Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev Found Guilty on All Counts. Aired 3-3:30p ET

Aired April 08, 2015 - 15:00   ET

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

[15:00:07] BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN ANCHOR: And now this moves in really to perhaps an even more important phase, the penalty phase, where we will find out if Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is punished by life of prison with no chance or parole or if he's sentenced to death by a jury there in Boston.

Let's get now to Alexandra Field. She was in the courtroom as these counts were read.

Tell us, Alexandra, how Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, how he responded to hearing that he was guilty on all 30 counts.

ALEXANDRA FIELD, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Brianna, every eyeball in the courtroom was trained on him when she stood up and he listened as those counts were read, as he heard the words guilty repeated some 30 times.

He did at one point look over to the jury. He did a number of times look to his side, where his attorney Judy Clarke was standing. For the most part, he looked down. He had hands his folded. About halfway through, he began to fidget. At the end, he stood up, he walked out of the courtroom escorted by a number of people, really giving just no apparent reaction.

The jurors also incredibly interesting and compelling to watch as the verdict was read. Almost to a person, they kept their eyes trained over by the judge, over by the clerk. They looked away from him, except for one juror who seemed to try to make eye contact with Tsarnaev repeatedly. Tsarnaev not seeming to look back in that direction. But really amazing, Brianna, to watch those jurors just sort of believing perhaps they had done their duty, that they had taken 11.5 hours, that they had deliberated the facts of the case, they had listened to 96 witnesses, they had heard weeks of testimony, they considered all of it.

They gave their word. They gave their verdict. They looked ahead as it was read. But, really, when you looked away from the jury, you had to look at people who were in the courtroom. The response collectively, Brianna, so measured and so tempered, it was so quiet in that room, it just nearly took your breath away, because this is the moment so many people have been looking for.

This is a case that stretches far beyond one person, one family. We're talking hundreds of people directly impacted, an entire city widely impacted, really a country who had a stake in this case, who was interested in every moment of it, who was waiting to hear this verdict. You had family members of people who lost their lives in these attacks, the parents of Martin Richard, the 8-year-old boy who bled to death on Boylston Street.

They have been here throughout this father. Bill Richard, the father of Martin Richard, gave some of the most emotional and compelling testimony we heard over the course of this trial. He was in the courtroom today. He really craned, sort of almost up on his tippy- toes stretching his neck to look at the jury. He seemed like he was trying to get a close look at their expressions as they walked in the door before the verdict was delivered.

After that, Brianna, as those verdicts stacked up, as you heard guilty repeated over and over again, you saw some people begin to sort of lower their heads and maybe let out the sigh of a little bit of relief there. A few people sort of wiping at their eyes or wiping at their noses, but really showing almost no emotion.

So, many people just knowing they had prepared for this moment and it seemed taking in every word that was read aloud in the courtroom. Brianna, this isn't over for these families, isn't over for these survivors, because we're now looking ahead to the next phase of this trial. And they're going to go through a lot of this again. They will be back in the courtroom listening to these graphic details again, reliving horrific moments, hearing really wrenching testimony.

They have been through so much over the course of two years. They're going through it again right now. And they hope that this is in pursuit of justice. You have to believe that a lot of them feel they got a piece of that today.

KEILAR: I wonder. And certainly we're hearing from some of the victims' families. Alexandra, they do feel like this is closure. I know they don't all speak with one voice. You're talking about four victims who died that day, or not just that day, but three at the marathon and then Sergeant Sean Collier.

But you have in total 264 victims and they don't speak with one voice. But do we have a sense of what many of them desire? Is this enough, just the guilty verdict, that he could spend life in prison? Or do they want to Dzhokhar Tsarnaev put to death?

FIELD: Look, the death penalty is such a polarizing issue across the country. Wherever you ask people, you're bound to found different opinions.

So, yes, you point out that these are not people that speak with one collective voice by any stretch. I think that what they were all collectively looking for though is what they got today, which was the pronouncement of guilty on all 30 counts, not a question from this jury.

