Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Ohio Rape Suspect Names Revealed; Social Media Spotlights Ohio Rape Case; Charlie Rangel Talks Highlights of Passed Sandy Relief Bill.

Aired January 04, 2013 - 11:30   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ASHLEIGH BANFIELD, CNN ANCHOR: There is a -- how do I put this -- very troubling rape case. A criminal rape case that is unfolding in the small community, a football community, of Steubenville, Ohio. It involves a 16-year-old girl and two 16-year-old boys, boys who have been charged as juveniles after allegedly raping the girl possibly while she was drunk and unconscious. Malik Richardson and Trent Mayes are set to go on trial on February 13th.

And what sets this apart from most other criminal rape cases, and there are so many across the country, is perhaps the age of all those who have been brought into this story and the social media aspect of it. The allegations are fast and furious. That not only did this allegedly happen, that this girl was so drunk she was passed out when allegedly violated, but that also people laughed and watched, took pictures, posted pictures, shared the pictures, and laughed about the pictures. And allegedly that this person didn't even find out about the fact that she was in the center of this story until she saw the pictures and reports of the pictures.

Again, the allegations are vast. The evidence is relatively secret at this point, but one thing we can tell you, it's a case in which the state attorney's general's office has become involved.

And we're happy to be joined now by Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine, who is joining us from Columbus, Ohio.

Thank you so much, Mr. Attorney General, for joining me on this very disturbing story.

First, if you could explain to our viewers, why am I talking to you about this case and not the local prosecutors, who should be involved in this case?

MIKE DEWINE, OHIO ATTORNEY GENERAL: Well, that's a good question. We get involved when we are requested to become involved in a case by the local authorities. Sometimes they do not have the resources to handle the case. But in many cases, it's simply a situation where there's a conflict. As you pointed out, Steubenville is a relatively small community, tight-knit community. A lot of people know other people. And so the prosecuting attorney felt that there was a conflict. She did not feel that she should proceed with the case, and asked us to come in and work on the case. We are also involved and have been asked by the Steubenville Police Department to become involved in the investigation. So, we started in August being involved in the investigation as well as the prosecution.

BANFIELD: And may I just push a little further on that and say, I know you had a request to become involved, but did you need to become involved? I understand how things often work in a small town, everybody knows everybody, and that can create a conflict of interest. Was there a serious conflict of interest in the authorities and the leadership of the football team and, say, the teachers or the schools? Was there any conflict of interest among those people in which you had to step in and perhaps may have to investigate as a result?

DEWINE: Well, I'm confident that the prosecuting attorney would have done a fine job. I think she made the decision because I think she has a member of her family that goes to this school. She made the decision that the appearance of impropriety or the appearance of a conflict, she did not want to have that, and I respect that opinion. What we do is we become involved if we're requested to do that.

As far as a conflict with people in the school, I'm not sure that's relevant. They're not the ones who are doing the investigation. They're not the ones who are doing the prosecution. We are doing both. And I think -- I hope people believe that we bring an impartiality to it. Our goal as prosecutors is not just to get convictions. Our goal frankly and the ethical job of a prosecutor is to seek justice and find out what happened and to seek the truth, and that's what we're trying to do.

BANFIELD: And I think that is what everybody who is watching our program right now agrees with you, that everyone wants justice in this for everyone involved. There are people who are accused and are not guilty until proven so in a court of law in this case. And there is an alleged victim who, if proven to be a victim, has a destroyed life.

So, with that in mind, I kind of want to repeat that question somewhat. Are you going to be investigating further whether there was any kind of effort to either cover up or interfere with an investigation or interfere with a prosecution? Will you be looking in to that?

DEWINE: Well, that's a very good question. Our investigation -- the only thing I can tell you is our investigation is continuing. It is active. It is ongoing. And we will let everyone know if there's any additional charges. You know, if the principal people have been charged, it will be up to the judge to determine in a court of law next month, whether the evidence is there or not. We obviously would not have brought the charge unless we thought it was, but that's up to the judge. And as far as any other investigation, we are still investigating some other things connected with this case. And that's about all I can tell you at this point.

