Return to Transcripts main page

Nancy Grace

Awaiting the Grand Jury in Ferguson, Missouri

Aired November 13, 2014 - 20:00   ET

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

JOEY JACKSON, GUEST HOST: Breaking news tonight. Tensions, anxiety and frustrations boiling over in the small town of Ferguson, Missouri, after an

unarmed teen is shot dead by a cop right in the middle of the street. The teen was en route to his grandmother`s home.

Major news tonight as violence again threatens to become a reality. We learn that the secret grand jury is convening behind closed doors, deciding

whether or not to indict Officer Darren Wilson.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Family and supporters of Brown and those of Officer Darren Wilson await justice, as they see justice.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Both concluded Brown was shot at least six times.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The governor says he will send in the National Guard, if required.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The world wants answers, and we hope we get some answers and some help.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

JACKSON: And live to Baltimore County, 12-year-old Jasmine Baker (ph), last seen leaving her home at 7:30 AM, heading to school and never seen

again. Where, oh, where is little Jasmine?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Jasmine Baker leaves her home Tuesday morning, and like every other day, walks to her Maryland middle school just a half a mile

away. But Jasmine never makes it, the middle schooler last seen wearing bluejeans and a brown jacket. Have you seen Jasmine?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

JACKSON: Good evening to you. I`m Joey Jackson, in for Nancy Grace.

Major news tonight. Tensions, anxiety and frustrations boiling over in the small town of Ferguson, Missouri, after an unarmed teen is shot dead by a

cop right in the middle of the street. The teen was en route to his grandmother`s home. As violence again threatens to become a reality, we

learn that the secret grand jury is convening behind closed doors, deciding whether or not to indict Officer Darren Wilson.

Going to Sara Sidner. Sara, we know you`re CNN`s national correspondent. You`ve been out there. You`ve been following it. Take us through the

latest, Sara.

SARA SIDNER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (via telephone): What we know -- and we know this because of Michael Brown`s parents` attorney came out and told

the media that, indeed, the pathologist that the family actually hired initially to do an autopsy in the beginning was asked by the grand jury to

please come in as an eyewitness to speak to the grand jury and give his version, his look, his autopsy that he did, give them details that he

found.

And they did thank everyone for bringing him in. They believe that he should be called, and indeed, he was called, they said, last minute. So we

now know that at least another witness has finished their testimony. We saw him leave the court today. He left without saying anything, saying he

didn`t want to discuss any of his testimony in front of the grand jury, which is his right, of course, but that he certainly did testify in front

of this grand jury, which is made up of 12 people, 9 of whom will have to decide whether or not to indict. You have to have 9 of 12 jurors make that

determination and all agree. Otherwise, there will be no indictment.

JACKSON: Sure. And Sara, do we also know how long Dr. Baden testified for? Is there any indication how long he was there?

SIDNER: I can tell you, from the time that we sort of saw him go in, it appeared to be maybe 30, 40 minutes. We`re not quite sure. It could have

been longer than that. We don`t know exactly how long.

And of course, all of those proceedings inside of the grand jury are supposed to be secret. In other words, no one from the grand jury should

be talking to anybody. Nobody from the government should be talking to anybody. But the witnesses can talk. The witnesses who go in and out,

they can say what they want, if they decide to make something public.

What we do know right now is that the prosecuting attorney`s office has said to us time and again -- and I`ve been here now on the ground for two

months -- has said, Look, we think that this decision by the grand jury will come down mid to late November. We`re getting very close, if that

date still holds true.

And I just heard back from them this morning, and they said it`s the same thing, that it would be, you know, mid-November at the earliest. So we are

waiting to hear, and so is so much of the community, both in and around Ferguson, waiting to hear what that grand jury decides -- Joey.

JACKSON: Well, Sara, we certainly appreciate you and the work you`re doing. We know you`ll stay all over the case and bring us the latest

details. Thank you so much.

I want to go to Sean Parcells. Sean, I know you assisted, you were consulted in the autopsy. We don`t have an indication of what Dr. Baden

said, Sean, but we do know he testified. Is there anything that you could shed light on which we -- what he would have said of value to that grand

jury?

SEAN PARCELLS, FORENSICS CONSULTANT: Well, I`m not going to put any words into Dr. Baden`s mouth because I don`t know what he actually testified to

today, and also some of the other factors, I don`t want to discuss. But I can tell you that, you know, I think it`s important that the grand jury did

hear from our side, that they did hear our presentation. And I was concerned as the case was going on that neither myself nor Dr. Baden were

being called to testify.

