Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Newsroom
Rick Santorum Going After Porn; Verdict Reached in Rutgers Case; G.I. Allegedly Responsible for Massacre Due Back to U.S.; Arizona's Birth Control Controversy; Interview with AZ State Rep. Debbie Lesko
Aired March 16, 2012 - 11:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
FREDRICKA WHITFIELD, CNN ANCHOR: Hello again, everyone. I'm Fredricka Whitfield. It's 11:00 o'clock on the East Coast, 8:00 o'clock on the West. We've got a very busy hour ahead. Let's get straight to the news. The U.S. Army staff sergeant accused of gunning down 16 Afghan civilians is due back on U.S. soil sometime this afternoon. The lawyer representing the still-unidentified G.I. says he is being flown from Kuwait to Fort Leavenworth
John Henry Brown is a well-regarded defense attorney based in Seattle. He says his client had been wounded twice in Iraq and was told he not be sent to Afghanistan.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOHN HENRY BROWN, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: We do know he had a concussive head injury and we also know he was injured in his leg severely and I am somewhat confused as to why they would send him back to Afghanistan.
He was told he was not going to go and then overnight he was told he was going to go. And as a good soldier, he did what he was told.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WHITFIELD: Brown also says everybody at his client's remote Afghan outpost had been affected by the wounding of a soldier there the day before the rampage.
Afghanistan's president says his people have gotten, quote, "no cooperation from America" in their investigation of last Sunday's killings. Hamid Karzai had a face-to-face meeting just yesterday with Defense Secretary Leon Panetta.
But meeting today with the families of the dead civilians, Karzai questioned whether there had been more than one killer. One villager said the U.S. is offering the families money, but the families, instead, want justice.
Back in this country, gas prices are still on the move, up another penny on average to $3.83 a gallon for self-serve regular as calculated by AAA. Gas has gone up 17 cents so far this year and while President Obama is taking the heat, he says no politician can drive prices down in the short-term. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Every time prices start to go up, especially in an election year, politicians dust off their three-point plans for $2 gas. They head down to the gas station, they make sure a few cameras are following them. And then they start acting like we've got a magic wand and we will give you cheap gas forever.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WHITFIELD: So, as you may know, GOP presidential contender, Newt Gingrich, has promised if he is elected, gas will cost $2.50 a gallon.
Rick Santorum has had a big week politically and now financially. His campaign says Santorum's twin wins in Tuesday's Southern primaries have brought him $1 million in new donations. Right now, he is in Missouri ahead of that state's caucuses and then it's off to Illinois, which is scheduled for a primary come Tuesday.
All right. We're just getting word that George Clooney has been arrested in Washington. This is new video right now we're sharing with you, the actor and activist is being led away from the Sudanese embassy where he and others were protesting Sudanese atrocities.
Yesterday, Clooney testified before Congress on what he calls the random killing, raping, and starving of Sudanese civilians by their own government and here he is just moments before his arrest in Washington again.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE CLOONEY, ACTOR: We're here really to ask two very simple questions. The first question is something immediate and immediately we need humanitarian aid to be allowed into the Sudan before it becomes the worst humanitarian crisis in the world, immediately.
The second thing we are here to ask -- it's a very simple thing -- is for the government in Khartoum to stop randomly killing its own innocent men, women, and children. Stop raping them, and stop starving them. That's all we ask.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WHITFIELD: So, again, not long after those comments, George Clooney arrested outside the Sudanese embassy in the nation's capital.
All right, a guy playing golf got the jolt of his life when he suddenly found himself at the edge of a huge tornado in Michigan and it was all caught on video.
And golfer Matthew Altruda says it came out of nowhere. This twister ripped through the city of Dexter, ten miles northwest of Ann Arbor. It was one of several reported in the state yesterday.
And as you see in this picture, more than 100 homes either destroyed or damaged. Fortunately, no reports of death or injuries.
All right, back overseas now. Anti-government protesters filled the streets of several Syrian cities today, demanding immediate military action against President Assad.
As the revolt enters its second year, deadly attacks against civilians continue. The United Nations says more than 8,000 people have been killed in the conflict. Dissidents reported clashes between army defectors.
Meanwhile, Turkey's prime minister says he is considering setting up a security zone along Turkey's border with Syria.
All right, it is the day that iPad lovers around the world have been waiting for. The newest version of Apple's tablet computer going on sale today. Those getting their hands on it first were Apple diehards in Asia.
Fanatics in New York camped out on the sidewalk outside the Apple store before the stores opened at 8:00 this morning. The new iPad has a higher resolution screen and its networking capabilities are much faster than its predecessor, the starting price at $499.
