHLIN AND GIANULLI ACCUSED OF
PAYING $500,000 COACHES,
ADMINISTRATORS ULTIMATELY
THROUGH THE MASTERMIND TO
ACHIEVE THAT GOAL.
THE COUPLE SIGNED WAIVERS TODAY,
AFFIRMED DESIRE TO CONTINUE TO
SHARE A LEGAL TEAM.
WORTH NOTING THEY ARE FACING IF
CONVICTED ON THE CHARGES, 40
YEARS IN PRISON EACH.
AND THEY ARE AMONG DEFENDANTS
CHOOSING TO GO FORWARD, NOT
PLEADING GUILTY AT THIS POINT IN
THE CASE ALTHOUGH MANY OTHERS
DECIDED TO DO SO.
DEIRDRE?
DEIRDRE: THANK YOU SO MUCH.
MOLLY LINE FOR NEWS BOSTON.
CONNELL: HERE IS ATTORNEY
WHITNEY VAUGHN TO TALK MORE
ABOUT THIS.
GOOD TO SEE YOU.
WE HAVEN'T TALKED ABOUT THIS
STORY, SINCE WHEN IT FIRST
BROKE, FELT LIKE WE ARE ALL OVER
IT.
WE HAVE IT PARTICULAR HEARING
THAT MOLLY DESCRIBES.
KIND OF NORMAL TO YOU, THIS
CONFLICT OF INTEREST TYPE OF
STUFF, HUSBAND AND WIFE HAVE THE
SAME LAWYER, MAYBE MIGHT WANT TO
THINK TWICE ABOUT THAT, IN CASE
THEY DON'T AGREE, RIGHT?
>> ABSOLUTELY.
IT IS NORMAL IN SITUATIONS WHERE
YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A CRIMINAL
DEFENSE ATTORNEY AND YOU HAVE
CODEFENDANTS ESPECIALLY A
HUSBAND AND WIFE, THEY WOULD
HAVE SEPARATE COUNSEL, AS MOLLY
MENTIONED THEY DO HAVE DIFFERENT
COUNSEL HERE.
BUT THEY ALSO BOTH HAVE THE SAME
COUNSEL IN ADDITION TO THEIR
SEPARATE COUNSEL I BELIEVE THEIR
LEAD COUNSEL IN EACH OF THEIR
CASES.
SO IT IS NOT OVERWHELMINGLY
COMMON THAT THIS WOULD HAPPEN
BUT IT IS A COMMON WHEN THE
SITUATION OCCURS THE COURT WILL
LOOK INTO IT, AND MAKE SURE THEY
UNDERSTAND THE RISKS THEY'RE
TAKING IN TERMS OF HAVING
REPRESENTATION THEY SHARE WITH
EACH OTHER AS WELL AS
REPRESENTATION SHARED WITH
WITNESS IN THE CASE OR WITNESSES
AS IT MAY BE CONCERNED WITH
UNIVERSITY OF THE SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA.
CONNELL: RIGHT.
POTENTIAL LITIGATION BETWEEN
LORI LAUGHLIN AND HER HUSBAND,
AGAINST USC, THE SCHOOL WHERE
THEIR DAUGHTERS ARE GOING.
THAT IS POTENTIAL CONFLICT.
THERE IS BIG PICTURE STORY
REMAINS VERY INTERESTING, IS THE
DECISION THEY MADE TO GO TO
TRIAL.
THEY'RE NOT ONLY ONES BUT
PROBABLY MOST HIGH-PROFILE.
FELL LYSSIE HUFFMAN CUT THE DEAL
LOVE DAY TO BE A PHOTOGRAPHER,
ESPECIALLY IF YOU'RE A
PHOTOGRAPHER BACKPEDALING.
AS THEY GO TO TRIAL, NOW THAT IS
A HUGE RISK.
BECAUSE YOU COULD HAVE CUT A
DEAL, GOT OFF WITH A PRETTY MUCH
A SLAP ON THE WRIST, RIGHT?
>> WELL, YES, OBVIOUSLY THEY
HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO
GO TO TRIAL.
WHAT WE ALL NEED TO KEEP IN
MIND, EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE
INDICTED, EVEN THOUGH THERE HAS
BEEN SOME INFORMATION BEEN
RELEASED IN TERMS OF WHAT THE
GOVERNMENT EXPECTS TO BE ABLE TO
PROVE THAT DOESN'T MEAN THE SAME
THING AS EMBEING ABLE TO PROVE
IT.
CONNELL: RIGHT.
>> SOMETIMES PLEADING ISN'T
WORTH THE RISK IN TERMS OF MAYBE
YOU KNOW WHAT THE PITFALLS ARE
OF GOING TO TRIAL BUT IT IS
WORTH OF RISK OF DOING IT
BECAUSE THOSE PITFALLS ARE NOT
ENOUGH THAT OUTWEIGH THE
BENEFITS OF POTENTIALLY GOING TO
TRIAL AND PREVAILING.
SO WHILE A LOT OF PEOPLE DO PLEA
AND WHILE THE GOVERNMENT
CERTAINLY IS NOTORIOUS, FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT FOR CHERRY-PICKING
THEIR CASES FOR PROSECUTION IN
TERMS OF WHO THEY CHOOSE TO
PROSECUTE OR NOT, THERE IS STILL
TIME.
LORI LAUGHLIN AND HER HUSBAND
MAY STILL PLEA.
CONNELL: THERE COULD BE A DEAL
TO BE CUT?
>> YEAH, ABSOLUTELY.
RIGHT.
CONNELL: THERE ARE 51 DEFENDANTS
I BELIEVE.
>> YES.
CONNELL: IN THIS WHOLE SCANDAL,
WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT.
28 AS OF NOW WOULD GO TO TRIAL.
THEY HAVEN'T CUT A DEAL.
23 HAVE.
IT IS SPLIT.
FAIRLY INTERESTING.
WHAT CONVERSATION HAVE YOU SEEN
IN THE PAST WITH CLIENT,
DEFENDANTS THAT FIND THEMSELVES
IN THAT TYPE AFTER DECISION?
WHAT GOES INTO THE CALL?
>> WHAT GOES INTO THE CALL AFTER
THE GOVERNMENT PROVIDE WHAT IS
CALLED DISCOVERY, IN OTHER
WORDS, REPORTS AND INFORMATION
ABOUT EVIDENCE THEY WOULD INTEND
TO INTRODUCE AT TRIAL, YOU GO
OVER ALL OF THAT WITH A LAW THAT
WILL BE APPLIED, NOT THROUGH THE
OPTICS IN TERMS OF PRACTICALLY,
WHAT A JURY MIGHT THINK, LOOKING
AT THIS EVIDENCE.
NOT AS SIMPLE DOES THIS MEET
LEGAL CRITERIA OR NOT.
WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE TO A JURY IN
A BIG PICTURE SORT OF WAY.
IT BECOMES ABOUT THE EVALUATION
OF RISKS AN BENEFITS.
CONNELL: RIGHT.
>> THEN, THEN IT IS EACH
CLIENT'S INDIVIDUAL DECISION.
I CERTAINLY HAD CLIENTS, WHO I
MIGHT BEGGING NOT TO PLEA
BECAUSE I THINK THE CASE AGAINST
THEM IS SO WEAK BUT IT IS THEIR
DECISION.
IF THEY WANT TO GO TO TRIAL, OR
IF THEY WANT TO PLEA, ULTIMATELY
AT THE END OF THE DAY, IT IS
THEIR LIVES.
THEY GET TO MAKE THAT DECISION
ON THE ADVICE OF COUNSEL.
CONNELL: WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE