Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Sandusky Speaks from Prison; Italian Court May Force Knox Retrial; Memorial for Slain Colorado Prison Chief; Long Lines for Supreme Court Marriage Case.

Aired March 25, 2013 - 11:30   ET

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

ASHLEIGH BANFIELD, CNN ANCHOR: And then he decided to give NBC's "Today" show the exclusive opportunity to listen to some of the comments that were made by a man who heretofore had been a hero but, after Jerry Sandusky's trial, has become quite a villain. A child rapist, 45 counts and going.

So here is Jerry Sandusky as he talks about that infamous locker-room shower incident that was witnessed by Mike McQueary.

(BEGIN AUDIO FEED)

JERRY SANDUSKY, CONVICTED OF CHILD ABUSE: I don't understand how anyone would have walked into that locker room, from where he was, and heard sounds associated with sex going on.

(LAUGHTER)

I mean, you know, like he said that could have been. I mean, there was -- that would have been the last thing I would have thought about. I would have thought maybe fooling around or something like that.

(LAUGHTER)

But I --

(LAUGHTER)

(END AUDIO FEED)

BANFIELD: That's just uncomfortable to hear, uncomfortable to watch even though it's an audio recording. You'll remember Jerry Sandusky is serving a 30-year prison sentence for abusing 10 boys.

Joe Paterno was never charged with anything and died, in fact, before all of these proceedings could all play out. But an independent probe commissioned by Penn State found he was among four top university officials who could have stopped Sandusky but failed to do so.

I want to bring in CNN contributor, Sara Ganim.

Sara, one of the things that I found interesting about these tapes and this film and this documentary filmmaker's effort to clear Joe Paterno's name is that Joe Paterno's family doesn't want any part of this. Why is that? SARA GANIM, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: They definitely don't like it. But just to give you some perspective, this web site that John Ziegler has posted, he calls it framing Paterno.com, and it's supposed to be a web site to help exonerate Joe Paterno. It's been out for more than a year and it has some reporters. I really watched the support dwindle over the weekend. And it started when Scott Paterno, the youngest son of Joe Paterno, began to tweet that they reviewed what Ziegler was doing, they actually even consulted a child sex abuse expert who they have had review the case extensively over the last couple of months, and that expert said this isn't a truthful narrative. It's a false narrative and the family said we're not going to have any part of this and we don't support it.

Let me read and you statement that they said because they really take offense it seems to the fact that Jerry Sandusky is being used in some way to help further the cause of Ziegler. And the Paterno family has always being acknowledged there are victims in this case. The statement released this weekend from the Paterno family lawyer says they "believe that any attempt to use this recording as a defense of Joe Paterno is misguided and inappropriate" -- Ashleigh?

BANFIELD: Just want to take a look at that. It's a sad and unfortunate episode.

Sara Ganim for us live. Thank you.

I want to bring Sunny Hostin and Joey Jackson, as well.

Sunny, first to you. The story of Jerry Sandusky is not over. He is appealing his conviction. Why on earth would he speak, would a lawyer allow him to speak, or would it matter at all because really an appeal is about a record that's already been made in court?

SUNNY HOSTIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Sure. I think it certainly does matter on many different levels because there is the appeal pending. And because quite frankly we want to hear from Jerry Sandusky because this was, in my opinion, and in my view, sort of the most notorious child sex abuse case in our history. And we've learned a lot about child sex abuse. I used to prosecute these cases and one of the good things at least that has come out of this is that we're actually talking about child sex abuse.

But I will say I don't think anybody can control Jerry Sandusky. I'm quite sure his attorneys didn't want him to say anything, but remember the Bob Costas interview, I'm sure they didn't want him to say anything either. So you can't really control Jerry Sandusky.

But I do find it odd that the Paterno family wants to control the narrative so very much because they should be an ally in many respects.

BANFIELD: At least, doesn't want to be controlled in any narrative.

Joe Jackson, weigh in if you would on the additional cases that still have yet to be litigated. And that is of the Penn State officials who were tangentially involved. Might Jerry Sandusky's words play into their trial?

JOEY JACKSON, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY & CNN CONTRIBUTOR: If always could. And in legal proceedings you have to be very careful about saying anything. I mean, I certainly credit the Paterno family with distancing themselves from this. He had an opportunity, that is Mr. Sandusky, to testify in a court of law where he's under oath and subject to cross-examination. He opted not to do that. And so to do something self-serving now is another matter.

But as to the other issues coming forward, you know, whenever you're talking about a cover up at the highest level, it's a matter who have knew what when. That needs to be determined. I don't think he has enough credibility, that is Sandusky, to weigh in to the effect that he will affect in an immense way, but there is also civil proceedings that are ongoing. And I think ultimately, it's in the school's interests to dispose of this, dispose of it quickly, and on get the good name back that Penn State and the students who go there deserve in their future education.

BANFIELD: I'm glad you brought up the civil, as well. It's not just outstanding criminal issues, a lot of civil issues as well. And millions of dollars at stake.