All right, the American soldier accused of gunning down 16 Afghan civilians is now on his way back to the U.S. right now. So, what happens when he gets here and could his trial be held back in Afghanistan?
Up next, I'll ask a former officer and defense attorney.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
WHITFIELD: A U.S. soldier accused of killing Afghan civilians is being brought back to the United States. The U.S. army sergeant allegedly went door-to-door gunning down 16 people, including nine children.
The soldier's attorney told CNN a short time ago that his client will be relocated to the military detention center in Ft. Leavenworth, Kansas. John Henry Brown is the lawyer for the accused soldier. He talked with CNN a short time ago about his client's state of mind.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BROWN: He sounded distant and kind of like a deer in the headlights, but OK. I conveyed his family's love for him. I told him I did not want to speak to him about specifics of the case because I don't trust the phone not being monitored.
I don't know what the facts are. He seemed to be unaware of some of the facts that I talked to him about, which makes me concerned about his state of mind, obviously.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WHITFIELD: So, we want to know what's going to happen next in this very public case. Tom Kenniff is a defense attorney and a former judge advocate general in the United States Army joining us from New York.
Good to see you, Mr. Kenniff.
THOMAS KENNIFF, FOUNDING PARTNER, RAISER & KENNIFF: Thanks for having me, Fredricka.
WHITFIELD: So, despite local calls for this soldier to be tried in Afghanistan, wasn't it inevitable that he would end up back in the United States to face court-martial?
KENNIFF: I don't know if it was inevitable. We have had murder trials occur in theater in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
I think there's probably a couple of issues at play. This kind of case given the publicity it's getting, the gravity of the alleged offense, it's very likely this is a prosecution that would last not months, but years
That creates a logistical problem because, remember, Fredricka, all the armed forces personnel that are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. they're there on limited deployments, generally 12 months.
So, unless the military wants to have this sort of revolving door prosecution where every year there's a new defense team coming in and a new prosecution team, having it stateside makes more sense.
I think the other issue is part of it -- the fact they did it this quickly could very well be a concession to how badly the security situation is really deteriorated in Afghanistan for our forces.
WHITFIELD: But, of course, Afghans made it very clear and right away that they wanted this to be prosecuted in Afghanistan. They wanted there to be the use of Afghan witnesses.
So, if this is a court-martial that will take place exclusively in the United States, there would be no Afghan representation in any way, would there?
KENNIFF: Not necessarily so. First of all, let's be clear. Pursuant to the Status of Forces Agreement, the United States has exclusive jurisdiction to try military personnel, so there's no situation where the Afghanis could try them themselves.
The government in any criminal prosecution, including a UCMJ case, military justice, they have the right to prove their case any which way they decide to prove it.
However, the accused is protected by the confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment, which means he has a right to confront his accusers.
Thus, if the government will need to produce Afghan civilian witnesses, let's say, in order to prove this case, eyewitnesses, if you will, the defense has a right to get them on the witness stand to cross-examine them.
WHITFIELD: But that's not likely to happen, is it?
KENNIFF: If the case goes to trial, you know they'll have a hard time proving this case, I think, without eyewitness testimony. There's indication there's video surveillance showing him leave the base. He did apparently make some sort of confession, but that in and of itself may not be enough to legally establish ...
WHITFIELD: Right, but the eyewitnessing of the case would involve those Afghans because there was no U.S. military personnel to eyewitness that case.
KENNIFF: Absolutely.
WHITFIELD: So, give me an idea. What is the process in this road to court-martial, if indeed he's going to end up at Ft. Leavenworth in Kansas, then what? How long would he be there before prosecution would actually begin? Or the process of prosecution would begin?
KENNIFF: Well, the process will begin rather quickly. What we're going to see now an Article 32 investigation. That's sort of like the military equivalent to a grand jury investigation where an investigating officer is appointed, the facts will be flushed out, and, ultimately, a military judge will determine whether there's enough evidence to bring him to trial.
In a case like this, I don't think the government or the military will have a hard time meeting that burden. I think one of the things that his defense counsel is going to do -- and I think it was already telegraphed in that video you showed earlier -- is he's going to request what's known in the military as a sanity board.
Different from an insanity defense, a sanity board has to do with whether your client is competent to even stand trial in the first place, whether he can understand the charges that are being brought against him and whether he can assist in his own defense.
WHITFIELD: OK, because also if I can stop you there because his defense -- his attorneys will also try to argue there may have been some PTSD involved.
There may have been some open knowledge about physical injuries, that there may have even been a promise or two or warnings that he should not be deployed again to Afghanistan.
Yet, despite that warning, he was. How heavily will those things weigh for his defense?
