Return to Transcripts main page
Crime and Justice With Ashleigh Banfield
Looming Fight Over O.J.`s Money; Conversation with Alan Dershowitz; Minneapolis Shooting. Aired 8-9p ET
Aired July 19, 2017 - 20:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
[20:00:00] ASHLEIGH BANFIELD, HLN HOST (voice-over): In just hours, O.J. Simpson will take a seat before the parole board.
O.J. SIMPSON: I`ve not had any incidences despite all the stories and the tabloids.
BANFIELD: Looking to walk out of prison nearly nine years after walking in.
SIMPSON: I`m sorry. I`m sorry for all of it!
BANFIELD: Tonight, on a special edition of PRIMETIME JUSTICE, the former chair of Nevada`s parole board on what Simpson`s chances are of success.
SIMPSON: And I gave them my word that I would try to be or would be the best prisoner they`ve ever had here.
BANFIELD: Plus, we talk with a member of O.J.`s dream team, Alan Dershowitz.
ALAN DERSHOWITZ, FORMER O.J. ATTORNEY: It was America`s case. Everybody could be in the courtroom.
BANFIELD: About whether the juice should be set loose.
DERSHOWITZ: No way is he going to get this kind of sentence for doing what he did.
BANFIELD: And we follow the money trail.
FRED GOLDMAN, FRED GOLDMAN`S FATHER: He`s never willingly going to pay a dime.
BANFIELD: Talking to the attorney for the Goldman family about how he plans to keep O.J. in prison, if only a financial one.
DAVID COOK, GOLDMAN FAMILY ATTORNEY: If he chooses to monetize it, then accordingly, we would seek to reach any monies due him.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Shots fired (INAUDIBLE)
BANFIELD: And the heartbreaking words on 911 as a bride-to-be is shot and killed in Minneapolis after simply trying to report a crime.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BANFIELD: Good evening, everyone. I`m Ashleigh Banfield, live tonight in Carson City, Nevada, where in just hours, four members of Nevada`s parole
board will march right into the building behind me and decide whether O.J. Simpson`s going to walk free from prison.
This is a special edition of PRIMETIME JUSTICE.
Just one more night sleeping or staring at the ceiling inside his cell at Lovelock Correctional Center before stepping in front of a camera for the
first time in four years.
In about 17 hours, O.J. Simpson will take a seat just like he did back in 2013, and he`s going to plead his case in front of the members of the
parole board by video conference. Simpson, his attorney and a family member are all expected to testify. And if the board does rule in O.J.`s
favor, he could be out as soon as October 1st.
For the nearly nine years, he`s been serving time for a botched robbery in which he led a group of guys into the Palace Station Hotel and Casino in
Las Vegas to steal sports memorabilia from two agents. O.J. has said all along that stuff belonged to him.
But when he does get out -- well, if he does get out, he`s certainly going to be back in the public spotlight. And while Simpson has his NFL pension
rumored to be $22,000 a month, he still owes an estimated $40 million to $50 million to the families of his ex-wife Nicole and Ron Goldman after
being found responsible for their deaths in a civil trial.
So how will O.J. make a living? CNN correspondent Jean Casarez takes a look at the money trail.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Are you profiting from this at all, from signing these autographs?
SIMPSON: I`m not doing it for my health.
JEAN CASAREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Whenever O.J. Simpson leaves Nevada`s Lovelock Correctional Center, his most valuable asset is likely to
be his name and his fame. Simpson observers say most of his income could come from a self-marketing blitz, everything from autograph signings to
selling the story of his tumultuous life. And they say he may do a lot of it under the radar to make sure he gets the proceeds.
FRED GOLDMAN, RON GOLDMAN`S FATHER: He`s never willingly going to pay a dime. He`s made it very clear. He has said it over and over and over
again over all these years.
CASAREZ: In 1997, a civil court jury ordered Simpson to pay over $33 million in combined damages to the families of Ron Goldman and Nicole
Simpson. David Cook, who represents the Goldmans in collecting that money from Simpson, says he will do what he can to keep Simpson from profiting
from his own celebrity.
COOK: If he chooses to monetize it by any type of media, then accordingly, we would seek to reach any monies due him for purposes of payment of this
extremely large renewed wrongful death judgment.
CASAREZ: By all indications, that`ll be a rough road to travel.
SIMPSON: If I have to work to pay them, I won`t work. It`s that simple.
CASAREZ: Simpson lost the Florida mansion he bought in 2000 for half a million dollars in a foreclosure four years ago. That home is now up for
sale again by another owner for well over a million dollars. And if Simpson did own it, Florida homes are protected by the state`s Homestead
Act. Under federal law, the Goldmans also can`t touch Simpson`s NFL pension.
[20:05:14]GOLDMAN: The rest of us would find a way to honor a judgment, but not somebody like him.
CASAREZ: Over the years, the Goldmans have collected well into the hundreds of thousands of dollars from Simpson memorabilia, including
golfing equipment, personal mementos and residuals from his movies. In 2007, the family was awarded rights to a book Simpson wrote. They
published it the next year with the altered titled, "I Did It: Confessions of the Killer."
