Return to Transcripts main page

Legal View with Ashleigh Banfield

Prison Worker Pleads Guilty; Trump Aide Under Fire; Missing Teen Boaters; Disabled Worker Program. Aired 12-12:30p ET

Aired July 28, 2015 - 12:00   ET

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

[12:00:00] JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: Randi Kaye today, starts right now.

ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.

RANDI KAYE, CNN ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, I'm Randi Kaye, in for Ashleigh Banfield today. Welcome to LEGAL VIEW.

We begin now with some breaking news about a former New York prison worker accused of helping in a daring escape. Joyce Mitchell has just pleaded guilty to charges of helping two convicted killers bust out of a maximum security prison last month. She appeared to be in tears as she waived her right to a grand jury hearing and accepted a plea deal. A massive manhunt ended in late June when police shot and killed Richard Matt and recaptured David Sweat.

Let's go live to CNN's Alexandra Field outside the courthouse in Plattsburgh, New York.

Alexandra, what are the terms of the plea deal?

ALEXANDRA FIELD, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Randi, she has pled guilty to the two charges she was initially arraigned on, the felony charge of promoting prison contraband and the misdemeanor charge of criminal facilitation. This means that she would be sentences to some two to seven years in prison on the first charge, another year in county jail to be served concurrently on the second charge.

But the reason behind this is that this protects her from other charges that could have been lodged as a result of the investigation that's been ongoing for two months now. The district attorney saying that he will not pursue charges against her on that conspiracy to commit murder of her husband Lyle Mitchell. This would also protect her against charges based on sexual allegations. We know that investigators have looked into possible sexual relationships with Richard Matt and David Sweat. This would also protect her against further charges related to promoting prison contraband.

Randi, we saw Joyce Mitchell come into the courtroom today in that striped jump suit. She was uncuffed so she could sign the waiver which kept this from going to a grand jury where further charges could have been added. She was tearful at points and her husband, Lyle Mitchell, was also inside the courtroom staring pretty intently at his wife. We didn't really see her at any point, though, turn around to look at him. After the proceedings were complete, we heard from her attorney who

continues to say that she is remorseful, that she has continued to be emotional throughout their meetings. He felt she was actually a bit more composed today in the courtroom than she has been throughout the duration of all of this. But we asked him about why she accepted this deal, why she pled guilty on those two charges, and he said pretty simply, there was overwhelming evidence to implicate her, Randi.

KAYE: Yes, absolutely. And you mentioned this two to seven years. She wasn't actually sentenced today, right, Alexandra, but yet she still goes back to jail?

FIELD: That's right. The judge will have to take a look at the terms of this disposition and then sign off on them. There will be a formal sentencing which would happen in September. Again, we're talking about two to seven years on one charge, another concurrent year on the second charge. But with good behavior, with New York's prison sentencing laws, her attorney is saying that she could ultimately, with good behavior, end up serving something more like two to four years behind bars. But, again, she will have to return to court. The judge has ordered a presentencing investigation where he'll look into the facts of this case.

And also another term of the deal here, perhaps the most important term, Randi, is really that it forces Joyce Mitchell to cooperate with the ongoing investigation that's being conducted by the inspector general's office into what went wrong at that prison. This ensures her cooperation. It is a term of the deal and it could be the most helpful part to investigators as they proceed.

KAYE: Absolutely. She certainly has knowledge.

Alexandra Field, thank you very much.

Let's bring in HLN legal analyst Joey Jackson.

Joey, first to you, your reaction. Two to seven years. What do you think of the sentence?

JOEY JACKSON, HLN LEGAL ANALYST: Sure. You know, I think it makes sense, Randi, from a defense perspective when you're representing someone like that you want to admit culpability. Why? Because as Randi said - excuse me, as Alex said, the reality is they have overwhelming evidence against her. So what are you going to do, take it to trial? And so backing up you see that it never even got to the grand jury. She waved her right to go to the grand jury, entered into a plea, and now it's up to a judge to ultimately impose a sentence that's fair and equitable. But I think it's a good decision to make.

KAYE: And Mitchell's lawyer, Alexandra was referring to him, he said that, you know, she's been sobbing lately, she's been depressed. Listen to exactly what he said after the court hearing.

JACKSON: Sure.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) STEPHEN JOHNSTON, MITCHELL'S ATTORNEY: She got in over her head into something that she never should have started, but she did and she's paying the price now. But she realizes that she made a horrible mistake.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KAYE: So, Joey, how is this whole sentence actually carried out?

JACKSON: So what ends up happening is, first there's what's called a pre-sentence investigation, and that's what happens is, is they do a comprehensive development about your life. What happened? What's your family history? What's your employment history? Do you have any other offenses against you? What was this offense? How many people were impacted? All of that is placed into a report. It takes about 60 days. That's why she'll be back in court on September 28th. And then it's produced into a pre-sentence report.

