Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Rand Paul Running for President; Boston Marathon Bombing Jury Deliberates: Closing Arguments in Aaron Hernandez Trial. Aired 3-3:30p ET

Aired April 07, 2015 - 15:00   ET

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

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

[15:00:00] WILLIAM MCCAULEY, PROSECUTOR: What is his intent when he comes back? Does he look upset when he gets out of the car? Is he yelling at somebody, you know, "What did you do?" grabbing them, shaking them, "You just killed my friend"?

There's none of that. When he's sending them on their way after getting a rental car now to facilitate their escape after serving them smoothies and having lunch with them and laying around the pool all afternoon and having them play with your baby, what is he doing? Fist-pumps, hugs. Does that appear to be somebody who's upset about what has happened, that his friend is laying out in a field, because he's breaking as his skin begins to slip?

Inconsistent. And why -- and ask yourself, why? Why were they there?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN ANCHOR: Meanwhile, the defense today for the very first time acknowledged Hernandez was at the scene of the killing and that he saw it happen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JAMES SULTAN, DEFENSE ATTORNEY FOR AARON HERNANDEZ: So, what are you to make of Aaron's conduct after the killing of Odin Lloyd?

Did he make all the right decisions? No. Did he make all the right choices? No. He was a 23-year-old kid who had witnessed something, a shocking killing committed by somebody he knew. He really didn't know what to do.

So he just put one foot in front of the other. Keep in mind, he's not charged with being an accessory after the fact. You couldn't find him guilty of that charge even if you wanted to. They didn't charge him with that. He's charged with murder, and that, he did not do.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: I want to bring in former prosecutor and CNN legal analyst Paul Callan. And we have criminal defense attorney Drew Findling with us. This is really interesting, I think, in this. You have the defense,

which initially in the case didn't admit that Hernandez was at the scene of this crime. And now they're saying that he was, the idea being it wasn't him, it was one of these other co-defendants.

Do you think that the jury is going to buy that when it seems, Drew, the defense has changed its story?

DREW FINDLING, ATTORNEY: Well, it was of significance when Robert Kraft testified that Aaron Hernandez told him he wasn't at the scene. So that had some impact.

And it's a little reminiscent of the opening statements in the Casey Anthony case, when Jose Baez made a statement that seemed to have stayed with the jury the whole time about what actually took place. And here we have an argument that's really not based on the evidence, but it's just said. So it's going to be interesting whether or not the jury considers this evidence, when the judge is clearly going to tell them what you say in argument is not evidence.

KEILAR: What do you think?

PAUL CALLAN, CNN LEGAL CONTRIBUTOR: It's interesting. People who have been in the courtroom have told me that the defense lawyers have been brilliant throughout this case and that they have outlawyered the prosecutors, they're smooth, they're great cross-examiners.

But in my experience as a trial lawyer, a good defense is something that has to bear some relationship to the truth of the situation. And when you open to the jury, suggesting that there's no evidence that your client was involved or was even there, when you aggressively cross-examine along those lines and then you shift your strategy at the end as they have done now to say, oh, by the way, he was there, but they didn't prove he pulled the trigger, I think you lose credibility with the jury.

And Massachusetts has a doctrine called joint venture, where if a number of people are involved in a homicide, all of them are responsible. And here it was Hernandez who got Lloyd into the car. It was Hernandez who drove them to the industrial park. It was Hernandez who was seen taking allegedly a gun from his waistband three or four minutes after the shooting.

There's a lot of circumstantial evidence that's strong here.

(CROSSTALK)

FINDLING: Follow up on what Paul is saying, whether -- no matter what the doctrine is in any of our 50 states or in federal cases, Paul is right. You really roll the dice when you make your client part of the group, because the case law is pretty clear in the entire country and federally that a jury can say, hey, if you're part, we don't really care what your role is. You're responsible for the actions of your co-conspirators.

It's very dangerous. It's a big roll of the dice. CALLAN: And the other thing, of course, Brianna, is his behavior in court. He's laughing. He's yukking it up.

KEILAR: Oh, let's talk about this. We have some video of this. It's really -- it's sort of -- it's baffling. I was saying that he looked almost like, if you didn't see the courtroom in the background, you would think that he's on the football field or maybe starring in some sort of promotional something. How does that affect a jury?

FINDLING: So, my take on that is, it's six of one, half a dozen of the other. I have tried so many of these cases.

And if your client looks humbled, then the media immediately reports, oh, he's putting on an act, she's putting on an act. If they're too relaxed, then they're too relaxed.

[15:05:08] We're not in there every day of the trial. We're not there for the feel, the texture of what's taking place, the emotions that are taking place. There are going to be times when he wants to acknowledge his family. There are going to be times in a prolonged murder case when people do laugh, including the accused, including the judge, including the jurors.