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BANFIELD: David Cook is the attorney for Fred Goldman and his family. He`s also in possession of some of O.J.`s memorabilia. And he joins me
live right now from San Francisco. Mr. Cook, thanks so much for being with me. First question right off the bat. How do the Goldmans feel about this
process playing out tomorrow?
COOK: Well, they -- the process is in the hands of the Nevada parole authorities. The board`s going to do what the board`s going to do. The
battle here is that we have an unrepentant, remorseless individual who is going to be on the street as of October 2nd. And he`s not taken
responsibility for what he`s done. And apparently under Nevada law, the Nevada parole board will not condition his release upon his admitting
responsibility for the 1994 murders.
Be that as it may, the focus of the Goldman family is to collect on the $60 million judgment and to reach any assets of Mr. Simpson and do so
efficiently and effectively. And that`s our role and that`s what we`re going to do.
BANFIELD: And Mr. Cook, you don`t expect for a minute, even though the Goldmans would like for the Nevada parole commissioners to elicit a little
bit contrition from O.J. Simpson regarding the civil judgment, the responsibility that he was found to have for the deaths of Ron and Nicole -
- you don`t expect for a minute that they`re even going to breathe a word of Nicole and Ron in this hearing tomorrow.
COOK: I -- well, there`s what I hope and what I expect. What I expect from what I`ve read is that they`re not going to do that. Do I think that
the Nevada parole board is morally obligated to condition his release upon Mr. Simpson admitting responsibility? You bet.
This is the moment. This is the only moment in history that America will hear Mr. Simpson admit responsibility. This is it. It will be the game
changer. And it will be more than the game changer for the Goldmans, but it`ll be the game changer for this country because when he was acquitted,
it created a divide. And this is the moment to bring that divide together, when Mr. Simpson admits responsibility. Whether the parole board heads in
that direction...
BANFIELD: Rightly or wrongly.
COOK: Rightly, wrongly, whatever they do, they do.
BANFIELD: Rightly or wrongly. I don`t think I`m holding my breath for that. Certainly, that would be quite a drop-dead moment if you were, you
know, watching as a television viewer to hear O.J. Simpson refer to that.
I want to kind of move towards the unending fascination with O.J. Simpson. On one hand, it`s got to really get under the skin of Fred Goldman and his
family to know that O.J. Simpson continues to be this character of American lore. But on the other hand, it makes him worth money. It makes him a
sellable character.
And if he makes money once he`s released, if he`s released, that`s money that could go to the Goldmans. So is that sort of a bittersweet concept
for him? How does he reconcile that?
COOK: Well, I don`t know whether you can reconcile it. It`s a fact. Mr. Simpson has probably one of the most -- there are three most famous names
in America. One sits in the White House, the second one`s Vladimir Putin and the third one`s O.J. Simpson. And you take your pick what`s more
famous right now.
But we -- I recognize and everyone recognizes that Mr. Simpson has a marketable name, brand, whatever you wish. And I suspect that there are
producers and third parties who are sending to Mr. Simpson`s lawyers lots of proposals, be it -- including proposals in the social media realm here.
And we have autographs, shows, interviews, books, whatever. It would be a show, I`m sure those are all flowing in. Mr. Simpson...
BANFIELD: Well, we all wonder about that, Mr. Cook. Those autograph shows you just mentioned, we see pictures of them. People are there taking
shots. It`s running on the news. He`s getting money for those autographs. And I sort of wonder, why don`t you have that money?
[20:10:06]I mean, you`re the lead enforcement lawyer for Fred Goldman, so it`s your job to actually grab those assets, seize those assets. How is it
so difficult to actually chase him down?
COOK: Well, actually, it`s not that difficult. It`s just a matter of finding, locating where it is and then enforcing it. And many -- we`re
familiar with them. We know the machinery of these memorabilia shows. And it`s just a matter of being there at the right time with the right
information. And yes, they are accessible. They`re not inaccessible. It will be done. It`s just -- it`s just a matter of getting there (ph). So
you`re analysis is spot on.
BANFIELD: So David, I want to go back to something you mentioned just a moment ago, and that was that there`s -- the most famous name right now is
Donald Trump. Maybe Vladimir Putin is second and O.J. Simpson`s third. I if I had to add a fourth, I might say Kim Kardashian. That`s not a joke,
but it connects to O.J. Simpson.
(LAUGHTER)
COOK: It does, according to "The National Enquirer."
BANFIELD: Yes. So I guess the question is, with that kind of star power and domino affect that O.J.`s had, there`s some question as to whether his
memorabilia, to which, you know, your client, the Goldmans, can lay claim, is it waning in value? Is it more valuable as he gets out or is it less
valuable 22 years since the criminal trial?
COOK: I think that`s a heck of a question. And with movie (INAUDIBLE) with football memorabilia or all sports memorabilia, you know, for people
who are going to pay real money, other than just throwing it away, people want to know whether there`s a provenance. Is it real? Is it a forgery?
