Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Defense Rests in Aaron Hernandez Murder Trial; Closing Arguments in Boston Bombing Case; Family Poisoned. Aired 3-3:30p ET

Aired April 06, 2015 - 15:00   ET

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

[15:00:01] BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN ANCHOR: She's been following this trial.

Any surprises in Clarke's argument, Alex? Because we know she's not trying to say that Tsarnaev didn't do this. In fact, she's fully admitting that.

ALEXANDRA FIELD, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Right.

Brianna, I think actually the surprise really came in the opening statements, when she did look at her client, the defendant, and say, it was him. The closing argument have actually pretty well reflected the trajectory of those opening statements, that trajectory being to acknowledge the horror of the events that have led to this trial, to acknowledge the defendant's responsibility for those acts.

Here's where the difference comes into play. In the opening statement, Judy Clarke was tasked with revealing to the jury her theory, the defense's strategy here, which is to prove that Dzhokhar was influenced by his older brother, Tamerlan. Now fast forward five weeks. You have had 96 different witnesses, 16 days of testimony, countless pieces of evidence.

It's now Judy Clarke's job to connect the dots and say, here's the evidence, here's the proof that was established over the course of the case which legitimizes our theory that Tamerlan led and Dzhokhar followed. She's trying to tick through those things. She's reflecting back on the video that the jury had seen of Tamerlan physically walking ahead of Dzhokhar Boylston Street before those bombs were placed.

She is showing receipts and images of Tamerlan Tsarnaev purchasing the backpacks that carried those bombs, Tamerlan Tsarnaev purchasing the B.B.s. And she's trying to hit home the point that the defense has dwelled on throughout much of this trial, saying that Tamerlan really had the bulk of the research that was online, on the defendant's computer, as well as on Tamerlan's computer.

But the defense has suggested the whole time that these jihadist materials, instructions for making a bomb came first from Tamerlan's computer and then was transferred to Dzhokhar's computer. Brianna, what does this all serve to do?

It does again look ahead to the sentencing phase of this trial, when the jury could be asked to look at the death penalty if she's convicted on the 17 charges that bear a possible death sentence. How much does it matter right now before the jurors go out to consider these 33 counts? The prosecution has been very clear here, Brianna.

Three of the charges we're looking at are conspiracy. Of course, they will look for those connections between Tamerlan and Dzhokhar. But the bulk of these charges also include aiding and abetting. That's the point they want jurors to take home. No matter who influenced who, no matter who had what first, the prosecution wants the jury to acknowledge, hey, Dzhokhar played a role in the crimes and without him, this wouldn't have been what it was, Brianna,

KEILAR: All right, Alexandra Field, we will be watching it with you. Thank you.

I want to bring in our legal panel now. In New York, we have CNN analyst and former federal prosecutor Sunny Hostin and we have defense attorney Robert Schalk.

You have Judy Clarke, you guys, who has her work cut out for her here. How does she convince the jury this was not Dzhokhar's idea and that really the jury should spare Dzhokhar's life? What do you think, Sunny?

SUNNY HOSTIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: I think it's going to be difficult.

We all knew, Brianna, from the very beginning that this wasn't really a case about whether or not he did it. This was not a whodunit case. It was really a case and it remains a case of why. And so I suspect that the jury will certainly come back with a guilty verdict on probably every single count.

The real question is, can Judy Clarke convince the jury he deserves any sort of mercy? And I wonder if that is possible without Tsarnaev getting on the stand, quite frankly, and showing some sort of remorse? We have been watching him in the courtroom.

He hasn't been animated, he hasn't shown any remorse. And the jury, I'm quite sure, has been watching him. So, without hearing from this defendant, without hearing remorse, without showing this jury that he is not completely radicalized and was sort of under the thumb of his older brother, I can't imagine that Judy Clarke can show this jury, given the amount of evidence that they have against him, that they can show -- she can show this jury that he deserves to have his life spared.

KEILAR: OK.

Robert, would you -- if he's your client, would you put Dzhokhar Tsarnaev on the stand to try to get some sympathy or might that just backfire?

ROBERT SCHALK, ATTORNEY: Yes, I mean, sympathy in the case? I don't think it exists.