Yes, there was a foregone conclusion of guilt because you had defense attorneys who stood up in the first phase of this trial, in the openings, and said it was him. They never denied what were the facts of the case that the prosecution presented. They never tried to say that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev did not play the role or participate in the way that he did in the attacks that was unfolded over the course of that week.

Certainly you have to imagine they would feel validated by the fact that jury would recognize that and give them this guilty verdict on each of the 30 counts. When it comes to idea of a death penalty, are their family members who hope to see him serve life in prison instead, feel that that is an appropriate punishment? Certainly.

[15:05:14] Are there others who would hope for a death sentence? Yes. We have certainly heard from some of them that that is what they want. Are there others who are concerned about this issue or idea of martyrdom? He had wrote in that note in the boat about being jealous of his brother that had achieved paradise, he believed.

Certainly, you are going to have these different opinions from family members. But we know they are all going to be very closely watching the next phase of this trial. You have got the prosecution representing the victims and the family members by saying this is a man responsible for these attacks who has to pay for it in some way, who has to be sentenced in whatever way he is sentenced.

Prosecution of course going for the death penalty. The defense, however, saying this is somebody who was influenced by his older brother, who was manipulated, who was corrupted, who maybe deserves to have his life spared. We will hear how they make that case in the coming weeks.

KEILAR: Yes, as we move into the penalty phase of the case.

Alexandra Field, thanks for that report. Stand by.

Alexandra really our ears there in the courtroom today.

I want to bring in Mark O'Mara, our CNN legal analyst, as well he was the attorney representing George Zimmerman in the Trayvon Martin case.

Mark, this is moving in to the penalty phase. Jurors will have to choose between putting Dzhokhar Tsarnaev away for life without parole or for the death penalty, if he's going to be put to death. What I guess makes him sympathetic at all to these jurors? And is it really not about him? Is it more about the families and what they want? And they're certainly going to hear about that in this case. But you would expect a lot of families they will be hearing from are ones who say put him to death.

MARK O'MARA, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Sure.

It's a lot of dynamics to the concept of the death penalty as it's imposed on somebody. First of all, it's almost -- we think of it almost as an afterthought, and we shouldn't, that he's going to die in prison. Whether it's five years from now or 50 years from now, he will die in prison.

The question then becomes, how do we mete out a proper punishment under our code? Death penalty in federal court is now appropriate. If anyone deserves the death penalty, in an academic view, someone who's killed and tried to kill hundreds certainly would deserve it. But I will tell you those of us who do death penalty work know of the

studies that suggest even those families that want death penalty imposed and then get it are not -- this closure doesn't come from that. It truly doesn't. Closure only comes in cases of a lost loved one over time and generations of time, decades of time. It doesn't really come from the imposition of the death penalty itself.

It may feel good momentarily, that retribution or vengeance. But it doesn't really work. I think we need to look at this case and more say, how are we going to handle the fact of how someone who attacked us should be treated? As badly as they treat us, which is the death penalty, or are we going to look at it and say we're not going to let him be a martyr, we're going to shove him away in the back corner of some prison somewhere away from anybody else and let him think every day that the next day he is going to live is going to be in prison?

I think that type of punishment is probably a better punishment to impose, because I don't truly believe the death penalty, though justified in this case more than most, really works. It doesn't work to stop other people. There's no deterrent effect of the death penalty. None of the studies support that. Why become a society that kills even to the worst of us?

KEILAR: Mark, stick with us.

I want to look now at some of the sketches that are coming into us. These are the first sketches, our first look inside of the courtroom, because there are not cameras. This is Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, a sketch of him walking into the courtroom before he found out that he was found guilty on 30 of 30 counts and that he is now eligible for the death penalty. This is the first sketch we're seeing.

As you can see, he was there in what looks like a polo shirt and a suit. We're going to be bringing you more sketches as we get them in. This was really from the beginning of the proceedings today.

I want to bring in my panel, Ashleigh Banfield, Sunny Hostin, Eric Guster.