There`s a heavy -- you know, high percentage of forgery.
If we can seriously reach the memorabilia in a sufficient amount that belongs to him, not belongs to a third party, then that`s certainly
worthwhile. A lot of the memorabilia you see on line are owned by third parties who claim this is genuine stuff. When we last looked at it years
ago, it had decreased in value. But from what I read recently, it`s increased in value. It`s a little bit like the stock market, so to speak.
So the question is, is it...
BANFIELD: Speaking of things that I`ve read recently, I read recently you`ve got a fireproof safe in your office, and inside that safe -- and
you`ll have to correct me if I`m wrong because God forbid we get called fake news here...
COOK: Oh, God forbid.
BANFIELD: ... I invoke Donald Trump for a third time on this show -- golf clubs of O.J. Simpson, golf gloves of O.J. Simpson, the suit that he was
actually wearing that day he was...
COOK: Don`t have the suit.
BANFIELD: ... acquitted. Is all that true and is there more?
COOK: Well, I`ll tell you what I have, and I do have two fireproof safes. And I live a very -- I have an extremely secure office. I have his golf
clubs. I think it`s his golf clubs from his own provenance. I have a golf bag, and I have his golf glove. How`s that? And no, I did not try it on
for fear of damaging it, so don`t ask that.
I do have a lot of bric-a-brac, call them tchotchkes, whatever it is, odds and ends that were seized earlier by prior counsel here. I do not have the
acquittal suit. I did have -- we had legal proceedings, and the acquittal suit sits in a museum in Washington, D.C. And that was a compromise with
the current -- then the current occupier (ph) (INAUDIBLE) person in possession that we made a deal with the court and Mr. Simpson to put it
there.
(CROSSTALK)
BANFIELD: Well, listen, I think you and I -- I think you and I will -- or the Heisman trophy, right? I mean, that was satisfied. That was, what,
$255,000 upon a sale, but you don`t know where it is now, is that correct?
COOK: There are many rumors. (INAUDIBLE) toll you when I got a hold of the golf bags, we did search them to find the Hall of Fame ring and we
couldn`t find it. How`s that? Despite my great efforts.
BANFIELD: Wow. Well, you have -- you know, it`s cliche, but you have your work cut out for you, I guess I will say.
COOK: For sure.
BANFIELD: And I along with you will be watching tomorrow, you know, sort of with bated breath. And I`m not quite sure how I feel about it, given --
you know, jurisprudence should play out properly, but it`s O.J. Simpson. There are so many people with such strong emotions.
David Cook, thank you for being here tonight.
COOK: You`re very welcome, and I`m honored to be here.
BANFIELD: And please pass on our thoughts to the Goldmans. We think about them often and (INAUDIBLE)
COOK: I will be honored do that.
BANFIELD: Mr. Cook, thank you.
You know, when in Nevada, I don`t think I need to tell you the tourists come here and they gamble, and Vegas oddsmakers are putting their odds on
Simpson winning parole tomorrow. But if he does, what exactly is freedom going to really look like for him? His reentry into society certainly
might be a lot rockier than you would think.
We`re going to ask the former chairwoman of the Nevada parole board. And yes, she worked with and knows the four commissioners making the decision
tomorrow.
[20:15:00]ANNOUNCER: Thursday on HLN, O.J. Simpson. His fate lies in the hands of the parole board again. Could he walk free? Special live
coverage, PRIMETIME JUSTICE with Ashleigh Banfield, starts Thursday at noon on HLN.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BANFIELD: A live look at the Lovelock Correctional Facility. It`s about a hundred miles from where I`m sitting in Carson City, but it is the place
where somewhere behind that razor wire and inside those concrete walls, O.J. Simpson currently resides and will be residing, but may tomorrow find
out that he`s going to get a new home.
Welcome back, everyone. Nice to have you in Carson City where less than 17 hours from now, in fact, the Nevada board of parole, actually located right
in the building behind me, is going to be listening to the case of O.J. Simpson, prisoner number 1027820, and all eyes will be watching as O.J.
sits down for the video conference hearing.
[20:20:08]It`s going to be the first time in four years that we`ll see Simpson on camera, and we`re all waiting to see what he looks like now
because O.J. is expected to be a whole lot trimmer, word is by about 70 pounds, that is from the last time he appeared before the members of the
board. That was back in 2013.
They did grant parole to that football Hall of Famer, but only on some of the charges connected to that casino robbery. And at that time O.J., was
very apologetic.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SIMPSON: (INAUDIBLE) I would give it all back to these guys. They can have it all to get these last five years back. They`ve been somewhat
illuminating at times and painful a lot of times. I miss my two younger kids (INAUDIBLE) high school. I missed their college graduations. I miss
my -- I missed my daughter`s -- my sister`s, I should say, funeral. I missed all the birthdays and various things.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BANFIELD: So exactly how will tomorrow work? Dorla Salling is the former chairperson of the Nevada parole board, and she joins me live now in here
in Carson City. Former chairperson -- Salling, not Sawling (sic). I think I mispronounced it. That`s a very big job, and it`s also a job that`s put
you in direct contact with four commissioners who are making the decision tomorrow. It`s never a lock.