You're going to have to rely on what you have here. I wouldn't put him on the stand. I just don't think you can gain anything from it. Even if he gets on the stand and attempts to make some semblance of an apology, it's going to fall on deaf ears. He's sitting there and with the families of the victims in the courtroom as well.

He had opportunities obviously to address this with law enforcement during his arrest. It didn't happen. What Judy Clarke needs to do and what she has been doing this entire time is she is planting those seeds the older brother was the leader here and he was merely following in his older brother's footsteps.

However, she has been cut off at the pass and there's been roadblocks. The judge has not allowed certain lines of questions and certain lines of cross-examination. She's a very, very talented attorney. She has spared very famous defendants the death penalty over the course of her career. I just, in this situation, do not see her being able to do that.

KEILAR: She's gone so quickly through this, the defense has. Do you think that's a good idea in this case?

[15:05:04] SCHALK: Well, in this case, yes, because I think you gain a little bit of credibility with the jury immediately when you come out you and say, listen, this is a stipulated trial. He did it. He was a part of it.

I'm sure some of them were surprised that she even came out and admitted that from the beginning. She gained that credibility. And she's not wasting their time with tedious cross-examination because she knows they're going to come out and say guilty. The only thing she's looking to do is again plant the seeds of a young kid who was in his early 20s being influenced by his brother and hopes that it spares his life.

KEILAR: OK.

Sunny, I just wonder, how does she make this case that Tsarnaev was not self-radicalized? How does a jury believe that? Because you have got these photos of him with flags from a radical group. There's computer evidence that found him researching jihadi material. How does she make that case?

HOSTIN: I think it's going to be very difficult, especially because we know that there's evidence when he was in that boat hiding from authorities.

He also wrote several lines that indicated that he is self-radicalized and that he wanted America to suffer. And so I think it's going to be very difficult, although in the death penalty when you're talking about a federal trial, the defense only needs one person because it has to be a unanimous vote.

The defense only needs one person to be convinced that his life should be spared. You have seen sort of in the courtroom, you have seen her reach over, fix his tie, sort of touch him, trying at every turn at what defense attorneys do well, especially Judy Clarke, in trying to normalize him, make the jury relate to him as a person, not just this horrible monster. But, again, without any testimony from him, perhaps without testimony

from his friends or his family members, I think this is going to be very, very difficult for her, especially because most of the cases where she's been successful, or I should say many of the cases, there's been a plea deal.

In return for not seeking the death penalty, she's gotten these guilty pleas. This is a trial. And so I think it's going to be very, very difficult for her.

KEILAR: Yes, it is going to be tough, no doubt.

All right, Robert Schalk, thank you so much. Sunny Hostin, thanks to you as well.

SCHALK: Thank you.

KEILAR: And, next, it was supposed to be a vacation to paradise in the U.S. Virgin Islands. Sounds nice, right? Well, instead, it's a possible case of poisoning. It's left two teenage boys in a coma. Their dad is unable to move or walk. We will be looking at what went terribly wrong at one luxury resort.

Plus, CNN on the ground in Iraq as crews find a mass grave apparently put there by ISIS. Find out who the victims are.

And just in, lawyers for Aaron Hernandez have started and just moments they finished their case in the same day in the former NFL star's murder trial. Hear why they're discussing or I should say focusing on drugs, specifically PCP. News just in.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:12:09] KEILAR: Two teenage boys are in a coma and their father is unable to speak or move after they possibly were exposed to a very dangerous pesticide while on vacation.

Paramedics found the family of four at a rented villa in the Virgin Islands. The resort says the unit below it was with fumigated two days before they got sick. And the EPA says that a strong pesticide called methyl bromide may be to blame.

The Justice Department now conducting a criminal investigation.

And joining me now to talk about this is Georgia Poison Center managing director Gaylord Lopez.

The family's lawyer compared this substance to sarin nerve gas, really a neurotoxin here. Can you tell us what this does to the body?

GAYLORD LOPEZ, GEORGIA POISON CENTER: Yes, this is a very toxic chemical, in fact, hits all major systems, whether it's your nervous system, your respiratory system, your heart, your lungs, your kidneys, your liver.

This thing attacks every system. And it starts slowly as maybe nonspecific flu-like symptoms to outright seizures and coma. It's quite tragic, what's happened.

