Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

DC Finds Compromise on Iran Nuclear Deal; Iran Threatening Deal; War on ISIS; Verdict Reached in Hernandez Case. Aired 10-10:30a ET

Aired April 15, 2015 - 10:00   ET

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

[10:00:00] CAROL COSTELLO, CNN ANCHOR: Iran's president says he will not accept any deal unless that agreement guarantees that all sanctions be lifted immediately.

This latest blow even more daunting because the White House finally agreed to allow Congress a vote on any final deal. This after the Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted unanimously to allow lawmakers to approve or reject it. The White House long opposed to the idea bent.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOSH EARNEST, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Despite the things about it that we don't like, enough substantial changes have been made that the president would be willing to sign it because it would reflect the kind of compromise that he'd be willing to sign.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COSTELLO: We're covering all angles of the story for you. Elise Labott is our global affairs correspondent, she's in Washington. And on Capitol Hill, CNN's Athena Jones.

Athena, to you first. Tell us about this compromise.

ATHENA JONES, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Good morning, Carol. Well, of course this compromise reached between the top Democrat and the top Republican on the committee was aimed at getting more Democratic support for this bill to overcome that veto threat from the White House. But in the end the changes were enough to get the White House on board. So what changed?

Here're two of the big things that have changed. The 60-day review period has now been cut to a maximum of 52 days. There's an initial review period. More time gets added on if Congress sends a bill to the president's desk and even more days get added on if he vetoes that bill. But at least a month, the Congress to review this Iran deal, and decide whether to approve of it, disapprove of it or take no action, and during that time the president cannot lift the congressionally imposed sanctions on Iran.

Another big change was that the earlier bill had required the president to certify that Iran was not supporting terrorism anywhere around the world. That requirement was changed to reports that the president has to provide to Congress on Iran's terror related activities, also their ballistic missile related activities. So those are some big changes that brought the White House onboard.

I should mention that the president is still required to certify to Congress every 90 days that Iran is complying with the agreement that is ultimately reached. I should mention of course that since the White House said they're onboard, here's a tweet from Chairman Bob Corker who said, "The simple fact is that the White House dropped its veto threat because they weren't going to have the votes to sustain a veto."

And, Carol, I've got to tell you, that's right. The changes that were made to that bill did bring on more Democratic support and it looks as though that bill when it comes to final Senate floor is going to have a lot more than the near 67 votes it would need to overcome a White House veto threat which has now been removed. So you could say score one for Congress on this -- Carol.

COSTELLO: All right. Athena Jones, thanks so much.

So Congress and the White House reached a rare compromise and it might be all for naught, Elise Labott. Why is Iran threatening to walk away?

ELISE LABOTT, CNN FOREIGN AFFAIRS REPORTER: Well, Carol, this was part of the problem after the Lausanne framework was announced a few weeks ago that Iran did not sign this deal. And when I interviewed Secretary of State John Kerry, I said well, what if they try to renegotiate, when they sit back at the table to get that final deal, he said that won't happen. But today it happened.

The Iranian Parliamentary Committee issued some what they call revisions to the deal. Now the Iranians are saying that this deal would be nullified by any failure of the United States or any of the parties of the deal to end up -- to hold up to its end of the bargain. It also said that all sanctions will be agreed to be lifted on day one. Obviously this was a -- you know, a lot of the discussion was about that they would be lifted out in phases.

The Iranians are also saying that they want 10,000 centrifuges, not the 6,000 that was agreed to in Lausanne and now today the Iranians are cutting the deal in half. The deal that was announced was a 10- year deal. Now the Iranians are saying that it's a five-year deal, Carol. So this was always the danger. The Iranians did not want to put their name to the agreement and now we see why. Because now they're trying to re-litigate what happened in Lausanne -- Carol.

COSTELLO: Wow. Elise Labott reporting live for us this morning. Thank you.

Iraqi forces are pleading for more U.S. airstrikes in Ramadi. Officials say the city just 70 miles from Baghdad is about to fall into the hands of ISIS fighters. Militants have been advancing there for weeks and local officials are unclear how long allied forces can hold out. The Iraqi prime minister meeting with President Obama yesterday. He'll meet with lawmakers today. So let's talk about all of this with Major General Spider Marks. We

just lost -- we just lost General Marks. So we're going to try to get him back. I'm going to take a break and hopefully we'll have the general back.

[10:04:46]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COSTELLO: ISIS militants are about to overtake Ramadi, an Iraqi city 70 miles away from Baghdad. That's a real concern. Iraqi forces are begging the United States to perform more airstrikes over the country but will that really help?

Let's talk about this with Major General James "Spider" Marks.