The two of you say put if you would for me. Because coming up, another big case by the name of Amanda Knox. Thought you were done? No way. $4 million and book-advance money later, and after being set free, an Italian Supreme Court may want that young woman back in country to face murder charges all over again. What say you United State? Would you send her back? Coming up in a moment.

(BEGIN VIDEO TAPE)

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Thank you so much.

Good morning, everybody.

(CROSSTALK)

OBAMA: Secretary Napolitano, thank you for administering the oath and making it official.

Director, distinguished guests, family, and friends, it is a great pleasure to have you here at the White House. And it is an honor to be among the first to greet some of my fellow citizens of the United States.

Today, you're in the people's house, a house designed by an Irish immigrant. We welcome 28 men and women, immigrants themselves, who from this day forward have earned the precious right to call this country home. And I know this is an incredibly special moment for you and for your families. But I have to say it's a special moment for the rest of us, as well. Because as we look out across this room, we're reminded that what makes somebody American isn't just their blood lines. It's not just an accident of birth. It's a fidelity to our founding principles, a faith in the idea that anyone anywhere can write the next great chapter in this American story. That's the promise of America. And today, we know it's alive and well in each and every one of you.

At first glance, of course, it would be easy to define this group by their differences. They all hail from different corners of the world, from Nigeria to Nicaragua, the Philippines to Peru. They arrived in different ways. Some of you came as children, carried by parents who wished for a life that they had never had. Others came as --

BANFIELD: And welcome to all 28 of these active duty servicemembers as we continue to watch this ceremony.

By the way, if you want to watch the entire naturalization ceremony, we'll run it live at CNN.com/live.

We're going to take a quick break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BANFIELD: It was a trial that captured the attention of two countries. Amanda Knox, studying in Italy, who, along with her boyfriend, was convicted of the brutal murder of her roommate, but the conviction was overturned and she was set free 18 months ago. Not before serving four years, though, in an Italian jail. Today, the Italian Supreme Court is taking another look at her case and that court could demand that Knox stand trial again for her murder. You heard it. Double jeopardy.

Sunny Hostin and Joey Jackson are back with me now.

First of all, Sunny Hostin, that would never happen in the United States of America. We have a constitutional right not to have to undergo double jeopardy, being tried twice for the same crime like that. Do they not have the same protection in Italy?

HOSTIN: That's right. They don't have the double jeopardy clause that we have in our Constitution. And I think it's really a fascinating chapter in this Amanda Knox story because we know she was in prison for four years. We all watched that appeal process. We remember seeing Amanda Knox speak in fluent Italian begging for her freedom. She gets the freedom. She goes back home. And now the appellate court is looking at it again.

I think the real question here, Ashleigh, is let's say this court overturns it and says, yes, you've got to come back and be retried. Is the United States going to send her back? Because there is that extradition treaty between Italy and the United States.

(CROSSTALK)

BANFIELD: Those extradition treaties are all very selective. Say, for instance, someone's captured in France and they refuse to extradite back to our country because of, say, I don't know, the death penalty. Can't we employ those same things and say I know we have a treaty with you, but you're breaking our laws and we won't extradite her to you.

Joey Jackson, weigh in on that. JACKSON: Sure we can, and I would expect that, Ashleigh. Extradition, of course, is the process where another country would request that we provide someone to them so that justice could be meted out. At the same time, there are requests of the United States to other countries, as well. So we engage in the process where we respect both. But, of course, we have principles that are well founded within our Constitution, one of which is double jeopardy. Cannot be charged with the same offense and tried for it twice. So as a result of that, I think it would be highly objectionable for the United States to surrender someone to another country for which justice has already been administered and meted out. So I don't think or anticipate that that would happen.

(CROSSTALK)

(LAUGHTER)

BANFIELD: I would like to hear that.

One extra issue and that is slander. It's different over there than it is here, too. And Knox was convicted of slander. One of the people who I think was interrogating her. If, in fact, she can prove that because she's innocent of the crime she didn't slander by suggesting someone else committed the crime, can she actually sue the Italians and get money from them for having to be imprisoned for a crime she didn't commit?

HOSTIN: I don't think that's going to happen in this case. My sense is that Amanda Knox wants this to go away. I can't imagine that she's going to institute any proceedings to recover any sort of money for wrongful prosecution or slander or anything like that.

I think, and we'll hear from her, I believe, right, isn't she sort of writing a book and being interviewed. I think what we'll hear is that she just wants this chapter closed in her life. And I suspect that's what's going to happen.

BANFIELD: So just quickly, to close it out, Joey Jackson, let's say the United States doesn't extradite her and the try her in absentia, they find her guilty in absentia. What does that mean for Amanda Knox?

JACKSON: It's a wonderful question. It means there will be a verdict rendered by that government, but will that verdict be carried out or enforced? No because they wouldn't have jurisdiction over her. She would be in safe haven here. So things are done in absentia in a matter of course, but it doesn't have any effect ultimately because, if you don't have the individual, what can you do.

BANFIELD: And she won't be going on any Porta Fino (ph) vacations anytime soon

HOSTIN: Oh, no.

JACKSON: I don't think so.

(LAUGHTER)

BANFIELD: Thank you, Sunny Hostin, Joey Jackson.

