Return to Transcripts main page

Legal View with Ashleigh Banfield

UNC Killings Investigation Continues; Child Stabbing Case Examined; Kentucky Police Chase, Shootout, Leads to Grisly Discovery

Aired February 17, 2015 - 12:30   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

POPPY HARLOW, CNN ANCHOR: All right. Now, an update for you on that horrific killing at the campus of the University of North Carolina. A grand jury has indicted the man accused of killing three students in Chapel Hill. 46-year old Craig Hicks faces three counts of first degree murder and a weapons charge.

Police say an ongoing neighbor dispute over parking -- parking might have been a factor in last week's shooting. The FBI determining whether it was a hate crime because the students, all three of them, were Muslim, and there were anti-religious rants on what appears to be the defendant's Facebook page. We'll keep you posted on that case as we know more.

Also this, we are hearing from the man who killed the American sniper. We're hearing from him in his own words. This is a video tape confession prosecutors played at his murder trial. It shows Eddie Routh admitting to shooting former Navy SEAL Chris Kyle, and also another fellow veteran at a gun range in 2013.

At times, Routh asks and seems as if he knew right from wrong. At one point, he says and I quote here, "I fled, I didn't know what else to do. My adrenaline was so high I didn't know what was right and what was wrong. Well I know what was right now, I left, you know." Then the officer says, "You know what you did today was wrong? And you understand that?" Routh answers, "Yes, sir."

We can't play with the audio but that is an exact transcript of what was said in that confession tape. Now there are also moments where Routh says things are just frankly bizarre. We're going to picture (ph) all of it, give you our legal analysis with our legal panel who joins me now, Joey Jackson, Danny Cevallos, also our Ed Lavandera is outside the court house about a 100 mile Southwest of Dallas in Stephenville, Texas.

Ed to you, what most significant about this all playing at in the courtroom?

ED LAVANDERA, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Hi, Poppy. Well, a real significant moment that I think Joey and Danny are just going to have a field day with talking about this. But if you remember, look back on last Friday, there was a detective with the Texas Rangers who had testified about these boxes with drug paraphernalia that was found inside the home of Eddie Ray Routh. And this taps into this theme that prosecutors have been pushing in the first five days of his testimony, that it was recreational drug abuse for Eddie Ray Routh that led him to commit these murders more so than his mental health issues.

But in the part of that testimony on Friday, the detective held up various glass pipes in a vial containing a clear unknown liquid. And part of that testimony included the detective saying that a lot of these paraphernalia was consistent with meth use.

Then we learn today that those vials that had that clear liquid was actually not anything that Eddie Ray Routh owned, that it was put in place there at the crime lab when the forensics chemists were doing the work and doing their testing, that those vials were put in there by the lab technician and then brought in here -- and then shown to the jury.

This really set-off the defense team. They asked for a mistrial. They ask for the Texas Ranger to be charged with perjury. The judge in the case denied both of those motions but the prosecution basically had to turn around to this jury today and explain that those vials should not have been there, were not part of any of the possessions that or items that belonged to Eddie Ray Routh.

And then more importantly, they're also had to tell the and jury with these various witnesses today that there was no methamphetamines found inside the home of Eddie Ray Routh. So it'll be interesting to see how this plays out with this jury since they've heard so much over the last five days, how much this recreational drug use was a contributing factor to Eddie Ray Routh's behavior.

HARLOW: Right. And whether or not that, you know, temporarily made him out of his mind. And frankly, that doesn't meet the Texas bar for insanity right.

Ed, thank you very much. I appreciate it.

Gentlemen, to you, let me begin with you Danny. Again, from this confession tape, let me read, "Officer, you knew what you did today was wrong. You understand that." Routh, "Yes, sir." Doesn't that clearly show knowledge of wrongdoing in there for not insanity?

CEVALLOS: For those of you out there that are holding on to the TV myth of the investigator in the interview room or the interrogation room as defense attorney is called "pounding his fist" and demanding that the defendant or the suspect tell him the truth.

Nothing to be further from how it really is. These guys are very good at questioning. They become your friend and you can see this is some brilliant questioning by the investigator.

He undoubtedly knows the standard for insanity in Texas and he's formulating his questions accordingly. And you can see him -- he's almost taking a trial and cementing the answer. Routh says, "I knew it was wrong." And the investigator seizes upon that and asked, "Soyou knew the difference essentially," -- I'm paraphrasing -- "between right and wrong?" Knowing full well what the standard is and knowing that in the world of investigation interviews, the people who have mental disease or defect are going to be particularly susceptible to that kind of suggestion. They did a good job.