So when I heard (INAUDIBLE) that Dr. Baden was being called, I felt much better because we can give an independent standpoint, just another

viewpoint on the case.

JACKSON: Well, that I appreciate, Sean. But with regard to that independent viewpoint, how do you think it adds value? Not asking you to

put anything in Dr. Baden`s mouth, but how do you think what Dr. Baden said would add value to what that grand jury is considering?

PARCELLS: Well, I think the first autopsy report, first of all, we agree with all of those conclusions, other than the gunshot wound that happened

to the palm of the hand. The gunshot wound to the palm of the hand, the first autopsy indicated that they found gunshot residue. We didn`t really

conclude that because we didn`t see that. And if there was gunshot residue seen in the microscopic slides, that also could be dirt. And that could

really show that it may not be a close-range gunshot wound.

The other thing is, if it truly is, it doesn`t necessarily mean that Michael Brown was reaching for the gun. I had heard that a lot of people

put speculation on that, and all that means is that that gunshot wound happened at a range of less than 12 inches. It doesn`t prove whether he

was reaching for the gun or not.

JACKSON: It certainly doesn`t, Sean Parcells. I just -- but I do have a question. With regard to the gunshot -- or gunpowder residue, there`s a

major distinction between residue and dirt. And so forensically, is there a way, beyond a degree of reasonable medical certainty, to say was it

residue or was it dirt? Yes or no?

PARCELLS: Not necessarily. You may have one pathologist look at it under the microscope and say it`s consistent with particulate matter. And you

may have another one say while it could be particulate matter, it could also be dirt, for example. The only way maybe forensically to really

conclude that is to send in a GSR kit to an independent lab and actually get the micro -- not the microscopic, but the reading within the

chromatography to see if it matches up with that. And even then, it`s not 100 percent because, as you know, those aren`t even allowed in court

anymore.

JACKSON: Well, let`s hope that they do all they need to do to get to the facts.

I want to go to Jasmine Rand right now. She`s a civil rights attorney. She`s also with the lawfirm of Park and Crump. How are you, Jasmine? You

know, the question I have for you, though -- tell us about the family first, and what is their expectation here with regard to whether or not

there`ll be an indictment? And what`s your expectation?

JASMINE RAND, CIVIL RIGHTS ATTORNEY: You know, I think that the family right now is certainly happy that Dr. Michael Baden was able to offer his

testimony and his version of facts before the jury. It`s always good when you can have, you know, a second opinion, impartial opinion before the

jury. I think, though they`re happy that Dr. Baden was able to give his testimony, we are still skeptical about the overall outcome and what it is

that the jurors will find and the manner in which the evidence is being presented before the grand jury.

JACKSON: Now, Jasmine, let me ask you about that question because, of course, there`s some that believe that there shouldn`t have been a grand

jury, there should have been a criminal complaint. There should have been a preliminary hearing where, of course, all the evidence would have been

exposed and transparent to the public, followed by cross-examination.

Are you of that belief, number one? And number two, as far as -- they didn`t do that. It`s in the grand jury now. They`re giving the grand jury

everything. Should the prosecutor be taking that tack or giving them limited information?

RAND: I believe that the prosecutor -- we`ve seen very unusual circumstances from the very beginning in this case. The fact that the

prosecutor is not guiding them toward a charge really leaves the evidence kind of out in the open for a jury of laypeople to try to consider how to

apply this evidence in our laws.

And even as attorneys, sometimes it`s difficult for us to make those decisions. Certainly, the prosecutor was not comfortable making the

decision on the prosecutor`s own and now has left, you know, 12 laypeople to put this evidence together to make an intelligent decision about Darren

Wilson`s fate and about whether or not Michael Brown`s family will receive justice.

JACKSON: OK. Thank you, Jasmine. I want to go to Jeff Gold. Jeff, I want to ask you, from a prosecutor`s perspective, should he be charged?

Should Darren Wilson be charged? Why or why not?

JEFF GOLD, FORMER PROSECUTOR: Well, hey, that`s up to the grand jury. Now, we all know, in a routine case, prosecutors are accused of leading the

grand jury, just what we`ve heard here they should be doing by the civil rights attorney. But that`s not their job.

They`re a bulwark of the citizenry, between the defendant and the police. So the prosecutor`s doing the right thing, putting everything in front of

this grand jury and letting the people decide. Now, it`s only 9 out of 12 that have to decide, and they only have to decide probable cause. So the

prosecutor is doing exactly what he needs to do in a very tense situation. Let the people decide.

He shouldn`t be just indicting because he wants to, as it was a routine case. It`s not. And also, he shouldn`t put the information there just so

that he can "no bill" it on purpose. Let the grand jury do its job. It`s a rare case that the grand jury gets to do its own real job. This is one

of those times.

