Return to Transcripts main page

Legal View with Ashleigh Banfield

Henry Rayhons Acquited; Discussing the Tsarnaev Sentencing Phase. Aired 12:30-1p ET

Aired April 24, 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] JOE JOHNS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: ... discipline certain officers and ask them questions when they want too.

So that's a continuing concern in the state Randi.

RANDI KAYE, CNN HOST: Yeah, certainly a lot of frustration there as well.

Thank you very much Joe Johns in Baltimore for us.

And next hour we expect to have a live news conference from the Mayor of Baltimore Stephanie Rawlings-Blake we'll bring that to you live when it happens right here on CNN.

And developments today from another police-involved death this one in Dallas Texas, Jason Harrison was fatally shot by officers last June at his home.

Harrison's mother called police saying schizophrenic son needed help getting to a hospital.

While a body camera recorded the shooting after police shouted at Harrison to drop a screwdriver that he was holding.

And here is the development now. A grand jury has decided not to indict the two officers involved in that shooting. They will not face charges. The two policemen involved still face a wrongful death lawsuit they'll file it by Harrison's family.

His wife was diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease put in a nursing home. And a week later she died.

Henry Rayhons was arrested and accused of sexually assaulting her. This week a jury found him not guilty and he joins us with his reaction to that verdict next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KAYE: After three days the deliberations of verdict in the case of 78 year old man charged with sexually abusing his wife, Donna, an Alzheimer's patient, at her nursing home.

A doctor declared that she was unable to consent to sex due to her dementia.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We the jury find the defendant Henry Rayhons not guilty.

(OFF-MIKE)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I will excuse you to the jury room at this time.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[12:35:04] KAYE: Henry Rayhons stays up to 10 years in prison if he was convicted. And after the verdict he told reporters his children kept him going throughout this case.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What was their support like throughout the trial and stressor what this was like for you?

HENRY RAYHONS, ACQUITTED OF SEXUALLY ABUSING WIFE: It was all something, they were right at my side all the time. And it was something.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What were your thoughts when the verdict - what were your immediate thoughts?

RAYHONS: The truth finally came out.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Let's go home dad.

RAYHONS: Yeah it was so...

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KAYE: Joining me now from the Des Moine Iowa is Henry Rayhons along with his attorney Joel Yunek.

Nice to see both of you. Henry how difficult has this trial been for you?

RAYHONS: Well it has been very difficult because of the fact that it hurt me terribly to see my wife pass away also. And to see to wife take the problem that she had so seriously.

KAYE: And you said I believe it, but your wife was with you throughout this trial. Did you feel that?

RAYHONS: Yes I and certainly did because of the fact that of the things that I said and the things I done during the trial. I felt she was right by me at all the time.

KAYE: And what about the community how was the community reacted there to this case?

RAYHONS: The community then sent us (ph) speak to me, I was uptown just this morning and the momentum has just change from -- hoping that the things turn out well to just congratulating me. And they said they knew this was a truth all the time and they're just so happy for us.

KAYE: And Joel I think a lot of people, you know, they look at this case and some of them are surprise I mean do you think that the prosecutor without of line in bringing this case to trial to begin with?

JOEL YUNEK, RAYHONS DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well personally it was quite offensive to me. My mother had Alzheimer's in fact just last week and past away and not from Alzheimer's but from just major lay (ph) of disease.

But it just seemed to me like it was out of line personally. And she could not be disquieted even though the evidence really wasn't very much in her favor and off she went so.

KAYE: And Henry tell me a little bit more about your wife. What was she like?

RAYHONS: My wife was farm girl. You're asking about Donna I'm sure. My wife was a lady that love -- she wanted to be loved, she love the community, she love my family and she was a lady that was very strong in faith. And she just wanted to be together with somebody and be loved.

She love the farm, but she love also her family and my family also.

KAYE: And at the end of her life, where there moments of clarity for her?

RAYHONS: Yes, some of the last words she said "Tell Henry I love him very much."

YUNEK: And that was like two months after the alleged event.

KAYE: And Joel let me ask you, what was...

YUNEK: Not actually.

KAYE: Joel what was your concern if Henry had been found guilty obviously that would've been the turn out that you wanted. But what was your greater concern in terms of the big picture?

YUNEK: Well you're right I mean, as far as Henry was concerned he, this is name clearing thing. He could not go to trial once the allegation was made.

You can imagine that, you know, how his reputation suffered as a result. So there was no never any doubt that he had to go to trail and go the hallway.

Now, you know, the state allege this was a force call (ph) felony which is an automatic prison sentence. And for a guy whose 78 years old could very well spend a lot rest of his life in prison.

So I had tremendous responsibility to Henry Rayhons.

KAYE: Yeah absolutely. Well listen you did something right, because here he is today talking with us along with you.

