Return to Transcripts main page

Legal View with Ashleigh Banfield

Former Iowa Legislator Charged With Sexually Abusing His Wife While In A Nursing Home; Deal On Human Trafficking Law And Attorney General Confirmation Shaping Up On Capitol Hill; New York Supreme Court Justice May Rule That Chimpanzees Have Similar Rights To Human Beings; Listeria Alert On Blue Bell Ice Cream. Aired 12:30-1p

Aired April 21, 2015 - 12:30   ET

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

[12:30:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ASHLEIGH BANFIELD, CNN HOST: A jury in Iowa deliberating a very difficult and emotional case that we first told you about here yesterday, 78-year-old former legislator there, Henry Rayhons, has been charged with sexually abusing his own wife while she was in a nursing home.

Now at that time, Mrs. Rayhons has Alzheimer's. Her doctor says that she was not capable of consenting to sex. Henry Rayhons denies anything ever happened that night that was anything close to what they're alleging.

In closing arguments, the prosecution said the case isn't about the love that they shared, it's about whether or not Rayhons took advantage of his wife.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SUSAN KRISCO, PROSECUTOR: I bet somebody says, "Oh, but I just (inaudible) you know, he got up there and he loved her, OK. But why does that mean he's not responsible for his own actions. Everyone that actually knew the woman that is not related to the defendant, but she didn't have any ability.

JOEL YUNEK, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Donna is still Donna she's not there but there's parts of her that are there, and to say that those parts should be disregarded is just -- is just playing (ph) wrong.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BANFIELD: Donna Rayhons ended up dying actually last August and then her husband was arrested shortly after her death.

And I want to bring in the legal view on this. CNN legal Analyst Danny Cevallos and Paul Callan.

Three's so much to this story that is just so difficult to wrap your head around, the science behind what the doctors are saying. But there's also this closing argument where the defense is saying, "You could set precedent here jury. If you do something to this man, you could set a precedent for every single person who wants to go in and visit his or her spouse in a nursing home or something of the like." Is that fair to say that kind of thing to a jury?

PAUL CALLAN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: No, it's not and usually judges, sanction attorneys who do that. You're supposed to be only deciding the case in front of you.

BANFIELD: Not the law.

CALLAN: And not suggesting that it's going to affect human behavior elsewhere.

BANFIELD: Yeah.

CALLAN: So, you know, I think that's a wrong statement. But of course this is a point and difficult case but it shows how things in this country and other places have changed. You know, women at one time were considered to be the property of men.

They had to consent to having sexual relations whether they were incompetent or not. And of course, the law is changed on that now and you can't -- if you have somebody who is mentally incapacitated whether it's your wife or not, there still has to be consent or its criminal on the exiting law.

BANFIELD: OK, and that's where we get to the argument that really, whether this case sort of comes down, Danny, and that is the consent and what one doctor says is not possible, and what other doctors said in that courtroom is absolutely possible, that one doctor told Mr. Rayhons, "You may not have sex -- sexual relations with her because can't consent."

[12:35:11] Well, his experts came in and said, "Consent comes in all sorts of different ways. It's not necessarily verbal. Someone with Alzheimer's can be very loving and can feel those feelings like anyone else.

DANNY CEVALLOS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: We like to think medical science is just that a hard science with absolute answers. But it's not the case and nowhere is it less the case than the study of neurology, the study of the brain and the deterioration of the brain.

So defining consent in a situation like this is not an easy thing to do and simply because one doctor and remember, the facts in this case are essentially the place, the nursing doesn't have a policy on sex. One doctor went to a husband and said --

BANFIELD: You can't do that.

CEVALLOS: "You may not have sex." Here I am as a doctor telling you what you can do with your wife and what she's able to do, whereas the husband probably thinks, "Well, I know her better and I know her once I can understand what she is communicating," maybe he had a different view of what consent was.

BANFIELD: Well then, where does the law come down on this? And Paul, jump in here and tell me where the law comes down because one doctor told Mr. Rayhons she can't consent. I don't believe her to be capable of consent so you may not have sex with her. Does the law just agree with the doctor? The doctor can say anything and that is the law?