KENNIFF: Well, again, you know, keep in mind, Fredricka, PTSD, the fact that you were deployed, but shouldn't have been, combat stress, the fact you have prior injuries, don't really go to an insanity defense.
They're certainly not a defense to premeditated murder. Insanity is, are you -- do you have the mental capability to understand the nature and consequences of your act?
I think what the defense is trying to set up is to try to save their client from the death penalty because all of those issues can be considered factors in mitigation in the penalty phase of the death penalty case.
In other words, if there's a unanimous verdict of guilt as to premeditated murder, then the jury will have a separate mini-trial where they deliberate on whether or not to impose the death penalty and then they could take into consideration all of those factors.
WHITFIELD: All right. Defense attorney Tom Kenniff, not the defense attorney for this G.I. that we're talking about who remains unnamed, but a defense attorney, nonetheless, and former judge advocate general in the United States Army.
Thanks for your time. I appreciate it.
KENNIFF: Thanks for having me.
WHITFIELD: All right, some critics are calling it outrageous. An Arizona bill I'm talking about that would require women on birth control to prove to their employers they're only taking it for medical reasons. That's if they want to keep their health insurance.
Up next, the state lawmaker who sponsored the bill, Representative Debbie Lesko, will be joining me. You don't want to miss this conversation up next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
WHITFIELD: On yesterday's show, we told you about Arizona's version of the contraception insurance mandate debate. The Arizona House and one Senate committee have passed a bill that would let any employer, religious or secular, to refuse to cover birth control unless it's used for non-birth control purposes.
Women who use it for medical conditions would have to prove they're not trying to prevent pregnancy. The measure would also repeal a clause that says and I quote here, "a religious employer shall not discriminate against an employee who obtains insurance coverage or prescriptions for contraceptives from another source."
Well, critics take that to mean women who buy their own contraceptives could legally be fired or demoted.
Well, it may surprise you this bill was written by a woman. Republican state representative and House majority whip, Debbie Lesko, joining us from Phoenix today. Good to see you.
STATE REPRESENTATIVE DEBBIE LESKO (R), ARIZONA: Good to see you. Thank you for having me.
WHITFIELD: So, offer some clarity because there's a lot of confusion it appears, as to how this should be interpreted. First off, what was your intention? LESKO: Well, what my bill does is one thing and one thing only. It protects the First Amendment rights of the citizens of Arizona. Government should not be telling the mom-and-pop employer or a faith- based charity organization that they have to provide something that's against their religious belief. That's all it does.
It does not allow an employer to ask a woman if they're using contraceptives or not. It does not allow an employer to fire a woman. You know, unfortunately the opposition ...
WHITFIELD: Well, then, why is that the interpretation by some? Why is that the interpretation by some that it does empower an employer to kind of get into the privacy, or the business, the medical conditions, et cetera, of a woman as it pertains to contraceptives.
LESKO: All I can guess is that the opposition is trying to spread a whole bunch of misinformation out there to confuse the issue.
My legislation does one thing and one thing only. It protects the -- the employer, the mom-and-pop organization or the faith-based organization that doesn't want to be forced by the government to do something against its religious belief.
You know, I'm a woman. I'm not going to do something that hurts a woman. You know, if the bill actually did these things that everybody's saying that it did, I wouldn't even support the bill.
It just, frankly, does not do that and it's unfortunate that the opposition is spreading around these lies.
WHITFIELD: But isn't this an imposition on all employers. On all employers, this applies to all.
LESKO: I really -- yes and, if they have a religious objection, if and only if. I really don't think a lot of employers are going to do this.
WHITFIELD: But doesn't that then put then employer in a position where they have to ask the employee -- are you using contraceptive? And if you are, in what way are you using it? How would an employer know if not to ask that question?
LESKO: You know, all it does -- this is about the mandate that the government is putting on that the employer has to cover it in their insurance plan. It has nothing to do with the employer asking the employee if they use contraceptives.
In fact, it allows an employee to go out and buy contraceptives on their own if they happen to be an employee of one of those few employers that aren't forced to provide it in the insurance.
You know, I called Walmart last week and they said you could buy generic contraceptives for $9 a month. That's probably cheaper than the co-pay.
This has nothing to do with taking away the rights of a woman to buy contraceptives for whatever reason. All it says is don't have the government force an employer to provide it in their insurance plan.
WHITFIELD: But are you --
LESKO: That's all this bill does.
WHITFIELD: But are you now kind of setting the stage that there would be some women who would feel compelled to buy it on their own and others who would be able to enjoy the same privilege by way of their insurance? That there's a real conflict here.
LESKO: There's no conflict. All my bill is saying is that the government should not be telling the mom-and-pop employer or a faith- based organization -- they shouldn't be forcing them to provide coverage on the morning after pill if it's against their religious belief. That is all my bill does.