So thank you very much both Henry Rayhons and Joel Yunek, appreciate it.

Not even the prosecution could deny Henry Rayhons loved his wife. Should this case have even gone to trial? What can you do to make your wishes known if something happens to you?

We'll have a legal panel weigh in next.

[12:39:42] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KAYE: Welcome back we just heard from Henry Rayhons, whose 78 year old man acquitted of sexually abusing his wife who suffering from dementia. She was in a nursing home.

Let's discuss the presented his trial has set with our legal experts HLN Legal Analyst Joey Jackson and Prosecutor and Former Defense Attorney Wendy Patrick.

Good to see you guys.

JOEY JACKSON, HLN LEGAL ANALYST: Good to see you.

KAYE: All right, so Joey to you first on this one. So what do you think, I mean it's just strange case, should've ever have gone to trial.

JACKSON: No way. It was amazing and I don't know whether the esteemed Wendy Patrick agrees with me. The prosecutor she is. But it also very sympathetic case, it really is.

And look just to get this out the way, no means no doesn't matter whether your wife, not your wife would have you but when you have two people like this they found love together again together in 2007 they became married by all accounts they were smithing with each other, you know, the testimony also was established when he went there.

KAYE: No doubt he loves this woman.

JACKSON: Exactly and she loved him.

KAYE: Right.

JACKSON: Right and they was so old nursing staff that they were just bonded together, they were beautiful together.

And so have the adult children stepped in and of course they want to protect the mom but to have the insinuation that there was -- they were sex that was not consented to and otherwise he abuse someone he loved.

It was very troubling and the jury agrees he acquitted it's a good day in America, a better day in Iowa.

KAYE: So do you think it should've gone to trial?

WENDY PATRICK, PROSECUTOR: Well this was a case not about forced sex and not even about of consent but about the capacity to consent.

And so that was the legal issue at trial. And the prosecutor did all they could to really make that clear to the jury.

The other thing I think that was a challenge for them is what happened behind that curtain. Remember if -- they have to prove the sex acts in order for it to be sexual abuse.

The wife's roommates says she hear something that made her uncomfortable. But she doesn't peak.

KAYE: Right. We don't actually know that they have sex.

JACKSON: She said she heard something not necessarily something...

[12:45:02] PATRICK: Something that made her uncomfortable. And, you know, so who knows what she heard. So there was sort of a double whammy of challenges facing this prosecution. Sure it's the most sympathetic defendant you can imagine.

And we've got the issue of what really happened between man and wife...

KAYE: Right.

PATRICK: ...behind that curtain.

JACKSON: Right.

KAYE: So, Joey, I mean what kind of standard, though, do you think there should be in terms of consent, you know, in cases like this?

JACKSON: I certainly think you want to protect people who have dementia. But the science apparently, Randi, is inconclusive as to whether or not they have the capacity or don't have the capacity to consent, and that's a problem. And then also, of course, the defense expert testified that they still want and have the desire to be sexually intimate and are able to express that.

And so, on the one hand, while you certainly want to protect people who can't consent, on the other hand you don't want to hold people accountable who love, care, respect, and cherish each other and shouldn't go to jail over that, madam prosecutor.

PATRICK: But then we've got the additional issue of who monitors this type of activity? The practical reality of, sure, we've got this issue of consent, who decides when you're no longer able to give consent is it a doctor, is it law enforcement, is it a judge?

And then for nursing homes, I mean the poor nursing homes, so how were they supposed to monitor what's going on with the patient and their loved ones? I mean, there's a privacy aspect to all of this, as well.

KAYE: Well, what kind doctors who are actually qualified to determine if someone can't consent?

PATRICK: That's right. And that's why what you pointed out earlier is so important. It's precedent setting.

This is a case of what we call first impression. We're usually talking about sexual consent on a college campus or a date rape situation and not in nursing home, where it's a loving relationship. And they were newly weds. They were married less than seven years.

KAYE: Right, he's going to see her.

PATRICK: Yes.

KAYE: I mean he's going to visit her because he loves her, right?

PATRICK: Right. So at what point did she lose the capacity to consent? That was the prosectors said.

JACKSON: And a critical, of course, there was some document that brought him unnoticed and gave him notice that apparently she lost the ability to consent because the doctor had dims her unable to consent.

KAYE: Right. But now he says he didn't think that was an order that you can't do it. He said it was just a recommendation that he shouldn't be doing that.

JACKSON: He said a lot of things.

KAYE: Right. And then on top of it was conflicting.

JACKSON: And testify for three and half hours. And I think he was very emotional in his testimony. And I think the jury got...

KAYE: Very sympathetic. I mean...

PATRICK: ...help her.

KAYE: You think that helped him quite a bit getting on that stand?