(CROSSTALK)
BANFIELD: No can ever say a decision like this is a lock. It`s an understatement.
DORLA SALLING, FORMER NEVADA PAROLE BOARD CHAIR: No.
BANFIELD: But -- and it`s a big but. What is that but?
SALLING: Well, I think that there is no but. I think what will happen is the four commissioners -- they`re all very experienced. I think they`re
going to listen to everything Mr. Simpson has to say. They`re going to -- if a victim comes, they`re going to listen to the victim. They`re going to
listen to his attorney. They`re going to weigh all the information that they`ve been given. There`s a risk assessment that the parole board uses,
and they`re going to take that into consideration, as well as the pre- sentence investigation report.
BANFIELD: Is a victim coming? We`ve been hearing they may, they may not.
SALLING: We won`t know until tomorrow. I don`t even think the board knows until tomorrow.
BANFIELD: Even you and your friends...
SALLING: No.
BANFIELD: You`re not having coffee on this one.
SALLING: No, no, no. I have no idea.
BANFIELD: About these four friends -- we just saw the images of the four commissioners. Not everybody watching would know this, but when O.J. was
granted parole four years ago on those five of 12 charges, it was the same four.
SALLING: It was.
BANFIELD: They heard from him before. They`ve seen this case before.
SALLING: Right.
BANFIELD: They know these charges. He has still been the model prisoner he was four years ago, no infractions, clean as a whistle. And he`s four
years older...
SALLING: Right.
BANFIELD: ... which really works in his favor. I guess the question is, how couldn`t they decide that he`s going to get parole if they already did
and he`s done nothing wrong?
SALLING: Well, they could decide the other way. The difference is four years ago, he was being paroled to a consecutive sentence. What`s
difference this time is, is if he did receive a parole it would be to the street.
BANFIELD: That makes a big difference?
SALLING: It makes a big difference because four years ago, he was going to remain in incarcerated. Now he would actually be out in the community.
And that`s what the parole board looks at. They look at is he going to be any kind of danger to society? Is he going to be a credit to -- you know,
to society...
BANFIELD: You look at a guy like...
(CROSSTALK)
SALLING: ... so a big difference.
BANFIELD: How would you do a risk assessment on him? Like, what would you -- because you can`t say that he murdered two people in California.
SALLING: No, no, of course not.
BANFIELD: You can`t say that. What do you put into that risk assessment?
SALLING: Well, it`s a scientifically based instrument, and it considers a number of things. It considers the age he was when he committed this
offense. It considers his prior employment. One of the negative things would be that weapons were used in the offense that he`s incarcerated for.
BANFIELD: But those people who had the weapons drawn on them, while they have said they were affected by it, they`ve certainly also said, Listen,
dear God, I wasn`t afraid for my life or anything. It`s not your typical armed robbery and kidnapping.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, but nonetheless he was convicted and is serving six different sentences. And some were kidnapping, some were assault with
a deadly weapon, some were weapon enhancements to a robbery. So those are very serious charges.
BANFIELD: Dorla, can I ask you about parole? If he gets parole, most people think, Well, look at that. He just walks out on his merry way. You
feel very differently about what parole really means. For those who -- the uninitiated...
SALLING: Right.
BANFIELD: ... who`ve never been on parole, it is not an easy life?
SALLING: No. No. I was a parole officer. I started my career as a parole officer. If Mr. Simpson is granted parole in Nevada, it`s very
serious.
[20:25:00]He will have to have a travel permit to leave the state. He can`t have a weapon. He has to report every month or more often to a
parole officer. He has to advise where he`s living, where he`s working. If the board says he can`t drink alcohol or possess any, then he couldn`t
do that. He can`t have traffic tickets. He can`t have any new infractions.
BANFIELD: Straight and narrow.
SALLING: It is one of the big things that people don`t realize is, the Nevada has search and seizure without a warrant.
BANFIELD: You can walk into his house at 3:00 AM.
SALLING: The parole officers can walk in at 3:00 AM and say, I want to take a look around.
BANFIELD: So as we have come to learn, one person is a parole officer, and that one person holds the keys to O.J.`s everyday life and his future. And
he has stated to his attorneys, according to those who have had contact with him, he never wants to set foot in the state of Nevada again. But
doesn`t that parole officer get to say whether or not he gets to transfer that parole to Florida?
SALLING: Well, the way it works is there`s what they`re call an interstate compact agreement between states. And if Mr. Simpson wants to go to
another state, he can -- it`s not one specific parole officer`s job. He`ll come up with a plan that would be submitted through the state of Nevada,
then to the receiving state. The receiving state would have to...
BANFIELD: Agree.
SALLING: ... would have to agree.
