Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

New Helmet-Cam Video Reveals Afghan Combat; Romney, Obama Prep for First Debate; Supreme Court Kicks Off New Term; DNA Exonerates 300th Prisoner; Innocent and On Death Row

Aired October 01, 2012 - 11:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ASHLEIGH BANFIELD, CNN ANCHOR: Hello, everyone. I'm Ashleigh Banfield and welcome. It is 11:00 on the East Coast. It's 8:00 on the West Coast.

They are in final preparation for the presidential debates, President Obama and Mitt Romney. You're going to see the first one right here on Wednesday. That debate is coming and you're going to see where they are in the process of preparing in just a moment.

The debates and the election, of course, are serious and that would be our first story, serious, until we discovered this video, a stunning video shot from the helmet of a U.S. soldier. It seems like a video game, but this is not Xbox, what you're about to see. It is real. The Pentagon is telling us it happened and it happened in Afghanistan in April.

Afghanistan is a place that we've not heard these candidates talk about much, have we? Nothing from Romney during the Republican convention, very little from Obama, especially at the U.N. this last week.

The debates will likely be a different story because this weekend the death toll for Americans in the war surpassed the 2,000 mark. The soldier who made the helmet-cam video suffered only minor wounds and has returned to duty, but it's amazing that he suffered only minor wounds when you see this incredible story.

His fight to survive is gripping. Take a look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Somebody lay down some (INAUDIBLE) fire! Hey, I'm moving down!

Ah! Ah! (INAUDIBLE)! Oh, I'm hit! I'm hit! I'm hit! I'm hit! Ah!

(INAUDIBLE) Help me! I'm hit! I'm hit! I'm hit! I'm hit!

I'm hit! I'm hit! I'm hit! I'm hit! (END VIDEO CLIP)

BANFIELD: Lest we forget what our men and women have been going through in Afghanistan for the last 11 years.

Joining us now CNN contributor General -- Retired Army General "Spider" Marks.

Spider, I need to reiterate the number of times that we heard that soldier yelling, "I'm hit, I'm hit." He was not shot, but the shrapnel from that gun being fired out of his hand did injure him. He did sustain minor injuries, the Pentagon confirms for us.

I just need to get your reaction. You have seen more combat than probably everybody in this building combined times 1,000. Your reaction to seeing that video?

RET. GEN. JAMES "SPIDER" MARKS, MANAGING DIRECTOR, OPPORTUNITIES DEVELOPMENT GROUP: Well, Ashleigh, first of all, you realize my first reaction to that is that here's a young man who signed up to join the military at a time of war, so he knew exactly what he was getting into. So God bless him for that and, in that sense, he's a hero.

You're looking at this video now in a very narrow perspective, but what you realize immediately is complete chaos in combat and a sense of isolation. I mean, here's a young soldier, don't know what rank he is. He's a leader of some sort or he wouldn't be taking those actions, plus all young soldiers, all young servicemen are imbued with a sense of leadership anyway, irrespective of the position that they're assigned to.

So, here's a young guy who is leaning into fire, enemy fire that's coming after him and he's returning fire, primarily to try to get into a better position so that he can lay down some -- a base of fire -- you heard him say that -- against an enemy position so his fellow troops can maneuver against it and try to suppress the enemy.

So, clearly, a whole bunch of emotions should be able to -- you know, you should be able to realize exceptionally dangerous -- these are great, brave young men and women.

BANFIELD: Oh, understatement.

MARKS: And then you take it from there and then you realize, you know, what's the medical care, how do you communicate?

And -- but I need to tell you I'm a bit concerned about the video camera on his helmet. I mean, that's what we call pocket litter. If he got wounded or if he got captured, who's going to exploit that iPhone or that camera that he has, I just don't know, so it puts him at risk.

BANFIELD: So, Spider, I want to reiterate that, look, we've worked for days with the Pentagon to clarify what this video tells us.

First, was it accurate? It looked like Afghanistan to me. It looked like the place I spent five months. And they have clarified. It absolutely was a firefight.

But there is a lot of lore surrounding this video clip on the Internet. People weighing in, saying this was a hero maneuver. Again, this is on the Internet, people think he was actually trying to divert fire away from his squad because they were pinned down. We have not got confirmation, one way or the other, on that, but there are a lot of people weighing in saying that this may have been a brave move or a reckless move. He could have been a hero or a fool.