HARLOW: But if that was the only thing he said on that front, that would be one thing. To you Joey, it's not. In the same confession tape, he says, "I fled. I didn't know what else to do. My adrenaline was so high. I didn't know what was right and what was wrong. Well, what I know what was right now. I left, you know."

There, he is saying, "I didn't know what was right and what was wrong."

JOEY JACKSON, HLN LEGAL ANALYST: There's number of things you could do with this. Now, just backing up a little bit on what Ed Lavandera was talking about talking about regarding the vials, are you kidding me? You're allowing violence to be shown to the jury. You're suggesting, as a prosecutor, that what he did, Routh, was predicated upon his drug use because if they could establish voluntary drug use, voluntary intoxication, anything having to do with drugs, it takes it out of the realm of mental illness and it explains, Poppy, that his actions were based on his rep of drug use.

But now for them to go back and tell the jury, "Oh, it really wasn't like that. The vials were there and they mistakenly made its way into the courtroom." That's a huge development that will be pounced on by the defense.

HARLOW: I think they're confusing the jury.

JACKSON: Absolutely because all you have in a courtroom or anywhere is your credibility. And when you're making arguments to the jury and you've had time to prep and prepare, and you're telling that jury and you're misguiding them, that is damning and it's significant on the part of the prosecution.

HARLOW: What about, Danny, the fact that Routh, at one point in his confession tape, says that he would like to apologize. Does that show a knowing -- knowing you were wrong? Does that show really being lucid?

CEVALLOS: Yeah. Apologies are dangerous things. In many ways, they can be considered admissions. That's why you often hear lawyers advice people, "When you get out of the car after an accident, don't start shouting, I'm sorry, because a court might interpret that as some kind of admission."

And similarly here, consistent with saying, "I know the difference between right and wrong." He's also saying, "Gosh, I just want to apologize." I mean, these are incredibly damning statements. That along with the drug use which as Joey explained, will secure a conviction for the prosecution. And that's why this incident with the vials is really controversial because drug use means prosecution wins. Why? Because they will get a jury instruction that says, "Hey, jurors, voluntary intoxication is not a defense to a crime." HARLOW: Yeah. I do want to get this in here, Joey, and get your take. Let's pull this up on the screen and can read it for our viewers. Something else from this confession tape that really stood out to us, we have it. He says, "I keep talking to Chris, there's a few dozen Chris' in my world, and it's like very time I talk to another man named Chris or get sent to another man named Chris, it was like to the wolf, you know".

I mean, it sounds like he's out of his mind there?

JACKSON: Poppy, let me ask you a question. You're on that jury and I'm making an argument to you. The facts are what the facts are. He said what he said. But now, in closing argument, I'm going to as an attorney, interpret those facts to you. Do these seem like the musings of a person who knows right from wrong? Do they seem like the musings of a person...

HARLOW: Do they? Do they?

JACKSON: ... who's lucid, who's rationale, who's objective? No.

CEVALLOS: Yeah.

JACKSON: The reality is, is that you have to look at the confession, not taking it one snip at a time. Do you know right from wrong? Do you know what you did was wrong, but you have to look at it on balance. And one part of that confession, Poppy, he asked to speak to his mother during the course of the actual confession. He's talking about pigs flying, he's talking I would have taken -- I had to take this so, because they would have taken mine. And I think if you look at that confession on balance, it's not a confession at all. It's the musings and ramblings of a mentally ill individual.

HARLOW: Let me guess...

JACKSON: So said the defense.

HARLOW: Sounds like a true defense attorney. Let me get straight to Ed Lavandera still with us. Ed, I mean you're the one in the court room, you're the one seeing Eddie Ray Routh there. What has his demeanor been like?

LAVANDERA: You know, he does -- there's not a lot of change in demeanor. Just like you see in the confession video tape, even though we can't play it for you the audio, but there was never any rise in emotion. Very calm, kind of stoic, and then throughout most of this trial, he's -- occasionally I've seen him speaking with one of his defense attorneys. But mostly, he just fills up legal pads with notes that he's taking throughout the proceedings.

HARLOW: Ed Lavandera, thank you for that. We'll be following this case, of course, incredibly closely on the show. Ed, thank you. Danny, Joey, thank you as well.

JACKSON: Thanks, Poppy. HARLOW: We appreciate it. CNN is going to take a very close look at the American Sniper on Wednesday night, 9:00 p.m. Eastern. A special report right here. We'll be back in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HARLOW: It is a story no one will soon forget. Two girls, 12-years- old, accused of luring their friend into the woods last May, stabbing her 19 times to impress a fictional internet boogeyman called Slender Man.