BANFIELD: So if Florida doesn`t want O.J. and his parole officer here is, you know, is amenable to the plan, O.J. doesn`t get to go.
SALLING: Exactly.
BANFIELD: Not to Florida.
SALLING: Not to Florida.
BANFIELD: Where he`s got his homestead.
SALLING: Exactly.
BANFIELD: So that could be troublesome for him.
SALLING: It could be. However, states are -- they have -- really have to have a good reason not to let someone come.
BANFIELD: How about O.J. Simpson being a reason?
SALLING: Yes, hard to say. I don`t know.
BANFIELD: He`s an X factor.
SALLING: Yes, he`s different, I think, but...
BANFIELD: X factor -- X factor behind me in that room in that -- by the way, it looks a little like a DMV, very unassuming, but it`s going to be --
like, all eyes will be on this building tomorrow.
SALLING: Right. I think so.
BANFIELD: And the X factor is he`s O.J., so if any of those four commissioners -- I`ll remind you, who are friends of yours -- have those
feeling in their gut, that`s all they need.
SALLING: It`s not really quite that simple. There are standards. They would have to be able to justify why they denied parole. I honestly don`t
believe that any of them will let Mr. Simpson`s fame enter into it. They`re all professionals. They do -- the four of them do about 9,000
hearings a year...
BANFIELD: Wow.
SALLING: ... and they`re very, very experienced at it, and I think they`ll be very, very careful and very, very fair.
BANFIELD: (INAUDIBLE) the monitor (ph). O.J. Simpson -- you know we have only had an image from him from four years ago in the last hearing he had
where he was granted (ph). I want to play for our audience a moment where he appeals to those same four members, your four friends, and talk about
what kind of an inmate he`s been. Have a look.
SALLING: OK.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SIMPSON: I gave them my word that I would try to be or would be the best prisoner they`ve ever had there, and for the most part, and I think for the
most part, I`ve kept my word on that. I`ve not had any incidences despite all the stories and the tabloids and everything. I haven`t had one
incident since I`ve been here. I think on a daily basis, I speak to more inmates and COs than anybody in there.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BANFIELD: He says, I promised I would be the best inmate that this institution has seen. In your opinion -- and it`s a good one -- has he
been?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You know, I have no idea. I don`t have access to his prison records, so I have no way of knowing. But by all accounts of what
I`ve read, he`s been infraction-free, but I haven`t actually seen the...
BANFIELD: I mean, nine years and not so much as a sugar packet being taken.
SALLING: No, that`s certainly commendable.
BANFIELD: Commendable and worthy of a big score, right?
SALLING: Well, certainly, it counts in his favor. When -- on this score sheet that the commissioners use, that will count. How their behavior
criminal proves is an important factor.
BANFIELD: (INAUDIBLE) kind of a yes or now, but the guest that just preceded you is the attorney for the Goldmans, the enforcement attorney.
He said he says he wants those commissioners to demand contrition from O.J. Simpson, for responsibility, moral responsibility for the deaths of Ron and
Nicole, for which he was found responsible. Is that at all possible?
SALLING: I don`t -- I don`t believe that he will -- that the commissioners will let that enter into to it. I think they`re just going to look at this
case.
BANFIELD: It can`t be a factor?
SALLING: I don`t think so.
BANFIELD: Dorla Salling, thank you so much. It`s been good to talk to you.
SALLING: You`re very welcome.
BANFIELD: Very enlightening. And tell your friends, hey, it`s a circus out here for them.
(LAUGHTER)
BANFIELD: Thank you so much. Really appreciate it.
SALLING: My pleasure.
BANFIELD: At the time of the murder trial, you will probably remember that they were called the dream team, O.J. Simpson`s lawyers. Coming up next,
one of the most famous among them.
[20:30:00] Alan Dershowitz joins us with his thoughts on whether O.J. should walk free and Whether he would ever want to contact O.J. Simpson
again.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BANFIELD: Welcome back to the special edition of "Primetime Justice." We are live in Carson City, Nevada, about two hours away from Lovelock
Correctional Center. That`s where O.J. Simpson has lived for almost nine years. Take a good look at that very unwelcome place. Tomorrow at 1:00 p.m.
Eastern, inmate number 1027820 will sit down for a video teleconference with the Nevada Parole Board that`s going to be seated comfortably in the
building behind me.
O.J. is going to try to convince them that he had done his time well, and that he should become a free man. This of course isn`t O.J.`s only brush
with the law. Back in 1995, he was tried and acquitted of the double murders of his ex-wife Nicole and her friend Ron Goldman.
[20:35:00] Attorney Alan Dershowitz was part of O.J.`s dream team of lawyers and last year, Alan Dershowitz spoke about Simpson`s chances for
parole.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ALAN DERSHOWITZ, LAWYER, FORMER MEMBER OF O.J.`S DREAM TEAM: He was essentially convicted for the crime for which he was acquitted. So I think
he`s already been punished. For that to have it affect his parole would not seem fair to me.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BANFIELD: Alan Dershowitz joins me live now from New York City. OK, it`s just one year since he said that. I can`t imagine your opinion has changed.