JACKSON: OK, well, before I get to Elder, I want to get you in here, but I also want to hear from the defense attorney, Mr. Rodriguez. Is this, in

fact, the way to proceed? Perhaps, you know, give them all the evidence. Is this a way to confuse the grand jury, or is it really transparency, or

is the prosecutor, as some would argue, hiding behind the fact that there is a grand jury? Let them decide. I don`t know what happened. What say

you?

HUGO RODRIGUEZ, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: It`s the proper way. In the federal system, every case is brought before a grand jury. But before we go there

and talk about indictments and charges, one of the responsibilities of the grand jury is to determine if Officer Wilson`s actions were justifiable

homicide.

JACKSON: Correct.

RODRIGUEZ: And they`re going to get those legal instructions. And under Missouri law, very much he satisfies the elements of a justifiable

homicide. Here we have a possible assault and battery on a law enforcement officer. We know that there were 12 inches between them. If that officer

-- and that`s the way the law is written -- perceives that his life is in danger or someone else`s or that felon attempts to flee from arrest, that

officer is justified in taking that action. It`s another thing that the grand jury will be analyzing.

JACKSON: Larry Elder, you`re an attorney also. I know you`re a radio personality, as well. I mean, is that correct? We don`t know if the

officer was justified. That`s the whole purpose of a grand jury, is it not?

LARRY ELDER, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Well, that`s right. And look, the whole world is watching. What gets me about this case, Joey, is that

people act as if there`s going to be some sort of miscarriage of justice. Are you kidding me? President Obama has mentioned this at the United

Nations. The Brown family has addressed the United Nations.

This is not going to be Trayvon Martin, where arguably, the authorities did not do a thorough investigation to satisfy the local community. This is

going to be thoroughly investigated. People have gone to school on Trayvon Martin. For crying out loud, chill out! Justice will be done here.

JACKSON: Well, we certainly hope that. And Jasmine, let me get your view on the elephant in the room. We know the composition of that grand jury.

We showed it on the screen earlier. We know that there are three African- Americans. We know that there are nine people who are white. You see it right there.

Does that make a difference in this case? We also know that Ferguson, as a community, is two thirds African-American, but the county where the pool is

drawn from, is the reverse, 70 percent white. Is this going to make a difference with regard to whether they indict or not, and should it make a

difference?

RAND: I mean, I think we can`t ignore the issue of race in this country. I think that we`ve ignored it for far too long, which is perhaps why we

found ourselves in the position that we are. What we would hope from the jury is that every jury (ph) on the member (ph), regardless of their race,

will receive this information and will take this information in and process it in a manner which is fair and impartial to the family of Michael Brown,

whose rights have to be protected in this instance. There`s no greater right than the right to life.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: As the grand jury announcement on whether to indict Officer Darren Wilson grows ever nearer...

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Police brutality (INAUDIBLE)

DR. MICHAEL BADEN, MEDICAL EXAMINER: All of these gunshot wounds were survivable, except for the one in the top of the head.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Dr. Michael Baden`s testimony isn`t the only forensic account of Michael Brown`s death, grand jurors will hear.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: He ran for his life (ph) and he shot him, and he (INAUDIBLE) he put his arms up to let him know that he was compliant and

that he was unarmed.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

JACKSON: A grand jury is considering right now whether to indict or not indict Officer Darren Wilson in this case. Will they or won`t they? We

will know at any time.

I want to go to Bernard Parks right now. You`re a former LAPD chief. I want to talk to you about protocol. And I want to ask you this. In the

event, for example, there`s a struggle that was determined to have taken place inside that car, is it all bets are off and now Darren Wilson is now

authorized to use lethal force outside the car, or should the policy -- or is the policy something different?

BERNARD PARKS, FORMER LAPD CHIEF: Well, I think, first of all, every jurisdiction has its own policies. But I think, in general, you have to

make a decision on each use of deadly force. Independent judgment is whether the threat of bodily harm or death is present for you or another

person. You cannot get involved in an incident and believe that that gives you a license to keep using deadly force just because the first contact was

threatening. And so I think it requires an independent judgment.

JACKSON: And Bernard Parks, that`s exactly the issue I want to explore with Jeffrey Gold and Hugo Rodriguez. Jeffrey Gold, first to you. I view

them as two separate instances. In the event that there was some type of struggle in that car, does that now, from a prosecutor`s perspective,

justify what happened outside of the car or otherwise give the officer creative license to use lethal force?

