Return to Transcripts main page

Legal View with Ashleigh Banfield

Examining the Kenya Terror Attack; Boston Marathon Bombing Trial Reviewed; Tennessee Prosecutor Fired for Misconduct. Aired 12:30-1p ET

Aired April 03, 2015 - 12:30   ET

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

[12:30:08] CHRISTIAN PUREFOY, CNN CORRESPONDENT: And, you know, across that campus you can see, you know, even from the outside, (inaudible) outside of the battle that went on, tank trucks going through the have sent into the campus. And the Kenyan military really did respond quite quickly to this attack. But yes but, you know, one of the things they want to try and find out, who is the ring leader of this crime. Now, obviously, that's going to take some time.

The campuses so it has been knocked down as the investigation continues and the ambulance and the security services begin to deal with, as you said, the aftermath, recovering the bodies and trying to, you know, identify them for their families. Ashleigh.

ASHLEIGH BANFIELD, CNN HOST: Christian, if I can just ask you, look, it was only just 2013, two years ago, that we lived through the horrors of the attack of the Westgate mall in Nairobi, Kenya. Weren't there enormous lessons to be learned about response to a terror attack? So many more people died than needed to die in that attack and now we're seeing on the heels of that, an attack that took out almost 150 people.

PUREFOY: Yes. And, you know, that is one of the, I think, is going to emerge from these investigations. You know, what exactly happen and the details, Ashleigh, is still very much -- it does appear that this time the Kenyan security forces did respond quickly.

But also, unlike last time, this time there was no siege. They immediately went in to try and take out this threat unlike in Westgate where there was a lot of security in this sometime of many days. So, this was -- this is 14 instead of 15 hours and security force went in the problem Ashleigh dealing with threats like this.

You know, look at the town on Somalia where this means must be is it's a four hour drive from the long course borders Somalia, the stronghold of Al-Shabaab terrorist. And they can, you know, they can come go -- come and go as they want and how the Kenyan forces, actually, begin to try pre owns thier attacks, is the real challenge.

You know, if you get it here on the ground, they did that within, you know, a couple of hours. But it's, actually, that just been too late, you know. What they need to try and do is preemptive evac Ashleigh is the real challenge.

BANFIELD: And then maybe that's the answer that everyone is looking for, is that it is remote. It's over 200 miles away from Nairobi and to try to respond with the kind of force you would need, in those rural places, there's just isn't that kind of -- there isn't that kind of force.

Christian Purefoy, thank you for your reporting and I appreciate it.

And there's this, small campuses and hotels and public spaces, you probably heard them called "Soft targets" before. The terrorists like to hit. Instead of like military bases or high security areas, of course it's cowardly because they do the most damage because those who are the victims are unsuspecting. They're innocent people just trying to live their life like those kids at school.

Some of the deadliest extremist attacks in recent memory had been against these so called soft targets. Remember, 2008, Mumbai, India? Extremist from Pakistan attacks several places all at the same time and more than 160 people died. Is all played out at a huge hotel and upscale hotel. Eventually it was set on fire.

In 2013, we just mentioned the Nairobi, Kenya assault. The details are pretty harrowing. Men with machine guns effectively blasting their way into a shopping mall and shooting at random, hunting for hours upon hours, it stretched into days and 67 people were murdered.

May of last year in Belgium, a man who converted to Islam open fire at the Jewish Museum in Brussels, and before anyone could do anything about it, four people were dead.

October of last year in Canada, a Muslim convert shot a military guard dead at the national monument in Ottawa and then just blitzed his way into the parliament building. Pretty remarkable.

This year, January, gunmen forced their way into the Charlie Hebdo magazine offices in Paris and were able to murder 12 people and then take off, apparently, this in revenge for the magazine's cartoon depiction of their prophet, Muhammad.

And then just last week, Al-Shabaab again claiming responsibility for car bombing and suicide bombing a hotel in Somalia. And in that attack a diplomat and five other people, again, murdered in cold blood.

Paul Cruickshank is our Terrorism Analyst. He's in London right now. We're talking about these soft targets like the college campus in Kenya. But what I really want to get to hear is this notion for starters of Al-Shabaab. I have seen you say in writings that you think Al-Shabaab is actually kind of desperate and that this shows that they are weakening, and yet we're talking about victims in a hundred.