It protects their First Amendment rights which is in the United States Constitution.
WHITFIELD: But then the argument is being made that this is a privacy issue. It will be challenged on the state level and it's certainly one that will be challenged on a federal level.
Why, you know, why do we have in place, you know, HIPAA rules where employers and insurance companies are not sharing information about individual patients and you are proposing a proposal that would erase that kind of federal protection?
LESKO: Well, you're just simply wrong. The opposition is wrong. My bill does nothing to violate the HIPAA rules. In fact, I asked our attorneys at the House of Representatives. My bill does nothing of that sort.
The opposition is really turning this legislation around and trying to make it something that it's not. All my bill does is says that a mom-and-pop employer that doesn't believe that they should be forced by the government to provide the morning-after pill doesn't have to include it in their insurance.
It says nothing about forcing the employee to not take contraceptives. They can still take them. Just it won't be provided in the insurance plan of that particular employer.
WHITFIELD: And what do you see -- do you see the success or the failure of this proposal, clearly?
LESKO: You know, we -- I think it passed out of the House of Representatives by a wide margin. I expect it's going to pass out of the Arizona Senate by a wide margin.
And I believe that it will be signed by the governor of the state of Arizona because it protects our First Amendment right, freedom of religion, and that is what America is all about.
WHITFIELD: All right, well, let me ask you this about your proposed repeal of the no-discrimination clause Our legal contributor, Paul Callan, was pretty taken aback by that when he spoke to us yesterday. Let's play part of what he had to say.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PAUL CALLAN, CNN LEGAL CORRESPONDENT: From a political standpoint, it was very, very foolish of Arizona to throw this into the hopper because it's illegal. That is clearly illegal and, by the way, there are federal laws that would protect women if they were fired for getting contraceptives.
Federal law clearly protects that right and it doesn't matter what the states say, women will remain protected. So it's very, very foolish for them to eliminate the provision. I think it creates a controversy and essentially creates a totally unenforceable law.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WHITFIELD: And your response to him?
LESKO: You know, I talked to the lawyers that help me write up this legislation. They said that that language was not necessary. You know, there has been no discrimination case -- I certainly don't want to discriminate against women because I'm a woman.
In fact, I'm not a Catholic and I have no personal objection to the use of contraceptives, but I respect the women that do.
My lawyers say and the House of Representative lawyers say this does not violate any HIPAA rules, any privacy rules. You know, that language was just not necessary and, so, that's why it was taken out.
WHITFIELD: Do you think it's necessary to make any more modifications in this proposal before it moves forward?
LESKO: You know, I'm always open to ideas and suggestions, but from what the lawyers tell me, the language is just fine. I think what's happening is the opposition is really drudging up some things that really aren't related to this bill and it's really unfortunate.
Because all my bill does is try to protect, again, the mom-and- pop employer, the faith-based organization, like St. Vincent de Paul, who is now being forced by the government to include something in their insurance plans that they have a moral objection to. I just think that's wrong. I think it's un-American.
WHITFIELD: Well, how do you respond to many who say, quite frankly, it's un-American or there are real disparities between the argument and the restrictions being proposed in your bill or otherwise about women's reproductive rights, contraceptives versus the availability of Viagra to continue to be covered by most insurance without the same kind of argument that's being made about contraceptives for women?
LESKO: You know, the only reason we're talking about contraceptives is because that's what's being mandated.
Quite frankly, I'd prefer not to be talking about contraceptives or morning-after pills, but the reason I'm talking about it ...
WHITFIELD: But you proposed it, so you don't. -- you proposed it, so, that's actually not true. You don't have a problem with this argument because you have helped instigate the argument.
LESKO: That's inaccurate. It's actually the government that has mandated employers to include this against their religious beliefs. You know, if the government hadn't done that, I wouldn't be talking about it.
WHITFIELD: State Representative Debbie Lesko, thanks so much for your time. Appreciate it.
LESKO: Thank you so much.
WHITFIELD: All right. Still ahead today, a 12-year-old girl is suing her school district after officials there force her to give up her Facebook password. Were her rights violated and what are her privacy rights adds a minor?
So many legal questions and we'll get to some of those answers, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
WHITFIELD: All right. We understand there may be a verdict, indeed, that's available in the case of that Rutgers University -- former Rutgers University student Dharun Ravi. When we get that verdict in, the information at the closing of that trial, we'll be able to bring that to you.
All right. Meantime, it's time for "Fair Game." Today's topic, pornography. Yes, you heard me right. GOP presidential hopeful Rick Santorum says he is going to go after people who produce and distribute hard-core porn. On his web site he promises to appoint an attorney general who will clean up the Internet and cable TV.