The victim, left to crawl to her own rescue. Today those girls are in court as the judge decides whether there's enough evidence to go to trial. Among the things that the judge will have to consider, sketches from one of the girls' notebooks with phrases like "Safe or Dead" and "Help never comes." A list of supplies, including pepper spray, a map of the forest, crossed out the "ability to die, the will to live", weapons, kitchen knife, flashlights.

Also, interrogation video, detailing how it all went down.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: ... just on top of Ella and start stabbing her repeatedly and that's when I turn around till I can (inaudible). And then, those whole time (beep) screaming in pain. Saying stuff like, "I hate you, guys. I'll never forgive you," and "I trusted you."

DETECTIVE MICHELLE TRUSSONI, WAUKESHA, WISCONSIN POLICE: When she realized that (beep) was still alive, I asked her how she, you know, how that made her feel. And in one point in that discussion, she said, "Well, the bad part of me wanted her to die. The good part of me wanted her to live."

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HARLOW: So these girls charged as adults right now. One of their attorneys that was trying to get the case moved to juvenile court, for the Legal View, let me bring in back our legal analyst, Danny Cevallos and Joey Jackson.

Guys, very quickly off to that, well this go to trial?

JACKSON: Yes.

HARLOW: No question.

CEVALLOS: Probably or adjudication as it's called in the juvenile system.

HARLOW: All right. So let's see if it does go to trial or adjudication. Do you think -- to you first, Joey, they're going to be tried as juvenile? 12-years old, or adults?

JACKSON: You know, I think that at the end of the day, you could see a juvenile prosecution here. And the reason I say that, there's something fundamentally different about the way that a child's mind works. And we have a juvenile system for a reason. We have it because juvenile systems are predicated upon the notion of rehabilitation. Whereas, the adult system is more of a punishment- oriented type of approach, and not at all excusing what happened here.

It seems like there's some mental infirmities or what have you going on, but I just think that the attorney in making a petition to bring back to juvenile court will highlight the aegis of these children, will highlight the -- of course, the seriousness of the offense. And we can't -- I mean, there's no argument as to the seriousness of the offense. It's horrific but what about a child's mind would make a child do that, and I think that's going to be the...

HARLOW: Danny, you don't -- you're not on the same page as that one?

CEVALLOS: I am. In fact, I think we have a problem in every single juvenile system...

(CROSSTALK)

CEVALLOS: ... in every state and it's this, the entire juvenile justice system is premised on the idea that the juvenile mind, the neurology of a child's mind is different than that of an adult. So we say, "OK, we will punish you differently than we will adults." With the guide being we're going to treat you, rehabilitate you, so on.

HARLOW: Unless...

CEVALLOS: But they -- unless, the exception is unless you do something really, really bad, then we're going to treat you as an adult which seems entirely inconsistent with the fundamental premise of the juvenile system which is again, that juveniles lack the necessary neurology to make these decisions. Just so we understand though, in this case -- so, you know, Wisconsin law, the original jurisdiction in cases of attempted homicide will be with adult court. So now the onus falls upon the defendant to get it transferred...

HARLOW: To get it knocked down.

CEVALLOS: ... back down which is called reverse waiver.

HARLOW: Which is what they're trying to do. Which is what they're trying to do. Now, I want you both to listen to this. This is some sound from one of the accused. Let's play it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yeah, because she's -- he could be anywhere from 6 feet to 14 feet tall. He is -- a tall guy who come to me wearing a suit with a red tie. He doesn't have a face.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HARLOW: OK. So this is one of the accused talking about Slender Man and the promise here is that this is fictional being forced them to do this because if they did not carry out this attack on one of their peers, then he would have harmed them and their family.

JACKSON: Exactly. Exactly.

HARLOW: The question becomes, does that matter to a jury if they truly believe that they were forced to.

JACKSON: You know, what it is, Poppy, is it's what we call a mitigating factor. It's certainly -- it doesn't excuse what you did but it certainly could explain and it could highlight the reason that your actions were motivated. And to be clear there's a victim here. That victim, a child herself, was stabbed 19 times, tragic for her, her family lived.

But the reality is, is we have to assess whether these children had a mental capability -- and some will say, look, if you have the mental capability to stab someone, then you have a mental capability to go on trial, go in an adult court and get what you deserve which will be 60 years upon conviction.

But there's another side to that and that is anyone who would believe what they're saying in that video tape, that Slender Man would get me unless I get you, something must be amiss, and I think that could be a attributable to the tender years of a child.

HARLOW: Do you agree, Danny? Does that hold of?