You and I have had a talk about this and I want you to illustrate for our viewers what kind of a maneuver that might have been. Again, we don't have it confirmed, but is this the kind of thing that they train to do, draw fire away from their colleagues?

MARKS: Well, you're not drawing fire away intentionally and putting yourself at risk intentionally. You do that with your eyes wide open.

But in combat it's called fire-and-maneuver and, in order to subdue an enemy, you can subdue an enemy by fire. You can do it by direct fire like you saw right there, artillery fire, mortar, aircraft, UAVs with precision-guided munitions. That's fire. Those are kinetic effects.

You can also do it through a maneuver. In other words, get to an improved or an enhanced position so that you can now suppress the fire that's coming at you.

In other words, you take the enemy by surprise. They think they have you in a certain azimuth and, all of the sudden, they, the enemy, are receiving fire from a different angle, so that surprises them. It takes them out of their game.

Clearly what I see with this is that's what that young soldier was trying to achieve when he said, I'm moving forward, but he did say, I'm trying to draw fire. What he's really trying to do is maneuver to an enhanced position so that he can provide fire that would take fire away from his brothers who were in combat.

They can then put suppressive fire against the enemy, so in a very tactical sense, that's what you see. All the emotions running through this, frankly, are to be expected.

BANFIELD: Well, and I want to take a quick break, Spider, but stay with me. After the break, I'm going to run two more parts of this incredible video.

If you missed it the first time because it is really -- there's just so much happening and so much can go by quickly. There is a part where this soldier's gun is shot out of his hands. Literally, enemy fire takes the gun right out of his hands and actually damages it.

And then there's another part of the video where you can actually see the enemy gunfire peppering the ground around his feet and I want to talk to you, "Spider," about what that does to a soldier who's in the middle of battle in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) BANFIELD: You are looking at the direct helmet-cam view of a soldier fighting in Afghanistan in Kunar Province, moving down the mountain, yelling to his comrades and taking on an enormous amount of enemy fire. It's just a remarkable video.

We were showing this before the break and I want to show you, again, the moment where this young soldier actually ends up having the gun shot right out of his hand. Take a look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Oh! I'm hit! I'm hit! I'm hit!

(END VIDEO CLIP)

"Spider" Marks is with us again, retired general.

When I saw this video and I saw the damaged gun and just the sheer volume of gunfire and then the voice of this soldier, General Marks, I was trying to figure out what it was he's trying to tell his colleagues.

"Help me, get to me, I'm hit, I'm hurt," what should he will be yelling at this moment if he needs to be rescued?

MARKS: Well, Ashleigh, certainly what you can see is that the enemy, in this particular case, is laying down some very precise fire and you see it being kicked up around him, whether that's shrapnel or it's rounds ricocheting around or it's the exact round that's coming after him.

And then at that point when he drops his weapon or the weapon is shot out of his hands, clearly, when he says he's hit, that -- in his mind, he's taken a wound. He's taken a round some place. Clearly, what you want to do, also, is you want to call for a medic if you need medical attention, so the first thing you do is you do a self-assessment. You might want to tell somebody you're hit just to let them know that I might be preoccupied. My weapon might be gone. Don't expect me to fire because I can't right now. I'm busy trying to retrieve my weapon or at least provide some initial first aid to myself.

But once you've gone through that immediate assessment -- let me tell you, that takes literally less than seconds to do that -- you then make a -- you then announce to your folks whether you need a medic or not. The fact that he didn't call for a medic indicates to me that he got hit, he did an assessment, he wanted to make sure he knew that they were hit -- or let his buddies know that he was hit, but he didn't need a medic at that point. At least, that's a conclusion that you can draw.

BANFIELD: General Marks, you just mentioned that whether it was shrapnel or bullets that were kicking up the dust around his feet. Let me just show that specific moment that you referred to. I want to ask you about it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hey, I'm moving down!

BANFIELD: Spider, we're going to keep looking at this video. I think that this moment that I was referring to is coming up in just a moment.

You said something to me that stuck out. I'd never heard this expression before. You said, "Senses at max-load," and you could hear in his voice the stress that was going through his -- the stress that was going through him and you suggested it almost sounded like he was in shock.