[12:35:04] How does that show anything that can be described as weak?

PAUL CRUICKSHANK, CNN TERRORISM ANALYST: Well, Ashleigh, Al-Shabaab are being forced on to the back foot in Somalia by Kenyan military operations by African Union military operations. They lost their last urban stronghold last October. They're increasingly just based in rural areas. And so, this is a group that's lashing out here with terrorist attacks inside Kenya. It was the same with that Westgate mall attack back in the fall of 2013.

But of course, it's a group which still poses a significant regional terrorist threat and as they've lost territory inside Somalia, they've increasingly focused on building up that regional terrorist capability.

So there's a lot of concern that we could see more attacks in the region. Not just inside Kenya, in other places as well like Djibouti, Tanzania and elsewhere concern that United States interest may also be targeted in the region.

BANFIELD: OK.

CRUICKSHANK: Yeah.

BANFIELD: And that -- well, that's where I want to take this because we just had yet another arrest today. Woman in Phily and the arrest affidavits suggest all sort of notorious activity going on in order to try to harm fellow Americans.

Yesterday, two women in Brooklyn, same ammo, and the list goes on and on, actually about four or five just in the last month. At the top of my head, I'm sure I'm missing something. But here is the question, those women in Brooklyn said in the -- according to the, you know, the FBI, they said that they wanted to do something not so soft with normal people. They wanted to get something more significant like police officers or installations. And yet we're seeing the successes are really where the soft targets.

This university was so far away from where the concentration of responders could possibly be that they could kill 150 in a matter of a day.

CRUICKSHANK: That's absolutely right and terrorist groups have increasingly emphasized soft targets. Terrorism is a lot about sort of media impact coverage, and when you have five body counts, a lot of people being killed and injured, that sort of get these terrorist groups into the headlines. It's easier to go off through university or a school or a restaurant. But it is to go after harder target like an embassy and you can get just as much media coverage, so they've emphasized this.

And Al-Shabaab, the Somalian terrorist group, just recently threatened attack inside the United States against malls inside the United States. Now, intelligence officials in the United States don't believe the group currently has much capability to do that. But worrying nevertheless, the groups like Al-Shabaab, like Al-Qaeda, like ISIS encouraging lone wolf supporters back in the west to hit soft targets.

BANFIELD: Paul Cruickshank, thank you for your analysis. I do appreciate it. I sure wish we could meet on different topics. But you're an expert in this one, that's for sure. Thank you, Paul.

CRUICKSHANK: Thank you.

BANFIELD: So from one terrorist story to another, the defense in the Boston bombing trial, that's over. They rested after pretty much a day and a half, but now the real work begins, trying to save his life, which means planting seeds of doubt. But is there anyone on that jury who will find the nuggets of doubt they may have sown the least bit reasonable?

Going to weigh that in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:41:38] BANFIELD: Well, a guilty verdict in the Boston Bombing Trial seems pretty much like a forgone conclusion at this point. Never say never. I just say that because of OJ. Defense attorneys for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev are vigorously preparing for round two, nonetheless. And round two is the sentencing phase.

One of his lawyers, in her opening statement, just went ahead and said it folks. She looked at her client and said, "Yeah, it was him," plain and simple. But the defense, even with just four witnesses in their case -- is managing at least to do something and that is plant seeds of doubt when it comes to the question of why. And the why in their estimation is really a who. It's his brother, Tamerlan Tsarnaev. That's what their case pretty much rests on, and closing arguments are Monday so you can expect they'll be a lot of focus on the name Tameral on Monday, not Dzhokhar.

CNN commentator Mel Robbins joins me live now from Boston. So, I -- yeah, foregone conclusion, you can never, ever say that. I've just seen too many wild cards and too many crazy things, but for the sake of this conversation, let's say that the focus is really going to the death phase, and in the death phase, how much does it matter that they sow seeds of doubt in the guilty-innocent phase?