CALLAN: No, no, the judge has to permit the doctor to testify, meaning that the doctor is qualified to give an expert opinion. And then another doctor comes in and gives a different expert opinion, and the judges --

BANFIELD: But the whole case came down on the fact that the doctor told him he couldn't do it and he did it anyway, the allegation says. Who is the doctor to tell anybody whether they can or can't do something?

CALLAN: Well, it depends on whether he has expertise as to whether she was so incapacitated that she could not consent. It's really not that different from let's say at one of these fraternity parties where a girl who's totally intoxicated is raped by -- because she's unconscious.

BANFIELD: But I think many doctors would all say if she can't wake up, she's incapacitated and yet there are other doctors who may have even worked at that facility who never looked at Mrs. Rayhons.

CALLAN: But some people -- some doctors might -- but some doctors might say the woman is incapacitated at 1-5 on the meter. Others might say, "Well, it's at 2-8."

BANFIELD: But Danny, one doctor weighed in. Only one doctor weighed in and Mr. Rayhons therefore is supposed to go on his word and his word alone or the police will come and charge him. I'm just trying to get the idea, who has the right to establish where the law start?

CEVALLOS: Yeah, diagnostically speaking, it's difficult because you could make the argument that just because she test positive on an Alzheimer's test that has to do a lot with memory. And other experts might say that memory has very little to do with someone's consent or their needs or their wants or desires. Those are more primal, but now we're giving into an area of science that is so underdeveloped --

BANFIELD: Murky.

CEVALLOS: ... that part of it is so high level and underdeveloped that it leaves us wondering what do we even know about the human brain.

BANFIELD: Yeah, yeah. Well, it will be fascinating to see what this jury decides and what will effectively be a battle of the experts case for many of them.

But we're going to continue to watch this case story so that we do get the results. We'll talk about what that result means if it really is so precedent setting as that defense attorney said.

Danny, Paul, thank you.

I got this little piece of news for you: not since Ronald Reagan was in the White House has a nominee for attorney general had to wait so long for a Senate confirmation. 165 days and counting but now it looks like this woman, Loretta Lynch, is finally about to get her day in front of the voters, that would be the voters who will decide if she can be the AG or not.

We're learning of a deal on Capitol Hill on a human trafficking bill that has really been standing in the way of the confirmation process, the hold up with all about abortion language complex, yes, but it safe to say the vote should be coming soon. Stay tuned to this case (ph).

He is 93, a former Nazi SS guard known as the "Bookkeeper of Auschwitz." And at his trial today, it is expected to be one of the final trials for Nazi war crimes. He admitted he is morally guilty.

Oskar Groening said he didn't actively participate in the murder of at least 300,000 Jews at the concentration camp. His job, to count the money, confiscate it from all of those new arrival at the prison. If he's convicted, he could face 3 to 15 years in prison. He is 93 as I said.

An American teenager who helped her boyfriend stop her mother's dead body into a suitcase at a beautiful hotel in Bali has now been sentenced to 10 years behind bars.

Nineteen-year-old Heather Mack gave birth to a daughter just weeks ago. But now she's been found guilty alongside her 21-year-old boyfriend of murdering her mother last August, and under Indonesian law, she is allowed to keep her baby with her in prison for two years. But then she's going to have to figure out who's going to take custody of that baby. It won't be the boyfriend, he's locked up, and it won't be her mother because she's dead.

[12:40:03] Human rights no longer apply exclusively to humans it turns out. Chimps are people too so to speak. That according to New York State Supreme Court, or is it? This is pretty confusing but it is fascinating. Be sure to hang around for the details that's coming up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BANFIELD: OK, well this is really a first and I'm -- I feel real fair in saying in that, the New York Court has said that chimpanzees have some of the same rights as you and I do.

It's a case about two chimps Hercules and Leo. They're being housed at a research facility at Stony Brook University and that's located right there on your map in Long Island.