CEVALLOS: Well, if it stays in adult court, it's going to be an interesting thing to try a child that young and introduce that evidence of such frailty of mind. Remember, we're not quite dealing with insanity. The juvenile mind is a little different because the idea is young people are all neurologically undeveloped. Now remember, to get -- to drag this case out of adult court, the defendants are going to have to show that they're not going to receive adequate treatment in adult court. They have the burden to show and that will deter -- juvenile court will deter future acts like this. It's a tough burden to meet.

HARLOW: Danny, Joey, good to have you both.

JACKSON: Thank you, Poppy.

HARLOW: Thank you very much.

Quick break. Coming up next, we're going to talk about this horrifying tragedy, a teenage boy died in a shootout with police after leading them on a high speed chase 500 miles away. Officers find three bodies, the kid's family member's bodies. How does this is all come together, the Legal View ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HARLOW: All right, it started as a police chase after a teenager eligibly ignored a traffic stop by a Maryland state trooper. By the time it ended, the 16-year-old suspect was dead in a shootout with officers and then during an investigation into his background, police found three bodies, 500 miles away at a Kentucky address linked to the teen.

Now, authorities in both states are trying to piece it all together. Jason Carroll on top of the story for us with me here in New York. Sixteen years old?

JASON CARROLL, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Sixteen.

HARLOW: And I know that you just spoke with this young man's pastor. I'm wondering what he said.

CARROLL: We'll I think he's like a number of people in the community of Corbin, they are confused, Poppy. They don't understand how something like this could've happened. I also spoke to a representative from the Corbin City Police Department just a few minutes ago before we run on the air.

Detectives had to interview Jason Hendrix's aunts, his uncles. No sign yet in terms of how something like this could've happened. In terms of pastor, he actually spoke to Jason Hendrix on Wednesday. This is possibly the same day that the shootings took place. Where did he speak to him? At bible study. The bible study took place at about 6:30. He said they talked about a number of things.

One of the things they talked about was the movie called "God's Not Dead." It's a movie about the existence of God in doing the right and wrong thing. And according to his pastor, Jason was even talking about that particular day saying, "I always want to do the right thing, whether it's at school or at home." The pastor saying there was no sign that he was capable of doing something terrible.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DREW MAHAN, HENDRIX FAMILY PASTOR: It was not the Jason that we -- that we had -- there was no sign, nothing at all. It sounds crazy to say that because people thinking we had to see something, we had to know something, we knew nothing.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARROLL: And again, according to Corbin City Police Department, there were no prior calls to the house.

HARLOW: Right.

CARROLL: No history, at least in terms of law enforcement, that there was any trouble.

HARLOW: So, the way that -- what I've read and the way that it seems that this went down is this teen goes -- blows a traffic stop, doesn't pull over, cops...

CARROLL: Right...

HARLOW: ... eventually pull him over, then he start shooting at police, doesn't kill them but shoots at them, strikes one.

CARROLL: Right.

HARLOW: They eventually kill him. And they see what was happening here. And they find his three family members dead

CARROLL: They found his mother, his father and his sister. Now what they're looking for is motive. And when I spoke to the pastor about that, apparently a number of the other kids who were there at bible study had said that Jason Hendrix had talked about getting into an argument with his parents on Monday. His parents have taken away the use of the computer, use of his cellphone.

And apparently he was angry about that and on that very same Monday, Poppy he also found some of his father's guns. You can see him there in uniform from JROTC. So, it wasn't unusual for him to talk about finding guns and this is a community were people hunt. Again, now it's about trying to find a motive for this...

HARLOW: Are they yet linking that they believe that if indeed the 16- year-old carried out the murders, that it may have been motivated by not being able to use his phone and computer?

CARROLL: Well, you know, I did ask about that and again just a few minutes ago, they're still working on that. Still working on a motive, there are still more interviews that they have to do with the surviving family members. Still more interviews that they have to do with friends, those who knew Jason Hendrix. But again, once again, Poppy, no sign. A lot of people in this community just shocked by what has happened.

HARLOW: Wow, Jason Carroll, thank you very much. I appreciate it. Stay on this story for us, we'll cover here it on this show as well.

Also, Lance Armstrong on the hook for millions of dollars. He has been ordered to pay $10 million to a sport insurance company that paid him bonuses for winning the Tour de France over and over and over. This is believed to be the largest such sanction against an individual in American judicial history.

Now, the two arbitrators who decided on this worth cited a quote "unparalleled pageant of international perjury, fraud and conspiracy" when they decided on that $10 million penalty. Lance's team says "Forget it." They already reached a settlement with this company which is called SCA Promotions back in 2006. It is now up to a judge to make a final decision either way.

All right, that's it for me here. Thanks for watching Legal View. Wolf begins right now.