[12:05:02] That's then given to a judge and it's up to the judge, Randi, to impose sentence. And, remember, when a judge imposes sentence, they're going to be balancing three primary things. They're going to look at punishment, of course. They're going to look at deterrence, because you want to deter anybody else from doing that. And then they're going to look at to the extent to which she could be rehabilitated.

Now everyone may say, give her the max, give her the max, and, you know, I think a lot of people are feeling that way, but you want to balance that if you're a judge against her cooperation because you want to give others incentive in the future to cooperate too. And there has to be some reward for that.

KAYE: And that cooperation then will affect the time she serves, you think?

JACKSON: Absolutely. I think because of the fact she cooperated, certainly her attorney is going to be saying, look, judge, she made a miserable mistake, she's an otherwise law-abiding person, this should haven't have happened, it escalated into something she couldn't even imagine. She was taken advantage of, whether it was love, whether it was something else. Your honor, I would ask that you certainly impose punishment, look at the deterrent factor and obviously she can be rehabilitated. But, judge, the extent that she cooperated, send the message that it's of some value in cooperation, not only to her, but to anyone else who commits an offense that they would cooperate as well and that has to be looked at by the judge.

KAYE: Yes. And you know those communities who were all at risk are going to be watching where this judge takes this for sure.

JACKSON: Absolutely. And millions of dollars searching for them.

KAYE: So much.

JACKSON: It could have ended up so much worse for other people.

KAYE: Yes. All right, Joey Jackson, nice to see you.

JACKSON: And you, Randi, thank you so much.

KAYE: Thank you.

And be sure to tune in tonight for my special report "The Great Prison Escape." Mitchell may seem like an unlikely accomplice, but she was a woman with secrets, as I learned. I sat down with someone who worked with Mitchell, Matt and Sweat at that prison and listen to what he had to say.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ERIC JENSEN, WORKED IN PRISON TAILOR SHOP: She used to keep them back from the mess hall, when we'd go to the mess hall for lunch, and we'd come back to work he'd be there eating all types of fried chicken, barbecued chicken. It was like, you know, that handsome jock on the football team asking the chubby fat girl out on - to the prom.

KAYE: Did people sort of joke? Did people sort of joke about their relationship?

JENSEN: Oh, yes. Yes, we - we all joked. We all joked. We used to call her his boo.

KAYE: His boo?

JENSEN: His boo, as in girlfriend. You know, slang. We used to joke and laugh with him.

KAYE: Did you ever ask him, are you having a relationship with her?

JENSEN: Yes, and he never - he never confirmed it or denied it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KAYE: That's "The Great Prison Escape" coming up tonight only on CNN at 9:00 p.m.

Meanwhile, up next, it is not Donald Trump this time. Instead, it's one of his top aides in the spotlight for an outrageous statement. It has to do with rape.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:10:46] KAYE: The allegation is old and long since disavowed by the woman who made it, but the pushback by a senior aide and surrogate to Donald Trump has fast become a scandal in itself. Michael Cohen is executive vice president of the Trump Organization and at least until today a very busy spokesman for Trump's campaign for president. Cohen took issue with a story posted yesterday in "The Daily Beast" which dredges up a salacious detail in a 1993 Trump biography (INAUDIBLE) that in the mist of their divorce, years earlier, Ivana Trump claimed that Donald once raped her. Before the book was even published, the ex-Mrs. Trump clarified her allegations saying that she hadn't meant rape, quote, "in a literal or criminal sense." All right, fast forward to the present now and Ivana says that the rape story, quote, "is totally without merit." But Cohen went further, threatening, actually threatening "The Beast" with lawsuits and worse and making a totally false assertion. According to "The Beast," Cohen, who is a lawyer, said, "understand that by the very definition, you can't rape your spouse. It is true, you cannot rape your spouse and there's very clear case law."

But it turns out that is 100 percent untrue. Marital rape is a crime in all 50 states, just like rape between non-spouses. So now a different Trump spokesman says that the candidate disagrees with Cohen's comments and a source says nobody but Mr. Trump really speaks for Donald Trump anyway.

All right, my colleague, Athena Jones, is following all of this for us in Washington.

Athena, now late this morning we heard again from Cohen himself. What's he saying this time?

ATHENA JONES, CNN CORRESPONDENT: He did, Randi, and this is getting a lot of attention of course because Trump is leading the Republican pack, the Republican race for the nomination. So anything he says or someone who works for him says is going to get a lot of attention.