And, Ashleigh, to you, the jury was told you're still an active jury. You can not discuss deliberations, right?

ASHLEIGH BANFIELD, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes. You're not sequestered, which means they walk by newspaper boxes and they walk by televisions and they're not supposed to be seeing any of coverage. They're certainly not supposed to be seeing our conversation about what it is they're about to do, the mitigators vs. the aggravators in the death phase, et cetera.

[15:10:01] But what is critical here is that they eventually are going to have to make that decision that Mark O'Mara was just talking about. Do they go ahead and give him death? Because if you look at this case, and if you're a believer in the death penalty -- and they're all death-qualified through those initial processes -- this is not that difficult. For the worst of the worst, and he's one of them, it's not that

difficult. But he's 21 years old. If he chooses the route that Timothy McVeigh chose, who blew up the federal building in Oklahoma City, he will be a martyr in about four years, because that's how fast Timothy McVeigh went to the chair.

He waived the appeals that he was allowed to. You have got to take your automatic appeals. You don't have a choice on that with the death penalty. But he waived everything else and he didn't rot in a cell for what could be 60 or plus years for this kid. At 21 years old, he's got a long life ahead of him. He could have a horribly long life, a very uncomfortable long life in a cell, or he could what Timothy McVeigh did and become a martyr in four. That might, just might, be something these jurors consider.

KEILAR: Does he want to be a martyr, Sunny?

SUNNY HOSTIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: I guess that's unclear.

Certainly, when he was found in the boat, every indication is that he wanted to be a martyr, right, from what he wrote and certainly his brother died. There's that sense that he wants to be a martyr. But I think when you're talking about the death penalty, at least the federal death penalty, Brianna, it's really an academic exercise.

And under the statute, you have to weigh -- it's a weighing process. You have to weigh the aggravating factors against the mitigating factors. And it's really a qualitative type of weighing process rather than a quantitative weighing process. By statutes, the aggravating factors are all here. We're talking about you can get the death penalty if you have a law enforcement officer that you kill.

You get the death penalty -- or you can get the death penalty if there's a young child that you have killed. You can get the death penalty if there's many, many murders in one single occurrence.

(CROSSTALK)

HOSTIN: It goes on and on and on.

(CROSSTALK)

KEILAR: Grave risk of desk. Yes. If you do this with an additional person.

(CROSSTALK)

HOSTIN: And that's the thing on the other side in terms of mitigating factor.

This jury I think is probably going to get what is called a special findings form, where the defense puts forth all of the mitigating factors they believe that they have proven. And then the government gets to put up the list of factors they believe they have proven. What is the defense going to put up is my question. Certainly his age, the fact that he has no prior record. KEILAR: How does his age help?

(CROSSTALK)

KEILAR: I'm just saying. Let me put this out there. He's 19. He's not 16. He's 19.

BANFIELD: And he's an adult.

KEILAR: And he's an adult.

(CROSSTALK)

KEILAR: But he's in college.

(CROSSTALK)

HOSTIN: Age is certainly a factor that is considered under the statute.

And I think what also can be considered is duress. Was he really under duress? Was he under his brother's sort of Svengali thumb? But the bottom line, when you look at it in an academic way, which is what these jurors are going to be instructed to do, I just cannot see how -- unless you have a self juror that just is so imposed to death penalty and lied during the death qualification process, I can't see how he avoids the death penalty.

(CROSSTALK)

KEILAR: So, Sunny says that they're going to be very academic about it. And very possibly they may.

But, at the same time, the question of whether you're putting someone to death, how is that necessarily an academic question? It's sort of an emotional pit of the stomach kind of question, too, isn't it?

(CROSSTALK)

ERIC GUSTER, ATTORNEY: It's very emotional.

And that's what the defense lawyers have to key in on, because when you're talking to someone about the death penalty, that's a decision that once they vote the death penalty, they have to live with that decision for the rest of their life. And some people can't fathom the thought of being involved in taking another person's life.

