Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Amanda Knox to be Retried in Italy; Teenagers Charged with Killing an Infant; The Latest in the Jodi Arias Case

Aired March 26, 2013 - 11:00   ET

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

ASHLEIGH BANFIELD, ANCHOR, "CNN NEWSROOM": A bombshell dropped by Italy's supreme court. It wants American Amanda Knox to go to trial again for murder.

Remember, she was convicted in the murder of her roommate, but then that was overturned by an appeals court. That court cited shoddy work by the prosecutors for the decision that they reached.

Our CNN legal analyst Paul Callan joins me live now here in New York. First of all, explain how this works because so many people have tossed out double jeopardy. Why would we extradite her?

It's not that simple and there is no clear-cut answer. Effectively, what are we looking at?

PAUL CALLAN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: It's very complicated because the Italian system is so different from ours.

In America, you have a jury trial. If the jury acquits you, that's the end of the case. Double jeopardy applies and you can't be brought back into a court.

BANFIELD: It's our constitutional right in America not to be tried twice.

CALLAN: For the same offense.

But the question is, when is the trial finished? The Italians say, this is our system. She was tried in a lower court and, by the way, their juries consist of a judge with laypeople, sort of a mixed bag. You know, it's not just an ordinary person jury.

Then it goes up to an appellate court. And you know what? They start over again. They have a complete trial, but the judges look at the legal issues and then it goes up finally to the Italian supreme court.

BANFIELD: Before you get to the Italian supreme court, because that's where effectively we may be headed with this, when they acquitted her, and I use those words because when translated, their judgment just before she left that country was acquittal. In our language that means done.

CALLAN: That means end of the story in American language. Judge Helmond (ph), the Italian judge, who issued a 144 page decision said, we acquit her of the murder. BANFIELD: But whose definition do we use when it comes to whether this country's going to send that young woman back there if necessary?

Do we use our language in America, acquittal is acquittal, double jeopardy, we're not sending her pack, or do we use the Italian's language which was acquittal is not really acquittal, the final process hasn't been finished?

CALLAN: There is where the really smart criminal lawyers who do international cases occasionally come into play.

Ted Simon who's a well-known American criminal lawyer, he also does international cases, and his contention ultimately will be that she cannot be brought back to Italy because fundamentally double jeopardy has come into play.

But he won't make that argument yet. He's a very smart guy, and he's waiting for the final written decision of the Italian supreme court to see precisely why the case was reversed.

We haven't seen the details so he's laying back a bit as a good lawyer should do.

BANFIELD: And one thing we do know for sure, also an unusual circumstance, she doesn't have to be present for the next process. She doesn't have to sit there in that courtroom for this process.

What will be fascinating, though, is if they render a guilty verdict, does that mean this country's government really has a tough decision to make? Honor your treaty or not?

CALLAN: You're not going to believe this, though. If the lower court issues a guilty finding, it can go up on appeal again to the Italian supreme court and it's still not over.

BANFIELD: Could be years. And neither is this conversation.

Paul Callan, thank you. We're going to talk a little bit more about this in a moment.

But I want to zip right away to Washington, D.C., because there is a place that exists to tackle big cases and handle big decisions. It's the Supreme Court and it's buzzing because a huge case, potentially leading to a monumental decision, is being argued in the most hallowed halls as we speak.

You know it as Prop 8, the California referendum that was passed by the voters there, but overturned by the lower courts there, a decision that would outlaw same-sex marriage in that state.

A Supreme Court ruling could do a few things. It could clear the way for same-sex marriage in every state of the union, or it could do so for some states, or it could do that for no states at all, or it could punt and decide to do nothing at all in this case.

The arguments began last hour and they should be winding down shortly and we could see the opposing parties come streaming out of those doors of that building in just minutes.

This is a live picture. And, by the way, outside the court's view, there's Shannon Travis and he's surrounded by a lot of voices and a lot of people. He's among the multitudes waiting outside for this decision.

When I say a lot of people, Shannon, I'm not exaggerating. There are forces for and against. They've had to be cordoned into areas for keep the order and there is an additional security presence, too, right?