GOLD: No. If he`s got a moment to breathe and think about it and do this in a nonlethal method, he has to do it. Let`s not forget about these two

construction workers or contractors, white guys that happened to see this whole thing, and say that they saw Michael Brown with his hands up saying,

Wait a minute, I don`t have a gun, and then being shot. So there`s other evidence here other than the forensics that`s either came in or going to

come in. If he had a moment to take a break, he should have taken a break and not shot.

JACKSON: Elder, is he right? Is Jeffrey Gold right? He has a moment. He could pause. He could reassess. Or was in this case that not something

that he was required to do? There was a struggle in that car.

ELDER: The problem with this case from the beginning, Joey, is that there`s conflicting evidence. You have conflicting physical evidence, and

according to "The New York Times," there are six or seven African-American witnesses who are testifying in a way consistent with the version given by

Officer Darren Wilson.

So if you are a prosecutor and your job is not to indict unless you believe there`s probable cause that a crime was committed and this man committed

the crime, I don`t see how you do that. And a jury of 12 people is not going to find this man guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. So as far as I`m

concerned, the prosecution, if they indict this man, is doing so for a political reason, not for legal reasons.

JACKSON: Well, how could we say that at this point? And Jasmine, I`ll turn to you before I get to Hugo. What`s the politics in it? You`re given

information. The grand jury -- let`s remember the standard here. It`s not beyond a reasonable doubt. There are 12 members here who are assessing

whether or not there`s reasonable cause to believe that a crime was committed and Darren Wilson committed it.

What`s wrong with them looking at that, saying, We don`t know exactly what`s happening here. Let`s give it to a jury and let them decide.

Shouldn`t that be the analysis, Jasmine, or should it not?

RAND: I mean, I think we have the jury looking at all of these different versions of the facts from these various witnesses. What I hope the jury

will recognize is that there`s one pattern that is consistent. And with almost all of those witnesses, the officer`s actions did not pass the smell

test. What most of those jurors (sic) believe they saw was some wrongdoing, and the wrongdoing they saw was murder.

JACKSON: Well, Hugo Rodriguez would disagree with that. Hugo, you don`t believe it to be murder. You believe the officer was justified, do you

not?

RODRIGUEZ: I do.

JACKSON: Why?

RODRIGUEZ: First of all, let me tell you the political presence is. Let me tell you the political presence. One is...

JACKSON: Al Sharpton.

RODRIGUEZ: ... this attorney general has already said -- this attorney general has already said, If we don`t like what you do, we`re going to

involve the federal government, possibly charge him with violation of civil rights resulting in death, which would have the same consequences. And the

federal government has done that repeatedly in multiple jurisdictions. So that`s a political pressure.

JACKSON: So you`re...

RODRIGUEZ: Two, we`ve never heard from Officer Wilson!

JACKSON: Well, we have heard...

RODRIGUEZ: We`ve never heard from Officer Wilson!

JACKSON: ... from Officer Wilson. We don`t have to hear. The grand jury has to hear from him. And based upon what he has to say, they either find

it credible or they don`t find it credible.

RODRIGUEZ: No, no, no, no.

JACKSON: But they`ve heard from him, and that`s the important body.

RODRIGUEZ: Incorrect. They don`t have to hear from him.

JACKSON: But they have.

RODRIGUEZ: They can hear from any investigative officer who will give (ph) -- and they will. And -- but we don`t know what his rendition is and we

haven`t seen it. But the law is from his perception. And we can`t Monday morning quarterback if he had a second, if he had the relief (ph). This

isn`t Monday after Sunday football.

JACKSON: Well...

RODRIGUEZ: That officer`s got to react to save his life or somebody else`s, and to stop someone who`s a felon, who has committed assault and

battery on a leo (ph) from fleeing.

JACKSON: Well...

RODRIGUEZ: That`s what the law says.

JACKSON: ... let`s say we agree with all of that. Let`s say you`re absolutely right. But how then do you justify witnesses, Hugo, who have

indicated that he had, Michael Brown, his hands up and that he was not rushing towards the officer? In the event that the jury believes, the

grand jury, that he wasn`t rushing towards the officer, that he posed no threat, that there was no imminence of danger, does that change your view

tonight?

RODRIGUEZ: I would have to see everything. But there`s also other witnesses that this individual bull-rushed (ph) the officer, OK? So we

can`t take that away. We have witnesses that said that he tried to force himself into the car and that there was an assault and battery on the law

enforcement officer. So you`ve got to look at everything.

JACKSON: 100 percent.

RODRIGUEZ: And remember, an indictment isn`t beyond a reasonable doubt. It is not beyond a reasonable doubt.