What do you think should happen tomorrow, Alan?
DERSHOWITZ: Well, he should never have gotten a 30-something-year sentence. This crime usually is punishable by two or three years in prison. It was
essentially a victimless crime. It was a crime between business disputants and they multiplied the offenses calling it armed robbery and kidnapping
the same time those overlapping is when you take a gun out and tell somebody that can`t leave a room.
It is both armed robbery and kidnapping. And they gave him a sentence that he would have deserved had he been convicted of the crimes in California,
but the rule of law demands that when a person has been acquitted, even if you believe he did it, when a person`s being acquitted, you can`t take that
into account in increasing his punishment or failing to decrease the punishment.
So I hope he gets out tomorrow. He certainly should get out tomorrow. He has served the time and served it well. Look, I have tremendous compassion
for the Goldmans. They reasonably believe that he murdered their child and also the other family and I understand their views, but the rule of law has
to prevail and the rule of law says that once you`ve been acquitted, as a matter of law that`s the end of it.
Now, everybody in America is entitled to have a view about whether he did or didn`t do it. And everybody in America does have that view. There`s a
difference though between historical truth and what the law has found. So, I hope they abide by the rule of law and finally let him out.
BANFIELD: I want to go back to your work on that panel back, you know, 22 years ago. You were called part of a dream team. It was an astonishing
case. You become famous for that and many others. There`s been a juror who was highlighted in ESPN`s "30-for-30" series, "O.J. Made in America."
Her name is Carrie Bess and she has said very publicly she believes that 90 percent of the panel, of the jury, rendered that verdict as payback,
payback to the LAPD for how they treated African-Americans for so many years. I want you to just listen to how she put it to the ESPN producers.
Take a look.
DERSHOWITZ: Sure.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you think that there are members of the jury that voted to acquit O.J. because of the Rodney King?
CARRIE BESS, JUROR FOR O.J. SIMPSON: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You do?
BESS: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: How many of you think about that way?
BESS: Probably 90 percent of us.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Ninety percent? Do you feel that way?
BESS: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That was payback?
BESS: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you think that`s right?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
DERSHOWITZ: So that was --
BANFIELD: All this time, I thought it was the work of the dream team. I thought it was you and your incredible lawyers who did it. Were you
surprised to hear her say that and were you upset by it?
DERSHOWITZ: No. First of all, it wasn`t a dream team, it was a nightmare team. Everybody had great difficulty getting along with each other. We
didn`t win the case. We didn`t do such a great job. The other side lost the case. The decision to put the glove (ph) in front of the jury when they
could have had him tried on without the jury being the decision to put Fuhrman on the witness stand.
They made so many, so many mistakes. Then the worst mistake is they had the trial in downtown Los Angeles where they knew they would get predominantly
black jury. They could have had it obviously where the crime was committed, they would have gotten predominantly white jury. They made a political
decision.
BANFIELD: What is your answer to Carrie Bess, Alan? Were you upset to hear her say that? We don`t need to re-litigate the case. We said this for 22
years.
DERSHOWITZ: That`s my point. The point I`m making --
BANFIELD: Carrie Bess said it was payback and said 90 percent of the panel rendered that verdict as payback. That`s got to be devastating to you, a
man of law, a professor who would like to see the law carried out to its letter. That is not law being carried out to its letter.
DERSHOWITZ: You don`t understand our legal system, sorry, with all due respect. Judges are supposed to apply the law. Parole boards are supposed
to apply the law. Jurors are the part of our legal system that is supposed to reflect the conscience of the community.
They picked the jury. They decided to have nine black women on the jury. That was Marcia Clark`s decision. And the editors of that film decided to
interview this woman, and they decided not to interview Ansie Aschenbach, the white woman who had previously been on a jury that had voted 11-1 for
acquittal.
[20:40:00] She turned them around to make them vote 12-nothing for conviction. I argued the motion to get her off the jury. We called her the
demon. She voted for acquittal as well. The reason the acquittal occurred is because the police used a sock. The sock had O.J.`s blood on it and
allegedly the blood of the victim. The sock was a planted piece of evidence. We were able to prove it --
BANFIELD: Again, you know, Professor Dershowitz, with all due respect, I am not a lawyer and I`m not a Harvard law professor as you were, but I do take
umbrage with you suggesting I don`t understand the law.
DERSHOWITZ: Yes.
BANFIELD: I know one thing. The jurors (INAUDIBLE) and to say that it was payback has nothing to do with evidence, they are only to consider evidence
and not media or the conscience of the community. You`re wrong, professor. That is absolutely not how jurors are supposed to render their decision. I
asked you how you felt about her saying that. It`s a simple question.
DERSHOWITZ: And the simple question is jurors are the conscience of the community. Go back to the framers who wrote about jury trials that`s
supposed to be --
BANFIELD: They`re only to consider the evidence in front of them. Why they were sequestered for nine months?
DERSHOWITZ: Right.