SHANNON TRAVIS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Absolutely, Ashleigh.

You mentioned the arguments inside the court. There are loud arguments outside the court here, protesters for and against same-sex marriage.

Just want to give you a sense of what we've been looking at all day. Look across the street there. There's the Capitol in the background, obviously, directly across from the Supreme Court building.

But take a look at some of these signs. We've been watching these opponents of same-sex marriage for a while now. They're basically holding up signs that say "protect the sanctity of marriage."

You see another group of protesters down here, basically saying equality across America. Obviously, they are supporters of same-sex marriage.

Behind me, more protesters in the distance and immediately surrounding me, also.

Inside, back to those arguments you were talking about inside, pro and against, obviously, we're talking about Proposition 8, that California measure that banned same-sex marriage.

You'll hear inside the arguments against same-sex marriage, basically a few things. One, conservatives, many people who oppose same-sex marriage, have traditionally been saying the definition of marriage is between one man and one woman and you'll also hear them saying voters in 2008 approved this measure.

These were voters who approved it, Ashleigh. Obviously, the arguments against same-sex marriage, they'll say that the Constitution provides protection for same-sex couples to get married and they'll also say, hey, you know what? Justices, you should apply a higher standard, a stricter standard, when it comes to discriminating against gays and lesbians because this is a group that's traditionally been discriminated against.

Ashleigh?

BANFIELD: Shannon Travis watching it all unfolding for us. Thank you for that.

I just want to remind our viewer what is a big deal this is. Sometimes you know by the names involved how big a deal a case can be. Look, if it's at the Supreme Court, it's big, but when you have Ted Olson and David Boies arguing for this, don't forget they were adversaries in Bush Versus Gore, back in 2000.

They're on the same side on this one and they're argue against Prop 8. Not only that, the solicitor-general, the guy who is the government's lawyer, is joining forces with those two.

On the other side of it, Dennis Hollingsworth who has essentially been the backbone, the legal backbone, in support of Prop 8 to protect what he calls is the legal definition of marriage.

So big players, high stakes and it's all coming to a head momentarily. So we've got the live cameras trained.

Like I said, you know what? We can't hear it and we can't see it because the Supreme Court doesn't let us yet. They'll release tapes later in the day. We will hear some of the arguments, but our best coverage of this will come from our attorneys and our reporters who will come streaming out of those doors just as soon as the arguments wrap up.

And later in the hour, we're going to talk to our legal panel, as well, Lisa Bloom and Richard Socarides, about just how important this case is and how this is a moment you will likely not forget, especially when that decision comes down in a few months.

Want to take a look now at some of our top stories and the markets being one of them. Take a look at how close we are to being up 100 points in the Dow today, up 96 and change.

The stock market's been open for about 90 minutes now. We're continuing to watch the Big Board to see how this day will progress.

David Petraeus is returning to the spotlight for the first time since he resigned as the director of the CIA over that extramarital affair, that very messy extramarital affair.

"The New York Times" is reporting that General Petraeus will begin with an apology when he speaks at an event tonight honoring veterans, the ROTC program at the University of Southern Carolina.

A Florida woman accused of trying to kill her husband lost it. There's really no other way to say it, lost it in court. Have a look.

That's an outburst. Apparently it was triggered when the judge denied her bond.

She told police that she stabbed her husband because he abused her. By the way, that's the same judge who got the middle finger from another person in that same courtroom just within the last month. (Inaudible) that courtroom.

A heartbroken mother is calling for the death penalty for a teenager accused of killing her boy. You can't do that in our country, but you can tell how devastated this has been, thirteen-month-old shot in his stroller in Brunswick, Georgia, last week.

Two teenagers charged with murder. A 15-year-old and a 17-year-old, both in court yesterday. The baby's mother talked to Piers Morgan.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SHERRY WEST, 13-MONTH-OLD SON KILLED: They're being charged with felony murder. And I just hope, you know, that the shooter dies.