Hi, General.

MAJ. GEN. JAMES "SPIDER" MARKS, CNN MILITARY ANALYST: Hi, Carol. Good morning.

COSTELLO: Good morning. So are more airstrikes the answer?

MARKS: No. They really aren't. Clearly the United States has the capacity to do airstrikes somewhat limitlessly. We have allied partners that are involved in that but that alone is -- it's necessary but it's not sufficient. We need to be able to make sure that the Iraqi Security Forces are in place, capable of withstanding ISIS assault but primarily what's happening we see right now, it's not just the defense of operational part of the ISF but it also is a matter of conducting offensive operation so you can get rid of ISIS. And all that they're trying to achieve in Ramadi.

But what's different, Carol, if I can, is what we saw ISIS do in Tikrit just a couple of weeks ago, the ISF was successful, they were successful because the United States partner with them, but also Iran had a very strong physical presence on the ground in the form of Quds fighters and advisers, and the Iraqi Badr Corps which is aligned with Iran.

So they were able to be successful in Tikrit but they were able to do that because Iran can get there. It's proximate, it's pretty close to Iran and Tikrit was able to fall.

ISIS still exists in Mosul further north. They are now reclaiming land or territory in Ramadi which is further to the west. Again, very strong Sunni area. So what you have is ISIS being able to pop up in a bunch of different locations. The ISF have to be able to fight those.

[10:10:11] But the good news is if ISIS tries to achieve strength in multiple locations they're going to be defeated ultimately in detail. That's what we have to focus in on. So it's a little bit of inside baseball but I think it needs to be discussed.

COSTELLO: I understand.

General Spider Marks, thank you so much for joining me.

We do have a bit of breaking news to pass along. There has been a verdict reached in the Aaron Hernandez murder trial in Boston. We're gathering information on that now. We'll have it for you after a break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ANNOUNCER: This is CNN Breaking News.

COSTELLO: All right. You're looking at the Bristol Superior Courthouse in Fall River, Massachusetts. We understand a verdict has been reached in the Aaron Hernandez murder trial. Now the jury has been deliberating for seven long days. Everybody was surprised by how long this process has taken. But again, we're getting word a verdict has been reached.

Joining me now, Jean Casarez, and also our CNN legal analyst Danny Cevallos.

Thanks to both of you for being here.

We also have Mel Robbins. Hi, Mel. We're getting people together as fast as we can. Thanks so much.

MEL ROBBINS, CNN COMMENTATOR AND LEGAL ANALYST: Hey, Carol.

COSTELLO: We also have Susan Candiotti but she's inside the courthouse right now awaiting that verdict. And she'll run out as soon as we have it.

So seven days of deliberations. Mel, I'll start with you. Why did it take so long and is there any clue in that -- is there any clue in that as to what this verdict might be?

[10:15:11] ROBBINS: Not necessarily, Carol. Good morning. You know, just yesterday I was on with Paul Callan and we were both pretty convinced that there would be a hung jury. So the fact that there is a verdict is very interesting.

There have been many very famous cases that have been out for seven days, eight days, nine days, and so it's anybody's guess at this point whether we're going to see a conviction or an acquittal on the murder charges. And of course what we're looking at is there's murder one which would require the prosecutor to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was either planning or that there was such cruelty to the killing that to find him guilty.

There's also murder two, which does not require the planning aspect and then we're also looking at a possession of a weapon and ammunition charges as well. So it will be interesting to see what happens, Carol.

COSTELLO: Absolutely. Because, Jean, initially when this trial started, we thought that prosecutors had so much evidence that it would be a -- it would be a cinch and the jurors would come back in a second.

JEAN CASAREZ, CNN LEGAL CORRESPONDENT: And more than 400 exhibits. You know, I think one key here -- I will say let's look at the facts. And the fact is the jury can consider joint venture. The fact that he didn't pull the trigger but was part of a group of people and there were four people in the car that night, three, and then they picked up Odin Lloyd. But to be a joint venture, you can't just be standing there. You can't just have knowledge. You can't just even watch it.

You have got to have an intent to murder someone that is shown through the evidence. And I think that may be one of the challenges that this jury has had in the last few days because a joint venture is not as easy as it sounds.

COSTELLO: And not only that, Danny. I think prosecutors fail to provide a motive for why Aaron Hernandez would kill Odin Lloyd.

DANNY CEVALLOS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: And the prosecutors would respond we don't need to prove motive. Motive is not an element of any crime. But the defense masterfully -- if you listen to the closing argument, made the argument for many, many minutes that there was no motive even though motive is not required. But they did more than that.