I just think it's more reading into it. I have seen it go both ways. When all is said and done, I think the jury will ignore that.

KEILAR: OK. All right, guys, stand by, because we're going to be talking about another very big trial that is going on not far from Aaron Hernandez's.

And that is, of course, the trial of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev in the Boston Marathon bombing killings.

CNN's Alexandra Field is on verdict watch at the federal courthouse in Boston, a really key point in this.

As you know, Alexandra, you have been following this all along. We are waiting for -- we're waiting to hear that we have some information from the jury.

ALEXANDRA FIELD, CNN CORRESPONDENT: That's right. We're right now waiting for how the jury will decide on those 30 counts that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is tried with. This is really just the first phase of the trial, though, Brianna, because as we have been saying, if he's convicted of one of 17 federal counts which carries with it a possible death sentence, then you will see phase two, the penalty phase of this trial.

A lot of people going into this trial believed that this would be a very easy decision, at least in the verdict phase, for the jury to make. People thought that we could see the jury sort of tear through this verdict slip, all 32 pages of it, and just fill it out, check off the boxes and be back in there to return their verdict.

This does take some time. Why does it take some time? They have got 30 counts they're looking at here. They have got to methodical about it. They have got to review some of the evidence. They have got to review the testimony. Frankly, Brianna, you imagine these jurors who have been listening to this incredibly emotional, compelling testimony for weeks and weeks on end want a moment to sort of digest it, maybe talk to one another about it.

These jurors are certainly in a difficult position because they're in a very high-profile case here. If you go back to the jury selection process, Brianna, it took weeks and weeks. They had to winnow the pool down from more than 1,000 people. When they polled those jurors, some 85 percent of potential jurors came in saying that they believe that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was guilty or had something to do with the attacks of that marathon week two years ago.

So what they had to do was find people who could be open to setting aside whatever they knew or thought they knew, people who believe they thought they could be objective in listening to the evidence in this case. They also had to talk to people about their feelings on the death penalty. Some of these potential jurors expressed reservations on those forms.

The jurors that they picked were people who said they could set all of this aside, they could listen to the facts of the case that were presented. Right now, Brianna, we know they're behind closed doors, seven women, five men, trying to put this all together, trying to come to a verdict that so many members of the public have been waiting so long for.

KEILAR: They have been waiting so long for it. It's been such an ordeal, especially for those family members. It will continue, but this is a key moment in this trial. Alexandra Field for us following all of this at the courthouse there in Boston.

I want to bring in our legal experts again to talk about this, Drew Findling and Paul Callan.

This is very interesting in this case. The defense is trying to say, yes, he did it, but he was following his older brother Tamerlan. He was just a pawn. He was just along, sort of pulled along by his brother. Yet in the same -- in these jury instructions that we're hearing, the jury has also been told he doesn't have to be an equal player in this to be guilty of what he's done.

Do you think that the prosecution has made the case in such a strong way that there will be an indication that he really may face the death penalty here ultimately?

FINDLING: Well, first of all, I think the first phase of the trial is going to be an easy resolution. They're going to find him guilty because from the opening statement on...

KEILAR: Sure. But there's 30 charges. What do we think?

(CROSSTALK)

FINDLING: Correct. They're going to go through them. They're going to reach enough charges. They're going to get to the sentencing phase. Then it's really going to be what Judy Clarke -- and I read her closing argument. It was masterful.

She's one of the defense attorneys in the country that you can go to the Justice Department and everyone will say how masterful she is. But I think it's going to come down to how sincere this attempt to get the death penalty is. I think Judy Clarke is really going to articulate it, which is the following. That is, had the older brother lived, then this wouldn't be a death penalty case because they would have taken a pass on death in this case and gone for death in the older brother's case.

The only reason they're going for death is because the younger brother did survive, who was clearly talked into this. I find it such a contrast that we're talking about both cases because there is no attempt to go after the death penalty in the Hernandez case because the people of Massachusetts have voted to not have the death penalty.

So, in this case, I think we're going to see the jurors argue too that the government is going through the back door what they can't get through the front door.

KEILAR: Because these are federal charges. What do you think?

(CROSSTALK)

CALLAN: Well, 17 of the 30 counts call for the death penalty. I think one of the things that's impressing me here is this was a very, very clear-cut prosecution case, sort of an easy call that he's guilty of most all of these counts. The real issue is the sentencing.

[15:10:10] The fact that the jury has been out this long, it means they're being very conscientious. They're looking at each count. They're taking it very, very seriously. Now, that suggests to me that during the sentencing portion -- and he will be convicted undoubtedly in the liability or the guilt portion -- that you have a jury here that's arguing about things.

And that suggests to me that maybe he does have a shot at a life sentence, because, remember, during the sentencing portion, if only one juror holds out for a non-death penalty resolution, the defense wins the case.