KEILAR: OK. So, this sort of matches methyl bromide. But I guess the question is, you have the EPA, which has banned using methyl bromide for decades now indoors.

So, how -- and we understand that Terminix is the company that treated the unit below the villa that they were staying in. How would there be a mess-up like this? How would they accidentally use something like this in what is really residential spaces?

LOPEZ: Hopefully, it goes beyond human error. But this is really a tragic mistake.

When you're talking about a chemical that is as heavy when compared to air in the environment and just lingering around, if a place is unventilated and that chemical is allowed to sit, it could poison people over a couple days, and you and I, we wouldn't even know we were poisoned.

This is so tragic.

KEILAR: It's something that could build up over days.

The thing that makes you question the exposure here, for instance, you have the wife who's actually doing better than the husband, who's doing much better than the boys. What does that tell you about their exposure and could it have been where they were in the house, where they were relative to this exposure? Could this have been on the grass and the boys had been playing and maybe the dad was playing with them?

LOPEZ: Well, certainly, the amount of symptoms Libya correlate to how much dose these victims got.

It sounds like the mom is OK for now. But with the kids, children are going to be more susceptible to this particular poison than are adults. It's a matter of how long they were exposed. And then for the mom, it is likely she was not as exposed as, say, the dad and the two boys. Clearly, there's a dose response here. And the kids likely got the higher dose.

[15:15:09] KEILAR: OK.

So, you're thinking that this -- you're hoping that this is just a human error. But this is -- methyl bromide is something that is used agriculturally, for instance. So, there are some uses for it. It's just not to be used inside of a building. You think this was just someone mixing up chemicals or do you think that they were probably using something they shouldn't have?

LOPEZ: That's a great question.

Here's what is troubling. Usually, when you are using methyl bromide, you are combining it with a product like tear gas, so that when it gets into the environment, people who may be in the surrounding areas would be notified. Their eyes might start watering. They may start having choking or gagging.

But what's troubling is, it's likely that someone did not use this thing correctly, did not mix the chemicals correctly, and therefore maybe did not even know they were dealing with this particular pesticide and then applied it. Oh, and then all the tragedy happens afterwards.

KEILAR: It's so terrible. It's so terrible. And we're really thinking of those families.

Thank you so much for explaining this to us, Gaylord Lopez. Appreciate you being with us.

LOPEZ: Thanks for having me.

KEILAR: And next, today, finally time for the defense to make its case in the Aaron Hernandez's murder trial. And after months of prosecution witnesses, the defense just rested its case. Nancy Grace joining me next to break down the defense's case, including the focus on the drug PCP.

Plus, as "Rolling Stone" apologizes for its story about an alleged rape on campus, new word that the fraternity at the center of it all says it will sue the magazine. We have details next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:20:58] KEILAR: Its actions are being called an institutional failure.

And now "Rolling Stone" magazine is facing a possible lawsuit over its article "A Rape on Campus." CNN has learned the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity is planning now to pursue all available legal action against the magazine, this coming a day after the Columbia Journalism School published a scathing review of the article.

"Rolling Stone" has now officially retracted the story of a woman it called Jackie, a University of Virginia student who allegedly was gang-raped at a fraternity party in 2012. Columbia's review found if Jackie was in fact attacked, the article does not indeed enough evidence to support her claim. It also says all of this may have been avoided if the writer had used more than just one source.

HLN's Nancy Grace joining me now from Atlanta to talk about this.

Nancy, thanks for being with us.

What do you think about this? You have the magazine. The magazine has apologized. But it hasn't fired anyone. Should they?

NANCY GRACE, HOST, "NANCY GRACE": My business is criminal law and anything that happens when a courtroom.

What "Rolling Stone" does, whether they fire the writer or not in my mind is neither here nor there. What matter is, is there going to be a lawsuit? Is there going to be a criminal case? And will they be successful? I have got my eye on the prize here.

Number one, will there be a lawsuit? Will the fraternity sue "Rolling Stone" because of their less-than-stellar reporting? Possibly. But if you sue civilly for, for instance, libel or slander, you have got to show damages. You have got to show that the fraternity, which is an amorphous being, actually suffered in their reputation. It's going to be very difficult for that fraternity to do.