But this young soldier was returned to duty the next day. I mean, he -- excuse me, not the next day, He was returned to duty. He was treated for minor injuries. He wasn't shot. But tell me about that. Tell me about being returned to duty after going through what we're now looking at.

MARKS: Well, you know, Ashleigh, we have the ability and, in this particular case, I'm not suggesting that it took place, but we have biometrics. We can determine what the blood pressure is, what the heart rate is, respiration and all that stuff.

So, in the midst of combat like that, you can do some data downloads and figure out how this affects the soldier. In this case, I would guarantee it didn't take place, but you can hear it in his voice. You can hear it in his breathing.

This is an extremely physical environment, an extremely emotional environment and he's dealing with all of that. I am not medically qualified to say whether he was in shock or not, but I can tell you that every sense that he has is absolutely redlined in this particular moment.

He thinks he's hit. He was hit by something, we know that, and then to take those blows, he's got body armor to protect him and thank God it's good stuff and the rounds were not sufficiently precise to do real damage. But it's not unusual for a soldier like that to receive some wounds like this, some trauma like this and the best thing that can happen, frankly is you get right back into it so you know you can deal with it.

You don't want to have to put this guy off to the side and have him get into his own little dark hole. Get him back into the action. Let him respond.

BANFIELD: General Marks, I still can't believe what I'm seeing when I see this video and I can't thank you enough for putting some context, analysis, shedding a little light on what our people are going through over there.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

Eleven years, I'm going to remind everybody who's watching this. This has been going on for 11 years and perhaps this might be one of the best examples of why we need to be talking about this and debating it, as well.

General Marks, thanks, sir. Appreciate it.

MARKS: Thanks, Ashleigh.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BANFIELD: Politics now, they are really not debates in the formal sense and it's kind of debatable just how much influence they have on elections, but so what?

The two main candidates for president are going to be on the same stage at the same time answering or dodging the same questions. It is still the best way for millions of us to size up our choices, assuming we haven't already voted.

And you do know about early voting. You can do it, many of you, 32 states and D.C. allow it. If you're wondering if you're one of them, just go to canivote.org for the details on how you might be able to vote yourself.

And then, of course, the debates won't matter to you, but if they do, the first of three presidential debates is just two days away, so President Obama is taking two days off the trail to bone up on his debating skills and CNN's Dan Lothian is joining me now from the White House with that.

So, the President's not at the White House prepping?

DAN LOTHIAN, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Nope.

BANFIELD: Where is he doing his debate prep, who with, and what do we know about it?

LOTHIAN: That's right. Well, the President is in Nevada, which is an important battleground state, as you know, with a large number of Hispanic voters.

Last night, the President held a grassroots event there, a campaign event, but spending, as you pointed out, much of the time over the next couple of days preparing for the first debate.

The campaign not giving a lot of details about what the President is doing to prepare for the debate. What they are doing, though, is lowering expectations. They're pointing out that the President has not had a lot of time to practice because he's very busy with his day job and with a lot of the issues that have been popping up in the Middle East region.

But in addition to that, they talk about how Mitt Romney has had a lot of time to prepare not only just practicing, but also with the primary season, he was able to prepare with debates there. Even the President at that event last night in Las Vegas played the game of lowering expectations.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES Governor Romney, he's a good debater. I'm just OK. But what I'm most concerned about is having a serious discussion about what we need to do to keep the country growing and restore security for hardworking Americans. That's what people are going to be listening for. That's the debate that you deserve.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LOTHIAN: Now, Ashleigh, as you know, a lot of people will be watching, so there'll be a very big audience. but both candidates are really only trying to target a very small audience. Because you have Republicans on the right, they know who they're going to vote for. Those on the left, they know who they're going to vote for. Independent voters lean one way or the other, so we're talking about a small group of those undecided voters and both sides will be working very hard not to make mistakes and to try to score some key points.

BANFIELD: Just quickly, what's the President doing to work on those lengthy answers that he tends to give, very Clinton-like because, look, you don't have unlimited time on that stage.

LOTHIAN: You don't. And you know, for a couple of weeks now, his aides have been saying that's something the President really does have to work on because sometimes, when he gets into those answers, he can go on for quite some time and doesn't narrow down the point, so they're working with him on that.