So at a time when the economy is hurting, is getting rid of porn something he should be worried about? That question is "Fair Game" today.
Joining us today is Republican strategist, Ana Navarro, and, democratic strategist, Tara Dowdell.
Good to see both of you ladies.
ANA NAVARRO, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Good to see you.
TARA DOWDELL, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Good to see you.
WHITFIELD: So, Ana, you first.
Should porn, pornography even be an issue that Santorum or any other candidate at this point should be talking about?
NAVARRO: I'm not sure it should be an issue at 11:30 in the morning, but look -- Rick Santorum is a social conservative. We know that. He is a conservative. He's a conservative on social issues. He cares about these things as do a lot of social conservatives. I don't think he's saying this is going to be a central focus of his administration.
I think he's saying this is an important issue. And it's an important issue for a lot of social conservatives, which is why Rick Santorum does so well with that niche group. I'm certainly thinking he's not saying we're going to shift resources from DOJ and instead of fighting terrorism, we're fighting, you know, some of the issues, we're going to be focusing on porn. But presidents can walk and chew gum at the same time, or should be able to. And what he's saying to conservatives is, folks, I'm one of you, this is an issue that worries me, and if I get elected president, it's an issue on my agenda.
WHITFIELD: All right, Tara, Santorum is saying the president is doing nothing to prevent pornography. Let's read a statement from his web site, saying, quote, "America is suffering a pandemic of harm from pornography. The Obama administration has turned a blind eye to those who wish to preserve our culture from the scourge of pornography and has refused to enforce obscenity laws." He goes on to say that the Obama Department of Justice seems to favor pornographers over families and children. Tara, those are powerful words coming from Rick Santorum's web site. Might this backfire?
DOWDELL: Absolutely, Fredericka. This is part of a very disturbing pattern with Rick Santorum. Not only is he focusing on issues that aren't important to most Americans, people aren't sitting around the kitchen table saying, boy, I wish the Obama administration would tackle the porn industry. People aren't saying that. He's focusing on these issues for two reasons. Number one, he's being divisive. This is about a strategy to paint president Obama as an immoral godless radical, and that's been a strategy on the part of the Republican Party. At the same time, they're really diminishing the debate about important issues such as contraception. That's the issue that came up. Now, obviously that's not the biggest issue facing the country, but they've turned this issue into something that sounds like a debate in a high school locker room, boys locker room. Not into a serious issue about the fact that many women use contraception, not just for birth control, but they use it for ovarian cysts and other important issues like that, health issues that women face that are important to them.
And so this pattern and behavior of trying to use these wedge social issues to divide, all that it's doing for Rick Santorum is it's driving up his unfavorables. And you see over the course of this prolonged Republican primary, you've seen their unfavorables go up because people see through this, people are concerned about putting food on the table, job security, and so the focus on these issues that aren't as important and to also focus on them in a way that they -- in the way they're focusing on them, it undermines the Republicans.
WHITFIELD: So, Ana, why wouldn't Santorum camp look at this as being a real risk? Here he is enjoying some real victories, you know, after a series of primaries and caucuses. And why would he even need to go in this direction?
NAVARRO: You know, he's not -- I haven't heard him talk about it. I haven't heard him give speeches about it. This is something that was in his web site that's on his web site that's, you know, one of his points, one of his agenda points. And again, I think it's important to a lot of people in America. Maybe, you know, those of us who are not social conservatives can find ourselves rolling our eyes at this.
But for a lot of people these issues are of great importance. And I agree with, you know, what she just said. We absolutely need to focus on the more important issues of the economy of jobs. But that's funny coming from Democrats who have spent the last two weeks beating the drums to death on the Rush Limbaugh comments. Let us all focus on economic foreign policy and jobs issues, which is what America is interested in right now.
WHITFIELD: Yes, well, OK. There are other issues, but if you have the candidate who is actually bringing up these issues that are an aside from the economy as you just mentioned, Ana, this is Rick Santorum, his web site. This isn't anybody else putting this in, you know, putting these words in his mouth.
NAVARRO: I think he's learned his lesson. He brought up himself speaking them some of these social points a few weeks ago. And it was a digression he didn't need in the campaign at that point. This is something on the web site, not something that is amongst his talking points. It's not on his stump speech. It's one of the many issues on his web site that is important to him. But it is not something that I see as his top-10 issues.
WHITFIELD: All right. All right.
Tara, Ana, thanks so much. Good to see you, ladies, appreciate it.
NAVARRO: Thank you.
DOWDELL: Thank you.
WHITFIELD: All right. That's "Fair Game."