They took that lack of motive and sort of dovetailed it into an argument of there was no prior planning, no preparation, which is really not the same thing legally but they brilliantly sort of clouded the discussion so that I can guarantee when they got into that jury room, the jurors had to be grappling with well, there was no motive. Does that mean there was no prior planning or preparation?

I think the defense masterfully made a very solid closing argument and took what everyone says was a very difficult case.

COSTELLO: Let's go to the courthouse right now.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And outbursts are not to be expected. You may bring in the jurors.

COSTELLO: My goodness. The camera panned to the ceiling and I would suppose the jurors are coming into the courtroom and didn't want -- the judge didn't want the jurors to appear on camera. So that's why that happened. But we'll go back to the courthouse directly as soon as the jurors are seated.

So just take us through the process, Mel, would you? What will happen shortly?

ROBBINS: Well, what's going to happen is the jury will be seated. They'll ask whether or not they've reached a verdict. What are reporting is that yes, a verdict has been reached, which means they have an answer on all of the counts, Carol. And then the foreman -- or foreperson, rather, of the jury will stand up and read the verdict count by count. And the judge has already admonished the folks in the courtroom that she does not want any outburst. She does not want there to be a reaction. And I would imagine that you will hear gasps or some sort of reaction

because it is very hard for people to contain themselves in a case that's this emotional and that's been going on for this long, Carol.

COSTELLO: Absolutely. And as I said, our Susan Candiotti is inside that courtroom awaiting that verdict. But she did tweet us some information. Aaron Hernandez's fiance and his mother both inside the courtroom awaiting that verdict. Both appear nervous. Susan says they are twitching their legs.

Also Odin Lloyd's family is present. And that family appears very anxious. And for all the family members involved, Jean, it's just -- it's just got to be agonizing.

CASAREZ: You know, having covered so many high-profile trials, I cannot express the feeling that's in a courtroom when you know a verdict has been reached. I can't imagine being a part of the case. But there's a nervousness and anticipation, there's a stress. And remember, this is a celebrity trial. And that could also have been an issue.

[10:20:00] I covered many celebrity trials and when Kobe Bryant -- it never went to trial, but when he was in that courtroom, you were watching a celebrity. And jurors saw that. And this jury was predominantly female. Seven females and five men. That can influence you.

COSTELLO: Absolutely. You know, I'm just thinking about how many hours the jury has actually been deliberating. It's been, what, almost 35 hours?

CASAREZ: 35.5. And that -- I looked at jury deliberation times, that sets one of the records. Robert Blake's criminal trial was 35 hours. That was the top one I could find.

COSTELLO: Wow. OK, so Aaron Hernandez is --

ROBBINS: Carol --

COSTELLO: Go ahead, Mel.

ROBBINS: There is one more thing to keep in mind. Unlike other cases, if he is acquitted, he ain't getting out of jail. He's got three other cases that are backed up behind this one and so you're not going to see him walk out of court any time soon regardless of the disposition of this case.

COSTELLO: His demeanor in the courtroom has been fascinating to watch, Danny, because he hasn't appeared anxious at all really.

CEVALLOS: When you talk to your client, you tell your client sit there and look not guilty. What does that mean? I don't know. But the reality is everybody observes the defendant, even though the defendant may never speak a word, all eyes are on that defendant throughout the entire trial. So their behavior is scrutinized. And we look at it through the lens of, is that how I would behave if I was charged with a crime? And the reality is, none of us really know unless it actually happens.

And yes, his behavior has been criticized. But I imagine that it's been slightly different when the jury is out of the courtroom than when it's in the room. As a person who's accustomed to performing on a stage before millions, he is probably someone easily trainable in behaving properly in front of a jury.

COSTELLO: Let's listen for a bit.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Defendant Aaron Hernandez with murder, what say you, Madame Foreperson? Is the defendant not guilty, guilty of murder in the first degree or guilty of murder in the second-degree?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Guilty of murder in the first degree.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Madame Foreperson, by which theory or theories, deliberate premeditation and/or extreme atrocity or cruelty?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Extreme atrocity or cruelty.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: 2013-983-B charging the defendant Aaron Hernandez with unlawful possession of a firearm, while not at home or work, what say you, Madame Foreperson? Is the defendant not guilty or guilty?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Guilty.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: 2013-983-C. Charging the defendant Aaron Hernandez with unlawful possession of ammunition, what say you, Madame Foreperson? Is the defendant guilty or not guilty?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Guilty.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Your honor, the jury withhold on count one pursuant (INAUDIBLE).