PATRICK: Absolutely. I mean jurors are human beings. So it's kind of the issue where even they have believed something happened, they couldn't agree on what happened. And even if they did believed, there was some kind of sexual activity.

The issue of consent is so difficult. It's hard enough when you got two, you know, two people...

KAYE: Right.

PATRICK: ... it's even tougher when you're not exactly sure what happened, much less what did she consent.

KAYE: So, you think we're going to see more cases like this? JACKSON: What I think well say, back to Wendy Patrick's point, is a monitoring from a nursing home perspective. And now it's sort of does not really those standards that are in place to deal with this. They sort of, you know, look the other way.

I think what you'll see is, perhaps, nursing homes have better rules, better regulations, people unnoticed with this.

KAYE: So, how do you monitor. You can't...

JACKSON: That's the other issue.

(CROSSTALK)

KAYE: You can have a camera.

PATRICK: Exactly.

KAYE: And so, if somebody who, you know, visit the -- their visitor or accompanied by somebody from the nursing home.

JACKSON: I think they'll just be, you know, rules that have clear to all parties that are concern, but you're husbands and wives. And your later years, you know what, nursing homes are reality. And I think that people should be able who love each other, enjoy each other no matter the setting as long as it's consensual...

PATRICK: That's right. This case is going to be followed so closely, and that's why we're giving you that much place. We are as it with an aging population you know we're going to see another one of this before too long.

KAYE: Yeah.

JACKSON: Would you prosecute it, Ms. Patrick?

PATRICK: It would depend on the fact, right? You know, you never going to get a straight answer out of me. I'll tell you what, though, I would want. And this is also that she'd passed away.

KAYE: Yeah.

PATRICK: You know, months before he was charged.

JACKSON: Right.

PATRICK: So we don't even have the benefit of knowing...

KAYE: Right.

PATRICK: ...you know, what she would say.

KAYE: That all around, but...

(CROSSTALK)

KAYE: Very interesting case though, of course.

PATRICK: I don't know.

KAYE: There she goes. All right, Wendy, Joey, good to see you guys. Thank you both very much.

On Monday Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's defense will call witnesses to try to convince the jury to spare his life. His attorney, a famed opponent of the death penalty, by the way, how will she explain this image, the lack of remorse?

The legal view on Tsarnaev's defense just ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:52:49] KAYE: Authorities in Chile are warning the volcano known as the Calbuco may erupt again. Here's the spectacular show that we put on the other night, viewing ash and rock into the sky for miles. Just look at that. Nearly 4,500 people who lived in and around the crater have been evacuated fortunately no reports of injuries from the falling debris.

Retired General David Petraeus, a widely crazed military commander, appeared in Charlotte Court Thursday. Petraeus admitted that he gave his biographer and lover Paula Broadwell sensitive classified information.

Petraeus was fined $100,000 and given two-years probation but he did avoid a jail sentence in plea deal. David Petraeus was force to step down as director of the CIA after his affair became public.

A jury in Manhattan is deliberating for an eight day in the case of a man accused of killing this boy, Etan Patz. The 6-year old went missing in 1979 while walking to a school bus stop. His disappearance launching nationwide effort to help police find missing children starting with pictures on milk cartons.

Prosecutors say 54-year old Pedro Hernandez confess to killing the boy. Through the boy's body has never been found.

While defense lawyers say the confession was coerced, and Hernandez is actually innocent.

The case for death has been made on Monday. The case for life begins.

The prosecution in the Boston Bombing Trial wrapped up yesterday by showing a video of 8-year old Martin Richard reaching for his mother as he lay dying after having his body blown up by Dzhokhar Tsarnaev.

It kept the case that had victims described the pain, fear and lost that was inflected on them by Dzhokhar and his brother Tamerlan.

On Monday, the defense will try to convince this Jury who has already found him guilty to hand down a sentence of life in prison instead of executing him. Defense attorney and HLN Legal Analyst Joey Jackson and Former Prosecutor Defense Attorney and CNN Legal Analyst Paul Callan are here with me.

Boy, it's a mouthful almost out there. All right. So...

JACKSON: ... many things.

KAYE: Why it's just so many things. Exactly. So, first of all, I mean we now know that this is all going to start on Monday with the defense. We saw a handful of Tsarnaev's family members coming -- arriving yesterday. We don't know if they're going to testify. But how effective is that, I guess, these character witnesses in a case like this?

[12:55:06] JACKSON: You know, it really depends, but why, Randi, because this is such a compelling case that has impacted and gripped so many people, people throughout the country, people who feel a partnership with Boston and just an alliance with Boston and being Boston strong, simply because what they went through.

You add that, of course, to the case that was put forth by the prosecution in the aggravation phase and talking about the victims, the impact upon the victim's family, the lives lost, the carnage, and not only the lives, Randi, but the people who now suffer in so many ways that we can't even imagine because of lost of the limbs.