BANFIELD: They are to consider the evidence in that courtroom only. Not payback.
DERSHOWITZ: And you can`t take away people`s experience. You know, what she said was absurd and upsetting. And she can`t speak for others in the jury.
She didn`t speak to the others in the jury. Ansie Aschenbach wasn`t reflecting payback. The Asian-Americans weren`t reflecting payback. This
was a unanimous 12-nothing jury, but I emphasize over and over again, it was the decision of Marcia Clark to bring this case to a place where they`d
be predominantly black jury.
She thought that that would give them an advantage. Black jurors are much more likely to be sympathetic to claims of police planting evidence because
they`re experiencing it. That`s why we don`t have all white jurors. That`s why we don`t have all male jurors. If we were just having a bunch of
scientists decide on the fact, we could get the 12 best people off the street. If you know anything about the case, you`re not allowed to serve on
a jury.
The jury reflects the feelings of the community and the community in Los Angeles during this period of time was a racially charged community. So it
shouldn`t surprise anybody that there may have been one or two jurors and that`s all I think there probably were from our research that may have been
said the evidence be damned, we`re going to acquit.
There are always white jurors who say that in cases where black defendants are on trial. We don`t care about the evidence. He`s a black man. He looks
like a criminal. We are going to convict him. That`s not the way the jury system should operate in either case.
BANFIELD: I am glad to hear, professor, you at least say that you think those comments are absurd because --
DERSHOWITZ: They are.
BANFIELD: -- a man of your stature, I would expect to feel that it`s absurd. At least I feel we are on the same page there. Thank you. I do want
to ask you what it`s been like for you for 22 years being on that defense team. You also defended Claus von Bulow (ph) who was not a particularly
popular defendant and Leona Helmsley (ph), if she can be more unpopular.
Did it ever reflect on you? Did you ever sort of prosecute your life in public and sort of have to defend yourself for doing what every defense
lawyer should do under our constitution? Did you take it on the chin?
DERSHOWITZ: Well, you know, I wrote a book about that called "Taking the Stand: My Life in the Law" where I talked about that. And I talked about
the feeling. How it feels. How it feels to win on behalf of a defendant that you deep down believe probably did it. It`s a terrible feeling. That`s
why I don`t go to victory parties. I don`t join in celebrations. I don`t ever represent a defendant twice. I say, you get me once. You go out and
commit a crime, you`re not going to get me a second time.
It`s a very hard role. Look, I`m experiencing it today. I`m on television talking about how, although I`m a liberal Democrat, I don`t think any
crimes were committed at least based on the current evidence by the Trump administration. I`m getting this time from so many liberals and so many
Democrats. You have to develop a thick skin if you`re going to be a criminal defense lawyer or an academic and somebody who wants to tell the
truth. It is controversial --
BANFIELD: Let me add to that list. Alan, I`m going to add journalist to that list, certainly in this current climate. I do have that one question
about something you just alluded too and that is deep down defending somebody you believe probably did it. Is that how you feel about O.J.
Simpson? Did you then? Did you now? Do you think he killed Ron and Nicole?
DERSHOWITZ: You know, when Benjamin Netanyahu got elected prime minister, he called me into his office and he said, I have to ask you something very
important. I thought it would be about Iran or the Palestines. He said, Alan, did O.J. do it? I said, Mr. Prime Minister, does Israel have nuclear
weapons? He said, you know I can`t tell you that.
And I said to Mr. Prime Minister, you know I can`t tell you that. So, we each have secrets that we have to go to our grave with. I think the verdict
was absolutely correct in the criminal case based on the evidence presented by both sides. I don`t think we won. I think they lost. And that`s all I`m
permitted to say about this matter.
BANFIELD: But I`m going press you one more time. Did you feel OK at the time not guilty was uttered in that courtroom?
DERSHOWITZ: I felt OK because I had done my job.
[20:45:00] The defendants had done their job. The legal system worked. Again, I don`t want you to misunderstood what I`m saying. But our legal
system says better 10 guilty be wrongly acquitted --
BANFIELD: I understand.
DERSHOWITZ: -- than one guilty person -- better 10 guilty be wrongly acquitted than one innocent person be wrongly convicted. That`s our job. We
want to keep our system operating that way. So I`m proud of the role that I played in this and all the other cases.
BANFIELD: Well, I`ll go on the record, God bless the lawyers. I really feel that way. It`s a wonderful country. And you got to have defense. It`s a
guarantee. Professor Dershowitz, thanks for being with me and thanks for going head to head. I appreciate it.
DERSHOWITZ: Thank you.
BANFIELD: Frustrations rising in Minneapolis as investigators try to determine the timeline that led to the fatal shooting of Justine Ruszczyk,
a bride-to-be. Officials including the mayor openly questioning why the officer who allegedly fired the deadly shot, just will not talk to his
fellow officers.