I mean, I had to watch my baby die and I want him to die, a life for a life.

And the young one, he was an accessory, an accomplice. I hope that he gets a juvenile correctional facility to age 21 and a consecutive life sentence in state prison.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BANFIELD: The mother of the 15-year-old says her son wasn't involved. Neither teenager has yet entered a plea in this case.

Want to take you now to the Jodi Arias trial in Phoenix. Boy, are we getting close an end in this very long case.

One-hundred-twelve jury questions came over two days and that was just for the psychologist that the defense put forward.

Richard Samuels finally wrapped up his testimony, thank God. That happened yesterday, but not before some real fireworks erupted in this courtroom and a nasty accusation from the prosecutor.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JUAN MARTINEZ, PROSECUTOR: We've discussed this and the question was, isn't it true that she discussed thoughts, feeling, conversations associated with the trauma in the "48 Hours" interview?

RICHARD SAMUELS, PSYCHOLOGIST: Yes.

MARTINEZ: So again that speaks against what's in number one, doesn't it?

SAMUELS: I'm sorry. I don't see it that way.

MARTINEZ: Right, you wouldn't see it that way because you have feelings for the defendant, right?

SAMUELS: I beg your pardon, sir.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BANFIELD: Beg your pardon, sir.

All right. So next up, the defense's final witness. Her name is Alyce Laviolette She was sworn-in yesterday. She's a domestic violence expert, and she's going to be back on the stand about an hour from now, so she's probably getting ready as we speak.

Her testimony again expected to last all week long.

Jodi Arias says she killed her ex-boyfriend, Travis Alexander, but she says she did it in self-defense because he attacked her, she says.

But those who knew him say he was not a violent person. In some audio that was obtained by HLN's "Dr. Drew On Call," we hear from the victim. He was a motivational speaker and he had a great sense of humor and this may be the last known audio recording of Travis.

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

TRAVIS ALEXANDER, MURDER VICTIM (voiceover): There's two things they say as a public speaker you should never talk about. One is religion and the other is politics.

I usually talk about religion, but tonight I'm going to talk about politics.

(END AUDIO CLIP)

BANFIELD: Again, some audio recordings, possibly the last known ones of the victim in this case.

The accused, Jodi Arias, seems to have gone to a lot of trouble to get the police going in circles early on.

Did she think she could outsmart them? How her actions could give away what she was really thinking.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BANFIELD: Prosecutors say Jodi Arias thought she was so smart and she told "Inside Edition" that she'd be a free woman after the trial.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JODI ARIAS, ACCUSED MURDERER: No jury is going to convict me.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Why not?

ARIAS: Because I'm innocent, and you can mark my words on that one. No jury will convict me.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BANFIELD: Well, she says she says that because she was planning to kill herself. She seems to have an answer for everything. Here she is smiling in her mug shot. When that picture was taken, she was thinking she was also smart enough to fool the police perhaps because she rented a car in Redding, California, a 90 minute drive away from where she lived. She drove that car to Travis's house. Prosecution says she staged a burglary at her grandparent's house to hide the theft of a .25 caliber handgun, the same caliber used to shoot Travis Alexander. And the day before she killed him, her boyfriend loaned her two 5-gallon gas cans that were never returned. Pictures of Arias and Alexander were recovered from her camera. The camera was hidden inside a washing machine. And it had gone through a cycle. She also planned a date with another man after the killing - right after.

Prosecution says that was supposed to be her alibi. So if you're trying to plan the perfect crime on paper, that might work. But when you have Beth Karas, who's a correspondent for "In Session" on TruTV and Vinnie Politan, who's the host of "In Session" on HLN After Dark, and Ryan Smith, the host of HLN's "Evening Express," those three beside me have seen a thing or two about people who think they can outsmart the cops. Beth, let me start with you. How many cases have you either prosecuted or covered in which you find criminals who think they're smarter than scientist, forensics, and police?