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Thank you.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Juror in seat one, is the verdict on indictment 2013-983-A as announced by the foreperson your verdict?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Juror in seat number three, is the verdict as announced by the foreperson your verdict?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Madame Foreperson, is the verdict you announced, your verdict?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Juror in seat number seven, is the verdict as announced by the foreperson your verdict?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Juror in seat number eight, is the verdict as

announced by the foreperson your verdict?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Juror in seat number nine, is the verdict as announced by the foreperson your verdict?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Juror in seat number 10, is the verdict as announced by the foreperson your verdict?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Juror in seat 13, is the verdict as announced by the foreperson your verdict?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Juror in seat number 14, is the verdict as announced by the foreperson your verdict?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Juror in seat 15, is the verdict as announced by the foreperson your verdict?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Juror in seat 16, is the verdict as announced by the foreperson your verdict?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And juror in seat 18, is the verdict as announced by the foreperson your verdict?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Be seated please, jurors. Please remain standing. May the verdict be recorded?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: They may.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Members of the jury, harken to your verdict, that will be recorded by the court. Upon your oath, you do state the defendant Aaron Hernandez is guilty of murder in the first degree by indictment 2013-983-A under the theory of extreme atrocity or cruelty. The defendant is guilty of unlawful possession of a firearm while not at home or work on indictment 2013-983-B. And the defendant is guilty of unlawful possession of ammunition on indictment 2013-983-C. So say you, Madame Foreperson, yes or no?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So say all members of the jury?

UNIDENTIFIED JURY MEMBERS: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You may be seated please.

[10:25:09] JUDGE E. SUSAN GARSH, BRISTOL COUNTY, MASSACHUSETTS SUPERIOR COURT: Members of the jury and I include those of you who deliberated and those of you who are alternates, I want to thank all of you very, very much for giving your valuable time to hear and decide this case.

I am not unmindful of the sacrifice you all made to serve on this jury and the disruptions to your family life, work schedule and social routine. I also understand that it is not easy to sit in judgment of a fellow human being. Your contributions were essential to the functioning of our judicial system.

There are few things more important that a citizen in a free and open society can do than serve as jurors for their peers. This truly is a people's court with you, the people, ruling.

At this time, you're all discharged and free to leave. I do have one last favor to ask of you. In a moment or two, I would like to speak with all of you a little more informally in the jury room. I will be thanking you again for your service. I cannot and will not discuss the contents of your deliberations with you. That is personal to the 12 of you who deliberated and the court will not be inquiring about that.

I also want to tell you that under our state law after the verdict has been recorded, the court's list containing the names of the 12 deliberating jurors is a public record. It is likely that members of the media will be contacting you to see if you are willing to speak to them. By law, the addresses of everyone called for jury duty is also publicly accessible.

At this point, the restriction on your talking to anyone about the case is lifted. But you are under absolutely no obligation to talk to any member of the media about this case or indeed to anyone else. And you are free to refuse to do so. You may wish to take some time to think about whether or not you wish to be interviewed. If you choose to talk, you are in control of what you say. In other words, you may decline to answer certain questions and answer others.

Purely as a matter of convenience for those of you, if any, who may want to talk to the media at this time, a room will be made available for this purpose.

The media who have been regularly covering the case and who are present have represented to the court that they are not likely to otherwise contact any juror who makes himself or herself available in that room to be interviewed and they are also not likely to contact any juror who comes into the room and expresses a wish not to be interviewed.

The media has been ordered not to photograph or film any juror who enters the room without that juror's explicit permission. We will have a bus to take those of you who wish to leave immediately to the parking lot. And a second bus leaving later should any of you choose to go downstairs to the room that's been set aside.

You can choose to walk to your car if you wish. I do, however, expect that there will be a large contingent of media and others in the front of the courthouse. Many with cameras. So you should be aware that if you opt to walk outside the front door, you are likely to be approached and/or photographed.

If you choose to talk today or at any future time, please consider that your deliberations were conducted in secret in order to encourage free, open, and candid debate in reaching a verdict. As one United States Supreme Court justice wrote in a decision, freedom of debate might be stifled and independence of thought checked if jurors were made to feel that their arguments and ballots were to be freely published to the world.

Given the strong interest in the freedom and independence of jury deliberations, even if you choose to talk to the media, you may refuse to disclose what went on in the jury room and may well think it better and more prudent to decline to discuss what occurred in the jury room. I strongly urge but do not order you to keep the contents of the jury's deliberations private and confidential and not to discuss what anyone in the jury room may have said.

I'll be back to talk to you a little more informally in a few moments. Thank you.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: All rise.

[10:30:06] COSTELLO: All right. As you heard, Aaron Hernandez guilty of all counts but that most important guilty verdict coming down on the first-degree murder charge.