(CROSSTALK)

JACKSON: Go ahead, Larry Elder. Go ahead.

RODRIGUEZ: I don`t think so.

ELDER: And even if he`s indicted, I`m telling you right now, there`s no way a jury of 12 is going to find Officer Darren Wilson guilty of murder

beyond a reasonable doubt, not with conflicting physical evidence, conflicting witnesses. It`s not going to happen.

JACKSON: Jeff Gold, in every case I`ve been involved in, there`s always conflicting evidence. That`s where it goes to credibility. That`s where

it goes to reasonableness. That`s where it goes to whether or not this was a crime or not a crime.

How could we, Jeff Gold, at this point say if he`s indicted, he gets acquitted?

GOLD: Yes, we can`t say it at all, and it`s not for us to say. That`s why we have a jury system. The grand jury system is different than the later

petit jury. The grand jury decides probably cause. So it`s just the opposite. They have a lesser standard. Of course, they should find

there`s probable cause here. Then it goes to a petit jury. And then it`s their job to find out whether it happened or not. That`s the proper way,

not to put it in the hands of the executive, of one prosecutor. We put it in the hands of a jury for a reason. That`s who should decide!

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Conflicting eyewitness accounts that the grand jury will have to consider, like the forensic evidence in this case.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The protests will carry on in a positive manner.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Protesters blame police for escalating tensions after the killing of Michael Brown.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (INAUDIBLE) time I come outside, I`m thinking that he`s now hit after I seen the officer shooting at him while he was running away.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

JACKSON: The grand jury is convening as we speak. They, of course, will determine whether Officer Darren Wilson gets indicted -- that is, charged

with a crime. What that crime could be, if there`s an indictment, we don`t know. We just know it could come down at any minute.

I want to go to Colin Jeffery, news director, KTRS. Colin, if I could ask you -- there`s information that there was some type of blood that was found

inside the vehicle, in addition to on the officer`s uniform. Is that accurate? And on the gun?

COLIN JEFFERY, KTRS: Well, is it accurate? Right now, all that we know is that "The St. Louis Post-Dispatch," the local newspaper, said they obtained

information from that St. Louis County medical examination, and that`s where they said the blood was found on the gun in the officer`s car.

So is it accurate? We`ll have to wait and see. And we will have the unique opportunity because if a "no bill" is issued here, no indictment is

given against Officer Wilson, you know, prosecutor Bob McCullough has said he will release the full transcripts of the grand jury proceedings. So at

that point, we will be able to examine all of this.

But right now, the only information we have is what has been leaked or given to the local papers and national papers.

JACKSON: Absolutely. And Sean Parcells, if I can ask you just about that forensic evidence, how, if at all, does it change the nature of the case if

there`s, in fact, blood that`s found on the uniform of Officer Wilson, inside the car and on the gun?

PARCELLS: All that indicates is that there was some kind of struggle inside the car. What it doesn`t answer is what happened outside the car.

And I think that`s the biggest piece of information we`re missing right now is what happened outside the car? Which witnesses are credible? And how

do you delineate which ones are more credible than the others? And that`s going to be I think a difficult thing for the grand jury to come up with.

JACKSON: That`s a great point.

And Bethany Marshall, if I could ask you, I know you`re a psychoanalyst and author, if I can just ask you. It comes down a lot to state of mind. Did

Officer Wilson act reasonably? Did he act unreasonably under this particular duress that he was under?

Take us through that mindset, that process, and how a person would react under those circumstances.

BETHANY MARSHALL, PSYCHOANALYST, AUTHOR OF "DEALBREAKERS": Well, I think generally a police officer would be in a state of arousal, meaning that a

police officer always has to know that he`s potentially endangered. He pulls over two young men who are walking down the center of a street so

there`s going to be some question as to why are they there.

But this man is also trained. He is a professional. He has people that he can process his -- process his experiences with. So I wouldn`t say that

somebody who is trigger happy, who is aggressive, who is just looking to kill somebody is going to make it very far on the police force. So I think

we really have to let everybody complete their investigation.

I think the problem in a case like this is that it`s no longer becoming scientific. The way to interpret a situation is to look at the data. We,

the public, do not know the data. I`m not even convinced the grand jury will know the data now that these three experts are coming in and everybody

is spinning it in its own direction. We just have to sit back and let the investigation take its course.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Family and supporters of Brown and those of Officer Darren Wilson await justice as they see justice.

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Both concluded Brown was shot at least six times.

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: The governor says he will send in the National Guard, if required.