But animal rights groups wants them freed and sent to something safer like a sanctuary in Florida. Their case being heard by New York Supreme Court Justice Barbara Jaffe.

After a petition from an animal rights group, Justice Jaffe did something unusual. Hasn't been done before. She ordered the University's lawyers to come in to court in May and explain themselves, explain the legal basis for the chimpanzee's detention, basically why they should continued to be held. Habeas corpus thing and I know that's fancy Latin but effectively it produced the body. Legal analyst Paul Callan and Danny Cevallos are both here.

So everybody is sort of throwing these headlines off on television and in the newspaper thinks chimps are people too. The human rights have now applied to chimps. Is that what this order effectively you're saying or is it something a little more complicated than that?

CALLAN: Well this doesn't say that, all these judge has said is, I'm going to give you a hearing on the issue of whether a chimp can be recognized as a person under the law in New York.

And in prior cases lawyers have gone into court and they said chimps are self aware, they are intelligent, they're autonomous, they have a lot of the things that normal people do. And by the way we recognize corporations as people. If you leave all your money to your dog we setup a trust and the dog can inherit the money. So maybe chimps are person.

[12:45:14] BANFIELD: So Danny why hasn't this happened before, plenty of people have tried to do this sort of thing before only to be told by court "I'm sorry this is an animal, these courts are for people and corporations."

CEVALLOS: If at first you don't succeed, try again. And that's exactly what the petition has done in this case.

They have lost in other courts. They are now trying again and we have to make clear that this order to show cause. I don't think although legal minds could disagree. I don't think it goes so far as to explicitly recognize that chimps are humans for purposes of habeas corpus.

Instead an order to show cause is basically saying you show up in court, this petition are says A, B and C about you. Why don't you show up in court and tell us why it's not true.

So I don't think it goes so far as some of the historic recognition of human rights for chimps. After all if you do believe that's what this is, you maybe in for a rude surprise if a judge ultimately says after this hearing that you have not met any burden, this case dismissed.

BANFIELD: Yeah, sometime -- I mean listen we -- it's not as though we haven't seen cases involving animals and animal rights activist in court before I covered the case with the elephants in the circus it went all the way to the Supreme Court.

But effectively the animals don't come out so well. And often times the argument is, they don't understanding, they're not people, you can't bring eradicate habeas corpus for an animal.

But yet this one just seems different. I get it, I get it, its just coming university and tell us why they should be detained. But can you effectively detain an animal or is detention only for people. CALLAN: It's only for people under the U.S. constitution and pretty much under the constitutions of all the states persons are corporations and people never animals. Now you could --

BANFIELD: What do you think is going to happen here?

CALLAN: Well I think it's going to get thrown out after the hearing.

BANFIELD: Why would she bother doing this, if it's just a fate of complain (ph)?

CALLAN: Well that's a great question, I really don't know why she would've grant at a hearing in this. Obviously --

BANFIELD: If you were the attorney for this group, would you be thrilled right now Danny?

CEVALLOS: Of course it's your first real victory. And you feel like you have a fighting chance. But it might be their last because just as Paul says, you know, being personhood itself, is we get personhood to different corporations things like that. But humanity is sort of been a last reserve area. I don't think judges at least in this time at this moment are ready to grant that to the animals.

BANFIELD: Yeah, look at its fantastic, it's been incredible story and I cannot wait to see what language is used and whatever happens we'll certainly follow it.

Thanks Paul, thank you. Thank you.

Coming up next, a listeria alert Blue Bell ice cream now pulling all everyone of its products off the shelf. Every single store, every single state, this is big, find out why.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:51:26] BANFIELD: More than 5 million hens are said to be euthanized after bird flu was detected at the commercial egg-laying facility in Northwest Iowa.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture says close to 8 million cases of bird flu have been detected in 13 states. And that's just since December. More than 7 million of those cases have been confirmed just this month.

Health official there is little to no risk though for transmission to people.

Blue Bell Creameries is pulling all of its products off of store shelves after several of its plants tested positive for listeria. And just now the CDC has weighed in recommending that consumers do not eat any Blue Bell brand product. That serious. They also said the listeria outbreak that prompted Blue Bell Creameries to recall their entire product line dates back to 2010.