And the person who's helping the President out, playing the role of Mitt Romney ,is Senator John Kerry. That's important for two reasons because John Kerry has been out there on the stage before as a veteran of the debate format and, in addition to that, he's from Massachusetts, so he knows Mitt Romney well and will be able to help the President fill in any of the blanks that he might have.

BANFIELD: All right, Dan Lothian at the White House, thanks very much for that. Appreciate it.

LOTHIAN: OK.

BANFIELD: On to the Republican side now. Mitt Romney has been spending his time in Boston for the past couple of days, doing his debate prep there and part of that prep, self-admittedly, is zinger practice.

According to "The New York Times," he's been trying out his one-liners on his staff since August.

Let's bring in CNN political editor Paul Steinhauser. First question off the bat, the zinger aspect, sometimes these zingers make history and sometimes they actually do win debates, but is it a good strategy to think about zingers? Or is it something that should just happen organically?

PAUL STEINHAUSER, CNN POLITICAL EDITOR: I think what the Romney campaign would say is that, hey, while he's doing that, he's also doing a lot of other things and preparing in a lot of different ways, so I don't think we should take from this that Mitt Romney's going to come out on Wednesday night and just have one zinger after another after another. I highly doubt, Ashleigh, that's what's going to happen.

As for Romney, you know, you were just talking to Dan Lothian. Listen, John Kerry is a veteran of debates. Remember, he was the Democrats' nominee back in '04. Who's helping Mitt Romney out? Another person who's been doing this a lot over the last couple of cycles. That's Senator Rob Portman of Ohio. You remember him. He was considered by Romney. Probably, he was on the short list for the running mate. That obviously didn't happen. Portman's been helping Republicans nominees back to 2000 when he played Al Gore in those rehearsals way back 12 years ago.

As for where is Romney, you mentioned he's in Boston now, but guess what, Ashleigh? They're jumping on the plane today. They're going out to Colorado. He's got an event tonight and then he probably goes behind closed doors all Tuesday and part of Wednesday before Wednesday night's big showdown in Denver, Ashleigh.

BANFIELD: So, the big story has been for the last week or so of them all lowering expectations on both sides of the debate, but somebody in the -- one of the surrogates, shall we say, in the Romney camp didn't get the memo.

STEINHAUSER: Yeah, that's a great way to put it and, listen, we're talking about Chris Christie, the outspoken governor of New Jersey, the Republican governor of New Jersey. So, well, take a listen to him in his own words.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GOVERNOR CHRIS CHRISTIE, (R) NEW JERSEY: Here's the great news for Republicans. We have a candidate who is going to do extraordinarily well on Wednesday night, the first time he has the opportunity to stand on the same stage with the President of the United States and the first time a majority of the people who are going to vote in this race will have an opportunity to make that direct comparison and see the two of them.

And when they do -- I've seen Mitt Romney do this before -- he's going to come in Wednesday night. He's going to lay out his vision for America. He's going to contrast what his view is with what the President's record is and the President's view for the future. And this whole race is going to be turned upside down, come Thursday morning.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

STEINHAUSER: Wait, wait, Mr. Christie, the whole idea here is to lower the bar for your candidate, not raise the bar.

But, you know, listen, Chris Christie, Ashleigh, does whatever he wants, but he did bring up a good point, the whole idea of contrast here and that's what the Romney campaign says they want to show the contrast, the choice between what Mitt Romney would do in the White House vis-a-vis President Obama.

Ashleigh?

BANFIELD: I know you've got big polls coming out at 4:00, so we'll have to wait for Wolf Blitzer's show to get the new polling and see how it's going as we countdown to debate.

Paul, thank you.

STEINHAUSER: Thank you.

BANFIELD: Nice to see you.

And also remember, you can see that debate right here live on CNN. Our special coverage at 7:00 p.m. Eastern and, if you can't get to a TV, we've got you covered. CNN.com will be streaming it live, as well.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BANFIELD: The Supreme Court kicked off a brand new term about an hour ago. Justices back on the bench for what already appears to be another potentially historic session. If you thought Affordable Care was a big old deal, hold on because the docket is packed with a range of explosive issues.