MEL ROBBINS, CNN COMMENTATOR: Well, good afternoon, Ashleigh. It's a great question. It matters a lot and they started by throwing seeds of doubt when she said, "Keep your hearts and minds open." Sure, she pointed to him and said he was there, he did it. She admitted guilt in the opening statement, Ashleigh. They barely even cross-examined during the 15 days of witnesses. But they've started to kind of quit this case out there already about who is the mastermind. Their case hinges, Ash, not on whether or not he did tit, but the fact tat he is going to be portrayed as a pawn in this whole thing, left holding bag.

BAFIELD: OK. I got you. I got you. And you know what? This is a great lawyer, she is remarkable and she has worked miracles before. Let me throw up a list of things that I took out of the Boston Globe. Some terrific reporting from Kevin Cullen, the Globe columnist who's been in that courtroom. These are the things that the defense -- that they were able to do in this courtroom. They were able to establish that that big brother's finger prints were the finger prints all over the tools of destruction. That Dzhokhar's cellphone had him in a totally different location than Tamerlan's location when Tamerla was buying all the elements needed to make those killer bombs. That the Jihadi propaganda had all been transferred from Tamerlan's laptop, that it didn't come from Dzhokhar searching. And that Tamerlan's computer searches shows that he looked for the pistols and the fireworks, but not Dzhokhar, that he didn't do that.

And then there were Dzhokhar's web activity. Interestingly enough, it showed him going to Facebook. And then the Russian equivalent of Facebook, and then porn, all the things that the average teen would o. So my question to you, Ms. Robbins, counselor, is can't you see a jury -- a reasonable jury saying, "Your action still were so disgusting, so what?" about all that -- rest of that stuff?

ROBBINS: Of course. I mean the prosecution ended their case with these words, Ashleigh. He was only eight-years old. They ended with the gruesome photographs of the blown up apart bodies of three of the victims, and then said, of Martin Richard, he was only eight-years old. And guess what, while Dzhokhar's fingerprints were not at this brother's apartment, they were not on the tools, he didn't buy any of the materials, he still stood behind Martin Richard. He stood there for at least a minute, behind that family, and he put that backpack down, and then he walked away.

And the question is whether or not that's going to be enough for this jury to say, "That warrants the death penalty."

[12:45:34] BANFIELD: And it's the words I just said. The jury might, in their heads, articulate, "So what? So you didn't buy it but you blew it up and you watch those people all around you before you did so."

Mel, we'll have a lot to talk about next week, I hope you'll join me then. In the meantime, Happy Easter.

ROBBINS: Thank you.

BANFIELD: Mel Robbins joining us from Boston.

A Tennessee prosecutor fired, and also just accused of forcing women to undergo sterilization surgery in a deal to avoid prison. Wait a minute, what? What year is this? What country are we in? Is that legal?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BANFIELD: A Nashville prosecutor has been fired. And it happened after reports surfaced that he gave women an offer of a sweet plea deal with one teeny, tiny catch. They had to get their tubes tied. They had to effectively be sterilized.

[12:50:08] The former assistant prosecutor, Brian Holmgren, is accused of suggesting sterilization for women as part of plea bargain talks in their cases, at least four times. In the past five years in child abuse and child neglect cases. The Tennessean Newspaper reported the most recent of those cases involved this woman Jasmine Randers. She's has 20 year history with severe mental illness and she was charged with neglect after her five day old new born baby mysteriously died. Randers attorney say she turned Holmgren -- in to the district attorney, basically Holmgren's boss in part because of this conversation. Have a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARY HARCOMBE, ASSISTANT PUBLIC DEFENDER: When I was asking for anything, any offer other than prison time, lengthy prison time, the exact words were, "My hands are tied unless you get her tubes tied." It was a way of treating her and my eyes as less than a whole person. She was very (inaudible) that was her family.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BANFIELD: Stacey Barchenger is a Court Reporter for the Tennessean Newspaper. And she's live with us now from Nashville. And also live with me here in New York CNN Legal Analyst and Defense Attorney Danny Cevallos and both of you are going to add your perspective. Stacey because you actually interviewed the young woman in this case Jasmine Randers. And Danny you need to answer some legal questions for me.

First though Stacey, it's so astounding, when I read about Ms. Randers she just seems -- so she has been lost in a system, lost in a shuffle and that the fact patter in the case certainly didn't suggest that she was an evil woman. And yet this played out. What was your interview like with Ms. Randers when you interviewed her in custody?