BANFIELD: So, what you're saying, Mr. Attorney general, there is a potential that there are other people being investigated as ancillaries to the initial part of the crime, those who may have other roles not necessarily on that night of August 11th? Is that what you're telling me?

DEWINE: Well, I can tell you that the investigation's not over. It is active. Our experienced BCI agents are actively involved in the case, and that's about all I can tell you.

But, you know, if there -- if the case was over with, we would tell you it's over. We would tell you we're done, but we're not. And that's what we're telling the public.

And we also are asking the public, if they have any information -- I know there's a lot of rumors going around, Jefferson County and Steubenville. If anybody's got any information, we would love to have it. And we would invite them --

(CROSSTALK)

DEWINE: -- to call our BCI office or call the attorney general's office.

BANFIELD: I know, from the police chief, this has been a real challenge, just getting witnesses to come forward, even witnesses who allegedly were there, just to get them to come forward.

Also, with that in mind, and I'm asking you about three different things right now, the alleged crime itself and the two people who are charged, also those who may or may not have interfered with the prosecution or an investigation, which was what I was trying to get out of you, and I'm not sure I got anywhere there. But also those who may have shared those images. They may have been nowhere near these alleged crime scenes, but they may have done something very, very illegal, and they may be very, very young, and their lives are at stake as well.

My question to you is, will you be looking to prosecute any people who shared those images on social media? Because effectively, by law, they would be child -- they would be sharing child pornography, and they could be determined by some states' laws as child sex offenders and registered for life.

DEWINE: Again, I'm not going to go there. I'm going to tell you that we're still investigating. There's a lot of different aspects to this case, as you pointed out, that it goes beyond the actual act or acts that were committed or we believe the evidence will show was committed. There's other aspects to this.

I think, frankly, the most disgusting thing about this is that we have a victim, and whenever you have a rape victim, it's very sad, it's very tough. Our heart goes out to the victim. In this case, you have a victim who is really, through no fault of her own, being re- victimized by the social media as images go up. I can just imagine how I would feel if I was the parent or parents of this girl. My wife, Fran, and I have eight children. I can imagine if this was my daughter and not only did our family have to go through the tragedy of the incident, but then having to see stuff up on the Internet all the time and continuing and --

BANFIELD: And also not just the --

(CROSSTALK)

DEWINE: -- that, to me, is what is really sad.

BANFIELD: Also the attacks that have blamed her. There have been horrifying things said about her.

DEWINE: Well yes -- well, just horrible. And what was posted yesterday with that, young man, you know, it's just disgusting. It's just terrible. It's horribly insensitive. That's the nicest way you can describe it. Just imagine your family having to watch that if you're the victim.

BANFIELD: I can't.

Mr. Attorney General, I do hope that we can check in with you shortly for any kind of updates. As you said, the investigation continues on many different prongs of this case and perhaps you'll have an update with us shortly.

Thanks for being with us today. I appreciate it.

DEWINE: Thank you very much.

BANFIELD: We'll also have more legal perspective from our legal expert, defense attorney, former prosecutor, Joey Jackson, who is standing by, who will come in after the break with a couple of other things we want to talk about.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BANFIELD: So, before the break we were bringing you the story of an extraordinary rape case that's unfolding in Steubenville, Ohio, two 16-year-olds charged, and I want to say that we said that Malik Richmond -- we said his name is Malik Richardson. In fact, CNN wants to correct any of the reporting that we've been doing on this case. It's not Richardson. His name is Malik Richmond, one of the 16-year- olds who is charged. And also along with him the 16-year-old Trent Mays. Both charged with the alleged rape of an underage girl. Their trial is set to get under way on the 13th of next month.

And Defense Attorney Joey Jackson joins us now.

First question to you, whenever you have a rape case, evidence is critical and evidence is difficult in most cases. In this particular case, physical evidence is next to impossible because the young alleged victim did not even know about this until postings and reports came out. Thus, it was days before she told her parents and her parents reported it. So, physical evidence, rape kits, et cetera, nonexistent.