KEILAR: But one is going to feel pressured, right? If you have one juror -- this is what we were talking about earlier. It was fascinating. You said one juror, and they can easily be swayed. You need more than one. You need to win over a few, right, a few jurors?

FINDLING: Well, number one, you want to win over all the jurors. But I think when you have an issue that involves morality, the moral decision that somebody doesn't want to be responsible for terminating somebody else's life, we find in so many cases historically that that one juror, if they have the intestinal fortitude, will take one day, one week, or one month to hold out.

KEILAR: Intestinal fortitude. I like that.

FINDLING: The point I was raising when you and I were having this discussion earlier today is that in most cases, unless you get a coalition of jurors, two or three, it's hard for them to hold out against the abuse that they get from the majority, from another eight or nine jurors.

That's not to say that it doesn't happen. But usually when you see a hung jury, it's not just one. It's usually two or three or a larger group who feel the opposite of the majority. So we will have to see how that plays out in this case.

KEILAR: All right, gentlemen. Thank you so much. We will leave the conversation there. We will have so much to talk about in the coming days.

Just a reminder. As we are watching the Boston bombing -- Boston Marathon bombing case, where the jury is currently weighing the fate of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, we're also keeping an eye on the Aaron Hernandez case. The jury has gotten this case. We are looking for developments ahead.

Also, we're following that power outage in Washington, D.C.; 2,000 customers were without power. The authorities there trying to resolve this, but it was a big deal, the White House momentarily without power, the Capitol affected, the State Department affected as well. We will get you an update straight ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:16:49] KEILAR: I'm Brianna Keilar. And we're updating you on a story coming to us from the nation's capital, a power outage there affecting 2,000 customers. You may say, that's not too many. Well, it is when it includes the White House, the Capitol, and the State Department, about 2,000 customers without power, although we understand Pepco, the power authority there, restoring power as we speak.

But the White House was without power momentarily, a rather significant move as it went to backup power. This is something the White House spokesman, Josh Earnest, was asked about. Here's what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOSH EARNEST, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: I can tell you that there was a power outage this afternoon that did briefly have an impact on the White House complex. Some parts of the White House complex did have to go on to backup power, but some of the issues have been addressed in such a way that we're now back on the regular power source.

So things are slowly but surely returning to normal here in the White House complex.

QUESTION: And is there anything you can see about what the president was doing or where he may have been when the power was dipped?

EARNEST: I was -- I'm not under the impression the president was in any way affected by this. I happened to be in a meeting with him.

And when I walked out of that meeting, I was informed that there had been a power outage. So, at least during the period in which it seemed to be most noticeable, I was with the president, and he did not notice.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)

(LAUGHTER)

EARNEST: Not that I could perceive.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: All right. I guess the backup power there at the White House works pretty well.

Not so well at the State Department, as you can see here. This is the spokeswoman for the State Department, Marie Harf, deputy spokeswoman there. She was actually giving the State Department briefing when power went out. But look at her. She's resourceful, pulled out her iPhone, used the light there and continued on like nothing was happening, but, again, 2,000 customers without power.

This is being restored by Pepco, mostly restored there in D.C., after power outages that left the White House without power briefly as it went to backup power.

All right. Let's talk about the big political news of the day. The freshman senator who really rode that Tea Party wave all the way to the Senate five years ago, well, he's got his sights a little higher, I guess you could say. Rand Paul coming out today as the second Republican to throw his hat into the ring as a presidential candidate.

He was in Louisville, Kentucky. He spoke to a crowd, a very animated crowd, we should say, with a lot of young people who really are enamored of his particular brand of Republicanism with libertarian politics. He's trying to cast himself as a very different Republican. He is trying to bring some of his politics into the mainstream.

And he even took on some other Republicans, blaming them for the state of the nation's problems. He told reporters -- or not reporters -- supporters, I should say, also reporters, that it's time to put an end to career politicians. Listen to what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. RAND PAUL (R), KENTUCKY: I believe it now more than ever,. We limit the president to two terms. It's about time we limit the terms of Congress.

(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)

[15:20:22] PAUL: I want to reform Washington. I want commonsense rules that will break the logjam in Congress.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: Wants to break the log jam in Congress.

Let's bring in Jake Tapper, the CNN chief Washington correspondent, joining us now.

So, you heard him there, Jake. He's calling for term limits. He's casting himself as a very different kind of Republican. But is he really?

JAKE TAPPER, CNN CHIEF WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT: He is really a different kind of Republican. You're not going to hear other Republicans, I don't think, talking about ending the surveillance state run by the National Security Agency.

You're not going to hear other Republicans in the contest talking about, in his words, an America where criminal justice is applied equally and any law that disproportionately incarcerates people of color is repealed.

So, yes, there are some areas where his civil liberties, his libertarian bent is really going to distinguish him from the Jeb Bushes, Scott Walkers, Ted Cruzes of the race. I do think he's going to bring some real debates to the Republican field.