And that's what they're asking these jurors to do. The defense just has to get that one juror who says I cannot do that. But he does have an uphill battle, really an up-mountain battle, because he maimed and killed children. Once you hurt the babies, you have problems.

HOSTIN: And also a law enforcement officer.

I think when I was covering the Connecticut trial, the home invasion trial, I spoke to so many in Connecticut, another state that is not in favor of the death penalty.

KEILAR: Horrible, horrible trial, the trial of the...

HOSTIN: Of the mother and the two girls.

KEILAR: The two daughters, yes.

HOSTIN: Dr. Petit's family that was murdered.

It was interesting to me that I spoke to so many residents that said, I'm not in favor of the death penalty, but in this case, they are the worst of the worst of the worst.

(CROSSTALK)

HOSTIN: And I think that is something that is very possible to happen in a case like this, where you have a state that is not in favor of the death penalty, doesn't have the death penalty on the books. And we know the president should be reserved for the worst of the worst.

Well, isn't Dzhokhar Tsarnaev the worst of the worst?

(CROSSTALK)

BANFIELD: You know what else is a weird dynamic that plays out in a courtroom? In all the cases I have covered, and never litigated, because I'm not a lawyer, but everyone will say this.

It's one thing to be voir dired and say I think I can be fair and I can impose the death penalty. I don't know that I'm really in support of it, but I think I can be fair and I can do this if it warrants.

[15:15:03] And then you sit, as Alexandra Field and Deb Feyerick reported, about five, 10 or 15 feet away from the actual person whose life you might have to decide to take, and all things change.

People are profoundly affected by sitting for a month or two or four across from that living, breathing human being. And somehow they find a God that stops them from doing the thing they promised they could.

KEILAR: It's different to say I think he deserves the death penalty and then to say, I am the one who is going to make sure that he gets it.

Ashleigh Banfield, Sunny Hostin, Eric Guster, stay with me. We have much more ahead.

And we are expecting the victims' families to come out and speak any moment now. How do they feel about this? We will bring that to you live, as they get at least some piece of closure here.

Plus, breaking news in another huge story that we're following right now, rising tension in a South Carolina town. This is stunning video that shows a white police officer shooting from behind an apparently unarmed black man. The mayor and the police chief just addressing the media not too long ago. This was very heated. As you can see, we're going to bring that to you. You will hear what they have to say straight ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KEILAR: We are currently a waiting the family of the victims, the family member of the victims in the Boston Marathon bombing there in Boston after just finding out that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev has been found guilty of 30 of 30 counts in that bombing.

Stay with us as we await. This could be any moment that they come out and give us their reaction to what they heard in court today.

[15:20:04] We do, though, want to talk about some other breaking news. This is a huge story. It's a white police officer charged with murder in the death of an apparently unarmed black man. That officer has now been fired.

The arrest and termination of former officer Michael Slager follows Saturday's shooting in North Charleston, South Carolina. And what is more, there are some who are questioning if Slager tried to plant evidence.

I want you to take note of some of this footage. It actually shows Slager and he's dropping something by the body of 50-year-old Walter Scott. He had gone back apparently and picked something up. It appeared to be this object. And there you see that in the circle of him dropping that by the body.

This is a video that was provided by an anonymous bystander. And it has blown this case wide open. Slager had cast it, this killing of this man, as one of self-defense. He said that Scott had -- quote -- "grabbed his Taser." But then the video came out. A warning for you about how difficult and graphic this is to watch, but it's also important because it tells us the whole story.

I'm right back to this story in South Carolina, but, first, I want to get you to Boston, where family members of the victims are speaking.

(JOINED IN PROGRESS)

KAREN BRASSARD, BOSTON BOMBING SURVIVOR: ... not a happy occasion, but it's something that we can put one more step behind us.

We want to thank the prosecution, all of their team, the FBI agents, all of the people at the A.G.'s office, and all you who have been here, and support us, and have been so thoughtful and kind through this entire thing.