Health officials say three people have now died and seven others have become sick from that same bacteria strain that may have come from Blue Bell products.

Blue Bell started recalling some of the product last month and then recalled more earlier this month.

Cristina Alesci, she is covering this story and for the legal view I've got Defense Attorney and CNN Legal Analyst Danny Cevallos.

So first to you Cristina this is massive.

CRISTINA ALESCI, CNN CORRESPONDENT: It is, it's really unusual for a company to go ahead and recall its entire product line. And it's because the company doesn't really know how the listeria got into its plants in the first place that its probably taking this really unusual step just to put this into context though because I've been covering these recalls.

We had seen a little bit of an uptake in recalls tied to listeria. Just this past year we've had at least eight companies recall products for listeria and that maybe because the CDC here we go Sabra and Amy's right there.

Sabra hummus and Amy's had the issue recalls just in a couple of months --

BANFIELD: Yeah, I thought it was just two weeks ago.

ALESCI: Exactly.

BANFIELD: I had in my fridge --

ALESCI: Good move.

BANFIELD: Yeah, I love the stuff.

ALESCI: So one of the reasons that might had have happened is because the CDC and the FDA actually teamed up about a year ago to sequence the genome of listeria to better identify the foodborne illness. So that's why --

BANFIELD: I thought it maybe ID.

ALESCI: Exactly.

BANFIELD: And what an ID that they need because we're talking about different periods of time as well.

ALESCI: Yup, stating back to 2010 these people were sick got sick back in 2010 just no one knew why or just how they got a listeria until just, you know, in March when this stuff started coming out.

BANFIELD: So Danny Cevallos, I want you to jump in on this conversation as well because what's intriguing about the case is that it seems to focus on five people in Kansas right now who all were patients being treated at the same hospital for different reasons and they all ate at least some kind of ice cream whether it was an milk shake or another ice cream product at that hospital. I think they say one of the five maybe they're not sure of it this point but definitely four. So is that just sort of a case waiting to happen or could you make the case that maybe the hospital has something to do with this particular problem and not maybe the other issues that Cristina was outlined?

CEVALLOS: You have prove causation and causation is not as simple a concept as it sounds because you have to show that was the direct cause and more than that if something else cause it even though there may have been something. You can ingest something bad but maybe that had nothing at all to do with you becoming sick.

But -- and you should know that in these food cases there are many different theories of liability which is why they are very potable to plaintiffs attorneys, you have negligence theories, you have a bridgeable warranty theory and you have strict products liability causes of action.

[12:55:05] BANFIELD: Yeah.

CEVALLOS: All of which exist independently and all of which make this very appetizing cases part in the fun for big tort lawyers.

BANFIELD: What is so interesting about, it was all the chocolate chip cookie dough, ice cream that they were eating. And I just kept wondering could it possibly be coincidence that this instance in this hospital might have been the blender, might have been something else and it just so happens that Blue Bell also have these other instances or is the strain so accurate.

ALESCI: ... that's how I'm going to say the evidence here is really strong. The CDC and the FDA are saying the same exact strand of the bacteria that was in the patients was also found in the ice cream.

And, you know, I mean to your point it doesn't show causation necessarily but.

CEVALLOS: It could.

ALESCI: It could and --

CEVALLOS: It's a good step.

ALESCI: There's a very positive link there.

BANFIELD: I think you have to argue pretty darn hard though and you certainly get some great defense in there. And what is that even happens I think Blue Bell is probably going to be very proactive in trying to get rid of this issue.

ALESCI: This should been a 100 year old company and I hear that in Texas it's a pride of its state.

BANFIELD: We'll continue to watch the story and find out what happens with it. Thank you to both of you, we appreciate it and thank you to you as well it's so nice to have you here with us this hour. Stay tuned my colleague Wolf Blitzer starts right after this quick break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:00:09] WOLF BLITZER, CNN HOST: Hello I'm Wolf Blitzer.