ANTHONY GRAY, BROWN FAMILY ATTORNEY: The world wants answers. We hope we get some answers and get some help.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

JACKSON: A grand jury is convening at this very moment to determine whether Officer Darren Wilson should be charged or not charged, indicted or

not indicted in the shooting death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri.

I want to go to Colin Jeffrey, news director, KTRS.

What`s the latest, Colin, with the grand jury and the progress that they`re making towards making a decision?

COLIN JEFFREY, NEWS DIRECTOR, KTRS: Well, we know that we`re coming up on the deadline or the loose deadline that prosecutor Bob McCulloch, Governor

Jay Nixon have given us, that they expect a decision to be given by the end of this month. And so now we`re moving into the next phase of everything

where local police departments, the statewide authorities, even protesters are preparing to organize.

So at this point we know the grand jury is coming up on the end. Today, attorneys for the Brown family said they believe the grand jury may be

nearing the end of the witness list. So we`re sort of in this holding pattern right now, waiting to see how the grand jury finds in this case.

JACKSON: Absolutely. And there you see the composition of the grand jury. It consists, of course, of three African-American and nine white

individuals, determining the fate of Darren Wilson.

So let me ask -- let`s talk about the facts again.

Jeffrey Gold, going to you. The issue now, I want to take you to outside the car at the time that the use of force was applied and that Michael

Brown was shot. What changes the equation here? What does the grand jury have to determine that Michael Brown was doing and that Darren Wilson was

doing for them to render an indictment?

JEFFREY GOLD, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, first of all, they just have to determine that lethal force was not justified at that particular moment.

And if they believe witnesses are credible that said he had his hands up and said I don`t have a gun, and there was a time for a thought by the

officer, then they have to return an indictment. Because you cannot simply follow through on something that may even have been a reasonable a little

while before.

We don`t know that but just assume at some point it was reasonable. Then it dissipates. He has his hands up. You`ve done your job. Stop. But

that`s not what some of the witnesses said. They said after Michael Brown put his hands up, there were shots.

JACKSON: Hugo Rodriguez, address that. What if in the event that of course he has his hands up, Michael Brown now, and Darren Wilson shoots him

at that point? Justified, not justified? Should the grand jury return an indictment under those circumstances?

HUGO RODRIGUEZ, DEFENSE ATTORNEY, FMR. FBI AGENT: No. And the answer is the law says it`s the police officer`s perception, not a third party, not

Monday morning quarterbacking.

JACKSON: What if, Hugo --

RODRIGUEZ: You have to take an --

(CROSSTALK)

JACKSON: Not to interrupt you, Hugo, but what if that perception is unreasonable?

RODRIGUEZ: Well, that`s for the jury to decide when he goes to trial, if he is indicted. Then the question is, what will he be indicted for?

I am telling you, he will not be indicted for murder one nor anything else. If there is, it will be some involuntary manslaughter or a much lesser

offense. But the issue will be, will they be able to prove this beyond a reasonable doubt? He will get a justifiable homicide or a justification

instruction and then the jury will have to deal with it. Because all the issues we were talking about create reasonable doubt.

JACKSON: Jasmine Rand, we`re not talking about reasonable doubt here. We`re talking about probable cause to believe a crime was committed and

Darren Wilson committed it. Under that standard, should be -- he be indicted and if so for what?

JASMINE RAND, CIVIL RIGHTS ATTORNEY, PARKS & CRUMP LAW FIRM: Absolutely he should be indicted, and I believe that he should be indicted for second-

degree murder charge.

Let`s talk about something that we haven`t talked about tonight and that`s pure common sense. What Darren Wilson is asking this jury to believe is

that a man that he has just shot once, an unarmed man that he has just shot once is going to turn around and run back toward the same officer that shot

him the first time?

That doesn`t make any sense to anybody, nor should it. And this jury should indict him for second-degree murder.

JACKSON: Larry Elder, let`s talk about that. What about that particular scenario, where an officer runs back -- or he`s running towards him? In

that event is this justification or is it not?

LARRY ELDER, ATTORNEY AND KABC RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Again, this is what - - this is why we`re going to have an investigation. If it is the case that Michael Brown had his hands up and was shot and killed, that`s a whole

different story. But again "The New York Times" said there were six or seven African-American witnesses who testified under oath in a manner

consistent with the version given by Officer Darren Wilson. When you have some witnesses who say yes and some who say no, you don`t indict.

JACKSON: Well, that`s not entirely true when there`s a question of fact, you indict.

But, to Bernard Parks, on the issue, what about again police procedure? I know it`s different from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. But in the event

that somebody is posing no threat, is it now the officer`s conduct justified in shooting and killing Michael Brown?