JOEY JACKSON, DEFENSE ATTORNEY & CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Do you know what, Ashleigh, it makes it more difficult to move forward in a case like this when you don't have the physical evidence. Obviously, if you have physical evidence, then, of course, the prosecution can use that to its advantage to secure a prosecution.

However, even in the absence of that, we now know because there was a probably an cause hearing to determine whether the children should be held that there are state's witnesses that will come forward that will say they were around, near, or next to the parties when these acts were occurring. They've already given testimonial evidence as to the violation of the girl. In addition to that, we also know that there are other materials, right? There are photographs and these type things, which will go to corroborate the testimony.

So, even in the absence of physical evidence, Ashleigh, you can still secure a conviction in a case like this if you have other supporting types of information.

BANFIELD: Malik Richmond's attorney was on CNN on "Starting Point" this morning and confirmed to Brooke Baldwin during an interview that that was, in fact, the client in the photo that show the two 16-year- olds holding what appeared to be an extraordinarily unconscious young woman, who is clad in shorts and a T-shirt, by her wrists and ankles. He confirmed, in fact, that it was him in the photograph. What he will not confirm is that the photograph is what everyone thinks it is. He will not confirm that this is a photograph of a very drunk girl who has no idea she is there. Is that something that is likely to play out in court, a picture doesn't tell a thousand words.

JACKSON: Of course.

BANFIELD: A picture can be very misrepresentative?

JACKSON: It could. Because what they're arguing, they, being the defense, the picture is being taken out of context, right? In any rape case what you are examining is any critical issue, that's the issue of consent. Did the other party consent? When did the rape occur? And at what point in terms of it occurring was she conscious, was she unconscious, was she under the influence, was she not in the influence, was the photo representing playful behavior, was it representing behavior where they were taking advantage of her? All those types of things are things that the defense will be arguing in the case.

BANFIELD: Speaking of the defense, can they also say that those state's witnesses that are right now so critical in this case, they may have been offered immunity, and thus are not reliable?

JACKSON: 100 percent. What you are going to see is an attack on witnesses, who say, look, if you're offered immunity, right, that makes you not reliable, because you are a cooperating witness. You are cooperating because you are involved yourself, right? As a result of that, you will say whatever the state wants you to in order to secure that immunity. So we'll see that as the case falls out, when it begins February 13th.

BANFIELD: Do you know what, that's the criminal case. I don't even have time to start on the civil actions that could follow on this.

JACKSON: Oh, boy. BANFIELD: The drinking at homes, et cetera, the allegations. Oh, lord.

JACKSON: They are 16. Shouldn't be drinking in the first place. How did they get access to the alcohol?

(CROSSTALK)

All of that is critical.

BANFIELD: You'll have to come back.

JACKSON: Love to.

BANFIELD: So many elements to this disturbing case.

Joey Jackson, thank you for that.

JACKSON: Thanks, Ashleigh.

BANFIELD: The Ohio attorney general, Mike DeWine, who we spoke with earlier, will not say at this point also if anyone else is going to be charged in this case, but you did hear him say this investigation is not over.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BANFIELD: So House leaders promised up and then, minutes ago, signed off on a critical package of relief for the victims of Superstorm Sandy. It is the first phase, and it will provide more than $9 billion in emergency aid. Without it, FEMA says that its Flood Insurance Program would have gone broke within days.

Congressman Charlie Rangel represents New York's district. He hoofed it here from voting and is live from Capitol Hill.

Congressman, thanks very much. Highlight of the vote, low-light of the vote? Go ahead.

REP. CHARLIE RANGEL, (D), NEW YORK: Well, I think it's been a good day for the Congress and for the country. It reinforces the concept that we've had since the beginning of this nation, that if any part of our country is affected by a disaster, that they can and should expect the rest of the country to come to the rescue.

So we got off track with this darn thing for communications reasons. I don't know why. It caused a lot of pain and a lot of hopelessness for the people that find themselves without homes and without jobs. We're back on the right track. As soon as we get back, we expect on the suspension calendar that the $51 billion we were looking forward to in the first place will be restored.

It's my present understanding that it will be in two parts, $18 billion package that would be for the immediate need, and a $33 billion package that will be voted on separately since most of that money would be what we call mitigation. That is to deal with infrastructure problems so if, God forbid, this happens again, we will be able to control the damage and not destroy the homes.