And so, it's going to be very difficult case, not withstanding any character witnesses or other evidence...

KAYE: Yeah.

JACKSON: ...or the mitigators...

PAUL CALLAN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Let me get back to the character. I think the character witness thinks very, very interesting because frequently it backfires when you call a character witness. You put somebody on the stand and they say, "Oh, he's a wonderful person. You know, he's a college student and he was studying hard," and then, you know, what the prosecutor's cross examination is, "Well, by the way, did you know he was making a pipe bomb in his dormitory room?"

JACKSON: Right.

CALLAN: If you knew he was making a pipe bomb that he was going to use to kill an 8-year old child, do you think he would have good character then? Well how does a character witness hold up under that cross? It backfires.

So, I wouldn't expect to see them making and scoring a lot of points with the character witnesses.

JACKSON: Unless, Randi, that -- one of the things that the statute provides for is the background. And so, sometimes people who know you can speak to not only who you are and who they know you to be, but what have you gone through in the past that has affected your life... KAYE: Right.

JACKSON: ... in such a dramatic way. So what is it in your background that would have been so compelling as to maybe make you into the person that you are. And I think that may be the defense is focus as supposed to saying, was he a good guy, was he...

CALLAN: I agree.

KAYE: Right, right.

JACKSON: That's not really...

KAYE: At least in this case.

JACKSON: That's not really the character evidence. That is more of background.

CALLAN: Absolutely.

JACKSON: Biographical information.

KAYE: What about the idea of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev taking the stand, I mean he's going to ask by the judge if he understands that and he can address the court that he has that option?

If he really wanted to die, I mean, do you expect that he -- which is what he said in that note that he left in the boat, when he was captured, do you think he's going to get up on the stand and say that?

JACKSON: I really do not. I don't think he'll get on the stand at all. I think, certainly, it would be counterproductive from a defense perspective to put him on. Because whenever you put your client on, particularly someone like him, you know, it's sort of goes against the notion of your case. What if he's a lose cannon? What if he's not on board with the defenses theory? What if he doesn't express remorse? What if that picture of him, we've seen it, Randi, a number of times with the middle finger, what if it's more of that? And so, it'll be counterproductive to their case.

Furthermore, what would he say, they'll be so compelling is to have the jury spare his life and what he want his life today.

KAYE: Because they already found him guilty.

JACKSON: Absolutely.

KAYE: I mean this wasn't very hard.

CALLAN: I think, so that the jury wants to hear from him. And, you know, the biggest argument against the death penalty here is that you know something, let's give him life in a super max prison, that's worst than death, all right? Well, if that's true, then why does he didn't get on the witness stand and ask for death if, in fact, that's what he wants? And I think that discussion will take place in the jury room and people may wonder why didn't he take the stand and ask for death if staying in prison is the worst punishment?

Well, I don't know. You know, sometimes, there's a procedure that you use, where simply a narrative statement is made by the defendant not subject to cross examination...

JACKSON: An allocution.

CALLAN: I think -- an allocution. I think you have nothing to lose. You can put your client on in that situation. But depending upon how extensive they want his testimony to be, it may not apply here.

KAYE: What about come Monday when his Defense Attorney Judy Clarke, I mean she's certainly very successful like at keeping her client off the death row, what do she have to do starting Monday?

JACKSON: You know, she really has to make it a mitigation case. What is the case to spare his life? What is it?

And of course, the statute lays out, Randi, a number of factors. Was his role minor? Was he controlled by someone else? Was he under the rest? Was there something in his background that made him who he was, or made him commit this act?

And so, she really has to make the case that perhaps his role was minimal, perhaps he was controlled, I just don't that that'll be enough. Now that's not the suggests he'll get death because maybe, as Paul Callan suggest, the jury says, "You know, it may be life in jail is worst than the death penalty."

KAYE: Right, especially he wanted death. A lot of the survivors certainly want him to get...

(CROSSTALK)

CALLAN: But, you know, getting back to Judy Clarke, a highly regarded, considered maybe the top death penalty defense lawyer in the country, but when I looked at her track record, she seems to be most effective at scaring prosecutors into taking pleas and giving life sentences. I don't see a lot of acquittals by juries in her cases.

And I think in this case, when we're sending American soldiers into harms way, to hunt down terrorist abroad, how can a jury, in this case, say when they have one sitting in a court room...

KAYE: Because they've already found guilty.

CALLAN: ... we're going to give him life instead.

KAYE: Right, right.

CALLAN: So, I think it's a tough argument in front of the jury, but, of course, Massachusetts is a jurisdiction opposes the penalty so. KAYE: All right, great discussion. And thank you both, Paul Callan, Joey Jackson. Nice to see you guys again.

[13:00:01] And thank you very much for watching everyone. I'm Randi Kaye. Wolf starts right now.