Now, after the anger that was sparked by Michael Cohen's comments, he released - Cohen released this statement. I'll read part of it. He said, "rarely am I surprised by the press, but the gall of this particular reporter to make such a reprehensible and false allegation against Mr. Trump truly stunned me. In my moment of shock and anger, I made an inarticulate comment which I do not believe and which I apologize for entirely."

And so you can see there Cohen is apologizing for that erroneous remark about rape, but he's still sticking it to "The Daily Beast" reporter Tim Mak. And as you mentioned, this is a reporter that he threatened to sue. He threatened to sue him and "The Daily Beast" and to ruin his life.

Here is what Tim Mak wrote about his heated exchange with Cohen. He said that Cohen told him, "I will make sure that you and I meet one day while we're in the courthouse and I will take you for every penny you still don't have. And I will come after your 'Daily Beast' and everybody else that you possibly know." So I'm warning you, tread very (EXPLETIVE DELETED) lightly because what I'm going to do to you is going to be (EXPLETIVE DELETED) disgusting. Do you understand me?" So very heated exchange he had with the reporter, which he is not apologizing for.

Now, some folks may be asking, why did this "Daily Beast" reporter even decide to pursue these old rape allegations that even Ivana Trump doesn't stand by. Take a listen to what that reporter Tim Mak told CBS about his motivation here.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) TIM MAK, "THE DAILY BEAST": Well, I think it was important to look into, especially since Donald Trump launched his presidential campaign making insults about Mexican immigrants, saying that they were, quote, "rapists." So it was a little bit relevant to look into his past and see exactly what might have been said about him on that topic in his personal life.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And how did Mr. Trump's lawyer respond when you asked these questions?

MAK: I think it started off a little bit reasonably. They were trying to say that the allegation was not made in a criminal sense, like you mentioned. But then it descended into insults and threats. Threats of lawsuits, telling me to tread lightly and to say that whatever lawsuits that they might file against me would be disgusting. It devolved pretty quickly.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

JONES: So things got ugly fast between the lawyer and that reporter. And, of course, Trump's campaign, as you mentioned, is distancing themselves from Cohen, saying he is not - he does not speak for Mr. Trump. But that hasn't stopped Democrats from piling on, trying to make hay out of this. The chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee calling on Republicans as a group to take a stand and call this despicable.

[12:15:08] So, Randi, another week, another controversy confronting the Trump campaign. We'll see if this hurts him. So far nothing has.

Randi.

KAYE: No, certainly not. All right, Athena Jones, thank you for the update.

Now I want to bring in defense attorney and former New York prosecutor and CNN legal analyst Paul Callan to talk more about this.

So you heard it there. A lot to sort of keep track of. A lot of statements coming back and forth there. But marital rape, as we said, is absolutely illegal now. But that wasn't always the case.

PAUL CALLAN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yes, people should watch the CNN series "The Seventies," particularly the "Sexual Revolution" episode.

KAYE: Yes, they should.

CALLAN: Because it talks about this time period. People forget how radically our vision of how women should be treated has changed. Believe it or not, up until 1983 in New York a woman could not be raped by her husband. If she said no, she had no right to say no because the law viewed her as a piece of property. So that law then changed and said a woman always has the right to consent or not consent to sexual activity. But that was the law in New York as late as 1983. KAYE: Let me share with our viewers the actual court of appeals

decision overturning this marital exemption. It reads, "if a husband feel aggrieved by his wife's refusal to engage in sexual intercourse, he should seek relief in the courts governing domestic relations not in violent or forceful self-help."

CALLAN: Yes. Yes.

KAYE: There it is.

CALLAN: You have it. And things have radically changed, of course, since then and, you know, as we really changed our view about these things.

KAYE: Yes, absolutely. So let me ask you, if the details in this 1993 biography that we mentioned are true and those do include what the writer says, hair pulling, other things that we won't even repeat here including some restraint, is that just in the legal sense rape?

CALLAN: Well, no. I don't think it would be. And I think we have to be crystal clear about something else, too. There's no way that a rape charge could ever be brought against Mr. Trump now because Ivana Trump, his former wife, has said it didn't happen.

KAYE: Right.

CALLAN: Trump has said it didn't happen. And there will be no physical or forensic evidence available.

Now, if you -

KAYE: Even then she changed it to feeling violated, not feeling raped.

CALLAN: That's right. And now if you pull her hair, if you strike her, that's a form of domestic violence that could be actionable if it could be proven. And I'm not - she's denying it, so how would you prove it? So I think other than the fact that this appeared in a book, there's no evidence that this is going to resonate long term in the courts against Mr. Trump.

KAYE: Yes, it's going to be interesting though to see how it plays on the campaign trail for sure.