BANFIELD: Congressman, the initial numbers I look at in terms of this vote passing are 354-67. We don't often see numbers like that anymore in Congress, which is unfortunate. However, 67 members decided that $9 billion in this aid package was not appropriate. Why?

RANGEL: I have no idea. You know, when you ask why was the bill pulled in the first place, why didn't we take care of this earlier in the week, why does it take so long for us to respond, and then throw in the question of the fiscal cliff and the problems that the Republican leadership had, and why some of the votes even for his speakership, people would just know that they wanted to display some feelings of anxiety that they had about his leadership. So there's no political way to define why people did not immediately come forward and say that when Americans are in trouble, the Congress is there to help them. I would think that they would find it very, very difficult to explain their vote in a way that the average American could really understand it.

BANFIELD: I'm told that all 67 of those votes we're talking about were Republican votes. Did the speaker have anything to say about that? Did those members have anything to say about the no vote, and do you expect that 67 people will be joined by a whole lot more no votes come the next $18 billion or $33 billion versions or phases of this relief package?

RANGEL: Painfully, that doesn't surprise me, but that's one of the things that we want to avoid. If we had to have votes against it, I would have hoped they would be Democratic and Republican votes. When people belong to one party, one ideology and they can say that their party politics is above patriotism, that they'd rather vote in terms of their ideology rather than to help fellow Americans that are in trouble, that's a sad day.

BANFIELD: I live in a town that got hit by this storm, and one of my neighbors has a Santa hanging off the broken part of where their porch used to be. So I know that this is an emotional issue and that a lot of people want to talk about the damage and that they need this help. Then I see things that this bill had in it that really I found sort of obnoxious. There's pork. There's pork in this bill. $150 million for fisheries in Alaska.

(CROSSTALK)

BANFIELD: Why would that put that into a relief bill? $150 million for fisheries in Alaska. This is a Superstorm Sandy relief bill.

RANGEL: I wish people would be asking the question rather than just getting angry. Alaska sometime in the past had a serious catastrophe that caused the small fishermen to lose a whole lot of income because of that. They never were -- even though they had FEMA and everyone else trying to help them. We did have fishermen that lost a lot of jobs, a lot of income as a result of this storm. All of this stuff has been analyzed. Why they would put Alaska on it, except they had a previous claim, I don't know. If they had put Long Island, Connecticut, and New Jersey on it and asked the question why, there is an answer why. All of this has been scrutinized. You know, everyone knows we have to cut back in spending, but they shouldn't just rush to judgment if they see something they don't understand.

Let me make it abundantly clear to you. None of us in the affected communities do we want doggone pork in this, because it doesn't just make it difficult to discuss a tragic situation, but we hope that this vehicle for other parts of our country that may come up, that no one thinks about contaminating it with pork.

BANFIELD: Yes.

Congressman Rangel, good to talk to you. Congratulations on the new group you're working with. And my best to you that it's going to be a good session and it will have some kind of -- well, less paralysis in 2013. Best of the New Year to you.

RANGEL: It has it to get better.

BANFIELD: It does. Thanks for being with us.

RANGEL: Thank you.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BANFIELD: Two boys in Arizona are live and it's all thanks to their cell phone. They were apparently out walking on an icy lake and look how this ended up. Not good. They had to cling to those trees for like four hours with temperatures in the 20s until that rescue crew showed up with a boat to save them. Then the aftermath. Their moms are not happy, and made them write apology letters to the firefighters that saved them. The moms won't take away the cell phones, because they saved their lives. What a picture, though. Don't walk on thin ice. We've had stories all week.

I have this rare picture I want to show you of Princess Diana, when she was just 18 or 19 years old. It's unclear. But it's an adorable photo. When you look at the circles and lines, it says "Not to be published." No one was ever supposed to see this photo, but strangely enough, it surfaced, and is auctioned. It auction will happen this month in New Hampshire. And the opening bid is reportedly $200. How about that?

Thanks for watching, everyone. Nice to have you with us.