Yes, I get very excited about the Supreme Court. These nine people are really important, but who you vote for as President in November could make a change in the make-up of this map and the direction of some major laws and decisions.

CNN's crime and justice correspondent, Joe Johns, joins us live from outside the Supreme Court.

This is a total nerd alert, Joe. I get very excited about Supreme Court season. I get more excited about when it wraps up and we get all the decisions. So, let's talk about some of these big blockbuster cases that are coming down the pike. And in the next few months, we're going to start having some direction. Lay me out a bit of the map.

JOE JOHNS, CNN CRIME AND JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: OK, probably the first thing you want to start out with, Ashleigh, is a simple one. People have heard about this before. It's an affirmative action case out of the state of Texas.

A woman there sued because she was denied admission to the University of Texas. She says it was because of her race. They have policies in place to give certain racial preferences. She ended up going on to like LSU, Louisiana State, so there's a question as to whether it's moot. But if the court reaches the merits, it'll be whether the court feels it's time to throw out race-based affirmative action in helping people get into colleges and universities. So that's probably the biggest one on the docket right now.

There are also a pair of Fourth Amendment cases, Ashleigh. You're certainly familiar with the search-and-seizure cases.

BANFIELD: Search and seizure.

JOHNS: Right. This is one -- two cases that have to do with a drug dog standing at the front door of a house. That dog smells drugs, the person ends up getting convicted. The question is, you know, whether your home is your castle, and whether it was an illegal search for that dog to smell the drugs and you end up in jail.

There's others that could be on the docket this year, including an abortion case, the question of whether an embryo is a person. That's certainly important. And the other thing people will be watching for is whether the court takes a case on gay marriage or the Defense of Marriage Act.

So a lot on the plate and some very divisive, even wedge issues the court could be deciding this term -- Ashleigh?

BANFIELD: And listen, Joe, as we've been covering the Supreme Court for the last 20 years, it's no secret that these decisions become increasingly partisan or at least that is the optics out there for those of us who watch this. Because those decisions are always right down the line it seems on the big, big topics. In fact, Sandra Day O'Connor recently, in an interview with David Gergen, said she's distressed about the confidence level in the country. So with these big decisions coming up, is it important for Chief Justice John Roberts to keep that in mind, to keep this confidence level of the United States front and center as this group makes these decisions?

JOHNS: Well, I think right now, despite the health care decision that everybody knows about, you still have to say that Chief Justice Roberts is a conservative. And you're right. This court is very evenly divided, sort of four on the right, four on the left, and one justice. Often Justice Kennedy gets to decide. It's very close. But because this court has moved very incrementally over the years, I think you can say that it's not as bad as it could be as far as polarization. The question, of course, is it because of the health care bill or is it possible that they'll actually sort of move to the right as a result of it? We'll see.

BANFIELD: Well, a lot of people saying that the chief justice's decision on Affordable Health Care made a big difference to the confidence level.

Joe, you have the greatest job in the world. I know some people will think it's, again, the nerd alert, but it's awesome.

JOHNS: Thanks. It is really fascinating -- Ashleigh?

BANFIELD: I know. I agree with you.

The Supreme Court experts say, by the way, that President Obama or Governor Romney, whoever is elected to the Oval Office through 2016, could end up with a job, three times, to rename justices to the Supreme Court. So this is a critical election.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BANFIELD: I'm chatting off camera with Christine Romans because I can't believe the story I'm about to bring you.

(LAUGHTER)

It's the economy, stupid, right? We always here that. We talk a lot about low interest rates on this show. Right now, money is as cheap as you can get. The refinancing? Do it. Do it now if you can.

Christine Romans is here to talk about the other side of cheap interest rates.

You don't always benefit. You might get a great, you know, bonus on your mortgage rate.

CHRISTINE ROMANS, CNN BUSINESS CORRESPONDENT: Right.

BANFIELD: But I was just looking back in the '80s, a five-year C.D., which is where you want to plunk your money, right?

(CROSSTALK)

BANFIELD: Yes, safe place. Five-year C.D. back in the '80s when we were just babies.

ROMANS: I don't remember the '80s, actually.

(LAUGHTER)

BANFIELD: Liar. Liar.