CALLAN: Well, we certainly - I certainly hope he's not going to make Mr. Cohen his secretary of defense because I don't want to give him access to nuclear weapons given the way he responded to "The Daily Beast" reporter.

KAYE: There you go.

CALLAN: Yes.

KAYE: Those were some interesting threats, weren't they?

CALLAN: Yes.

KAYE: All right, Paul Callan, thank you.

CALLAN: Thank you.

KAYE: Up next, day five in the desperate search for two 14-year-olds missing at sea. Ships and planes scouring the Atlantic. Find out why the Coast Guard thinks that there's a chance they're still out there alive.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:21:30] KAYE: Still no letup in the search for two 14-year-old boys who went for a sail on Friday off the east coast of Florida and they haven't been seen since. CNN's Alina Machado is watching and waiting along with those families.

Alina, any news at all? Any leads today?

ALINA MACHADO, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, we just heard from the U.S. Coast Guard station in Miami and they're telling us that they do have a helicopter that is responding to an area near Brunswick, Georgia, after a good Samaritan spotted what appears to be a cooler in the water. The cooler appears to be a foam cooler, not the Yeti cooler that the Coast Guard was looking for. So at this point, even though they are investigating, the Coast Guard is saying that this does not appear to be related to these missing teens. Nonetheless, they are looking into this report.

Now, the search area continues to move north as the Coast Guard continues to follow the strong currents of the Gulf Stream. Today marks five days since those two teens were last seen gassing up their boat just down the road here in Jupiter, Florida. Their capsized boat was found on Sunday. A rescue swimmer at the scene did note that there was a life vest floating nearby, but there was no sign of these missing boys.

Yesterday, the family came out and asked people to go for beach walks all up and down the Florida coast hoping someone would spot something, some debris that could be connected to these teens. And they were the ones who specifically mentioned that Yeti cooler and also a Yamaha engine cover. But so far, Randi, no reports confirmed of anything being found.

KAYE: All right. Well, I know those families are holding on to hope. They say those boys are experts. So we certainly hope they're right. Alina Machado, many thanks.

Up next, taxpayers listen up, investigative reporter Drew Griffin is at it again, finding out what really happened to $2 billion that was supposed to help disabled Americans find jobs.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:27:09] KAYE: Welcome back, everyone.

CNN has learned that the nation's premier federal program tasked with putting severely disabled Americans in jobs is being investigated by the Justice Department. Inside sources tell CNN it is one of the worst cases of fraud and mismanagement they've ever seen in a federal agency. And the more than $2 billion that's supposed to be used to provide jobs for disabled people is instead being funneled elsewhere. Here's CNN's senior investigative correspondent Drew Griffin.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

RANDALL LOVE, DISABLED WORKER: Know where your feet are going.

DREW GRIFFIN, CNN SENIOR INVESTIGATIVE CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Randall Love is exactly why the program exists. At the top of his career, he was diagnosed with a spinal cord tumor.

LOVE: Hold on, I'm coming.

GRIFFIN: It crippled his body but not his mind. No longer able to work at an office, he sought work from home and found it in a federal program. He will tell you the job cured him.

LOVE: It gives me, if you were, the sense of being worthwhile. I get up just like everybody else in the morning and I go to work, too. I'm not disabled. That's why I say it's the cure for me.

GRIFFIN: His job in the IT industry coming through a federal program with strict rules. To get a federal contract, the government requires 75 percent of a company's work be performed by people who are severely disabled. According to the government, that means employees who are not capable of engaging in competitive employment. People like Randall Love, who would not otherwise be able to work. But this spring it was all taken away and Randall Love says what happened to him and other disabled workers isn't right.

LOVE: Now it's a little bit shady to me. Very shady to me.

GRIFFIN: The company Love worked for lost its contract when the government awarded the work to a different bidder. The new company is being accused of not hiring enough severely disabled workers, according to a lawsuit, and though denying it and saying they are well within compliance, multiple sources tell CNN they believe it's just one of many companies violating the law and raking in hundreds of millions of dollars.

GRIFFIN (on camera): These are contracts that are supposed to go to employers who employ people with a disability.

LOVE: Yes. Well, doing the right thing, at least in my mind, doesn't mean that you put 16 disabled people out of work. Doing the right thing also means in my mind that you don't replace them with people who don't have disabilities.

GRIFFIN (voice-over): The problem is centered in a little-known federal program called AbilityOne. Along with its outsourced management group SourceAmerica, they manage and award about $2.3 billion in federal contracts every year.

[12:29:52] GRIFFIN (on camera): Multiple sources say these two organizations are being investigated for and accused of such wide scale corruption it's among the worst case of financial fraud they've ever seen in a federal program. Our sources say as many as half of the federal contracts under this disability program may be operating in violation of the law.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The majority of the individual