Coming up next, he answered his door and then was shot dead. A memorial today for the chief of Colorado's prison system and the latest on a very unusual murder case.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BANFIELD: "One of the elder statesmen in Colorado," that is how the governor of Colorado, John Hickenlooper, described his old friend, Tom Clements. A memorial is being held at the top of the hour for Clements, who was the chief of the state's prison system, a man shot dead when he opened the door to his home last week. Officials say the suspect, Evan Spencer Ebel, was the former member of a white supremacist prison gang and may have conspired with other inmates to kill Clements. Ebel was killed in a shoot-out with police on Thursday.

Jim Spellman has been following the details and he joins us live from Colorado Springs.

Very tangled web of how they got to this suspect. But are they any further to connecting this to a conspiracy, Jim?

JIM SPELLMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: That's the big question here because the one thing they do not have at this point is a motive. They know that through ballistics information they are almost positive -- they hope to confirm it later -- that it was this man, Evan Ebel, who shot Tom Clements.

But what they don't know is why. They pretty much ruled out that it was a home invasion-type robbery gone awry. They want to know if it was his affiliations with this gang behind the prison walls that somebody maybe ordered a hit. The reason that is so important is because other public officials could still be in danger if that was the case.

To wit, we have increased security here where there's going to be a lot of public officials, including the governor himself, a close friend of Tom Clements, speaking at the memorial.

Also investigators are not only investigating within the prison, they want to know what he was doing for the seven or so weeks since he was out of jail in the end of January until the killing. Where did he get his car? Where did he get his gun? Who was he spending time with? They want to make sure they can wrap all that up until they can feel the rest of the officials are safe -- Ashleigh?

BANFIELD: All right. Jim Spellman, thank you.

Coming up next, people have been waiting in long lines for a long time all to get one of those coveted seats in our nation's most exalted court. We're going to take you to the Supremes in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) BANFIELD: Some pictures for you that don't show the line for the new iPhone or Justin Bieber concert, but you'd think it might. This is the line that started on Friday for Supreme Court arguments that don't get underway until tomorrow and then go on until Wednesday. The big issue, same-sex marriage. Tomorrow's agenda, Prop 8. The court's going to look at that voter passed measure that bans same-sex marriages in the state of California. On Wednesday, the arguments shift to the federal DOMA, the federal Defense of Marriage Act, the one that prevents gay couples from getting the benefits straight couples take for granted and have had for years and years.

My colleague, Joe Johns, was sent out in the snowstorm and had to bear the elements and then went inside --

(LAUGHTER)

-- because it was really lousy weather.

Joe, here's what I think is so telling when you see lines like that waiting for four to five days. This is a critical moment for America. It is a cultural time. It's something where people say, I remember where I was when. Did you get a chance to talk to some of those people in line?

JOE JOHNS, CNN SENIOR CORRESPONDENT: No, frankly, I didn't, Ashleigh. The truth is, though, you're right. This is a pivotal moment in a lot of ways. And a lot of people are saying that. Some people even comparing it to the days back in the 1960s when the Supreme Court first heard the cases relating to interracial marriage. It's that big.

And the court is going to have two chances on two different cases to deal with this. First, as you said, Proposition 8. That's a California case. And then the Defense of Marriage Act, which is a federal law passed back in 1996. All of it is about whether the government, state or federal, can discriminate against same-sex couples -- Ashleigh?

BANFIELD: With only about a minute left in the show, I can't do justice, pardon the pun, to both of those extremely heavy and weighty cases, but we're going to do some massive coverage obviously not only on Prop 8 tomorrow but DOMA on Wednesday. But in the meantime, the thoughts of those that have come from far to be a part of this -- luckily, the media doesn't have to wait in line to get designated seats. But just to be a part of it, what's it like to be inside those hallowed halls?

JOHNS: It's funny. You talk to, as I have, so many of these people whose cases have actually made their way to the Supreme Court. And that, in and of itself, is a lot like lightning strike. And then it begins usually very tense as the justices start interrupting the attorneys as they make their arguments. There's always, from time to time, in these, a moment of levity where everybody realizes we're all human. But at the end of the day, yes, it's hugely important. Everybody sort of gets caught up in the moment. And then you wait. And we'll certainly be waiting until June at least -- (CROSSTALK)

BANFIELD: I think, Joe, some of these people standing in line waiting to be the first people to hear Clarence Thomas ask more than just a very small question, which I know we've already had. But that big first question for Justice Clarence Thomas.

I know you'll be covering this as well tomorrow. Thank you.

And, again, we should remind our viewers, Joe Johns, that we're not going to get a big decision tomorrow. These are oral arguments. And this is the time for the next two or three months for the justices to ponder what they've heard, what they've asked. And by many court watchers accounts, they have a good feel for where they are already. But it is fascinating to watch these arguments play out.

If you ever get a chance to do it, by the way, I always say do jury duty, it's awesome. And see if you can't swing by the Supreme Court as well because it's one of our most magical institutions.

I'm off my soap box now. I'm done. Thank you very much for sticking around. Thanks for watching, everyone.

AROUND THE WORLD is coming up next after this short break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)