STACEY BARCHENGER, COURT REPORTER, THE TENNESSEAN: Well, I just had interview her when we knew what the resolution of the case would be but before she was returned to a mental health treatment program. And I asked her about it, you know, she didn't want to be in jail anymore, she wanted to go back to treatment and hopefully eventually back to her family in Minnesota. And when I asked her about the sterilization piece, she was aware of it and she said thought it was mean that that was put on the table.

BANFIELD: That's all she could articulate that she thought that the suggestion within the plea was mean. Ultimately Stacey clear it out for me, this did not fly. It was corrected, there was a deal put on the table, there's resolution to this case and Jasmine did not have to go under the knife?

BARCHENGER: Right. Correct. And we -- I'm only aware of one of their case where sterilization did occur. You know, it's a very different situation. The woman in that case had shown interest in the procedure before entering the court system. And that case was handled by the same public defender that handled Ms. Randers case.

BANFIELD: So, I want to read a statement from Brian Holmgren that the DA in this case who is sort of really being heavily criticized for this recommendation. And he said this, "I cannot comment on the details involving the firing, because again he was fired which is a position I have taken with all news media other than to say it has absolutely nothing to do with the Randers case and it has nothing to do with sterilizations.

We couldn't get an interview with Mr. Holmgren but he said that it doesn't have anything to do with the issue that we're discussing and that's entirely possible.

Danny Cevallos it does not take the issue off the table and however we have a defense attorney who was so intent that the injustice of the suggestive recommendation that she turned them in to his boss and the boss gone on record saying that they undid that deal and did something completely different. My question to you is how did it even started like this? Is just that all legal?

DANNY CEVALLOS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yes...

BANFIELD: Wow.

CEVALLOS: And that's why -- that's I'm stunned that everyone is so open arms about a practice that's been going on for quite a long time. Here is the analysis...

BANFIELD: ... because we've seen it happen in hospitals and it's been illegal. We've seen it happened to the mentally ill who can't actually inform consent.

CEVALLOS: Very good.

BANFIELD: And you've seen it happen with Nazi Germany. So...

CEVALLOS: Exactly.

BANFIELD: ... it feels dirty.

CEVALLOS: Well, let's move away from Nazi Germany...

BANFIELD: OK.

CEVALLOS: And let's talk about case law in United States. When you talk about doing that to the mentally ill that's eugenics and you're absolutely right. That is a controversial issue that the Supreme Court got wrong almost a 100 years ago in another case.

But that deals with the compulsory sterilization of people that are not criminals, they didn't do anything wrong just because of eugenics who want to get rid of as the Supreme Court told them imbeciles.

Now, this is a separate issue and believe it or not compulsory sterilization is going on all over the United States. That analysis is this. Is it a cruel and unusual punishment? The ACLU seems to think so.

[12:54:59] But it's exceedingly rare for the Supreme Court to decide that a kind of punishment qualifies was cruel and unusual. But even if it is there's a separate step of the analysis. Can a defendant wave that 8th amendment claim? In other words can the wave that cruel and unusual claim? We can wave with amendment claims, we can wave deep amendment claims the right to remain silent. So, constitutionally speaking...

BANFIELD: You're making the choice.

CEVALLOS: First if you're making that choice it might be constitutional because there are compulsory sterilization, plea deals and even compulsory you required to at laws in the United States.

BANFIELD: Telling me to stay on the other side of the corner, I think a lot of viewers out there who would say, if someone is abusing children and there's no way to stop them from doing so, maybe this is one way to suggest it. And if it is something that they agree to that is obviously a choice. It's just uncomfortable to hear it. I got to go. Danny Cevallos have a good weekend.

CEVALLOS: You too.

BANFIELD: Thank you. Thank you. Back right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BANFIELD: Yet another death row inmate walking out of prison a free man. This time with Anthony Ray Hinson who's 58 years old but was 28 when two fast-food managers were shot to death in Birmingham Alabama. That was in 1985.

Ronald Reagan was president, Lady Gaga wasn't born yet. In 2002 experts testified that his gun did not match the evidence in either of the killing and yet still it took 13 years for the states to figure out how to drop the charges and let him out.

[13:00:09] Thanks for watching, every one. Brianna Keilar is going to take it from here.