It has been difficult, but we have gotten out through each other. We are a new community of just our little family here. And we're grateful for everything that you all have done and we are also grateful for the press for being very respectful to us throughout this whole thing. So we appreciate everything you have all done for us.

QUESTION: How do you feel about moving to the next phase and what are your thoughts on that?

BRASSARD: For me, personally, I'm anxious to get on to that.

We're all aware that this is not a process that is going to be over any time soon. It is probably going to take many years to get through this. But it will be good to have it that much further behind us, one more piece to the puzzle being done.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)

BRASSARD: I can't answer that for everybody. Honestly, we haven't talked that much about it. I think it is just a personal thing. It's something that everyone has their own response to, so I don't feel comfortable answering that.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)

[15:25:03] BRASSARD: No, I didn't expect anything at all.

We were just talking about it inside and whether or not he showed any remorse, how we would feel about it. Personally, I wouldn't have bought it. I would have been more frustrated if he had shown it, because throughout this whole thing, he's been, to use my word, arrogant walking in and out of the courtroom and completely disinterested.

So, if I saw anything from him today, I would have been a little more frustrated.

QUESTION: Your name, man.

BRASSARD: My name is Karen Brassard.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)

BRASSARD: I don't know what justice is.

I'm grateful to have him off the street. I'm grateful to show everyone, the world, that it is not tolerated. This is not how we behave and we're grateful that everybody has worked so hard to make it known that we are not going to allow this.

QUESTION: Is there such a thing as closure here?

BRASSARD: No. And I say that personally, just because it is not something that you will ever be over. You will feel it forever. There will always be something that brings it back to the forefront.

But we are all going to move on with our lives and we're all going to get back to some sense of normalcy, hopefully, when this is all done. So closure, I guess I don't think so, only because it is forever a part of our life.

QUESTION: What has this experience been like for you, coming into the courthouse, where you're seeing the guy that did this?

BRASSARD: I'm usually a pretty passive personality, so when it first -- when I came for the arraignment, I was really surprised at how angry I was to see him and how I was happy to see that he had some pain.

But I'm just grateful to have the team that did the work to make sure that the right outcome happened. And I don't want to carry the anger and I don't want to be -- I don't want to feel the anger that I think drove -- or drives people to do hateful things. So I want to put it behind me.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)

BRASSARD: I'm amazed and grateful. I'm glad that they took time to go through everything, because I wouldn't want anyone to question whether this was just a rash decision. I don't think that it was. I think that they took this very seriously. So I'm grateful to them.

And I don't envy them. I think about them and what they have had to go through, and it is just as traumatic for them, I think, to have to experience this and to see everything that they have seen, nobody should have to see. So, I'm concerned for them and I'm grateful for them.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)

BRASSARD: I just -- what else can they do? I mean, they have a job to do. They have to try and make it as easy as possible for him.

The brother is not here to alter anything or say anything differently, so I suppose that makes sense. But, for me, it just didn't matter. He was all in. He's a grown man and made choices knowing what the outcome could be and knowing what the consequence would be. And he made the choice to go ahead.

(CROSSTALK)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I have been here pretty much supporting the survivors and the family victims. And we're here to make sure we support each other.

QUESTION: Karen, this idea (OFF-MIKE) he's guilty, that he did it, is that too little, too late? Was any sort of apology on their end just mean nothing?

BRASSARD: No. It won't be believable to me. I was surprised to see them come out and say that. I was curious about the process and what happens now that they have admitted it, why are we going through all of this process? I'm grateful that we did, because I think it will help the jury to make a fair decision.

But, no, at this point, I don't believe that there is any remorse. I think it was probably just a foregone conclusion. There was far too much evidence showing that that is what happened, so they had no other option.

QUESTION: Karen, do you think there is anything to this notion by the defense that the brother was (OFF-MIKE) that Dzhokhar was (OFF-MIKE)

BRASSARD: Not coerced, no, not coerced by him. Certainly, I think that he did a lot of the work. But it's understandable that the younger brother was going to school. He didn't have the capability or the location to build bombs and do all of that.