BETH KARAS, CORRESPONDENT, "IN SESSION": Well, a lot of them do. I handled a lot of cases in my eight years as a prosecutor in Manhattan, but the bulk of the cases plead out. You strike a deal. Only a fraction actually go to trial. So I've covered in almost two decades after that, hundreds of trials. So, there are many cases, though, where defendants do think they can outsmart the police. Casey Anthony, and she did, and of course Jodi Arias is one of them, but not all are like that.

BANFIELD: I don't know if Casey Anthony outsmarted the police. I don't know that the prosecutors did their job in that courtroom. But I'll move on from that or my head will pop right off.

Vinnie Politan, we have covered the same case, a young man named Justin Barber in Florida who went for a romantic walk with his wife and ultimately convicted of shooting her in the head. But the police say he really did an elaborate job of trying to stage this thing by shooting himself, but Googling essentially how to shoot yourself without dying. What countries tonight extradite you for murder. And also he downloaded a Guns and Roses song "Used to Love Her" and then deleted it, only one song that he deleted. He also searched for Florida divorce. He had a $2 million life insurance policy on his wife. Is this another example of a guy who thinks he's so smart and yet his digital footprints come back to bite him?

VINNIE POLITAN, HOST, HLN'S "AFTER DARK": Absolutely. And here's what I always say: we don't catch the real smart ones. We only catch the ones who think they're smart. Or the really dumb ones. And we've seen that, as well. The bottom line is the world has changed and what investigators can to forensically in tracking town what you do on a computer, what you leave at the scene of a killing is incredible and changed and evolved so much in the last 10, 15 years that it's a brand new world out there and it's much, much more difficult to try to get away with something when you're an amateur killer.

BANFIELD: There are what I like to call molecular smoking guns out there. Ryan, I want to just bring up another case. A woman names Melanie McGuire (ph) from New Jersey. She killed her husband, cut him up and put him into three pieces of matching Kenneth Cole luggage and tossed him into the water. Unfortunately for her, those suitcases washed up onshore and there were garbage bags used inside that match the striations of the bags in her home. She also bought a .38 caliber gun two days before. And the bullets match those found in his body. Toll tag in her car matched the place she said "I wasn't there." Surveillance video of her was found moving her husband's car where she said he disappeared from instead of from her home. I couldn't help but think that many of the things, Ryan, in the case of Jodi Arias seemed similar to Melanie McGuire's, just so much things set up to look a certain way but on scientific analysis look another.

RYAN SMITH, HOST, HLN'S "EVENING EXPRESS": Exactly. And as Vinnie was saying, the scientific analysis tells the story these days. And if you have those inconsistencies, then a jury will focus on that and say, hey, wait a second, this doesn't make sense. So you look at all the things you lined up and you see a case like that, there are so many people that think they can outsmart the authorities. But when you have a situation like that with so many different things coming back to bite you, it is just impossible, and that's why the jury handed down the verdict they did.

BENFIELD: And then as Beth so aptly pointed out, we have a Casey Anthony. So who knows what will happen when the jury gets the case. And they likely will get this case. Thank you to all three of you. Stand by if you will.

I like to call these the infamous five. The top five countries in the world that execute the highest number of people. Do you think the good old U.S. of A is on the list and if so, who are our brothers in needles? Find out. Our examination of the death penalty in this country because Jodi Srias is facing it.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BANFIELD: If Jodi Arias is convicted of first-degree murder in the violent death of her boyfriend, she could become the fourth woman on death row in Arizona. If she were convicted anywhere else, say like in most other countries on the planet, death would not be on the table for Ms. Arias. Want to give issue death penalty statistics that might come as a surprise.

Take a look at this map. There are currently 58 countries in the world including the United States that use the death penalty. Some others, China, Cuba, India, Iran, Iraq, Japan, North Korea, Saudi Arabia. Interesting brothers in this movement. There is, though, a movement to abolish the death penalty and the it's been under way for 40 years.

IN 1977 only 16 countries had done away with the death penalty. That's 1977. Today the number is at 140 countries and this is for all crimes. Not the United States, though. The U.S. was among the top five executioners in the world in 2011. And the company we keep in that statistic, the others in the top five? China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq. Some of those we say are state sponsors of terror, too.