12 percent. We used to get 12 percent on a five-year C.D. Today, what, 2 percent?

ROMANS: Not even 2 percent -- 2 if you're lucky. Look how savers are really getting zilch. A one-year C.D. is basically 0.3 percent. A savings account is -- I mean, talk about inflation, you're losing money by being safe and by playing it safe. And this really hurts people who are close to retirement or people who don't want to take a risk in the market. So these low interest rates we've been telling you about, the Fed keeping rates low, it's been great to refinance a mortgage, great to borrow money to buy a car. To buy a car, it's been great. It has not been good for savers. Savers getting almost nothing.

I want to give you three top online savings rates if you must put your money in, Bankrate.com has these three that pay at least 1 percent. 1 percent. I'm cheering about 1 percent. I can't believe it. CIT Bank, EverBank, and Barclays. That's from Bankrate.com

BANFIELD: So the Fed put a whole bunch of money in the economy for the stimulus and stocks have been doing better.

ROMANS: Great.

BANFIELD: But I hate to suggest that the average guy take that savings and put it into stocks because it'll yield better.

ROMANS: Well, look, you have to have a well-diversified portfolio, some money in stocks. You should be exposed to the stock market. You should have some money in cash.

I want to talk about the quarter for stocks, because a lot of retail investors, actually, quite frankly, they missed this move. Retail investors have been pulling their money out of stocks for months and stocks have been going up, in part, because of what the Fed has been doing. Look at the Dow in the third quarter. Today, by the way, the first day of the fourth quarter. S&P 500, up 5 percent. NASDAQ -- look at the NASDAQ for the year.

BANFIELD: Why is my portfolio nowhere near those numbers?

ROMANS: I don't know. We're going to have to look at it.

BANFIELD: Romans, lunch, every day. Can we?

ROMANS: Yes.

BANFIELD: OK, thank you.

(LAUGHTER)

I wish you had your own personal Romans.

(LAUGHTER)

Thank you, my friend. We're back after this.

(LAUGHTER)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BANFIELD: Imagine spending 15 years in prison. And before you try to figure out what 15 years is like, how about this? You go into the theater and you watch "Titanic" at the movie theater. And then, on your way out, you listen to the Spice Girls singing "Wannabe" on the radio. And then you're arrested, and in prison on death row, and you're not let out until this past weekend. And now imagine you did nothing wrong. You have just imagined the true story of Damon Thibodaux, who, thanks to a DNA test, is today a free man.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DAMON A. THIBODEAUX, EXONERATED BY DNA EVIDENCE: It's a serious wall (ph). It's not something you can prepare yourself for because you've been living in those conditions for so long.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BANFIELD: So if you think that's one in a million, it's not. There's like 299 other people like him.

And Vanessa Potkin knows all about this. She's a senior staff attorney for the Innocence Project, also a member of Thibodeaux's defense team.

So you were instrumental in helping this injustice to be righted. Here's my question, with the statistics that are out there, how is it that this can still happen? And how many more Damon Thibodeaux's are still out there?

VANESSA POTKIN, SENIOR STAFF ATTORNEY, THE INNOCENCE PROJECT: Well, we have no idea of knowing how many Damons are out there. But, you know, what we found at the Innocence Project, we handle DNA cases only, and there are about 90 percent of cases that go through the criminal justice system that have no DNA involved.

BANFIELD: 90?

POTKIN: 90 percent. So while we're able to use DNA to get to the truth and determine guilt or innocence in about 10 percent of the cases, there's many more that don't have that, you know, magic bullet of DNA.

BANFIELD: And, Vanessa, 10 percent of the cases, you're not getting to all 10 percent of those cases, are you? What percentage of those 10 percent that are DNA-based can you actually even look at?

POTKIN: Well, we get about 250 requests from inmates throughout the country each month requesting our assistance. We have about 11,000 people who are waiting in some stage of evaluation for us to determine if we can take on their case.

BANFIELD: How many?

POTKIN: 11,000.

BANFIELD: 11,000 still waiting just to see if you can handle them?

POTKIN: Yes.

BANFIELD: Let me throw some statistics up. Lest anyone watching right now that thinks this is a small issue. And here you go.