[20:50:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BANFIELD: For days, we have been waiting for answers as to why an officer opened fire, killing an innocent woman in Minnesota. But now, authorities
are finally offering some clues into the death of Justine Ruszczyk. We now know that two officers are being investigated after that bride-to-be called
911 to report a possible sexual assault near her home.
As officers Michael (ph) Harrity and Officer Mohamed Noor were in their cruiser in an alley, Officer Harrity told state investigators that he heard
a loud sound that startled them. That`s when he says Justine approached his driver`s side window. Officer Harrity said his partner, Noor, was sitting
in the passenger`s seat and pulled out his gun and shot her through the driver`s side window, right across his chest. Now, this tragic death is not
only making headlines across America, it is front page news in Australia, that`s where Justine is from.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MALCOLM TURNBULL, PRIME MINISTER OF AUSTRALIA: Our consul general is supporting the family, and we are seeking answers to this. This is a
shocking killing. It`s inexplicable. Our hearts go out to her family. I mean, how can a woman out in the street in her pajamas seeking assistance
from the police be shot like that? It is a shocking killing.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BANFIELD: CNN national correspondent, Ryan Young, has been chasing down this story all week. He joins me once again from Minneapolis. Ryan, more
details coming in tonight, courtesy of the 911 call that was made. What are you hearing?
RYAN YOUNG, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes. You know, everybody has been waiting for a timeline, Ashleigh. Wanting to know how long this took, what
happened. The 911 gives us kind of a glimpse into what happened that night. The first call coming in around 11:27. I`m going to read part of the
transcript to you. First, the caller calls.
Hi, I can hear someone out the back and I`m not sure if she is having sex or being raped. The operator says, give me the address. Justine says,
Washburn Avenue South. Then she goes on, I think she yelled out help. But it`s difficult. The sound has been going on for a while. But I think -- I
don`t think she`s enjoying it. I think it`s -- I don`t know.
Then the operator comes in, okay, well, I got a call started and help on the way. You can`t see anything. You`re just hearing a female screaming?
And is that what you`re saying? Justine says, yes, it sounds like sex noises but it`s been going on for a while. I think she`s tried to say help
and it sounds distressed. That was the first 911 call that came in around 11:27.
BANFIELD: But, Ryan, she ended up calling twice. Eight minutes later she made another call. Did she say something different in the second call?
YOUNG: Yes, you know, that is the big question. She called twice. Whatever she was hearing, obviously troubled her enough to make the second 911 call.
Justine calls and says, hi, just reported one, but no one`s here and was wondering if they got the address wrong. Operator says, what`s the address?
The caller says, Washburn Avenue South. Operator, are you Justine?
Caller, yes. Operator, you`re hearing a female screaming? Caller, yes, along behind the house. Operator, yes, officers are on the way. Justine
says, thank you. Operator says, you`re welcome, bye. We do know after that of course, about 20 minutes later, something transpired out here.
Obviously, this neighborhood wants answers too and people have been asking questions for days about it.
BANFIELD: Well, about those answers, Mayor Betsy Hodges had something to say about the officer and his willingness to communicate about what
happened. Have a listen to what she said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MAYOR BETSY HODGES, MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA: We cannot compel Officer Noor to make a statement. I wish we could. There are big questions left that we
still have and that we hope to have answered soon. Why did Officer Noor draw and fire his gun? What happened from the time the officers arrived on
the scene to when she was pronounced dead? Why don`t we have footage from body cameras? Why were they not activated? We all want answers to those
questions.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BANFIELD: Joining me from New York is also Danny Cevallos. Danny, I suppose if you look at these two officers, both of them complete rookies. I mean, I
think one of them only had been on the force a year, the other one a year and a half or so. Does that help or hurt the case? If you`re a rookie, can
this look more like an accident and then mitigate what you`re facing?
DANNY CEVALLOS, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: It might look that way publicly at least for P.R. purposes, but in reality, if they --
the real question is whether or not they followed procedure. You can make the argument that being fresh out of the academy, they may know chapter and
verse, the procedure they are supposed to follow when using deadly force
[20:55:00] and when they make those critical decisions. And with all the testimony or the statement of his brother officer, we will learn in the
coming days and weeks about whether or not that application of lethal force was warranted under the circumstances, although they cannot compel the
shooting officer to speak, though they can discipline him or discharge him for refusing to speak.
BANFIELD: Sure, but it is his right, his right just like the rest of us to remain silent. Danny Cevallos, thank you for that. And also Ryan Young,
thank you for your reporting as well. We will be right back after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BANFIELD: You`re looking at a live picture of Lovelock Correctional Center, O.J. Simpson`s home for the last nine years. We`re about 16 hours away from
the start of his parole hearing. I`m going to be back tomorrow at noon for HLN special coverage.
We`re going to bring you the entire parole hearing live when it begins at 1:00 p.m. Eastern.
[21:00:00] And at 8:00 Eastern tomorrow, a special edition of PRIMETIME JUSTICE, breaking down the parole board`s decision from every single angle.
A CNN special report, "O.J.`S WILD RIDE" begins right now. I`m Ashleigh Banfield.
END