Of the 50 United States, only 17 have abolished the death penalty, the most recent being Illinois. And that happened in 2011. Want to bring our legal panel back. Beth karats, correspondent with "In Session" on TruTV. Vinnie Politan, host of HLN "After Dark," and Ryan Smith, the anchor of HLN's "Evening Express."

Beth, I want to start with you because you have been a prosecutor and we together and this whole team in fact have covered a lot of death penalty cases. And if you ask the average American out there, many would say they have no idea that we share this death penalty with some of those very frightening other countries and not with most of the rest of the world.

KARAS: Indeed. Let me make an addition to what you just read. Actually Connecticut was the most recent state almost a year ago April 2012 they repealed the death penalty. It's not retroactive. So that Komisarjevsky and Hayes who killed the Petit family, they received death sentences. Those will remain. It's anyone from that date forward. It's from the end of April last year.

So now 17 states in the United States do not have it, 33 do have it. And it is shocking to many people when they realize that because we're called -- the industrialized world, the civilized world that does not have the western world, we're the only one that has the death penalty. There had been a trend for a while against the death penalty. I think that trend continues. North Carolina had a moratorium for a while. Illinois had a moratorium before they repealed. It was on the table to be repealed in Connecticut and then the Petit family was murdered, they took it off the table and brought it back after their trial. So, we may see more states cutting back, but I don't know that all 50 ever will.

BANFIELD: Vinnie, I know there are a lot of people watching the television saying shut up already. For the worst of the worst, this is what they deserve. What if it's not a moral question and what if I take you back to just before the commercial break when I say science is so good, we can outsmart the bad guys. How good is science and how good is our handling of science if we're to be so perfect as to snuff someone's life out state sanctioned?

POLITAN: The bottom line is life in - and this is the alternative - live in prison. But life in prison is still a life. It's a life different than one outside, but still a life. And when you do a study of the lives that these killers, that these animals lead, you'll find that they actually have a life. There is a wake up, there is a morning, there is a routine, things that they do, things that they enjoy. The bottom line is it's up to each state to make its decision here and as long as it's applied properly and they get appeal after appeal after appeal and if there is evidence that comes forward, it's dealt with. The bottom line is we have it and when it's applied properly, I think it's appropriate. Talk to some of these victims.

BANFIELD: I hear you and again, I'm going to hit this again and Ryan, I want you to jump in on this. I don't think anybody out there doesn't agree that the people who perpetrated the horrific crimes against Dr. Petit and his family, essentially wiping out Petit's family. Innocent girls, burning them alive, raping and burning his wife. Nobody will argue that these people are worth saving. But again, if we're as a society deciding to take someone's life, don't we have to be perfect across the board? Ryan, are we perfect in our system of jurisprudence and investigation?

SMITH: No, we're not perfect, and you know what? Let's not even talk about the technology that we have now. Let's talk about the people on death row, who've been on death row for a long time, maybe convicted 20, 30 years ago when the technology was imperfect. So that's why we're seeing things like what we saw in Texas recently where they were looking at some of the cases and seeing some inconsistencies. That being said, I think the tough thing here is it's part of the moral fabric of our culture and when somebody is so ago grieved like for example Dr. Petit, his family wiped out in that way, there is a sense in our society that someone has to pay and that's why I think you'll see the death penalty around in this country for a long, long time in many states because there needs to be for a lot of people that extreme punishment when such a heinous crime is committed.

BANFIELD: We need a one hour show and a very large panel to have an even greater discussion of this. Because we've only just scratched the surface. Beth Karas, Vinnie Politan, Ryan Smith, thank you to all three of you. Very smart lawyers and I so appreciate your input. Also remember watch HLN "After Dark" on weeknights at 10 eastern too. A lot of great analysis there. And again Jodi Arias is facing the death penalty. Does not get more serious than this.

Just ahead, we'll head back to Washington, D.C. for arguments that could change the way we see and perform marriage in the United States.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)