These people who have been in prison falsely, it equates to about 4,013 years spent in prison for people who did nothing. Falsely accused, falsely imprisoned. 63 percent of those people, who have served these years for no reason, were black. 18 of these people were on death row. We were going to kill people and they didn't do what they were accused and convicted of doing.

I think people watching would be astounded that this is possible. The system is supposed to be set up so that we only kill the worst of the worst, and it's ironclad.

POTKIN: The problem is that the system isn't perfect. It's run by humans. And there's a lot of causes of wrongful convictions and a lot of reforms that we can put in place. Right now, voters in California are considering abolishing the death penalty through Proposition 34 because it's just too costly. We have a system that sends innocent people to prison and death row, we can't afford to have a system that executes people. We're just -- the risk is too high. It's irreversible.

BANFIELD: For those viewing that think it is cheaper to kill someone than to keep them for life in prison, it is infinitely more expensive to actually execute someone because of all the appeals they have to go through to make sure we're not making mistakes. And yet, we're making these mistakes.

Some other statistics I'd like to put up, if I can. Astoundingly, in 28 of the cases of those who are exonerated, they pled guilty. They went into that courtroom and, I guess, they just decided I am never going to win this, I better cut my losses, so they pled guilty to the crimes they didn't commit. 19 percent of prosecutors are not up for testing, to check to see if these cases actually are right or wrong.

And there's a number of reasons for that. 49 percent of the real perpetrators of the crimes in these 300 exonerations have been identified, and those people committed about 130 violent crimes. So if we caught them earlier -- if we hadn't had the innocent guy in prison, we'd have caught that guilty guy and wouldn't have been able to commit 130 other violent crimes.

Is that not statistic enough to show we need to put a lot more money into making sure we're right than locking more people away?

POTKIN: Absolutely. What's so remarkable about Damon Thibodeaux's case is the joint cooperation we had and the joint reinvestigation into whether he was innocent or not. And about five years ago, the Innocence Project and the rest of Damon Thibodeaux's defense team approached District Attorney Paul Connick's office and he undertook a five-year reinvestigation that was really instrumental in reversing this conviction. And we need more prosecutors across the country to develop conviction integrity units so they are willing to go back and take a second look at a case and determine whether or not a person's innocent, because innocent people do get convicted.

And just to add one more statistic. You know, in America, we have, you know, astronomical incarceration rates. We have over two million people in prison. So even taking a very conservative estimate of a system and saying, well, what if we're wrong 1 percent of the time, then we have 20,000 people who are innocent in prison.

BANFIELD: Innocent people locked up.

Vanessa, you and your team, Berishack (ph) and all of you, all pro bono. It's great work you do.

And I appreciate you coming to talk to us about it today.

POTKIN: Thank you so much.

BANFIELD: I'm not done with this topic either because you saw that statistic -- 18 of those people were sitting on death row and we, as a society, were OK with an execution looming, but for DNA. So if we're not so good with DNA, should we be executing people?

Back in a moment. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BANFIELD: Just moments ago, we were looking at the number of prisoners who have been exonerated through DNA evidence -- 300. We just passed the 300 mark, folks. Innocent people rotting away in jail. DNA saved them. I want you to look at this. 18 of those people were innocent and sitting on death row waiting for their execution date. This, according to the Innocence Project. 18 people in 11 states serving a combined 229 years in prison, including 202 of those years on death row for crimes they did not commit.

Defense attorney, Joey Jackson joins me live now.

I always say this. You've got to get me off the ledge with these. But, Joey, how is it we can have a death penalty when we know now, through proof, that there are innocent people going to the gallows? My expression. How can we still have a death penalty if we're killing innocent people?

JOEY JACKSON, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Ashleigh, it's amazing. And that's the benefit of DNA. The benefit of DNA is that you can have something where people can be exonerated, where you can say, listen, either you committed or didn't commit the crime.

Now, you know what I like to say, Ashleigh, is that we can't leave it only to testimony for the on following reason. There are some people who tell the truth, but they do so very poorly. Hence, the jury thinks they're lying. And there are some people, who are lying, but they do so very well, and so, therefore, you get DNA, that's the great equalizer.

The problem with the death penalty, Ashleigh, is that there's so much finality to it. Once it's done, it's done. You can't bring someone back. Certainly, you need to re-examine it so that there are the appropriate reforms.