BERNARD PARKS, FORMER LAPD POLICE CHIEF: Well, I think that you`ve answered the question. If there is no threat, then there is really no

reason to use deadly force or any force. And so the key is, what`s the assessment? But I think as I hear the conversation what`s of concern to me

is none of us have been in the grand jury. We don`t have a real understanding of all the evidence.

So I don`t think anyone has the ability to make a declarative statement of what is going to happen and not going to happen until the entire case is

evaluated based on the forensics and the public comments and things of that nature.

JACKSON: Agreed.

PARKS: So -- but again if there is no threat then you`ve answered the question, there is no reason for deadly force or any force.

JACKSON: So, Bethany Marshall -- absolutely. So, Bethany Marshall, the grand jurors are getting all types of information. Some consistent, some

inconsistent.

What do they do in terms of processing that? You`re -- you know, you sit in the grand jury and you get one thing, you have another witness say

something else. What do they do, psychologically, in that event?

MARSHALL: Well, it`s a good question because I was concerned when there -- when it was mentioned that there are now three pathologists. So all three

had different agendas. Whose agenda is better than anyone else`s? I mean, to a certain extent the experts are going to have to pass the smell test.

And these jurors go into a situation with their own biases and their own prejudices.

And they`re going to identify with somebody in this story. Maybe somebody has been a victim of force. Maybe somebody has been a perpetrator. Maybe

somebody has stolen something out of a grocery store. And depending upon their own past experiences, they`re going to identify with a player in this

situation.

I think that`s the problem in a situation like this, is that usually people pick their horse at the very beginning. And once they pick that person,

they stick with it all the way through. Sometimes even despite the evidence that`s presented.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

JACKSON: Good evening. I`m Joey Jackson in for Nancy Grace.

To Baltimore County, 12-year-old Jasmine Baker last seen leaving her home at 7:30 a.m. heading to school and never seen again.

Where, oh, where, is little Jasmine?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Twelve-year-old Jasmine Baker is missing and police need your help in tracking her down. The sixth grader disappears on her

short walk to middle school at around 7:30 a.m. Jasmine never makes it to school. She hasn`t been heard from since. Now the FBI has joined the

search effort.

Who would want to harm a 12-year-old girl? What happened to Jasmine Baker?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

JACKSON: Clark Goldband, NANCY GRACE producer, take us through the facts. What happened? How did it happen? Any indication of where she is? Are

they any closer to bringing her home?

CLARK GOLDBAND, NANCY GRACE PRODUCER, COVERING STORY: Joey, it`s good to see you. Well, it started out just like any other morning for this 12-

year-old girl, just in the sixth grade. Her house is about half a mile away from her local middle school. So just like any other a.m. she heads

out the door at about 7:30 and that`s the last anyone hears of Jasmine.

Now her mom has told local media that she didn`t know her daughter was missing until she called school at about 3:00 in the afternoon when Jasmine

didn`t come home. Mom was concerned and school said Jasmine was never there. Now the school says they do notify parents but sometimes it`s not

until the afternoon.

Joey, take a look at the map on your screen. You can see right now it`s only about half a mile walk. It takes just a few minutes. Jasmine has

never vanished before. Friends and family describe her as a great kid. She does not have her cell phone. She does not have a cell phone charger.

And she does not have a change of clothes. Everyone extremely worried, Joey.

JACKSON: Absolutely, Clark. Those are red flags for sure.

And if I could go to Marc Klaas. Marc, I know that you`re president and the founder of the KlaasKids Foundation.

Listen, what I`m particularly concerned about what Clark said is that the school did not notify the parents when the child is not in school all day?

How does that happen?

MARC KLAAS, PRESIDENT AND FOUNDER, KLAASKIDS FOUNDATION: Well, that`s a great question, Joey. Quite frankly, I think that in this day and age,

given everything we know about children -- the challenges that face children that it could be a publicly stated policy in every school in the

United States that if a child does not respond at roll call, if the child is not at roll call, that parents need to be notified immediately.

JACKSON: Absolutely.

KLAAS: So that steps can be taken to either correct the situation or determine that the kid did not come to school. And the fact that this

school is ambiguous about their reporting policy tells me that they were not prepared for this and they need to be held accountable.

The other thing that`s very troubling about this is the fact that the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children recently put out a

report that stated that 35 percent of abduction attempts occur as children are either going to school or coming home from school, which then begs the

question, if we have this information and we know this information, why are not surveillance programs put together, being able to monitor children`s

movements as they`re going to and from school.

JACKSON: Absolutely. You better believe it.