KEILAR: What about on foreign policy? He is different at times. And he's certainly tried to I think adjust -- not adjust some of his views, but he's got his eye on the mainstream. He naturally has to do that.

How is he going to, I guess, take on some of the criticism and really take some of his foreign policy views and try to reach out to the mainstream?

TAPPER: He is trying to thread a needle. It's going to be difficult because most of the Republican opponents he faces are much more hawkish than he.

He is trying to reassure voters and supporters and donors, I imagine, that he's not a complete isolationist, as some portray him as. You heard him today talking about the enemy is radical Islam. He's talking about going against ISIS, talking about envisioning an America with a national defense unparalleled, undefeatable, and unencumbered by overseas nation-building.

When it came to Iran, where he's much more closely aligned with President Obama in terms of diplomatic outreach to Iran than with many of the Republicans in the field with him, he tried to thread the needle by aligning himself with the bill that Republican Bob Corker has put forward requiring that Congress approve of this Iran deal.

But that's an area where he's going to face and he already is facing a great deal of criticism. Brianna, you might remember, when I interviewed Vice President Dick Cheney on my show a few months ago, I asked Cheney, who would you vote for between Hillary Clinton and Rand Paul? And he wouldn't pick. There are a lot of conservative hawks who really don't trust Rand Paul.

KEILAR: Yes. They really -- they certainly don't.

I want to switch gears a little bit, Jake. I want to talk to you about a story that I'm actually working on for your show.

TAPPER: Thank you.

KEILAR: I'm in this weird sort of -- you're very welcome.

TAPPER: I appreciate it.

KEILAR: I'm sort of teasing a story that's going to be on your show. And it's normally the reverse.

TAPPER: That's fine.

KEILAR: But you have White House staffers from maids to butlers, and they're breaking with tradition. They're talking pretty candidly about what really goes on behind the closed doors at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

This is all detailed in this new book, "The Residence: Inside the Private World of the White House." I actually talked with the author, Kate Andersen Brower, about what staffers happened after a maid found blood all over Bill and Hillary's bed during the time of the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KATE ANDERSEN BROWER, AUTHOR, "THE RESIDENCE": Well, everyone on the staff, you know, said that they were convinced that she clocked him with a book. And there were about 20 books on these bedside tables, including the Bible, that she had to choose from.

You know, at the time, they witnessed lots of arguments. I have another story in there about a florist, Ron Payne, who said he heard a heavy object being thrown and Mrs. Clinton yelling. And obviously this was a very tumultuous time.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: So this is fascinating because some of these sources, one in particular about -- the quote about the book, that's not on the record. But you have a florist who's on the record talking about this. You have staffers, Jake.

As you know, they're supposed to be discreet. And I do think that when they're sharing some of these anecdotes, some of them I think are doing it in a way they felt like Bill Clinton kind of deserved to be clocked by a book. So they're sort of putting it out there in support of Hillary Clinton a little bit. But are you surprised they're speaking so candidly about this?

TAPPER: I'm stunned, frankly. I'm stunned. You expect political operatives as happened during the Clinton administration and the Bush administration and the Obama administration to come forward with their own versions of events when it comes to the political world.

[15:25:12] But the idea that staffers in the White House residents would be talking about things that are really supposed to be kept completely private is frankly shocking to me. I imagine that there will be the next occupants of the White House, if not the current ones, are going to take steps to make sure that there are as many legal protections as possible to make sure this doesn't happen for any future books.

KEILAR: So what do you think, that they sign like a nondisclosure or something like that?

TAPPER: I don't know that they did back in the '90s. I would imagine that there's a certain amount of discretion that's required and comes with the job. I don't know what kind of legal requirements they had back then or they have right now, but I can't imagine that there aren't some requirements that you sign a legal document saying you're not going to talk about any of the things you see.

And it certainly looks like if anyone signed a document like that during the Clinton years, they violated it. I can imagine there are going to be more precautions taken going forward.

KEILAR: Yes. Well, it is a fascinating read. Some bits are definitely salacious like that. Some are sweet moments that are very revealing and now also cast first families in a very positive light. We will be talking about all of those ahead in your show, Jake Tapper.

TAPPER: I can't wait. Thank you so much for filing for my show. I'm looking forward to the piece in about an hour.

KEILAR: All right. See you then. We will see you at 4:00 p.m. Eastern, when we tune in for THE LEAD. Thanks, Jake.

TAPPER: Thank you.

KEILAR: And next, the jury in the Aaron Hernandez trial just got the case. Hear what the former NFL star did as the jury walked out to decide his fate. We're live in Massachusetts next.

Plus, President Obama might run into even more trouble than he thought trying to get Congress to back the nuclear deal with Iran. Democrats may not be on board with him -- a former top nuclear adviser to Obama joining me live straight ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)