BANFIELD: Joey, I don't have the statistics that say how many of the cases in the past, where we have executed somebody, now could actually be disproven or at least they could be exonerated posthumously. I don't have those statistics. But we're in a rogue's gallery. If anybody thinks this is an exalted position to be in, the United States shares the death penalty with Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Zimbabwe, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Mongolia, Kuwait, Uganda. The list goes on. Japan is the only other industrialized nation that has the death penalty.

So with that in mind, let's flip the coin here. When juries demand a molecular smoking gun, and they want that DNA, Joey Jackson, you get a story like this out of Massachusetts saying one of the lab people lied, cheated, made mistakes, and actually 1,140 cases of people in jail are being reviewed because of DNA garbage. How can we now trust anything that comes into a courtroom that, seemingly, to a jury, is perfect?

JACKSON: It's so true, Ashleigh. And you make a compelling point. Now, the regard to the woman you're talking about, the problem here is that she tested 60,000 samples that related to 32,000 defendants. And you have someone who makes admissions, no, I didn't test them all. And there were instances where she tested where she made tests that were negative into positives. That is really shocking. And it's compelling. And it gives us a further basis to know that something needs to be done.

However, we also need to know quickly about DNA. That it also has limitations, in that it can't tell you how the DNA got there or can't tell you when the DNA got there. So we have to be very careful with our science that we don't convict, right, people who are ultimately innocent or, in the reverse, that we don't ultimately exonerate people who are indeed guilty.

(CROSSTALK)

JACKSON: So an imperfect system indeed.

BANFIELD: Yes, on both ends of the coin.

Joey, just so that our viewers know, it doesn't matter where you stand on the issue of the death penalty, morally, it matters that it's wrong to kill innocent people --

JACKSON: Exactly. That we get it right.

BANFIELD: -- period.

JACKSON: That we get it right.

BANFIELD: Thank you.

Joey Jackson, it's good to see you. Thank you, my friend.

JACKSON: It's a pleasure, Ashleigh, always.

BANFIELD: Do appreciate it. The pleasure's mine.

By the way, for you folks out there, I you want to learn more go to CNN.com/justice. We have a lot of great legal news for you there.

Back in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BANFIELD: Got some good news and bad news. Mortgage rates. Here's the good news, all-time low. In fact, they are crazy low. Here's the bad news. It is very, very difficult to get them. If you want to get a re-fi -- that's, you know, a cool way of saying refinancing -- you got to have enough of a down payment and a good credit rating. You got to have some money.

Alison Kosik is here to tell us how we can actually get this, how we can cash in on these amazingly low numbers without draining our bank accounts. I don't know that there's any answer to this, but you must know something I don't.

ALISON KOSIK, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Here are a few suggestions if you don't have the cash to refinance. If you are wondering, you know, what's helping these borrowing costs move lower, that's because of the Federal Reserve. The Fed is now buying billions of dollars in home loans to stimulate the economy. So look where rates are these days. The 30-year fixed mortgage dropped to 3.4 percent. The 15-year mortgage fell to 2.73 percent. That's according to Freddie Mac.

How can you refinance and lock in a lower rate if you are short on cash? We spoke with Lynnette Khalfani-Cox, the founder of the financial advice blog, askthemoneycoach.com, and she said the best way to get a good deal, shop around. Banks offer different rates, fees, and points. To avoid closing costs, go with a zero-point mortgage. Your monthly bill may be a little higher, but the costs are spread out over time.

And while you're shopping around, look out for those junk fees. Try to avoid extra charges like lender processing fees, underwriting fees, and documentation fees. Those are often hidden and can really, really add up.

Finally, look into what's known assist a streamlined refinance. If you have an FHA loan, you can look to get one of these. It can be a great way, Ashleigh, to lower your interest rate and monthly payments and avoid those hefty, hefty fees -- Ashleigh?

BANFIELD: Maybe another appraisal. The market seems to be going up. Maybe the value of your home has gone up, and your ratio could go down. That might be nice.

(CROSSTALK)

BANFIELD: Nice to see you, Alison. Thanks.

KOSIK: Same here.

BANFIELD: That's it for us. Please stay tuned now for the very lovely and talented Suzanne Malveaux.