And to Jeff Gold, on that issue, I mean, listen, the reality is, is that the school certainly should have notified the parents right away. This

would have given police an early head start in what goes on, what do police look for, what information are they going to be gleaning in terms of

surveillance, computers, texting? Take us through how that will happen.

GOLD: Well, first of all, it`s unbelievable that there`s this lapse here. I mean, this just doesn`t happen anymore. Schools are well-versed in the

type of security that is needed with children. You can`t -- even a father can`t take out the child if the mother says, hey, I have sole custody. I

mean, you know, so that`s -- anyway, they`re going to do everything they can now to look at every trace they can.

You know, maybe they have some video, maybe there`s some security cameras. You know, I don`t know if there`s a local police officer who may have a

dash cam. Who knows what they`re going to do now. But you know what? It`s just a crying shame that the ball has been dropped. I just hope we

find some information, Joey.

JACKSON: You better believe it.

And Noam Laden, news anchor, WABC Radio, listen, this, of course, is a travesty. Do we know in the event that she did something different from

what she normally does every day? Did she, you know, leave at a different time? Did she speak to a friend before? Do we have any other details of

the police any close to having substantive information to bring her home?

NOAM LADEN, NEWS ANCHOR, WABC ANCHOR: Well, no. You know, there`s nothing that says anything different about the way she walked to school from the

last they may saw here, 7:30 Tuesday morning, when she left for school. But here`s the big red flag. Her mom says she was very active on social

media, on a whole bunch of different social media platforms. So the FBI now involved. And you have to imagine they`re going through her computer,

the cell phone that she left at home to see who she was talking to online.

JACKSON: Well, I`m certain that that`s something that they`re really going to need to do in order to bring her home.

Tonight, we pause for "CNN HEROES."

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It`s tough. It`s tough growing up here. It`s just so easy to take the wrong path. I was walking around with a lot on my

shoulder at a young age. I didn`t really care about life anymore. When I met Miss Kelly, everything changed me.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Brett was hurting. He needed a place that he could just be himself.

Our program provides a year round urban oasis, seven days a week, 12 months a year, for children 5 to 19 years old. We use horses to create pride,

esteem, and healing.

The children take care of animals, take care of the farm. When they get to a certain riding level, young men become mounted park rangers. When they

put their cowboy hats on and they go out on patrol, the myth of the urban male is changed instantly.

When kids see other kids ride, they want to know how it`s done. That`s the hook.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I can`t tell you where I would be without this program. It changed my life. It`s helped me set goals for myself. I`m a part of

something.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: When you teach a child how to ride a horse, they learn that they are the center of their environment. Once they make that

connection, they can change what happens in school, at home and the community. It`s through their minds and through their hearts. They have

ability. They just have to unlock it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Jasmine Baker leaves her home Tuesday morning and, like every other day, walks to her Maryland middle school just a half mile

away. But Jasmine never makes it. The middle-schooler last seen wearing blue jeans and a brown jacket.

Have you seen Jasmine?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

JACKSON: Where is Jasmine Baker? You see the number on the screen. Please call if you have any information. We have to find her and bring her

home. There it is. 410-307-2020. You see the description.

You know what? Just an awful scenario.

I want to go to Dr. Tim Gallagher, MD, medical examiner and forensic pathologist.

Doctor, if I can ask you, how important will forensics be in terms of the police investigation, getting clues, getting information and finding

Jasmine Baker?

DR. TIM GALLAGHER, MEDICAL EXAMINER AND FORENSIC PATHOLOGIST: Thanks for having me on the show, Joe. One of the important things is --

JACKSON: Thank you, Doc.

GALLAGHER: One of the important things is to find signs of a struggle, possibly some biologic material left behind in the way of blood or skin

that would show evidence of a struggle. Other than that, I`m afraid we`re going to have to use eyewitness evidence.

JACKSON: And, Doctor, how significant will that be? In other words, if they do get that information, how is it then processed in order to convert

to something useful to find where she is?

GALLAGHER: Well, if they do find biological evidence in the form of blood or other body material, you can assume that she met a violent or was a

victim of violence and you can trace possibly her social media, link that to known people in that area who may want to harm her.

JACKSON: Doctor, we thank you so much.

Anybody, please, we`re looking for Jasmine. Bring her home.

Tonight, we remember American hero, Army Chief Warrant Officer Chris Shirkenback. He was awarded the Bronze Star, the Purple Heart, and the

Meritorious Service Medal. Known for firm sense of justice and standing up for what he believed was right. He leaves behind his parents Elmer and

Margery, two sisters, five brothers, and his widow Michelle.

Chris Shirkenback, American hero.

Drew up next. Have a great night.

END