Straight ahead, a sixth grade girl says her middle school violated her constitutional rights after officials there forced her to give up her Facebook password. Does she have a case? And could you be forced to give up your password to your employers? Lots of legal questions straight ahead. And we're also getting word now that there is a verdict in the trial of the former Rutgers University student accused of spying on his gay roommate. We'll get that verdict to you as soon as it is announced. Right after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
WHITFIELD: All right. We understand there's a verdict in the case of the former Rutgers University student Dharun Ravi. The verdict has not been read, however. This is a case involving accusations of Dharun Ravi spying on his gay roommate Tyler Clementi. This is a case not about the death of Tyler Clementi but instead about privacy issues.
I want to bring in our legal contributor, Paul Callan, who is also watching this courtroom or these live images now as we await the reading of the verdict.
So this is a very complicated case because this is involving Dharun Ravi and whether he conspired to even breach the privacy of his roommate by having this web cam and then encouraging other students to watch the encounter, what would be an expected sexual encounter between his roommate, Tyler Clementi and another man. But this is not about the consequential death that involved Tyler Clementi.
Paul, this was a tough case for the prosecution to establish that there was intent. While the defense tried to argue that there was no hatred involved here. It was a young man fresh out of high school who was simply curious and tried to engage his fellow students at Rutgers University.
PAUL CALLAN, CNN LEGAL CONTRIBUTOR: Yes, it's -- you know, this is going to be a precedent-setting case, Fredericka. You know, New Jersey has this law called invasion of privacy, and it's one of the strictest laws in the country. And it basically says that if you broadcast over social media or over the Internet streaming video or any kind of photographs or video of sexual activity or sexual contact, that's a crime in New Jersey, punishable by as much as five years in prison.
It's the crime of invasion of privacy, which by the way, not even criminal in a lot of states. And if you have broadcast that material because you have bias or hatred against people on the basis of their race, religion, or their sexual orientation, it doubles the sentence to 10 years in prison. And it's called bias intimidation.
So this case has been very closely watched because it's a new law, which really is going to set a precedent about how harmful broadcast of things over the Internet can be. Really bullying and the impact it can have. And it's also a very, very interesting case on bias intimidation. How do you prove it? How do you prove this young student, Ravi, was biased against gay people? Was that why he broadcast it? Or was he just engaging in sort of a college prank.
WHITFIELD: In order to answer that or establish that kind of bias and intimidation, there was the use of the text messaging, the dialogue that was taking place between Dharun Ravi and other students.
CALLAN: Yes. That was an important part of the evidence in the case. And just so our national audience who maybe hasn't been following the case so closely understands what happened. When the police started investigating this, they found out that Ravi had, in fact, sent text messages to his friends saying I'm going to film this on a second occasion and, you know, sort of tune in. iChat me and you'll be able to see Tyler Clementi with this man in his bedroom. And prosecutors believe that's anti-gay bias and gay intimidation. The defense has said there's no evidence of gay bias here. This was done as a stupid joke and a prank, and it wasn't done because of gay bias. And they say Ravi would not have lived with an individual that he thought was gay if he was a homophobe.
WHITFIELD: OK, can I stop you there? The jurors are in and there's now a reading of the verdict.
(BEGIN LIVE FEED)
UNIDENTIFIED JUROR: I'm fine.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Are you OK?
UNIDENTIFIED JUROR: OK.
UNIDENTIFIED CLERK: On count one, invasion of privacy, we find the defendant guilty or not guilty as to T.C.
UNIDENTIFIED JUROR: Guilty.
UNIDENTIFIED CLERK: Guilty or not guilty as to M.B.
UNIDENTIFIED JUROR: Guilty.
UNIDENTIFIED CLERK: On count two, bias intimidation, we find the defendant did commit the offense of invasion of privacy with the purpose to intimidate T.C. because of sexual orientation, guilty or not guilty?
UNIDENTIFIED JUROR: Not guilty.
UNIDENTIFIED CLERK: Did commit the offense of invasion of privacy with the purpose to intimidate M.B. because -- guilty or not guilty?
UNIDENTIFIED JUROR: Not guilty.
UNIDENTIFIED CLERK: Did commit the offense of invasion of privacy knowing that the conduct constituting invasion of privacy would cause T.C. to be intimidated because of sexual orientation, not guilty or guilty?
UNIDENTIFIED JUROR: Not guilty.
UNIDENTIFIED CLERK: Did commit the offense of invasion of privacy knowing that the conduct constituting invasion of privacy would cause M.B. to be intimidated because of sexual orientation, guilty or not guilty?
UNIDENTIFIED JUROR: Not guilty.