Also, if you do that, you're going to be pointing one finger with three pointing back at you. What about Jackie, the rape victim in this case? Was she telling the truth? I'm more concerned about the chilling effect this may have on legitimate rape victims coming forward.

That's what I'm worried about, having tried many, many, many rape cases.

KEILAR: Yes, and that's something that we heard as well from Alex Pinkleton, who is a friend of Jackie's. She's a sex assault survivor herself.

She said the very same thing. She also said she felt like the university was disparaged in not having a response to similar situations, and she said that it does. But I also asked her, Nancy, about this fraternity, whether it should sue "Rolling Stone." I was kind of surprised by what she said. Let's listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ALEX PINKLETON, SEXUAL ASSAULT SURVIVOR: I think they definitely should. I think deserve everything that they get, to be honest, because I think this was definitely an unfair portrayal of them.

It should not have been published, the article itself. And this is not something -- as a sexual assault advocate, we are never advocating for accused to be vilified in the media.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: OK. What if the fraternity has some folks like Alex who are there at the university and can back them up and will say, you know what, they have really been damaged here, their reputation has been hurt, it's tough to be one of these students, it's tough to be affiliated with a fraternity, this fraternity. Do you think they have a shot?

GRACE: I would say they absolutely have a shot.

Lawsuits, multimillion-dollar lawsuits are brought in this country every day on much less evidence than we have here in this case. And if you strike the right jury, you may be looking at a jackpot.

Now, think of this, though. By the time this case gets to trial, all the people that are in the fraternity now will most likely have graduated and moved on. So, it's a timing issue as well. But will there be a lawsuit? I imagine the answer is going to be yes. Will it be successful? That's another matter.

KEILAR: Do you think it's a good idea? It just keeps their name out there, the fraternity's name out there.

[15:25:02] GRACE: Well, you know what? I always have said, regardless of the situation, that the truth is the important thing, regardless of the outcome of the case, regardless if you get $1 million or one dollar. If it's true, it's worth fighting for.

KEILAR: OK.

While I have you here, Nancy, I want to talk about the Aaron Hernandez trial. This is fascinating because he's pleaded not guilty, and yet the defense just rested today.

GRACE: Just rested. I was going to tell you, because you have been sitting in the anchor chair, they just rested. They put in about three witnesses. It's over for the defense. The state put up 131 witnesses.

(CROSSTALK)

GRACE: Now, of course, it's not a tit for tat, I put up more witnesses, so I win, but really?

The most glaring hole in the defense witness list is Hernandez himself. He did not take the stand, which is absolutely his right under the Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. Even though the judge instructs the jury, you are not to take that into account whether the defendant testifies or not. I think they do.

They wonder, why isn't he taking the stand, telling his side of the story, if he's innocent? I think they wonder that, practically speaking.

KEILAR: One of the witnesses they called was this doctor. And he was called to discuss the efforts of the drug PCP, which Hernandez was witnessed smoking, and how it can cause violent behavior days later, very suddenly violent behavior.

But then you also have evidence, as the prosecution points out, of videotape of Hernandez after the murder. And he doesn't appear to be acting all that abnormally or certainly strangely. Are jurors going to buy this PCP defense?

GRACE: No way.

Also, they're also trying to suggest -- Hernandez's defense is trying to suggest that the two co-defendants, who are not being tried along with him -- the cases have been severed. They're going to be tried separately. I'm talking about Ernest Wallace and Ortiz.

They're trying to suggest that they may have been using PCP and that maybe it made them aggressive. But, in my mind, juries love video. And Hernandez had his whole place quite tricked out with security cameras. And you see him coming in as calm as can be. And that really debunks

the theory by the defense that he was high on PCP and he didn't know what he was doing or that co-defendants were.

KEILAR: Yes. And you see them as well appearing not to act strange. So, that's important as well.

GRACE: Absolutely.

KEILAR: Nancy Grace, thank you, as always, for being with us.

GRACE: Thank you.

KEILAR: Nancy will be back tonight on HLN at 8:00 p.m. Eastern.

And next, we will take you to the front lines of the battle in Yemen, a country on the brink of civil war, and where terror groups like ISIS and al Qaeda are competing in a power vacuum.

Plus, a gruesome discovery, as many as 10 mass graves uncovered as cameras were rolling in Iraq. Who is responsible? We will have that story ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)