UNIDENTIFIED CLERK: Did commit the offense of invasion of privacy under circumstances that caused T.C. to be intimidated and considering the manner in which the offense was committed, T.C. reasonably believed that he was selected to be targeted of the offense because of sexual orientation, guilty or not guilty?
UNIDENTIFIED JUROR: Guilty.
UNIDENTIFIED CLERK: On count three, invasion of privacy, we find the defendant guilty or not guilty as to T.C.?
UNIDENTIFIED JUROR: Guilty.
UNIDENTIFIED CLERK: Guilty or not guilty as to M.B.?
UNIDENTIFIED JUROR: Guilty.
UNIDENTIFIED CLERK: On count four, bias intimidation, we find the defendant did commit the offense of invasion of privacy with the purpose to intimidate T.C. because of sexual orientation, guilty or not guilty?
UNIDENTIFIED JUROR: Not guilty.
UNIDENTIFIED CLERK: Did commit the offense of invasion of privacy because of the purpose to intimidate M.B. because of sexual orientation guilty or not guilty?
UNIDENTIFIED JUROR: Not guilty.
UNIDENTIFIED CLERK: Did commit the offense of invasion of privacy knowing the conduct constituting invasion of privacy would cause T.C. to be intimidated because of sexual orientation, not guilty or guilty?
UNIDENTIFIED JUROR: Guilty.
UNIDENTIFIED CLERK: Did commit the offense of invasion of privacy knowing that the conduct did constitute invasion of privacy would cause M.B. to be intimidated because of sexual orientation, guilty or not guilty?
UNIDENTIFIED JUROR: Not guilty.
UNIDENTIFIED CLERK: Did commit the offense of invasion of privacy under circumstances that caused T.C. to be intimidated and considering the manner in which the offense was committed, T.C. reasonably believed that he was selected to be the target of the offense because of sexual orientation, guilty or not guilty?
UNIDENTIFIED JUROR: Guilty.
UNIDENTIFIED CLERK: On count five, attempted invasion of privacy, we find the defendant guilty or not guilty as to T.C.?
UNIDENTIFIED JUROR: Guilty.
UNIDENTIFIED CLERK: Guilty or not guilty as to M.B.?
UNIDENTIFIED JUROR: Guilty.
UNIDENTIFIED CLERK: On count six, bias intimidation, we find the defendant did attempt to cause the offense of invasion of privacy with the purpose to intimidate T.C. because of sexual orientation, guilty or not guilty?
UNIDENTIFIED JUROR: Guilty.
UNIDENTIFIED CLERK: Did attempt to commit the offense of invasion of privacy with the purpose of intimidate M.B. because of sexual orientation, guilty or not guilty?
UNIDENTIFIED JUROR: Not guilty.
UNIDENTIFIED CLERK: Did attempt to commit the offense of invasion of privacy knowing that the conduct constituting invasion of privacy would cause T.C. to be intimidated because of sexual orientation, guilty or not guilty?
UNIDENTIFIED JUROR: Guilty.
UNIDENTIFIED CLERK: Did attempt to commit the offense of invasion of privacy knowing that the conduct constituting invasion of privacy would cause M.B. to be intimidated because of sexual orientation, guilty or not guilty?
UNIDENTIFIED JUROR: Not guilty.
UNIDENTIFIED CLERK: Did attempt to commit the offense of invasion of privacy under circumstances that caused T.C. to be intimidated and considering the manner of which the offense was committed, T.C. reasonably believed he would be selected to be the target of the offense because of sexual orientation, guilty or not guilty?
UNIDENTIFIED JUROR: Guilty.
UNIDENTIFIED CLERK: On count seven, attempted invasion of privacy, we find the defendant guilty or not guilty as to T.C.?
UNIDENTIFIED JUROR: Guilty.
UNIDENTIFIED CLERK: Guilty or not guilty as to M.B.?
UNIDENTIFIED JUROR: Guilty.
UNIDENTIFIED CLERK: On count eight. The bias intimidation, we find the defendant did attempt to commit the offense of invasion of privacy with the purpose to intimidate T.C. because of sexual orientation, guilty or not guilty?
UNIDENTIFIED JUROR: Guilty.
UNIDENTIFIED CLERK: Did attempt to commit the offense of invasion of privacy with the purpose to intimidate M.B. because of sexual orientation, guilty or not guilty? UNIDENTIFIED JUROR: Not guilty.
UNIDENTIFIED CLERK: Did attempt to commit invasion of privacy knowing that that the conduct intimidated because of sexual orientation, guilty or not guilty?
UNIDENTIFIED JUROR: Not guilty.
UNIDENTIFIED CLERK: Did attempt to commit the invasion of privacy knowing that the conduct constituting invasion of privacy caused M.B. to be intimidated because of sexual orientation, guilty or not guilty?
UNIDENTIFIED JUROR: Not guilty.
UNIDENTIFIED CLERK: Did attempt to commit the offense of invasion of privacy under circumstances that caused T.C. to be intimidated and considering the manner in which the offense was committed, T.C. reasonably believed that he was selected to be the target of the offense because of sexual orientation, guilty or not guilty?
UNIDENTIFIED JUROR: Guilty.
UNIDENTIFIED CLERK: As to count nine, tampering with physical evidence, we find the defendant guilty or not guilty?
UNIDENTIFIED JUROR: Guilty.
UNIDENTIFIED CLERK: On count 10, tampering with physical evidence, we do find the defendant guilty or not guilty?
UNIDENTIFIED JUROR: Guilty.
UNIDENTIFIED CLERK: On count 11, hindering apprehension or prosecution we find the defendant guilty or not guilty?
UNIDENTIFIED JUROR: Guilty.
UNIDENTIFIED CLERK: On count 12, hindering apprehension or prosecution, we find the defendant guilty or not guilty?
UNIDENTIFIED JUROR: Guilty.
UNIDENTIFIED CLERK: On count 13, hindering apprehension or prosecution, we find the defendant guilty or not guilty?
UNIDENTIFIED JUROR: Guilty.
UNIDENTIFIED CLERK: On count 14, witness tampering, we find the defendant guilty or not guilty?
UNIDENTIFIED JUROR: Guilty.
UNIDENTIFIED CLERK: On count 15, tampering with physical evidence, we find the defendant guilty or not guilty? UNIDENTIFIED JUROR: Guilty.
(CROSSTALK)
UNIDENTIFIED CLERK: Thank you.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You may be seated. And thank you very much.
(END LIVE FEED)
WHITFIELD: All right. A combination of guilty verdicts on invasion of privacy, intimidation, tampering with evidence and witness tampering for this 20-year-old former Rutgers University student right there. Dharun Ravi now facing a number of guilty verdicts as it pertains to videotaping, a sexual encounter between his roommate, Tyler Clementi, and another man, another come pain John.
Our legal contributor is with us now.
There were 15 indictments. We heard a number of guilties and not guilties. There was similar indictments of invasion of privacy and bias, intimidation and tampering with evidence.
CALLAN: There were 15 charges and half of them had -- there were two incidents. In the first incident he used his webcam when Tyler Clementi and an unidentified male engaged in sexual conduct in the room and that was broadcast over the webcam to another room.
That led to approximately half the counts in the indictment. After then tweeting to his friends that he had seen this and that it was probably going to happen again, on the 21st -- the first incident was on the 19th. A second encounter between Tyler Clementi and this man was expected and that people should tune in. This created a second set of indictments for attempted invasion of privacy and attempted bias intimidation.
WHITFIELD: And real quick, Paul, while we're talking, they are polling the jurors right now to find out, to try to underscore that this was -- these were unanimous decisions. Is this a case in which is important?
CALLAN: Yes. It's a criminal case. All 12 jurors must agree on all counts and proof must be beyond a reasonable doubt. It's different than a civil case where you need a majority vote for one side or the other to win.
WHITFIELD: And this was a new law being tested here when we talk about the invasion of privacy, intimidation, et cetera. As to why this verdict -- why the outcome of this case really does set a precedence, why it's so important, particularly.
CALLAN: The reason that I think it's critical and I watched the debate as the case went on, a lot of people thinking, well, it's really unfair to punish a student like Ravi because he's student in college and he made a stupid mistake. Other people said, when you make a mistake like this, in the new world of social media and you broadcast something on the Internet, potentially hundreds of people can see what you broadcast.
So you're really equipped with a machine gun now whereas 25 years ago if you were gossiping about some other kid, maybe only two or three people would see it. So social media has just exacerbated the ability of people to hurt very deeply other people in their conduct. And, of course, in this case, although he was not charged with the death of Tyler Clementi, Tyler Clementi committed suicide by jumping off the G.W. Bridge after this was broadcast.
WHITFIELD: And really underscoring the importance of this case, a young man died in the end. However, this was not a case that would dissect, you know, his death and how that came about of Tyler Clementi.
Again, a 20-year-old, Dharun Ravi, now found guilty of a number of counts involving invasion of privacy, intimidation, tampering with evidence and witness tampering as well. We heard from the judge that he will set a date for sentencing later on today.
Thank you so much for helping us out on this breaking news story.
We'll have much more on this case and others.
I'm Fredricka Whitfield. Suzanne Malveaux will be back with much more of the newsroom after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
